[Gllug] OT Re: cockup of conspiracy? was: OT - What really happened on 9/11 ?

[Christopher Currie]

On  Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:04:29 +0100
Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: 

> On Sunday 16 Jul 2006 16:22, Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
> > That said, I personally find the Twin Towers explosives conspiracy
> > theory too far fetched.
>
> I did, until I was told about some impounded news footage shot by a news
> crew of my acquaintance....
>
> Conspiracy theories abound!

 I found the demolition argument quite plausible. It's worth looking at the 
counterarguments on Wikipedia  (down at time of writing - is that a 
conspiracy)? and at Popular Mechanics here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

The theory of demolition by explosive charges doesn't imply the larger 
conspiracy theory.

Generals are always fighting the last war, and at WTC the last war was a large 
bomb in the basement in 1993. 

If the towers had high-tension beams near the base, a large explosion at the 
bottom, or even a large reduction of weight at the top (caused by the upper 
storeys being blown off) could cause the structures to blow outwards, with 
much greater damage and loss of life than the collapse that occurred. I've 
always been told that's why towers are demolished with explosives rather than 
dismantled.

So a system of charges at crucial points could be the last-ditch element of 
safety procedures, inserted during reconstruction after 1993. You would 
trigger them in an emergency when you thought the building might blow, but 
when it had as far as possible been evacuated. Given the emergency and the 
lack of time to search properly, you couldn't rule out that the attack on the 
top of the tower was a decoy for a bomb at the bottom timed to go off later. 

So you would detonate the charges when you thought everyone who could be 
rescued had been, and for obvious reasons you would not allow anyone to speak 
about it.

Alternatively, if there was a fault in the wiring, the emergency detonation 
system might be triggered by the fires, without anyone anticipating it. You 
would know that the public would not accept that you had put some lives at 
risk to avoid a greater risk to a larger number, so you would keep it quiet.

Of course if it wasn't caused by charges, but by the spread of the fires 
through the ducts, weakening much more of the structure (an innovatory design 
when it was built) than would normally be possible, then it's really more 
alarming: those buildings weren't just a one-off Titanic, they were in part 
models for many others built since.

In that case, the real conspiracy is by architects and engineers going on 
building similar ultra-tall structures in cities.

Cover-ups, not for malign reasons but out of a genuine desire to protect and 
not frighten the public, are a standard, if misguided, part of the 
bureaucrat's armoury. Witness e.g. the denial until recently of the plot to 
fly a plane or planes into Canary Wharf, which the police discovered on 9/11. 

Christopher
-- 
Christopher Currie    Beware of imitations
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug