Saturday, 25 August 2007

The third tower

I've steered clear of 9/11 conspiracy theory until now, but an article by Robert Fisk in today's Independent admits that the 'facts' we have don't add up. With admirable reluctance, he says:

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues.

One of the things I've noticed most often when I've mentioned my own doubts about the official version, in passing, to friends (because I try not to let my natural scepticism towards government slip over into a farcical over-estimation of its ability - there lies crankdom) is how few people know about the collapse of the third tower, some nine hours later than the other two and without apparent external assistance.

6 comments:

Pat said...

Well, as long as we're talking trivia, how many people know the other two buildings that collapsed that day: WTC-3 (Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick's cathedral?

WTC-7 was pelted with flaming debris from the collapse of the other two towers (especially the North Tower). It had twin 12,000 gallon diesel tanks that started pumping fuel to emergency generators when the power went out in the area after the collapse of the South Tower. Immense fires were noted in the building by witnesses to the south of the building. It was decided to abandon firefighting operations in WTC-7 due to the rescue efforts going on in the rubble of the towers and the fact that by early afternoon, the firefighters could see WTC-7 was moving; a sure sign that collapse was inevitable. For a summary of WTC-7's collapse, see here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

For a more detailed analysis:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

Charles Lambert said...

Thank you for clearing that up. I'm in your debt.

Chancelucky said...

Charles,
I've always rather liked conspiracy theories. 7 World Trade Center is pretty fascinating for a number of reasons. I read the original report by FEMA that tried to account for the fact that the tower fell. Even FEMA admitted that the fuel oil theory depended on a number of contingencies.
A second government organization issued a revised report this year now insistnign that more debris hit the building than FEMA had acknowledged.
iirc correctly the fuel in question was in the basement of 7 World Trade Center.

I don't know enough about these things to have any idea what's plausible from an engineering standpoint. I'm looking forward to reading the second government report. There certainly are bits of what happened on 9/11 that make no sense. I'd say that's often true of major disasters.
One of the real surprises to me was that the entire city of Washington DC has no air defense capability.

Charles Lambert said...

I must admit to finding myself utterly convinced by both sides of the argument as I listen, after which I drift back into my usual state of mild scepticism towards the official version. This is how I deal with most conspiracy theories. Umberto Eco - who, pace Dan Brown, blew a massive hole through holy grail style conspiracy theory in Foucault's Pendulum decades ago - once said that all the information you need to understand what's going on behind the scenes is in the financial pages of the major dailies, and I suspect he's right.

Something that did strike me as I followed up one of the links Pat gave was the depth of the hatred and rage a lot of debunkers feel towards conspiracy theorists. Even worse is the anger directed at Robert Fisk, as a liberal European (there are lots of us about) and presumed apologist for terrorism. This is news to me, though I believe John Malkovich, actor and clotheshorse, said something similar a while back, suggesting that Fisk be assassinated. Well, I know which one I'd throw out of the balloon first...

Sam said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

I found this movie helpful and interesting. I admit I had not heard of WTC7 until today in fact when some idiot started talking rubbish about the "unexplained facts" as a proxy for blaming the Australian government for all his problems.

hmm

fg bradsteen said...

I think if the government told people that flying ducks crashed into tower 7 and that's why it went down people would say that makes sense. why yes.now lets watch american idol.then dancing with the stars is on next.