9/11: Flashes before the tower collapses

People who rely on emotional reasoning and not logic. Don't shoot the messenger. I couldn't agree more. But that's what you or I are up against if we attempt to debunk someone operating with such a mentality. I'm wanting to get feedback on how to respond to that sort of thinking. So far, the feedback has been that it's speculative thinking and cannot be debated by evidence.
Yes that is the big problem. It's a relatively straightforward thing to debunk every little piece of "evidence" one by one. It's much harder to get someone seriously emotionally invested in something to see the house of cards is made of nothing substantial.
 
No, but the "planners" would SERIOUSLY increase the complexity, cost and risk of detection of the whole operation by ensuring the buildings came down. They would have to have a REALLY good reason.

As long as the planes hit the buildings, it was guaranteed to be the worst Terrorist attack on the US ever. If the planes missed the buildings, it would be very strange to bring them down.

True, but the difficulties are a separate issue.
 
True, but the difficulties are a separate issue.
No they aren't, they are all part of the same decision making process. Basic Cost/Benefit /Risk Analysis.


Scenario A) maybe 70% chance the people will back us on this war. We need planes flown into buildings We pretend to be Al Qaeda and recruit some disaffected arabs. If we get caught recruiting them, we say it was a sting operation. Very little can come back on us and even if we pay for food and flying lessons etc, we can do the whole operation fro less than $100,000.

Scenario B) We make sure the buildings collapse. Maybe 75-80% chance of the people backing us. But now, as WELL as recruiting suicide pilots, we now have to rig 2 large buildings with super special silent explosives without any of the 50,000 people who work in them noticing. We can't guarantee that the planes will hit a certain floor so we will have to hedge our bets and put explosives on Many of the upper floors. We also have to somehow find a way for the explosives to not go off when hit by the plane or due to the subsequent fire until we are ready. Benefit up slightly ,. Cost now more than 10 times as expensive once we weigh in the explosives, and the time it will take for the demolition experts who need to be paid well to murder US citizens to plant all that, plus the extra effort required to do all this in secret. Risk probably 600% more likely of something going wrong or us getting caught. Especially if we also blow up a 3rd building for no discernible reason.

Scenario C ) To make sure we hit the floor we need to, instead of having a plane hit the building we have a cruise missile, with a 3D hOlographic projector on to make it LOOK like a plane. WE cut down the explosives and the time needed to plant them, BUT Cruise missiles are REALLY expensive, convincing 3D holograms are really expensive and probably don't exist, plus, as we have still got to hijack some planes anyway, we now have to find somewhere to land 4 planes, murder the 200 odd people on board and dispose of all the bodies without anyone seeing THAT.

For a tiny extra benefit, each new plan gets way more expensive, way more complicated, way more likely to go wrong,and way more likely to get caught doing it.

If YOU were the "planners", seriously which option would YOU pick?
 
Of course they are both parts of the decision making process, but they are separate parts. First you decide what you need. Then you decide if it's feasible and if so, how to do it.
 
No they aren't, they are all part of the same decision making process. Basic Cost/Benefit /Risk Analysis.


Scenario A) maybe 70% chance the people will back us on this war. We need planes flown into buildings We pretend to be Al Qaeda and recruit some disaffected arabs. If we get caught recruiting them, we say it was a sting operation. Very little can come back on us and even if we pay for food and flying lessons etc, we can do the whole operation fro less than $100,000.

Scenario B) We make sure the buildings collapse. Maybe 75-80% chance of the people backing us. But now, as WELL as recruiting suicide pilots, we now have to rig 2 large buildings with super special silent explosives without any of the 50,000 people who work in them noticing. We can't guarantee that the planes will hit a certain floor so we will have to hedge our bets and put explosives on Many of the upper floors. We also have to somehow find a way for the explosives to not go off when hit by the plane or due to the subsequent fire until we are ready. Benefit up slightly ,. Cost now more than 10 times as expensive once we weigh in the explosives, and the time it will take for the demolition experts who need to be paid well to murder US citizens to plant all that, plus the extra effort required to do all this in secret. Risk probably 600% more likely of something going wrong or us getting caught. Especially if we also blow up a 3rd building for no discernible reason.

Scenario C ) To make sure we hit the floor we need to, instead of having a plane hit the building we have a cruise missile, with a 3D hOlographic projector on to make it LOOK like a plane. WE cut down the explosives and the time needed to plant them, BUT Cruise missiles are REALLY expensive, convincing 3D holograms are really expensive and probably don't exist, plus, as we have still got to hijack some planes anyway, we now have to find somewhere to land 4 planes, murder the 200 odd people on board and dispose of all the bodies without anyone seeing THAT.

For a tiny extra benefit, each new plan gets way more expensive, way more complicated, way more likely to go wrong,and way more likely to get caught doing it.

If YOU were the "planners", seriously which option would YOU pick?
To address the specific evidence of explosives: I've heard it tossed about on various comment sections, forums, and CT websites - during my own CT days - that the youngest Bush - Marvin - was a principle investor in the security firm that handled WTC security.
Apologies if this has already been debunked. I see it as mere coincidence - without a shred of hard evidence that they did anything but provide security. With such a large crew, someone would be bound to spill the beans. I feel it's at least pertinent to debunking the explosive charge claim. Thoughts on this? Any decent debunking done on the Marvin Bush angle that I can take a look at?
 
To address the specific evidence of explosives: I've heard it tossed about on various comment sections, forums, and CT websites - during my own CT days - that the youngest Bush - Marvin - was a principle investor in the security firm that handled WTC security.
Apologies if this has already been debunked. I see it as mere coincidence - without a shred of hard evidence that they did anything but provide security. With such a large crew, someone would be bound to spill the beans. I feel it's at least pertinent to debunking the explosive charge claim. Thoughts on this? Any decent debunking done on the Marvin Bush angle that I can take a look at?
At first glance this is true, though whether he worked there leading up to 9/11 is unclear. Marvin Bush was director of Securacom/Stratesec from 1996-2000, according to his wiki page.

Stratesec listed WTC as a client for it's '97 IPO, again from it's wiki. However, the Stratesec page says M. Bush was on the board of directors '93-'01. Which dates are true, or if both sets are, is unclear.
 
To address the specific evidence of explosives: I've heard it tossed about on various comment sections, forums, and CT websites - during my own CT days - that the youngest Bush - Marvin - was a principle investor in the security firm that handled WTC security.
Apologies if this has already been debunked. I see it as mere coincidence - without a shred of hard evidence that they did anything but provide security. With such a large crew, someone would be bound to spill the beans. I feel it's at least pertinent to debunking the explosive charge claim. Thoughts on this? Any decent debunking done on the Marvin Bush angle that I can take a look at?

Quickly without wishing to go off topic, as this specific claim has been debunked

But, A. Why is it in anyway remarkable that the son of the Ex president and ex head of the CIA has a career in "security"

And B, if you were planning a covert operation that involved compromising the security of the WTC, what family name would you want as far away from any possible connection with it
 
...
And B, if you were planning a covert operation that involved compromising the security of the WTC, what family name would you want as far away from any possible connection with it
Ha! And now you know why Marvin left Securacom before 9/11/2001! [/TRUTHERMODE]
 
Quickly without wishing to go off topic, as this specific claim has been debunked

But, A. Why is it in anyway remarkable that the son of the Ex president and ex head of the CIA has a career in "security"

And B, if you were planning a covert operation that involved compromising the security of the WTC, what family name would you want as far away from any possible connection with it
No argument from me with that logic.
 
One explanation for the flashes I've never seen put forth and one I, as a 30 year veteran firefighter, thought of right away is that the flashes are fire alarm strobes which are in every high-rise building I've ever seen. We get automatic fire alarm calls all the time and see those type of flashes quite often. The strobes are on every floor and since they are strobes they flash quite quickly. If seen through smoke and haze they could be easily mistaken for small explosions.
 
One explanation for the flashes I've never seen put forth and one I, as a 30 year veteran firefighter, thought of right away is that the flashes are fire alarm strobes which are in every high-rise building I've ever seen. We get automatic fire alarm calls all the time and see those type of flashes quite often. The strobes are on every floor and since they are strobes they flash quite quickly. If seen through smoke and haze they could be easily mistaken for small explosions.


Wow! Charles J. Mikkelson, you just blew my mind! That is the first time I have heard that as a possible explanation for the flashes...of course it "could" be fire alarm strobes!!...why not?...They are EVERYWHERE!!...I like it!...as reasonable an explanation as falling debris (white papers) or drywall or glass.
 
Wow! Charles J. Mikkelson, you just blew my mind! That is the first time I have heard that as a possible explanation for the flashes...of course it "could" be fire alarm strobes!!...why not?...They are EVERYWHERE!!...I like it!...as reasonable an explanation as falling debris (white papers) or drywall or glass.

Possible but Aluminothermics are also possible, but not charges.
 
Back
Top