More on silly 9/11 conspiracy theories

As an example of the sort of silly conspiracy-mongering George Monbiot was talking about in his article in the Guardian on Tuesday (which I linked), here is a reply to it (third letter down), which was published in the newspaper yesterday:

What if the “official” account of what happened on 9/11 is false? What if, in fact, it’s a lie, and a big one at that, complete with corporate/media/propaganda cover-up? Without backing from the media the story wouldn’t fly. What would that make this “war on terror”? A fraud? Since when do steel buildings freefall to the ground, like the World Trade Centre? Ever watched the video of it coming down? They didn’t play it much on CNN or NBC. Ever wonder why? Because it’s the smoking gun of the whole thing. It’s proof because it’s an obvious controlled demolition, which we all know takes weeks of planning, hence, foreknowledge of the attack, which means, an inside job.

The collapse of the towers was played, over and over again, on British TV, and it seemed obvious that a building would come down if a part was blown away far enough from the top, causing the top few storeys to crash down because what was holding them up had weakened from the heat and been taken away altogether by the impact. However, precisely because controlled demolitions take time and are invariably done after all the fixtures and fittings have been removed, and because there are not so many people in the controlled demolition industry that the government could find enough of them willing to take out two large buildings and neither tip off the WTC management, someone close to the workers or the local media in advance nor to talk to anyone about it afterwards, it is simply not possible for it to have been a controlled demolition.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

You may also like...