Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
The WTC was greatly unoccupied.... there were lots of empty floors. Many people reported lots of "construction" going on above and below them in the months before the attacks. Also, many tennants were moved from one floor to another in the months before the attacks.
Two weeks before the attack the bomb sniffing dogs were all taken off duty w/ no explaination.
The weekend before the attack, there was a power outtage for the entire building for a "network upgrade" that meant none of the security systems were running, and tennants reported seeing *many* unusual workmen about.
|
Again, the massive amount of people that would have had to work on the project and keep absolutely quiet. Never mind that they would know they were engaged in murdering thousands of their fellow countrymen. Do you really think not a single person that was involved in or discovered plans for mass murder on that grand of a scale would not drop a note to a newspaper?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
The WTC wreckage shows all sorts of evidence of shaped charges cutting the metal at an angle to allow the building to shift as it fell, SOP for demolitions.
|
All I hear in these theories are talk about how strong the buildings were, they were designed to withstand a 707 impact, the wreckage looks funny, it's not possible for the fires to have weakened the structure enough to collapse them, yada yada yada... but you know what? There had never been a test case where a skyscraper took an airstrike from a 600mph, 390,000lb explosive missile before! Design calculations are just that, calculations. They are not the real world. Fuck-ups happen, especially when there is no testing - if it has not been tested, then talking about "it was designed for this or that" is just pie in the sky nonsense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
When it was destroyed, the WTC was losing money hand over fist. The guy that owned the building purchased it shortly before the attacks, and took out a massive new insurance policy on it that specifically emphasized coverage of a "complete loss" of the buildings due to terrorist attacks. He also sued after the attack to get double the payout because he argued each plane constituted a "seperate attack". Homeboy went from wasting millions of dollars buying a money losing property to making like $7 billion if I remember correctly.
|
Sounds like common sense to me when buying one of the biggest, flashiest building complexes in the world, that houses a large chunk of our financial sector, and that has already been bombed once before, in a post-cold war environment of increasing terrorism against large American targets throughout the world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
I have two words regarding the WTC attacks: "insurance fraud". And of course, why not help out your New American Century pals that need a "Pearl Harbor" event to allow them to take over the world, right?
...anyway, I don't really know what to think... all I know is that it seems at least as plausible for a demo crew to take down the buildings as it is for the planes alone ('cause IMO the planes can't do it, not in the way that they were actually observed).
|
As much as I dislike the PNAC types and would like to agree, I simply can't. I don't think our government is competent enough to pull off the biggest, deadliest snow job in history, perpetrated against its own citizens no less.
Possible? Yes, anything's possible. Plausible? I don't think so, Tim.