Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

[Jones Beene]

Whoa... Reading the report, and others on this site - there is not a real serious mention of "bombs" and the report tries to focus mainly on the third building, not the Twin towers. The "broader conspiracy" is pure crap, IMHO... but as to Building 7, there is a plausible case being made here and this limited version should be taken at least half-seriously. Forget the Towers, if there is any truth to any "plot", and there may be - it is ALL about the smaller (47 story) building which was not hit on 9/11 by the hijacked airliners. This lesser-included premise is that the building 7 was already rigged with "thermite" which is not a "bomb".   True, the perverted-intent behind that situation does seems to be that the whole building would be taken down in case of "emergency" - honest tenants and all. This trade-off comes from another black eye given to us in the Mid-East, but there is some plausibility to it. And one can see why the Dept of Homeland Security wants to keep it totally hush-hush as who knows what other buildings are so rigged.   Thermite, BTW is used to melt steel, and must be carefully arranged and placed far in advance... and lots of it would have been needed. What "emergency" would warrant a building to be "secretly rigged" with apporximately 50 tons of thermite - and then used daily by thousands of workers, unknown to them ? Answer: Can you spell CIA and the Iran Crisis?    [According to this site, that is - and all I am saying is that they have made a plasuible case, unlike most of the other WTC conspiracy baloney which is all over the internet]. The CIA.'s "undercover" New York office was a large part of the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, which was the smaller office tower, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning and the one Steve Jones refers to mainly although he gets caught-up in too much of the broader BS about a more massive plot. He should just stick with building 7.   Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. was said to have dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents, but they were not very concerned... as the building was probably rigged and well designed to totally destroy everything in such an emergency - just like we should have done in IRAN years earlier, in which case hastily "destroyed" CIA documents were pieced together to the embarassment of all. The agency's secret New York station was said to behind the "false front" of a federal trade organization, which officials have requested that The NY Times not identify and they didn't. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to recruit foreign diplomats at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and do industrial espionage.   The plan had been apparently laid out years ago by the agency, and possibly by Bush senior after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. was not able to destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded reports. Since that disaster, the agency has taken more certain tactics.... but this is almost criminal to have let the building be used by other tenants when it could have been destroyed with the flip of a switch. What about a lightning strike? Why did not they just buy there own small building?   This site claims that the Iran fiasco is why the building had been carefully rigged with thermite - just in case terrorists did take over the whole building in a real life type remake of Bruce Willis's DIE HARD (1988) which was supposedly one of the senior Bush's favorite movies ;-)   I liked the first one too. BTW the movie was a rip-off of NOTHING LASTS FOREVER by Roderick Thorp and if anybody was inspired by that, it was probably old Bin hissef. Even the "Ultimate Die Hard dvd" has little mention of the original pulp novel, other than director John McTiernan admitting he never read it. Probably best but it does picture a WTC look-alike on the cover.   Jones