fleetmouse wrote:I think the technical details a) don't make the case by themselves and b) serve to distract from larger problems in the conspiracist narrative - for example, in the case of the Pentagon - all the squabbling over the exact trajectory of the plane and the amount / patten of debris distracts from the question of what happened to the fucking plane full of passengers if it was actually a missile that hit the building?!
Hardly a problem. The majority of skeptics of the official conspiricist narrative do not hold the missile/no-plane theory. IOW, it isn't a representative position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Or in the case of the WTC - how, precisely, were three enormous and well trafficked buildings rigged for demolition with not a single person noticing or spilling the beans?
Again, not much of an issue as defenders of the official conspiracy theory would like to make it out to be. This has been addressed numerous times:
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access
How could the Twin Towers, with so many tenants, and so many columns (240 perimeter columns, and 47 core columns) be wired for a controlled demolition without the operation being noticed?
This question assumes that the demolition of the Twin Towers would have to be set up like a conventional commercial one, with fuses and large numbers of cutting charges. First, note that the demolitions could have been controlled using wireless detonators, which have been commercially available for decades. Attack Scenario 404 describes how the charges could have been activated via radio signals in a precise fashion controlled by a computer.
Second, the demolitions may have been achieved without accessing the perimeter columns. The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition -- perhaps two orders of magnitude more. That gave the planners much more leeway in the placement of charges required to totally destroy the buildings. The core structures contained the building services such as elevators, and plumbing and cabling shafts. It would have been easy for people who controlled building security to surreptitiously install devices in hidden portions of the cores. Any such job would have been far simpler than the structural retrofit of the CitiCorp Tower in New York, carried out unbeknownst to the building's very tenants. 1
Third, explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.