Monday, December 25, 2017

Questions for 9-11 Truthers


  1. If the attacks were a false flag operation to justify invading Iraq, then why didn't the conspirators use Iraqi hijackers?
  2. If one justification for the invasion was Iraq possessing WMD's, then why didn't we simply plant WMD's in Iraq, maybe even stage a chemical attack on U.S. forces? Instead, the failure to find WMD's became a major embarrassment.
  3. If this was all about access to Iraqi oil, then why don't we now control Iraq's oil?
  4. Give an example of a controlled building demolition that began at the top.
  5. Why weaken the building at the top, when attacking lower would have trapped more people and resulted in faster collapse, and presumably, a stronger case for war?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's hard to find the comment section, so I will just take advantage from this situation to thank you for your writings. Please keep posting and again thank you!

As for the topic, I have nothing of value to add. I met a few 9-11 Truthers but most of them never made any sense anyway.

Anonymous said...

Question 6: (Regarding the "river of molten steel" pouring from one of the Twin Towers) What was the total weight of all the thin, stamped steel filing cabinets and light steel office furniture contained in either tower; and might that stuff have melted before the somewhat heavier I-beams?
Thanks for your blog. It is an island of sanity in a sea of stupidity.

shawn said...

If all we wanted was the oil, surely we could've made a deal with Saddam to ensure that sweet, sweet crude was pumped through contracts favorable to Americans and American companies -- in exchange, we decide Saddam's reformed a la Colonel G and push to lift the sanctions (bonus points if Saddam could reduce the atrocities to say Mubarak levels, but I wonder if that was possible.)

Anonymous said...

Why no Iraqi hijackers? Presumably because recruiting Iraqis would be far more difficult than recruiting Saudis through the al Qaeda network. The CIA and al Qaeda had already been working together since the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda operatives traveled in US planes during the Yugoslavian war. According to Sibel Edmonds, Osama worked for the US until just before 9/11.

If one justification for the invasion was Iraq possessing WMD's, then why didn't we simply plant WMD's in Iraq, maybe even stage a chemical attack on U.S. forces? Presumably European friends of Iraq would have been very skeptical about such things, and examined the evidence very closely.

If this was all about access to Iraqi oil, then why don't we now control Iraq's oil?
Maybe it was about taking Iraq's oil off the market, which drove the price up from $20 a barrel to $120 -- which greatly benefited oil industry insiders who could predict such price movements.

Give an example of a controlled building demolition that began at the top.
http://911blogger.com/node/20985

Why weaken the building at the top, when attacking lower would have trapped more people and resulted in faster collapse, and presumably, a stronger case for war?
The lower structure was stronger than the upper structure was, so the plane and the fire would have done less damage. Also, the timing of the attacks indicates a desire to minimize the number of deaths. Had the attacks taken place at 10 am, it's likely that the stairs would still be clogged when the towers fell, and 30,000 people might have died. As it was, all but about 100 of the civilians under the impact zones were able to evacuate.


Lord DoomRater said...

Is it popcorn time yet?

Dinwar said...

"Had the attacks taken place at 10 am, it's likely that the stairs would still be clogged when the towers fell, and 30,000 people might have died."

This part has me wondering if the rest is real or not. I mean, sure, conspiracy theorists aren't known for being well-versed in human behavior (otherwise they'd see the flaws in the conspiracy theories), but presuming that people were in the stairwells of the Twin Towers in large numbers--at ANY time--is on the cusp of being too insane to be a real argument. Humans don't like stairs; if we have to climb more than a few flights, we tend to find alternatives. The Twin Towers were 1360 feet. at a 7 inch rise, this is 2331 stairs. Well beyond what anyone will climb.

Matt B2 said...

Hey Steve, I can't find your old stuff online. I suppose it's in archive.org. Wondered if you every got around to putting it in a book?

Anonymous said...

It's been a while mr. Steve. I hope you are well and all. Bless you and I hope we'll hear from you soon. Regards!

Scott K said...

Dr Dutch, I noticed your .edu site was taken down. Hope you're okay. I'm going to use the wayback machine to save it to my computer. Might backup your blog as well.