What If
A common argument against demolition of the WTC towers as psychological operation is that it would have been needless overkill--that the images of impact, smoking towers and jumpers would have been sufficient conditioning for the public mind to justify all that followed.
This grossly overlooked essay by Tom Engelhardt provides an answer. Engelhardt (who quickly innoculates himself against "conspiracy theorists" in the second sentence) goes as far as his Nation Institute leash will allow, yet manages to articulate the psychological necessity for CD, while dropping other hints along the way (anthrax blackout, Hollywood "Pearl Harbor" effect).
If 9/11 was primarily an "insider" psyop, the WTC demolitions were not senseless. Given the "target audience", they were essential.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno_
"So here was my what-if thought. What if the two hijacked planes, American Flight 11 and United 175, had plunged into those north and south towers at 8:46 and 9:03, killing all aboard, causing extensive damage and significant death tolls, but neither tower had come down? What if, as a Tribune columnist called it, photogenic "scenes of apocalypse" had not been produced? What if, despite two gaping holes and the smoke and flames pouring out of the towers, the imagery had been closer to that of 1993? What if there had been no giant cloud of destruction capable of bringing to mind the look of "the day after," no images of crumbling towers worthy of Independence Day?
We would surely have had blazing headlines, but would they have commonly had "war" or "infamy" in them, as if we had been attacked by another state? Would the last superpower have gone from "invincible" to "vulnerable" in a split second? Would our newspapers instantly have been writing "before" and "after" editorials, or insisting that this moment was the ultimate "test" of George W. Bush's until-then languishing presidency? Would we instantaneously have been considering taking what CIA Director George Tenet would soon call "the shackles" off our intelligence agencies and the military? Would we have been reconsidering, as Florida's Democratic Senator Bob Graham suggested that first day, rescinding the Congressional ban on the assassination of foreign officials and heads of state? Would a Washington Post journalist have been trying within hours to name the kind of "war" we were in? (He provisionally labeled it "the Gray War.") Would New York Times columnist Tom Friedman on the third day have had us deep into "World War III"? Would the Times have been headlining and quoting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on its front page on September 14, insisting that "it's not simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism." (The Times editorial writers certainly noticed that ominous "s" on "states" and wrote the next day: "but we trust [Wolfowitz] does not have in mind invading Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as Afghanistan.")
Would state-to-state "war" and "acts of terror" have been so quickly conjoined in the media as a "war on terror" and would that phrase have made it, in just over a week, into a major presidential address? Could the Los Angeles Daily News have produced the following four-day series of screaming headlines, beating even the President to the punch: Terror/Horror!/"This Is War"/War on Terror?
If it all hadn't seemed so familiar, wouldn't we have noticed what was actually new in the attacks of September 11? Wouldn't more people have been as puzzled as, according to Ron Suskind in his new book The One Percent Doctrine, was one reporter who asked White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, "You don't declare war against an individual, surely"? Wouldn't Congress have balked at passing, three days later, an almost totally open-ended resolution granting the President the right to use force not against one nation (Afghanistan) but against "nations," plural and unnamed?
And how well would the Bush administration's fear-inspired nuclear agenda have worked, if those buildings hadn't come down? Would Saddam's supposed nuclear program and WMD stores have had the same impact? Would the endless linking of the Iraqi dictator, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 have penetrated so deeply that, in 2006, half of all Americans, according to a Harris Poll, still believed Saddam had WMD when the U.S. invasion began, and 85% of American troops stationed in Iraq, according to a Zogby poll, believed the US mission there was mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks"?
Without that apocalyptic 9/11 imagery, would those fantasy Iraqi mushroom clouds pictured by administration officials rising over American cities or those fantasy Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles capable of spraying our East Coast with chemical or biological weapons, or Saddam's supposed search for African yellowcake (or even, today, the Iranian "bomb" that won't exist for perhaps another decade, if at all) have so dominated American consciousness?"
- Michael Fury's blog
- Login to post comments
I wrote about this concept
in 2005: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/bombs-in-towers-why.html
But you and Engelhardt have done a really good job.
"But Our Flag Was Still There"
would have been the reaction to the attacks had the towers
remained standing.
Only the total catastrophic destruction of the towers could deliver
the desired message--that civilization is vulnerable to little guys
with boxcutters.
The financial aspect
Yes, excellent point, and drbeeth's comments below about Zelikow and 'public myths' are also highly relevant in this regard. But let's not forget the financial aspect either--the insolvency issues at the WTC, and the oodles in insurance money which were arranged for over the summer of '01.
Any self-respecting myth needs a miracle...
911 was the creation of a new myth, the myth of a dangerous clash of civilizations against the powerful outside enemy “Al Qaeda”, and the necessity to organize an all out “War on Terror” against enemies, foreign and domestic.
Just like a religious myth needs miracles to keep people in doubt that their might be something to it, the mysterious disintegration of these three enormous steel framed buildings to dust caused an element of miracle that threw us all into doubting what we thought we knew about reality. The continued cognitive dissonance that exists between what we hear and read in our Main Stream Media, and what most of know in our hearts, that powerful people within closed door institutions of the United States and Great Britain (together with other criminal “private army- GLADIO type extreme right wing ‘security’ elites) have infested the World with a bold LIE, causes many to doubt reality altogether, and chose to live in a neurotic or psychotic state, shielding themselves from reality because of the fear of needing to revise the whole premises of their thinking for the last 6 years.
Many people have an extremely defensive aversion to look at any scientific evidence about how the twin towers were brought down. They prefer to say amen to what political and media ‘authority’ tell them to think about the event. What it actually true is not the issue here, just like we abstain from arguing about if Maria was a true virgin, or if God created the earth in more than 7 days. The Movie “Zeitgeist” has an excellent 30 minute David Ray Griffin segment about the ‘function’ of protecting this myth (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160790539111319889&hl=en , and Naomi Wolf gave a good lecture on how a fascist “coup d’état” needs to work by gradual increments to take over a democracy : see http://www.911blogger.com/node/12164
Thank-you, all of you who are bravely and diligently leading us back to the possibility to live with our eyes wide open!
Dr Beeth
"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. (Harold Pinter)
3 small videos that observe the mind of PNAC co-signatories
When the discussion about the “psy-op” need to bring down the buildings in a spectacular way comes up, it is a good time to review two short videos (see below) of Philip Zelikow, who did his college dissertation on
“Creating Public Myths”.
He wrote in this early paper that “Contemporary history is defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past… akin to “public myth” without all the negative implication.
Such presumptions are beliefs thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and shared in common within the relevant political community.”
He thus directly implied in that early writing that there is absolutely no need for scientific proof that that the ‘History changing event’ actually happened the way it is said to have happened, what is important is the mythical presumptions that imprints itself on the public about the event.
He argues in part 2 of the video that others might believe that “the 911 attacks were carried out by something other than the hijackers, and there is a whole alternative universe which give facts that it occurred in a totally different way, yeah, if we lived in a parallel Universe, that would be a very different universe..” He pauses, then goes on to say “There is, in our view, not allot of evidence that that Universe is actually connected to this one”. Zelikow is acknowledging the 911 Truth movement, but, if you look back on his college dissertation, he then pauses to indirectly say that the 911 Truth movement may try to dig up all the scientific facts that it wants that disprove the official story-line, in the end, since these views are not shared by the United States Ministry of Truth and other actors of the “relevant political community” of which Zelikow defines himself to be a part of, then he will ignore those facts from “the parallel” universe (also called reality-based universe), because these facts are not akin to imprinting the desired public myths that his group of crazy neocons have worked so hard for.
More important, in the discussion about why it was desirable to bring down the buildings in a spectacular way, Zelikow wrote a telling article in the Council of Foreign Relations Journal “Foreign Affairs” (Nov-Dec 1998 issue) entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event”
Here is a quote from the article: if the 1995 bombings of the WTC had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It would involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security… Like Pearl Harbor, the event would define our past and our future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either future terrorist attacks, or US counter attacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders for not addressing terrorism more urgently.
ZELIKOW (part one = 10 min / snowshoefilms series) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoQZkBFj9A
ZELIKOW'S PARALLEL UNIVERSE (snowshoefilms series /pt 2, 7 min 40 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XQWBQKsqBU&NR=1
While we observe the mind of one these 911 insiders, let us also enjoy a moment of confrontation of one of the PNAC co-signatories by New-York citizens who had come to listen to a talk he gave on Oct 11th 2007 while signing his new neocon warmongering book at Barnes & Noble : http://www.911blogger.com/node/12135 Thank-you NYC We Are Change!
Dr Beeth
P.S. To Mr Haverman above, I would like to ad that there is a VERY large collection of a multitude of scientific evidence that the US Ministry of Truth version is impossible. Look at this as a criminal investigator, based on science, and Qui Bono. Then do a profiling of the way the 911 insiders ‘tick’. These are also very good questions that should rapidly lead to arrests of key 911 insiders, including within the media.
further reply to "Better Qestions to ask"
Note to M. Haverman: you said that you still believed “collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were flukes. Unexpected, unplanned.”.
I suggest you review videos of those towers exploding upwards and violently outwards into dust before you use the word “collapse”, which brings to mind the Ministry of Truths ridiculous “Pancake” theory. Pulverisation, or disintegration into dust are more appropriate characterizations of the event.
Remind yourself of Zelikow’s phantasm of the “Catastrophic Terrorism” that could have taken place in 1993 if the towers had collapsed.
If the three towers had been left standing after the hits by two planes, the planes could have been better investigated, as could one of the probable “911” mission control centers in WTC 7.
More importantly, Larry Silvertein would have a very expensive demolition job to finish. The cost of dismantling the asbestos cursed WTC 1 & 2 had been estimated at +/- 10 Billion dollars. Larry knew this very well. In Brussels, Belgium, the Berlaymont building cost the city 500 million Euros to clean from asbestos and renovate. 911 permitted Lucky Larry to have the job done for free, dump the asbestos powder on New-York’s citizens, and collect a historic double premium (for two separate terrorist attacks, right..) of about 7 Billion $ to rebuild his towers on his 120 million dollar initial investment on a 100 year lease. Give me a break, Haverman… “flukes. Unexpected, unplanned”??
This is a work of military precision, and it is high time that the criminals be exposed!
I do not see the towers
I do not see the towers exploding at all.
Not upward nor outward.
I have described what I see, i.e. my interpretation of the video evidence but these posts
are rather long. Should be findable though.
I will now watch then Zelikow videos you mention.
Nothing to see here then... :-{}
I do not see the towers exploding at all.
Not upward nor outward.
---
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeaW4ybejs
---
Best wishes
plenty to see there, of
plenty to see there, of course.
Just not controlled demolition.
I see the effect of the floors falling on floors, with air and dust and glass beinbg blown
out floor by floor by the air pressure.
I see perimeter column falling at freefall speed ( noticeably faster than the
' wave of destruction ' ,)
I see squibs of dust / air being blown out some storeys below from the building air pressure.
I see a lot of destruction going on.
A lot of billowing dust and metal coming down, but no, I see no ' forceful horizontal ejections of
columns,
Those are all faling down. The wave of crashing floors is actually very clearly visible.
So yes, plenty to see, but controlled demolition ?
Nope.
and best wishes to you
So where are the pancaked floors after the collapse then ???
You need to check out Kevin Ryan's paper...
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
---
Also, you state "The wave of crashing floors is actually very clearly visible.
I can't see what you are stating, can you help by being a little more specific...
Thanks
where are the floors after
where are the floors after the collapse ?
In the basement mostly, densely compacted down to
perhaps as little as ten inches thickness and less.
Originally there was only 4 inches of concrete in the steel floor pans..
That's also the reason no big items were found lige office stuff.
I believe they were compressed and flattened by the mega forces of all the floors
from above coming down at high velocity.
There are photos of the socalled ' meteorites ' now in storage at JFK airport
They show what I'm talking about.
I say I can clearly see the wave of crashing floors....
I concede you do have a point there.
I can't see the actual floors, but what I see is fully consistent with floors
falling onto each other in rapid succession and with great speed, blowing out air dust and small debris
floor by floor.
Notice btw how initially, the perimeter columns still stand up after the wave has passed.
But then these columns have nothing to keep them upright anymore, plus there's a ton
of columns from above falling on them, so down they go too.
The floors continue to fail, falling into what's left of the towers, leaving behind disjointed, unconnected
columns that can do only one thing : fall. The central core columns survive for a while, to an astonishing 700 feet height,
in the case of both towers ! Very very strong, but not meant to stand up without lateral support.
Now the CRUNCH question...
How come the "expulsions" appear every three floors and not every floor then ??
There is a short video by mechanical engineer Gordon Ross which clearly demonstates this (see below).
Link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615
---
Lastly, if you examine the WTC1 videos, i.e.
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-jYSy1SxsI
---
Please explain how it is observed in the above video (if as you state the floors compressed the air as they fell very quicky)...
That the ejections at the southwest corner are seen many floors ahead of the northwest corner ejections ?
---
I would be interested in your explanations
Best wishes
uncrunching your question...
Gordon Ross' example of every three floors...
I have not studies that claim, but I do see that his example
shows WTC 2, where the collapse starts just above one of the
skylobbies. Could be an influence.
His claim that the outer columns were blown is completely unsubstantiated.
That would be quite clearly visible, with the columns popping sideways accompanied by some flash
evert 3rd floor. Show me where that happens.
The footage from the foot of the towers, of the start of the collapse front or wave or whatever we should call it,
shows uniform, floor by floor destruction. So does the video you posted above.
So how come Mr. Ross' theory doesn't apply there ?
Now the other video.
It does show a difference in where the wave is vertically when comparing the different corners of WTC 1.
But the floors were made up of many separate sections. There is no reason for the entire floor to fall in one piece.
The principle I have outlined works for sections of floors too.
And there is no reason that the phenomenon of floors falling in sections makes CD more likely in any way.
one small but important
one small but important addition :
the way the perimeter columns continue to stand after the wave passed means that this was
a downward force. A fast, sharp downward jolt rips the floors off from their light brackets, never
meant to deal with anything other than static vertical loads and some lateral loads too.
Now, a major problem with the CD theory is that it necessarily implies explosive or perhaps incendiary forces,
but how would these be so neatly and powerfully directed downward that the perimeter columns would not fall
as a result of their force ? If these charges were hidden, as we must assume they were, how would they instantly force the
floors down at what you all like to call near freefall speed ? I'd expect the charges to push the floors under which they were
placed to first move upward, not immediately down at such velocity.
Can you explain that while pointing to the video you posted ?
Tell me how you see the charges at work and how these floors are coming down so fast and so uniformly as a result
of controlled demolition.....
Red Herring...
You ask...
Tell me how you see the charges at work and how these floors are coming down so fast and so uniformly as a result of controlled demolition.....
The floors did not fall down quickly, it was unnecessary...
The outer core columns to which the floors were attached were targetted (see Gordon Ross video above), the exterior columns near the corners were "blown" which allowed massive (30+ floors of intact exterior columns) portions of the exterior face to fall away from the tower, taking whatever was still attached with them.
I.e. what was seen falling on the "Winter Gardens" is a perfect example.
Good luck with you research, best wishes
a quick first response :
a quick first response :
the floors did not fall down quickly, it was unnecessary ?
WHAT ? What happened to the freefall speed that would
result from all the resistance being blown out of the way below
by charges ?
' with whatever was still attached to them "
My point : nothing was attached to the perimeter columns when they fell.
Show me any image of a portion of perimeter colukmns falling down
with anything attached at all. Show me where bits of floor were still attached ?
The connections of floor to perimeter columns were severed, sheared clean off.
These brackets were not strong, because they were never designed to hold in those circumstances.
Here's just one example of intact flooring...
pictured south of WTC2 (near where St Nicholas Church on Liberty St used to be, west of Bankers Trust)...
You said... Show me where bits of floor were still attached ?
If you look at the bottom of the picture you can see remnants of flooring and trusses.
I'm a little busy today to scan through 1000's of images but I found this one in the "Iron Workers" set, "IRON -> B_Disk -> 012_12.JPG"
Best wishes
thanks it's one of the
thanks it's one of the perimeter columns at the very bottom of the tower.
You can see its tapered form.
I can't quite see how the floor remnants are attached, but they may be.
Can I access these photos ? I would gladly scan them.
I've never been able to find good photos, detailed, of the rubble and remnants in the pile.
The mushroom cloud is not the effect of floor falling on floor.
Think about the sequence.
1. Floor falls on floor, pumping air out the window as it falls.
2. Floor pulverizes concrete on lower floor.
How does the concrete get blown out the window?
Put a soda cracker in your hand. That represents the concrete on
the lower floor. Slap your other hand down on the soda cracker.
Does dust fly all over the room?
Demolition was tradecraft
The demolitions accomplished more than drama. They destroyed evidence of multiple crimes. The WTC housed white collar fraud investigations from NYC to SEC to FBI to DEA. You also have the WTC basement gold heist on 9-11, and complicity in 9-11 itself. All that crime scene evidence had to go.
The largest CIA office outside Langley was WTC 7. They played a classic CIA get-out-of-jail-free joker card. Same as OKC, where Waco files lived. Bang, poof, files conveniently "lost" in confusion. National security goons clean up the mess. Sorry judge, we'd comply with your subpoena, but evil terrorists destroyed our filing cabinets. And aw shucks, we forgot to make copies.
WTC owners got demolitions without legal hassles, city hearings, or eco restraints, plus bonus checks for insurance fraud. Mandatory asbestos removal on the WTC would have been $billions. They got the towers down for free and even collected terror insurance, with no liability for asbestos/nanodust/radioactivity, which to this day is killing 9-11 first responders. Which of course is another bonus, because you want crime scene witnesses dying off sooner than later.
Bless his heart, Tom Engelhardt remains stuck in the engineered left/right mindtrap. The Patriot Act was not a right-wing hobbyhorse as he calls it. The main assembler was Viet Dinh, a Harvard Law / CFR flunky, now employed by Jesuit Georgetown. I say "assembler" because these provisions lay around for ages. So Tom's right-wing lineup is Harvard, Georgetown, CFR. Uh huh, sure, bunch of skinheads.