Exactly. The only REALLY puzzling thing is…why so many folks think this is a mystery. You don’t even really need to have but a tenuous grasp of physics and how gravity operates to really understand what happened. Hell, anyone who has ever stacked blocks as a pre-schooler ought to be able to get it IMHO…
-XT
Sorry, had to step out of this because of other responsibilities. I see that Lute asked a question a few days ago to which no one seems to have responded. It was how to rebut the 15 points identified on this 9/11 CT site. Bear in mind that we’re not going to change a CT’s mind on this subject. So, with a view only of showing that we’re not patsies, here goes. Off the top of my head; with more time (which I don’t have), I probably could do better.
Let’s start with three stipulations. First, it may be that the government was negligent in preventing 9/11. I don’t think so (and, btw, I voted for the other side in both ’00 and ’04), but it’s a plausible argument. Call this Stip1. Second, there are gaps, inconsistencies and open questions. This is Stip2. Third, the administration engaged in political damage control in the aftermath of 9/11, and used the event opportunistically in the context of at least the Iraq invasion. Not everyone here will agree with Stip3, but any CT will. With these three points in mind, let’s go down the list.
The 9/11 Commission Fraud: Conflicts, Collapse and Cover-up: Assumes the conclusion. Even if it’s a whitewash, Stips 1 & 3 are adequate explanation. Besides, identify a fact-finding commission that accomplished something and I’ll consider drawing conclusions from the alleged failure of this one.
The Hundreds of Still Unanswered Questions, the Scores of Documented Lies: Mostly assumes the conclusion and/or covered by Stip3. What’s left over is covered by Stip2. The question is whether there are enough of those to create a reasonable doubt. That’s where the debunking comes in. Meanwhile, I’d take this more seriously if CTs didn’t persist in using evidence and theories long since proven to be canards.
Instant Fulfillment of Neocon Wish List: If motive convicts, the terrorists are the ones. They benefited in a direct and obvious way that I can understand. Meanwhile, if the administration were going to do something like this, wouldn’t it have been Saddam they framed? And what if the Taliban had handed bin Laden over? (If they had, the whole plot would have accomplished nothing.) And what about all the lost business revenue, lost tax revenues and lost momentum on domestic economic matters flowing from 9/11?
Political Bonanza for Bush/Rove team: This is duplicative of #3, except that it confirms the answer to my first question is yes.
Scale and Diversity of Profiteering: Also duplicative of #3. And equally well explained by Stip 3.
Ignored Foreign Warnings: Even if true, see Stip1.
Quashed Domestic Investigations: Even if true, see Stip1. Also, if al Qaeda was going to be the patsy, why suppress investigation of it? Looks like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.
Incapacitated Oversight: See Stip1. And, again, Monday morning quarterbacking.
Disabled Air Defenses: In hindsight, yup, that was a mistake. As for the conspiracy theory, though, it actually points up one of the flaws. If the administration were going to do something like this, wouldn’t it have been more effective (and cheaper) to have shot the planes out of the sky? Frame Saddam instead of bin Laden and Bush has a declaration of war before dusk.
The Amazing Disappearing National Chain of Command: I love this one. Reminds me of a classic Holmes’ line from the Boscombe Valley mystery (“Don’t you see that you alternately give him credit for having too much imagination and too little?”). If this were a plot, wouldn’t someone have thought to script out where the Prez and VP would be, what they would do and what they would say? In any event, see Stips 1 & 3.
The Pakistan Intelligence Chief Who Loved Everyone At Once: Get out of town! An intelligence officer playing both sides against the middle. I won’t believe it. Next you’ll be telling me Pakistan let us use its bases because it saw some way in which this advanced its interests.
The Bitter Fight Against Investigations: I dislike “have you stopped beating your wife?” allegations. In any event, see Stip3.
The Amazing Disappearing Evidence: Funny how all evidence, anonymous reports and innuendo consistent with the theory become fact, and everything inconsistent becomes cover-up. Most of this has been debunked and what’s left over is covered by Stips 2 & 3.
The Amazing Disappearing Demand for Accountability: See Stip1. But I don’t expect anyone to confess. And maybe they’re innocent. Innocent people protest their innocence too, you know.
The Ripley Believe It or Not Sideshow of 9/11 Miracles: Of course all these have been debunked. Meanwhile, the biggest believe-it-or-not is that the government has the capacity and/or the will to carry off something this big, flawlessly, without a single participant developing morning after regrets and playing Deep Throat to some news outlet.
Epilogue: For the 9/11 Legacy Victims Still Dying in New York. Assumes the conclusion.
There, Lute. Is that the sort of exegesis for which you were looking? Or is there something on this list that actually troubles you?
Hey, thanks!
You’re welcome. And ArchitectChore, I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue with a CT (ever hear the one about not trying to teach a pig to sing?), but there’s a huge amount of debunking material out there, of which I linked several in this post in a prior thread. Looking at them again quickly, this page from 911 Myths is probably the best one-stop-shopping spot on the WTC collapse issue.
I knew this individual for some time before the attacks and before he became a CT. My association with him is not related to the fact that he is now a CT. In the past year, he has begun speaking publicly about his theories and thoughts; I would prefer that he at the very least correct some of the obvious flaws in his statements.
Here is a direct quote from an email he sent me:
This question, which seems to imply that steel cannot fail until it melts, is absolutely ridiculous. I believe there are some uncertainties (such as the WTC #7 collapse and how a plane was able to strike the Pentagon an hour after the WTC was attacked) surrounding the 9/11 attacks but he should at least understand blatant facts before polluting the non-technical minds of those who listen.
Stepping outside the flow of the discussion a bit, I think what we’re seeing here is an example of just how pervasive and indestructable conspiracy theories are.
This is not, after all, the Kennedy assassination, something that happened decades ago that could conceivably have been a conspiracy even though it wasn’t, or the moon hoax, where there couldn’t have been live eyewitnesses at the scene except for the astronauts. It’s not even like evolution, a scientific fact that is admittedly kind of hard for a human being to comprehend because of the complexity of the science and unrelatable time frames involved. This is an event that was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people at the scene and that was broadcast live to a billion people or more, all of whom saw, in absolutely plain view, two jetliners strike the World Trade Center and cause obviously catastrophic damage, as well as hundreds or maybe even thousands more live eyewitnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, and that is refuted by, literally, not a shred of actual evidence.
And STILL, people deny what everyone knows are the plain facts. We’re not talking about a theory of something we’re reading in history books, we’re talking about an event we all saw that was absolutely unamiguously obvious in terms of what happened. Two big ass planes flew into a giant building and blew up, something no sane human can honestly deny. A horrible fire ensued and the building collapsed starting at the very place the planes hit the building. Everyone saw it happen. Live. And yet the denials continue.
As with the moon hoax stories or the Kennedy assassination, statements are made to support the conspiracy theory that are just plainly nonsense. It’s not even necessary to conflate or misunderstand real facts, just make up crap:
Kennedy: “Oswald couldn’t have taken three shots in 5.6 seconds!” (Why not?)
Moon Hoax: “You should be able to see stars in the photos!” (No.)
WTC: “Steel can’t fail until it completely melts!” (Wrong and silly.)
The lesson, I think, is that we’re never going to be rid of this lunacy. In a world of blogs and web sites we’ve reached a point where literally anything can be denied. I fully expect that within a few years someone will deny that there is an Iraq war, that no such place exists, and that all the people suppsedly dying there are being sold to space aliens for scientific experiments.
And what did he say to the answers provided you up thread? Have you linked him this thread or shot him the links to the sites that have been provided? Not that this will probably do much good…CT types are never ones to let the facts get in the way.
-XT
Ummm, thanks, but . . . I have an appointment to . . . Ummm, wash my hair . . . [backs slowly toward door]
Fair enough. It’s not going to work, but I see why you want to make the effort.
You all appear to be having a very difficult time coming to terms with some very basic realities. I know how it is, for almost 4 years I “debunked” the “conspiracy theorists”, confident in my own perceptions and their gullibility. Surely, someone of my intelligence was not capable of being so fooled for so long a time. But sometimes, one must eat their humble pie. It is pride that perpatues a lie, moreso than any facts or lack thereof. For all your intelligence and training, you have missed even the simplest of things. Merely having a degree in structural engineering, or having your friends agree with you, or the majority of experts in this country for that matter, does not give you license to engage in mock science. Perhaps you actually believe in the official account, but I am sorry to inform you that your critical thinking ability has been bypassed, as was my own.
Here is your basic error, the same as that of our official “investigators”, either deliberately or by negligence:
You observed an effect (buildings falling down), preceded by an event (planes crashing into buildings/fires). You, from the beginning just as they did, presumed that the cause of the effect was the observed event. You did this even though every line of evidence completely contradicted this hypothesis, and it was necessary to ignore other effects that were observed prior to the final effect (completely collapsed buildings). The observed event was not the cause. I would say shame on all of you, particularly those of you who are scientists, for your intellectual dishonesty…were it not for the fact that you are the subjects of the most sophisticated PSYOP (psychological operations) in history.
It’s time to let go of the “good feelings” of being right enough to look at the reality, because what hangs in the balance of this issue is your freedom and the freedom of your children. Will you wait for some other respected scientists to appear in the media before you face it, or will you carry out your personal duty to pursue truth before then? You have a special responsibility as the more intelligent segment of the community whose opinions are held in higher regard by others to gets your facts straight…and I hope you do.
2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how eloquently you may argue in favor of such a conclusion.
Vital to understanding beyond a reasonable doubt that there were explosives involved is that you pay attention to effects observed between the time of the impacts and the time of collapse as well as other observations pre-collapse and post-collapse. FEMA and NIST completely disregarded these effects, in fact FEMA’s analysis smacks of almost deliberate fraud (did you notice their representation of the impact holes in WTC 1 and 2, compared to the photos of these holes? Look again at the report.) NIST’s analysis is a very, very long stretch of the imagination. They adjust the data to fit predetermined conclusions, and fire their employee who blows the de facto whistle on the absurtity of their hypothesis.
Some of you are claiming expertise in the failure of structures. All right, may I ask have you even bothered to take a close look at the photos and video available of WTC 7 shortly before its collapse? You are going to theorize that these small fires caused this 47-story steel structure to suddenly implode? Rubbish! Is comparison of other steel structural fires completely invalid to this disussion? I think not. Any good engineer in particular would compare past experience before reaching any conclusions.
Photos and videos also strongly indicate that there was no significant structural damage to WTC 7 until the implosion. The public wrongly concluded that somehow shaking from the collapes of WTC 1 and 2 or falling rubble partially caused the building’s collapse…it did not. Even if the severing of some of the outer beams had contributed, the building certainly would have fallen at least somewhat in the direction of damage, NOT straight down into it’s own footprint. Your analysis is fatally flawed.
WTC 1 and 2- Simply replay the footage and peform a close inspection…the chain of explosions reach some 30+ stories below the level at which the buildings are supposedly “pancaking”. The concrete is being pulverized into fine dust in mid-air, not falling and pounding the concrete below. These are, as the Dr. Jones you mention concludes, most likely some kind of RDX-type explosives used in combination with thermite/thermate charges which severed the supports. The 9/11 Commission (Omission) report outright lied in its attempts to lead us to believe that the core of buildings 1&2 were somehow hollow shafts and did not consist of 47 massive steel columns which would not have pancaked. It completely omitted all mention of WTC 7 for crying out loud! It completely omitted all the behind-closed-doors testimony of workers and firefighters of explosions observed after the jet impacts (for example, the machine shop in the basement was completely oblitered into dust…a fireball travelling down elevator shafts?!). Even FEMA’s report concludes that WTC 7 remains somewhat of a mystery…for good reason.
After the collapse, we observe rapid pyroclastic flow and extremely fine dust. Collapsing buildings do not produce this kind of energy. Callapsing buildings do not produce flowing molten metal with high-temprature coloration as observed in photographs…without the involvement of high-temperature explosives of some kind. Collapsing buildings do not shoot debris outward in long arcs of explosive propulsion, or pulverize concrete into fine dust. Any valid theory of the collapse must account for all these phenomena…and thus the official hypothesis, or any hypothesis that does not involve explosive action, falls flat on these grounds. Not to mention the freefall speed of the collapses, and the supressed eyewitness testimonies.
Convince us then. Show us the error of our ways. You are going to need to back up what you are saying with more than words though. You are going to have to show some evidence, confirmed from reputable sources. Like these molten pools of structural steel…should be lots of the stuff, thus lots of independent sources for that info. Trot it out. In addition, you are going to have to show some analysis, again confirmed from reputable sources (KNOWLEDGABLE sources I should say), showing how the only (or even the most probable) event is…what? That the twin towers were brought down by explosives instead of by the air craft? Bring in some expert opinions then from folks who knock down buildings for a living saying in no uncertain terms that this is the ONLY reasonable explaination for why the towers fell…that its impossible (or highly improbable) that the towers could have been hit by air craft and fallen as they did simply from the impact and fire. That the evidence of the use of explosives (and IIRC bringing down buildings by explosives leaves quite a bit of evidence) is there to see.
Lets leave aside the fact that its highly improbable why the government would do such a thing and focus instead on the technical, ok? Show us some proof that the buildings were brought down by explosive. Not ‘didn’t you see the video you dolts’ type ‘proof’…but real engineering and scientific proofs. You up for it? Because frankly its on you (or the CT’s in general) to prove something like this…extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proofs and all that.
Otherwise you are simply a CT spouting opinions…simply one who can write better than most. 
-XT
I cannot use your brain for you…that is your own responsibility. I just gave you facts which it is YOUR reponsibility, as a defender of the official theory, to answer. The burden of proof is on you. When you eliminate the impossible, what remains?
You need to learn to think for yourself, independently, not wait until you have enough experts on your side so that it is safe to come to a different conclusion. There is much more than enough data available to know beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reason people have confusion is because of the psychological operations that have been brought upon them, and the experts who either deliberately or by significant omission have muddied the waters with nonsense.
Someone here cited cited Controlled Demolition, Inc…a key player in this whole mess. Did you know that Controlled Demolition, Inc., the same company charged with the rapid and illegal destruction of evidence at the crimescene of the WTC, was also responsible for the clean-up at Okalahoma City? Are you still a believer in the conspiracy theory which states that Timothy McVeigh alone blew up that building with explosives in the Ryder truck? Have you watched the local news footage, supressed by the mainstream media, which shows that there was a bomb in that building? The footage where you see the ATF removing two other bombs that did not go off from the buildings and preventing emergency personnel from getting to survivors until the bombs are removed? The footage which explains that the ATF found and defuse those two bombs, which were larger than the first? I can link you to that, but I’d bet you haven’t seen it have you? There are a lot of things you haven’t seen, and don’t know.
I think you and others are going on the wrong track xtisme. Sensible people should avoid getting sucked into incredibly technical and arcane discussions of how buildings collapse and focus on the common-sense questions.
Namely, If the alleged conspairitors already flew the planes into the buildings, why would they then detonate explosives? What’s the point? If the consipracy is to get Americans riled up to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, flying the planes into the buildings already accomplished that goal. There’s no need to actually collapse them. Arcane discussions of how the towers collapsed are irrelevant and counter productive, sine the CT’s will always move the goalposts, and any complex physical event will always have complex difficult to explain aspects.
For all the questions the CT’s raise about WTC 7, they fail to explain the most basic point. If the evil conspiracy had already destroyed the WTC and damaged the Pentagon, what were they trying to accomplish at WTC 7? Why would they undertake the difficult job of smuggling and carefully laying explosives in the building, with all the risks of exposure, when they were already set to destroy the main towers? How did the destruction of WTC 7 help accomplish their goal? What did it add to their plan?
It’s these questions and not engineering arcana that the CT’s need to answer.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
And you’re not really saying collapsing buildings don’t produce dust, are you? Ever been near a collapsed building?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
It is not necessary to understand all the conspirators’ motives in order to first understand that the story you were sold is physically impossible. But I suppose understaning the motives can help. I don’t have all the answers to every aspect of this conspiracy, but I know the jist of it.
Why would they use explosives? Because collapsing the entire WTC killing thousands is much more spectacular and frightening, I would guess. I also believe that Silverstein, the owner, was in on it. That is why it appears that only the 7 buildings making up the WTC collapsed, and not other buildings that were even closer to the collapse of WTC 2. They obviously felt that we could be fooled by lighting a few fires in the building and then producing a pseudo-scientific report explaining that it fell from fire. Since the vast majority of people were duped for so long, I would say it worked at least almost as well as expected.
Um…no. First off, you’ve shown us nothing like facts. You TOLD us quite a bit but you’ve show zip to back it up. You could very well tell us all about the flying pink invisible dragon (unicorn, whatever) in your garage.
Secondly, its NOT up to me to prove anything. Its up to YOU to prove your theory on why the building collapsed by backing up your theory with, well, some fricking proof. Some evidence, expert opinion, etc.
Lastly, while its true that when you eliminate the impossible you are left with the unlikely but probable. However, you have yet to prove that A) The main stream theory of why the towers fell IS impossible…or even improbable. B) That every other explaination is in fact also improbable and thus C) That the only explaination (however improbable) is yours. Thus far you have done none of that…all you did was make a speech.
But you see, I have. I actually DID take structural statics and dynamics in college and while I wouldn’t claim to be an expert I can look at the same things you obviously are and come to very different conclusions. I’m willing to be swayed though…trot out all this evidence that flies in the face of the vast majority of experts…including one of the architects and several of the structural engineers who actually designed and built the damn buildings. Lets see something more than words and bullshit…convince me.
I’d rather keep it technical and so within the realm of science and engineering myself. Thus evidence and facts can be asked for and if not provided then the wild rantings can be more easily dismissed. When you start getting into the murky world of ‘common-sense questions’ things are less precise. You get into peoples OPINIONS then, and all their bizzare misconceptions and wierd little paranoia’s about the gubberment and such. Even seemingly rational people can have all kinds of wierd little ideas buried in their rational brains after all.
Just MHO there…YMMV.
-XT
Then why bother with the planes and just go with the explosives?
first of all you haven’t shown that the story is physically impossible, you have merely asserted it. You even seem to be aware that most engineers and scientists disagree with you, but you discount their reasoning because you assert, again without proof or even a reasonable argument, that they are victims (somehow) of some form of psychological warfare. This is of course very convenient for your case. Anyone who agrees with you is a brave seeker of truth fighting the invisible empire, anyone who disagrees with you is under mind control.
Secondly so the collapse of the tower is more spectacular and frightening, so what? The planes flying into the towers were spectacular enough to accomplish any hypothetical conspiracy’s goals. Why would they risk exposure by (somehow) planting explosves in a crowded well-secured office building.
Do you have any proof that the building’s owner was in on it? If you don’t, that’s libel.
Here’s one for you guys: the WTC complex, being owned by the Port Authority, is exempt from NYC fire codes.