TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Attack on WTC was Formulated to Limit Deaths (13 posts)

1. BrianG
   Member

   The investigation by the National Institute for Standards and Technology tells us that approximately 18,000 persons were in the twin towers at the time of the attack. They say that of the 15,000 or so civilians who were under the impact floors, all but about 100 were able to evacuate successfully. About 3,000 people were trapped at or above the impact zones.

   Normal population a couple of hours later would have been 50,000, and 8000 of these would have been trapped at the tops of the buildings.

   At the time of the 1993 truck bombing, it took four hours (240 minutes) to get everyone down the stairs. On 9/11, WTC2 fell in about 90 minutes and WTC1 fell in about 100 minutes. The allotted time would have permitted stairway evacuation of 9,000 persons from WTC2 and 10,000 persons from WTC1--leaving 23,000 persons still stuck on the stairs when the towers fell, plus the 8,000 trapped above the impact zone for a total maximum estimate of 31,000 civilians dead, plus the 343 firefighters and several dozen police officers. (Probably the number should be adjusted down for the possibility of the use of elevators to evacuate the second-struck tower, but I don't know how many thousands of people could evacuate in how many minutes.)

   Obviously the attack was structured to limit the number of deaths.

   1. The attack before working hours began meant the population of the towers was low enough that almost all the civilians below the impact floors were able to evacuate.

   2. Attacking the two towers fifteen minutes apart meant that civilians in WTC2 were able to use the elevators to evacuate before WTC2 was attacked. Attacking both towers at the same time would have prevented the use of elevators for evacuation.

   3. No effort was made to obstruct the evacuation, though relatively simple actions by a few determined operatives could have caused major obstructions.

   No one has ever explained to me why freedom-hating Saudi religious fanatics would structure the attack so as to limit the number of deaths.

   https://www.quora.com/How-many-more-people-would-h...

   Posted 9 years ago #
2. truthmover
   Administrator

   Meh. Obviously? I'm totally cheesed by anyone who can't write something about 9/11 truth without using over-confident words that entirely subvert scientific/historical/journalistic integrity.

   Further, the reasoning here is deeply flawed. Full of fallacy and over-statement.

   Finally, this is completely pointless speculation that at best leads no where and at worst adds to the CD honeypot that was used to completely subvert the movement. ... But, of course, you already know I feel that way.

   Last note, it's probably true. But that's a very VERY long way from being important. And knowing something is probably true doesn't lend credibility to poorly founded speculation.

   Posted 9 years ago #
3. BrianG
   Member

   I'm sorry you feel that way.

   The formulation of the attack was clearly such that deaths were minimized. You can argue that this was a lucky accident, or that there were operational reasons (such as hijacking planes early in the morning when the few passengers were sleepy or perhaps to catch FAA and NORAD personnel at the end of a long overnight shift) that the attack took place before 9:00 am, but you can not refute the point that the structure of the attack was such that deaths were minimized. The only way to have fewer deaths would have been to attack at midnight or 5:00 am.

   I would like to hear someone try to explain why al Qaeda chose an attack protocol that limited deaths before I made the determination that the question was not significant. I don't see the connection between that question and CD. I am by no means convinced that CD was done, but I think its advocates raise important questions and I think the authorities should respond to those questions before I make up my mind on what did or did not happen.

   Posted 9 years ago #
4. JohnA
   Member

   i see nothing has changed here.

   "Attacking the two towers fifteen minutes apart meant that civilians in WTC2 were able to use the elevators to evacuate before WTC2 was attacked. Attacking both towers at the same time would have prevented the use of elevators for evacuation."

   are you REALLY suggesting that they hit the buildings 15 minutes apart - instead of simultaneously - intentionally - to minimize civilian deaths? how COULD they hit the buildings simultaneously? to your knowledge - were the two hijacked planes in radio contact with each other? did they have any sort of attack vectors vis-a-vis radar or ground to surface tracking?

   lol

   "I would like to hear someone try to explain why al Qaeda chose an attack protocol that limited deaths"

   After you Brian. i would like to hear YOU explain it first. You raised the strawman - now go beat it with a stick.

   let's assume your theory is legitimate. ok. devil's advocate. why would WHOEVER was behind the attacks seek to limit civilian deaths? what would be the possible motivation behind limiting the civilian deaths?

   "Gee - let's start WW3 with a shock and awe attack on NYC, killing thousands... but let's be sporting about it"

   Posted 9 years ago #
5. BrianG
   Member

   On further reflection I suppose that limiting the number of deaths benefited Osama and al Qaeda to some degree. That's why sharing ideas in a forum such as this is so valuable. Had 30,000 people died, Americans would have demanded to see Osama's head on a pike. Limiting the number of deaths made it easier politically for the Bush team to go easy on al Qaeda---tolerating the Kunduz airlift and Osama's escape from Tora Bora (with 1600 al Qaeda associates) and Bush admitting that he just didn't think that much about Osama anymore.

   Of course since these benefits to al Qaeda came entirely at the discretion of the Bush administration, there is no way al Qaeda could plan on achieving them unless they had an agreement with the Bushcists.

   The benefits to Bush from 9/11 I don't think I need to recapitulate here. The benefits to Bush from fewer deaths would be that the Victims Compensation Fund cost only $7 billion (IIRC) instead of $70 billion, and that 3,000 deaths resulted in only 4 Jersey Widows demanding answers while 30,000 deaths would have generated 40 Jersey widows demanding answers and, with the critical mass achieved there we might have seen hundreds of widows demanding answers. It would have been very difficult for the Bush propagandists to dismiss 40 widows as attention-seekers.

   Also, assuming that Bush did it, he would sleep easier knowing that he did not needlessly sacrifice 30,000 people when 3,000 would suffice.

   Posted 9 years ago #
6. mark
   Member

   The perpetrators of the 1993 attack reportedly wanted one tower to crash into the other. It is reasonable to assume that was the goal on 9/11, fortunately the towers stayed standing as long as they did.

   I doubt the psychological and political aftermath would have been any different if the towers had collapsed immediately after impact, killing even more people. The only outcome that would have been substantially different would have been if Flight 93 had made it to the US Capitol, that would have been far worse in terms of the psych/political impacts.

   The Pentagon attack was aimed to minimize casualties, but the WTC attack almost certainly was not.

   It's important not to fall in love with one's own theories, especially if the facts don't support them.

   Posted 9 years ago #
7. BrianG
   Member

   Thank you, Mark, for the caution not to fall in love with theories.

   My own introduction to 9/11 theories was in the spring of 2002 when I walked into a bookstore in Lower Manhattan and saw that prominently displayed was a book called "Why Buildings Fail" with a chapter on the structural demise of the WTC. It was probably $14, very expensive for me (I was living in my car), but I grabbed it and devoured it. It put forth MIT's zipper/pancake theory that the floors truss "clips" failed, that the floors unzipped, and an unstoppable chain reaction was initiated.

   My reaction (based on reading in vernacular engineering and experience in construction) was that the theory seemed pretty strange but, hey, it was MIT. So who was I to argue?

   So I dallied with the Zipper/pancake theory. No, I can't even say I dallied with it. I admired it from a distance. A very lazy distance.

   By 2004 Richard Clarke and Dr. Benjamin DeMott and Dr. Griffin and Dr. Paul Rea and the ridiculous performance of 9/11 Commission Executive Director Dr. Philip Zelikow at Stanford had convinced me that there was a lot more to 9/11 than I was willing to admit. On my own I had recognized the shortcomings of the FEMA report about the towers, and I eagerly awaited the 2005 issuance of the NIST report, which I hoped would explain the collapses. They did not. NIST's dishonesty was obvious on the face.

   In 2006 I met Richard Gage. In 2007 I ran into conflicts with my fellow Palo Alto activists over their endorsements of William Rodriguez and Dr. True Ott and Dr. Kevin Barrett. This caused conflicts, and I started working for Mr. Gage's group.

   Mr. Gage was barnstorming at university campuses all over the USA and Southern Canada. Whenever he appeared, I would email every professor of structural engineering, civil engineering, chemical engineering, journalism, and criminal justice to invite them to come to Mr. Gage's presentation. This was hundreds of emails every time. I was begging someone in the academic community to come and slap down Gage so I could quit this 9/11 truth stuff and go back to writing novels.

   When Structural Engineer Kamal Obeid spoke in Fremont, CA, I invited 400 structural engineers from the South Bay Area to attend his talk. I think I spotted a couple in the audience (it was a film series that usually had about 70 in attendance, so I recognized when there were new people). They didn't say a peep.

   The counterarguments to the controlled demolition theory are just silly. I wish I could discard it. I can't. I don't advocate it beyond the hypothesis level, because I am not convinced. I think it needs investigation, and I think I need better counterarguments before I can agree that it doesn't.

   As to the current controversy, it was careless of me to formulate the issue as an hypothesis (Attack on WTC was Formulated to Limit Deaths) instead of as a fact (WTC Attack as Formulated Limited Deaths). It's only in an august forum such as this that such distinctions are recognized.

   In my 9/11 activism I try to stick to facts and avoid theories. The facts are damning enough, and in presenting the facts you are inviting the clients to solve the mystery for themselves--instead of trying to sell them a conspiracy theory.

   I learned this lesson while tabling with a well-known Palo Alto activist when a client invited me to explain how explosives could have been planted in the towers without being noticed. I then very enthusiastically launched into my perception that most of the 47 core columns of the towers were accessible from the elevator shafts, and that by using the top of an elevator car as a mobile scaffold, an explosives technician would have had extraordinary access to the main supporting columns. My client's eyes clouded over and he walked away. I interpreted this as an indication that I should quite theorizing and stick to facts. (It's only just now that I realize that his eyes clouding may have been not because, as I assumed, he rejected my theory but because I had delivered a knockout blow to own theory that it was impossible for incendiary/explosive charges to be covertly installed.)

   In any case, I am very thankful that we have such a rational, respectful, and honest forum here where these issues can be discussed among friends.

   Posted 9 years ago #
8. truthmod
   Administrator

   I do see how as part of the "discerning" faction of conspiracy/hidden history researchers, we have left ourselves open to accusations of subversion through divide and conquer and endless debate over details. We may not have been the ones instigating these debates, but we sure knew how to take the bait. Our opponents are very clever and have many resources to engineer our defeat. They also have many powerful psychological and social forces on their side.

   It is crucial that we remain humble, open-minded, and compassionate. I have friends and acquaintances who believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. Sometimes when people mention this, I casually assert my skepticism, sometimes I just nod and say "who knows?" Many people are not interested in continuing to consume large amounts of evidentiary data and weigh various sources against each other. I'm not very interested in that either, most of the time. Some very intelligent people still believe in no-plane, and I don't necessarily blame them. Maybe they just weren't fortunate enough to come across better sources. Maybe they didn't have the time or energy to read the debates.

   This is very different from the organized disinformation campaigners. Many of them are obvious and should be outed and banished. Reasonable people who have been misled are not the same as these fanatics and supposedly naive agents who constantly make the same "mistakes" over again.

   Facts seem to have been lost so long ago that I can barely remember what they are, or if what we put forth as fact was really supported by documented, undisputed evidence. Speculation is an important and necessary tool for understanding, but it is in a different category. We must acknowledge that our understanding is fallible, while still maintaining the conviction of reasoned knowledge.

   I talked to a JFK researcher recently who I respect very much. As far as 9/11 goes, he seemed most excited by the collapse of building 7. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I feel that CD has been a disaster. But I'm also not sure that if CD hadn't caught on, we would have made much more progress. While "common sense" may dictate that it was "obviously" a demolition: "Can't you see!? It's right in front of your eyes!", I have consistently touted my lack of credentials in structural engineering, explosives, and physics. I maintain that a person whose understanding of 9/11 truth relies heavily on CD (i.e. being convinced by it or seeing it as a smoking gun) is on shaky ground. Very few people are qualified to sit through a Richard Gage lecture and make an informed, critical judgment as to the validity of his argument. It may all sound logical and simple enough, but you can be sure that it isn't and there are definitely engineers out there who could make a similarly convincing argument from the other side.

   Many people have a very accurate intuition about the corruption of the government. Their discernment may be lacking, but their hearts are in the right place. It's important to have some sympathy for these people.

   I then very enthusiastically launched into my perception that most of the 47 core columns of the towers were accessible from the elevator shafts, and that by using the top of an elevator car as a mobile scaffold, an explosives technician would have had extraordinary access to the main supporting columns. My client's eyes clouded over and he walked away.

   Speculation like this is seen by many as paranoid and fanciful. The entire 9/11 truth movement is based on the speculation that "9/11 was an inside job." While some people may claim that statement as knowledge, it is a lot different from saying we know that there were warnings, that the fighter jet response took x minutes, etc. In the end 9/11 truth is more about the truth than the details of 9/11; more about a process of critical thinking and open-mindedness than the melting point of steel or a video of a building collapsing.

   Posted 9 years ago #
9. BrianG
   Member

   I don't know what bait you took. The bait I took needed taking. Kevin Barrett's blatant bigotry, his advocacy of violence, and his flat-out lying needed to be slapped down. Willie Rodriguez's impossible (and uncorroborated) hero story needed slapping down. CIT's impossible theory and unethical treatment of cooperating witnesses (endorsed by people who should have known better) needed slapping down. I think my efforts to marginalize those clowns were pretty successful, I was proud to do my bit, and I was glad to pay the price--which I'm still paying today.

   If you can provide "engineers out there who could make a similarly convincing argument from the other side" to Mr. Gage's arguments, I'd sure like to hear them. Of the thousands of emails I sent to academics, the only substantive response I got was a suggestion that I read the Popular Mechanics book.

   It is not speculation to point out that most of the 47 core columns of the towers were accessible from the elevator shafts, and that by using the top of an elevator car as a mobile scaffold, an explosives technician would have had extraordinary access to the main supporting columns. That is a fact. It would be speculation to propose that charges were placed. It's a fact that it was possible to place them.

   I regret the day that Dr. Griffin ever uttered the phrase "inside job". It set the movement back ten years. After that, our public gatherings were no longer assemblies of truth-seekers but instead were assemblies of conspiracy theorists.

   Somebody should write a book about critical thinking and 9/11. Do you have access to SnowCrash? He was a pretty smart guy until he went nuts. Maybe he's sorted himself out by now, or maybe he was a disinfo operative all along.

   I've long thought of writing a pamphlet about maybe 20 of the common logical fallacies, illustrating them with examples of 9/11 thinking. I've aged a lot in the last ten years, and no longer have my youthful energies.

   Posted 9 years ago #
10. mark
    Member

    Real engineers have better things to do than waste their time in this way.

    The fact the buildings - including 7 - were measured to be leaning and buckling before they fell is proof enough that the demolition claim is false. There's dozens of other pieces of confirmed evidence, but in a rational examination that would be sufficient. Of course, it's hard for "truth seekers" to admit it's possible to be fooled in the search for truth, or at least the search for half truths.

    Posted 9 years ago #
11. BrianG
    Member

    I'm not trying to argue for controlled demolition anywhere. My position is that the official investigations have not been rigorous, scientific, honest, or complete.

    Yes, the buildings were leaning. Thus the collapses should have reflected that. That they fell down in symmetry in near-freefall is quite baffling. I have a degree in biology and thus I have certain training in physics and thermodynamics that youse guys do not. OK. So it goes. Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical failure should have resulted in an asymmetrical collapse.

    I went out to demonstrate for ae911turh.org at the football game last night--U of O beat Stanford in a real nail-biter. I hold up a big sign under the klieg lights and probably 20,000 people walk past me. AE911truth has 12 Stanford engineers. 8 of them have Masters Degrees. 3 of them have PhD degrees.

    We've gone somewhat off-topic because my OP was simply about the FACT that the structure of the 9/11 op was such that civilian deaths were far, far fewer than might have been achieved had the attack been structured more aggressively.

    I'm quite disappointed in the lack of response here to my observation that Ms. Breitweiser was back in action. I thought her perceptions were quite worthy of commentary.

    Best wishes to all of you and yours.

    Posted 9 years ago #
12. truthmod
    Administrator

    I'm quite disappointed in the lack of response here to my observation that Ms. Breitweiser was back in action. I thought her perceptions were quite worthy of commentary.

    Hey Brian, sorry about that. Our forum is so underpopulated and some of us don't even check it for several days. I did read the Kristin Breitweiser piece. That's great and it's good to see it on Huffington Post. It's just a little hard for some people to get excited about much around 9/11 activism after seeing what happened to the "movement" over the last 10 years.

    It's good to hear you're still doing activism. While I may not want to be involved with promoting CD, I support your action to do what you think is effective.

    We aren't strict about going off topic here.

    BTW, I do think it is a good mental exercise to try to imagine what it would have looked like if the "9/11 was an inside job" meme had never taken over. I'm not ready to say that would have been a good thing, but it is worth considering how different it would have been if people genuinely were just asking questions, without presupposing a very inflammatory conclusion. Of course, it would have been a much smaller contingent, and millions of people would not have had the experience of some form of paradigm shift (possibly myself included). An even more compelling alternative would be to consider what might have happened if CD had never become equated with 9/11 truth.

    I don't know what the right strategy is anymore. The world is unfolding and we try to encourage rationality, open-mindedness, and compassion. There are an infinite number of ways to do this. We all need to be mindful of our own rigid thinking.

    When we spearheaded the 2008 Declaration, we thought that might be the beginning of a new, responsible and effective faction of the movement. For myself, it ended up marking the end of my desire to be associated with whatever that "movement" had become. Our community was too small and we were interested in something more than the minutae of 9/11.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/

    Posted 9 years ago #
13. BrianG
    Member

    I'm not promoting CD. I never did. The AE911Truth petition calls for new investigations, including investigation of the possible use of explosives. I signed that one back in 2007. A later Rethink911 petition was more aggressively worded, calling for investigation of "the evident use of explosives." I couldn't sign that.

    I feel very strongly that sticking to the facts, posing questions, letting people draw their own conclusions, is a far better approach than hitting the over the head with a conspiracy theory--especially when that theory depends on an argument from authority about nano-technology.

    If, as you say, CD has been equated with 9/11 truth, then it's only been because the non-CD advocates have been so unaggressive that CD came to be the only game in town (except for mini-nukers and no planers and hologrammers and space-beamers and the like).

    I have little doubt that the truth movement has been targeted with paid (and/or criminally obligated) disruptors. In my opinion the Bay Area 9/11 activist with whom I initially affiliated had enormous potential and was targeted by disruptors.

    I would be delighted if y'all and Nick and Janice and "Paul Thompson" and Phil Berg and John A. and the widows would pull together in achieving a release of the redacted 28 pages. Who's stopping you? I'll help!

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.