Red-Headed Stranger, "The Body" See Controlled Demolition
Michael C. Moynihan | April 8, 2008, 12:48pm
Everyone's favorite weed-smoking, tax-cheating troubadour, Mr. Willie Nelson, has joined the ranks of the 9/11 "truthers." On Amy Goodman's
Democracy Now radio program, Pancho the Lefty dropped some science on
how buildings collapse: "I think 85 or 90 percent of the people in this country say, "What?" I mean, a plane hit this building, and it fell kind of like that. And another plane hit that building, and it fell kind of like that. About the same time it fell, this one fell the same way. It looked like an implosion somewhere, you know? And then, all of a sudden, the third building fell, and no plane hit it."
Former Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura recently appeared on
The Alex Jones Show to offers his own,
Loose Change-inspired theories of how buildings collapse and at what temperature jet fuel burns. The crack(pot) reporters at
Prison Planet have the story:
"Two planes struck two buildings....but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later? How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later - that's my first question - the 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation. How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?"
[...]
Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.
"Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical."
ChicagoTom | April 8, 2008, 1:40pm | #
I just...ok, so what exactly is the theory here?
The theory would seem to be that the government allowed 9/11 to happen because it was politically beneficial to have it happen.
The reality is that the neocons definitely wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11 happened. This has been documented. (PNAC springs to mind, among other places)
But the neocons needed an excuse/reason.
(-- even the week after 9/11 I remember reading a quote by Rumsefled in USA Today where he talked about the need to go after Saddam that left me scratching my head wondering what Iraq had to do with any of this.))
Without the events of 9/11, the Iraq war probably wouldn't have happened, nor would many of the civil liberties curtailments have happened (at least not to the same degree nor in the same scope.) The panic and fear whipped up post 9/11 has allowed the government to intrude into our lives much more than they should be, and has pushed many people to accept the "it's for your own security" when taking away our rights.
The easiest way to control a population and keep them subservient is to have a common external enemy and to keep people afraid of boogeymen (like terrorists who will kill us here if don't fight them over there)
So the theory is that the gov't allowed 9/11 to happen in order to justify more surveilance, more control over the population, curtailing of rights (like the 1st and 4th amendments) and to do away with things like Due Process and fair trials (see Enemy Combatants, secret trials, evidence gained via coercive interrogation/torture)
At least that is the theory anyway. And in reality, I don't find it that far fetched.
Politicians and government types are power hungry and no I don't find it hard to believe that they would allow a catastrophic event (and maybe even the people who did want it to happen underestimated how many fatalities would occur or the scope of the event)
Now do I find it believable that the government actually demolished the buildings and all that crap?? not in the least.
But I personally wouldn't find it that hard to believe that certain people sat on actionable intelligence and did nothing knowing what was about to happen. That is a "conspiracy" that is much smaller and easier to pull off.
And no I don't believe the 9/11 commission report. Those people were tasked with whitewashing the whole mess.
Taktix® | April 8, 2008, 2:52pm | #
Quick note to the troofers:
Buildings are designed to distribute weight downward. If they weren't, they'd fall over with a stiff wind. Even if one were to tie a huge chain around the top of the building and try to topple it by pulling it over, it still would have collapsed downwardly because:
A: Gravity
B: The structures apt lack of adequate reinforcement against horizontal stress, a stress which would have increased exponentially were the building's horizontal plane become vertical.
The reason some might perceive the buildings to have "imploded" is because several floors of structural steel were melted away.
It happened fairly evenly, as all combustibles on the floors in question were ignited almost instantaneously by gallons upon gallons of exploding jet fuel rapidly spreading out through
Diffusion.
Why did the other buildings fall down? Try this: Slam your fist on you desk right now. See how some items on your desk moved? See how some may have even fallen down?
That's just your hand. Imagine the weight of the top 1/3rd of one of the tallest buildings in the world slamming down less than a few hundred feet away.
Now, I seldom use the following statement, as it is often used as an appeal to emotion to prove an irrelevant point. But right now, it is relevant and appropriate.
Jackal, you truly are dishonoring the memories of 3000 people by using their tragic death to advance some baseless, unscientific, crack-job theory. You, sir, are a stain on humanity.
Fuck you.
Gabe Harris | April 8, 2008, 3:07pm | #
The Democratic Republican,
What difference would it make if Joe woke up tomorrow and agreed that the Social Security program is bad?
or if Dondero woke up and thought Matt Welch's advocating a "war on terror" was bad?
That is to say, you are right it would make very very very little difference in the world, maybe even zero difference.
Hell it would probably be bad for all of us, because it would ecourage me to come here even more instead of doing real things.
but since we are arguing about it and some of you are acting like no engineers or knowledgable ex-CIA employees or military pilots think there is a coverup, well I was hoping if that is what you believe then you'd look at the evidence to the contrary. I've looked at it and I don't believe the 9/11 commission is telling the truth. I could always be wrong, but the only people I know who have actually looked at all the different evidence have come down ont he side of we are being lied to. The hate and snearing comes from those who watch one hour of the popular mechanics show on the history channel and have never even seen a video of WTC 7 fall.
The 9/11 commission seemed to be a concerted effort from the beginning to coverup the truth.(from at first refusing to investigate, then appointing Kissinger, then him quiting after they asked if Bin laden was a client etc.
Zelikow was on NPR saying his goal from the beginning was to look at the Warren commission and try to avoid the things they did that led to accusations of a coverup. This sounded to me like his initial goal was not to find the truth, but to effectively quash conspiracy theories...and his model was a notoriously big coverup commission. I talked to a girl on the commision and she got really pissed when I asked any "non-trusting questions" and refused to talk to me anymore.
It is amazing that not believing the government gets some libertarains so upset.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
