Path to 911

So. I have been looking at this whole conspiracy thing on and off for a while now.
As stated... by Northy, there are one or two slightly smelly things about the whole affair. But, what is seeming to me is, the cover up, which is not really that well done any more, is in the the following issues:
1) The steel they used was not the standard required by the plans. They cheaped out a bit. The WTC was incredibley stong in design. People sort of knew this, and the skimped a little on the steel.
(An aside, yeah, the steel didnt melt, it weakend. The heat was enough to weaken it.)

2) The heat proofing was a joke. It was never put on properly. It was not maintained. It was falling off the beams, turning into dust, and lots of it were barely clinging on at all. This dust could be seen in the AC. When you have beams like that, un insulated, they sweat. Water condenses on them, and it sort of pries away the rest of it. Upon aplication of > 100C this water boils, and the vapour drives the rest of the insulation off. It happens, there is no question at all about any of this.

So, now you have not quite the right steel, with no or almost no insulation. This becomes a problem now.

The cover up that people are seeing, the shifyness is, that the Port Authority knew all this. They were completely complicit in it. They could have fixed it, and they didnt, cause it was expensive. Another thing is... since they are Port Authority, they need not abide by Fire And Safety regs. They still dont for the new WTC. Now, this is shocking. But, if liability is found, there will be MASSIVE litigation. Thus... an element of cover up.

Then there was the deal with the squibs. Again... the way that building was built was by winching these unbelievabely strong cables tight to anchors in the ground. The building was under massive huge strains. If any part of it went, there would be explosive reprocusions elsewhere in the building. I believe that this is what we were seeing.

And, Northwind is exactly right. Once people see this covering up, once they get that smell, you are now in a position to start wondering... where does it stop? Its good to question. But, you know, we want a parsimonious answer to some extent too.

Ha ha. And +1 Mac99 for the Maddox link. He can be a funny dude.

Now... if you want a conspiracy, have a look at that United Flight 93 flight that went down.

I am not going into it now. I have seen some interesting alternative ideas about that though. I havnt really seriously looked at it too hard though.

[Kylie]

We'll never know the truth, but I'm prepared to believe that the towers fell down as a result of the planes. Where the conspiricists have a point is the pentagon, it does not look like a plane hit, and doesn't seem to be any public film evidence that shows a plane either. Is it true that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon or in the Philadelphia woods, or is that conspiracy blarney?

[northwind]

Nah, there was loads of plane wreckage at the pentagon... You can even see bits of it in Loose Change. Shortly afterwards he says "And why can't you see any debris?" I don't know. Are you, perhaps, mental? Mainly, the Pentagon part's an exercise in selective video and image use, and it's very well done. The hole you see in Loose Change, that he keeps on saying is too small for a plane to have hit, really is too small, for example- it's not the entry hole. From memory, it's from an inner curtain.

There's a refute site that's got loads on the pentagon claims somewhere, I think it's linked from "The best site on the internet". It's a little biased

[northwind]

My own counterargument- "Bush and co (or Cheney, or The Evil Military Industrial Complex) faked 9/11 so they could invade Iraq (or Afghanistan)". If they had, they'd probably have made some effort to link Iraq to the attacks, no? Instead, there's no connection at all, and they had to work incredibly hard to get people to make the link without any evidence. If it'd been designed to justify a war, every terrorist would have had an Iraqi passport, and a note of thanks signed S Hussein.

[Biker Biggles]

I love a good conspiracy,but In this case I have to go along the lines of ---Incompetance complacency and a bit of corruption leads to cover up and denial,which in turn give credence to conspiracy theories.
Also,one weakness in the American political system is that every time they change their president they tend to change virtually their entire civil service to suit.The ensuing loss of continuity filters down to all sorts of aspects,including which terrorists are getting "looked at".

Originally Posted by suzsv650

I'm a believer

Ooooh, you Monkey

[Biker Biggles]

Not a trace of doubt in my mind.

Originally Posted by philipMac

Now... if you want a conspiracy, have a look at that United Flight 93 flight that went down.

I am not going into it now. I have seen some interesting alternative ideas about that though. I havnt really seriously looked at it too hard though.

it was shot down, that's what they deny...i am probably 99% certain of this, as i know of someone who was in a position to know this at the time (i don't want to say any more, probably could, but it's not my call and wouldn't want to put myself in that situation!). The 1% is because I'll never know because i wasn't there, but i highly doubt that the person in question is lying considering that it being shot down makes sense wrt all the other evidence.

Originally Posted by muffles

[i am probably 99% certain of this