Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
So, let's do it ourselves. Let's put together a thread to discuss the most solid hypothesis we can.
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
Well that would be the point of the challenge. I couldn't do this myself, I can't be that dishonest, even in a purely intellectual exercise.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I handed Christopher7 a great WTC7 theory, but he ignored it. Mine postulated that Silverstein blew up his own building because controlled demolition by explosives is illegal in New York City, and taking a year or more to slowly dismantle the building would have cost him lots of money.
I guess that idea just wasn't spectacular enough.
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
"Tomorrow" came and went. Where's Offchops?
Then again, he never said he'd actually reply to the comments that were left...
deep
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
I'll share my opinion. The one sentence summary: it's based on the idea that 9/11 was planned and carried out for the greater good of U.S. citizens.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion, as opposed to provable or verifiable fact. I don't claim to be an expert on 9/11, so there could be a few details in my story that don't match up exactly with the debated or unknown portions of real events. The only reason I decided to post it was because of the comment I quoted above.
In the year (or more) leading up to 9/11, U.S. Intelligence agencies uncovered evidence of a terrorist plot to attack three or more high-profile U.S. targets using hijacked commercial airliners. As part of measuring the threat potential, an airport security assessment was carried out at most major airports across the U.S. The results were very clear: airport security was simply not restrictive enough to prevent a minimalistic, well-organized attack like the one that was actively being planned.
To address the numerous shortcomings in airport security, every airport in the U.S. would require major changes -- many of the freedoms and/or conveniences afforded to passengers would need to be eliminated. Both history and human nature tell us that these changes would not be well-received, at least without a cataclysmic event to remind people of the alternative. Aside from simply upsetting the general public (which can be dealt with), there was also a risk that airport security personnel would eventually lose their "sense of urgency" in enforcing the stricter policies, unless of course the consequences of not doing so were cemented in their minds.
Elsewhere, the Port Authority had been considering possible solutions to the asbestos problem in the WTC towers for some time. To completely remove the asbestos, it would cost around $500 million, which was not covered by insurance (a longstanding lawsuit against dozens of insurance companies was dismissed in May/2001). Given the high asbestos abatement cost & steady decline in WTC occupancy, the Port Authority would almost be better off tearing down the WTC towers and building something new, except for the fact that the EPA requires asbestos to be removed prior to demolition. Bottom line: at best, the WTC towers were two of the most "expendable" iconic landmarks in the U.S.
(gears grind; lightbulbs suddenly appear above heads)
Various U.S. government agencies started to plan what we now know as the 9/11 attack. Despite the many downsides to the attack perceived by the general public, the government saw it accomplishing the following:
- by paving the way for major changes in airport security, they would be sacrificing 3,000 lives (or whatever their estimate was) to save what could have amounted to hundred of thousands, or maybe even more.
- creating public support to actively search for, and eliminate, terrorist organizations overseas -- attacking the source of the original threat.
So the "cataclysmic event" was obviously the destruction of the WTC towers. The plan, from a very high level, was to crash an unmanned commercial airliner into each tower, and eventually detonate explosives (planted inside, beforehand) to bring each of them to the ground.
The explosives had to work under two important conditions: give the appearance of a natural collapse (as much as possible), and limit the amount of damage done to the surroundings. The R&D work was completed by military demolition experts, and both conditions were met to a reasonable extent (i.e., the tower didn't fall over on one side; it fell mostly into its footprint with the majority of squibs properly timed & positioned to avoid bursting windows).
As part of the planning, the WTC buildings were leased out to Silverstein several months before the attacks. This provided a convenient excuse ("new management") for the time-intensive preparation during the months & weeks leading up to the attack.
There was concern whether the WTC demolition would be "believable" enough, which resulted in the inclusion of the Pentagon crash plus one additional "failed" attack. The Pentagon crash consisted of a small, unmanned military plane crashing into a pre-determined section of the Pentagon. FBI agents were poised and ready to confiscate all video tapes of the crash immediately after it happened, eliminating the possibility that someone would review the footage & identify the plane as something other than a commercial airliner. The fourth plane was a similar situation, except it was shot down (or purposely crashed).
As for keeping all of this a secret, there were two contributing factors:
- the people involved weren't aware of the overall plan, playing smaller parts that could not be definitively linked to anything bigger. There was also a training exercise going on at the same time that many participants thought they were working on. Regardless, these people were also bound by the second item:
- "top secret" information does not regularly leak to the general public, if at all. Those intense background checks are done for a reason.
-----
The rest is history. I could have gone into greater detail in many, many places, but the main thing I wanted to convey was the theme of serving the "greater good". I don't believe our great country is run by monsters; in fact, if there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of, it's that they consider themselves heroes (and probably for good reason).
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Thanks for taking up the challenge.
For a work of fiction, it's a pretty good starting point. You'll need a team of experienced writers to turn it into a plausible script, though. It needs a lot of work. You don't want your audience to have to strain too hard to suspend their disbelief.
Welcome to the forum.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It would help if you threw in an irrelevant analogy about the forest service letting fires burn to prevent a larger fire in the future. There's really no comparison, but the troofers would swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Oooh, you picked my favorite 9/11 related topic to talk about.
Do you happen to have sources for any of these ideas?
ETA: If you're not just a troll, then we can do this thing. However, I strongly suspect you're just a hit and run poster, deep44.
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
http://911mysteriesguide.com/20.php
Wrong.
This film makes all the claims you just made. I have taken the time to provide sources that show:
a) The asbestos problem in the WTC was manageable.
b) The asbestos problem in the WTC was a $200m job - not $500m.
c) There was no decline in WTC occupancy. The tenancy was at record highs in 2001.
d) The WTC was not "expendable" at all.
I suggest you read the page I linked you to. It contains my argument and my sources.
So there goes your motive.
Deep44,
Do you really believe that this was over asbestos in the WTCs? Why would anyone cause billions upon billions of dollars in damages, so we could spend billions upon billions in Afghanistan, all to save a couple hundred million dollars. As far as what you said about airport security, I'm not quite sure I follow. You might have to elaborate more on that one. Also, from what you said at the beginning of your post about finding out about a coming terrorist attack in early 2001, I would assume that you do believe that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda do exist, and are not just some apparition made up by the US gov, correct?
Do you really believe that this was over asbestos in the WTCs? Why would anyone cause billions upon billions of dollars in damages, so we could spend billions upon billions in Afghanistan, all to save a couple hundred million dollars. As far as what you said about airport security, I'm not quite sure I follow. You might have to elaborate more on that one. Also, from what you said at the beginning of your post about finding out about a coming terrorist attack in early 2001, I would assume that you do believe that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda do exist, and are not just some apparition made up by the US gov, correct?
Just to clarify what's in The Doc's guide:
I looked up the original source article in Business Insurance about the asbestos court decision. The total decision was $600m, for several of the Port Authority's buildings.
The $200m The Doc mentioned was the cost for the entire WTC complex, not just the Twin Towers. Obviously the Towers made up a substantial portion of that, but their cost alone would probably be something more like $125m - $175m.
I don't know where $400m came from, cause it sure wasn't the actual court decision or anything based in reality.
I looked up the original source article in Business Insurance about the asbestos court decision. The total decision was $600m, for several of the Port Authority's buildings.
The $200m The Doc mentioned was the cost for the entire WTC complex, not just the Twin Towers. Obviously the Towers made up a substantial portion of that, but their cost alone would probably be something more like $125m - $175m.
I don't know where $400m came from, cause it sure wasn't the actual court decision or anything based in reality.
FactCheck
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 619
Lihop can be easily debunked: You have no evidence Bush or anyone else in government knew when and where the attack was going to take place. Until you have that you have nothing. It doesn't matter whether you believe this or not.
I go further than distrusting Bush, I HATE him. He's the worse president in the history of the US as far as I'm concerned.
Why are you not becoming Bush when you conflate your distrust of him with 9/11 the way he conflates Iraq with Al Qaeda. Why are you not helping him conflate a conspiracy with no evidence behind it like lihop with conspiracies which have evidence behind them like the rush to war and creating evidence around the policy? 9/11 conspiracies are just a poison pill.
When Clinton was president there were many conspiracy theories. They didn't hurt him. You aren't going to hurt Bush either. You're only going to help him.
I go further than distrusting Bush, I HATE him. He's the worse president in the history of the US as far as I'm concerned.
Why are you not becoming Bush when you conflate your distrust of him with 9/11 the way he conflates Iraq with Al Qaeda. Why are you not helping him conflate a conspiracy with no evidence behind it like lihop with conspiracies which have evidence behind them like the rush to war and creating evidence around the policy? 9/11 conspiracies are just a poison pill.
When Clinton was president there were many conspiracy theories. They didn't hurt him. You aren't going to hurt Bush either. You're only going to help him.
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I don't think you can necessarily draw that conclusion, for two reasons.
(1) It's fairly well documented that the asbestos in WTC1 was limited to the bottom 38 floors and that there was no asbestos in WTC2. As far as I know the remainder of the WTC complex was built after the Twin Towers, when the asbestos regulations that came in at floor 38 of WTC1 were in force. I would assume therefore that the only asbestos in the WTC complex was in floors <=38 of WTC1.
(2) The entire WTC complex was, in fact, destroyed.
Dave
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
This site seems to indicate it was used in floors 1-40 of both towers, but you're probably right about the rest of the complex.
So the total cost of removing the asbestos from the WTC tower would be $200m, then?
The other issue here is that the Port Authority was responsible for covering at least some of the costs of the cleanup from the disaster (possibly all costs, I'm not sure), which according to this source, was some $700m.
The issue here gets muddled by the CTists a lot. I've heard claims that Silverstein would have had to pay for the asbestos removal, which simply isn't true. The Port Authority, as they owned the buildings, was held responsible for any cleanup.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
In all fairness to deep44, he is stating his opinion about the events in a clear and concise manner, which is way more than I have seen from any other truther. Do not be too hard on him and maybe he can see where he has erred and he can learn more about what happened. I at least applaud his effort to spell out his beliefs instead of talking in circles like so many others.
I agree that this is commendable, in the fact of people like pagan who will not even state exactly what they think happened.
However, I also get the feeling he is just here to dump one post and leave. Perhaps he will prove me wrong. It would be nice to actually discuss something other than vague accusations for once.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,987
Let me just repeat here: Asbestos is found in many, many old buildings, and generally does not require removal. The concern is not asbestos per se, but what is called friable asbestos; what we would call crumbling. I review properties all the time that contain asbestos and the general recommendation is something called a Operations and Maintenance Plan. It is true that back in the 1980s the procedure was often to remove the asbestos, but nowadays it's generally left in place unless it's crumbling, and even then the general recommendation is to encapsulate it by spraying some shellac-type material over it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In fact it goes even further than I did in minimising the asbestos motive. See the following quote (my bolding):
On a different tack, let me echo Disbelief's point: deep44 has actually stood up to be counted here, rather than blustering and avoiding the issue. I hope he or she will stay to debate the points raised.
Dave
To quote Mr. Montgomery Burns: "Exxxcelllent"
I didn't realize how minimal the asbestos coverage was. It just makes the whole thing seem even sillier, especially given the cost of the cleanup.
Evil NWO Mastermind: "Yes, we will destroy our towers to save $200m. And spend $700m. Netting us a savings of... negative $500m?! Who the hell came up with this stupid idea?!"