Thursday, February 11, 2010

Republican says U.S. might have contributed to collapse of World Trade Center buildings

Maybe this is what Debra Medina was talking about? Bizarre announcement of WTC 7 collapse while the building was still standing. How did they know it was going to collapse? I remember on September 11, 2001 hearing a reporter say that they were getting people away from building 7 because there was a "bomb" in it and it was going to collapse.

Texas Republican Debra Medina clearly states that the U.S. had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the airplane collisions with the World Trade Center in September 2001. "There is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way." Medina suspects, however, that the dramatic collapse of the buildings, a phenomenon never before seen in a skyscraper fire, might have been designed by someone with foreknowledge of the attacks. Motive? To inflame public opinion to support a war against Iraq.

Texas gov. candidate questions any US role in 9/11
Associated Press
...Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were "some very good arguments" that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001..."I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn," Medina said. "I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there."...

See also:


Anonymous said...

Not sure why this is a story. Why should we listen to this crackpot who clearly doesn't have any information on how the WTC towers were supposed to collapse? She says that we hadn't seen this happen before in a skyscraper fire. Well, not all fires are created equal.

The WTC attacks had jets with their gas tanks nearly full with jet fuel. That fuel burns very hot, enough to melt the structural supports of the skyscraper. Once one floor went down, the rest of it was sure to follow.

Maura Larkins said...

Have you looked at this study?
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven;
Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False

by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Global Research, September 14, 2009

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. [1]

The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?” [2]

From a purely scientific perspective, of course, there would have been an obvious answer. Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition. From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.

However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.” The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.

This meant that people had to believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Building 7 had been brought down by fire, even though, as Glanz wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” [3] And so, this building’s collapse had to be considered a mystery – insofar as it was considered at all...