openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Eh… I’m no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there’s one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don’t care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
But yeah, let me reiterate, it was not a controlled demolition, and the buildings collapsed due to steel supports being weakened by fire and airplane impact.
*The one 9/11 conspiracy I am kind of on board with is that various US intelligence agencies were aware of the impending attack and failed to do anything about it. Either because they were grossly incompetent … or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen, because the people in charge (Bush administration) wanted it to happen: that way they could have excuses to justify new wars in the Middle East, the Patriot Act, forming the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), etc.
*Oh, and a further 9/11 conspiracy I could get on board with: Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that didn’t hit anything) was supposedly taken down because the passengers on board had heard of the other attacks and decided to fight back, and the plane lost control in the struggle and crashed. But I suspect that might be a cover story. I suspect that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile, and the story of heroic passengers fighting back was invented in order to absolve the US government of the guilt of shooting down a civilian plane full of innocent passengers. With that cover story, the passengers are self-sacrificing heroes, rather than victims of collateral damage who’d been sacrificed by their own government.
Not really, successful planned demolitions are definitely a legitimate engineering feat. Safety of course requires a ton of planning and work, but that’s mainly because you have to issue temporary evictions to anyone living in the surrounding area.
Even planned demolitions where you don’t really have to worry about collateral damage go tits up all the time. Which ends up being an expensive mess to clean up afterwards. You really have to know what you are doing to make sure there just isn’t a partial collapse, and as I said there aren’t many companies that specialize in it.
I mean, there’s been plenty of evidence of just how incompetent us intelligence agencies were behaving before 9/11. It’s one of the reasons they created the department of homeland security afterwards. The agencies were to busy fighting for funding and getting caught up in dick measuring contest to actually do there jobs.
I think it’s just a case of a politician “not letting any good tragedy going to waste” rather than someone allowing something to happen. The risk vs reward of that scenario is just too unpredictable for someone like Cheney or Bush to be on board.