But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution.
And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off with me, because many of them just love, love, love that pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it.
A discursive example:
I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.)
The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the theater!"
Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device.
Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of being part of the conspiracy.
(Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the 1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.)
All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry.
The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery, partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the debate here; a partial transcript is here.
The revelatory words:
Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your mind about this?Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion.
Avery: There is nothing.
The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the principle:
Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes on the floor.What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change blog offered some sensible suggestions:
Young Bill: I don't see no snakes...
Dad: They're invisible!
- a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts that there was a demolitionActually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps.
- peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims
- whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy
- a logical narrative would be nice too
Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.
The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a “peer reviewed” journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies, does not count among its peers a single person with professional expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!
Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things that the CD believers may not wish to hear.
The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific periodical founded before the events in question occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science journals have led readers in a very different direction.
Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.
If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.
“The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!” bleat the CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate faster than the building collapse.Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any video evidence that challenges the theory must have been Photoshopped.
Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability.
Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in science?
My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me, just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in terms of definitely instead of perhaps.
If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific method, they deserve contempt.
44 comments:
If you're just trying to tweak your blog ratings, cool, good job, but if you're honestly trying to convince the opposition (the Cder's) of your argument, then (A.) treat them with an iota of respect and (B.) attack their strongest argument (building 7) not their weakest (towers).
If you don't address their strong argument, 7, then you'll never convince anyone. (For eg, did 7 go down at freefall or not?) Also, having taught English essay writing too long, I constantly remind my students that if you want to convince in an argument, then you must treat your audience with dignity. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir, which is of course utterly pointless. So, which is it?
The one thing that jumped out at me from your post, Joe?
"Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps."
Now that you mention it, that is weird.
Anon 1:01: "tweak my blog ratings"?
I have said several times now that my stats go DOWN when this subject takes center stage. They've plummeted ever since the CD controversy came to forefront again. My regulars have privately pleaded with me not to mention it again.
The only reason I am talking about this stuff is that I have decided to throw in the towel -- why write when my entire society has given up on the very concept of reality? -- and I just no longer give a damn about the stats, my readers, or what remains of this blog.
The fact that you presume -- with ZERO evidence -- that my writings on this subject were intended to increase visitors only shows me that you are a fundamentally irrational person who should not be in the teaching profession.
Don't you teach your English students not to leap to conclusions?
True, I have lost all respect for the CD-ers, and I really don't give a damn what you teach your English students. I also don't respect Holocaust deniers, and I don't care if a legion of English teachers tells me to change my attitude.
Believe me, I took Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs off my "guys to respect" list well before September 11, 2001.
I haven't addressed building 7? Christ, I've written about it at length! And when I did, people would write to me and say I was attacking a straw man, and that I should talk about the twin towers.
In the comments to a post below, I link to a video which single-handedly demolishes most of the claims about WTC7. If able, I'll put it on the blog in a soon-to-come post.
But more to the point: Even if I had never before written about WTC 7, you are still being very silly here.
If you really do teach English, you should know that an essay is an essay, not a book. You are being unfair if you expect me to address all aspects of the 911 controversy in one post written in one sitting.
No, a single essay must have a more narrow topic. Surely even so poor a teacher as you obviously are must understand that.
And if you really did possess any talent at deciphering the English language, you should have been able to understand my topic.
That topic was not "I can disprove every argument ever offered by the CD proponents." I think nearly every argument HAS been disproven, though not by me.
But that was not my job on this occasion.
My theme was stated early on: "When the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution."
What part of that topic sentence was difficult for you to understand, Prof?
I was determined to show that many people enamored of conspiracies address scientific questions without giving any weight to the scientific method. Didn't I make that clear?
Dylan Avery and the WTC business was but one illustrative example -- a sufficient one, I think, to prove that point I set out to prove.
His own words damn him as someone who does not know or care about the need for falsifiability in science. He does not have even a high schooler's education in how science works, and thus should not be pontificating on scientific questions.
The "Exorcist" anecdote was another example of careless scientific pronouncements by conspiracy aficionados.
I could also have illustrated the point by talking about, oh gosh, any number of odd ideas that have been mooted by conspiracy guys. Flying saucers. The Philadelphia Experiment. Tesla death rays.
I can name some even weirder stuff that has come my way -- there's a conspiracy guy named Vladimir Terzinski who once said (in my presence, and he wasn't kidding) that Star Trek was real, that America really did have starships in 1966 but was keeping the technology hidden.
I've run into a lot of those people. I think Avery is of a breed I have encountered before.
That's why I write what I write.
One of my pet peeves is people who mispell Guy Banister's name.
You can't bully and insult people into sharing your opinion. Human nature doesn't work that way. That's all I'm saying.
Zontar: Sorry; will correct.
Prof: You want to see bullying and name-calling? Check out the way the CD-ers behave. I give as I get.
Joe ,this piece of video could do with some of your anti-CD analysis .I find it curious how the pressure wave of the collapse seems to travel up the building ???? WTF
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
mick
Jesus Joe, why are you so damn hostile? YOu still haven't addressed WTC7
If you don't like the way 9/11 discussions have been going here at your blog, why don't you just stop writing about 9/11 here?
You are able to discuss a wide range of topics that interest you here without yelling at people. If you feel a need to educate people on the issue of controlled demolition, maybe you should do it somewhere else where territoriality is not an issue. It's clearly a hot button for you, and the anger it raises can't be doing much good for you.
I dont think it is true there isn´t one CD expert who thinks there was CD used with 1,2 or 7. Danny Jowenko was of the opinion at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
that 7 was a CD. Has he changed his opinion? I havent heard that.
Don't make me laugh, tep. I mean a CD expert who has actually studied the issue. That video shows the reaction of a man on first seeing video of the collapse. That video is deceptive, because it does not show the south side, which is where the action was.
Jowenko is on camera, saying that he did not even know that WTC7 fell on that day!
So he had no way of knowing of the 20 story chunk blown out of th south side. No way of knowing that there were massive caches of fuel on the bottom floors -- far more explosive power than were used to bring down the federal building in OKC. He has no way of knowing that a massive conflagration engulfed the entire south side. No way of knowing that the fire department cleared everyone out because the building was creaking and unsteady and they thought it would collapse. (I've offered quotes backing that up before, and I'm getting sick of having to repeat myself.) No way of knowing that the building used inherently unstable transfer trusses. No way of knowing that those transfer trusses covered large power transformers which themselves would have had quite an explosive wallop.
So what does this video show? An expert in another country gets shown one bit of video taken from a deceptive angle. He is given none of the relevant background details. Within seconds of seeing the video, he (rather recklessly) says it looks like a controlled demolition because the collapse started from the bottom.
From the BOTTOM. Note that.
Unknown to him -- the information being kept FROM him by the conspiracy freaks -- there were massive amount of explosive material at the bottom of that building.
Tell him the backstory and then let's see what the reaction might be. (I'd be happy to do so myself, this very week, but there's a language barrier.)
By the way -- didja notice? Pretty much the sole reason he said it was a controlled demolition was that the collapse begins at the BOTTOM (as does, in fact, occur with a CD).
Let's roll the tape of the twin towers again. And the collapse starts WHERE...?
This video is a joke. It offers the immediate, off-the-cuff remark of someone who is completely unaware of the relevant facts. To this date, you do not have one CD expert who has studied the issue on your side. Not one.
I've heard 3 main criticisms of the CD theory:
1. No leakers have come forward - this proves nothing. For all we know, some of the CD proponents may be leaking anonymously. Given the stakes, it shouldn't be surprising that no one involved would be talking, especially with the Bush Admin enforcement apparatus still in place. The fact that we are still speculating about the perpetrators of the Kennedy assassination over 40 years later is evidence that secrets can be kept.
2. There's no physical evidence of CD - Well I guess that depends on who you talk to. I remain agnostic on the CD theory only because no independent investigation was ever done, and all of the physical evidence was shipped offshore or otherwise placed out-of-bounds, with amazing rapidity.
3. It doesn't "look like" CD - in other words, the foundation doesn't seem to crumble first, with the rest of the building sinking bottom-up into the footprint. I'm not a structural engineer, but I've taken a few college physics courses and have an advanced degree in CS and can tell you unequivocally that no laws of physics would be broken if someone wanted to demolish a building top-down, rather than bottom-up. Less efficient? - Yes. Impossible? - No.
And Joe, if your readership does decline when you write on this subject, maybe it's because you become insultingly dismissive of those who disagree with your position. Conjuring a few lunatics who take up the opposing position is a classic dodge - you should hold yourself to higher standards.
Hey, I'm starting to like the Jowenko guy. He looks at the video of the twin towers going down and says that no explosives were used!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
So. The only CD expert in the world you have is someone who says that planes brought down the twin towers.
Nice going!
Anon 4:20 -- you know what is really irritating? Not only do the CDers expect me to write an entire book every time I sit before the keyboard (a demand they do not make of themselves, of course), they expect me to write the same entire damn book afresh every single day. People constantly demand that I repeat previously made points, because they won't look up where I addressed those issue.
I made it clear in an earlier post that another blog saw a readership decline when a guest-editor took a PRO-CD position.
The subject itself is not a way to fetch readers, no matter what stance you take. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
As for my attitude: Again, how many times must I repeat myself? I treat as I am treated. And I honestly think that CD-ers deserve the same contempt we show to Holocaust deniers and to Creationists.
"I'm not a structural engineer, but I've taken a few college physics courses and have an advanced degree in CS and can tell you unequivocally that no laws of physics would be broken if someone wanted to demolish a building top-down, rather than bottom-up. Less efficient? - Yes. Impossible? - No."
So....they planted bombs in the area where they planned for the jets to hit? They somehow knew the impact spots in advance?
Believe it or not, there are CD-ers who aver just that!
If you truly believe that crap -- well, I'm amazed you got a degree.
Joseph Cannon said: "So....they planted bombs in the area where they planned for the jets to hit? They somehow knew the impact spots in advance?"
Joe, do really have to point out that this is classic misdirection?
I would no sooner believe that someone planted bombs at the exact points where the jets hit than believe that 3 buildings - only two of which were hit by airplanes - collapsed on the same day, due to fire, when no building fire had ever caused structural failure before.
There's a pattern here. Your criticisms of CD invariably equate the positions of critics with indefensible fringe theories. Either you're not listening carefully to what your readers are saying, or you are intentionally mischaracterizing our positions.
Maybe it's time for a Holiday vacation - take a break from this CD stuff!
Anon 54:27 -- what bullshit!
"'So....they planted bombs in the area where they planned for the jets to hit? They somehow knew the impact spots in advance?'"
"Joe, do really have to point out that this is classic misdirection?"
No, it is not. That really was implicit in what the previous commenter had said. If I had not addressed his point, you would accuse me of ducking. If I address his point, you accuse me of misdirection.
Ya can't win with a CD-er!
By the way, that foreknowledge of the impact spot is stated explicitly on some pro-CD sites.
See? I HAVE listened carefully to what the CDers are saying and to the science rebutting what they say. That is precisely WHY I equate their position with other fringe positions, such as Creationism.
Good god, you are the one who refuses to read. You still think there is a great mystery about WTC7 when I've shown that, in general outline, the thing is comprehensible. There will always be small mysteries surrounding ANY event, if you look hard enough. But if you look at the transfer truss construction, the massive deisel caches, the presence of huge power transformers, the impact hole on the north face, the footage of the out of control fire engulfing the north face, the predictions by firefighters that a collapse was imminent -- if you look at all of it, the real mystery is why the building stayed up as long as it did.
And I am sick of being accused of attacking straw men. The straw man argument is itself a straw man.
When, months ago, I attacked the CD theory of building 7, people said I was attacking a straw man. Building 7 is irrelevant, I heard. Why wasn't I talking about the twin towers? That was the REAL mystery.
Just now I talked about the twin towers and someone said 'Why didn't you talk about building 7?'
Meyssan's no-plane theory of the Pentagon got a brutalizing response. But the debunkers hears: "Straw man argument! Why don't you talk about the film 'In Plane Sight'?"
Those who attacked "In Plane Sight" were told "Straw man argument! Why don't you talk about 'Loose Change'?"
Those who attacked the first version of "Loose Change" were told" "Straw man! Why don't you talk about the revised version?"
Those who attacked the revised version were told "Straw man! Why don't you talk about '9/11 Eyewitness'?"
And here is a refutation of THAT inane production...
http://www.911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html
I am sure debunkers of that film will soon hear the familiar refrain: "You're attacking a straw man! What about...?"
IT NEVER STOPS! Every single time someone refutes one point, the debunker is accused of attacking a straw man.
I'm sure you would love it if everyone who cared about science took a break and let you CDers command the field. That's because you know your position is scientifically indefensible and you cannot withstand criticism.
During the '70s and '80s, few stood up to the Creationists -- and now, what was a fringe belief when I was a boy is close to becoming the majority opinion.
Never again!
sofla said...
It must be remembered that correct positions can be argued irrationally, illogically, using false claims that are innocently (by ignorance, say) or intentionally misrepresented (say, by cynical sophists trying to win their case, as a lawyer or debater not overly concerned with the exact truth might), and yet, still be the truth.
Conversely, rational, logical, factually accurate arguments can be made for incorrect positions, and sometimes a well-constructed but false case can stand unrefuted for some time before it is shown false. (Zeno's Paradox, or case closed, one lone gunman, anybody?)
The style and logical rigor of any given expositor's presentation cannot tell us whether the case in chief (non-essential details aside) is true or not. Those can, perhaps, give evidence for the credibility and reliability (or lack thereof) of a given author.
If the Loose Change creators hold their position irrationally, emotionally, and unscientifically, against any and all potential counter-evidence they can imagine, that says something about them, but not the case they make, per se.
David Ray Griffin's works stand as models of logical exposition, yet may still yield to a penetrating refutation and be shown mistaken. I haven't seen such a refutation (instead people attack his religious training and beliefs, which are different things entirely), but he makes a great effort to reason rigorously, and if he were ever shown to be in error on his main theses, I am convinced it would be an honest mistake, not because he put a snow job of mendacity forward as an argument.
You'd have to make a relatively comprehensive survey of all the arguments back and forth and all or most of the alleged factual evidence before making even a tentative conclusion as to which side has the better of it. To leap to any conclusion about these events from the arguments and adduced evidence of a single (or small subset of the) advocate(s) is itself unscientific and emotion-driven, not a small irony when that is the charge (or fact) from which the conclusion they must be wrong is reached. Physician heal thyself, indeed! Of course, people have heated opinions about this topic, both pro and con, and rhetorically and logically misbehave when discussing it with their opponents. This is true for many on both sides, IMO. Liars! Shill gatekeepers! Fascists! Illogical idiots! and so on-- much heat, too little light.
However, at a minimum, the scientific method and sound logic requires explaining to a reasonable approximation the totality of evidence (and referencing all the significant lines of argument).
There are multiple problems in this regard: few involved in this dispute attempt such a comprehensive look; those that do (as I think Griffin does) have their lengthy treatments ignored by their opponents; and critically, key evidence has been deliberately destroyed, withheld, suppressed, and lied about (those acts themselves provide a key bit of evidence).
The national firefighters journal editorially called out the WTC recovery as a half-baked farce, and demanded the primary construction materials (the steel girders) be saved in their entirety, treated as the crime scene material evidence they obviously were, as well as for the forensic evidence they might yield as to design or construction faults.
Firefighters' radio communication broadcasts from that day were said to be lost or destroyed, which was evidently false, and when some were released only YEARS later, we heard multiple reports from experienced men there in the field at that time describing what they called multiple secondary explosions. This was also what a very senior NY FD safety official told a network broadcaster at the time, which the anchor repeated on the air.
In a lengthy listing by a CD-opponent of all the times the NYFD personnel that day used 'pull' to mean pulling firefighters back, one cited quote described being unable to see much into the interior of the building past the smoke, but hearing explosionS, plural (well before the building collapsed).
Among the other evidence supportive of the CD theory besides multiple reports from the field and the stated conclusion on the record by at least one high NYC officials as to other explosive devices going off, there is the jiggle seen in camera footage prior to the collapse, the huge plumes of dust requiring more energy by an order of magnitude than the potential energy available, and the fast, if allegedly not free fall speeds, of the three collapses.
Another is the apparent violation of the law of conservation of motion (specifically, rotation) of the toppling top section of one of the twin towers. It should have continued in its motion, and splattered itself whole (mainly missing the rest of the building) rather outside the footprint of the building. Instead we find through photographic analysis that the rotation not only stopped, but that the section was reduced in mid-air to dust, without the mechanism of pancaking of the floors (and little falling energy at that early time in the collapse), or hitting the ground, to account for its being rendering into dust while 900 feet in the air.
So, what could make this CD theorist admit the theory was wrong? A credible answer to these details, or a showing they are mistaken, and an explanation for what would amount to prosecutorial misconduct that would cause a case brought against the CD theory to be dismissed in a court of law.
On what basis, and by whose order, was that steel rapidly taken out of the country and 95% to 98% not examined forensically? Why were photographers zealously kept from certain vantage points, and firefighters and air traffic controllers ordered gagged on alleged national security grounds? Why were firefighters later ordered out from ground zero, prompting a near mutiny among them?
Sorry, but listing out the errors and lacunae of some of the CD boosters' cases is simply insufficient, when graver and far more important matters remain unexplained, and are studiously ignored from the other side.
sofla said...
It must be remembered that correct positions can be argued irrationally, illogically, using false claims that are innocently (by ignorance, say) or intentionally misrepresented (say, by cynical sophists trying to win their case, as a lawyer or debater not overly concerned with the exact truth might), and yet, still be the truth.
Conversely, rational, logical, factually accurate arguments can be made for incorrect positions, and sometimes a well-constructed but false case can stand unrefuted for some time before it is shown false. (Zeno's Paradox, or case closed, one lone gunman, anybody?)
The style and logical rigor of any given expositor's presentation cannot tell us whether the case in chief (non-essential details aside) is true or not. Those can, perhaps, give evidence for the credibility and reliability (or lack thereof) of a given author.
If the Loose Change creators hold their position irrationally, emotionally, and unscientifically, against any and all potential counter-evidence they can imagine, that says something about them, but not the case they make, per se.
David Ray Griffin's works stand as models of logical exposition, yet may still yield to a penetrating refutation and be shown mistaken. I haven't seen such a refutation (instead people attack his religious training and beliefs, which are different things entirely), but he makes a great effort to reason rigorously, and if he were ever shown to be in error on his main theses, I am convinced it would be an honest mistake, not because he put a snow job of mendacity forward as an argument.
You'd have to make a relatively comprehensive survey of all the arguments back and forth and all or most of the alleged factual evidence before making even a tentative conclusion as to which side has the better of it. To leap to any conclusion about these events from the arguments and adduced evidence of a single (or small subset of the) advocate(s) is itself unscientific and emotion-driven, not a small irony when that is the charge (or fact) from which the conclusion they must be wrong is reached. Physician heal thyself, indeed! Of course, people have heated opinions about this topic, both pro and con, and rhetorically and logically misbehave when discussing it with their opponents. This is true for many on both sides, IMO. Liars! Shill gatekeepers! Fascists! Illogical idiots! and so on-- much heat, too little light.
However, at a minimum, the scientific method and sound logic requires explaining to a reasonable approximation the totality of evidence (and referencing all the significant lines of argument).
There are multiple problems in this regard: few involved in this dispute attempt such a comprehensive look; those that do (as I think Griffin does) have their lengthy treatments ignored by their opponents; and critically, key evidence has been deliberately destroyed, withheld, suppressed, and lied about (those acts themselves provide a key bit of evidence).
The national firefighters journal editorially called out the WTC recovery as a half-baked farce, and demanded the primary construction materials (the steel girders) be saved in their entirety, treated as the crime scene material evidence they obviously were, as well as for the forensic evidence they might yield as to design or construction faults.
Firefighters' radio communication broadcasts from that day were said to be lost or destroyed, which was evidently false, and when some were released only YEARS later, we heard multiple reports from experienced men there in the field at that time describing what they called multiple secondary explosions. This was also what a very senior NY FD safety official told a network broadcaster at the time, which the anchor repeated on the air.
In a lengthy listing by a CD-opponent of all the times the NYFD personnel that day used 'pull' to mean pulling firefighters back, one cited quote described being unable to see much into the interior of the building past the smoke, but hearing explosionS, plural (well before the building collapsed).
Among the other evidence supportive of the CD theory besides multiple reports from the field and the stated conclusion on the record by at least one high NYC officials as to other explosive devices going off, there is the jiggle seen in camera footage prior to the collapse, the huge plumes of dust requiring more energy by an order of magnitude than the potential energy available, and the fast, if allegedly not free fall speeds, of the three collapses.
Another is the apparent violation of the law of conservation of motion (specifically, rotation) of the toppling top section of one of the twin towers. It should have continued in its motion, and splattered itself whole (mainly missing the rest of the building) rather outside the footprint of the building. Instead we find through photographic analysis that the rotation not only stopped, but that the section was reduced in mid-air to dust, without the mechanism of pancaking of the floors (and little falling energy at that early time in the collapse), or hitting the ground, to account for its being rendering into dust while 900 feet in the air.
So, what could make this CD theorist admit the theory was wrong? A credible answer to these details, or a showing they are mistaken, and an explanation for what would amount to prosecutorial misconduct that would cause a case brought against the CD theory to be dismissed in a court of law.
On what basis, and by whose order, was that steel rapidly taken out of the country and 95% to 98% not examined forensically? Why were photographers zealously kept from certain vantage points, and firefighters and air traffic controllers ordered gagged on alleged national security grounds? Why were firefighters later ordered out from ground zero, prompting a near mutiny among them?
Sorry, but listing out the errors and lacunae of some of the CD boosters' cases is simply insufficient, when graver and far more important matters remain unexplained, and are studiously ignored from the other side.
sofla said...
Just a sidebar note that Hoffman's analysis of the energies required to both pulverize the cement into 10 micron size or smaller particles, and create the titanic dust blizzard shrouds, may be, by itself, all the proof for CD required.
It's gone through 4 or more revisions as critiques have challenged certain given assumptions or approximations, or as presumed facts were revised with better evidence. Using what Hoffman argues are conservative estimates, his calculations indicate the potential energy of the towers was about 90% too little to provide both those observed and undisputed physical effects.
If gravitational collapse alone does not provide sufficient energy to obtain these results, game over, QED.
Is there any credible refutation of the most recently revised version of Hoffman's paper? I'd like to see one, if it exists.
"David Ray Griffin's works stand as models of logical exposition, yet may still yield to a penetrating refutation and be shown mistaken. I haven't seen such a refutation..."
It's called Google, sofla. You might want to try it someday.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Scroll down until you see Griffin's name. That's just for starters. Try this:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144446009
Models of logical exposition? Bullshit!
The afore-linked piece also speaks to the nonsense we hear about pulverized concrete.
"Is there any credible refutation of the most recently revised version of Hoffman's paper? I'd like to see one, if it exists."
http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/
Scroll down for it. The post was written in September; I don't know if that is recent enough for you.
(Hoffman was the same guy who used to say that no commercial jet hit the Pentagon, and that all the eyewitnesses were paid liars. He had the decency to admit that he was wrong. Naturally, when he did so he was accused of being a disinfo agent.)
We reach a point here where the words ascribed to Jim Garrison in JFK apply: You can use theoretical physics to prove that an elephant can dangle from a dandelion on the edge of a cliff. But at the end of the day, you must apply common sense.
I have yet to see a CD theory of the twin towers which does not presuppose that the alleged plotters knew where the planes would hit. After all, the collapses began at the impact points. That presupposition is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
And you still have not responded sensibly to my "oomph" riff. There simply is no need for CD, since the sight of jets crashing into buildings provided all the casus belli any fiendish plotter could wish for. And before you say what I suspect you want to say, look at what I have already said in response to that:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-last-word-on-controlled.html
(Scroll down until you see the word "oomph.")
As for the other points you raise, all I can say is -- use Google. Use the links I have provided you (to your left) and then click the links you find there. I've already written a ton of stuff today, I have to get SOME paid-for work in, and you cannot fairly expect me to do ALL of your homework for you. I will say this: Your belief that key evidence was prematurely destroyed is incredibly overblown. (I bet you'll take that last sentence as your cue to ignore the advice I just gave you about using Google and doing your own homework. Consider it a test.)
It is the CDers who are guilty of misconduct. How many times must we catch them in deliberate lies, threats, incivility and downright bonkers behavior before you admit that?
I like you, sofla. I don't like the other CDers, but I like you. Even so, you ARE the person who recently said that Woodrow Wilson regretted the Federal Reserve Act, when in fact all evidence indicates that he was proud of that act until his dying day. How about you and I both make a New Year's resolution to improve our double-checking...?
sofla said...
Thanks for the references, which I appreciate and have begun to check.
My first reaction is that the first couple of critiques of Hoffman and Griffin do not accomplish what you implicitly and the authors explicitly claim they do, which is to adequately refute their analyses.
If as alleged Hoffman uses estimates that are off, and therefore his calculation of the energy required is 'definitely too high,' that doesn't get the job done, let alone show his analysis is complete crap, as I think the author all too cavalierly ends his short piece with. (Hoffman attempts a scientific analysis, and deserves credit for the effort.) For 'too high' doesn't say HOW much higher it is than a more reasonable calculation would yield, nor does the author provide an alternative calculation based on these supposed better estimates. For example, if he's too high by a factor of 2, that would leave still a five-fold greater energy required than available from the gravitational potential energy sink. Sure, if he's off by a factor of 10, a fact not in evidence yet (or even claimed!) from this author, then his claim of insufficient potential energy for the observed effects would be refuted. Absent such a quantification of Hoffman's alleged errors, this author is handwaving while claiming to show the analysis is worthless. So while the piece suggests (or proves, perhaps) that Hoffman may be in error, it is not yet dispositive that the error is fatal to his conclusion, as some reduced figure for the energy required might yet be more than what was available. Therefore this grades out as an incomplete argument, requiring additional steps to refute Hoffman's claim in chief. And the author is shown to be a premature triumphalist who somewhat hilariously doesn't close his deal while delusionally thinking he does. (Who still could be right, I hasten to add).
Griffin is accused in the pieces I've read so far of making some errors of fact or assumption. Yet these are a category apart from the question of the quality of his reasoning from those assumptions of fact, which quality was my claim.
Frankly, allegedly 'refuting' his case in chief by referencing a half dozen errors in over a thousand total pages of his writing is naught but a cheap rhetorical trick. It may suffice to assuage those already decided he must be wrong that they are right in their prejudgment, but that's about all it can do. And to say what I did about Griffin doesn't imply inerrancy, nor is inerrancy in every detail in such lengthy tomes required for the thesis to be (mainly) correct.
While I keep looking for something more persuasive to me, you may want to revise your opinion of Hoffman's reversal of opinion on the Pentagon plane. For he wrote that although a plane did hit the Pentagon, it had been about completely destroyed by internal explosives at impact, in order to muddy the waters and consternate the skeptic community with an impossible to explain fact situation. That is to say, he continues to agree that the limited debris is not consistent at all with a 100 ton airliner simply impacting the Pentagon, without additional destruction beyond what that would cause. (I.e., he's probably still a nut by your lights ; ).
"I.e., he's probably still a nut by your lights"
You understand my lights aright. Jesus. Even Meyssan never said anything THAT wacky. I think I'm done with Hoffman now, thank you very much.
If Griffin's fact are wrong, then the quality of his reasoning is of little practical use. Remember when your Logic 101 prof taught you the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?
Example:
1. sofla is a frog.
2. All frogs have four legs.
Therefore...
3. sofla has four legs.
Perfectly valid reasoning. Can you spot where the argument is unsound?
"I give as I get."
You must not be a parent. Mommies and daddies know that little kids will always try that one on for size after playground squabbles. But we do expect them to learn to be responsible for their own behavior. Just because the other kids do it, doesn't mean you have to do it.
Joseph, what are you doing discussing the towers?
Of course there are scientists, engineers and demo-experts who question the ‘official’ story. Otherwise this wouldn’t be America. Christ, it would be a conspiracy if there weren’t some dissent.
I take issue with your belabored point on the speed of collapse. If it wasn’t free-fall, it was damn close. Either way, the point remains. Scientifically, that’s very difficult to engineer. You know how they do it in demolition, of course. They take out the support. But, Christ, how do they do it from the 70th floor? That’s the puzzle then. The weak argument are/is the tube in a tube design (much like many other buildings still in use today).
I really hope we come up with an understanding of how the buildings fell so quickly; how the concrete was pulverized before it hit the ground and/or was crushed and how it was ejected in a 45 degree arc. I really hope we do. Don’t we owe that much to ourselves?
Just for the record, I’m siding with you but still waiting for the calculations to come in. I won’t accept, as you seem to, some vague assurances that it “could have happened this way, with this affect.” Personally, I think we need a demonstration, experimentally, that these ideas are feasible and probable in the situations presented. Is that asking too much? And why aren’t those other buildings condemned yet? Have you thought of that? Would you work in a building that could collapse on itself if an office fire broke out? Because, short of knocking off the insulation that's what the 'official' story purports.
Thanks.
Joseph, you said:
"I have yet to see a CD theory of the twin towers which does not presuppose that the alleged plotters knew where the planes would hit. After all, the collapses began at the impact points."
My impression is that those planes were guided electronically and not by boxcutter-wielding Arabs. Isn't it hard to imagine such aviation novices flying as professionally and accurately as they did? So that argument sucks.
I am not a CD'er. But like Sofla, I am quite as ready as you to dismiss the possibility of CD.
(Incidentally, Sofla, I have now added "inerrancy," "dispositive," and "triumphalist" to what I had thought was my already-extensive vocabulary.)
As for the lack of demolition experts and physicists supporting CD: it was barely a century and a half ago that all respectable scientists declared it was impossible for "stones to fall out of the sky." And little more than a century ago that the head of the Royal Academy (iirc) pronounced that "heavier than air flight is physically impossible." So, the argument of non-academic support, which you rely on so often, may seem irrefutable but is hollow.
Which doesn't mean you are wrong. It is nevertheless interesting to note that about ninety percent of Americans believe the JFK murder had a conspiracy behind it--that it was not a lone loony gunman. Already fully a third of Americans believe the US government was behind 9/11. My bet is that in a decade or two, ninety percent of Americans will believe the US government was involved, at the least, in 9/11.
And my guess is that they will be right. The only question is, how deep was the involvement? I think you are expending futile and counterproductive efforts in this anti-CD assault. Even if you won over every CD'er in the country, what good would it do us? You would only strengthen the position of those who label us conspiracy theorists. And unless I mistake your position entirely, you also believe the official story is bogus, which, I have to say, makes you a conspiracy theorist, too.
I said:
"But like Sofla, I am quite as ready as you to dismiss the possibility of CD."
Sorry. I meant I am NOT quite as ready as you to dismiss the possbility of CD.
CD does NOT require knowing where the planes would hit. If charges were radio controlled, the computer controlled detonation sequence could be easily reprogrammed--even invoking a plan B or plan C or plan D ON THE FLY as collapse progressed, for instance to straighten out the toppling top of the south tower.
As to the oomph, planes flying into the towers without collapses would NOT provide causus belli. You're an artist--imagine the symbolism of the tower standing with an enormous American flag hung above a blackened wound. Instead of replaying the plane impacts over and over the media would show that shot, inevitably playing the Star Spangled Banner: "But Our Flag was Still There."
As a symbol of endurance, uncollapsed towers would not create the desired symbol of the fragility of civilization, and would not justify a millenial war.
Dr. Evil being a little bit evil but not THAT evil is easily explained. The family members of the 3000 9/11 victims were bought off for 16 billion dollars. 30,000 victims would have cost $160 billion.
Instead of kicking sand in the faces of the Loose Change kids and Fetzer and Marrs, it might be well for you to take on somebody more your own size like Griffin or Hoffman.
I read your links that purported to debunk Dr. Griffin. I was very disappointed in the poor quality of the work and the reasoning there.
Since few will read this post, I won't take the time to provide specifics.
Perhaps you'll bring the issue up in a later post?
sofla said...
I understand that when even a well-formed deductive argument proceeds from a faulty premise, the argument fails to prove its conclusion. (We should also remember that showing a given argument doesn't prove its conclusion does not prove the conclusion is false. That is, if (if p then q) and not p, not q does not follow.)
The Griffin slam piece mentions some facts that he is wrong about (for instance, he claims the Pentagon has a battery of anti-aircraft missiles, and while that has been often claimed, it may not be true). My point is that such an error means only that just those conclusions he deduces based on that wrong fact aren't proven by that given argument, and explicitly does not impact other arguments and conclusions that do not rely on that incorrect claim.
The untenable position of the one particular Griffin-knocker is that such errors show him to be an entirely unreliable, completely sloppy, evidently daft loon who never checks anything, and thereby that author dismisses everything else Griffin says and argues, backing up that claim with abundant contemptuous adjectives. That's a quite unfair and illegitimate way to ignore the vast remnant of the arguments he makes and facts he mentions, reminding me of one of my own sophomoric writings dismissing Plato's entire work because he made a logical error in one argument.
----------
I associate myself with the above answer to the oomph question.
The oomph question is a variety of the argument from ignorance or lack of imagination, going something like this: **I** cannot think of any reason the collapse of the towers would add anything to the simple crashing of hijacked planes into them to create a casus bellum, so therefore that additional feature of the attack would serve no true purpose to those supposedly responsible for the synthetic terror attack, so therefore it happened naturally only as a result of the planes' impact and resulting fires, not as a deliberately caused collapse.
That argument is purely subjective, and may be unfalsifiable to you for that reason. Any attempt to describe such a reason can be dismissed as unconvincing (another subjective criterion).
However, consider that the towers typically housed 50,000 workers each, and nobody could say for sure how many of that number had been trapped and killed in the towers' fall. Airliner sized simultaneous deaths are a commonplace-- horrible, but 250 to 300 dead in a plane crash somewhere occurs about every year, and repeatedly over the years right in this country (so, big yawn). A couple hundred dead in each plane, and some hundred dead in each tower, but with the towers surviving, simply cannot be compared in its visceral impact and creation of terror in the populace with the prospects of several tens of thousands dead, and a smoldering ruin of one of the most readily identifiable of any landmarks in the US, and the decimation of the heroic NYC cops and firefighters trying to rescue other victims.
Other potential reasons include a proof of concept, a kind of dry run, done on a limited scale. That appears to be the only reason the second atomic bomb was dropped on Japan-- the plutonium design of the second weapon needed a real world test-- just as the Spanish Civil War was an excellent proving ground for the military tactics and equipment to be used later in WW II by the fascists. Or why, on 9/11 of another earlier year, a man entered the cockpit of a small plane, apparently flew himself through the restricted airspace corrider in DC, and committed suicide by crashing his Cessna into the White House. (When he took off, it was about 11 pm on 9/11; when he landed, it was early morning 9/12.
Oh sofla, just when you were doing so well you had to go all numerological on us. ;>)
I want to add to my point about Dr. Evil pulling his punches the perception that with 30,000 victims we would have had not 4 Jersey Girls but 40, and that critical mass would have meant 100, then 200, then 500, and the media would not have been able to ignore 500 widows screaming for answers.
"CD does NOT require knowing where the planes would hit. If charges were radio controlled, the computer controlled detonation sequence could be easily reprogrammed--even invoking a plan B or plan C or plan D ON THE FLY as collapse progressed, for instance to straighten out the toppling top of the south tower."
Good lord, that's...dumb.
If you see a trail of what looks like pawprints on the accumulated dust on the hood of your car, you could argue that your despised neighbor made the tracks, carefully drawing what appeared to cat tracks, and that he did so for reasons of psychological warfare directed against you.
But that's not the explanation Sir William of Occam would have favored.
Which brings me to another huge flaw with CD theory that none of you guys seem to have considered:
There can be no CD without explosive material secreted somewhere in the building. Right? According to your theory, there were explosives on every floor (or every three floors, or whatever) so that the BOOM could be set off at the impact zone. When Mr. Evil decided the time was right, of course.
But. But. But...
WOULDN'T THE JET IMPACT HAVE SET OFF THE EXPLOSIVES?
Oh, I know what you are going to say: "Mr. Evil may have planned for just that. He may have intended for the collapse to have occurred right away."
Which brings us to...
"As a symbol of endurance, uncollapsed towers would not create the desired symbol of the fragility of civilization, and would not justify a millenial war."
It's our old friend, the Oomph argument again! No, I don't think collapsed towers were necessary for the intended political effect. I just don't.
"Dr. Evil being a little bit evil but not THAT evil is easily explained. The family members of the 3000 9/11 victims were bought off for 16 billion dollars. 30,000 victims would have cost $160 billion."
Wait a minute. But Dr. Evil placed explosives in the building -- explosives which, as far as any putative pre-planner could have known, might well have gone off the moment the jet impacted. Thereby costing a whole bunch more money.
Oh. And if Evil were (as you suggest) in a penny-pinching mod, then he would have preferred a no-collapse scenario, which would have had less negative impact on the economy.
You've contradicted yourself!
Is there an explanation? Sure. But it's bound to be one of those "My neighbor carefully drew the paw-prints" type of explanations.
WOULDN'T THE JET IMPACT HAVE SET OFF THE EXPLOSIVES?
NOT AT ALL , Thermite and Thermate require temperatures over 2000 degrees F to ignite them.
You can make a container out of thermite and fill it full of petrol or jet fuel and burn unlimited gallons with out risk of the thermite igniting .
mick
mick, thanks for providing tonight's clown show.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Despite what a bunch of liars -- regular gusts on right-wing cable TV, I should add -- would have you believe, there is no good evidence of thermite.
A few excerpts:
"The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either."
So we still have a mystery.
And:
"Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist."
And, my favorite:
"Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?"
The following is a diversion from thermite (yes, I'm being unfair, but for the next week or so this is still my blog), but I cannot resist:
"The first instance of 911 conspiracy theories I know of was from a militant libertarian in France. It's no surprise that Jones and others of the movement go on conservative talk shows. Already Hannity and Colmes, Tucker Carlson and other conservatives have given the movement air time. I don't think even the average conservative thinks Tucker Carlson is on a quest for truth. Why are they entertaining us with this? I would think if you want people to hate government, this is the perfect vehicle for you. The mixing of the Mormon religion in Jones’ lectures is equally troubling. I've never heard a scientific lecture where people preach religion after an event. Some people have even entered Mormon prophecy as evidence of Controlled Demolition."
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
Scroll down that page to see evidence of CDer Jones deliberately misquoting an expert named Blanchard. DISGUSTING!
Finally this:
"Jones says:
"I can be proven wrong," Jones said. "I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found. That's nasty stuff that's not going to be used in a building."
OK...
"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and BARIUM.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html "
PS. You'll of course say, as others have said, that there is an explanation for all this, and for the other questions on the page. I'm sure there is. There ALWAYS is an explanation when it comes to non-falsifiable propositions.
Why couldn't young Bill Cosby see those snakes? Because they were invisible.
I’m sure they would have LOVED to have preplanted bombs explode when the planes hit… That would have been very convincing. But nothing happened like that. The planes apparently slammed into the buildings, taking out large pieces of the outer-shell or framework on several adjacent floors. We can suppose that the core columns on those floors were taken out as well or at least compromised. There was some sway in the buildings due to the impact and then… nothing.
The towers stood. Strong and steady for 70 floors but with an inferno of office furniture, paper, curtains and what not burning away on may be a couple of floors. So strong is the fire and intense the heat (don’t mind that lady hanging on to the struts out the window), that the steel floor supports weaken, breaking the bolts. And then, and then…. and then the NIST report concludes… it all fell down.
Ok, so let’s take up where the NIST reports left off. There is this tremendous weight above the weakened floors. There is concrete, well, not so much because of this special construction… you see, this tower pancaked down because it didn’t have concrete support, but without the concrete, well, it didn’t have all that much weight either… It’s a little tricky.
Ok, there’s this tremendous ‘weight’ above the compromised floors, the ones with the buckling walls and floors and broken center struts. These have been stabilized, but with the buckling of the floors and the weight of the 20 floors above, the tower begins to crumble. First one or two floors at the impact site that give no resistance and the weight having gained inertia from that motion proceed to knock out the underlying floors, one by one. The tremendous weight pops out the joists of each succeeding floor and therefore, without resistance, the collapse continues, gaining momentum as it goes down.
The center shafts were meant to be air-tight but air is pressed down as the collapse proceeds. This pressure finds exit, breaking windows and shooting out in lower floors as the collapse progresses in what look a lot like explosive squibs. That’s just air.
Don’t ask me why the center struts don’t play a more significant part in this (why they affect the dynamics of the collapse). I do know we (NIST or anyone) haven’t put this on a computer. No one has engineered this collapse, and we should be ashamed of that. Also, I don’t know why the antenna falls just prior to the collapse sequence. That makes no sense at all. Really, no sense at all, yet that’s what happened.
There are several artifacts that are not explained… the pulverization of concrete before hitting the ground; the ejection of particles out and up in a 45 degree arc and the molten steel in the foundation weeks after the event. I think further study and experiments could clear these things up.
There’s a point of the argument that goes…. It could have happened like this… That’s not sufficient. Obviously other hypotheses have to be tested and excluded more firmly.
There is an hypothesis that stipulates the pre-placement of charges (or thermate) on the core columns in the foundation and at the strengthened floors of the towers. These could have been set off at the moment the floor was giving way. That’s really what it looks like and, of course, that would account for the continued anomalies (core column weakness, antenna falling first, molten steel in the foundation). This scenario would have taken very little time and a small crew. It’s a stealth maneuver. If the jets hadn’t struck (missed or whatever), they could have removed the evidence. Control of the site was important, and they had that.
I’m not saying that’s what happened. After looking at all the evidence I can say conclusively… no one knows, no one can say. We just don’t know. We can guess, take sides, but we can’t be sure. Anyone who thinks they are; well, they’re wrong. They can’t know.
And, you can’t study something like this with a preformed conclusion. Doesn’t work.
This is ridiculous. You think pulverization of concrete is such a big mystery when successive floors are being crushed?
For chrissakes, get this through your thick skulls: THERE WAS NO REASON TO BLOW UP THE DAMN TWIN TOWERS.
The sight of jets hitting the building was all that any neocon plotter needed.
Yes, I've heard your stupid "Oomph" arguments. There really is no need to repeat that argument, folks; I heard you the first thousand times, and I really wish you would stop acting as though you have anything to say to me that I have nor heard before. And please don't think that you can find a way to word it that would be more persuasive that all previous wordings.
The Ooomph argument is PURE HORSESHIT.
Even if we concede (hypothetically) that the whole thing was a conspiracy, with Bush and Rove and Cheney cackling like demons as they engineered the disaster, I would STILL say that that extra psychological "oomph" that supposedly could only be achieved by the fall of the towers did not justify the loss of life and the massive drain on the economy.
That argument is the worst sort of ex post facto reasoning. You people have decided that it was CD and you are looking for a way to rationalize the use of CD when none was needed.
Why would the planners detonate the south tower first, which seems counter-intuitive, since it was hit first? Why not wait until the south tower was evacuated? If the idea was to maximize the loss of life in order to scare people and provide maximum psychological OOOMPH, why was the north tower allowed to be evacuated before the alleged "detonation"?
Why not bring 'em both down at the same time? THAT would have been the ooomphiest move of all.
And how would the plotters know which floor the jets would hit?
First you say there are earwitnesses to explosions in the tower, and that these explosions could not possibly be caused by gas lines and transformers. So you are positing something that goes BOOM, like C4.
But then the question arises as to why the jet strike did not ignite either the explosive or its trigger.
Then you posit that it was thermite. Proof of thermite? Dr. Jones says that sulfur and barium were found. Never mind the fact that we would expect that stuff to be found due to the materials in the building.
Do you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to melt all those steel columns? TONS. Why wouldn't the jet fuel ignite the triggering device? Fourth of July sparklers can be used to set off thermite, and they can be lit by a match. Even matches have been used to ignite thermite (sez Wikipeida). And how could thermite react vertically?
But never mind all that. Thermite does not explode.
So what about those explosions that were supposedly heard and were supposed to constitute positive proof of a CD?
OK, the theorists say, maybe it was a combo of thermite AND conventional explosions.
And then we have Jim Fetzer saying, no, it was an outer space Star Wars howitzer. Not probably, not perhaps, not maybe -- DEFINITELY.
Good God. Good God.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FUCKING LUDICROUS THIS SOUNDS?
I cannot believe that I ever wrote anything that attracted these annoying shit-for-brains types. I did something seriously wrong.
Are you getting a little tired? :)
So your basic argument is if crazy people believe it was an assisted collapse, it must be a crazy notion. That’s pretty airtight don’t you think? Just like those whackos who talked about the jfk assassination when there was apparent cover-up.
I’m disappointed. You wander all over the place trying to hide from the central argument that a detonation assist is possible. We can eliminate a lot of misleading crap but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility. There are scientific anomalies that aren’t explained. They simply aren’t. If you’re more comfortable, emotionally, with one side of the argument then whatever explanation, however remote, will suffice. But that doesn’t make it so. You can’t attack the messenger either if he’s bringing an issue that isn’t resolved. Well, you can if you just want to bury the discussion.
You’re not capable of discussion the scientific issues involved intelligently. No one is. We haven’t done the proper research or testing. That’s the simple fact. Currently, our status is that it’s as plausible to hypothesize an assist or not. There’s nothing you can argue that changes that situation. The weight of the evidence isn’t there. I don’t mind what you ‘believe’ but your arguments are more than a little silly.
For the record, pulverization is a big mystery… when successive floors are being crushed. Yes. It’s a mystery to you and to me and to anyone else, because we haven’t done any tests. It’s a little mystery to see that pulverized dust ejected up and out at 45 degrees, again for the same reason.
It’s unfortunate but I think anyone who is completely sure of themselves in this situation is a complete fool. I really want to believe there was no assist, but I can’t be sure yet… and unfortunately, those who think they are (often on both sides), may actually become obstructions to us determining the evidence needed.
Specifically, we can’t rule out the possibility of detonation assist. This is a simple implementation if we knew there was going to be an air attack on the buildings and we had access. I’m not going to discuss the idiotic ‘oomph’ argument but it’s my opinion that the ‘oomph’ necessary to lock down the country in marshall law it would have been necessary to lose lives.
The top down collapse isn’t a traditional detonation. It could have been a gravitational collapse with the core columns compromised at several layers which could have been done to ensure the destruction of the towers, whatever the perceived ‘oomph’ factor desired.
This compromise of the core columns could have been a combination of thermite and explosives. The sequence or timing of these assists wouldn’t necessarily line up with the actual collapse. The hypothesized perpetrators wouldn’t have been in complete control of how things were timed out. They could have originally planned to cause the collapse as soon as possible after the collision (maybe detonating some columns prior to the impact) or they could have expected to wait until evacuation was complete. They weren’t in total control of the physical nature of the collapse and may have had to improvise if, indeed, there were some detonations made at the last minute.
I think we sure acknowledge that it was a simple procedure well within the reach and capability of a group so determined who had access and motive and foreknowledge of the timing and target of the air attack. So it becomes a necessity to absolutely rule out such intervention. This is something that we haven’t done.
The administrations words and behavior don’t bode well. They attempted to obstruct and then stack and then starve and then rush the 911 commission. What were they worried about (implication by ineptitude possibly)? He lied about the extent of the forewarnings. Why? (same reasons?). He refused to be questioned under oath or separately from Cheney with the commission. Why? (same reasons?). There was an administrative push to get the steel recycled. There’s no doubt, he couldn’t look more guilty if he had actually been implicated it and I currently don’t think he was but can’t be sure.
My current favored hypothesis is that Bush et al. are simply inept and that it was a natural collapse of the structure, though we remained puzzled by the nature of the collapse. If that is the actual truth, what the hell are we doing still sitting in buildings that have the same architecture? The current ‘theory’ states that it wasn’t the jet fuel but office material that burned out of control, weakening the structure and causing the collapse (though there were previous fires). The jets shook loose some insulation and, we can surmise more importantly, compromised the core columns on those floors though there is no sufficient realization of that.
The important point is that the core columns are critical to the official theory. They had to be compromised. The question is whether that breach at that height is sufficient to cause the complete collapse as we witnessed. Remember, there were fires that burned for much longer, but maybe this one was hotter. No previous weakening or impact on the floor joists were noted. Since this happened twice it HAD to be an architectural weakness (in which case we need to condemn similar structures) or it was detonated.
Why argue? Let’s just go find out. Why don’t we interrogate those involved in the pre-911 power-down operations to evaluate the character of that. Why don’t we find out who was behind the pre-911 rise in put options? Why don’t we fund NIST to finish the analysis of the total collapse (they stopped just prior to the pancaking effect). They need to do a lot more tests as well. If we eliminate detonation assist, then we need to evacuate and condemn similar structures. Simple questions, simple steps.
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, only a complete fool would be satisfied with the current status of the investigation. From any objective viewpoint there are outstanding questions and unfinished lines of investigation (so many!).
If you're convinced it was a natural collapse, further investigation shouldn't be any skin off your nose.
Joseph
Cat pawprints are an ordinary occurrence with no reasonable need for extraordinary explanations. Mass murder is an extraordinary occurrence justifying a second look at what appears to have happened. If you find a man with his head beaten to a pulp and a bloody hammer lying next to him, you might invoke Occam to suggest that the man committed suicide by hammer. You might be wrong.
. WOULDN'T THE JET IMPACT HAVE SET OFF THE EXPLOSIVES?
If the explosives were installed inside the hollow columns, probably not. The fireproof container is the box columns.
I don't think collapsed towers were necessary for the intended political effect.
All right, that's your opinion. But I can provide reasons for my opinion and you won't provide reasons for yours.
As to a penny-pinching Dr. Evil, my point remains that 30,000 victims would have engendered 40 Jersey Girls who could not have been ignored. The difference between a $16 billion victim compensation fund and a $160 billion one is hardly a penny pinching distinction, especially considering that the insurance payout on the towers was only something like $5 billion.
As to the concrete pulverization, the mystery is not in the pulverization but in the ejection of the dust. Try this experiment. Put a soda cracker in your palm. Slap the other palm down on the cracker.
Does a cloud of soda cracker emit from between your palms?
THERE WAS NO REASON TO BLOW UP THE DAMN TWIN TOWERS.
Are you sure? Not even to distract attention from the blowing up of building 7?
[oomph] did not justify the loss of life and the massive drain on the economy.
I fail to see how a collapsed tower caused a more massive economic drain than an uncollapsed one, and if you think it would, I guess you are admitting the power of the ooomph factor. Consider also that above-impact survivors would have remained as witnesses (surely some "deranged souls" would gone around testifying to explosions and mysterious power-downs in the building before 9/11) and as activists calling for proper investigations of the collapses.
If the idea was to maximize the loss of life
Obviously the idea was to minimize the loss of life. That's why the strike took place before 9:00. At 1:00 a.m. there would have been 50,000 people in the buildings.
how would the plotters know which floor the jets would hit?
Maybe the planes homed in on radio beacons placed in the towers? Or do you think that coordination between the explosives crew and the hijack crew is out of the question?
Anon 8:32
I appreciate your calm, objective approach, and share your opinion that we don't know what happened. If it was a demolition the top down approach was necessary because unless the execution was perfect, a bottom up approach ran the risk of generating toppling forces.
What brought down the core? That question has not been answered by either FEMA or NIST. Had five hundred feet of core remained standing after its floors peeled off, it very likely would have toppled as a unit, hitting one of the surrounding buildings.
FUCKING LUDICROUS
is the minimal investigation of 911
is Able Danger
is the arrested Dancing Israelis
is asymmetrical damage resulting in a symmetrical collapse of WTC1 ,WTC2 and WTC7.
and you quitting blogging because some people disagree with your "theories" of what happened on 911.
Merry Christmas Joe and a Happy New Year .
mick the clown
Joseph says..
A person suffering from garden-variety paranoia can function in life more-or-less normally, although on the field of intellectual battle he will often infer a nefarious hidden agenda on the part of anyone who opposes his viewpoint. Most of us fall into this mind-set at one time or another. When a newspaper columnist defends a large corporation accused of gross environmental pollution, who doesn’t suspect the writer of taking a secret pay-off? Low-level paranoia can prove a useful survival trait in today’s world, provided it comes in measured doses; reckless application usually brings more discredit to the accuser than to the accused.
Sick think goes further. A sick-thinker automatically suspects the worst of not just his opponents, but of anyone on his side
the same Joseph says..
So....they planted bombs in the area where they planned for the jets to hit? They somehow knew the impact spots in advance?
I say..
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
I have yet to see a CD theory of the twin towers which does not presuppose that the alleged plotters knew where the planes would hit. After all, the collapses began at the impact points. That presupposition is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
Joseph says...
And you still have not responded sensibly to my "oomph" riff. There simply is no need for CD, since the sight of jets crashing into buildings provided all the casus belli any fiendish plotter could wish for. And before you say what I suspect you want to say, look at what I have already said in response to that:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-last-word-on-controlled.html
(Scroll down until you see the word "oomph.")
There can be no CD without explosive material secreted somewhere in the building. Right? According to your theory, there were explosives on every floor (or every three floors, or whatever) so that the BOOM could be set off at the impact zone. When Mr. Evil decided the time was right, of course.
again I say..for the near sighted..Joseph
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
But. But. But...
WOULDN'T THE JET IMPACT HAVE SET OFF THE EXPLOSIVES?
There is an hypothesis that stipulates the pre-placement of charges (or thermate) on the core columns in the foundation and at the strengthened floors of the towers. These could have been set off at the moment the floor was giving way. That’s really what it looks like and, of course, that would account for the continued anomalies (core column weakness, antenna falling first, molten steel in the foundation). This scenario would have taken very little time and a small crew. It’s a stealth maneuver. If the jets hadn’t struck (missed or whatever), they could have removed the evidence. Control of the site was important, and they had that.
Specifically, we can’t rule out the possibility of detonation assist. This is a simple implementation if we knew there was going to be an air attack on the buildings and we had access. I’m not going to discuss the idiotic ‘oomph’ argument but it’s my opinion that the ‘oomph’ necessary to lock down the country in marshall law it would have been necessary to lose lives.
I think we sure acknowledge that it was a simple procedure well within the reach and capability of a group so determined who had access and motive and foreknowledge of the timing and target of the air attack. So it becomes a necessity to absolutely rule out such intervention. This is something that we haven’t done.
Yo! the Hitlerian presidents brother was charged with this responsability. Make sure the buildings are "safe" and secure and ready for an attack..
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
perfect ...no questions asked of Marvin.."he walks between the raindrops"
Jim Garrison describing Cly shaw a conspirator in the death of JFK
Post a Comment