Google to be eavesdropping on my notebook soon ... and other conspiracy theories

If more stuff like this emerges on the surface of news stories over the next few months, I'll be one of the next convert candidates to subscribe to some of the more "sensible" conspiration theories out there. One of them being, that the three (!) World Trade Center skyscrapers (WTC1 - 110 storeys, WTC2 - 110 storeys, WTC7 - 47 storeys) which came down in practically free-fall speed 5 years ago on 9/11, having turned 99% of their builtin concrete into very fine dust powder even long before hitting the ground... can't have been killed by a Kerosin fire alone (unless Allah changed some fundamental laws of Physics for that day),   but   rather   by   some   other,   frequently   operated   third   party   technology   ... as hinted to by some Ground Zero cleanup pictures as well.

I won't feel comfortable as being one of those who do not trust Our Globe's big bosses any more. Just tell me this all is impossible. Tell me it's April Fool's Day. Tell me current technology doesn't allow this yet. Convince me this nightmare is not real yet, and it is only due in 30, 50, 100 years. Please...


I've come across this internet documentary which is in line whith your descriptions above...

By version4 at Tue, 09/05/2006 - 03:31

I've seen all the rebuttals to that World Trade Centre 'demolition' stories, but none of them are convincing. It's claimed that steel doesn't need to melt but bend for a building to collapse. Yep, that may be true but does it bend all the steel in the whole building resulting in the whole lot collapsing? At worst, the top third might collapse leaving the rest intact.

There's even various physical analysis about just what it would take to get whole buildings like that to collapse, and basically it isn't possible. The rebuttal to these analysis is usually the 'pancake' effect of floors falling one into another until all the floors have gone down. However, the building is too large, there are too many floors, there isn't enough energy and you just couldn'a pancake that many floors into that much space. It's no coincidence that all bulding collapses that have pancaked have been at most six floors. There's just isn't enough energy or space:

How anyone can believe this who used Lego or Meccano as a child and knocked stuff down, I really do not know.

As for the how and the why, I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists. That's the trouble: people confuse fact and observation with things that there's no evidence for - yet.

By segedunum at Tue, 09/05/2006 - 14:52

Did you watch the documentary about how the buildings fell? I did. What's most telling to me is they interviewed one of the structural engineers and the moment he heard about the plane impacts, he was frantically calling people trying to warn them that the buildings would collapse just the way they did. Explain to me how the bad guys could get to the engineers WHO BUILT THE TOWERS 40 years later and neutralize their opinions as part of a conspiracy? (And a conspiracy to... do what exactly? Ensure that when the buildings were targeted by those jets they would fall down properly thanks to some explosives nobody noticed?)

The way the floor trusses were built, the connections couldn't survive the weakening (not melting) from the jet fuel fires, and once they failed, they pulled the support columns in and dropped like a stone. The NIST's FAQ about the event tries to explain why it happened at such high rates.

I was fortunate to see the WTC towers shortly after they were built, when they were right on the waterfront before all the dull César Pelli towers in Battery Park City obscured them (see the before photo). They weren't lovely buildings, but very pure and the scale simply breathtaking.

By skierpage at Tue, 09/19/2006 - 04:49 least for the two WTC hi-rise towers. But what about that mid-rise tower, WTC7? It was never hit by a jet, but it still came down the very same day, late afternoon (are you aware of that fact at all??), with all indications of "controlled demolition" brought about by explosives....

WTC7 had hosted...

  • several big insurance, banking and finance companies
  • Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
  • U.S. Secret Service (NSA)
  • Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
  • Security Exchange Commission (SEC) [hosting evidence about 4000+ cases of fraud and insider tradings, including the hot Enron and Worldcom scandals]

Can you please also fill me in on the causes for the third building collapse of the day, the one concerning WTC7 (47 storeys, 600+ feet hight)?


By Kurt Pf. at Wed, 09/20/2006 - 18:06

Hey, what do I know? is a good summary, and has more.

It's interesting that the conspiracy theorists say the orderly collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 couldn't be an accident, yet there's evidence that their collapse did in fact damage WTC7, which took much longer to structurally weaken before collapsing.

By skierpage at Thu, 09/21/2006 - 08:04

Thanks for the 2 Wikipedia links; didn't know yet they had that much material about it (including all the reference links).

Re. "conspiration theories": it is beyond any doubt that it was a conspiracy of a group of people that planned the attack on WTC. The only questions are: conspiracy by whom? for what purpose? to whose benefit? -- There are just many different theories. The official theory also promotes a conspiracy as its centerpiece: that of 19 Arab plane hijackers, plus their mastermind named Osama b.L. hiding in an Afghan cave, plus an unknown number of helpers (maybe including the Pakistani secret service ISI?), who were clever enough to launch their assault exactly on the day when NORAD was locked down by 5 or 6 ongoing wargames and drills. Or whatever...

I find this official conspiracy theory more and more contradictory within itself, and with published evidence. That's why I've started to look at other theories now, to see if these could be more convincing...

By Kurt Pf. at Fri, 09/22/2006 - 08:17

The NIST's FAQ doesn't answer any questions. For example, when they try to explain why the towers fall in 6.5 seconds, they forget to mention that the reinforced floors must be been secured to the central column.

And they try to explain away the collapse of WTC7 as a gas explosion. However, how could an explosion large enough to collapse the tower make it collapse in such an even manner? It was a controlled demolition.

There is a theory that says that there were demolition charges placed in the buildings as insurance against them actually getting so damaged as to collapse in an uncontrolled manner. This probably happened after the WTC truck bombing in '98(??). The idea is that the building can be collapsed in an organized manner so less people outside are hurt. So someone gave the order to pull all three buildings and then covered it up to protect their asses. I bet that the order wasn't given at the whitehouse or national level but more at the City of New York level. That would explain the extremely tight control over entering and exiting ground zero afterwards.

This is a fun conspircy theory, so much can be said about it. :)

By bensch at Thu, 09/21/2006 - 14:23

@jet fuel fires:
AFAIK where only the start of the "real" fire (burning furniture, paper and other office stuff). The jet fuels burned much shorter than the office stuff. The impact of the plains caused a demolition of the fireprotection of the steel beam, then the burning offices weakend the structure. A simple fire could not have caused the damage, the impact was neccesdary to damage the fire protection (some kind of foam).

By Mathias Panzenböck at Fri, 09/22/2006 - 18:06

Never ever before, and never ever since did a "fire (burning from furniture, paper and other office stuff)" induce the complete, 100%, symmetrical collapse (at freefall speed) of a massive steel frame building. This only happened to 3 buildings ever: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. All on the same day. (And note, that WTC7 is completely different in its internal structural design from the Towers).

Remember, WTC2 (South Tower) went down after a mere 56 minutes of fire. South Tower's fires were limited to a few floors. They were "cool" enough even to allow people escape from higher floors, above the fires and the impact zone, using the stairwells.

There were much hotter, much widespread, much longer(like 19 hours) burning fires elsewhere in the world (before and after 9/11/2001) that hit high rise steel structure buildings, some so complete that only the steel frames remained. But these frames never collapsed 100% on those occasions, let alone symetrically and at freefall speed.

The official explanation is not convincing. It stinks.

Look at these YouTube videos if you care:

By Kurt Pf. at Sat, 09/23/2006 - 11:20