Saturday, June 25, 2005

WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High

"All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

Although this article is poorly written, it seems to cite evidence that could, at least in theory, be verified or refuted by impartial investigation.


W.M. Bear said...

I hate to say but it doesn't strike me that the story can simply be taken at face value. One apparent flaw I noticed is that Rodriguez claimed to have heard an explosion coming from the subbasement of his building a few seconds before the plane hit. But the building didn't collapse until about 1/2 an hour or so later. Don't demolition explosions usually result in IMMEDIATE collapse?

Mac said...

Not being a demolition expert, I don't know what sort of approach might be used if one were to make it look as if an airplane collision could topple a structure as massive as a WTC tower. Perhaps the demolition was conducted in phases so that the eventual collapse could more readily coincide with the collision...

I'm just blue-skying under the assumption that the accout here is true. Maybe it's not.

W.M. Bear said...

Right now, I'm holding my beliefs in suspension on the conspiratorial details of 9/11. It seems like a virtual certainty to me that the government was a least complicit to some degree, "aiding and abetting" the hijackers, but beyond that I haven't found any of the theories about specifics all that compelling. The amount of disinformation and fallacious logic floating around on this one makes even the Kennedy Assassination look like a conspiracy theorist's slam-dunk.

Mac said...

It seems to me the 9/11 conspiracy debate has reached a terminal cul-de-sac. Perhaps if we could have the debris analyzed by structural engineers . . . but it was carted away immediately. This in itself is arguably suspicious, but the depressing truth is that -- barring some watershed authenticated leak -- we'll simply never know for sure one way or another.

And I agree: This will eclipse the JFK assassination, probably by several orders of magnitude.

KennyJC said...

There is always a conspiracy behind bad or amazing things that happen. Which leads me to believe that people make up these conspiracy because they cannot accept that things just happen.

Princess Diana's death? JFK? 911? Landing on the moon?

W.M. Bear said...

kennyjc -- One book I will probably never write would be a survey of all these (supposed) conspiracies -- which ones are plausibly the result of real conspiracies, which ones aren't. Logically, each case has to be considered on its own merits -- you can't simply take a broad brush swipe and condemn ALL conspiracy theories out of hand simply because they ARE conspiracy theories.

For example, most serious students of the JFK Assassination have agreed that it probably WAS the result of a conspiracy, at least to the extent that it is virtually certain there was more than one assassin. 9/11, if you look at the kind of facts (some of which Mac has brought up here) smells VERY funny to say the least.

And many assassinations ARE provably and historically the result of conspiracies -- the Lincoln assassination is one example that comes immediately to mind. And believe me, conspirators love the fact that conspiracy theory in general has been discredited by just the kind of reasoning you propose. (I see this all the time in editorials about 9/11 NOT being the result of a conspiracy -- a plausible assertion applied to SOME cases but masquerading as the last word on ALL conspiracy theories.)

Mac said...

"Conspiracy" has become a highly charged word, usually implying "nutcase." I think this is unhealthy. A serious look at history shows that conspiracy is one of the engines of change, so to write it off is foolhardy wisfhul thinking.

Anonymous said...

Get ready for a suprise.
The reason we won't hear the truth anytime soon is because the operation was carried out by the Mossad, who were flown out of the country after the deed. Michael Chertoff, the man responsible for their exit, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire.

The collapse of Building 7 is particularly unusual, and yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions it once in their report. Somehow fire got started in Building 7, which is two blocks away and was never hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel inside to feed the fire. There are photographs that show only small fires on floors 7 and 12 of this 47-story building. And yet at 5:20 in the afternoon it comes collapsing down in exactly the same way as the other buildings.

Further evidence of Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition came from Larry Silverstein,who leased the entire complex. Silverstein said he told the fire commander that the smartest thing to do was "pull it." Next, he says, they "made that decision to pull" and watched the building collapse.
(pulling is a term for controlled demo)
Silverstein allegedly made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7.

Mac said...

The collapse of Building 7 is particularly unusual, and yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions it once in their report.

That in itself is damned suspicious.

W.M. Bear said...

bsti -- I've seen the Mossad theory before. It's certainly plausible but virtually impossible to prove. One thing you have to say -- whoever was responsible (probably actually a combination of agents) certainly knew how to cover their tracks!

Re Building 7, isn't it possible that Silverstein was just being opportunistic? Apparetnly, the building was already rigged for demolition anyway and he just used this as an excuse to, as you say, "pull it"? So it may indeed have nothing really to do with 9/11 except that 9/11 provided a handy excuse for him to do something he was planning to do anyway.

JEFM said...

There is an american document, from the intelligence community saying that there is a possibility Israel could stage attacks against US or it's interest and make it look like arab or islamic terrorists did it.

stankan said...

Ah yes, I was wondering when this would get to good old fashioned anti semitism. Did not take long now did it? Don't you know? The Jews are responsible for all the ills of the world. Just ask the Nazis they'll tell you. You can believe them.

Look at the film of the world trade center. You can see that the collapse started from the point of the planes impacts, not from below.


Mac said...

Beware the "Jews Are Taking Over the World" meme.

W.M. Bear said...

Ah yes, I was wondering when this would get to good old fashioned anti semitism.

Merely noting that Mossad may have been involved is not anti-semitic. There is a meme (if you want to call it that) that holds that ANY CRITICISM WHATSOEVER or implication of criticism of the state of Israel = anti-semitism in its most virulent form. This is frankly just stupid and intends simply to close off debate on anything involving Israel which, in this view, can apparently do no wrong.

Criticism of the state of Israel is not anti-semitism.

--Colin Powell (no less)

Mac said...

WMB is correct. To see a textbook example of Israel-bashing that's become indistinguishable from anti-Semititism, see, which makes no real secret of its neo-Nazi leanings, linking directly to sites decorated with swastikas and recyling Hitler-esque propaganda (such as the image of an octopus, debecked with a star of David, clutching a representation of Earth; as Paul Kimball has shown, this was lifted directly from a Nazi cartoon).

stankan said...

Israel bashing is often a disguise for anti semitism. Plain and simple.

Classic anti semitism puts Jews at the cause for the world's problems.

Here we have not a single shred of edidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11.
And yet, it is fine to implicate Israel in this horrific crime. Why?? Because the undertone of Anti Semitism makes this desirable.

Israel has suffered more terrorism than any other country in the world. It is the victim of terrorism not the perpetrator.


W.M. Bear said...

Israel bashing is often a disguise for anti semitism.

I don't doubt that this can be true. But does this mean we are not allowed to engage in legitimate criticism of the state of Israel AT ALL? That's ridiculous but that is the implication that this view seems to carry with it. And, in fact, some of the most cogent criticisms of Israeli policies, especially under Sharon, have come from Israeli Jewish writers themselves. On the other hand, various neoconservatives in and around the Bush administration have used the sobriquet "anti-semitic" to intimidate and silence their critics in a way that is just sheer political bullying and nothing else.

W.M. Bear said...

Also, in mentioning the theory that the Mossad was involved in 9/11, I merely meant to indicate that this is one theory I've seen, not that I necessarily believe it. In fact, my whole take on 9/11 is that, for all the evidence that the hijackers had "official" help of some kind, that is about all we can legitimately say. And absent one of the conspirators actually confessing to the plot, this may be all we'll EVER be able to say. Personally, I certainly don't lay all (or even any of) the woes of the world at the feet of the Jewish people. I prefer to lay them at the feet of that consummate WASP, George W. Bush!

stankan said...

Of course there is legitimate criticism of Israel. However, Jewish conspiracy theories have been a staple of anti semitism for 2 thousand years. Blame the Jews was behind the iquisition, the pograms, and the holocaust.
It cost millions of lives.

If you have real evidence of an "Israeli" conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans, then show the real evidence. The blame the Jews aspect of 9-11 was started immediately after the event by anti semites. Parroting their claims is destructive.

stankan said...

One last thing that I think will consolodate my point.

It is one thing to criticize Israel. It is another thing to accuse Israel of murdering thousands of people.


W.M. Bear said...

I wasn't accusing Israel of ANYTHING. If you'll read my posts closely, I merely MENTIONED that the "Mossad theory" was something I'd seen. Maybe I should have stomped on it, but that wasn't my point. I do agree that there IS some extremely anti-semitic theorizing about 9/11, a whole "school" of it, in fact. I basically write it off on the face of it as being stupid and contemptible. Not only that, but it just adds more confusion (and there's already enough) to the search for the truth about 9/11.

comprar yate said...

It's all wrong what you're writing.