Subject: Your forum for 9/11
I'm surprised that you're still providing a forum
for 9/11 disinformation.
That's an untrue accusation.
I print e-mails from readers.
Are you suggesting 9-11 doubters have no right
to their opinions?
Isn't it arrogance on your part that you're right
and nobody else is?
I am not an engineer. I'm working with a high
school diploma and a certain amount of common sense
... and 32 years experience as an Army NCO, which
included training, however superficial, in demolitions.
I know a little something about blowing shit
I know enough to recognize that the contention
the WTC towers were demolished by a controlled implosion
has certain implications that are never addressed
by the advocates of the theory.
I would like to address just a few of them.
1. Who planted the explosives?
You want the guy's name?
Look at it from another direction: Who stood
from a massive attack that repealed the U.S.
The number of persons with the experience necessary
to accomplish the work is a finite number.
It is a close knit community. While it might
be possible to hide the perpetrators from the general public,
it wouldn't be possible to hide their identities
from their professional peers.
You're saying every office of every
floor was occupied by honest men without ambition?
And why do you think only an expert could have
planted the explosives? (if there were any)
So, by implication EVERY member of that community
supports the conspiracy. Also, implicitly anyone in
that community who did not support the conspiracy
must have been eliminated before they could spill the beans.
If a team rents offices on Floors 36 and 66 and
plants explosives, who needs to be eliminated?
Have there been any mysterious deaths among the
population capable doing the job of mining the WTC towers?
Doesn't every medium-big city have demolition
What if someone gave a dumbass like me a heavy
box and said, "Put this in the cabinet
in Office 446?"
Counter-argument: It was a military unit.
Which military unit? Military units leave a massive
paper trail - even a missing trail would be evidence.
You can destroy the record, but that leaves a
hole that has to be filled in somehow. Which means that whoever
created the false trail has to be in on the conspiracy,
as well as the entire unit and all of the chain of command above it.
Maybe the post commander doesn't know where they
were and what they were doing, but he knows they were SOMEWHERE doing SOMETHING.
I realize it's hard to say exactly what you mean
in print, but why can't a former team get together and help the Bush bastards?
You're acting like they have to be current military
to have the capability to blow shit up.
It wouldn't be as hard to get rid of any soldier
who disagreed with the conspiracy, just ship 'em off to war and let Hadji
blow 'em up.
Although that might sit well with their team-mates
if they got to wondering if they were going to be next.
Look, I'm, not saying I have proof of anything
but you're setting the bar awfully low.
So far every sentence you've written is easily
You don't have to get some 60-man platoon to
set some explosives.
It'd be easy to pick the 5 most guys who loved
Cheney's plan for world domination.
It's not enough to claim the WTC towers were mined
if you can't identify at least one of the perpetrators.
Considering America and the world changed drastically,
would it hurt to look at all angles?
Are you aware that President Kennedy was killed
right before our eyes?
Probably by former military types - how is that
so incredibly hard to accept?
2. WHEN were the explosives planted?
You ask very unimportant questions.
If they planted them a year in advance, would
that make a difference?
What if they planted them a week in advance -
who cares when?
2.a. How did "they" conceal the preparations for
imploding the building until "they" were ready to arm the explosives?
In a cardboard box?
I'm not trying to mock you, but your it-couldn't-have-possibly-happened
certainty is laughable.
Do you think they needed an airplane hanger's
worth of explosives?
And since nobody saw an airplane hanger enter
the WTC that day it couldn't have possibly happened?
Do you know that the Pope covers up rapes and
some Heisman Trophy winners cut their wives heads off?
Shit happens in this world, even strange and
I hope you'tre not a homicide detective because
if you were, I think you'd take
one look at a crime scene and then declare what
happened and then go home.
2.b. What safety measures were taken to prevent
How about the switch wasn't turned on?
How about they set the timer for 24 hours on
Are you sure you've worked with explosives?
2.c. Where was the control center located from
which the implosion was initiated?
In Iraq, they blow up IEDs with cell phones.
Cell phones work in New York, sometimes.
Controlled demolition is a massive undertaking.
Your anonymous "engineer" speculates "To have
achieved the effect seen on 9/11
only a couple of adjacent floors (perhaps unleased)
would have needed to be wired."
What evidence exists for those unleased floors
existing? It's clearly evident from the live video on 9/11
that the floors impacted by whatever hit them
(I'll address that as well) were occupied. From records and
from the testimony of survivors and the families
of the victims, we know those floors had been occupied for
some time prior to 9/11 by long term tenants.
We're getting nowhere because I don't think you're
You're giving me your Nancy Grace Guarantee
that no explosives could possibly have been in that building.
I'm not guaranteeing that there were, I'm just
asking some questions.
And why are you convinced that WTC had 100% occupancy?
Even if "they" only had to mine a single floor,
a large number of individual charges had to be planted and wired
in such a way that they detonated in a pre-determined
sequence ... otherwise the building doesn't come
straight down, it tips over to the side.
That seems like a red flag for my side.
The WTC came straight down, like a pre-wired
How did the jets' fuel get distributed so evenly
that the buildings came straight down?
That seems unlikely. Wouldn't it have been more
likely that they fell to one side?
That takes a LOT of wiring back to a central controller.
Radio control won't work. There's too great a chance
for premature detonation from spurious RF signals
AND a significant risk failure to detonate. It takes physical wire
runs to ensure the explosives will detonate on
I don't know about those things but you're making
assumptions and reaching conclusions on wacky evidence.
How did Oswald get the rifle in the Book Depository?
If you can't answer that to my satisfaction,
does that mean JFK is still alive?
In the military we were required to use dual chain
initiation, i.e. you used TWO initiators with individual firing circuits.
So that means twice as much wiring.
Again, I don't know.
But when you take evil bastards and
add the CIA and unlimited money and throw in
immunity from prosecution
if things go wrong, problems can be overcome.
Why should I have to tell you that these are high stakes?
Did you read that some team robbed a Paris museum
of $100M in paintings last week?
From your words, I'd think you'd say that was
- How did they get in?
- Who was in on it?
- Who bypassed the burglar alarm?
- Who could finance such an operation?
If you can't answer those questions, does that
mean the paintings are still there?
Remember, on Sept 10 the WTC was just another
tall building in New York.
Dudes walking in the front doors with a bunch
of boxes wouldn't raise a lot of suspicion.
The point is it takes a long time to get a structure
prepared for demolition and the preparations are not easily concealable.
What if they were working on this for years?
Why do you think Cheney wanted to get back into
To help the poor and Blacks get a bigger piece
of the pie?
Do you think the CIA isn't capable of subterfuge?
Additionally, you cannot prepare too far in advance
because of the risk of premature detonation, the risk of discovery
and the risk that the control runs might be inadvertently
damaged even if they were not recognized for what they were.
If you're hell-bent on taking control of the world's
oil, you might be surprised how far evil men might go.
By implication, based on logistical considerations
alone, preparation for demolition
would have had to begin immediately when the
Bush Administration came into office.
Again, that's crazy talk.
You make wild assumptions and then assign them
Maybe they rented office space in 2000.
Maybe the operation only took six months to set
You might be making sense in a normal situation.
If some guy wanted his wife dead, he probably
wouldn't blow up the WTC to make that happen.
But this isn't a normal situation and you have
to keep in mind who you're dealing with.
I'm saying the Bush bastards stole power for
Or did the Clinton Administration initiate the
conspiracy and pass it along to the incoming Bush Administration.
Some things just require too much suspension
of disbelief to be accepted within the realm of possibility.
We're not talking about a plan to steal Mikey's
We're talking about stealing more money and power
than anyone in Earth's history.
Just asking: You're not related to Lee Hamilton,
So, how in the nine months preceding 9/11 did
no one notice a flurry of work preparing the 93rd to 99th floors
of the North Tower, and the 77th to 85th floors
of the South Tower for implosion. Even assuming no one not involved
in the actual work of preparing the buildings
recognized what was going on, don't you think the work itself would get
Men in UPS uniforms delivering bozes to WTC offices
would seem unusual to you?
Are you suggesting these men wore "terrorist
uniforms" and if nobody noticed, it didn't happen?
Of course they had a "cover story", but in the
aftermath, wouldn't ONE PERSON have remembered the work
and the cover story? Why has no one ever come
forward and said, "Hey, back in July and August, there were
those guys working on ... whatever ... right
where the planes hit on 9/11"?
How did Bush keep it a secret for YEARS that he
was tapping everyone's phones and e-mail?
That had to involve hundreds of people
at a minimum.
But they went undetected for what, five years?
The Bush bastards had the power to say, "This
is national security so if you open your mouth you might die in prison."
3. The PLANES!!!
How did whoever was flying the planes, even if
by remote control manage to impact the Twin Towers in exactly
the right location where the demolition charges
were already planted? How did they manage to do so without
disrupting the control runs out to the individual
explosive charges? Why do so many of the controlled demolition
theories dispute even the existance of the hijacked
One "theory" holds that missiles or remote controlled
aircraft were substituted for the hijacked airliners.
What happened to the passengers? The passengers
were real people who are missed by real families and friends.
At least one of the missing passengers was the
wife of a high ranking Bush Administration official.
Ninety-two passengers and crew on Flight 11 -
Sixty-five passengers and crew on Flight 175
- South Tower
Sixty-four passengers and crew on Flight 77 -
Forty-four passengers and crew on Flight 93
Passengers and crew on all four flights communicated
with persons on the ground concerning the "alleged hijackings".
Either they were forced to do so as a part of
the conspiracy or were participants in the conspiracy.
IF any of the passengers were not on board the
hijacked aircraft and were not participants in the conspiracy,
they either must have been imprisoned or murdered
What happened to the passengers?
Are they in some secret North Vietnamese prison
with all the MIAs and POWs that never came back?
But as Arlo Guthrie says in Alice's Restaurant,
"That's not what I came here to talk about."
The problem with the WTC Controlled Demolition
Theory is the mistrust it engenders. That's why I call it disinformation.
When you look at the arguments and see all the
holes for what they are, you begin to mistrust more than the government.
There are holes in my theories and in your theories.
But the towers DID come down and hundreds of
billions of dollars WERE stolen.
The Constitution WAS discarded and the Bush bastards
DID steal Iraq's oil.
I think you're saying, 'The
Bush bastards would never be so inhumane."
I disaagree with that statement.
You can get murdered over tennis shoes.
Why do you doubt someone would murder for a $100
million slice of the BIG pie?
It gives those who do have something to hide an
excuse to tar ALL 9/11 skeptics.
If these guys are as Nuckin Futz as they obviously
are, then anyone who questions the received wisdom on 9/11 must be crazy
I don't know what you're saying, there.
And I think that's the whole point. It's a cover-up
all in itself. Not to cover up the Bush Administrations evil actions,
although I'll grant there are enough of those,
if not before 9/11, certainly after ... but I think to cover up incompetence,
willful blindness and plain vanilla corruption.
Are you saying the Bush bastards accidentally
stumbled onto hundreds of billions of dollars in found money?
I don't buy that for a second.?
The Bush Administration didn't let 9/11 happen
because they wanted it to happen. They let it happen because they ignored
They ignored those warnings because acting on
them might have jeopardized the many cozy crony business dealings the Bush
Klan had with the Saudis.
Although, I still haven't heard any satisfactory
explanation for why Bush just sat there in Florida or why the Secret Service
didn't hustle him away from his known location
that morning. How do you explain the Secret Service not taking action to
protect the President?
I have no idea why you think that's relevant.
I doubt the Secret Service was in on the plan..
Unless SOMEBODY knew the President was in no danger?
How did they KNOW?
But again, that question can be ignored because
anyone who questions the official explanation is obviously crazy.
The controlled demolition theory "proves" that
ALL 9/11 skeptics are crazy.
I wish I had time to get deeper into this, but
the stakes couldn't be any higher.
Hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe trillions, were stolen
between 9-11 and Obama's inaugural.
Is it your opinion that Bush-Cheney were too honest to be a part of
such a crime?
If so, why did they tell lies, delay investigations, manipulate the
press, refuse to speak under oath, etc?
One big plus for my side: We KNOW they're lying about what happened
If nothing hinky was going on - why couldn't they just tell the truth?
Back to Bartcop.com