Conspiracy Discussion, Part 1

This entry is part 41 of 62 in the series 2010

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 1
Posted Sept 13, 2010
Actually as far as the 3 WTC buildings being taken down by explosives the counter arguments are all speculative theories with no precedents. Where as the facts of how the buildings came down have hundreds of precedents and all of them are from buildings taken down by explosives. High rise steel buildings do not disintegrate in mid air and collapse at free fall speed into their own foot print from fire or planes period there is no precedent in history.

A nuke would have incited the people much more and made people much more suspicious. What is so complex about it? The buildings were supposedly undergoing renovations for over a year so there would be little if any wonder about construction types in the buildings. I used to maintained networks in some high rises in LA and you can get around in those buildings in the utility areas with out being seen most of the time too.

One can speculate on it being to complex to pull off never the less the facts are the buildings were taken down with explosives.
IYou say there are hundreds of precedents demonstrating a WTC type demolition.  Can you cite just one?  The largest one I can find as only twenty some stories.

There were not enough renovations going on to secretly have a crew of hundreds go in and pull apart the buildings clear to the steel beams and plant and wire the explosives.  Someone would have seen then in there with blow torches cutting he necessary Vs in the steel.

Why haven’t one of the hundreds of necessary workers talked let alone the other conspirators?

Why didn’t the explosives go off as soon as the planes hit?

Why was there no sound of the explosive force as happens in regular demolitions.  There are so many unanswered questions it is beyond belief.

A small nuke (or a dozen other things) would have been much easier had there been a conspiracy and it could have been easily blamed on terrorists.

Check out this short video in demolition:

You really ought to watch the History Channel one also:
History Chanel Video

From Wikipedia
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, “These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the ‘reverse scientific method.’ They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.”

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, “How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash […] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?”

Here is a short film explaining the collapse of WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.
WTC7 Video

No need for secrets they were supposedly removing asbestos.

I can’t find any evidence of this on the site you referenced or any other site.  Do you have a reference?

Like I said I have spent time in high rises in LA you don’t need to pull anything apart there are access points to the column areas on every floor this is where they run all the utilities. They were renovating supposedly to clean out asbestos etc no one would question what they were doing and people would be kept out of those areas due to asbestos and cleaning a steel column to metal would have been chalked up to getting rid of asbestos and the regular people in the building would rarely see them as they would be in the access areas or if not the area they were working would be cleared due to asbestos.

I can’t find any evidence that anyone was clearing out asbestos and if there was someone doing renovation there should be a record. They would have had to supposedly renovate the whole building to wire it for explosives and I can’t find any evidence of this.

JJ Quote
Why haven’t one of the hundreds of necessary workers talked let alone the other conspirators?

You don’t need hundreds of people I have seen documentaries on TV of teams of ten to twenty wiring a whole building for demo.

These were not just any buildings.  If the largest building destroyed by demolition explosives took 20 people then the three WTC buildings with over 10 million square feet would have taken well over 100 workers to prepare them.

People have talked and been dismissed as crackpots.

Maybe you can supply an interview with a couple of these.  If they are for real they should have something on youtube.

JJ Quote:
Why didn’t the explosives go off as soon as the planes hit?  Why was there no sound of the explosive force as happens in regular demolitions.

There are many reports of explosions listen to firemen and others reporting multiple explosions


Everyone agrees there were a number of explosions most probably caused by broken gas lines but where is the audio of explosions that have the distinct sound of explosives from demolition???  This video (Click Here) gives the sound at a real demolition and then gives the sound of the twin towers coming down.  Obviously there wasn’t demolition type explosions that brought down the towers.

From the time the first plane hit there were thousands of recording devices active.  Surely one of them would have picked up the explosions but none have that I can find.  How about you?  Can you produce just one recording proving there were real demolition type explosions???

JJ Quote
You say there are hundreds of precedents demonstrating a WTC type demolition.
Can you cite just one? The largest one I can find as only twenty some stories. (Note Blayne found one 32 stories)

There are probably hundreds alone in Las Vegas they demo buildings this way all
the time


I watched these are they are nothing like the collapse of the Twin Towers.  The collapse of these  began at the top and proceeded downwards.  The examples you gave did not do this. Let us see a demolition expert prepare a 110 story building and fly a plane into it without igniting the explosions and then hours later begin the explosions right where the plane hit. How would one go about doing that?

Also you never answered why the two planes did not ignite the explosives as soon as they hit.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 2

This entry is part 42 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Sept 14, 2010
What needs to be answered first is how the buildings fell through all their mass at free fall speed when that is impossible without explosives clearing the way down.

And what makes you think it’s impossible without explosives or even that it will happen with explosives?
The Twin Towers didn’t have a free fall. You can read about it here:

Here is an explantion for WTC7
To many people the apparent collapse of the buildings at ‘near free-fall-speed’ is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of the CD theory. However it is also the most easily dealt with on scientific grounds. The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively ‘removed’ from the building are the lowest. (Further charges are placed in the building if and only if it is necessary to guide its fall in a certain way, for example to collapse a building into its footprint.) In a 20-story building, for example, the bottom floor or floors is extensively rigged with explosive, to remove its load-bearing capability. The remaining 18-odd storeys pancake into the region of the destroyed floor, one at a time, raising exactly the same question as to how is it that this process can take place so quickly? The same question applies to conventional demolition, and to the Tower buildings. The difference is that the pancaking occurs high in the Twin Towers (‘top-down pancaking’), and at the base of WTC 7 (‘bottom-up pancaking’). In the usual bottom-up process each floor impedes the process of collapse through its structural rigidity, just as much as one would expect in the top-down processes in the Towers. Although no text-book account is available which might give a simple answer to the issue of the speed of gravitational collapse of buildings, one might draw on the analogy of a hydraulic press compressing, say, a car body shell. The car body shell may seem strong enough to withstand everyday loadings, but, when it takes the hit of a high-powered press, it collapses with astonishing speed. 18 storeys of a big building, moving even rather sedately as they would at the onset of collapse, probably outstrip the forces of even the biggest hydraulic press ever built.

It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines: “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” This is simply unscientific; not corresponding to the reality of how controlled demolition is carried out. Returning to our example of the collapse of a 20-story building, there is simply no need to explode each floor, and such explosions are certainly not the explanation of why buildings fall so fast in controlled demolition. All the calculations produced by the CD theorists, designed to prove their theory, are based on the wrong premise, that explosions accelerate the descent. They don’t: it is purely gravity that does it.

Even if you accept the unprecedented theory that the fires weakened the steel it only would be at the one point and the supposed pancaking floors would hit the lower floors and columns and mass that has not been weakened causing great resistance and slowing it down tipping over, it could not have fallen at free fall speed without explosives it was physically impossible.

Most engineers who have studied this disagree with you. There has not been one study supporting you that has gotten peer review support.

So you can question how it was possible to pull it off but never the less it is already proven it was done by explosives with the forensic evidence.

It has not been proven. The proof is in the opposite direction.

Take a listen to this video of the fall of WTC7.
WTC7 Video

Do you hear any explosives going off? How does a building get demolished with explosives when there is no sound of explosions? Did they use some silent explosives from Area 51?

You indicate that Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome may have set the explosive for the towers. Here is a video of one of their demolitions. Notice the obvious explosive noise that is missing from WTC7 and the Twin Towers?
Kingdome Demolition
You might also ask how all the explosives might have been planted in that much smaller structure without being discovered. If you couldn’t do it there in secret then the Twin Towers would have been impossible.

…why do you think it is impossible to get a hundred people in there as construction workers when the building had thousands of people working in it daily?

Preparing for demolition is a pretty intrusive thing. The owner of the building and management would have had to been in on the conspiracy as well. If Turner Construction did the evil deed then you would think that one of the employees would have talked by now. Or you’d think some rich Moslem would have offered one of them a pile of money to talk to exonerate his own people.

Also there is the little problem of no fuses, caps and other demolition materials ever being found at the site.

Here is an interesting compilation of whistle blowers who have tried to come forward:

Whistle Blowers

There’s no whistle blowers there of anything but conjecture. Where is a real whistleblower – someone who planted the explosives or assisted in killing the passengers of the planes? If the conspiracy theory was correct we’d have a real whistle blower by now.

This video gives the sound at a real demolition and then gives the sound of the twin towers coming down. Obviously there wasn’t demolition type explosions that brought down the towers.

Here are some sound recordings (Sound Recordings)


That weak sound just does not compare to a real demolition as referenced above. Everyone acknowledges there were some gas line explosions, but they sound different than demolition explosions.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 3

This entry is part 43 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Sept 16, 2010
first want to state that I have no problem with Blayne or anyone else bringing up honest objections to anything I write. Contrary to some critics, we do have independent thinkers here. Blayne has a very good mind that I admire and would much rather have him on my side, but when he is not I find must have very sound arguments.

Blayne points out one anomaly in the world trade Center collapse and that is the apparent free fall of WTC#7. Contrary to some conspiracy reports the other two did not freefall.

Most engineers and researchers who have looked into this do not see anything defying the laws of physics.

Now let us say that there was a demolition. One could use Blayne’s argument even here. He says to have a freefall you have to have no resistance. Are you telling me that a demolition can remove all resistance from the entire structure of a building? That doesn’t sound logical either. Yet we saw the building collapse at near freefall so we know it can be done. Now some say it fell faster than freefall so that also would seemingly defy the laws of physics no matter how you spin it.

Where has there ever been a free fall of a building 47 stories or higher from a proven demolition?


If a group of engineers could have planned 911 in advance none could have accurately predicted all the anomalies. That is because every big event that has ever happened before has anomalies that were unforeseen.

Before we landed a spacecraft on Venus scientists made many predictions that were wrong. But then when our instruments showed us the true reality we had to accept it. The same goes for our discoveries on Titan. No one was able to predict them all.

The granddaddy of them all was the moon landing. Many anomalies occurred that amateur scientists thought defied the laws of physics and the Moon Landing Hoax Theory was born. I would think that those who believe 911 was a conspiracy would also be convinced of the Moon Hoax arguments because they are even more convincing. I might consider them myself except for one thing.

We have proof positive that we went to the moon.

And just like 911 such a hoax would have to involved thousands of people who never talked about it.
In such a vast conspiracy such silence would be totally impossible.

The military cannot even keep any of its secrets. Even many that may endanger our service people’s lives are exposed through wikileaks publishing on the internet.

Now if do-gooders are motivated to reveal secrets that may endanger lives wouldn’t they be much more motivated to reveal the secrets of 911 when apparently evil conspirators are involved???

Such a leaker could go down in history as a great hero.

Here is a list of reasons I cannot swallow the 911 conspiracy theory.

(1) No clear motive.

One may say the motive is to give the government an excuse to take away our freedoms. Well Obama is doing a better job of that than any president we ever had and he completely ignores the 911 disaster. He is proof that 911 just was not needed if this was the plan.

(2) The chances of being exposed with such a complex conspiracy involving thousands of people would be too high.

(3) If there was a real conspiracy we would have had dozens of leaks by now, some appearing on 60 minutes.

(4) All three buildings were damaged by heat and fire. Why did tremendous heat and fire not set off the explosive charges in all three buildings long before they fell? The wiring would have also been short circuited by the heat and fire.

(5) The collapse of the Twin towers happened from the top down. This has never in the history of the planet happened to a large building through demolition. Why would conspirators attempt something that has never been tested or proven to work???

(6) There are no demolition-like sounds of explosives. Just watch the difference in this film:
That alone ought to convince a fair-minded person that no demolition was involved.

(7) I’ve studied both sides piece by piece and in each case the traditional argument makes the most sense. The only thing that raises a red flag at all is the anomaly of the free fall of WTC7 but a free fall through demolition seems just as mysterious for you still have resistance to overcome.

(8) The disaster took a trillion dollars out of our economy and more if you count the wars. How would conspirators benefit by such a loss? No one seemed to benefit but the real villains – Islamic terrorists.

(9) Turner Construction which is accused of setting the explosives had offices in the Twin Towers that were destroyed. Why weren’t their offices in a safe location if they knew what was going to happen?

If we look at the whole disaster the list could go on and on.

Keith quoting me:
writes the following,”…And just like 911 such a hoax would have to
involved thousands of people who never talked about it. In such a vast
conspiracy such silence would be totally impossible…”

There are examples of huge projects where many people have been involved and the
secret has been kept for many years and sometimes decades.
The three that come to mind are the Manhattan Project, Ultra Secret, and J.J.’s
own previous life conspiracy when he tried to eliminate Hitler. Silence is not
totally impossible. All of these projects involved large numbers of personnel
and were kept secret for a very long time.

As Ruth indicated it is possible to plan a conspiracy without being discovered. The reason for this is obvious. Often the conspirators are planning something of which no one is suspicious. The Nazis knew we were working on the bomb and we knew they were but did not know the details.


as soon as the bomb went off all our enemies went into hyperdrive to discover all the details. Sadly, Stalin discovered all our atomic secrets and this gave him a big advantage in developing his own nuclear program.

Then as soon as Valkyrie was executed most of the conspirators were revealed.

Now imagine this. Suppose the real purpose of the Manhattan project was to bomb New York. Do you think they could have kept that secret? No. it would have been revealed before the act. To think they could have bombed New York and blamed it on the Nazis and then nine years later most people still accept this because no leakers surface is just too fantastic to believe. Even so nine years after 911 there has not been one lowly laborer for the conspiracy to come forward.

The Pentagon probably has the most sophisticated video surveillance system in the world. Why
no video?

Let us just suppose that there was a conspiracy and they had power to make sure no videos would be taken. This is essential because they are going to send a missile and not a plane. They are going to hijack the plane in midair and kill all the passengers and dispose of the plane.

Now they have a major problem. Even though they have control of the Pentagon videos they have no control of videos made by citizens. When they send the missile there is at least a 50/50 chance that some citizen will take a video of the event that will clearly show what attacked the Pentagon. When considering this do you think they will take the chance of being exposed? I certainly wouldn’t if I were a conspirator.

In addition a number of eye witnesses have come forth and stated that it was a plane and not a missile that hit the Pentagon. I heard one witness on Coast to Coast say that he was on the ground and close enough to the plane to actually see some passengers through the windows just before it crashed.

Keith writes:
I do not believe the Pentagon only has one poor quality video.  I work at a paper mill and you can not enter the site without being caught on a high quality camera.  There is a Sony plant across the street which has even better video surveillance of their premises.  To think that the defensive nerve center of the western world has only one poor quality video of this plane hitting their building is preposterous.

(The real question is why they won’t release  any video?  I can only speculate their is something more amiss than an imagined cruise missile.  The whole government stance on 911 is a continual lack of candor.  One would think they want the public to believe in these conspiracies.  The same applies to the moon landings.  We have the technology to clearly photograph the landing modules on the moon but never produce anything but grainy shadow photos.  Both 911 and the alleged moon hoaxes can be put to rest, but the government does not seem interested in providing the necessary proof.)

Actually, you are the first person I’ve heard bring this up. I did a little digging and found that the one video that was released was not taken by the Pentagon but by a nearby Motel.  If the Pentagon has videos they do not seem to be saying much.  Unfortunately, the government is so secretive they look guilty even if they are not. Since we have 136 eye witnesses any video released shouldn’t have anything surprising in it. They confiscated the one video that was released and had to be sued before they released it.  You’d think it would therefore have something sinister in it, but then there was nothing.  Here’s a video to fuel your interest.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey