It has been about 6 months now since I wrote my first post here about the 9/11 Truth movement. Following this initial article, I posted another one trying to encourage my readers to go and dig for the facts by themselves. Hoping to encourage independent research, I have now posted some 9/11 links on this blog, and an RSS feed from 911Truth.org. So far, the reactions to the new “truther” orientation of the blog have been rather restrained. My sense is that some of you knew about all this all along, and some are politely refraining for expressing their disapproval for what they probably see as a useless exercise in “conspiracy theories”. Fair enough. Having myself spent eight years being a “9/11 agnostic” I certainly can relate to the incredulity of those who believe that while the US government has plenty of ugly deeds on its conscience, the idea that 9/11 was some kind of “inside job” is really “too much”.
Today, I would like to spell out here what exactly brought me around and made me into a committed “truther”. The second thing I would like to do, is to give some “shortcuts” to those who are “on the fence” or confused about this entire topic.
Let’s begin by the one thing which really opened my eyes. For this, I need to first identify the reasons for my previous 9/11 agnosticism.Basically – I believed that the US government could not have pulled off such a major operation as the covert installation of hundreds of tons of explosives inside WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 without this somehow becoming public. Likewise, I did not believe that having used at least three planes (2 in NY and the one which crashed in Shanksville) the putative “conspirators” would have chosen a rather convoluted “no plane” option to strike the Pentagon. Finally , I did believe very strongly that the USA “had it coming” for decades already and that an organization like al-Qaeda had clearly warned the USA that it would retaliate for the perceived occupation of Saudi Arabia by “infidels” and for the US support Israel. So I applied Occam’s Razor and decided that there is no need to seek some really complex and convoluted solution when the simple and straightforward explanation made sense and seemed to be supported by all the facts.
This reasoning looked all fine and dandy to me until I came to a truly momentous realization: the “official theory” did not explain one major fact: there is absolutely no way that the planes could have brought down the three buildings in New York. Not only that, but the way the buildings fell simply cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse induced by fire.
Let me stress something crucial here: one need not have an explanation for HOW something happened if this something is observed and irrefutably established. Or, put in another way – the fact that somebody cannot explain a phenomenon is not a logical basis to dismiss or deny the phenomenon itself.
Let’s take for example the following fact: the US government – through NIST – officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse – what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives.
The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. At this point, we are faced with two basic and mutually exclusive options:
a) to deny the reality of indisputably established facts
b) to accept the compelling logic of Conan Dolye’s Sherlock Holmes who said: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case – fires causing the observed collapse – VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Furthermore, we also know that WTC1 and WTC2 could not have collapsed as a result of the combined effects of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires (anyone doubting that should watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth – a presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization which now counts over 1000 members).
Unlike the case of WTC7 for which we do have a de-facto government admission that only explosives could have cause the observed collapse, the case of WTC1 and WTC2 not yet elicited any kind of oblique admission by the US government. What Uncle Sam did was even more basic: its latest report officially analyzes the events leading up to the collapse, but does not look at anything which happened once the collapse was initiated. In other words – the government does not even have an explanation, theory or even hypothesis of what could have triggered the type of collapse which was actually observed by millions, if not billions, of people.
So let’s now put it the simple and direct way: the ONLY explanation for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 is a controlled demolition by pre-planted explosives. This is not “one of the” theories – it is the ONLY theory (a theory is an explanation which makes it possible to explain that which is observed). I need to repeat this again: the US government has already admitted that WTC7 did collapse at free fall speed for 2,25 seconds and the US government has simply no explanation at all for the any of the building collapses which happened on 9/11.
Since all the WTC center building were highly secure (especially WTC7 which had all the following organizations as tenants: DoD, CIA, FBI, IRS, USSS and many others) is unthinkable that any entity not affiliated with the US government could have covertly introduced hundreds of tons of high-explosives in these buildings, and most definitely not “al-Qaeda”. Again, we need to turn to the compelling logic of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case – a non-US government entity bringing in tons of explosives into WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 without being caught – VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
That’s it.
That is all it takes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an “inside job”.
There is no need to explain all the seemingly unexplainable events which happened on that day, nor is there any need to explain HOW what we know happened was actually organized and executed. When a crime is committed, the forensic experts can establish that, say a murder was committed with a knife before the police investigators establish who did it, why or how. Put it differently, the fact that the police cannot establish motive, means and opportunity or charge a suspect beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that no murder happened.
This is why the all the numerous members of the 9/11 Truth movement all agree on one key demand: a new, independent and free, investigation into the events of 9/11 (conversely, those who oppose such an investigation are accessories to a clear case of obstruction of justice!).
What about the Pentagon?!
Here I need to caution any newcomers to the 9/11 Truth movement: the fact is that the 9/11 Truth movement is deeply divided on this issue. Many “truthers” are absolutely convinced that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, while many others are equally sure that only a plane could have caused the damage which was observed. The debate on this topic is so heated that both sides sometimes resort to exactly the same tactics as the other: dismissing eyewitnesses are “notorious unreliable” and accusing each other of being government plants, disinformation agents.
Let me candidly share my own view on this with you: I have seen many pictures of the damage on the Pentagon and I cannot imagine that an aircraft would simply vanish the way this one seemed to have vaporized itself. Not only that, but I think that a plane hitting a building at full speed would cause much more structural damage then what is actually seen on the photos. However, and this is a big however, I am not an expert on air crashes. Not only that, but the idea that whoever would have used 3 planes in NY would suddenly decide not to use one at the Pentagon makes no sense to me whatsoever. Nor do the “alternative” theories such as a cruise missile strike or a “bombing flyover” of the Pentagon by a mysteriously disappearing aircraft. On this issue I personally still remain a total ‘agnostic’ and I am quite willing to be convinced either way.
I am aware of the fact that some 9/11 truthers are constantly warning the rest of us that there is a real risk that the US government is deliberately muddying up the waters around the Pentagon attack to commit as many truthers as possible to a “no-plane” theory only to better ridicule us all by eventually releasing an indisputable video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon (and we know that they have many such unreleased videos). I think that this warning should be taken very seriously by all.
But let’s come back here to Occam’s Razor. Here is how Wikipedia sums it up: “When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question“. In practical terms for the 9/11 Truth movement this translates into a fundamental principle: we do not need to refer to whatever happened at the Pentagon to prove that 9/11 was in inside job.
The official narrative (it does not even deserve to be called a “theory”) so full of holes that even a fully empowered independent investigation would have a very hard time making sense of it all. There are literally dozens of issues which should be investigated: the damage to the Pentagon, of course, but also the real fate of United 93 (was it shot down?), the impossible phone calls made from the aircraft, the lack of debris in Shanksville, the close connections of the supposed hijackers to the CIA and FBI, the role of “high-fiving” Israelis and the so-called “Israeli students” spy network, the financing of the alleged hijackers by the Pakistani ISI (whose head was in DC on 9/11), etc. These are all valid topics worthy of careful analysis, but they are not needed to establish that 9/11 was in inside job.
The big news of 2009 was the publication by a group of prestigious scientists in the Open Chemical Physics Journal of a of a peer-reviewed article entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” which established that the dust from the WTC buildings which was collected in NY is full of not only of residue of explosives, but even from unexploded materials (see also Jim Hoffman’s paper”Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust”). Not only had a “smoking gun” been found, a “loaded gun” had been found too. This was, of course, terrific news for the 9/11 Truth movement, a monumental achievement for the scientists involved in the research and publication of this seminal paper. But establishing that explosives have now been found is not needed to make the case that 9/11 was in inside job.
Why is this so important? Because any discussion about HOW 9/11 was done can turn into a refutation of WHAT was done that day. For example, the explosives expert Ron Craig has regularly attacked Richard Cage with the following fallacy: since he – Ron Craig – would not have been able to bring down the WTC buildings with regular explosives without a number of phenomena which were not observed on 9/11 and since he – Ron Craig – knows of no other explosives which could have brought these buildings down the way they were seen to collapse, it follow therefore that explosives could not have been used and the cause of the collapse itself and all the phenomena seen and heard that day could only have been a gravity induced collapse. Ron Craig is basically saying this: “since I cannot explain it – it did not happen”.
So here is what is so crucial: the 9/11 Truth movement should never accept to be placed in the position of having to explain what kind of explosives were used, how they were placed, how they were detonated, how they were brought into the buildings, or how they were manufactured. Our position should be crystal clear: we know that the buildings were brought down with explosives, we think that we have some solid evidence about at least some of explosives which were used, we even have a very good idea of how they might have been brought in, but none of that is central to our thesis: that 9/11 was in inside job. What the 9/11 Truth movement needs to reply to the Ron Craigs out there is: we have proven that the buildings were brought down with explosives and since you claim to be an explosives expert we don’t you find out how exactly this was done instead of denying the facts?!
The main point is this: the way those who are still 9/11 “agnostics” must focus their internal debate about what happened on 9/11 is exactly the same as those who have joined the ranks of the “truthers” must focus the debate when talking to sceptics: First, only stick to those few but crucial facts which are sufficient to prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives as demonstrating this is enough to prove the fundamental thesis of the entire 9/11 Truth movement that 9/11 was an ‘inside job”. Second – refer all other outstanding issues to a future independent 9/11 investigation. This way, we can transform each challenging question thrown at us into yet another reason for a new investigation.
This pretty much sums up the conclusions to which I have come. I am open to other opinions and to criticisms, and I am not in any way claiming that what I wrote above is THE truth about 9/11. It is simply an outline of where I am at this moment in time. My goal in posting all this is to “compare notes” with others in a similar situation and to encourage the doubting agnostics to take a second, hard, look at the facts. Lastly, my hope is that some newcomers (such as myself) might steer clear of some of the logical traps and pitfalls which are placed ahead of them by the proponents of the official narrative.
The Saker
The more I think on this the more I agree with you and people like you.
The paragraph towards the end is crucial:
“So here is what is so crucial: the 9/11 Truth movement should never accept to be placed in the position of having to explain what kind of explosives were used, how they were placed, how they were detonated, how they were brought into the buildings, or how they were manufactured. Our position should be crystal clear: we know that the buildings were brought down with explosives, we think that we have some solid evidence about at least some of explosives which were used, we even have a very good idea of how they might have been brought in, but none of that is central to our thesis: that 9/11 was in inside job.”
Saker. You have a mature and well reasoned viewpoint on this complex issue. This is such an emotional thing to conquer for most people and I am glad you respect that component of coming to the truth. There are definitely those that want to sidetrack those of us seeking the truth to get diverted into endless debates and inner turmoil over things we best should just leave to the future investigations. We can’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know the official story doesn’t add up. Being able to admit that is pretty mature in my opinion and also staying strong in what we do know is important as well. I love this and hope and trust that you will get positive feedback from other readers of this blog. Peace bro.
I’m still not buying it. I’m not architect/engineer, but i do have some undergraduate-levl training in Physics. All the information regaring the world trade building’s mass/dimensions and the crusing speed/weight of 767 is available online. I did the math, and i’ve come to simmilar conclusions as lot of other people: A jet flying straight into a building releases a hell of a lot of energy.
E.G: consider the side of one of the buildings hit by the planes. The plane hits the building somewhere near the top, which induces a torsion on the building, with the foudation acting as the ‘pivot’. This means that if you imagine that you can see the plane coming from the left of your field of vision and hitting the plane on your right, the building is going to ‘try’ moving in a clockwise dirction to accomodate the force being applied to it. Torsion is directly proportional to two variables: the height at which the moving force is applied and the magnitude of the force. This means that if you cut the height in two, you have to double the force to acheive the same effect.(This is why it is easier to open a door by pushing on the part closest to the handle as opposed to he part closest to the hinge).
If we assume that the plane hit the building 2/3rds of the way up it’s height and ask ourselves what kind of force we would be required to induce at half the length of the builidngs footprint(30m i think) to induce an equialent torsion, the answer we get is staggering: the force required is equal to the weight of the entire wtc building itself.
What does this mean?
1. Imagine you ripped out wtc1, foundation and all, and stuck it into the side of a mountain so that it’s jutting outward, with it’s foudation properly built into the mountain side(and just for kicks you rest the sticking-out end on a another mountain so that the force of gravity pulling it down can be ignored).
2. You also uproot wtc2 and attach it to a giat blimp, float it up to the mountain and float it gently over the top of wtc1 where it’s side goes into the mountain. Furthermore you cover the entire bottom of wtc2 and side of wtc1 with nerf so banging these two thing together will cause no cracks etc…
If the plane couldn’t knock down that building,you should be able to be able to rest the complete weight of wtc2 on top of wtc1 without the slightest chance of an incident(for at least as long as crash took to complete, probably 1-4 seconds). i.e. the building’s lateral strenght is just as strong as it’s vertical strenght. i.e. the work of laying that foundation was mostly vanity.
And that is just accounting for the ‘stopping power’ of the plane. Not any exlposions or fires, the structural damage from the wings colliding with the beams, any continuing forces that may have resulted from the engines continuing to run, wihle the nose of the plane is dug into concrete of the building, the vibrations caused by the movements of tens of thousands of people running downstairs to get to the exits etc…
(continued)
Now it may be that it is possilbe to design a building that strong. I can’t say that it isn’t. But if some architect completely dismisses out of hand the possibility for the wtc’s not to have been built to be at least that strong, without explaining how strenght like that could be achieved, I wouldn’t take him verry seriously. Saying ‘they were *designed* to at least such and such specs’ doens’t cut it for me.
Timber?
While the collision was a very powerfull one, the energy that would be required to move all the steel and concrete that made up the wtc’s outside their ‘footprints’ and cause them to fall outside of their would be significantly larger(by orders of magnitued i think). Also, these buildings are designed to have a spring like quality, if they are pushed in one direction they bend a little, and then spring back, it’s how they deal with earth quakes and high winds. But just because they spring back doesn’t mean all that energy has been dissipated. The oscilations and vibrations created a the plane would travel all through the building and the surrounding gournd at different speeds, interferign with one anothier and boucing off of various components into the earth, and back up again until somthing finally gave.
Freefall?
Concrete is a relatively stiff medium, vibrations/waves therefore pass through it at high speeds(it’s the same principal at work when your at one end of a wood desk and can feel someon on the other end knocking on it almost instantaneously). Just becuase a shockwave created by the collapse of some of the floors begins at the top of a buidling and works it’s way down, doens’t mean it has to move at a maximum speed equal to the speed of gravity. It would probably through the building at speeds signifcantly faster than gravity(the speed is actually determined entirely by stiffness of the medium), weakeing the building significantly as it passes through each succesive floor enough that it collapses quite easily under the weight of the upper floors currently falling on top of it. You should probably expect a speed of collapse only slightly slower than ‘freefall’. I doubt it would look like the cartoons where bugs drops an avil on top of elmer’s head while he’s on the roof of some building, and he falls through the roof only to hit the floor below, and wait a couple of seconds for the floor beneath him to crack, and again on the floor beneath that etc…
Now again i’m not an engineer, architect, scientist or anythign of that nature. And maybe some of what i am saying is naive or straight out bunk. But the reasons commonly given for why the towers ‘just couldn’t have’ collapsed because of jets beign rammed into them defintely aren’t ‘home runs’ in my book. While I won’t tell you that these buildings can definetly be brought via jet, I strongly suspect they could, and i’m not going to change my mind until someone gives this issue a more rigorous treatment.
While i don’t have the numbers with me anymore, and therefore can’t post them, it woulnd’t be hard for anyone with some familiarity with phyics to do these calculations over again. I compared some of my values to some others who posted on the net and got very simmilar answers for things like the total kinetic energy released.
If you come across any (numbers heavy)explanations about why the towers just had to have been able to withstand such an attack, or how anything i’ve mentioned here is inaccurate, please post a link. I would love to corrected.
Masoud
just finished watching ‘improbable collapse’
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782#
It’s more technical detail than I had seen before, but I still find the explanations lacking. There were lots of holes in their logic. One thought: there is one physicist from Standford they focus on, whose focus doesn’t even seem to be structural/materials science, but what about all the other Stanford proffessors? Or Harvad proffesors? Or all the other proffesors phds/masters/undergrads in engineering/physics/chemistry. (tens of?)Thousands graduate from schools in the US alone every year. There must be at least millions people qualified in these fields worldwide, including tens of thousands of specialized academics. Why is it that ten years on these ‘truth projects’ have only been able to attract about 1000 warm bodies?
Masoud
I can just about buy the idea that the powers that be knew a hit was in the pipeline and allowed 9/11 to happen, although even that is pushing it – incompetence and cover up seem more likely. But why would they take the risk of using explosives on the WTC building – terrorists flying into skyscrapers would be quite spectacular enough to rally the country round the neocons. Why plant extra explosives with the risk of being seen or someone talking?
Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Thomas H. Kean: “FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue… We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us… It was just so far from the truth.”
Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton: “we got started late; we had a very short time frame… we did not have enough money… We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. … So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail”
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2009/09/08.html
@AmericanGoy and OranGutan: thanks a lot for your kind words of encouragement. I knew that this topic would not be easy and your support really means a lot to me.
@Masoud: thank you for your comments. While I understand where you are coming from, I would ask you to please consider the evidence I referred you to and not other sources. Specifically, I would ask you to watch the Blue Print for presentation by R. Gage (link in the text of the article above). That is a necessary first step for us to be on the same wavelength.
At this point I would only like to point out to you that your argument is essentially a re-statement of the “pancake” theory of the first FEMA report. I will therefore refer you to the NIST report and, in particular, the section in which NIST officially abandons the “pancake” theory: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
On freefall met me add that 2,25 seconds of free fall is about 8 floors disappearing into thin air, and not only concrete, but also metal columns and trusses: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2008/12/415719.html
As for why “1000 bodies”: no, not 1000 “bodies” but 1000 architects and engineers who put their reputation and career on the line. That is not easy to do for ANY professional, in particular in the current climate of neo-Fascist rallying around the flag and a quasi-total media blackout.
@Robert: you are asking me to answer a “WHY” question which is even one step further than the “HOW” questions which I think truthers should say away from. We found the body of a murdered person, and you want me to deduce from that the motive of the killer(s). That is EXACTLY the kind of logical traps which we, truthers, should avoid. So my reply is simple. Why? I have no idea. Let a independent investigation find out!
(… pause…)
Off the record now: there are many reasons to destroy these buildings including destroying thousands of documents about missing trillions (with a ‘t’) at the DoD, closing investigations on NY financeers, getting rid of asbestos-laced buildings, concealing possible technical hacks (say, remote guidance systems) made on the hijacked planes, getting Mr. Silverstein to cash millions of dollars on what his lawyers called two separate terrorist events, etc, etc, etc.
The motive here makes no difference whatsoever and not being able to come up with a single all-incompassing motive does not refute the following fact: the government admits that WTC7 fell in free fall for 8 stories and the government has admitted that it cannot explain how WTC1 and WTC2 fell. In contrast, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have explained BOTH of these events. And, yes, before I forget. Active thermitic materials WERE found.
What else do you want?!
Cheers!
‘Active Thermitic Materials’
As you say the thermite found wans’t detonated. If this operation was carried out so well, how could that be? Intelligence agenices did have offices in that building. God knows what they were storing, or who they were schemeing on giving it to?
If wtc1, wtc2, wtc7 were all brought down via demolition explosions planted by the same team, how come the first two buildings were demolished from the top down, but the last one seemed to be demolished from the bottom up, like it had fallen through a trap door? Clearly one of these buildings doesn’t fit the pattern.
That video, incidentally, is one you did site in the previous blog post that you linked to.
Masoud
from the faq you cited…….
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely………
It seems the nist disavvowed the ‘pancake theory’ meaning that they don’t beleive that it was the top floor collapsing on the second and then on to the third etc… But rather, began the top 20 or floors collapsing all at once, and snowballing downward. The whole document seems quite reasonably considered and written. It doesn’t do much to advocate for conspiracy theories.
Masoud
@Masoud: As you say the thermite found wans’t detonated. If this operation was carried out so well, how could that be?
Again, that is exactly the type of issue which I should refuse to speculate about a refer it to a questions list for a future commission of inquiery.
(…pause…)
However, off the record: there are always unexploded residues in any explosion unless the conditions are laboratory like. We are not talking about kilos and kilos, but microscopioc level nodes. Check out the article for more details.
If wtc1, wtc2, wtc7 were all brought down via demolition explosions planted by the same team, how come the first two buildings were demolished from the top down, but the last one seemed to be demolished from the bottom up, like it had fallen through a trap door?
Again, that is exactly the type of issue which I should refuse to speculate about a refer it to a questions list for a future commission of inquiery.
(…pause…)
Off the record now: my GUESS is that WTC7 was easier to model due to its size and hence, a conventional controlled demolition was deemed safe enough. WTC1 and WTC2 were clearly “over-demolished”.
As for the viedo, I though you referred to the one called ‘improbable collapse’
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782#
The one I am referring to is called Blueprint for Truth (2008) and is found here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#
Have you see this one?
@Masoud: The whole document seems quite reasonably considered and written. It doesn’t do much to advocate for conspiracy theories.
First, I would note that the NIST report dealing with physics would, presumably, have nothing to say – by definition – about conspiracy theories.
Second, please note that the NIST report has the following focus: “the probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse
Which means that it does not deal AT ALL with the mechanism of the collapse itself, only the initiation.
What NIST presents further is, indeed, no “conspiracy theory”. In fact, it is not even a “theory” at all. It is, at best, a hypothesis, a narrative. A theory differs from the latter two by the fact that is offers an explanation, a model, if you wish.
For a good assessment of the NIST report please see: http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
Lastly, you use the word “conspiracy”. May I suggest that the official narrative is exactly that? A group of angry Muslims monitored by every secret service on the planet while they were sitting in Afghan caves brought down 3 buildings with 2 planes by using hijackers with box cutters whose piloting skills were not good enough to fly a Cessna? All the buildings fell symmetrically and at free fall speed, two in less then 90min and one with no plane impact at all. How is that for a conspiracy theory?
@EVERYBODY: IMPORTANT CORRECTION
In my last comment I wrote All the buildings fell symmetrically and at free fall speed, two in less then 90min and one with no plane impact at all
This is incorrect. Only WTC7 fell at free speed. WTC1 and WTC2 did accelerate and collapse rapidly, but not at free fall.
My apologies.
The Saker
Excellent post!
The many botched demolitions in China and elsewhere show how challenging it is to bring down highrises even with presicely placed explosives.
But we are expected to believe, as NIST wants us to believe, that random fires alone brought down WTC 7 – and in a way that matches the most skilled of controlled demolitions possible!
We are also expected to believe that the investigation of major building disasters can begin with the destruction of the research material (NIST: “No steel was recoved from WTC 7”), followed by years and years of varying hypotheses (the alleged south side damage, diesel fuel…). Of course, investigating the rather compact debris pile would have conclusively revealed what destroyed WTC 7.
And what was the final conclusion based on no physical evidence at all? Thermal expansion – obviously a factor in all the highrise fires throughout history – in the case of only WTC 7 somehow brought the 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper into its foundations, in seconds, and without structural resistance for over 2 seconds. That is impossible. Plain and simple.
Here’s my own page about WTC 7:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
If 9/11 had never happened and the current videos of the three “collapses” had been used in a movie to represent fire-induced collapses, people would have laughed in movie theaters at the obviousness of explosive demolition.
@Truthseeker: WOW! Your website is really something. Let me read it all carefully and get back to you in a couple of days. Could you send me your email address to vineyardsakerATgmailDOT.com?
Thanks,
The Saker
> the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down
Except that these famed 2.25 seconds occurred after the collapse of Building 7 had been in process for about 10 seconds, so there’s nothing mysterious about it. Building 7’s collapse first shows visibly on the side of the eastern penthouse. The collapse later became outwardly visible on the northwest side, but the collapse was going on within the building’s structure that whole time. Some people have made very deceptive misuse of films taken on the northwest side to imply to the uninformed viewer that the scene which appears to show 2.25 seconds of virtual freefall represents the onset of the collapse, but that’s just another truther hoax. That famous scene is taking place after about 10 seconds of building collapse have already been going on and therefore the deduction that these 2.25 seconds somehow prove the use of explosives is simply false.
> Only WTC7 fell at free speed.
The collapse of Building 7 took 18 seconds according to seismic records, and 16 of these can be detected onn film. You just to make sure to get a comprehensive film which shows the entire collapse beginning from when the eastern penthouse fell through all the way to the end. Truther hoaxers frequently mislead audiences by using videos taken from the northwest side which only show about 6.5 seconds of the collapse. But that is not a correct estimate of the actual collapse-time of Building 7.
@”debunking” anonymous: are you aware that you are COMPLETELY contradicting not some crazed truthers, but the official NIST report which admits the 2.25 seconds of free fall?
Are you calling NIST “Truther hoaxers”? LOL.
Seriously, the substance of your post shows your absolute ignorance of the basic facts pf the case, and your rude and self-righteous tone shows your condescending hostility towards those who express doubts about the government narrative.
Can’t say I am very impressed here.
VS
Saker summed up the government’s official conspiracy theory, which we Americans are all supposed to be dutifully buying into and not questioning, quite well:
“….Lastly, you use the word “conspiracy”. May I suggest that the official narrative is exactly that? A group of angry Muslims monitored by every secret service on the planet while they were sitting in Afghan caves brought down 3 buildings with 2 planes by using hijackers with box cutters whose piloting skills were not good enough to fly a Cessna? All the buildings fell symmetrically and at free fall speed, two in less then 90min and one with no plane impact at all. How is that for a conspiracy theory?”
And amazingly those who appear to have bought into our government’s copnspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker are questioning why truthers(or doubters of our government’s official story) prefer to look for more logical and believable “conspiratorial” theories?
I simply cannot bring myself to buy into our government’s official, unbelievable story which is why I am open to all other theories that are more believable….
YOU ARE TOO LATE—
THE MANIPULATION THAT THE LIBTARDS ARE ATTEMPTING ISNT WORKING—-
PEOPLE DO KNOW WHO AND WHY 911 OCCURED—->IDIOT SHILL NEWCOMER–YOU ARE NO TRUTHER
——
YOU ARE NOW A PART OF THE LIBERALIZED “ANTI BUSH” LIBTARD VERSION OF 911 TRUTH–
I don’t understand the objection to the term out ‘conspiracy’. I wasn’t trying to use the term provocatively, but that is essentially what you are alleging, isn’t it? Whatever you are allegeing happened, it involved people in top power positions colluding together to get it done, and extending their collusion to cover up all subsequent investigations of the matter, and that’s pretty much all we know about the matter. ‘conspiracy theory’ sounds apt to me. What would you rather these things be called? I alwasy thought ‘truther’ was a somewhat derisive term, do you prefer it to ‘conspiracy theorist’?
Masoud
dear masoud..
heres another thing we know–
on 10-10-01,mossad agents were caught red handed with bombs and fake pakistani passports—trying to take out the mexican national parliament building
reported worldwide for all to see
———–
ultimate smoking gun to show mossad involvement in attacks on america during that time
—
THIS WILL BE DEALT WITH IN TRUE JUSTICE–NOT RACIST WAR OR HOLOCAUST
AMERICA IS GREATER–‘
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
I too was agnostic from the word go but arrived at the conclusion that it was indeed facilitated (for want of a better word) by co-ordinated elements of the US Deep State maybe 5 years ago. Since then I’ve watched in bemusement as the US Establishment (indeed the entire Western ‘Establishment’) went to work defending the indefensible – ie the ‘official narrative of events’. Vastly more resources are devoted to it than for example the similarly absurd official narrative of the JFK assassination and my guess it will never be conceded so long as the US holds itself together as a monolithic Union.
Personally I’m relaxed about ridiculing that official narrative in ANY company now – especially patronising politicos who, in their credulous childlike fashion, believe they have some kind on inside track. It simply makes me that much more capable of dealing with the vastly Machiavellian world in general and it’s infinitely mendacious Western manifestations in particular. If you have a career to worry about or need the cosy comfort of believing that government is their to protect you then life could get difficult. After all its near impossible to get anyone to see what their livelihood and peace of mind depend on them NOT seeing eh?
Craig Murray (ex-UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan) felt forced to post on the topic recently and attracted well over 500 comments for his pains – most of them the usual type of triviality-focussed garbage.
Rather than get lost in the noise I answered him on my own blog.
I also heartily recommend Nobody on the same topic.
Keep it up Saker-man – you’re getting their.
@Masoud: I don’t understand the objection to the term out ‘conspiracy’ (…) I alwasy thought ‘truther’ was a somewhat derisive term, do you prefer it to ‘conspiracy theorist’?
Good point. Let me clarify my position on that.
“Conspiracy theorist” or, worse, “conspiracy buff” is something which is used not as a descriptive term, but either as a discriminatory term or a derogatory term. In the former case “conspiracy theory” is applied only to the “truther” side and, by implication, suggest that the government narrative is NOT a conspiracy theory (which, of course, it is). In the latter case, “conspiracy theorist” is used as a substitute for “tin foil hat wearing crazie”; essentially a ad hominem.
I personally think that the correct version should be as such: on one side the government conspiracy narrative or, at best, *hypothesis*. On the other, the 9/11 Truth movement’s conspiracy *theory*. If both sides are equally described as being the proponents of the conspiracy, then I have no objection to the use of the term. But since this will not happen anytime soon, a better formulation for the postition of the 9/11 Truth movement would be “explosive demolition theory”.
As for the word “truther”, I have no idea who coined it and with what intention. I see that a lot of ‘truthers’ seem happy to use it and so am I. Nothing wrong in seeking the truth. And it sure sounds better than ‘liar’ does it not?
Cheers!
@Sabretache: I’ve watched in bemusement as the US Establishment (indeed the entire Western ‘Establishment’) went to work defending the indefensible
Oh yes, I feel the same way. That the official narrative is an absolute idiocy was, frankly, obvious to me almost immediately. What kept me in the ‘agnostic’ camp was the idea that “these idiots are trying to cover up yet another example of their utter incompetence”. I thought that they had totally mis-handled the entire business and that this was why the were feeding us all the kool-aid. The sheer idiocy of the ‘arguments’ of the debunkers only added to that feeling that “the idiots are engaged in a massive CYA operation”.
Incompetence can explain A LOT: no scrambled planes, crappy airport security, poorly designed or built buildings, no coordination between security agencies, etc. So as long as I did not come to the conclusion that the WTC buildings HAD to have been carefully loaded up with explosives I was fine. After all, that these idiots are idiots is hardly big news, nor is that idiots are trying to cover their butts after the fact. But as soon as I came to the (frankly inevitable) conclusion that many tons of high-grade explosives were brought into 3 major NY city buildings the “idiots covering their incompetence” hypothesis was dead in the water.
What amazed me most is that as soon as I gave up my prejudice (“even they would not have dared”) and looked at the WTC towers issue with a fresh look I realized something obvious which is impossible to miss: all it takes is a high-school level understanding of physics to see that is OBVIOUSLY was not a gravitational collapse.
I have three kids, aged 8, 12 and 13. I gave them a lecture about the official government narrative about 9/11. The oldest two immediately found impossibilities in this narrative and they did that solely by using their knowledge of Newton’s laws of motion. The 8 year old asked why the buildings came down so symmetrically (he did not use that word).
So it is really not that hard. All it takes is a unprejudiced look at that’s all.
Hey – if a boneheaded guy like me could come around, so will everybody else, sooner or later.
Cheers!
The propagandists have done a masterful job of turning the word “conspiracy” into a smear. Conspiracies are rather commonplace actually. The question is: who’s conspiracy?
What I find to be the defining characteristic of debunkers is their apparent cognitive dissonance. Anything but the official narrative so rocks their comfy world-view that they will perform the most ludicruous acts of mental gymnastics to defend the official myth.
Personally, I was never an agnostic on the inside job view. I’ve seen the emperor naked too many times in the past decade to be anything but the eternally sceptical iconoclast.
> the official NIST report which admits the 2.25 seconds of free fall?
The issue is whether you are aware that those famed 2.25 seconds did not occur at the onset of the collapse, but only 10 seconds into the collapse. Truthers have misused videos taken from the northwest side to give the misimpression that those famous 2.25 seconds are occurring at the very start of the collapse. They don’t. If you check more complete videos then you can see that the collapse first showed on the side of the eastern penthouse and only became outwardly visible on the northwest side some 10 seconds after the start of the collapse.
So what is supposed to be proven by these legendary 2.25 seconds? By the time those 2.25 seconds occur the entire buillding has been in process of collapse for 10 seconds and with the underlying support structure already gone there is no reason to believe that explosives would be needed to account for these magical 2.25 seconds.
“I have three kids, aged 8, 12 and 13. I gave them a lecture about the official government narrative about 9/11. The oldest two immediately found impossibilities in this narrative and they did that solely by using their knowledge of Newton’s laws of motion. The 8 year old asked why the buildings came down so symmetrically (he did not use that word).”
I was once watching a video of WTC 7’s perfect demolition with my brother, a techician. Suddenly my 8-year-old niece entered the room, watched the video for a while (while we kept silent) and said “House is crumbling” (in Finnish, of course). I then asked her what was happening. “Yes. A bomb!” she exclaimed enthusiastically. A young kid immediately saw what should be obvious to any adult.
(As should be the fact that office fires cannot be used to skilfully demolish highrises, or that unprecedented major building disasters are NOT investigated by first destroying the research material.)
By the way, no matter at what stage the 2+ seconds of freefall occurred, there would always have been at least SOME of 80 support columns and other building material in the way providing resistance. And much more than mere air!
Periods of complete non-resistance can only appear (and appear) during controlled demolitions, as a number of floors – not all, of course – are removed as part of the process.
@anonymous debunker: So what is supposed to be proven by these legendary 2.25 seconds? By the time those 2.25 seconds occur the entire buillding has been in process of collapse for 10 seconds
Where did you get your “10 sec into the fall” figure?! Please take the time to check the NIST graph reproduced here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2008/12/415719.html
(original PDF file here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)
If you still want to place the onset of free fall at 10 seconds into the collapse of the building, that means that “your” WTC7 began collapsing over 8 seconds before NIST’s WTC7 collapsed… Would that make NIST truthing hoaxers?!
Besides, all this is still irrelevant to the main issue. If you accept (and you do!) that for 2.25 seconds the collapse was in free fall – not matter when it occured in the overall sequence, you also thereby admit that for about 8 stories there was no resistance at all. Hence 8 stories were suddenly and *symmetrially* removed. And that can mean only one thing: explosives.
Even your narrative points to explosives. It’s just that you are not aware of it yet :-)
But one really only needs some common sense to understand that random fires, burning out in 20-30 minutes at any *invididual* office location (as NIST agreed they did in WTC), cannot heat up massive steel columns and beams to such extent that they could fail. They of course didn’t fail in NIST’s own fire experiments conducted in exaggerated conditions (exaggerated as compared to actual WTC fires).
Perhaps comparison with a Finnish midsummer bonfire helps understand this.
http://juhannuskokko.blogspot.com/
A narrow drooping wooden plank, stacked in the middle of a huge fire, needed 30 minutes to break. In the same time, a massive steel beam or column would not have been dramatically affected.
> Where did you get your “10 sec into the fall” figure?!
For starters, you should watch a reasonably complete video of the collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
This shows about 16 seconds of the collapse, and it is clear that the famous scene taken from the northwest begins about 10 seconds into the collapse. Just the northwest angle is what appears in videos which Jim Hoffman has featured:
http://wtc7.net/videos.html
If you rely on those videos from the northwest side alone it is easy to get the misimpression that the collapse occurred in 6.5 seconds. That has usually been the number floated by Hoffman. But it’s wrong, as the more complete video shows. For that matter, even if we did not have the better video, the seismic records had already been reported as giving 18 seconds for the collapse:
http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html
The fact that we can find a video which shows 16 seconds just confirms it.
> Please take the time to check the NIST graph reproduced here
Well for someone who wishes to pose as a critic of NIST you seem unusually hypnotized by selected statements which they’ve made. Neither the video evidence nor the seismographic readings depend upon taking anything which NIST says for granted. If NIST makes some clumsy statements which talk about the collapse as it appears from the northwest side without clarifying that such is what they meant, then it only proves that they were speaking clumsily. It doesn’t prove anything about demolition.
> for about 8 stories there was no resistance at all. Hence 8 stories were suddenly and *symmetrially* removed
No. What it implies is that most of the material on the inside of the building, which we are not able to see from the outside, had already given way and fallen down within the first 10 seconds or so of the collapse, so that the outer shell which was still standing was able to go down very rapidly. It wasn’t suddenly removed, it was in the process of falling down within during those parts of the collapse time which we can detect from the seismographic records and which show externally on the side of the eastern penthouse. The fact that it appears very sudden when looked at from the northwest side is just an optical illusion.
@anonymous debunker: sorry, but what you are saying makes no sense at all. Even setting aside the fact that you are contradicting NIST, look at the logic of your narrative:
The East Penthouse fell first, then a large chunk of the building collapsed, and only then did the North facade only fell later.
But consider this:
1) Whatever happened to the “rear” part of the building did obviously not happen UNDER the tip of the north facade (if it had, we could have seen it). So even if a part of the building had previously collapsed, that does in no way explain why the north facade came down at free fall.
2) nobody is arguing that free fall began at the initiation of the structural failures anywhere in the building. Both NIST and truthers are looking not at what can only be surmised, but at what can actually be measured. You take the north facade and you start running the stopwatch. Unless you can prove that the structure directly under the north facade had somehow totally collapsed (which all the videos clearly show did NOT happen), you still have to explain why the north facade came down in free fall speeds for about 2.25 seconds.
3) you also fail to explain how what you claim is most of the material inside the building collapsed while the north facade stood there. Where all the floors and trusses somehow mysteriously disconnected from the north facade? Why did the rest of the structure not pull the north facade inward and over the collapsing center/rear of the building?
When you write Truthers have misused videos taken from the northwest side to give the misimpression that those famous 2.25 seconds are occurring at the very start of the collapse.Truthers have misused videos taken from the northwest side to give the misimpression that those famous 2.25 seconds are occurring at the very start of the collapse. you are deliberately misrepresenting the truther’s position. All the truthers did is take the NIST figures and graphic and point out that for the *MIDDLE* part of the collapse sequence of the observed part of the building 2.25 seconds happened at free fall speed. Look at the graph again. We are not referring to stage 1 (or stage 3 for that matter), but only to stage 2 (as definied by NIST).
The idea that all the videos would show some kind of a hollow outer shell falling symmetrically is absurd. And even it couldn’t fall on top of itself without any structural resistance!
But it’s funny that NIST’s 3-D collapse models (both of them) show the outer walls, too, crumbling *inwards* at the very onset of their collapse scenarios. Of course, NIST doesn’t try to model the entire destruction – only the very beginning of it – but it is revealing that their 3-D models have absolutely nothing to do with the way in which the building is seen actually behaving on all the videos (almost straight down, walls vertically oriented).
All the videos of WTC 7 show it come down in a way that ANY controlled demolition company would be VERY proud of.
This was a 174-meter-tall highrise, and the surrounding buildings were only separated from it by a narrow street, so there was obviously some collateral damage, as the normal precautions obviously could not be carried out and were equally obviously not a priority. I’m just pointing this out because some debunkers have referred to this damage, claiming that WTC 7 doesn’t match a skilled controlled demolition. It does. I doubt if, under normal conditions, a highrise in such tightly built environment would even be explosively demolished but instead dismantled manually.
Fires cannot result in what even many explosive demolitions fail to do; consider the botched explosive demolitions in various countries – recently in China.
Unprecedented building failures are not investigated the way WTC 7 was “investigated”. Destroy the research material without investigation, then start hypothesizing about the role of the alleged south side damage, the role of the diesel fuel… Then say in 2006 that we “don’t really know”, that we’ve had “trouble getting a handle on WTC 7” (as Shyam Sunder did in an interview), and then come up with a “magic column” (column 79) “explanation” based on a “new phenomenon” (which is not really a new phenomenon but obviously appears in all steel building fires).
Who could take such an “investigation” seriously? The over 1,000 architects and engineers of the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” certainly don’t (among others), and I don’t blame them.
> contradicting NIST
It’s rather that you’re giving too much importance to some careless phrasing by NIST. NIST reports were not assembled as a rebuttal to truthers. If NIST had specifically been making a report directed at answering questions from a truther audience, then some of their phraseology would be terribly irresponsible. But they weren’t and so if they seem to reference a certain point as a “start” of a collapse then you have to be prepared to go back and check that very carefully, rather than blindly latching onto it as part of your evidence.
> Whatever happened to the “rear” part of the building did obviously not happen UNDER the tip of the north facade (if it had, we could have seen it).
You can only see what shows externally and have no way of seeing the processes which are going on within the structure behind those outer walls.
> Both NIST and truthers are looking not at what can only be surmised
The whole basis of your demolition argument is a single surmise. You are trying to surmise that if a film clip shows part of the structure collapsing at a certain rate, then this implies that bombs were used to cause the collapse. However, that surmise must rest on the premise that some type of semi-stable structure is underlying the body of mass so that even if it all collapses eventually a certain traction effect should slow down the collapse to a point where certain speeds of collapse will be impossible. But once we recognize that the collapse had already been ongoing it means we no longer have any basis for such a surmise.
> Unless you can prove that the structure directly under the north facade had somehow totally collapsed
No, once we realize that the collapse had already begun and was partially accomplished it means we can no longer draw easy conclusions about what is too fast of a collapse-speed to observe.
> you also fail to explain how what you claim is most of the material inside the building collapsed while the north facade stood there
As NIST has already pointed out with reference to the Towers, once the collapse begins it becomes chaotic and impossible to model in detail. But after all, the whole point of the “collapse too fast” argument is supposed to be that we expect a standing structure to create a traction-effect during collapse-time so that while the building may be collapsing overall the cumulative process takes a bit longer to complete itself. That would certainly suggest that one may expect portions of the inner structure to cave way while the outer structure appears to still be standing for a few seconds longer.
> consider the botched explosive demolitions in various countries – recently in China.
Different type of building. There actually have been rather few demolitions which would allow for any comparison the World Trade Center. These were steel-framed structures with no concrete core which reached a height that was significantly disproportionate to the perimeter of the base. Those are unusual conditions and one has to be cautious with making any comparisons.
There are examples of the botched demolition of many different kinds of buildings. The point was that random fires cannot perfectly accomplish what even precisely placed and timed detonations sometimes fail to do.
Otherwise we would have entered an era of “fire demolition” and would no longer be needing the expensive services of controlled demolition companies.
I heartily recommend the video satire “EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
The following short video by a physics teacher analyzes the significance of WTC 7’s freefall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4
But as I said, no adult person with a modicum of common sense can take seriously the WTC 7 “investigation”, with its varying “hypotheses” over the years, preceded by a rapid destruction of the research material from the crime scene.
Or an investigation that distorts statements such as those by Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority.
Jennings has given a detailed statement of explosions in the evacuated WTC 7 in the Loose Change: The American Coup documentary. As a result of a major explosion on the sixth floor, he and his colleague were trapped inside the building for about an hour and a half before the firemen were able to help them out. The colleague was Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel, who confirmed to UPN 9 News that morning that an explosion in WTC 7 had trapped him and Jennings inside. Jennings emphasized that after the explosion, both of the twin towers were still standing, a statement that is supported by the time of Hess’ interview in the morning. The men’s statements, combined with the time of Hess’ interview, place the explosion around 9:15–9:30, when the two were descending the stairs from the Mayor’s Emergency Management Centre on the 23d floor, to which they had gone before the second plane struck the South Tower – only to find the Emergency Management center already fully deserted (which is incredible in itself).
http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast.shtml
“However, that surmise must rest on the premise that some type of semi-stable structure is underlying the body of mass so that even if it all collapses eventually a certain traction effect should slow down the collapse to a point where certain speeds of collapse will be impossible.”
The outer walls could not have maintained their rectangular and vertical shape at the onset and during the “collapse” unless still supported by the internal structures *on the still intact floors*. (And, as I said, not even a mere facade would have dropped vertically without the structural resistance of its own lower parts.)
However, NIST’s 3D models of the early part of the collapse indeed show the outer walls *crumbling inwards* as a result of their hypothesized sequence of events.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
But that is not what happened, as all the videos of WTC 7’s destruction show. Unlike NIST’s models, the outer walls of WTC 7 did NOT crumble inwards before the walls started to descend. On the contrary, the walls maintain their rectangular shape and vertical orientation during most of the descent.
NIST’s 3D models show what should have happened to the walls if their theory is anywhere near correct. The videos show what actually happened to the walls. There is no resemblance. Ergo, NIST’s model of the collapse does not describe what actually happened.
@anonymous debunker: NIST reports were not assembled as a rebuttal to truthers.
Not true. In fact, truthers were the ones who forced NIST to admit that WTC7 did fall at free fall accelerations for part of its collapse.
The whole basis of your demolition argument is a single surmise.
Not true. The use of explosive demolitions is, so far, the only theory out there which actually explains that which was observed. That is not surmising, that is the basis of the scientific method.
As NIST has already pointed out with reference to the Towers, once the collapse begins it becomes chaotic and impossible to model in detail.
That is just a cop out to avoid looking at the facts and avoid having to explain them. You might as well say that angels from outer space used secret Klingon death-ray weapons to place a mini black hole inside WTC7. That explanation, in fact, would be far better since it would explain some of the otherwise “unexplainable gravitational” collapses we saw on 9/11. LOL!
The polite thing to say at this point would be “thanks for the exchange of views, this has been fun, but I need to stop this here due to my other obligations”.
I am not that polite.
So I will say it like I feel it: this has not been fun, it almost immediately became tedious. Initially, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but soon my replies were not so much adressed to you as they were to those who might come across this thread. I feel that I have suceeded in showing what I wanted to show: a) that your hypotheses are neither based in observed reality, nor burened with logical analysis. b) that we proven wrong “here”, you will just jump “there” without any admission of the fact that your narrative was demonstratively false. In oher words, that you don’t care about the truth one damn bit. I feel that I have achieved both of these results to my satisfaction.
If Truthseeker or anybody else has the inclination and patience to try demostrate to you that the earth is round – they are welcome to pursue this further. Personally, there is only that much time which I can dedicate to flatearthers.
In conclusion, I will refer you to the hilarious video Truthseeker referred us to (I re-posted it on the blog above) and bow out.
Cheers!
VS