Because 9/11 wasn't necessarily orchestrated by people in the U.S. government. There were probably government accomplices who made certain things happen, but the evidence much more strongly points to Mossad. Also, planting WMD in Iraq would be much more difficult than demolishing the WTC. Not saying that was a simple task, but procuring, shipping, and planting WMD to Iraq would have been very difficult. If it was that easy then any crazy dictator would be doing it all the time. Timing a building demolition with some known terrorist activity seems simple compared to international WMD running.

Also, planting WMD in Iraq would be much more difficult than demolishing the WTC.

Really the alleged 9/11 CD CT would be easier then some Nigerian Yellow Cake Uranium lying about some cave? Or some old Russian nerve gas canisters in a bunker?

procuring, shipping, and planting WMD to Iraq would have been very difficult.

Yet procuring, shipping and planting nanothermite in the WTC complex (secretly) would be easier. As well as hijacking 4 airliners and having them hit precisely (to avoid areas w thermite). Remember the administration definition of WMD wasn't just nuclear weapons, but any chemical/biological weapon. The neo cons still call some aluminum tubes they found as evidence of WMD.

They tried, they failed.

portland.indymedia.org

The USA knew that Saddam had WMD's, cause the USA has all the receipts.

Because they were able to accomplish their mission without going to those extremes.

The US sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the 80s. That's why 'mustard gas' was such an issue when we invaded in the Gulf War. I don't think 'the guvment' did 9/11. A corporate paramilitary firm with direct ties to the government, i.e. Halliburton and Dick Cheney, did 9/11 for a variety of reasons, namely to drive profit margins. The government isn't 'one single entity.' While that's how the executive branch wants it, the government is made up of pluralistic competing agencies that aren't necessarily 'in on it together.'

It's hard or impossible for corporations like Halliburton to get a hold of chemical weapons. On the other hand, taking control of a few jets and planting some thermite isn't nearly such a difficult task. Besides, if they achieved their goals with 9/11--consolidating profits for the military industrial complex and causing mass politicized fear for political constituents--why would they even need to plant chemical weapons in the first place?

It's not really a loose end if no one cares is it? Once we were there, that's all that really mattered. No one was, and no one ever will be prosecuted for the lies. Hell, it didn't even cost the Republicans the '04 election.

I'm not arguing for or against any 911 CS. I just don't see how this little fact disproves anything. Additionally, had they actually tried to fabricate WMD's that would have created a whole new net of lies to be snared in. What would they be? What would be the back story behind there origin? It was far easier to just do what they did, and claim "bad intelligence".

I think you hit the nail on the head. They were too distracted......people were still trying to get by in life, so the WMD thing just went by the wayside. Everyone just thought to themselves, "oh well, its not my responsibility". Too few people care enough to look into this.

Or, at least, have Iraqis as the fall guys. Then they would not even have needed the WMD claim.

Unless the demolition of the towers and the planes hitting were separate events. Perhaps the hijack planning was discovered and allowed to happen.

So somehow they let the planes hit, but decided to put in some explosives just in case the planes were not enough? Does that really make sense?

The planes were not enough. Three planes could have hit each building, and they still would not have collapsed in a steady (not slowing) top-to-bottom process as they did. It's structurally absurd.

they still would not have collapsed in a steady (not slowing) top-to-bottom process

Actually, that is exactly how they would have collapse if the problem came from the top. Once the top starts to fall with each floor there is more weight coming down and so more force on each floors joints. It would collapse from the top at just sort of free fall. If it was exploded we would see collapsing occurring at each point of explosion rather than from the top down.

Actually, what you are saying is totally incorrect.

Think of it like crushing a tin can with your foot:

In this case, all of the force comes from the top (ie. your foot). And when that happens, does the can collapse symmetrically from top to bottom ? NO ;) It crumples asymmetrically -- perhaps a little collapse in the middle of the can, then a bit at the bottom, then perhaps some at the top, etc. until the entire can is flat.

Further, you need an ENORMOUS downward force vs. structural resistance ratio in order for something like that to even be possible in the first place. A foot (with +100lbs of weight) vs. a can (with relatively little structural resistance) is a good example of how a "collapse from the top" CAN (no pun intended) take place.

However, in the event of WTC 1 & 2 (#7 was obviously a more traditional demolition: bottom first), that ratio was not naturally in place.

Had, for example, the planes hit level 10 ?! ..and there were 100 floors of weight pressing down on the weakened structure (floor 10)... then yes... it is more reasonable to think that 100 floors could press down and collapse a measly 10 floors of supporting structure in an asymmetric fashion (but still, never symmetrically, as occurred on 9/11). But that was obviously not the case on 9/11 where the planes hit level ~90. Simply, ~20 floors of weight (above) could not have driven down through 90 levels of supporting structure -- not to mention a massive center core -- without showing the SLIGHTEST sign of resistance/slowing ?!

And if you think that's possible... then why (for example) was WTC 1 & 2 able to stand at all ? EVER ?!

If 20 Floors offered enough weight to drive a symmetrical, steady-paced top-to-bottom collapse straight down through 90 levels of a concrete, steel-reinforced center core... then why didn't the top 100 floors ever collapse down onto the lobby? Or level 10 ?? Or level 50 ?! If only 20 Floors of weight was enough to drive straight down through 90 floors, then surely 80 floors would have been enough to collapse one single level - say, level 12 - with about 98 floors of weight above it. Why didn't Level 12 ever collapse before 9/11 during gale-force winds when pressure on Level 12 would have increased ENORMOUSLY!!!

(Do you REALLY think that high-rises are THAT tenuous?!)

Finally, I will offer this: If the buildings started to collapse at the top, and the collapse stopped at floor 80 (about 10 floors down), then MAYBE I would view that as a "natural" event. But there is simply no way only 20 floors of weight can drive straight down through the 90 (which are all further supported by a structured-solid core). To even suggest otherwise is simply absurd.

Respectfully,

In this case, all of the force comes from the top (ie. your foot). And when that happens, does the can collapse symmetrically from top to bottom ? NO ;) It crumples asymmetrically -- perhaps a little collapse in the middle of the can, then a bit at the bottom, then perhaps some at the top, etc. until the entire can is flat.

In that case the can survives until there is a structural failure, at which point it collapse from there down. This is, however, a horrible model for understanding a building. A modern skyscraper is not a single unit, it is a series of structures attached together. The WTC, in particular, had a structural core and the floors attached to that core. Model that, not something else, to understand what happened.

If 20 Floors offered enough weight to drive a symmetrical, steady-paced top-to-bottom collapse straight down through 90 levels of a concrete, steel-reinforced center core...

Nope. 20 floors fell, breaking the bonds on the floor below. Then 21 floors were falling breaking the one below that. Then you had 22. It was not 20 floors falling the whole time.

then why didn't the top 100 floors ever collapse down onto the lobby?

Because there is an astounding difference between the effectively static force of the floors above and the impact of the floors above falling onto a floor below.

Finally, I will offer this: If the buildings started to collapse at the top, and the collapse stopped at floor 80 (about 10 floors down), then MAYBE I would view that as a "natural" event. But there is simply no way only 20 floors of weight can drive straight down through the 90 (which are all further supported by a structured-solid core).

But it was not 20 floors by the time it hit 80, it was 30. Lots more weight, falling faster.

Apologies for the delayed reply:

A modern skyscraper is not a single unit, it is a series of structures attached together. The WTC, in particular, had a structural core and the floors attached to that core.

You are basically contradicting yourself (and prove my point in the process): "The core" is the "single unit". And with that in mind, "the can" analogy is quite accurate.

But it was not 20 floors by the time it hit 80, it was 30. Lots more weight, falling faster.

Totally incorrect. (As is everything else you have presented.)

First, there is NOT "lots more weight". The weight is always the same. That is to say, WTC 1 had ~110 floors. Both before AND after the collapse begin, Floor 80 ALWAYS had 30 Floors of "weight" on it. The weight never changes.

Second, I believe what you are trying to suggest (if I may offer you some assistance) is that the "inertia" grew. But that is also a physical impossibility. Each floor offers ONLY resistance to collapse (NOT "boost" - for lack of a better word).

As each floor collapses onto the floor below, the weight always stays the same, and inertia would (under "natural" circumstances) SLOW AND DEPRECIATE since each floor offers nothing but "resistance" to the collapsing process.

Needless to say, the collapses (of all three buildings) were CLEARLY not "natural".

Respectfully,

Yes. Two planes were not enough to make three very large buildings fall straight down, completely pulverized. They couldn't just demolish them in plain sight so the hijacked planes were used as a convenient cover.

fall straight down,

As opposed to what direction? Gravity pulls down, not sideways.

completely pulverized.

No, not completely, but having things fall from that distance tends to break them.

They couldn't just demolish them in plain sight so the hijacked planes were used as a convenient cover.

And now you get the great big hole in the idea. Somehow destroying the buildings, not having a pretext for war, is the goal. After all, if war is the goal, it does not matter all that much if the buildings collapse or just are hit and burn really badly. So you have to propose that there is some secret group that wanted to destroy the WTC. And that group came across someone else trying to destroy the same building, so they decided to use a different, untried, way of blowing up the WTC to coincide with the new groups action. Don't you think that is a might odd coincidence?

WMD's prob still exist my theory... either there were no wmd's, the wmd's that were there were too easily traceable back to ... us.. for lack of a better word or.... and heres my crazy, i'm a wack-o and hope it doesn't happen theory.....

as justification for the invasion... the wmd's (wherever they might have gotten them) did actually exist (i believe they did because.. well.. we/'they' have the receipt)

(let me clarify... i do not believe that wmd's are a pretext for war, nor do i believe that we should've gone over there, nor... Iraq is a cluster fuck from the get go 100 years ago.. let alone 30 let alone 8.... and our involvement was even more fucked up than saddam... whom we created and placed there as justification of a future invasion.. different post)

let me argue from perspective there were wmd's.... 'saddam' smuggled them (read: they... same inside job people as 9/11) to syria. they're in syria. in about a month... give or take a few weeks (but by end of the year either way).... to cut out a lot of yet-to-happen build up... syria will use them to launch on Israel and the US in a retaliation strike against Israel launching an offensive, inside syrian lines, against hezbollah forces that it chased that far... after hezbollah started terrorist attacks against israel for some yet-to-be or already-happened transgression.... (hezbollah in this case will be same thing as 9/11 saudi's)

syria's attack with these weapons (whether its syria who launches them or 'they' from remote rockets hidden in syria... against israel, will give justification for the war up to this point, for all of the anti-syrian rhetoric a few years back, and... for an israeli invasion of syria... as we then invade Iran for attacking Israel/US-iraqi forces for defending syria, which they've said they would if Israel attacked them (syria).

ie, WMD's existed, they're in Syria, they'll be used against Israel/US-in-Iraq and will give justification for complete take over by US. by the time its figured out... well... it'll never be figured out. or it'll be as figured out as USS Liberty is. but at that point, it won't matter because the US will have 'legal' troops occupying every country in the middle east

Cheney + Silverstein = 9/11.

I've been arguing that for a long time. Not necessarily in the context of 9/11 specifically but that if the administration was fabricating evidence to get us into Iraq they should have closed the loop and finished planting the evidence by supplying some WMDs.

Whatever the real motivations of Bush et alia were, those who claim America was manipulated into Iraq simply for the benefit of of the privileged aren't thinking things through.

LIHOP

They did, you boob. Google "Colin Powell's speech at the UN". Jesus.