I'm working to find an article I saw. Apparently ownership of the Twin
Towers was turned over from the NY Port Authority to a private firm only
weeks before 9/11. A security company was hired to manage the buildings
with strong connections to the Bush family. The adjacent building that
housed the Giulliani offices was in fact destroyed (it's on video) and
it went down exactly like the towers. They said it was destroyed to
prevent the spread of fire but how could they have setup the explosives
in an hour time frame.
I don't find it implausible that demolitions people could set explosives and bring down a building in an hour. But I agree that the destruction of that other building is suspicious. Hell, there's so many suspicious aspects to 9/11 from all kinds of angles that it's hard to know where to start. Please do post that article if you find it.
There is a basic priciple in science and mathematics called Accams
razor which basically states that if there are multiple theories that
wxplain a given observation, the simplest theory is pribably correct.
the only problem I have with 911 report is that they pooh poohed the
failure of the fireproofing. I have written about that before.
Asbestos fireproofing works. But the asbestos fireproofing was never
installed in the upper floors of the towers and the substitute was
fluffy and could blow away in the eind of a fire. Thats why they did
such a lousy job explaining building 7. The fireproofing failed plain
and simple, with no damage from impact, just the turbulance of fore. I
guess they did not want ot panick people out of every other highrise
in the country. But a highrise with nin asbestos fireproofing is a
sisater redy to happen. Seeing as the government banned the asbestos,
they have the blood on thier hands. So they pooh poohed. Now the whole
report smells and the conspiracy vultures move in.+