There was a professor at BYU who stated that it was his belief that the plane crashes weren't sufficient by themselves to bring the towers down. Obviously there are problems with theories like a controlled implosion, but there are problems with the official story as well.
If you ignore motive for a second, it is doable to bring down towers like that with a controlled implosion. It's not necessarily easy. But it wouldn't be impossible to slyly sneak the explosives in and set them. Especially if, as you say, the government is in some way complicit.
So, it's doable. That just leaves the motive. Obviously, if the government were in on it, that would be just tremendously evil on their part. What could motivate a group of people large enough to do something that is so incredibly evil?

Just my opinion, but I believe that the airborne terrorist attacks in NYC & DC were organized by what I call Latter Day Gadiantons (LDGs) for a spectacular show, another step in the plan to instill fear into Americans, and probably others as well, and coerce Americans into ultimately seeking and accepting protection from a powerful world wide organization, probably the United Nations, at further expense to our national sovereignty.

Another or additional reason may have been to provoke the US to spend its means and strength warring in foreign lands, as is now being talked up in the media, leaving us spread out and further weakened and more vulnerable to attack by those enemies that the LDGs, with so much help from our own traitors, have been preparing for the purpose of destroying the one nation that really stands in the way of the one world government they desire.

I believe the real perpetrators of the attacks are those persons whose ultimate goal is total relinquishing of national sovereignty and submission to a world government.

Had the perpetrators of the attack really wanted to do damage, there is much more they could have done on an ongoing basis. They could have poisoned our water supplies, executed gas and biochemical attacks, even possibly nuclear explosions in major cities. This may well happen soon enough. I suspect the plan is behind schedule as it is.   

I invite comment, especially contrary opinions.

I read the report of the "Son of the Republic" vision that George Washington reportedly had, and don't know what to make of it.  There are other what I call "unofficial prophecies" about America's future attibuted to John Taylor, George Albert Smith and some other early General Authorities.  They do influence my thinking Re. preparedness.  But I think it is imiportant that we each invoke the Spirit in making our preparedness programs, as one family's circumstances and needs may be quite different than anothers.  Just being called on a misson again has altered my thinking about our preparedness needs, inview of a temporary relocation, and all that goes with that.

My  understanding, without taking time to do research thru my crazy, mixed-up files, is that there is no physical gathering underway now, and that when it comes to that we will be duly advised by our stake and ward leadership.  I think the plan now is to keep members in as many countries as possible to assis in the missionary effort. 

Well, we're told that building 7 had to be brought down because of structural issues. The thing is, building demolitions need to be set up carefully weeks in advance.

Hello, All.  I'm Melissa, this is my first post here.  I'm a pretty quiet poster over at Nauvoo.  Glad to be here.

As for the whole September 11th theory, I buy the official story hook, line and sinker.  Call me gullible, but I don't think our government had anything to do with it.  The other day I was watching footage of the towers collapsing and it was very clear to me that it fell with the top leading the way and bringing the rest of it down as it went.  Implosions, from what I've seen, seem to start at the bottom and the rest falls on top.  This was an attack on our country, plain and simple.  Besides, what possible motive would the US government have?  It makes no sense to me. 

I guess I take the most obvious solution as to whom to blame for the collapse of the buildings... and that was...

 

......

 

Okay, really, I've heard other theories, but honestly, I'm not convinced by them. I once heard that many of the top floors were not insulated with asbestos and that the heat from the fuel actually ignited the other insulation used, it was so intense that the structure burned up, and collapsed inward. It's possible. I know that Popular Mechanics did a rather comprehensive study and found it possible. They also debunked the pentagon and building 7 conspiracies in that article.  This is not a popular article with conspiracy theorists, however.

It's easy to sit back now and think, "That could've never happened," but it did. I find conspiracies far more complicated, but I suppose they're "possible" in the realm of possibilities, but still motives are not really clear as to why. Further Bin Laden takes credit for it, almost immediately, and clearly Islamic Fascists have for a long time targetted american targets.

It is problematic that many of these conspiracy theories continue to resurface, year after year, because the younger generations are starting to forget what it was like before, or they were too young to really care, and so they don't feel the urgency of an enemy that'd love to do us all in...  

--Ray

Arbilad,

Yes, conspiracies do exist.

9/11 would require the complicity of thousands who "saw" planes fly into buildings,  cooperation of television stations (plus some pretty fancy special effects) to broadcast the "event", and silence by government perpetrators (our government is very poor about keeping anything secret).

Stalin required only himself to carry out his agenda, and the motive was obvious...power. Why entertain the improbable, when the "apparent" is so well attested?

What possible motives could such a collective endeavor entail?

If government conspiracy is going to be hypothesized, motive is a threshold requirement. 

I don't have answers for all of the BYU professor's questions.  But it would not have been necessary to melt the steel structure, the fire only had to be hot enough to weaken the structure.  There was the equivalent of a massive eleven story building above where the plane crashed, so if the steel weakened it's not surprising that it fell.  Once it hit the floor below, it had to keep going because the steel structure was not designed to support a falling, massive, eleven-story building.  Each succeeding floor was impacted by even more weight.

The professor pointed out that other high rises with fires did not collapse, but I didn't seem him address the fact that the towers were unique in their construction.  The size of the structure was perhaps one factor, and the engineers had used a novel system for transmitting the weight down to the ground.  The professor said that other buildings have behaved differently when on fire, but I wonder if he took the unique construction of the towers into account.

Anyway, I don't know how the government could cover up something like this if the government really did it.  You know, government workers aren't raised in a cloning tank in a basement in a top secret location.  They are Americans.  They come from all walks of life.  They have different viewpoints.  Some government workers were so incensed by the fact that the government keeps track of phone calls between Al Quaeda operatives and people inside the USA, they decided to blab it to the press, who dutifully spilled this top secret information.  Some government workers had all the details of the government's efforts to track financial transactions by our enemies, and they thought it was OK to spill that top secret information to the media.  Some government workers were so upset at the thought of Al Quaeda members being held in secret prisons, they spilled that information as well.  If all these people of delicate conscience were so upset that they had to help the enemy by revealing this stuff, it is completely beyond my imagination how the government could stop them from revealing the details of something that truly is evil, like knocking down giant skyscrapers full of people.

But that's just the way I see it.

-Randy

-- Edited by Randy at 22:57, 2006-08-28

Noel, it doesn't need to be nearly as complicated as that. Why stage the planes flying into the building if you could just convince some terrorists to crash some planes into some buildings? While I have read theories that doubt there were any planes at all, I tend not to give them any credence, for the reaons you name. But if the government was complicit, it makes a lot of sense for them, as part of the cover story, to have terrorists actually crash planes into the buildings.
As for motive, I started off with the "how do you understand the motive of an evil person" thing because it is easy to speculate possible motives, but the usual protest raised generally boils down to, "That reason would never, ever motivate me to do such a thing." But evil people are not, in my mind, rational.
But, as I said, motives are easy to find. For instance, why not the motive you assigned to Stalin? Power is a strong motivator. It is indisputible that the government significantly expanded its power after 9/11. You could argue that it was necessary for them to do so in order to expand our safety. But it is a well established fact that their power did expand.
Simple desire to kill is another possible reason. Sociopaths can be very charming. Perhaps even charming enough to get elected.
The other objection that was raised is that the number of people involved means that it would either be unworkable or would definitely be leaked. I have a two part answer to this. First, it would not necessarily leak in a significant way. The government can keep secrets fairly well. There are many notable exceptions, but there are also many examples to prove the rule. For instance, the stealth fighter was a well kept secret for most of its development. There are other military projects that also prove the rule. Don't forget, it doesn't have to be the whole government, or even a significant part of it, for the "government" to be complicit. A relatively small group could be responsible. The second part of my reason is just that maybe word has leaked. Would we really hear about it, given the vast number of conspiracy theories out there? Many of them are downright silly, such as the theory that the moon landing was staged (a theory that I lend absolutely no credence to). It's just like spam. There are cases where your spam filter will filter out a legitimate email. But mostly those emails get lost unless you carefully go over which messages are getting filtered.

That's what really bothers me about most conspiracy theories with which I disagree... they often imply a huge organization that no one knows about, all keeping a deep dark secret and all of them manage to masterfully pull off their nefarious schemes without a hitch.

I've worked in companies that pride themselves for hiring the best and the brightest, and try as they like just to keep upcoming products or changes in company politics a secret, or just to change the menu at the cafeteria, and it's a major fiasco.

I mostly attribute our failures as a country and as a nation to what I call "incompetence through greed", neither of which really fit the conspiracies swirling around 9/11.

--Ray