Qui Bono? Who Benefits?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

"the long history of false-flag operations perpetrated by governments preparing their people for war."

"it seems highly probable that the perpetrators planned some technological means to insure the outcome."

According to a History Channel video on the Rockefeller's, the World Trade Center was constructed differently from most high rises. Most have the main support for the structure in the center. The World Trade Center was designed with the main support in the outer walls, ironically in order to protect it from collisions from airplanes. This is perhaps the primary reason why it collapsed in the way it did.

I do not at all agree with those who claim that our government was responsible for bringing about the attack. However, the Rockefeller's could have already planned it when they built the building.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Laurence,

Welcome to our forum, and thanks for the comments.

We're not claiming either, that the government was solely responsible for 9/11. I agree that the Rockefellers might also have been involved somehow.

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I do not think the people who rule this world are confined to any family lineage.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it is clear that the U.S. was the greatest beneficiary of the attack because it was given a mandate to wage war.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Most have the main support for the structure in the center. The World Trade Center was designed with the main support in the outer walls

The WTC had what are called "core columns". They were huge, ran the length of the building, and were fastened to bedrock. The outer walls were secondary supports.

A good description of them is located here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Here you can see them projecting above during construction:

 

[Charlie Prime]

...it is clear that the U.S. was the greatest beneficiary of the attack

Not unless you think Trillions in National Debt, crumbling infrastructure, and loss of civil liberties are beneficial.

Cui Bono is however a very good question for which to seek answers.

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thank you. You have shown that the History Channel video was incorrect and have exonerated the Rockefeller's.

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Not unless you think Trillions in National Debt, crumbling infrastructure, and loss of civil liberties are beneficial.

It is strange that you deny that there was any advantage at all for the U.S., Israel or the world. Is that at all reasonable or informed?

When the attacks happened I remembered my High School European history teacher spoke at length about the importance of the mandate in U.S. politics. So I realized that this attack gave the U.S. a mandate to take decisive action against terrorists.

I think that the many victims in the U.S., and many Americans who felt the need for the government to do more to fight terrorism before 9/11, must appreciate that the 9/11 attack provided a mandate for the U.S. to make a much stronger effort to fight terrorism. Also, around the Arabic world, it has often been commented on how 9/11 worked to the advantage of the U.S. and Israel so much so that they have often suggested Israel arranged it.

Strategically it seems that the U.S. may have managed to gain a huge advantage by placing military bases in Afghanistan. How can you say the trillions of dollars were not worth that?

 

[Jerry Russell]

The WTC had what are called "core columns". They were huge, ran the length of the building, and were fastened to bedrock. The outer walls were secondary supports.

It might be true that the outer columns of the WTC towers were "secondary" to the core. But, the History Channel was also at least partly correct. Compared to earlier towers, the WTC structures were unique in that the outer columns were also tremendously strong, to the extent that they were probably capable of supporting the entire weight of the building by themselves. Between the core and the exterior shell, the WTC buildings had huge, potentially open floor areas which were supported at the center by the core, and at the edges by the exterior columns.

This was in contrast to other traditional skyscrapers like the Empire State Building, which had columns and beams on regular spacing forming a rectangular grid. Thus, the floor spaces inside were interrupted at regular intervals by huge posts.

The WTC design was not regarded as completely successful: although floor areas were spacious, there was too much wind sway, and the windows were too small. As far as I know it was never copied. Some have suggested that the towers had outlived their usefulness, and that 911 can be regarded as part of a huge urban renewal program.

Not unless you think Trillions in National Debt, crumbling infrastructure, and loss of civil liberties are beneficial.

Depends on who is evaluating the benefits. Banks and other creditors like "Trillions in National Debt", because they own the bonds and collect the interest. Crumbling infrastructure and loss of civil liberties are only problems for ordinary, average citizens.

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The WTC design was not regarded as completely successful: although floor areas were spacious, there was too much wind sway, and the windows were too small. As far as I know it was never copied.

On the one hand, you say that the outer columns were probably enough to support the building alone, so that we might suppose this unique method of construction played no role in the way the building collapsed. On the other hand, you say it was never copied and there was too much wind sway, so we might suppose it played a significant role in the way the building collapsed.

 

[Charlie Prime]

It is strange that you deny that there was any advantage at all for the U.S., Israel or the world.

Please quote the text wherein I said that.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Laurence,

Sorry if my statements have been unclear. I did not mean to suggest that the unique method of construction played no role in the way the building collapsed. On the contrary, I would have to agree that this aspect may have been very important.

However, I do not believe the buildings collapsed solely because of the unique method of construction, or because of the airplane impacts & fires. This is where I would probably disagree with the History Channel.

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Not unless you think

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I do not believe the buildings collapsed solely because of the unique method of construction

I would suppose that the method, impacts and fires account for it. One wonders if the unique method was intended to contribute to the dramatic collapse?

 

[Jerry Russell]

So Laurence, what is your explanation for the huge amounts of dust that were pounded to a powder "finer than red blood cells", as Judy Wood's advocate here mentioned recently? How to account for the tremendous outward momentum of the steel columns and beams that were thrown out of the collapsing buildings? What about the bright explosive squibs? Pools of molten steel in the debris that stayed hot for weeks afterwards? I could go on, but I think you get my point?

 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

So Laurence, what is your explanation

I do not have any more details to offer. I am satisfied that the collapse did not require explosives.

 

[Charlie Prime]

...what is your explanation for the huge amounts of dust that were pounded to a powder "finer than red blood cells"

I don't think the dust is really an issue. I've destroyed concrete slabs and structures with heavy equipment. I had to wear dust masks because concrete produces large quantities of dust when you bust it up.

Each floor of the WTC consisted of a thin layer of concrete, probably cheaply made. Drop a hundred of those on top of each other from a 1/5 of a mile up in the air, and you're going to get massive quantities of dust. No mystery there.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Charlie & Laurence,

The issue with the dust is subtle: with ordinary heavy equipment & pounding, you get dust with a much larger particle size than what was found at the WTC.

But for both of you, if you're satisfied with the explanation that the WTC collapses were a result of fire & gravity driven collapse, I can see that my hypothesis would have little to offer. It's easy to google up a long list of advocates on both sides of the issue (explosive demolition vs. fire / gravity / construction defects), and I wasn't intending to re-hash the entire debate that with my article.

 

[Charlie Prime]

...I wasn't intending to re-hash the entire debate that with my article.

I believe Ziocons took down the buildings with cutter charges. Which article are you referring to? I'm sorry but I'm new here and have not read all your articles yet, (but intend to as time permits).

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Charlie, thanks for your interest. The article I was referring to is this one: http://postflaviana.org/explosive-puzzle-nuclear-fusion-wtc-911/, in which I suggest that micro-nuclear explosives based on some secret pure fusion technology were used at the WTC. I argue that this is the "best fit" to all the known facts. The articles at http://postflaviana.org/haroches-cockroach-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/ and http://postflaviana.org/deuterium-shell-game/ are technical discussions about how such micro-fusion weapons might be implemented.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Thank you Mr. Jerry!

I look forward to reading your article.