New York City activist

April 13, 2008

My current views on 9/11 – brief summary

Since July of last year, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying various arguments and counterarguments about what happened on 9/11. Below is a brief summary of my current thoughts.

There is evidence of at least criminal negligence on the part of high officials in the Bush administration. (See the Complete 911 Timeline on the Cooperative Research site. For a quick overview, see The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11 by Paul Thompson.)

There is also strong evidence of both a coverup and conflicts of interest on the part of the 9/11 Commission. (See the Cooperative Research site’s pages about the 9/11 Commission. See also The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver.) Hence the need for a new, independent investigation.

I do not, currently, take a definite position as to whether anyone in the U.S. government is guilty of anything worse than negligence in connection with 9/11. I suspect at least treason and possibly LIHOP or worse, but the evidence for these isn’t nearly as strong as the evidence for at least criminal negligencs.

I’m an activist against religion-based bigotry, but I strongly disagree with the idea that, in order to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, one must deny that there were any live human hijackers on 9/11. There is not enough evidence for the pure “MIHOP” view (see What is your HOP level? Ten 9/11 paradigms by Nicholas Levis), whereas there is, alas, plenty of evidence that there were indeed live human hijackers on 9/11, although one may legitimately question some of the specifics.

As for the question of whether someone in some relevant position of authority decided to supplement the 9/11 plane crashes by doing something else to the WTC buildings, I’m currently undecided. There are reasons to be suspicious, especially about WTC 7, but the evidence (especially regarding the Twin Towers) isn’t nearly as strong as some people think. As I’ve been pointing out for a while now, many fallactious (or at least incomplete) arguments have been made. (See my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.)

My current top reason to suspect at least criminal negligence, by high officials in the U.S. government, is the following combination of facts:

  1. Saudi Arabia’s less than wholehearted cooperation with the U.S. government’s attempts to investigate the hijackers.
  2. The Bush family’s continued friendship with the Saudi royal family, despite #1.
  3. The continuing close alliance between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia, despite #1.
  4. The evidence that Osama bin Laden still maintained ties with both his own family and the Saudi royal family, contrary to officially-stated policy.
  5. The FBI’s and CIA’s informal policies of avoiding investigations that might embarrass the Saudis (and other U.S. allies such as Pakistan and Israel), both before and after 9/11/2001.

For documentation of the above five points, see the Cooperative Research site’s page on Saudi Arabia. See also my recent post about U.S. government sponsorship of Islamist terror.

For more reasons to suspect at least criminal negligence and possibly worse, see my post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.

Anyhow, due to the coverups and conflicts of interest of the 9/11 Commission, a new and independent investigation is called for even if no one in the U.S. government is guilty of anything worse than incompetence.

Advertisements

52 Comments »

  1. Well this seems like a measured, but critical perspective. And I do think you’re on the right track regarding your top reasons to suspect criminal negligence, in particular the fact that the Saudis appear to be a common thread in your reasoning. Here’s my own attempt to connect the dots regarding the Saudis:

    http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

    The Bush administration is not only willfuly ignoring the mountain of evidence implicating the Saudis, they have been actively using the power of the Presidency to cover that evidence up. Sure seems like treason to me.

    Comment by billinchicago — April 14, 2008 @ 5:26 am | Reply

  2. Of the Top of my head, I think of Mark Rabinowitz from Oil Empire – his brilliant notion of Malice vs. Incompetence….

    In terms of MIHOP- I’d have to say that no one should over look the ludicrousity of Hani Hanjour’s supposed ability to do what he did in that aircraft- flat ludicrous. You have his flight school instructor on video saying the guy could barely fly a Cessna. Are we to take seriously the idea that he hopped into a 757 cockpit and did advanced, super dangerous/difficult military style turns that many pilots have gone on record saying would be VERY difficult if not impossible even for them(including John Lear, yes- Lear Jet) and then bring it into the ground floor of the empty section of the Pentagon like butter- without hitting the lawn. Sorry…we are talking remote control here. That is not negligence.

    5 wargames on 911 is not negligence, it’s a hindrance.

    The fact that bush stayed in the schoolroom and then spoke at a pre-planned 9:30 PC after a hijack had been confirmed for 45 minutes is not negligence.

    The pentagon getting hit 1.25 hours after confirmed hijacks is not negligence.

    The fact that Porter Goss was having breakfast with the ISI chief who wired 100k to Atta just before 911, on 911 in washington is not negligence.

    Anthrax from a us military base going to congressmen who questioned the legality of the partiot act is not negligence and it’s not al qaieda.

    No matter what anyone says, WTC 7 drops in perfect symmetry in 6.5- there is no way that was anything other than CD. All one needs is the video. People can see for themselves. What vaporized all the material throught the entire building so that it could come down so artfully? There is a video of it from far away showing the skyline (youtube) it is probably the most elegant CD ever recorded. And no the penthouse distraction is meaningless- if you watch any CD you always see a section give first.

    I’m creating a new category LIHOPWTA. (let it happen on purpose with technical assistance)

    malice…malice…malice…

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  3. Ohh…and record insider trading before 911 is definitely not negligence either.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  4. The number of alleged war games occurring on 911 appears to have been somewhat inflated:

    911myths page about war games

    As far as I can tell, it seems that Webster Tarpley and Michael Ruppert were the ones who launched this story about war games affecting 911. There are some careless versions of the war games story out there circulating now and the matter should be more carefully cross-checked.

    [Comment by Patrick S. McNally, edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize and prettify link.]

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 14, 2008 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  5. The collapse of WTC 7 wasn’t perfectly symmetrical. Viewed from the northwest (as in the most popular WTC 7 video) it does look almost perfectly symmetrical, but, in another video taken from the northeast, it leans about 9 to 10 degrees.

    The key question here is whether even a 9 to 10 degree lean is too close to symmetrical to have happened naturally. I’m not currently sure of the answer to that question. I’ve discussed this issue in detail in various past posts about WTC 7.

    About Hani Hanjour’s flying skills or lack thereof, vs. the amount of flying skill required to do what Hani is alleged to have done: These issues have been debated. See this page on the 911myths site. In addition, there are a number of problems with the remote-control idea. See, for example, this page on the 9/11 myths site.

    Plus, a pure MIHOP scenario would require the faking of a quite a few phone calls. For some of the problems with that idea, see this page on 911myths and this page on 911guide about voice-morphing technology.

    Note: I certainly do not endorse these sites in their entirety. (They are devoted to defending all aspects of the official story, and the “911guide” site contains various personal attacks on 9/11 Truth activists too.) But they make legitimate points on the particular issues raised here, in my opinion, especially on the phone call issue.

    As for the flying skills issue, I’ll need to discuss this with a pilot at some point.

    At this point, I’m inclined to suspect LIHOP, or possibly even what Nicholas Levis has called “LIHOP plus.” But I think a pure MIHOP scenario would have been way too complicated to pull off.

    Comment by Diane — April 14, 2008 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  6. The war games are in stone 4 military plus a 5th CIA- this is non a non debate- the military owned up to them in hearings. No one did anything to hype them up- they existed and so clearly they were in the way- even if it wasn’t the sole reason for the success of the attacks- which it wasn’t. You can listen to one recording AT LEAST, where a controller actaully asks…’is this real world or exercise.’ Lets not forget that FAA tapes of controllers’ reactions on 911 were crushed up and spread around a building into different trash pales and the guy who did that was given a promotion.

    Hani Hanjour- the biggest fairy tale aspect of 911. Look into the turn that that plane did- there is no dispute about the turn- it is documented with coordinates. Contollers thought it was military- they are on record saying that. Meanwhile THEY wouldn’t rent Hani a CESSNA yet he got his commercial pilots license somehow…LUDICROUS. Show any pilot the events that day, including the details of the plane’s flight and then listen to all the testimony about Hani- it’s not rocket science. I challenge anyone to look into the requirements for a commercial pilot’s license- it would have to be documented heavily- the requirements are intense…where are Hani’s, the flight schools are laughing at him yet he turns up with a commercial license…unfathomable (sp?)

    In terms of phone calls- we learn now that the olson calls never actually happened- NEVER happened, the FBI has 1 call for them at 0 seconds- it never connected. This info is new and is in DRG’s new book which contains NO theory, just facts and contradictions.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  7. Sorry about the ranty nature of that post- I have a bunch of pilot friends and you don’t just step inside a 757 and do stuff like that- so I got a little fired up…lol.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  8. Checked out that remote control page. “we think no’ is not good enough for me. Firstly considering that the article concedes that military people confirmed 6-7 G turns- that would be the nail in hani’s coffin for sure. Secondly and this being the main point: the technology at the disposal of the elite/black ops people far exceeds any junk we have laying around in the mainstream press’ awareness. Those groups are decades ahead of mainstream humanity with their technology. If we know about something like the global predator- it’s because they let us know about it.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  9. realitydesign wrote:

    Hani Hanjour- the biggest fairy tale aspect of 911. Look into the turn that that plane did- there is no dispute about the turn- it is documented with coordinates. Contollers thought it was military- they are on record saying that.

    Controllers probably thought it was military because only military pilots would normally practice that kind of flight maneuver. Passenger jets just wouldn’t normally have occasion to do it.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean, though, that the maneuver actually requires a lot of skill. To find out if it does, I would have to ask a pilot (not a flight controller).

    You mentioned that you have pilot friends. Could you please ask them the following question? Does it require a lot of skill to do such a maneuver AT ALL, or does it require a lot of skill, say, to do it safely? After all, if indeed Hani Hanjour piloted that plane, he was not interested in safety, he was interested in crashing it.

    In terms of phone calls- we learn now that the olson calls never actually happened- NEVER happened, the FBI has 1 call for them at 0 seconds- it never connected. This info is new and is in DRG’s new book which contains NO theory, just facts and contradictions.

    At some point I’ll have to look into this. In any case, even if the Olson call didn’t take place, there are other calls.

    Comment by Diane — April 14, 2008 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  10. realitydesign wrote:

    Secondly and this being the main point: the technology at the disposal of the elite/black ops people far exceeds any junk we have laying around in the mainstream press’ awareness. Those groups are decades ahead of mainstream humanity with their technology.

    They’re probably at least a little bit ahead, but I would not expect them to be decades ahead. Secrecy is actually a huge handicap when trying to develop new technologies. Even secret technologies are often developed at least partly out in the open and are based on known public science. (For example, a math professor told me that a lot of secret cryptographic research has taken place under the guise of public developments in abstract algebra.)

    Comment by Diane — April 14, 2008 @ 4:53 pm | Reply

  11. The turn was a military style turn because it was balls to the wall and pulled 6 Gs. And the turn was not part of the crash it was to reposition the plane to head toward the pentagon…you see ‘hani’ repositioned the plane to hit that nearly empty section of the pentagon at ground level- the ground floor but yet he didn’t touch the lawn= perfect. So, this idea that he was being reckless doesn’t hold up because the turn was not just a reckless ‘screw up’ the turn was part of a complex re-approach to then pull off a direct hit.

    Pilots for truth have simulated the whole thing.

    On another note, John Lear of Lear Jet also said he thought 911 was a scam the moment he saw it because he and his buddies would have problems hitting the twin towers on a first try at 500 mph.
    If remote control technology was there in the 60’s, one can imagine where it is now.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 14, 2008 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  12. The claim that those exercises which actually occurred (as opposed to some that have been apparently made up) did in fact disrupt the response is strongly disputed.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/operation_vigilant_guardian.html

    http://www.911myths.com/html/part_of_the_exercise_.html

    It was actually claimed by Ralph Eberhart before the 911 Commission that the response to 911 was quickened by the fact of having people in place for Operation Vigilant Guardian. Maybe Eberhart is covering up something here? That could be. But any argument along those lines should be more carefully thought out in the future.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 14, 2008 @ 7:10 pm | Reply

  13. realitydesign wrote:

    > the technology at the disposal of the elite/black ops people far exceeds any junk we have laying around in the mainstream press’ awareness. Those groups are decades ahead of mainstream humanity with their technology.

    While this may very well have some truth to it, I’d be very wary of attempting to make any case which depends fundamentally upon guesses about secret technologies. After the cynical way in which 911 was used to push through a war in Iraq which (according to Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke) Bush had been set upon from day one of his administration, it’s easy to justify a cynical attitude and simply declare that everything is all lies. But that’s a bit too easy.

    If there is any real purpose in calling for a 911 investigation, it should be to produce evidence which allows one to transcend such cynical hand-waving. This is what makes it so irksome when people repeat the “suspicious put options” story without noting some of the holes in that claim such as are discussed here:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

    http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

    If the arguments are going to have to lean back on the “undisclosed technology” meme then it’s better to simply confess that one has a lot of general suspicions, but not too much else in the way of specifics. That’s the way it feels right now. Maybe a future critical review of the evidence will produce something of rockier substance.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 14, 2008 @ 8:42 pm | Reply

  14. As I said, I think we have strong evidence of at least criminal negligence (worse than mere incompetence) and possibly outright treason or worse. I agree that we don’t have enough evidence to prove any specific scenario of what happened.

    Comment by Diane — April 15, 2008 @ 9:28 am | Reply

  15. “It was actually claimed by Ralph Eberhart before the 911 Commission that the response to 911 was quickened by the fact of having people in place for Operation Vigilant Guardian.”

    Quickened? Is this for real, are we that dumb as a nation? What was quick about the reponse- there was NO RESPONSE? The pentagon WAS HIT 1.25 hours after a CONFIRMED HIJACK. There is no excuse for this- none- zero. The fact that it happened proves without a reaonable doubt, that there was inside help.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 15, 2008 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  16. Take some time to go methodically through the various arguments and counter-arguments on the “stand-down” view as given at:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

    Even if a clear rebuttal may eventually emerge, there hasn’t been sufficient attention given by the wanna-be truth movement to such points as of yet.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 15, 2008 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  17. That site misses all the real points I have looked. But it does a good job at hammering out the straw men.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

  18. To Patrick S. McNally:

    About the “stand down” issue: See my earlier post Air defense failures, war games, etc.. As I explained in that post, there’s a crucial research project which, as far as I am aware, no one has done yet. So we don’t really know how common intercepts were, or how long they typically took. In the meantime, though, the Popular Mechanics claim of only one intercept outside of an ADIZ during the decade before 9/11, is provably incorrect.

    Comment by Diane — April 16, 2008 @ 4:20 am | Reply

  19. Question for Patrick and Diane (Diane do you have an email?)

    How could a 50 TON hydraulic press several floors underground the WTC vaporize, per MIKE PECARAO- let me guess, his quote was taken out of context Patrick? %= TONS- gone.

    http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

    Comment by realitydesign — April 16, 2008 @ 6:36 am | Reply

  20. If you read the report at

    http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

    which you’d referenced, you’ll note that the set of events which they list as 1518 incidents of scramble activity all fall within the range of 1989-92. That just barely puts it on the edge of the decade marker. You’ll also notice on the same page that they say:

    —–
    On the basis of this change in threat and on budget considerations, the Department of Defense (DOD) reduced the number of NORAD interceptors to approximately 300 aircraft by the mid-1970s.

    NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day peacetime air sovereignty mission.
    —–

    The point of that GAO document is to discuss this drop in from capacity from 300 to 28, with the record of 1518 scramble incidents coming from the period 1989-82 which saw the end of the Cold War. The GAO document doesn’t seem as compelling as some would like it to be.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 16, 2008 @ 10:14 am | Reply

  21. To realitydesign: I just now sent you an email message, at the email address you used to register with WordPress. (That email address is visible to me and no one else when you post comments here.)

    The link to the “Chief Engineer” article doesn’t seem to be working now, but I found an excerpt here.

    As for the “50 ton” hydraulic press, I think the 50 tons refers to the force that the press is capable of exerting, not its weight. And I see no mention of the press itself “vaporizing.”

    Nevertheless there was indeed a huge amount of destruction in the sub-basements of WTC 1 shortly after the first plane hit.

    This is usually attributed to an explosion of jet fuel that had sloshed down elevator shafts and then vaporized. (The article mentions the smell of kerosine, i.e. jet fuel).

    I don’t know whether an explosion of jet fuel would be sufficient to cause the amount of damage observed.

    Comment by Diane — April 16, 2008 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  22. The way this reads,

    —–
    http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

    “There was nothing there but rubble,” Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.
    —–

    is rather imprecise. They speak of rubble and smoke and the sense of something being “gone” is an impressionistic description. This is not equivalent to a forensic analysis showing that something was really gone in the sense of having been vaporized. With this much smoke and rubble there could be a lot of things which just can’t be seen by the people struggling to get away from the disaster.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 16, 2008 @ 11:09 am | Reply

  23. Patrick you truly are avoiding the facts here. The guy who WORKED down there said the press was gone as was the PARKING GARAGE-, steel/concrete doors shriveled like tinfoil on the ground. You honestly believe jet fuel came down 80 stories (at least) and did this- how? In the SUB basement. Honestly?

    The link works fine for me but I am out of the country atm. Jim Hoffman has it cached anyway- on his site and so does cooperative research.

    Secondly, these eye witness reports are NUMEROUS and corroborate each other, I could see if one guy made them but there are dozens. Jim has the eye witness quotes from the NYT catalog cached as well. And please don’t tell me to go read those limited arguments over at 911 myths about the eyewitness accounts because they haven’t even scratched the surface on them.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 16, 2008 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  24. realitydesign wrote:

    You honestly believe jet fuel came down 80 stories (at least) and did this- how? In the SUB basement. onestly?

    The story does mention the smell of kerosene (jet fuel). Why do you believe that jet fuel could not have come down the elevator shaft?

    What I’m not sure of is whether a jet fuel explosion would have had enough explosive force to cause the amount of damage observed, or whether that could have been caused only by some kind of bomb being set off in addition to the jet fuel explosion.

    But I should mention that even Jim Hoffman, who is a strong believer in controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, is skeptical of the “basement bombs” idea. (See this page on his 9/11 Review site.)

    Comment by Diane — April 16, 2008 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  25. realitydesign wrote:

    That site misses all the real points I have looked. But it does a good job at hammering out the straw men.

    What are some of the specific real points that it misses? What are some of the specific straw-man arguments that it makes?

    Comment by Diane — April 16, 2008 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

  26. To Patrick S. McNally:

    I just now unspammed your comment here. I replied here in the thread Air defense failures, war games, etc., where it’s more relevant than it is here in this present thread.

    By the way, I wish you had posted your comment there, in that other thread, rather than here in this thread. Please re-read my comment policy.

    Comment by Diane — April 16, 2008 @ 2:43 pm | Reply

  27. “Why do you believe that jet fuel could not have come down the elevator shaft?”

    I’m even willing to accept that a bit of burning fuel slipped down the shaft- maybe. But not 80 or 90 floors to the sub basement (i’m not even sure the shafts from those floors connect to the sub region)where it then ignites with enough force to disappear entire regions and blow doors of and walls and mamouth presses. It just doesn’t work. We see most of the fule burn in the big red fireball outside the building.

    I think what Jim doesn’t want is:

    …that people get distracted from the evidence of CD up top- by focusing on the lobby. The lobby could have been damaged by the suppossed ‘fireball’ down the shaft but let’s not take that fireball into the basement and allow it to have so much energy to do what it did down there. I’m going by what the WITNESSES said- and I say witnesses PLURAL.

    Keep in mind that I and these witnesses are referring to the SUB basement- not the lobby.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 16, 2008 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

  28. “What are some of the specific real points that it misses? What are some of the specific straw-man arguments that it makes?”

    http://www.911myths.com/html/military_plane.html

    Above is just one of many examples. They aren’t really saying anything or debunking anything. The turn was really advanced and military and that’s what the controller said, sure he said that it’s also unsafe but obviously people don’t fly 757 passenger jets like that because they are not made to – but that is irrelevant.

    More on this site when I have more time.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 16, 2008 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  29. Perhaps a case can be made that the “turn was really advanced and military,” but that was not really what the controller said in this particular instance. The word “advanced” did not appear in the quote. The word “unsafe” did. The quote taken in full does not provide us with real evidence that the turn was “advanced,” although perhaps an argument can be developed that it was. If such as argument is developed it will have stand independently of the quote which uses the term “unsafe.”

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 17, 2008 @ 12:31 am | Reply

  30. > The guy who WORKED down there said the press was gone

    Maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t. All that I could get from the statement was that he saw rubble and smoke, and in the process assumed that the press was “gone.” But does that really prove that it was completely “gone” or might it have been buried under rubble and smoke? I won’t pretend to know, but this is exactly the type of question which has to be treated rationally and seriously if one wishes to build a real case.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 17, 2008 @ 12:38 am | Reply

  31. Three important issues not addressed above:

    1) Anecdotal evidence of explosions in WTC 1, 2 and 7 — There are 188 sworn statements from FDNY, NYPD, EMTs and other first responders taken immediately after the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 all cite “explosions,” a “series of explosions,” “sounded like a bomb” and so forth. None of these statements, or the sworn testimony of a few of these first responders who were called as witnesses by the 9/11 commission, made it into the final report. Nor were they even mentioned. Therefore, the public has no idea they exist. A similar compilation of first responder eyewitness statements, this one containing 503 separate 9/11 oral histories, was sealed in 2002 by the City of New York — which means Rudy and crew — until a FOIA suit filed by the NY Times and some of the victims surviving family members finally pried them loose in 2007.

    2) The physics of momentum and inertia — In additional to anecdotal evidence, photographic and physical evidence — at least the small amount not illegally removed from the crime scene and sent to China and India for recycling — indicate the presence of explosives and “cutter charges,” as well as the split-second, computer-controlled timing sequence required for maximum destructive effect, as well as the serial failure of all key structural components necessary to achieve a symmetrical, vertical collapse. My personal favorite though is the unexplained presence of a counteracting force capable of overriding gravity and converting vertical momentum into lateral motion powerful enough to eject steel columns and beams weighing 20 tons or more some 300 to 500 feet and embed them into nearby buildings. The 41-story Deutsche Bank building across the street from the towers seems to have taken the brunt of the impact, the most spectacular wound being the huge embedded beam that couldn’t be there if gravity were the only force in play. Neither could the 744 fragments of human remains discovered in 2007 on top of the Deutsche Bank tower.

    And unlike the WTC buildings, which apparently were so fragile that they remain the only structural steel-framed high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, the Deutsche Bank building — which sustained far more damage from ejected debris than did WTC 7 — not only didn’t collapse; workers have been dismantling it floor-by-floor since 2005 and they’ve still got 26 floors to go.

    A careless worker tossing a cigarette into some combustible material is blamed for a huge fire that burned on many stories for more than four hours last August. Even this didn’t take it down, although we’re supposed to believe that WTC 1 and 2 both collapsed because of fires that only burned for about an hour.

    After a five-month delay subsequent to the fire, demolition resumed this January. The NYC Port Authority estimates that the job won’t be completed for at least another year.

    3) Those pesky puddles of molten iron in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7 — Somehow we’re supposed to believe that a fire fueled by kerosene and office materials can burn hot enough to not only destroy two high-rises framed with insulated structural steel that doesn’t even break a sweat until temps get to around 1100C, but cause molten metal to trickle into the basements of all three buildings, where it formed pools that remained liquid for more than a month.

    NIST’s report says the steel framing the towers never got above 250C; materials experts and structural engineers say that, to soften steel for the purposes of forging, temperatures need to be above 1100C. But NIST’s summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

    In short, we’re asked once again to believe in a physical impossibility because the properties of the materials don’t support the official story.

    So, before I bore everyone and inflict typists’ cramps on myself, I’ll check out for now. Please critique these assertions and, if anyone finds fatal flaws in the logic or the assertions of fact, I’d like to hear about them.

    wp

    Comment by warrenpease — April 17, 2008 @ 1:40 am | Reply

  32. Patrick he said the press was gone and you seem to want to change that to ‘he assumed’ it was gone.

    For me, I’m going by what these people said- not by your analysis.

    And the reason the room full of experienced controllers thought it was military was why Patrick?

    Comment by realitydesign — April 17, 2008 @ 3:43 am | Reply

  33. The quote from the controllers shows that they compared it to a military flight on the grounds that the maneuvers done would be careless, not necessarily skillful, if done by a civilian plane. They don’t actually say that this couldn’t be done with a civilian plane or that it would require a skilled pilot to do it, but only that it is normally considered to fly a civilian plane in such a manner:

    —–
    http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

    “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,” O’Brien said. “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
    —–

    That the fellow assumed the press was in some sense “gone” is all that one can objectively conclude from a report where someone describes seeing rubble and smoke more than anything else. Destroyed and broken does not really mean vaporized. Many people who have watched the videos of the collapses of the Towers come away with a visual sense that the Towers are turning into pure dust. But supposedly pieces of wreckage found in the remains contradict that visual impression. This is why such visual impressions must be checked and quantified if one is to build an argument.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 17, 2008 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  34. Wow. Well, he also said the parking garage was ‘gone’ so you can think whatever you want. Even if ‘gone’ means split in two big pieces on the floor. You would have to explain the energy that could cause that. Clearly a plane hitting 1000 feet above doesn’t that’s purely illogical and goes against common sense. No argument needed.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 17, 2008 @ 11:52 am | Reply

  35. ‘The quote from the controllers shows that they compared it to a military flight on the grounds that the maneuvers done would be careless, not necessarily skillful, if done by a civilian plane. They don’t actually say that this couldn’t be done with a civilian plane or that it would require a skilled pilot to do it, but only that it is normally considered to fly a civilian plane in such a manner:’

    You might want to head over to pilots for truth and listen to some real pilots.
    Thet are making lots of arguments there- based on flight data.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 17, 2008 @ 11:54 am | Reply

  36. I just now moderated this comment by warrenpease. I’ll respond later, but others might want to take a look at it in the meantime.

    Comment by Diane — April 17, 2008 @ 10:41 pm | Reply

  37. > NIST’s report says the steel framing the towers never got above 250C

    That does not agree with my copy of FINAL REPORT OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS. Go to page 132 and you’ll find:

    “It was expected, and soon confirmed, that the fires could generate temperatures up to 1,100@C.”

    This is in Chapter 6, section 6.12.3, entitled “Thermal Insulation Properties.”

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 18, 2008 @ 1:21 am | Reply

  38. > As for the “50 ton” hydraulic press, I think the 50 tons refers to the force that the press is capable of exerting, not its weight.

    To clarify this, I did search for “50-ton press” and tried picking out a shop description which gave the weight. You can see one such case here:

    http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=6970&productId=475&R=475&cm_ven=TL&cm_pla=DF&cm_ite=metalfab

    —–
    Arcan Hydraulic Shop Press — 50-Ton

    Ship Wt. 525.0 lbs
    —–

    The shipment weight of 525 pounds is what should be relevant here, not the fact that the hydraulic press is designed to exert a force of 50 tons.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 18, 2008 @ 1:53 am | Reply

  39. Here are the presses I found- as you can see they are mammoth (yours looks new and shiny) -keep in mind this was 2001. Of course it would be great to know the model. But remember he said ‘GONE’!

    http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lakeshoremachinetool.com/photos/bg_20130.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lakeshoremachinetool.com/press/press.htm&h=300&w=400&sz=26&hl=sv&start=28&sig2=jlk8PiY3Z-9VvEx46Ao9HQ&um=1&tbnid=R6I0Q2-SUxJOYM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&ei=yzwISLieJoXiwgG47eGXDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3D50%2Bton%2Bhydraulic%2Bpress%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:sv-SE:official%26sa%3DN

    http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.devsonenterprises.com/images/custnew.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.devsonenterprises.com/cust.html&h=456&w=310&sz=22&hl=sv&start=70&sig2=mu0K4B4FXu7rK4OlGnd7qA&um=1&tbnid=Grb9rDdD6yQ6fM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=87&ei=aD0ISJrAFKHowwHWqfmSDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3D50%2Bton%2Bhydraulic%2Bpress%26start%3D60%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:sv-SE:official%26sa%3DN

    http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.savagepress.com/deep_drawing/images/mf6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.savagepress.com/deep_drawing/deep_drawing.htm&h=224&w=200&sz=8&hl=sv&start=82&sig2=N_w4KdFVWSaJwGXuY5Nfgw&um=1&tbnid=UDskUubeStbZYM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=96&ei=tj0ISLbrGo6MwAGHxtiODA&prev=/images%3Fq%3D50%2Bton%2Bhydraulic%2Bpress%26start%3D80%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:sv-SE:official%26sa%3DN

    Comment by realitydesign — April 18, 2008 @ 6:22 am | Reply

  40. “It was expected, and soon confirmed, that the fires could generate temperatures up to 1,100@C.”

    And these 1 hour long fires explain molten pools at ground zero for 35 days after the event how? I believe the workers said it was as if they were in a foundry. 35 days after at least.

    There is even footage on youtube of the NIST head guy saying he’d love to see pictures of these molten pools because, ‘he had never heard of or seen that’

    The gig is up folks.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 18, 2008 @ 6:29 am | Reply

  41. Hey Diane,

    I responded to patricks post about the press size…but I don’t see the post- maybe it went into the spam folder because I included a few links.

    cheers

    Comment by realitydesign — April 18, 2008 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  42. Patrick S. McNally wrote:

    > NIST’s report says the steel framing the towers never got above 250C

    That does not agree with my copy of FINAL REPORT OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS. Go to page 132 and you’ll find:

    “It was expected, and soon confirmed, that the fires could generate temperatures up to 1,100@C.”

    This is in Chapter 6, section 6.12.3, entitled “Thermal Insulation Properties.”

    Note the word “could,” which suggests that the 1,100 degrees C was apparently a theoretical maximum, not a verified actual temperature. In any case, you were replying to someone who cited the NIST report, not the FEMA report.

    Comment by Diane — April 18, 2008 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  43. Here’s a link to a moderated comment by realitydesign which I just now let through, but which now appears quite a bit further up on this page.

    Comment by Diane — April 18, 2008 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  44. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    The post linked below replies to some of realitydesign’s comments above.

    – Diane

    Pingback by No-hijacker theories (to realitydesign) « New York City activist — April 18, 2008 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  45. warrenpease wrote here:

    1) Anecdotal evidence of explosions in WTC 1, 2 and 7 — There are 188 sworn statements from FDNY, NYPD, EMTs and other first responders taken immediately after the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 all cite “explosions,” a “series of explosions,” “sounded like a bomb” and so forth.

    I’m aware that there’s lots of testimony about sounds of explosions. However, it’s ambiguous as evidence. Nearly all these testimonies have been interpreted as follows:

    1) Explosive sounds heard during collapse have been interpreted as the sounds of floors hitting each other, which would indeed sound like a series of loud booms.

    2) Explosive sounds heard at around the time the planes hit have been interpreted as (1) sound traveling faster than metal than through air and (2) the subsequent jet fuel explosions.

    3) Other explosive sounds have been interpreted as transformer explosions or the sounds of steel warping.

    For more about this issue, see this page on the 911myths site.

    At best, the seplosives sounds are good as negative evidence. At least, no one can truthfully claim that there weren’t any explosive sounds. Still, it can be debated whether the explosive sounds were loud enough or sharp enough to be from demolition charges.

    2) The physics of momentum and inertia … indicate the presence of explosives and “cutter charges,” as well as the split-second, computer-controlled timing sequence required for maximum destructive effect, as well as the serial failure of all key structural components necessary to achieve a symmetrical, vertical collapse. My personal favorite though is the unexplained presence of a counteracting force capable of overriding gravity and converting vertical momentum into lateral motion powerful enough to eject steel columns and beams weighing 20 tons or more some 300 to 500 feet and embed them into nearby buildings.

    The latter is far from inexplicable in terms of a purely gravity-driven collapse. If you smash a fragile object with a hammer, you would expect pieces to fly off to the side. Similarly, the upper part of a skyscraper smashing down onto the lower part of a skyscraper should be expected to cause some pieces to fly off to the side. Not only that, but the energy of the falling upper part would most likely be greater than the amount of energy one could reasonably expect from planted explosives. Even in standard controlled demolition, gravity does most of the work; the explosives just cut columns. (For discussion of some of the relevant issues, see this page and this on the 911myths site.)

    A careless worker tossing a cigarette into some combustible material is blamed for a huge fire that burned on many stories for more than four hours last August. Even this didn’t take it down, although we’re supposed to believe that WTC 1 and 2 both collapsed because of fires that only burned for about an hour.

    Not just fire, but the combination of fire plus some pretty extreme structural damage, in the case of WTC 1 and 2.

    Of course, WTC 7 wasn’t nearly as damaged as WTC 1 and 2, so the above is a good reason to be suspicious about WTC 7, in my opinion, more so than about WTC 1 and 2.

    3) Those pesky puddles of molten iron in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7

    This has been discussed in detail in, among other places, this Democratic Underground thread.

    Comment by Diane — April 18, 2008 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  46. > In any case, you were replying to someone who cited the NIST report, not the FEMA report.

    I am citing from the NIST report. NIST NCSTAR 1, FINAL REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS, September 2005. The report makes it clear that the temperature was significantly higher than the 250@C which a previous poster alleged was listed as a maximum by the report. Whether the report is correct or not, the claim that it set the maximum temp as 250C is wrong.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 18, 2008 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  47. {{{ Similarly, the upper part of a skyscraper smashing down onto the lower part of a skyscraper should be expected to cause some pieces to fly off to the side. Not only that, but the energy of the falling upper part would most likely be greater than the amount of energy one could reasonably expect from planted explosives. Even in standard controlled demolition, gravity does most of the work; the explosives just cut columns. }}}

    “the explosives just cut columns”

    But why do they deliberately cut the columns? To stop them from supporting the material above. Even if the top had more power than the explosives it would be applied in an entirely different manner. It would be applying force in a direction the columns were designed to resist therefore the top could not destroy the GREATER MASS below at nearly free fall acceleration. What happened to the towers is physically impossible for those airliners to have accomplished.

    Why don’t we have a table telling us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers after SIX YEARS? Engineering schools should have been demanding that within SIX WEEKS.

    It makes no difference who or what was flying the planes if NORMAL airliners could not possibly have done that.

    [Video link, prohibited by comment policy, edited out by blog author Diane.]

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 26, 2008 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  48. The mass of the lower part is irrelevant to the question of whether and how easily it could have been crushed by the falling upper part. What is relevant is the strength of the lower part, not its mass.

    Comment by Diane — April 26, 2008 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  49. Why do we keep hearing people talk about the law of the conservation of momentum and its being violated by the speed of the collapse?

    Momentum is mass times velocity.

    If you have two 100 pound objects in space one stationary and the other traveling at 100 mph. If the objects collide and merge into a single 200 pound object it will be traveling at 50 mph.

    (100lb * 100mph) + (100lb * 0mph) = 200lb * 50mph

    The mass of steel and concrete in the lower portion of the WTC would slow the upper portion down. But the strength is relevant also. But how are you going to get more strength from steel without more mass? The floor slabs were mostly the same on each level, except for the technical floors, so that mass should be very constant from level to level. But the increases in the mass of steel by level going down should be because of the need for INCREASED STRENGTH to support the greater mass that it held for 28 years. The designers had to figure that out in the 60s and document it for the building to be constructed so why don’t we have it by now or at least hear lots of people demanding it?

    My point is that we don’t have that information and we HAVEN’T HAD IT FOR SIX YEARS. I attended an engineering school for electrical engineering and we could see the construction of the Sears Tower from campus. My pledge father was an architect. So I find it very strange that people at our engineering schools were not demanding that kind of information within SIX WEEKS of 9/11 much less that we don’t have it after SIX YEARS.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 27, 2008 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  50. {{{ The latter is far from inexplicable in terms of a purely gravity-driven collapse. If you smash a fragile object with a hammer, you would expect pieces to fly off to the side. }}}

    There is a serious flaw with comparing the behavior of small objects that weigh less than a pound to large objects that weigh tens of tons. They do not behave the same way. The strength to weight ratios change. An ant can lift ten times its weight with ease. CAN YOU? Would an ant your size have that ability? NO! Ants don’t have lungs. The method that ants use to breath would not even work for creatures our size. The and would suffocate.

    That analogy with the hammer is totally inaccurate.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm | Reply

  51. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    Pingback by 9/11 - The Saudi connection? « New York City activist — May 5, 2008 @ 1:20 pm | Reply

  52. psikeyhackr — April 27, 2008 @ 5:58 pm wrote:

    The mass of steel and concrete in the lower portion of the WTC would slow the upper portion down.

    Show it down by how much? Enough to substantially counteract the acceleration due to gravity? That’s a quantitative question, requiring quantitative analysis.

    But the strength is relevant also. But how are you going to get more strength from steel without more mass?

    Different kinds of steel have different strengths. Different kinds of steel differ in both their exact chemical composition and in the process by which they are made (e.g. how they are heated and cooled).

    The floor slabs were mostly the same on each level, except for the technical floors, so that mass should be very constant from level to level. But the increases in the mass of steel by level going down should be because of the need for INCREASED STRENGTH to support the greater mass that it held for 28 years.

    Agreed.

    The designers had to figure that out in the 60s and document it for the building to be constructed so why don’t we have it by now or at least hear lots of people demanding it?

    First, the assertion that such documentation is still missing should be double-checked. If indeed NIST has not been “able” to obtain such documentation, then that does suggest a coverup. But a coverup of what? Demolition? Maybe. But there’s also the possibility of a coverup of something else entirely, namely major flaws in the building design. Evidence for a coverup does not, in itself, constitute evidence of what is being covered up.

    My point is that we don’t have that information and we HAVEN’T HAD IT FOR SIX YEARS. I attended an engineering school for electrical engineering and we could see the construction of the Sears Tower from campus. My pledge father was an architect. So I find it very strange that people at our engineering schools were not demanding that kind of information within SIX WEEKS of 9/11 much less that we don’t have it after SIX YEARS.

    Could you please document your assertion that this information is indeed unavailable? (Or point me to a web page containing such documentation?)

    I certainly agree with you that we should demand that this information be subpoenaed by NIST and made available to the general public, if it has not been. But the first step is to document that this information is not yet available.

    psikeyhackr wrote, on April 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm:

    There is a serious flaw with comparing the behavior of small objects that weigh less than a pound to large objects that weigh tens of tons. They do not behave the same way. The strength to weight ratios change. An ant can lift ten times its weight with ease. CAN YOU? Would an ant your size have that ability? NO! Ants don’t have lungs. The method that ants use to breath would not even work for creatures our size. The and would suffocate.

    Agreed. Size does matter, which is why we can’t generalize from the behavior of collapsing small buildings to the behavior of collapsing skyscrapers.

    That analogy with the hammer is totally inaccurate.

    Indeed, by itself that analogy proves nothing.

    Nevertheless, it still seems likely to me that if the falling top part of a skyscraper has sufficient downward momentum, kinetic energy, etc. to crush the lower part, then it also has sufficient downward momentum, kinetic energy, etc. to fling some pieces off to the side.

    Of course, to determine whether it does nor doesn’t will require quantititalve analysis. Have you done the necessary analysis, or do you know of anyone who has?

    Comment by Diane — May 8, 2008 @ 4:08 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: