Wow. Read this.

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
[. . .] also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, “If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling. … Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.”

From Drudge, no less!
Update – To be clear, I’m not endorsing this, my “Wow” is because it is a former Bush admin official saying it. (Who is it that excuses everything they put out by saying. “We report, you decide”?)
P.S. Something else for you to decide about, c/o BartCop.

13 thoughts on “Bombshell

  1. This is the ID (Intelligent Demolition) theory. Just like its Intellignet Design cousin, it’s based on the logic: I cannot imagine X, therefore ~X. Pretty fucking stupid.

  2. Go the the NIST investigation home page. Read all the documents you find there. Then feel free to post.

    Hint: I am an engineer with experience in large-scale construction. It took me 6 hours to read through the final report, and I have been reading the preliminary documents as they have been released. If you are posting within 10 minutes, you haven’t read them.


  3. Cranky – that is a lot of reading one would have to do. Since you have experience as an engineer in large scale construction and you have read all the reports, could not we get you to comment more on the subject? Do you think there is any possibility the A&M professor is correct?

  4. I remember the day of the attack and I remember within an hour of the second building collapsing a coworker was already spreading the conspiracy theory of explosives being used to topple the towers. It was crazy bunk then and it is crazy bunk now. There are many in this nation who, in their fear of our 70 year drift towards statism, come up with whack conspiracy theories.
    But ask yourself some questions: if explosives were used (and many tons would be required to take down the tower as evidenced by the fact that the previous car bombing did not suceed) how did they get them in with no one noticing? Also, engineers would be needed to set this up. Many people would be involved, too many to keep it quite (and one thing our gov does not do well is keep secrets, thankfully). Finally, if you watch the videos you can see that the mid-part is burnt-out/melted by the jet fuel, so much so that top part came hammering down on the rest of the tower causing it to collapse from the crash site.
    This is just one man’s opinion; and while he is entitled to speak it, he has to provide substantial evidence for his claim if he is to be believed by clear thinking individuals.

  5. Good grief! For once, Pericles speaks wisdom!
    What Pericles doesn’t know yet is that there’s another part of this conspiracy theory; An “engineer” who doesn’t seem to exist if one tries to track him down claims to have installed these explosives in the elevator system as the WTC was being built so the buildings could be demolished once they became obsolete.
    People have been driving me crazy sending me this shit. Intelligent friends with very high IQs are actually believing it! This is maybe the most insane conspiracy theory I’ve run across so far. I’ve been outlining all the reasons this couldn’t possibly be true, but so what? Nobody wants to believe the truth.
    Cranky, thanks for the reference. I’ve bookmarked it to study at my leisure. I live within walking distance of the WTC site, so this is incredibly interesting to me. I thought about sending the reference to my crazed friends, but what’s the point? They’re not going to believe a word of it because (1) it’s from the government, and (2) the truth is never what it seems to be. That’s how (and why) conspiracy theories work.

  6. I should have added that the original source of this story is the Washington Times and UPI. Aren’t they run by the Moonies?

  7. Do you think there is any possibility the A&M professor is correct?

    Short answer: no.

    To take just one example: WTC 7. Why did it catch on fire and collapse? The exact sequence of events for that building is not well documented, and a complete answer will never be known, but it is clear that there were 7 organizations in that building with emergency diesel generators that used 5 separate fuel systems, including one that had a high-pressure circulating system to prevent the fuel from stagnating. When a rain of steel girders came flying out of the sky and pierced multiple floors, I think that one does not need conspiracy theories to see why the building burned.


  8. NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
    of the Crime of the Century
    On June 23, 2005 the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published the draft of its ‘Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers’ (document NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf), and in September it released its Final Report (document NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf). This Report and a separate one on the case of WTC 7 represent the culmination of NIST’s three-year investigation of the collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, funded with an initial budget of $16 million and subsequent appropriations from taxpayers’ money.
    NIST’s investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report’s voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses — such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity — except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.
    NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that “global collapse” was “inevitable” after the “initiation of collapse.”

Comments are closed.