Skip to main content

View Diary: 9/11 Metastasizing: the Left's Co-Dependency (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that may be so... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bewert, jlb1972

    but that alone does not explain a vast conspiracy.

    One thing the thermite crowd never considers is to me, the most obvious explanation. The building had been bombed before. The cost of insuring the structure itself against terrorism and natural disaster related damage as well as the risk to the resources and people within it had to have been around a billion dollars. There is scant information related to those details online but it is retrievable and it is interesting to see how it was underwritten.  

    Let's say for a moment, that the WTC DID NOT meet code or standard safety requirements when it was built and that this came to light after the first bomb attempt.

    Rather than tear the towers down and build new, (ridiculous, yeah right) the city government agrees to look away so long as public safety contingencies involving an attack upon or the collapse of the towers are put into place. This is called ad hoc planning and for the most part low-level corruption, common in any major city.

    I for one would advocate planting similar demolition materials in super-tall structures, so that in the event of an attack or disaster, the destruction can be accommodated or managed.

    Cynical as that may be, if done responsibly, and if this was the case, it did or could save thousands of lives, yet it is a choice between two evils some would say and the reduction of human beings to statistics and integers in a risk management equation, and so nothing is said at all.

    If there was a big conspiracy, it likely involved more actuaries than armed hostiles, and it likely has to do with protecting as many people as possible rather than harming them.  

     

    "I lose all respect for this tedious denouncing of the state by idlers who rot in indolence, selfishness and envy" ---Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by tullyccro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 03:50:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This comment itself (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bewert, jlb1972, BigAlinWashSt

      suggests something other than the aircraft causing the collapse.

      I'd like to think about your comment. It is interesting given the asbestos and metals problems with the towers.

      But I should not see or consider text that suggests something other than the aircraft broght the buildings down.

      I hope you do not get banned tullyccro.

      •  Oh no... (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, the aircraft certainly did. You'll never hear any of the inside job stuff from me. But if we're going to be adults then we must admit that very often we do not know everything that goes on in government. Anyone who has ever held a position of trust or public office knows this, and they know that typically there is no grand, terrible agenda at work, but usually the precise opposite.

        I'm not saying that this is what I personally believe, I'm saying it's a more likely argument the Thermite crowd ignores. I haven't investigate the plausibility or the grade of the evidence found either, so I'm not claiming any answers, just refuting nefarious conspiracy claims from the Alex Jones types.

        "I lose all respect for this tedious denouncing of the state by idlers who rot in indolence, selfishness and envy" ---Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by tullyccro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:24:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ha... (0+ / 0-)

        And again, in case I wasn't clear, I do not buy into the thermite as evidence of CT or preparation, I'm simply saying that the CT crowd brings into that argument a load of pseudo-intellectual baggage that prevents them from seeing any alternative, like the one presented above which is more in accords with the way the world works.

        Cheers,

        "I lose all respect for this tedious denouncing of the state by idlers who rot in indolence, selfishness and envy" ---Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by tullyccro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:12:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rather interesting comment....n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." A. Einstein

      by bewert on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:19:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ha... (0+ / 0-)

        It's just funny to me that all CT seems to be bad. Isn't any attempt at government the acceptance of making choices between bad and worse? Of accepting tough moral decisions? If I am called out as being a lunatic CT, let it be known that I err on the side of the good guys, and that I trust in the case of the WTC more than I suspect or fear.

        Let me also say, that an intentional attack, coordinated independently by foreign citizens is what caused the destruction of the towers, no doubt. It was not a matter of negligence or treason, and if there was any CT at work than it was a conspiracy to protect the citizenry, as is usually the case.

        "I lose all respect for this tedious denouncing of the state by idlers who rot in indolence, selfishness and envy" ---Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by tullyccro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, the building couldn't have been pre-wired (0+ / 0-)

      I've heard that idea floated several times, but it doesn't make sense.  

      First, preparing a building for controlled demolition makes it incredibly unsafe.  It requires that the structural members are partially sawn through so that huge piles of explosives can do the rest of the work.  You can't pre-wire a skyscraper to be demolished and then have it safely used by people.  Even if you did, it would be hard to hide the explosives you'd need to do it.

      Secondly, demolition requires well-timed explosions (not some kind of slow-working burning agent) and preparation of surrounding buildings.  In fact, nobody has even attempted to demo a building that large yet, due in part to the incredible engineering challenge of safely taking down something that big.

      Now suppose you don't care about about taking the building down perfectly with zero collateral damage.  Suppose you just want a failsafe that makes the building fall straight down rather than slam into other skyscrapers, even if it gouges a few buildings here and there?  Well, you don't need explosives or thermite to accomplish that:  the laws of physics will do that for you.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Memorial Day (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site