Amid cries for more 9/11 Truth, I bring you a damning physics paper. It was written by Steven Jones, who was then forced into early retirement because BYU wants nothing to do with academic freedom or science for that matter.
It's rather lengthy (the .pdf is 48 pages), but it's absolutely worth reading for anyone who approaches what I'm saying skeptically. In it, Dr. Jones outlines 13 reasons why the 3 towers in NYC (don't forget about WTC 7!) could not have fallen according to the official story, meaning from merely the airplane collisions said to have brought them down. I'm particuarly fond of his point #9, as there's absolutely no way around it unless the physical laws of the universe themselves are wrong.
The final version is only available in .pdf format, which means the links for some imporant short videos don't work. If you wish to see these, I'll also give the link for the draft html version.
The .pdf is here, and the draft with working links is here.
Blog Archive
-
►
2008
(65)
-
►
May
(10)
- So You Wanna Talk Like the Times?
- Too Cool to Talk To Us in High School
- Mad Mac Deigns to Defy Political Gravity
- Massive social change? Yeah, probably...
- Dems Rising on Return of Big Government
- Occam's Razor Slices Faludi's Argument
- The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
- Another Reason to Elect a Democrat
- When You Wish Upon a Star...
- The Legacy of President George W. Bush
-
►
February
(17)
- The Limits of Al-Qaeda on US Soil
- The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
- The Road to a Blue State America
- I Saw a President Yesterday
- The Strange Justice of Sexual Politics
- End the Embargo
- Champion's League Predictions
- Kill Them or Start Over and Risk It All
- Crisis
- Naivete 101 with the Old Cranky Lady
- Why #1 Seeds No Longer Prove Super
- Deadlocked Needn't Mean D.O.A.
- High Crimes and Misdemeanors
- Onward, O Ye Liberals!
- 14-6 = #1
- Perils of Playing Post-Partisan?
- California, California, California
-
►
May
(10)
8 comments:
1) All right, I actually read the thing in its entirety. Consider yourself surprised?
2) Issues...
a) The author devotes a fair amount of ink to the NIST conclusion that the jet fuel of the crashed planes in WTC 1 & 2 "would've burned out in ten minutes." Therefore, he and others assume, it could not have caused the perpetual fires and the melting of steel which felled the building. For someone of purported devotion to "all options are on the table" he has nothing to say of the jet itself.
I assume, as we've discussed this before, you're familiar with the third crash at the Pentagon. You may or may not have seen computer simulations of how the plane hit the structure and how long it lasted. The point is, the jet which hit the Pentagon disintegrated ONLY AFTER driving through several "rings" of the Pentagon before it broke up entirely. The WTC, for all its engineering marvel, was in no form as sturdy as the Pentagon, which had just finished further safety features only weeks before 9/11.
Are we to assume that the two jets more or less disintegrated on impact? Or might the planes have left behind enough weight to force the collapse of the steel structures below?
b) The author has no time for discussing whether the surplus fuel may have in fact lasted longer than usual. The planes were destined for California.
c) For all his gusto, why does the author not say what he evidently believes? That a) the Bush administration rigged the three towers to explode because b) they knew of the impending attack and let it happen or were a part of grander conspiracy to force a more robust foreign policy and c) Muslims are all too innocent and harmless to have done anything as sinister as try explosives as well. Any references to February 26, 1993 in that paper? I checked, but I couldn't find any.
d) The sheer weight of the explosives, from his definition, would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for "teams" to wire the building in the aftermath of the explosions of the Twin Towers w/o SOMEONE noticing. So, then, we are to believe the building was wired beforehand? Now, I admit, it is possible that the previous administration, in the wake of the 1993 bombing, secretly wired the Twin Towers to implode if damaged by yet another terrorist bomb. This would've been against all known Clinton instincts, but it is more plausible that such a matter could've been handled during the '93 investigation than in the first few months of Bush's term.
e) It's only mentioned as a sneering aside, but the "unlikely" event of F-16s not bringing down terrorist-controlled aircraft deserves scrutiny (leaving aside our disagreement over Flight 93). First, according to all reports, Atta and the other pilots switched off their position location to the ATC. Second, all four flights, save for 93, departed almost simultaneously. By the time of the first crash, two other planes were well on their way... and an F-16 is going to try to shoot down a jet over NYC, and kill how many people??? Perhaps one could scramble jets to destroy 93, but how to find it?
Agreements...
a) I am willing to consider that the government, possibly pre-rigged before 9/11, set up a scenario to destroy WTC 7 if necessary, as in the event of a catastrophic development nearby. Assuming the Twin Towers are gone, what is the value of an emptied WTC 7? Can anyone truly work there in the coming months? Is it not better just to start completely over? Not saying I agree with the hypothetical or believe it happened, but, at the time, it wouldn't have been an entirely unreasonable thing to do.
On the other hand...
a) Suppose the Clinton administration did back a CIA-plan (noting their covert office on one of the Twin Towers), is there any indication they would've told the new regime? Tenet would've known, perhaps, but Bush, Cheney, et al.? Are we supposed to believe Tenet, what we know of his sycophantic service, would've made the call himself?
b) In the wake of the most calamitous US moment since 1941, when two planes have smashed into the most recognizable building in New York, we're supposed to believe our officials have the presence of mind to think, well, we need to explode the three towers (for whatever reason). Yes, it is more likely for WTC 7, but the Twin Towers?
In sum, forget the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 "conspiracy" would dwarf all others. How would this not get out, that, yes, we used controlled-explosives to fell the towers? No one, given the severe leaking at the CIA and other locales, wouldn't have blown the whistle here?
THE BIGGEST SINGLE REASON I DO NOT AGREE WITH "THE MOVEMENT":
People died when the Twin Towers came crashing to the ground. Do you think ANYONE in the government would have the nihilistic attitude requisite to KILL innocent AMERICANS (most of them) even if they knew the NIST, FEMA, and others would protect them? This is not the same as shooting down an aircraft, there is nothing preventive about MURDERING civilians when firefighters could've reached many, many more.
The idea that the US government could've green-lighted controlled explosives AFTER all known civilians had been successfully cleared (those below the crash site, and even further attempted rescue of upper story people could've taken place), such as WTC 7 is plausible. The idea that the US government would act to categorically murder thousands of civilians (note: DO NOT compare them with US soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq) requires a most conspiratorial mind.
If Dr. Jones believes this then where is his OUTRAGE? Who gives a d___ about the f______ building when people's lives are at stake? Which one is irreplacable? Yet, no mention or allegation of government-sponsored murder. He spends a great amount of time and energy declaring, "there is no other record of a similar result (of a building felled by fire)" when, by the same token, there is NO past result of US-government sponsored murder.
Instead, we are treated to a bunch of vaguely worded innuendo. How does one divorce the two? If the government used thermate to collapse the buildings then it obviously intended to murder civilians in a non-war zone.
This is why the MSM outlets have not glorified 9/11 Truth; you have to believe the Bush administration would kill nearly two thousand civilians just to cement an image later used to buttress a new global initiatve/ideology.
If you're willing to go that far, I'll at least respect your consistency. If not, why should I do anything more than tune out everything the "movement" puts forth. I cannot think of a more serious charge one could accuse any government than murder of its own civilians.
Does Mr. RCT have any thoughts about this?
joe made a dvd for me with some of this 9/11 truth stuff on it. I went into watching it thinking "oh this should be funny" really not taking it seriously. I left watching it thinking "wow." I'm not sure I'm ready to buy totally into it, but i'm certainly all for looking more into what happened - the official explanation simply does not make sense.
Groan.
The official explanation is not relevant. What matters is whether one believes the US government, under the control of President Bush, would DELIBERATELY act to fell buildings KNOWING civilians remained trapped inside, i.e. murder.
If yes, then the 9/11 Truth "movement" is for you. If not, well... these are profoundly serious charges that people are hinting at but not directly admitting.
the official explanation is relavant. It is what will be taught to children in history classes for years and years to come. I would personally like that explanation to be as accurate as possible, and all I was saying was that it certainly doesnt seem accurate from what I've seen. would i put it past Bush &Co. to do something as alleged? No, I don't think I would. To save his own ass I don't think there's much of anything that W&Co wouldn't do.
The problem here, lmd03, is that you for some reason automatically connect what the 9/11 Truth movement is trying to convey with inside job theories. One of the reasons I'm so fond of the work Dr. Jones does is that he's not out there saying soandso did this; that's not his job as a scientist. His job, which I think he did quite well, was to point out the physical problems with the official story, not to point the finger at Bush and say the government was behind it.
What I go around telling people is not that it was an inside job, but rather simply that there were dozens if not hundred more individuals responsible than we've been told about. It's convenient for 19 terrorists in bin Ladin's cell to take responsibility for everything (given the fact that Bush invokes 9/11 practically everyday to justify things like staying in Iraq), but it's just flat absurd to look at 9/11 and say that 19 men with boxcutters pulled it off.
I agree that it's beyond ridiculous to say the government would murder its own citizens, and it's unfortunate that you automatically connect 9/11 Truth to that sentiment. It's actually a Fox News tactic. They've occassionally talked about 9/11 conspiracy theories by having guests with "theories" about there being no planes and such, and it does a travesty to the real movement by representing us as radicals who ignore reason and have it out for Bush. That's quite the opposite of what 9/11 Truth is all about.
There are various inside job theories, but any responsible 9/11 Truth spreader prefers to raise questions and point out solid facts, such as Dr. Jones did, than to say things like the government is trying to kill us. Remember, the ultimate goal of the 9/11 Truth organization is not for Bush's head on a platter, but rather for a REAL investigation that takes everything into account and holds any conspirators who are still alive responsible.
Regarding your other issues:
You may not be aware of this, but the WTC buildings were initially designed to withstand the collision of a 737 (the largest aircraft at the time the buildings were constructed). The planes that actually hit were 757s, only slightly larger. Besides that, even if the weight of the jets themselves just by being inside the buildings somehow forced structural damage and caused a collapse, the central columns of the building would still remain intact. The building was, in essence, engineered to withstand exactly that. This is talked about in a good video that I saw not to long ago; I'll try to find it. Though I should mention, is the weight of one aircraft really that significant to the base of a 120 story building?
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to assert about the jet in the pentagon. Are you trying to say that since the WTC towers were surely weaker than the pentagon, the jets should have flown threw them more and come out the other side? One thing I would say is that you're incorrect to assume the pentagon was a sturdier building than the towers. The towers were reinforced by a series of steel beams running the entire length of them (as any sky-scraper ought to be). The pentagon is a concrete building. Not quite the same..
I'm glad you mentioned the fuel, because most critics bring this up. To begin with, airplanes only carry slightly over the amount of fuel that they're going to use, so the difference in fuel between planes is relatively insignificant. That's even irrelevant, though, because of the nature of jet fuel. Dr. Jones discusses the temperature problem is pretty good detail. Jet fuel simply does not burn anywhere near hot enough to even remotely weaken steel, let alone melt it. It's safe to assume that the fuel started burning on impact, but there's damning evidence from a fireman that it posed very little threat. There was a radio communication from a fireman who reached something like the 80th floor of the first tower a while before it came down. He said that there were "two, isolated pockets of fire" that could be knocked out using two lines within a few minutes. Not only did the jet fuel not cause any structural damage to the building, but it caused relatively no fire for such a huge collision.
As I mentioned before, the author doesn't point fingers because that's not his job. Science is objective fact; he merely describes the facts as he perceives them. And certainly, he doesn't necessarily believe that the administration was behind the thermite explosives. Maybe it was just another band of terrorists; it's not for him to say.
The realistic possibility is not that the buildings were wired up after the collisions, but rather that they were wired up sometime before hand. In the dvd that RCT mentions, a number of workers in the towers were interviewed, and several of them reported that suspicious maintainence had been going on in the weeks prior to the attacks. There was also a conspicuous tower-wide rewiring, said to have something to do with networking, that provided whoever needed it the excuse to run wires and make pounding noises throughout the building.
The issues of aircraft scrambling gets us into a rather complicated aside. It's true that the NYC planes kept their transponders off, but they were spotted by a number of other planes, and the air controllers is New Jersey, if I remember correctly, knew there was a second unresponsive plane heading for the same skyline where an unresponsive plane just crashed into a building. I'm going to have to find the details of this story again, but it's rather interesting..
WTC 7 is perhaps the most obvious of all. Six hours after anything hit anything, and this steel-reinforced building that had remained untouched supposedly caves, at near free-fall speed, into its own foot-print. BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT UNLESS THEY'RE RIGGED TO, and that's not easy to do. I'm glad you're willing to concede the absurdity of this event. There's also good evidence for this, like an interview with the owner of the building months later in which he said they decided to "pull it" in the afternoon.
The main thing I need to get across is that the 9/11 Truth movement is about spreading the fact that the official story is not just implausible, but completely impossible. What it's absolutely not about is pointing the finger at the administration and saying they were responsible. Maybe it was done by a couple dozen more sleeper terrorist that are still among us, and Bush Co. had nothing to do with it. All I'm saying is that 19 men with boxcutters certainly were not alone in this country when they boarded those planes, and the events which unfolded that day have been distorted, lied about, and covered up (whether out of incompetence, guilt, or even deceitful intentions).
what he said.
Why do you always return to the "box cutter" meme? Some are taught to be lethal with a ballpoint pen. In the absence of bolted doors, quick reaction time could certainly allow for full decapitation.
Dr. Jones explicitly does not believe we should blame the full effects of 9/11 on "Muslims." I assume he means the nineteen terrorists, no? If you do not blame them, and you're willing to say that they DID NOT have the expertise to control-demolition the towers (as he does)... I have no choice but to conclude Dr. Jones, though he carefully doesn't say it, believes, as Mr. RCT seems to, that the administration was responsible.
I'm sorry, sir, based on his report, if you choose to weld it to 9/11 Truth, 9/11 Truth becomes a movement that DOES believe it was an inside job (for the reasons explained above). You cannot say, if you read the report in its entirety that the author does not CLEARLY believe it was an inside job.
Are you truly in denial on this point? Joe, he SAYS this type of controlled-demo is performed by VERY FEW organizations--are we supposed to believe terrorists could infiltrate them or force them to act???
I know I'm not well versed in the "movement," but it seems there is a visible disconnect. If you believe a controlled demolition took place, ergo the government did it.
Unless you're asking me not to take that mention of his paper seriously?
So the nineteen men were not alone, merely the case of Bumbling Zach says as much. Do you think we made no conscious effort to find them? Are they still here? If the cells still exist, does that not put a different and thus more favorable light on some Bush initiatives, i.e. domestic wiretapping (before it became public)?
When I refer to the 19 men with boxcutters, my point is merely that there had to have been people involved who were not on the planes to do things like detonate the towers after the planes hit. As far as boxcutters go, there's no doubt you could kill somebody with them, and it's quite possible one or more of the pilots were killed with them, but the instruments that caused the most casualties that day were not on board the planes.
Any professional demolitionist has the know-how to wire a building the way that the towers fell. All they would need is the money for resources and the opportunity. There's no necessity for any member of the government to be involved, though there's certainly a chance that there was considering things like it was Neil Bush's firm that was contracted to be in charge of security for the WTC complex.
That aside, you're leading us astray of the facts at hand. Do you argue with or not believe any of the 13 points that Dr. Jones makes?
I don't know why you purport there to be a disconnect. It's very simple: An inside job may have happened, but it's by NO MEANS the only plausible explanation. Maybe some terrorists went through years of demolition training just like how some of them went to aviation schools.
Whether we made a serious attempt to go after more people, or whether those people are still here, is a completely different can of worms, and something that there's no solid evidence of either way. And absolutely nothing, NOTHING, would justify the NSA wiretapping program given the fact that they could have wiretapped domestically up to 72 hours before getting the warrant anyways. If, on the hand, what you're saying is that the administration was using it to secretly look for other members of the cell whom they know to exist but won't acknowledge, that seems rather unrealistic to me.
But back to Dr. Jones, you haven't said what you think of his physical arguments other than the one for WTC-7. What say you?
Post a Comment