9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausible

posted Monday, 22 May 2006

September 11, 2001. The day the world changed. Or so we are told.

We are also told the events of that day had been subject of several extensive official investigations. There are documents that have been produced as the result of those investigations - namely, the 9/11 Commission Report and an assorted collection of government-commissioned studies. We will refer to the version of events parlayed in the Report as the official version. The following is a partial list of problems found in, and anomalies associates with, that version of the events of 9/11.

The items on this list labeled "impossible" are claims laid in the official theory that can not be reconciled with general scientific knowledge. It must be noted that the laws of nature are not absolute and there is some theoretical probability of absolutely any event occurring. Yet some events, such as a boulder leaving the ground and floating through the air on its own, are so unlikely as to be considered impossible. The reason we say they are impossible is that they violate what has come to be known as basic laws of science. In this discussion that determines what we shall refer to as "impossible".

The term "improbable" shall refer to what is theoretically possible but unlikely to occur. Some may say unlikely enough not to be considered a realistic scenario.

The term "implausible" shall refer to what is also theoretically possible but does not conform to expected patterns of human behaviour.

Filed under "Impossible"

Near free-fall speed collapse of WTC1 (10 seconds), WTC2 (10 - 14 seconds) and WTC7 (6.5 seconds). The collapse of the latter one is most mysterious as that building was not struck by an airliner and only suffered direct strike damage that was largely superficial relative to the scale of the building. Regardless of how the collapse of those three buildings was initiated it is alleged to have been a progressive failure. That is an impossibility as it contradicts basic laws of physics including the Law of conservation of momentum. As calculated by Jim Hoffman it would take a building such as either one of the Twin Towers at least 15.5 seconds to fall as a result of "pancaking" even assuming each subsequent floor being hit by the floors above gave way with no resistance and merely were at a standstill prior to being hit. That model excludes such factors as resistance each floor should be expected to provide, the air resistance or considerations of energy needed to pulverize the contents of the buildings reported to have been turned into fine dust.

The pools of molten steel found in the ruins of the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11. According to the official version of the 9/11 the fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt the steel, merely sufficiently hot to weaken it. That latter point is suspect too but it is pretty much a given that at no point were the fires caused by the aircraft impact hot enough to melt any steel.

Filed under "Improbable"

Four airliners successfully hijacked and subject to intercept procedures are not intercepted, even though one of them, American Airlines Flight 77, flies after being hijacked for over 40 minutes. All four hijackings are facilitated in a highly unusual manner - the pilots are removed from the controls, sometimes murdered, with hijackers taking over the cockpit. All four hijackings occur in what is probably the world's most heavily defended airspace - the US Northeast. The failure to intercept occurs in direct violation of the procedures and guidelines in place.

The individuals alleged to have taken over the job of piloting hijacked airliners were all characterized by their flight instructors as rather inefficient, if not hopelessly inept, pilots. That is especially striking in the case of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted AA 77 into the West Wing of the Pentagon executing a descending turn so difficult that even professional pilots are divided on the issue of whether or not it could be executed at all in a Boeing 757, the aircraft Hanjour allegedly piloted.

Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of AA 77, chooses to aim for the West Wing of the Pentagon. That was an extremely odd choice of target as that part of the Pentagon was at the time udergoing renovation and as a result largely empty. That renovation included installation of blast-resistant windows and other modifications aimed at making the building more fire and blast-resistant. The approach to that part of the building was most difficult. But, knowingly or unknowignly, Hanjour still chose to perform a near-impossible meneuver directing the aircraft under his control at the section of the building opposite from where the offices of the Secretary of Defense and other top brass are. If Hanjour simply dove into the building aiming for the center he would have most likely killed a lot more people there.

On September 11, 2001 a number of war games, some simulating aircraft hijackings were in progress. Mohammed Atta and his team seem to have chosen a very lucky day for them as, among other things, a number of false radar blips were inserted into civilian and military radar systems to simulate fake hijackings. As a result the air defense system in place had trouble distinguishing real-life hijacked aircraft from the make-believe ones which made proper response difficult if not impossible. This begs several questions. For instance, how often do multiple large-scale war games and disaster preparedness excercises take place on the same day? What is the likelyhood that a team of foreign terrorists alleged not to have any inside contacts would just so conveniently for them happen to schedule their strike for that particular day?

Filed under "Implausible"

Al Qaeda, the group alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9/11, never openly claimed responsibility for them. That makes little sense, if only due to the fact that if they indeed were the perpetrators it would be rather naive of them to expect not to be found out as hardly ever in history has a perfect crime of such a monumental proportion been executed. So if you have indeed commited an act that is in line with your ideology, is likely to enhance your prestige amongst your followers and admirers and is, on top of that, virtually impossible to keep secret for long - then why not just announce it? Instead, according to the official version of 9/11, the culpability of Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden was aknowledged by Bin Laden on a low-quality video tape found in Afghanistan. Several Arab aquaintances of mine while not voicing any strong opinions regarding this tape this way or the other claimed that while watching it on TV they could tell that the language spoken was Arabic but the quality of the recording was so poor that they had to read subtitles to understand what was being said. Meanwhile, some experts with a specific experience of translating Bin Laden's speeches claim that the above-mentioned "confession video" is a fake as are most if not all audio recordings attributed to Bin Laden in the recent years.

The Secret Service fails to evacuate President Bush from the school where he is making a photo-op appearance while the attacks of 9/11 are unfolding. Consequently, no one in his security detail is reprimanded or sanctioned in any way. The event at the Emma Booker Elementary School had been scheduled in advance and was known to the public. It would have been absurd to assume that the President was not a target while a surprise attack was in progress. With a supposedly unknown number of potentially hostile hijacked airliners roaming the sky who and how could have known that one of them would not try and take out the school building where the President was attending an event of no decision-making value? What way was there that one could be sure terrorists would not try to level that building potentially killing the President along with hundreds of bystanders? If you were President and your security detail were so slow thinking on their feet wouldn't you consider firing them - simply out of concern for your own survival if for no other reason? In situations such as that of September 11, 2001 it would be entirely natural for anyone to think of whether or not the threat could directly impact them - in this case, if an airliner could be targeting the location they are at. Many a coworker of mine worried that the government facility I worked at on that day might come under attack. As someone familiar with pilotage I viewed that scenario as unlikely but overall, given the information available at the time, my coworkers' concerns didn't strike me being unreasonable or a sign of panic. Now take into account the fact that security operatives are specifically trained to anticipate potential threats to the persons or objects in their care. Their apparent failure to consider the possibility that an unfriendly airliner might be making its way towards the Booker Elementary would be a certain sign of being unfit for their duty.

Mohamed Atta, the alleged leader of the terrorist team, checked in a suitcase containing incriminating evidence at the airport in Portland, Maine. Contents included Boeing airliner flight manuals, a copy of the Koran, Atta's will and other papers that later helped federal investigators to trace back the terrorist plot. However, it is very strange that Atta would pack all these things. What he expected to need for the actual hijacking he would have been expected to take with him as carry-on. But why would he carefully collect items that could easily arouse suspicion and pack them in his luggage? According to the FBI he and Abdulaziz Alomari arrived at the airport in Portland with only a few minutes to spare. If any airline security or law enforcement officer became suspicious of them and decided to question them for any length of time that may have interfered with the timing of the whole operation. Why would an expertly trained terrorist such as Atta chance that?

The 9/11 Commission whose creation the Administration initially opposed was finally created after a staggering 411 day delay. Its final report some came to call The 9-11 Omission Report. This is hardly a joke given the glaring inconsistencies and omissions littering that report. For instance, the mystery of WTC 7 is not mentioned there once. The Administration appears largely content with what the Commission came up with even though one would expect that the country's leadership would be interested in a true exhaustive analisys of how a surprise attack of such magnitude could ever materialize. The unprecedented events of that day also have significant implications for many industries such as insurance, architecture, firefighting, urban planning and others. Yet there does not apear to be much open discussion of such implications. That appears to run counter to what would be expected if 9/11 were truly what the official story would have us believe.

Sibel Edmonds is a Turkish American linguist who worked in the FBI's translations unit from September 20, 2001 to March 22, 2002. She was fired following her discovery of deliberate inefficiency, incompetence and potential criminal activity, some in her opinion related to the 9/11 terror attacks, in the unit and attempts to report her concerns up the chain of command. She was consequently fired, intimidated and silenced by a gag order issued by the Attorney General. Consequent legal action by Edmonds was blocked by the Administration, ostensibly on the 'State Secrets Privilege' grounds. The 9/11 Commission reluctantly spoke to her, but whatever she had to say never made its way into the Commission's final report. On August 1, 2004 Edmonds wrote a public letter to the Commission's Chairman Thomas Kean. Here's part of what she has to say regarding her allegations and subsequent gag orders issued to her, "After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ‘ protecting certain foreign business relations.’ The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘ safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.’ Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag." Now it is perfectly legitimate for you to ask why anything Sibel Edmonds alleges is to be trusted in the first place. There is certainly no reason to take anything she says at face value but it is worth noting that the Justice Department Inspector General had pretty much acknowledged the validity of Edmonds' allegations. In fact, it was after reading the above-quoted letter of hers that this author started to have serious doubts about the true nature of the 9/11 Commission Report. Even years after 9/11 it doesn't look like the FBI's translation capabilities are a serious concern to the powers that be as the picture still appears to be that of dire inefficiency. Does this agree with the notion of an all-out "war on terror"?

If there is nothing to hide then why is the US government hiding so much, including records of things anyone could have observed? The question mainly pertains to the multitude of 9/11-related materials the government is reluctant or outright unwilling to release. For instance, the feds are still holding on to some of the videos of the Pentagon attack that were taken by security cameras located in public places.

Please note that the list offered in this article is by no means complete or exhaustive. Can you reconcile these anomalies with the official version of the events of 9/11? Many experts have tried and failed. It must be noted that failure to explain the "impossible" claims alone must inescapably lead one to the conclusion that the official story is a sham, likely designed to cover up the real story.

Let me reiterate it. You've got to either demonstrate - to yourself and preferably others - that the impossible and highly improbable events suggested by the official explaination of the events of 9/11 are somehow possible or to accept that the official explaination of what happened does not hold water. In case it is the latter your choice fundamentally is whether to accept this reality as inevitable or join those who demand a real investigation of 9/11. That choice is yours, and yours alone.

tags: 911 coverup deception

comments (65)

1. Alex left...

Tuesday, 23 May 2006 11:12 pm

Boris: Very nice work. Your title "9/11: The Impossible, the Improbable, the Implausible" would be an excellent title for a book. Any thoughts of expanding your article to book form? I think it could be a terrific addition to the present collection of 911 books. Whatever the case - thanks for the good read.

2. 911 student left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 4:31 am :: http://911u.org/CoDR/DR215.html

It's even worse than "considerations of energy needed to pulverize the contents of the buildings reported to have been turned into fine dust" -- beyond the incredible energy requirements, there is no known pulverization mechanism which can account for the phenomenal sudden disintegration of the towers. Think outside the box...

3. S. King left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 7:32 am :: http://ifacts.blogspot.com

You managed to repeat a lot of debunked myths. Not a great idea.

I suggest that you do research on your own before re-posting conpiracy theories that have been dead for over 3 years.

Here are some good starting points:

9/11 Myths: http://www.911myths.com/

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths:http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

4. Boris Epstein left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 8:01 am

Thank you for commenting, everyone.

Let me try to respond.

To Alex: You are welcome to borrow the title or any part of this article. It was meant to be an opposite of the book, in a sense - a short summary rather than a long narrative. Writing the latter is not a bad idea either. Do I want to do it? Maybe - but preferably in cooperation with others as I can't possibly posess all the necessary expertise by myself.

To 911 student: Could you elaborate on your point? I am sorry, I am not that strong in the material science, so I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say.

To S. King: I provide no myths, nor do I really make any statements of my own here other than to provide information that is mostly part of the public record and not actively disputed adding to it my judgement as to its likelyhood within the context of the official theory. I am not sure what you are trying to say. You might want to be mroe specific - provide specific links, better yet with your own comments explaining how what I list as impossible is, to the contrary, possible and what I list as unlikely is, to the contrary, likely. That would be the best way to argue your points, in my opinion.

5. S. King left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 9:31 am :: http://ifacts.blogspot.com

My points do not need to be argued. You are shifting the burden of proof. You need to support your claims with factual evidence. You don't.

Myth 1: "Regardless of how the collapse of those three buildings was initiated it is alleged to have been a progressive failure. That is an impossibility as it contradicts basic laws of physics including the Law of conservation of momentum."

No structural engineer agrees with you. You need to refute them. The claims of "near freefall" is begging the question. Once collapse started the buildings fell as expected.

Myth 2: "That point is suspect too but it is pretty much a given that at no point were the fires caused by the aircraft impact hot enough to melt any steel."

Irrelevant. The contents of the buildings burned underground until December. There is no mystery there.

Myth 3: "For instance, how often do multiple large-scale war games and disaster preparedness excercises take place on the same day?"

Begging the question. Specualting motives for which there is no evidence. See http://911myths.com/html/part_of_the_exercise_.html.

Myth 4: "The failure to intercept occurs in direct violation of the procedures and guidelines in place."

Myth 5: "The individuals alleged to have taken over the job of piloting hijacked airliners were all characterized by their flight instructors as rather inefficient, if not hopelessly inept, pilots."

Irrelevant. They did and no pilot disagrees that they did. The characteristics of its approach to the Pentagon indicates an "inexperienced" a pilot.

Myth 6: "Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of AA 77, chooses to aim for the West Wing of the Pentagon."

Speculation. Begging the question. Speculatiuon of motives for which no evidence exists. There is NO reason to believe he did anything other than try to hit the Pentagon wherever he could.

Myth 7: "Al Qaeda, the group alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9/11, never openly claimed responsibility for them."

Bin Laden did several times ans did so again yesterday.

Myth 8: "The Secret Service fails to evacuate President Bush from the school where he is making a photo-op appearance while the attacks of 9/11 are unfolding. Consequently, no one in his security detail is reprimanded or sanctioned in any way."

Once again, you are begging the question and speculating on motives for which there is NO evidence.

Myth 9: "However, it is very strange that Atta would pack all these things."

Begging the question. Speculating on motives for which you have no evidence. The luggage was found in the terminal haveing been too late to make the final flight.

Myth 10: "The 9/11 Commission whose creation the Administration initially opposed was finally created after a staggering 411 day delay....For instance, the mystery of WTC 7 is not mentioned there once..."

Irrelevant. Begging the question. WTC 7's report is not yet complete; there is no "mystery" abouut its collapses to structural engineers.

Myth 11: "The question mainly pertains to the multitude of 9/11-related materials the government is reluctant or outright unwilling to release."

Begging the question. Speculation of motives for which no evidence exists. Logical fallacy.

"Can you reconcile these anomalies with the official version of the events of 9/11? Many experts have tried and failed."

The so-called anomalies you claim exist turn out to be false, unsupported, or logical fallacies. We have known that for a long time. We see quite clearly that your statement, "I provide no myths, nor do I really make any statements of my own here other than to provide information that is mostly part of the public record and not actively disputed..." is contrary to the facts. Everything you have written is contrary to facts, has been disputed and put to rest years ago.

Yet you CHOOSE to repeat it. You really need to educate yourself far better since you cannot be taken seriously with repeating falsehoods.

6. Estanislao left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 9:43 am

There are 2 causes of the pulverisation of concrete or rock into dust. Volcanic eruptions and controlled demolition. These 2 are the only causes of pyroclastic flows. The same flows in great evidence during 911.

Also impossible is the visible cascade of molten iron from the towers. It can only be caused by a thermite reaction... seeing a comparison between thermite experiments and the video of the towers is extremely compelling.

7. Boris Epstein left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 9:50 am

To S. King:

Dear S.,

If your points don't need to be argued, then why are you arguing them?

Now, I am not asking you to find somebody who agrees with me employed in this or that particular occupation - though it can most likely be done. I am asking you to argue on the merits here. Is what I refer to as impossible possible? What is the likelyhood of what I view as unlikely? Try to use relevant argument and stay logical.

I don't mean to sound rude but I am at this point not particularly interested in your general assesment of my education and background. I believe I have sufficient knowledge to make the statements I am making; I am certainly - and always - willing to learn more, thus any data and scientific knowledge coming from or through you would certainly be welcome.

With that in mind, I would be more than happy to hear your argument.

Regards,

Boris.

8. MikeJr left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 9:54 am

To S.King

Funny how everything brought up in this article, you clam is apeculation, begging the question, or irrelevant. You don't answer any of the questions brought forward, just criticism. The one website you provided, 911myths.com is a joke, right along with the Osama Bin Distractin tape that was released yesturday.

9. S. King left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 3:20 pm

"I believe I have sufficient knowledge to make the statements I am making;"

I have shown you are wrong and why. As I said in the beginning you only repeated debunked conspiracy theories.

"I am certainly - and always - willing to learn more, thus any data and scientific knowledge coming from or through you would certainly be welcome."

If that is the case then you know what you have to do. Since you managed to find data that has been debunked you are capable of learning everything you need to by doing the research yourself. I gave you two places to start. You don't need me to educate you. You need to do it yourself.

Of course, you have to be willing to be objective. Statements that you make contrary to reason, like, "It must be noted that failure to explain the "impossible" claims alone must inescapably lead one to the conclusion that the official story is a sham, likely designed to cover up the real story," don't inspire confidence that you can be objective.

The choice is yours.

10. WrongWay left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 3:30 pm

Im not excatly sure what went down on 9-11... but i am fairly confident it did not happen as our government would have us believe...

11. Smiley left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 3:35 pm

110,000 tons dropping 10-12 feet will pullverize an entire building. Read the physics reports on 9-11 and get a clue. The floors didn't just pancake 1 by one. The initial impact was estimated to have collapses 10-15 floors all at once.

12. OMG_a_republican_jew left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 3:43 pm

S. King, don't bother, people like this can't be swayed to the side of reason. Epstein doesn't acknowledge the fact that the burden of proof is on the person trying to displace the "popular version of events that took place". I suggest Epstein google the words "911", "Popular Mechanics", and "Conspiracy". And NOT the words "Loose Change".

What then, Epstein and fellow easily disillusioned people, was 9/11 all about? Who was really behind it? Are all those people living in Area 51? Is the same person you call an idiot (Bush) the same person who is magically the total evil genius behind all this?

13. rayrayjones left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 4:52 pm

don't worry about S. King. the guy doesn't have anything to add to any discussion other than "911myths.com has debunked that theory, so all you are doing is speculating which is irrelevant because we already know what happened".

He contradicts himself with his own contradictions, like Osama and Al-CIAduh have admitted their guilt with the numerous tapes released, never bothering to read professional speech, audio or linguist analysts (world renowned AMERICANS) analysis of the tapes and their insistence that they are forgeries. Yet, he claims that because the CIA has verified them then that is all you need.....and yet if the CIA was Osama's trainers, suppliers and financiers and they won't admit it, how can they be taken seriously in this matter? or him?

I was wondering what happened to S. King. He disappeared for awhile at 911blogger. he is either a paid endorser of 911myths or he is a government stooge with no other job than to blanket the internet with official story propaganda.

I mean he lies just for the sake of his own fabricated BS, claiming WTC7 isn't a mystery. THEN WHY HAS THE GOVERNMENT CALLED FOR INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FIRMS TO FIGURE OUT HOW WTC 7 COLLAPSED? and all structural engineers agree with the official story of WTC7 (as if all engineers have seen WTC7 fall or even know about it at all), except there is no official story, IT IS SPECULATION and therefore IRRELEVENT that all these engineers agree, and in a nationwide poll released yesterday, only 43% of AMERICANS even know about wtc7. I bet some of those 43% are structural engineers, which means S.King is full of crap when he says "all structural engineers agree with the official explanation"

oh by the way-

Great article!! it is logical, well-written and level headed.

peace.

14. rayrayjones left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 5:01 pm

OMG says - "Is the same person you call an idiot (Bush) the same person who is magically the total evil genius behind all this?"

NO, that is the idiots idea of why we seek the truth. he is lying about what they knew, when they knew it and covering it all up afterward.

did he plan it? NO did he know the extent of the plot? NO did he cover-up information after the fact? Absolutely! and that is still treason, unless you think the murder of 3000 people is nothing...

kinda like how you dismiss that notion that letting 2500 soldiers die for what we now know to be a complete pack of lies to be OK.

so far it sounds to me like you are just fine with 5500 Americans dying for lies and manipulation of intelligence and fixing facts to support the policy. (or are you not aware of the Downing Street Minutes?)

15. johnhenryfaulk left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 5:24 pm

s. knig is a disinfo idiot panzi

he's a jackoff behind a green screen with no life but the one he imagines is his

911 *was* an inside job and we are fucked. Nothing the kingston trio can do that will change this situation.

Nothing! Period.

16. primate left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 7:22 pm

Boris,

This is really good. The video's of the towers coming down are the smoking gun.

Mr King,

"No structural engineer agrees with you. You need to refute them. The claims of "near freefall" is begging the question. Once collapse started the buildings fell as expected."

Anyone who thinks "all" structual engineers disagree with Newton's law of conservation of momentum is pretty hard to take serious. That's a real bad argument. Instead of saying no structual engineer agrees with Boris, provide some that agree with you! I know for a fact that the website Scholars for 9/11 Truth has a ton of scientists with Phd's that are members, and they agree with Boris.

"Irrelevant. The contents of the buildings burned underground until December. There is no mystery there. "

???? Not sure what you mean by this. You consider it irrelevant that molten metal was burning at the World Trade Center for months...again this speaks for itself. The fire from the planes were diffuse fires, meaning the fuel and oxident flow in an uncontrolled manner. Diffuse flames have the lowest temperatures. These fires were random and they didn't last long. It wasn't the "contents" of the building that were burning for months in the wreakage, it was the metal girders.

The 9/11 wargames have been admitted to by the military. The motive is obvious in this case.

"Irrelevant. They did and no pilot disagrees that they did. The characteristics of its approach to the Pentagon indicates an "inexperienced" a pilot."

Another broad generalization. How can you profess to speak for all structual engineers and all pilots in the same message?

"Speculation. Begging the question. Speculatiuon of motives for which no evidence exists. There is NO reason to believe he did anything other than try to hit the Pentagon wherever he could."

Are you serious? A downward spiral that's almost a complete circle while descending 7,000 ft in 2 1/2 minutes?

17. OMG_a_republican_jew left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 7:33 pm

Ok. You have me convinced. Someone did something. Who? Why? THIS is where I started to stop believing anything these people say. Theories on who did this very quickly lead to illuminati and world wide conspiracy to control (well, anything)

Oh, and I thought I'd save you all the time of not having to actually go to google and type in exactly what I told you, so here's the link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

18. S. King left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 8:12 pm :: http://ifacts.wordpress.com

To those few rational people who know exactly what I am talking about, thank you.

For the rest of you who have so easily bought into 9/11 conspiracy theories, you have both the freedom of choice and the informantion available to you to disabuse yourselves of the irrational nonsense that you have got yourselves caught up in. But don't take my word for it.

I don't have to convince you of anything; YOU have to have the willingness, integrity, and devotion to truth to WANT to know what the truth is.

Nobody can help you with that except yourselves. You are free to choose to do so or not. But I guarantee that if you choose to think for yourselves and ask questions of those you have believed to date, to think seriously, and do ALL the research yourselves, that you will come to a different conclusion and wonder why you came to conclusions about 9/11 without all the information that 9/11 conspiracists didn't tell you about to begin with.

You see, we still live in a free country where no one can control what you think but where frauds and charlatans abound who depend on you not asking questions. Ask questions of EVERYONE, including those who promote extrordinary 9/11 conspiracies that sound plausible but fall apart when you think about the details, implications, and necessary means to accomplish them - those very things that 9/11 conspiracists never bring to your attention.

You all have brains but you've got to use them diligently. That includes you, Boris.

19. Sean Wheeler left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 9:14 pm :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

Dear Mr. King, Republican Jew and all others in denial,

Your failure to acknowledge even one inconsistency in the official story is all too revealing. Even I, as someone who believes in government complicity, can see faults in the arguments of many on the "conspiracy" side.

You, however, are so committed to your belief that the United States government can do no wrong and has done no wrong here, that you are blind to any evidence which contradicts your own theory.

Furthermore, you are wrong to place the burden of proof on Mr. Epstein, who, like the rest of us, is an individual without the financial or legal means to conduct a thorough investigation on his own. That burden rests on those we have elected to office and, sadly, they have not done their job.

So tell me, Mr. King, what rational explanation do you have for the fact that former Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly ignored phone calls by attorney David Schippers (who, our Republican Jew friend will be happy to know, helped prosecute President Clinton and thus should have been welcome in Republican circles), who was trying to give Ashcroft SPECIFIC INFORMATION from FBI agents about the 9/11 attacks in the weeks prior to the attacks? Perhaps the Attorney General was too busy during the six weeks prior to 9/11 to return a phone call from a trusted ally reporting claims from FBI agents about an imminent terrorist attack which included the names of the targets and the date of the attack.

You won't find the answer to that question on your prescious 9/11 Myths or Popular Mechanics sites.

Quit memorizing all of your silly debunking sites and do some real research. Your pathetic attempts to sound educated and impartial are transparent. And for heaven's sake, go look up the definition of "begging the question." Your obvious misunderstanding of the phrase is embarassing.

For those of you with open minds, I encourage you to look into what I have said. Don't take my word for it. And for the love of God, don't take Mr. King's word for it, either.

Read a few books on the matter. Look up the articles on LexisNexis. The information is out there.

And don't worry, you can always ignore the truth after you discover it. Just ask Mr. King.

20. Dwight left...

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 11:57 pm

OMG_A_Republican_Jew said:

"Epstein doesn't acknowledge the fact that the burden of proof is on the person trying to displace the 'popular version of events that took place.'"

How is this a fact? Mr. Epstein is pointing out facts that he believes make the official story implausible at best. I think he has done an excellent job of doing that. He has not proved anything, nor does he need to. He has shown that the official story proves nothing other than that it cannot be what actually happened.

This isn't about Bush or Clinton. It's not a partisan issue. Think.

21. Dwight left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 12:06 am

Mr. King -- it is you and many others who have so easily bought into a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Fortunately, as the intended shock wears off, people are starting to question the implausible official story.

"Conspiracy theory", Illuminati, blah, blah. Conspiracies are real -- ask your local U.S. Attorney that charges them every day.

Faith-based citizenship is for sheep. I choose to think for myself.

22. S. King left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 12:23 pm :: http://ifacts.wordpress.com

We can see that several 9/11 Deniers, including an anti-Semitic loon, have made their appearnce with absolutely nothing to offer.

This gentleman has pretty much summed things up:

Do You Believe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm

23. Sean Wheeler left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 2:41 pm :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

Well, Mr. King...

Thank you for failing to respond to the question of Ashcroft and Schippers, which proves that you again have no useful information to offer. You avoid answering questions because you have no answers.

Instead, you resort to name-calling.

What's impressive is how many "hate terms" you were able to fling at your enemies in such a short reply. You see, calling someone "anti-Semitic" for no good reason is the same as calling someone a "conspiracy theorist"... it has the effect of immediately discrediting everything the person has to say.

Oh, and anyone of reasonable intellect can see the implied connection between "9/11 Deniers" and "Holocaust Deniers." Yet another obvious attempt to link your opponents with hate groups.

Perhaps you should read this post by a Jewish (that's right, Jewish) member of the 9/11 truth movement... who exposes similar attempts to link others in the movement with hate groups.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10023

Nice try. Write back when you have something to say about Sibel Edmonds, John Ashcroft or David Schippers. Until then, dispense with the name-calling and grow up.

24. S. King left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 4:30 pm

Unfortunately for you, Mr. Wheeler, I am way ahead of you on the subject of "denial." You profess no knowledge of the subject but you can read about denial on my reading list at the bottom of the page here:

http://ifacts.wordpress.com

After you have read those books and learned about denial, get back to us. And don't bother referring us to Jon Gold's blog where lies are bandied about as the truth on a daily basis.

You can also read about yourself here:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm

25. Sean Wheeler left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 5:24 pm :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

Again, pathetic. No new information.

But I can see through your reading list (a "how to rationalize your distorted point of view" home starter kit) where you learned how to avoid having to win an argument by simply calling people names.

I am amused by your "9/11 Denial" stance. First, because it attempts to group 9/11 skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Second, because we're not denying 9/11, my poor chap... we're denying the ridiculous story the government has offered up (you know, the one you're currently choking on).

I'm through with you and your silly comments.

Go away.

26. Sean Wheeler left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 6:43 pm :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

One last thing for Mr. King... allow me to quote Andrew M. Lobaczewski, a Polish psychologist:

I am not surprised at the state of denial of the majority of human beings. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of their discomfort onto those who ask uncomfortable questions by accusing them of being "conspiracy theorists."

...let us move to the "context" that I believe may be important to the events of 9-11. The context is that the term "conspiracy theory" has been tootled for a number of years in such a way that the mere pronouncing of the words acts to turn off the thinking capacities of the average American. It is almost as effective as pronouncing any criticism of Israeli government to be anti-Semitic. (or by labeling 9/11 skeptics as "Deniers" to link them to Holocaust deniers)

The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label (conspiracy) serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret.

Skeptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide (anything) for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media. (that's you, Mr. King)

Please visit this page for the entire article: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2006/05/psychology-behind-conspiracy-theory. html

27. S. King left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 7:20 pm

"First, because it attempts to group 9/11 skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Second, because we're not denying 9/11, my poor chap..."

Thank you for admitting that you can't even understand the written word, poor Sean.

"Again, pathetic. No new information."

I guess you already recognized yourself here then: http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm

Now, go get yourself a REAL education, bunky.

28. S. King left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 7:21 pm

"First, because it attempts to group 9/11 skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Second, because we're not denying 9/11, my poor chap..."

Thank you for admitting that you can't even understand the written word, poor Sean.

"Again, pathetic. No new information."

I guess you already recognized yourself here then: http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm

Now, go get yourself a REAL education, bunky.

29. S. King left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 7:29 pm

It's always amusing to watch 9/11 Deniers hide from the reality of their denial.

The facts remain:

1. You have never refuted the physical evidence of what happened on 9/11, evidence from thousands of pieces of independent information never once in control by the "evil government."

2. You continue to repeat already-debunked nonsense, day after day, month after month, year after year.

3. You refuse to provide evidence to support your case but believe that speculation, innuendo, false data, anything form a conspiracy site rather than a structural engineer "proves" that the government was behind 9/11.

That and the other techniques of denial make you a conpsiracy theorist. It also makes you an idiot.

And it is the reason that you get the justly-deserved derision that you have asked for.

Get yourself an education.

Any questions, bunky?

30. Sean Wheeler left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 8:50 pm :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

No, Mr. King... nothing further. I may as well be having a debate with my refrigerator.

31. OMG_a_republican_jew left...

Thursday, 25 May 2006 8:50 pm

"We can see that several 9/11 Deniers, including an anti-Semitic loon, have made their appearnce with absolutely nothing to offer."

I hope you weren't talking about me!

Meh, I'm out of this arguement, best of luck S. King.

But just to furthur relate myself to those who still believe in the "cpnspiracy" (since that appearently is now a bad word), I do not think everything that happened was disclosed, I believe (almost know) that there is vital information that was never told to the public, for the very same reason that things not all evidence is released in serial killer cases.

However, I do not think that some group of people got together and said "Ok, I could totally go for a war in Iraq...and Afganistan too. But how to sell it??"

BUT BUT BUT BUT

WHY THE HELL DID YOU LINK TO THIS STORY ON DIGG?? This is NOT A. Tech related B. News of any sort C. Any new revelation

32. Little David left...

Sunday, 28 May 2006 3:13 pm :: http://littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/

Since the furor from people more educated and learned then I has died down, I feel emboldened to add my own comments.

I am not educated in physics, however at times feel the mental gymnastics practiced by some "educated" conspiracy theorists point to erroneous conclusions.

Let us take what is put forth under the "Jim Hoffman" link provided in the article. This link attempts to explain this laws of Conservation of Momentum/Energy by describing what would happen if two equal weight Honda Civics, one at standstill, the other traveling at 60 MPH ran into each other. This is rather simplistic.

When WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed, the collapse started at the point of impact. That means that the weight of all the floors above the point of impact must be factored in as the floor immediately below collapsed. As each succeeding floor collapses, the additional weight of this floor must be factored in until we get to the bottom at which point the combined weight (and momentum of this combined weight) would mean that the last floor would contribute insignificant resistance to the collapse. At least by then the combined mass would be approaching free fall speed.

From my understanding of physics, if something the with the mass of a freight train engine strikes a balloon filled with air, for an imperceptable fraction of a second, the freight engine comes to a stop while it imparts it's energy to the balloon. Due to the overwhelming mass of the engine, this pause is imperceptible, certainly imperceptible to the naked eye.

As a "common" example of what I mean let me describe personal experience. I drive a semi truck for a living. Once when traveling in Tennessee, I had a pickup truck run into me. While this pickup truck ran into the side of me, it ended up broadside in front of me. I was fairly heavily loaded. As I remember it, my gross weight was probably about 35 tons. The weight of the pickup truck was probably about 1 and 1/2 tons. I noticed no lurch or shudder from my vehicle at the time of impact. I was only alerted to the accident by the SOUND of the impact. The weight of my vehicle so overwhelmed the other vehicle that my vehicle freely pushed it down the road without perceptable loss of momentum to the vehicle I drove. (Thankfully there were no injuries to anyone.)

Since the collapse began several floors below the top of WTC1 and WTC2, the correct analogy might be a semi tractor trailor to a pickup truck, not a Civic to a Civic. By the time we get to the bottom, a better comparison might be a freight train to a balloon.

What studies of this that I have observed have avoided this "common sense" observation. In fact, I have witnessed colorful graphs from conspiracy theorists that completely ignore this obvious (common sense) observation in what I must conclude is an attempt to mislead the readers.

My conclusion? Al Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center towers. This impact resulted in the collapse of the towers. If conspiracy theorists want to convince me that "something more" happened (which I am still open to), they better stop relying on amateur "experts" to make their case!

33. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 9:04 am :: http://littledavidobermark.blogspot.com

Here's another quote from the Jim Hoffman piece:

"What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?"

WTC2 absorbed the impact from Flight 175 much like the human body absorbs the impact from a bullet. It was not the impact that caused the collapse (although it might have contributed by severing some of the steel supports, much as a bullet might fracture bone) but the resulting fires that weakened the steel that ultimately resulted in the collapse. When the fires weakened the steel girders near the point of impact enough that they no longer could support the combined weight of all the floors above? Well we have all seen the results.

34. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 10:43 am :: http://littledavidobermark.blogspot.com

More "common sense".

Let us examine a steel nail. If one takes the weight of an ordinary hammer, and you managed the almost super human feat of balancing it on an ordinary nail, one would find the strength of the steel in the nail was capable of supporting the weight of the hammer.

But what happens if we put the point of the nail on an ordinary pine 2x4? At rest, the weight of the hammer is not enough to do more then maybe dimple the surface of the soft wood of the 2x4. But what happens if you give the weight of the hammer some momentum? If you are brawny enough (which I am not) and accurate enough (which again I am not, I am more apt to hit my thumb - grin) you can drive the nail into the soft lumber with a single blow.

Now put the nail against something more formidable like a piece of steel and repeat the blow? What happened to the nail?

What about the molten metal? OK, let's continue our experiment with the nail. Let us once again put our nail up to soft lumber and drive it in there. Only this time we hit it only hard enough to drive it in only about half way. Now let us start bending the nail back and forth until it breaks. Feel the end of the nail that you hold in your hands. It will be hot enough to burn your finger tips, and this happens with only the energy that came from your arms.

Now what happens if we factor in the combined weight of all the floors of the World Trade Center towers above the ground floor? What happens when the weight of all the floors above the ground floor is brought to bear on the ground floor steel girders with some momentum? Is it unreasonable to believe that some heat might be part of the result of the tremendous energy imparted by the collapse?

Think about it, below the surface of the earth exists "natural" forces that are enough to turn solid rock into magma. This molten rock is a result of what physicists describe as the "weak force" of gravity. This same "weak force" is part of the explanation of the sun and the stars. Is it wrong to then suspect that the tremendous energy of the WTC Towers' collapse could have caused "ordinary steel" to become molten? Steel becomes liquid with less expenditure of energy then rock!

35. Sean Wheeler left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 11:30 am :: http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/

Hmmm... three posts in a row.

Who are you trying to convince, David... us or yourself? As for all your rationalizing about the collapses... I think I trust the findings of Professor Steven E. Jones more than yours.

In any case, Happy Memorial Day.

36. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 4:13 pm

Perhaps, since what is presented is so one sided, I am only trying to present what questions run thru my mind on my own.

I notice you presented nothing on your own other then sarcasm.

I'll take that back, you did provide me with a name to google.

37. YEShavesome left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 4:53 pm

If fires had been able to soften steel rated to withstand 2000 F temperture for several hours the buildings would have deformed or bent or buckled before collapsing. What we saw was an explosive sudden onset of collapse

If the temperture was this high the steel would have been glowing orange to yellow. Didn't any of you debunkheads see the Windsor building in spain last year?

Does anyone remember high school physics? A little thing called conservation of momentum? Boris is absolutely right on all of his points!

Look it up: The 911 coverup commision said: "The interior core was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped." and "... exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building." Are we to just accept blatent lies? Is the truth worth anything at all?

38. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 6:04 pm

OK, I googled the learned Professor.

I am pleased that educated people will take on the challenge of "what really happened".

I will quote Professor Jones own words: "It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal..." to which I would counter that it is not enough to argue hypothetically his own theory might be true. It MIGHT be, however it is unproven. That it could be true is why I continue to entertain the arguments.

I will also point out that BYU has thrown a muzzle on the learned professor. But I am sure that this muzzle will only serve as proof of the "great conspiracy" to many. They will refuse to consider the muzzle might have been placed by his colleagues to keep a crackpot from ruining the reputation of their institution.

39. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 6:56 pm

Yeshavesome,

Videos and still photos of the collapse of the south tower clearly show an observable cant to the block of floors above the point at which the collapse starts. Of course how obvious this would be would depend upon from which angle the video or photo was taken. I do not think anyone seriously claims otherwise.

40. Boris Epstein left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 7:39 pm

Little David said: Videos and still photos of the collapse of the south tower clearly show an observable cant to the block of floors above the point at which the collapse starts.

Personally, I am not sure what you are trying to say in this particular instance. This is what in the context of the official theory of this collapse would add yet one more mystery to the picture. You've got a whole section of the building starting to rotate - and then disintegrating instead of toppling over as would be expected. Very strange, I'd say.

41. Little David left...

Monday, 29 May 2006 7:51 pm

I was only responding to Yeshavesomes observation that the floors above the point of collapse could be expected to cant if steel beems gave way due to uncontrolled failure instead of planned failure. They would not be expected to all give way at the same time. The block did obviously cant.

As the floors below them gave way they started to follow the path of least resistance, which was straight down. They came apart enroute to the bottom. Can you reasonably expect them to arrive at the bottom intact?

Of course I realize that this cant is pointed to by learned conspiracy proponents as proof of what they contend. I cling to that it is proof they are wrong.

42. YESHAVESOME left...

Tuesday, 30 May 2006 3:17 am

Little David, you are clinging to official fairy-tale, as you might cling to the hope of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus . I understand it is scary to consider ideas outside of what you are told, but I have no such luxury. The fact is in all three cases of collapse, there is no precident. True the South tower did cant for about a second or two, but the law of conservation of angular mometum would require an equal and opposite force to prevent that block of floors from falling to the street below. That is not what we see happening. We see that block of floors disintegrate, as well as the intact structure below.

In the case of the North Tower and building 7 the collapse was completely summetrical, and at freefall speed. This does not happen randomly by fire.

In order to prove your point, that the collapses were caused by fire, you must prove that in three cases. I, on the other hand, only have to prove that in one of these cases there was a non-random cause . If in any of the three buildings there were explosives, than the whole official conspiracy theory is disproved.

It is hard to imagine that in the history of steel buildings, that only three have collapsed entirely from fire, and that those three all happened on the same day. Cling if you must, but if you were to do a probalistic analysis of the events of 9/11/01 you would get some pretty incredible odds.

43. Little David left...

Wednesday, 31 May 2006 7:31 am :: http://littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/

Yeshavesome,

Well, I am entitled to my own opinion, and it is my opinion that I am not the only one who is doing the clinging.

You stated: "I, on the other hand, only have to prove that in one of these cases there was a non-random cause." I agree. So now prove it. You have not done so thus far.

The best that conspiracy theorists have proposed is that, if you discount some of the more outrageous and indefensible notions, is that there MIGHT have been more to it then meets the eye. There is some distance that needs to be covered to get from "might have happened" to arrive it "must have happened".

Let us examine what Professor Steven E. Jones has written for example. You state the block of floors should have continued to fall to the street below. Professor Jones explains that this did not happen because there "must have been" radio controlled explosives in the floors above the point of impact (as well as below) that only this explain why this did not happen. What, a few thermite charges would cause the floors above to "disintegrate"? Not unless we also include the forces of gravity, so then what about gravity without thermite charges?

As for the "history of steel buildings", never before in the history of suspension bridges did a bridge collapse only four months after it was completed as did the Tacomo Narrows bridge. This does serve as proof that sabateurs were behind the collapse of that bridge. It just never happened before. My guess is that if engineers did not study what caused the collapse and learn from it, we would have seen more collapses. As for steel buildings, I would imagine that if we have more jetliners laden with fuel fly into buildings constructed like the WTC Towers, we will see more buildings collapse as well.

I am not an engineer. I sure would wish an engineer with a non-conspiracy point of view would join in the conversation. From a relatively ignorant "common sense" point of view, let me pose one real question I have. Conspiracy theorists continually state the fires could not have caused the buildings to collapse? Why not? If fire posed no risk, then why did engineers include a fire proof coating of the girders in their design?

44. Little David left...

Wednesday, 31 May 2006 8:24 am :: http://littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/

Ooops, my last post should have read "This does NOT serve as proof..." in the paragraph where I discussed the Tacomo Narrows bridge. There are a couple other typos in my post (which is routine for me - grin), but no others that are so egregious they beg to be corrected.

45. yeshavesome left...

Wednesday, 31 May 2006 5:31 pm

Hello, and thanks for the civil debate. Typos not a bother!

Gravity can only accelerate a mass. The amount of mass, and the height determines the potential energy. The force of kinetic energy is mass X acceleration. When an object falls it accelerates at 32 feet per second per second. This continues until the object contacts the ground, when sudden deceleration occurs, and the energy is transformed into work - deformation, disintegration, and heat. So if there were no other forces acting, that block of floors would accelerate as one piece since gravity would be acting equally on all parts of the block. This block would take the path of least resistance to the ground. This large mass, even while the velocity is low in the 1st second or two, could certainly be enough to destroy the intact building below, however, this is not the path of least resistance. As we see from the video, the block began to rotate. This is what we would expect, since a random failure would not impact all of the supports below equally. The block would destroy the supports on one side or corner and would rotate more becoming more unbalanced , until it slid off the lower structure. Now having only air to fall through, it would accelerate at free-fall until it crashed into the ground or a building, where it will rapidly decelerate, disintegrate, and destroy anything underneath. As a not so pleasant example, the people who jumped, or were knocked out of the towers came to no harm until they were rapidly decelerated by the pavement below.

As to the bridge analogy, you would need the Verrizano and the George Washington bridges to collapse on the same day as well. Never happened before, but then happens three time in one day. Wouldn't you be a bit curious then?

Steel is fireproofed as an additional precaution to increase the time the steel can withstand a high temperature without buckling. The Twins were designed with a core support structure designed to support 5 times the weight of the loaded towers, where the building code only required a 3 times redundancy. Why? Overkill. To have even more protection in case of a catastrophe such as an earthquake or hurricane. Let me repeat that the unfire-proofed steel was rated to withstand several hours in a furnace at 2000 degrees. Could the fires have been that hot in the towers? NO. Did the fires burn for several hours. NO.

Hope this helps!

46. Little David left...

Thursday, 1 June 2006 6:06 am

As for the block of buildings. The reason it would start to cant is as you describe. But as the cascading failure of the floors below started the intact portion of the floor below that was causing part of the cant would fail, the block of floors would start to fall straight down, which I believe is what the videos show. While the cant is marked and observable, it is never shown to be extreme to where none of the weight above is free from being partially supported by the structure below. That is until the floors below failed.

As for the Verrizano and George Washington bridges, if they had been designed similar to the Tacomo Narrows and subjected to the same stresses on the same day, they too would have almost certainly have failed.

As for the overkill in the design of the WTC Towers, again, I would point to the Tacomo Narrows bridge as proof strutural engineers are not superhuman, and are capable of making mistakes. There has been much discussion as to whether the violence of the impact could have knocked the fire proof coating off the girders. Also I seem to remember reading there may have been some question as to whether the steel used actually met specifications. I'd search the web to provide a link to where this was discussed, but I have to get back on the road this morning.

As for "Could the fires have been that hot in the towers?" I think the evidence points to they must have been. I know that "all the black smoke" is pointed to as proof of "open air" conditions of the flames. But there would have been at least some updraft. Just because the outer edges of the inferno met the conditions of "open air" and emitted black smoke does not prove other conditions did not exist elsewhere. As evidence of this I will again point to my old semi tractor. My truck engine has 6 cylinders. The cylinder sleeve in only one cylinder needs to fail (with the other 5 cylinders continuing to operate normally) for the entire exhaust stream to be filled with copious levels of smoke. I know this from personal experience.

47. yeshavesome left...

Thursday, 1 June 2006 3:33 pm

Have you ever tried to balance a broom on your nose? if the broom starts to tip in one direction, you must move to that direction in order to stop the rotation. Once something is unbalanced, it doesn't regain balance without an external force pushing it back to center. Once it started to tilt there was more weight on that corner of the building, and so when you talk about floors failing, you must realize that the floors only went from inner core to perimeter column. Think of a three story house with decks off the 2nd and 3rd floors, if the decks are supported by the house on one side and support beams on the other side, and the top deck fails, it would take out the deck below, but it would not bring the whole house down. Nist tells us that the floor trusses failed and so fell straight down on the floor below. Even all of the floor trusses failed at the exact same time, they would not fall on the core, because as in our house analogy, they were not above it. The core would remain standing. This is why the 911 coverup commission excludes the core, and says the building were hollow and supported by the perimeter columns.

In the South Tower videos I see the top block of floors, and the intact building explode into concrete dust and steel beams blown outward and upward, from the very start of the collapse.

Due to the design of the towers, and as you admit, the fires were not equally hot in all areas, a symmetrical collapse is unlikely. Due to the trajectory of the planes, the North Tower should have collapsed first, since the planes Whole fuel load went straight into the building, whereas in the South Tower, the fuel burst through the corner of the building not encountering the core and mostly exploded outside the building in the famously replayed and very photogenic fireball.

"As for the Verrizano and George Washington bridges, if they had been designed similar to the Tacomo Narrows and subjected to the same stresses on the same day, they too would have almost certainly have failed."

I agree, but what are the chances of that?

BTW, What about Building Seven?

Hang in there, baby!

48. Little David left...

Monday, 19 June 2006 2:02 am

yeshavesome,

First, let me state I realize you probably will never see this reply since this thread is so old.

However, I took you up on your challenge. If you will forgive me, I did not ballance the broomstick on my nose, I balanced it on my fingertip. The result? Even when the broomstick started a sideward motion, when I removed the fingertip the broomstick plunged almost straight down due to the forces of gravity. Try it for yourself. You need not involve your nose in the experiment, a fingertip will suffice.

49. Boris Epstein left...

Monday, 19 June 2006 8:11 am

Well, David, that is certainly true, but the question is - who removed the finger?

Furthermore, it is doubtful that the broomstick in question would disintegrate.

Getting back to the issue of the WTC towers - imagine just the energy required to pulverize the building that size. Where did that come from? I mean I am not sure you can even find a copncrete structure bombed by the military that is so thoroughly destroyed.

I think this would be a good "common sense consideration" to go through.

50. Little David left...

Monday, 19 June 2006 10:06 am

Question 1: Who removed the finger? Answer: Al Qaeda.

Question 2: Where did that (the energy required to pulverize the building that size)come from? Answer: From gravity. From the same force that caused the broomstick to crash to the ground. From the same force that turns solid stone into molten lava.

51. Boris Epstein left...

Monday, 19 June 2006 10:26 am

Question 1: Who removed the finger? Answer: Al Qaeda.

So, Al Qaeda wired the buildings with explosives and detontated them? That is certainly a possibility to consider. If that was the case, the alleged Al Qaeda operatives who died on the planes were likely not the only participants of the attacks, and others (possibly far more qualified and more dangerous) are still at large.

Then of course, as I said earlier, why then they didn't drop those buildings sideways to cause even more death and destruction in the streets below? But yes, it is possible that Al Qaeda did the whole thing - only that they were more powerful than we are told. That of course hardly explaing why the Bush Administration would so willingly cover for their supposed worst enemy - but that is a whole different discussion. And last I checked preventing a proper investigation fo a crime was called "obstruction of justice", a criminal offense.

Well, there are calculations showing that the energy required to pulverize the building siginificantly exceeded its whole gravitational potential energy. And if you want to compare the gravity-induced compression in the lower level of the geological structures you've got to compare many kilometers worth of solid mass to a mere 415 m worth of a hollow structure, air-cooled at that.

Even though, yes, there is a theory that implies that maybe compression could have caused the buildings to disintegrate. Though that would be a first, that would not explain where the molten steel came from - and that is not a hypothesis any of the government-allied scientists are posing.

52. Little David left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 9:04 am

Boris you state it as fact that the buildings must have been rigged with explosives. I do not accept this conjecture as being proven fact. "Could" this have happened? Yes. As unlikely as it is it "could" have happened. "Must" it have happened? Nope. No evidence that approaches "must" has been put forth.

As for the molten steel, I will only agree that this is an interesting detail. However just because this detail has not been fully explained does not prove the US Government must have been involved in the destruction of the twin towers or WTC7.

From the few discussions that I have been able to witness where strutural engineers have tried to join the conversation, they seem to accept the pancaking theory as being reasonable. Most times these "experts" have almost seemed to throw their hands up in frustration and withdraw from the conversations due to the unreasonable arguments put forth by conspiracy advocates.

53. Boris Epstein left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 9:30 am

David, I never said I knew for a fact that the buildings were demolished with explosives - to say that I would need direct evidence such as analysis of chemical residue, steel cuts, etc. - and guess what, it's all gone. And of course what I am saying is just conjecture - and the same can be said about the government's conclusions. The only difference being that what I am saying can at least be modeled in a way that agrees with the basic scientific knowledge - as opposed to many government's conjectures.

Now, I am also saying that I do not know for a fact that the US government was complicit because I lack direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence, however, is there.

Now, try to think of it this way. Just about any evidence can be interpreted in an innumerable number of ways, yet it is the reasonably likely interpretations we are forced to take seriously. For instance, if you see a body with a round driled hole on one side and a wide hole on the other, and a few bits of disformed metal nearby you are likely gonna' conclude that the poor guy was gunned down. Yet it could have been a meteorite that looked like a 9 mm round.

David, tons of steel do not just melt on a whim. This ain't no small detail, to put it very mildly.

I am goign to write a review based on readers comments one of these days - hopefully I will be able to cover these things better.

54. Little David left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 11:05 am

Boris,

In response to your statement: "I never said I knew for a fact that the buildings were demolished with explosives..." I will only again quote you from a previous post: "So, Al Qaeda wired the buildings with explosives and detontated them? That is certainly a possibility to consider. If that was the case, the alleged Al Qaeda operatives who died on the planes were likely not the only participants of the attacks, and others (possibly far more qualified and more dangerous) are still at large."

From that statement I drew the conclusion that you had concluded the buildings "must" have been thus wired.

Some might hoot that you are waffling. I will instead praise you for not being a bigot.

55. Boris Epstein left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 11:12 am

Yes, I do conclude that the buildings must have been detonated. I can not draw this conclusion with an absolute certainty - but that is the conclusion making more sense thanother scenarios I have thus far come accross.

To be purely scientific means to be waffling. Liek I said you can nver be 100% of what it is you observe. Yet sometimes the certainty level is sufficient to tell that you are sure. This is the case here.

56. Little David left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 12:26 pm

Well, my conclusion is other then yours. My conclusion is that Al Qaeda flew planes into the towers, that the resulting fires caused the buildings to collapse.

I try not to be a bigot myself however. I am willing to at least consider I am wrong. However I have yet to see evidence that PROVES I am wrong. Is there evidence I MIGHT be wrong? Yes.

If conspiracy advocates were as open to the alternatives in conversations they might find they are less dismissed as unreasonable (bigots) and find themselves more accepted in the conversations.

This has not been my experience. Conspiracy theorists have willingly allied themselves with crackpots only because the crackpots agreed with them. If conspiracy theorists want to prove their case they need to stop pointing to idiots who's arguments can be dismissed as obvious distortions.

I am a skeptic. However I am willing to entertain the arguments put forth by the other side. But when the arguments start to become unreasonable, it is hard to resist the motivation to dismiss the reasonable arguments that are put forth.

57. Boris Epstein left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 1:10 pm

David,

You might want to substantiate your conclusions. Trying to model the scenario you favor would be a good idea, in my opinion.

Now, let us get the terminology straight, too. Do you believe 9/11 was the work of a lone criminal? Do you believe that it was a natural phenomena? If the answers to these two questions are "no", then you believe it was carried out by two or more persons, thus you believe a conspiracy was involved. That makes you a... guess who? A conspiracy theorist.

The same goes for me, the same goes for the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report. Being a conspiracy theorist here is not the problem - pushing a theory that is beyond the realm of possible is. Doing that when you are in a position of public trust and are funded by the taxpayers is even worse. Doing that knowing that the result of this is a policy of endless war is yet worse.

But I have gone off topic. I am a conspiracy theorist, so are you, so is Phillip Zelikow. That is not what I fault him for. It is releasing a report that states the impossible as supposedly scientifically acquired results is what I do fault him for.

Now, I don't know exactly who aligned with whom. I myself am not aligned with anybody. Are there crazies in the 9/11 truth movement? Absolutely? Are there crazies in the Boy Scouts? I would guess. That by itself does not demonstrate anything either way.

Amongst the many 9/11 skeptics I've met most were absolutely sane, practical, analytical people.

58. Little David left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 1:33 pm

OK, the US government is part of the conspiracy.

Due to the overwhelming power of the US government, they could have pulled this off.

But for the US Government to pull this off they would have had to had willing accomplices, something I would call average day citizens even if they were in the military.

Did everyone the US Government asked to cooperate in this conspiracy say yes? If even a minority said "Uh uh, not me, I want no part of this shit." What evidence can you present that they were even asked?

Would every participant have automatically become a right wing advocate that would have become a willing participant in this conspiracy? There would be no leaks?

Look, I served in the military. From my experience, not everyone who serves in the military is a "right wing nut" who would agree to remain silent if the US government misbehaves. I refuse to accept that the US Government could have been involved in the 9-11 attacks without someone who could have provided proof the US Government was involved out of conscience if not for personal gain. Such an invidual who could provide proof would immediately become wealthy by publishing a book and making the talk show circuit.

That no such individual has come forth (motivated by personal gain) proves that no such individual exists.

59. Boris Epstein left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 3:45 pm

''Here’s how large, inside conspiracies work: • Conspiracies—partnerships in crime—are common: a corner drug deal is a conspiracy and one in four federal prosecutions include a conspiracy charge. • Hundreds rather than thousands probably were necessary to pull off the 9/11 psychological operation. • Many conspirators are ideologues committed to the idea that the 9/11 hoax would serve the interests of the nation. Worthy ends justify murderous means to this crowd. The human cost of 9/11 turned out to be “only” a month’s highway fatality toll and served the magnificent ends of starting a global war on terror, two invasions and more to come, billions more in defense spending, torture, new agencies, “Patriot” controls, domestic spying, enormous new contracts, more debt and many other attractive consequences. • Many participants are cunning sociopaths (amoral) with the mindset of stone cold killers. They wear a suit or military uniform but have no respect for the lives of the “little people.” They are ruthless, witness the fool in the White House: “But all in all, it’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me,” a tone-deaf president declared in a December, 2001 interview. • Only the trustworthy are at the center of the hub-spoke-and-wheel compartmentalization necessary in a complex conspiracy. Only the arrogant few at the hub know the big picture before hand. • The most secretive regime in U.S. history puts a huge premium on personal loyalty and gets it. • Most participants did not know in advance how “over-the-top” the twin tower demolitions were going to be. That job probably was contracted out to ruthless foreigners. Once done, it’s too late to get out. • Any participant would hesitate to squeal after the event because disbelief, disgrace and grief would follow, at a minimum, anyway. The major media, inside 9/11 from the start, would discredit squealers, as necessary. • Risk-taking behavior is always greater in groups than for lone individuals (psychology 101). • Once involved in the plot, everyone is “in for good.’ • Conspirators face no threat of arrest, prosecution and punishment by the government’s justice system, a proven fact since government and media obstructed and trashed New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison’s JFK investigation and prosecution. • Controllers discipline participants through $billions in black budgets and drug money, death threats, assassination and black mail. • Blatant and repeated resistance against truthful investigations, aided by obstruction of justice and abetted by media silencio, prove there is a lot to hide.''

Morgan Reynolds, " Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11"

Read the article. The author, I must note, would likely know a thing or two about how governments and conspiracies operate.

You bring up some valid points which I will address in one of upcoming articles. Sorry I can't do it now - a two-bit response jsut won't do.

60. Little David left...

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 5:34 pm

I am awaiting your own article that will deal with the issues.

Hopefully it will be more substantial then all the mindless rant you quoted.

61. paul left...

Friday, 14 July 2006 8:38 pm

no caps... one hand typing... broken arm..

here we go.

the main reason for the state of denial about even the possibility it was an inside job stems imho from the assumption that dozens, if not 100's of people (us citizens) would have had to have been involved. i tink this is a false assumption.

norad was diverted on that day. planned "innocently" long ahead. only the date of the exercises needed to have been known. i.e. norad didn't need to know at all.

which could have impacted the non response of fighter aircraft. the didn't need to know.

if the buildings were demolished after the impact... (i sense they were from studying everything i can find on the subject) then they required prepping. cue... one out of town (country) military demolition team. probably from a certain little country in the middle east who had an interest in precipitating a us invasion of the region.

the hijackings? recruit a motley collection of willing jihadists... there are plenty of groups to source your team from - outsource the recruitment to saudi secret services who have such groups infiltrated / as do mossad.

wine them, dine them, get them laid... facilitate their boarding the planes with pre-planted hand guns ready... teach them how to enter coords into autopilot systems... (i've accomplished the same flights in fs2000 in big planes - ain't difficult really.)

who in usa needed to know in advance? cheney + a small handful of operatives around g. tenet / cia - who liaised with mossad/saudi secret services. all very compartmentalised / need to know / cover storied. i.e ... even some participant to the "in usa" facilitation elements would not have needed to know what their actions were a part of.

what about dubya? i think he was also on a neede to know basis - unaware of the scale / details. pet goat book reading / stunned mullet impression was scripted. all he was deemed capable of "acting". ronnie reagan would have been given more than a cameo role than that!

it may well be he didn't even know the buildings were to be demolished. just hit.

reason for pentagon hit? to make the point it was also a militarily targetted attack. thus war the appropriate response. the low improbable low casulaty wing of pentagon??? prepped with an ils type beacon.

back finaly to the assertion that tons of explosive were required.. i'd like to quiz a demolition company, given the unique construction of wtc 1/2, on how little could have beed used. i see dut squibs coming from floors way before the progressive collapse arrived. wh?

finally.. the combination of the haste with which physical evidence was removed + the reluctance to hold an inquiry, then the composition of the 911 commission.

conclusion? inside job with out of town help. a long time in the planning. months or more.

good luck america. you've been "couped". by evil fascists. it began on election night 2000.

62. Boris Epstein left...

Friday, 14 July 2006 9:01 pm

Paul,

I hope your arm heals soon! Thanks, that was a good comment.

What is FS2000? How much flgiht time do you have on this kind of aircraft?

Boris.

63. paul left...

Friday, 14 July 2006 9:36 pm

tks.

microsoft flightsim 2000 - the version that has wtc to aim at! 100's of hours.

i live in thailand. i've been through 3 coups!

fwiw - there is no such thing as the perfect crime. i think flight 93 was shot down. the chosen hijackers changed their mind... and had they landed it.... the whole affair would have come unravelled. cheney ordered it shot down imho. the pilot who did that would have been the only person not initially on the inside..... research his lifestyle/bank account!.... i think the most likely f16 squadron has already been identified...

also... were i rich with time on my hands i would go scouring the 93 crash site and environs for some unrecovered evidence.

something's out there... some achilles heel.

good luck.

64. 911 student left...

Sunday, 15 July 2007 3:10 pm :: http://911u.org/Physics/

<B>A BIG TRUTH ABOUT 9/11, made so simple even a caveman physicist can get it:</B> <a href="http://911u.org/Physics/graphics/SizeDist3.gif">The smaller 'dust' particles at ""Ground Zero"" were FAR TOO TINY TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PULVERIZATION!!!</a>

Once we rule out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must contain the truth...

PS: Clearly, S. King is, to put it politely, govt disinfo -- which will make it much more difficult for you to ever deprogram yourself from (rid yourself of) <a href="http://911u.org/CoDR/DR215.html">the 9/11 lies</a> which have spread like disease through our minds... (9/11 was a fresh outbreak of a new variant of Flat-Earth Disease: what "everybody knows" is wrong.)

65. Ken D. Webber left...

Thursday, 11 September 2008 9:30 pm :: http://www.kendwebber.com

Great Post with lots of truth in it. We are also to believe that "REAL" terrorists turn off transponders when they don't want to be seen (which immediately alerts ATC). We are to believe it was a collapse when there was no pancaked floors left behind. And then there's the FACT that the government released black box data from the "plane" that hit the pentagon contradicts the downed light pole path (no way it can hit both). 911 WAS an inside job!

Introduction

Mailing List

Calendar

Donations

News Sites - Portlet

My Links

Technorati Profile

Technorati Search

My Top Tags

My RSS Feeds

Blog Directories

StatCounter

9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausible

««	Feb 2010					»»
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28