Edit goof: Where I wrote "the collapse of tower one" it should have read "tower collapse one" ie. the first tower collapse.

T: "I didn't ask you to do that. (ie. take my word)"
Logrithmic: "Yes you did. You suggested that these eyewitnesses were unreliable (You wrote on your post of September 20th, 2007 11:49 pm : "The first point to keep in mind is that eyewitnesses can be mistaken.""

You mean you didn't know that already? Very odd. But yes, that is a subset of the more general principle "It is possible for humans to be mistaken". Could I be mistaken about that? If so, then that would mean it isn't possible for me to be mistaken.. Ironically, this is one of the few propositions about which I cannot be mistaken. It is necessarily true as soon as it is uttered by any human. So you don't have to take my word for it when it's a universal principle.

"Your lack of consistency is, in a word, sad."

I hope you realize that isn't an actual rebuttal.

"This is simply bizarre. With several search engines available"

Search engines search for text. Finding a particular video depends entirely on its linkage to distinctive text, and being able to guess what that text is.

"and most of this stuff on You Tube,"

That doesn't actually say anything good about the scientific and engineering rigor of "this stuff".

"I find your answer incredulous and goes to the heart of your mistaken analytics."

"Mistaken" meaning different from yours.

"I live in rural area and I can get access to broadband Internet."

Therefore everyone who lives in a rural area can get access to broadband. Is that the form of the argument you are making? (One A has B, therefore all A's have B)

"even if you have no LOCAL access, you could gain access simply by going to any major metro or college campus in the United States."

Ah yes, get in the car and drive 50 miles. There's a good Progressive solution. All I'm lacking is a discernable reason to do so. I don't buy that Truth can only be communicated by video. If it can't be described and argued in words (like 99% of the material on this site), then I'd be inclined to suspect something is wrong with it.

T: "I'm not offering any proofs. I deal with appearances and likelihoods."
L: Then you admit your arguments are baseless.

As baseless as science itself. Every science deals with appearances and likelihoods, and there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

"I'm no technical expert whatsoever."

Skyscraper design is beyond my experience as well. The tallest building I've built was only 38 feet from substructure to crown. But even so, I still feel I am entitled to refrain from embracing any theory until I understand it and find it rationally compelling.

"I believe it is extremely unlikely that two 110 story buildings fell at near free fall speeds"

"near" is a relative term. Falling debris was clearly outrunning the collapse front, but I don't know whether the difference in speed signified anything important.

"into their footprint"

There was quite a bit of material that fell outside the footprint.

"from fire which lasted less than an hour."

I don't know what specific events triggered the collapses. But every picture and video I've seen show the collapses initiating in the vicinity of the burning (and structurally damaged) levels. So I'm going to give much higher weight to any theory which can account for that.

Remember also that even heat well below plasticity range can still greatly increase the load stress on a steel beam by metal expansion.

"In controlled demolition, the basement is taken out first and then immediately afterwards, the steel beams are exploded and all bolts securing tresses to steel are exploded IN SEQUENCE all the way down."

So your view is that each tower was rigged up with tens of thousands of individual charges which were all wired together to go off in a coordinated sequence.

Wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper and easier to cut just one level? Any level below the top sixth of the towers should have been enough to bring them down. What was gained by vastly multiplying the expense, effort, and risk of exposure?

By the way, cutting charges are small and focused. Even if you had charges at the end of every truss, the total energy release of all the explosives would have been a small fraction of the energy release of the collapse itself. So in that case, the concrete pulverization would not be evidence of the use of this sort of explosive.

Also, there is no reason to have charges go off in the basement prior to a top-down demolition. Low-level charges are for bottom-up demolitions.

Also, cutting all the floor trusses would make for a messier demolition, since the outer columns would be cut loose in long, unsupported strings, free to twist and fall every which way. You'd get a cleaner collapse leaving the floor trusses attached. There is no way they could support the falling debris load from ten or more stories, and as the floor trusses collapsed, they would pull the outer columns inward and help destroy the core, floor by floor.

"To use a photo of the top of the building to say that is where the building collapsed goes to the heart of your fallacy - one not based on facts but based on the fantasy of your own mind."

So, the photos hit a nerve. Just as well. They wouldn't have affected you like that had they not threatened something you are trying to protect--which means it's probably not something worth protecting.

[Re: "Three seconds."]
"Again you offer no proof of your timeline. You simply post a photo. No supporting documentation."

The distance between the collapse and the lowest collapse debris is pretty clear. Gravity that day was the same as any other. So you have distance and acceleration. That locks down the time. The only way it could be wrong is if the lower section of the tower is also descending--which it isn't in any video I've seen.

"It is clear you haven't studied controlled demolition so your attempts a sarcasm or silly at best and ridiculous at worst."

It wasn't sarcasm. I really didn't know what blast scenario you were proposing. There is no standard Truther model, your talk of concrete pulverization indicated a massive (high amplitude, long wave) blast. I had not seen you propose a succession of floor truss demolitions before (and since that would not have pulverized the concrete, I would not have guessed that was your view either).

T: It would have taken an explosion many orders of magnitude larger than in OKC to completely pulverize all the concrete in the trade towers."

L: So what? Clearly thermite is more powerful than fertilizer.

Either you mean something obscure by that, or you are simply mistaken. You can stand two feet from a thermite burn in progress with no more protection than ordinary welding gear. The thermite reaction is slow and non-percussive, unless you pre-heat the pile before igniting it, and even then, that's a very weak (but very hot) explosion. Thermite would have nothing at all to do with concrete pulverization in seconds.

"I love this. Instead of arguing on the evidence supporting your scenario of intact glass (after extensive web-based searches I can find no such reference of intact glass in any published material that supports your scenario)"

It was clear in the first photos I posted that no glass, dust, or smoke was emerging from the windows in the section below the collapse.

"you simply say that "as if that would make a difference.""

That wasn't about evidence. That was specifically with regard to your request for "supporting written documentation". If you can dismiss the NIST reports out of hand, you clearly have the capacity to dismiss any written documentation you don't like.

"Then you post from cites by "9-11 Truthers" who you believe have it wrong to begin with."

I drew the primary materials and information from their sites to show that even using the same information they had, a more plausible conclusion could be reached.

"You can provide no supporting evidence of intact windows"

You mean I have provided no words to that effect written by someone else. Evidence, I've provided. You have the two shots of the early phase of the collapse of tower one, when no glass or dust can be seen emerging from the lower section, and you have the later shot of the same collapse, which shows that even in low rez, the dust and glass from a particular few windows which did break was clearly visible. If the windows in the lower tower had been blown out, then that should have been even more visible in the hi-rez photos, especially since many tons of falling glass would have been involved.

But it's odd that you seem to be stuck on this. My contention about the windows being intact was a response to the massive (concrete pulverizing) blast scenario. But if you are now embracing a theory of a succession of truss-cutting blasts, then lack of window breakage wouldn't be a problem. Small cutting blasts like that might break windows one or two floors down, but the broken glass would probably remain in the frame for the fraction of a second it would take for the collapse front to reach it. Lack of broken glass is only a problem for the notion of the huge, overkill explosions needed to totally reduce all the concrete to powder (explosions on this scale would not only be utterly unnecessary to bring the towers down, it would also defeat the whole objective of doing this secretly and stealthily.

"According to the eyewitness testimony of William Rodriguez, an employee who worked in the building basement, the basement was weakened by an explosion just prior to the planes strking the building."

Again, this makes no sense. Why do it before the planes hit? And if the building is rigged for a top-down demolition, why have any explosives in the basement at all?

Rodriguez:
'I was on B1 level, talking to my supervisor, when we suddenly heard a massive explosion,' he says.

'It was so strong the walls began to crumble and the false ceiling fell on top of us.

'Then, seconds later, there was another explosion way above, which made the building sway from side to side. And this, we later discovered, was the first plane hitting the North Tower on the 90th floor.'"

If this was a bomb capable of pulverizing concrete, it would not have merely rattled the wallboard and knocked loose a suspended ceiling. Here too, there is another explanation for the observation. The first boom could have been the percussion from the plane impact, transmitted down through the core of the building. P waves like this travel very fast through solids, on the order of kilometers per second. The actual sound of the plane hitting, would have arrived at the ground almost a second later, and the last waves to arrive would have been the large amplitude shear waves traveling down the building superstructure. I don't know how Rodriquez detected building sway in a basement level, but if he was looking up a stairwell or something like that, I expect the S waves could have been visible for several seconds after the impact.

"And your statement that the bottom of tower is "standing firm," holds no merit. In a sequence of controlled demolition, the basement is taken out first"

That's for bottom-up demolitions. It would have no purpose in a top-down demolition.
And my statement that the bottoms of the towers stood firm is based not on some presumed model of demolition, but on what seems apparent in the pictures and videos.

"Your failure to understand these basics borders on lunacy."

Ad hom.

"Your really not worth arguing with as you are in a world of your own making."

Suit yourself. Turn out the lights when you're done.

"Thanks for the discussion. It's great when you can talk about things without getting so hyper. "

Agreed. Thankyou.

Jakenewton,

For me it would be end of story inasmuch as explosives brought down the WTC. Of course, it could be argued that the pieces are not representative of the steel. I think I wrote above that all the steel that was salvaged for study represents a very small fraction of one percent. Oh well....

As far as who would test it... I would argue that the truthers pick their testing company.

Thanks for the discussion. It's great when you can talk about things without getting so hyper.

Good luck. I'll still finish Mackey - for the next time Common Dreams runs an article like this. And you still owe me that vitual beer....

"I find it interesting that so many of the debunkers won't advocate for a final "debunking." By that I mean, why won't they simply ask NIST to submit their evidence to independent analysis?"

Another thing you don't see much of on these sites is specific advocacy for the official theory. I think the reason is that they are concentrating on whether evidence put up by Truthers stands up. Neither of the omissions we have just noted do that. Burden of Proof.

"If NIST is unwilling to test for explosive residue, why shouldn't someone else do it?"

Who exactly? A retired professor of philosophy say? Seriously, wouldn't there need to be some requirement about qualifications, etc.?

"Imagine that they test for the residue and it doesn't exist? End of story, eh? "

No way. Only the most rational would be swayed. It's also proving a negative.

Jakenewton,

Thanks for the post on the pulverized concrete. I read through it.

I find it interesting that so many of the debunkers won't advocate for a final "debunking." By that I mean, why won't they simply ask NIST to submit their evidence to independent analysis? If NIST is unwilling to test for explosive residue, why shouldn't someone else do it?

Imagine that they test for the residue and it doesn't exist? End of story, eh? So why not test for it and silence its critics?

From NIST's own site (see: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm):

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

This article discusses the pulverization issue:

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

Tractorguy,

You wrote: "I didn't ask you to do that."

Yes you did. You suggested that these eyewitnesses were unreliable (You wrote on your post of September 20th, 2007 11:49 pm : "The first point to keep in mind is that eyewitnesses can be mistaken. The second point is that they can sometimes characterize things in a way which aren't technically accurate.")and that they may have missed more significant fragments hidden under the PULVERIZED concrete. Your lack of consistency is, in a word, sad.

You wrote: "What I did was point out a few reasons why even the well-intentioned testimony of a witness *might* be less than completely reliable. Whether or not you choose to give any weight to that possibility is totally up to you."

I choose to believe Colonel Odowd of the Army Corp of Engineers and Governor Pataki. Not someone named Tractorguy that had no access to the site. I know this troubles you, but so be it.

You wrote: "I can gain slow video access (no high-speed here) in most but not all formats. But the videos I saw were not on the web. I don't know if they are available on the web. And I wouldn't know how to find them if they are."

This is simply bizarre. With several search engines available and most of this stuff on You Tube, I find your answer incredulous and goes to the heart of your mistaken analytics. I live in rural area and I can get access to broadband Internet. If you were so interested in seeing the photographic and video evidence, you'd get in your vehicle and head to the nearest city that has a public library with access to the Internet. Be sure to take headphones, as the audio is important.

You write: "You might want to rethink putting on display your capacity to be sure about something for which you have no evidence. It doesn't help you at all."

You can make believe that you don't have access to broadband in any capacity. I say your claim lacks credibility. And even if you have no LOCAL access, you could gain access simply by going to any major metro or college campus in the United States.

You write: "I'm not offering any proofs. I deal with appearances and likelihoods."

Then you admit your arguments are baseless. I too am dealing with likelihoods and I'll go one better - I'm no technical expert whatsoever. However, I believe it is extremely unlikely that two 110 story buildings fell at near free fall speeds into their footprint from fire which lasted less than an hour.

You wrote: "So if the collapse began in the basement, why did it look like the tower broke at the impact level, and why did the lower portion remain standing stationary as it was being demolished from the top down–especially if all the concrete in the tower was powderized in the initial demolition blast?"

According to one site, "In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to liquify weight bearing joints causing the walls to collapse directly into a building's footprint with no resistance at free fall speed."
And as the film Evan Viewer recommended, the first step in the sequence is to take out the basement so that the imploded building has something to fall into. The basement of the WTC was seven stories deep. There is video and eyewitness testimony of explosions in the basement prior to the tower collapse. Your point is irrelevant.

You write: "In another format, I probably could have. But he also recommended this sequence: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_jets_frames.html The image quality sucks, but there are still a couple of things that seem clear. 1) The collapse begins at the top, right at, or very near the impact levels, and the lower section remains stationary until demolished from the top down, and 2) there are two, very confined smoke leaks just ahead of the collapse front, which suggest all the other windows were not leaking for some reason."

You cannot see what is happening in the basement. In controlled demolition, the basement is taken out first and then immediately afterwards, the steel beams are exploded and all bolts securing tresses to steel are exploded IN SEQUENCE all the way down. To use a photo of the top of the building to say that is where the building collapsed goes to the heart of your fallacy - one not based on facts but based on the fantasy of your own mind.

You write: "Three seconds."

Again you offer no proof of your timeline. You simply post a photo. No supporting documentation.

You write: "I specified where–in the lower section of the tower. And I certainly see nothing that would suggest all concrete in this tower has already been powderized by explosive blast energy."

First, you cannot see the basement in the photo. Second the area where the implosion is occurring is in the process of being pulverized.

You write: Imploded by what? The explosives in the basement? I have no idea what blast scenario you are proposing now. Do you even have in mind a specific sequence of events?""

Either this is your attempt at humor or simplemindedness. The entire building is not imploded simultaneously, but near simultaneously. Anyone that has studied controlled demolition would understand that there is a careful sequence of events. It is clear you haven't studied controlled demolition so your attempts a sarcasm or silly at best and ridiculous at worst.

You write: "As if that would make a difference. A governor says something you like and he's an expert. An engineering expert says something you don't like, and he's not credible. There's nothing I can find for you that you won't be able to ignore or dismiss. I just hope at some level you know what can happen when you cherry-pick reality to fit a faith-based conclusion."

You forgot the premise of your argument: Tractorguy says something and he should be believed. (Logrithmic rolls his eyes). What engineering expert? Odowd said the building was pulverized. "...he said, 'it seemed like everything was PULVERIZED.'" How sad it is that you can't accept these testimonies. Must not fit well with your self-constructed reality.

You write: "It's verifiable if the lower portion is stationary. You can see how far the lowest collapse debris has fallen (roughly 12-14 stories), and work backwards from that."

You haven't supplied any documentation on the web that supports your contention of intact windows and you ask me to accept photographs with no timeline attributed to them. Next you'll be asking me to accept that the Earth is flat and the universe evolves around it.

It is clear from your post you have no evidence to support your statements of intact windows and no pulverization of concrete. Too bad....

jakenewton September 23rd, 2007 5:47 pm
"what interest I've had in your 'contributions' here is now completely gone, sorry."

i.e., your "interest" is excited only by impersonal aggressions on a pitiable fringe.

baska, what interest I've had in your "contributions" here is now completely gone, sorry.

RE: CAN'T REMEMBER WHO WROTE THAT, WITHOUT COURAGE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRACTICE ANY OF THE OTHER VIRTUES...

jakenewton September 22nd, 2007 3:33 pm
"I thought your original point was to 'expose' me as a supporter of the Iraq war. Am I correct?"

1) You must recall your words and be the judge of what they "'expose'" you as. You have stated that you "tend not to beleive [sic]" the view - which you describe as a "theory" (jakenewton September 18th, 2007 8:38 am) - that the Bush administration invasion of Iraq was "unjustified." (jakenewton September 19th, 2007 11:15 pm)

2) "If so, then what?" (jakenewton September 22nd, 2007 3:33 pm)
"If so," then the sociologically pertinent question becomes the degree to which your curious zeal for arguing with a politically irrelevant, cultish fringe primarily satisfies political vs. - as I would suspect - a particular set of personal needs. (btw: as - from both your reticencies and self-justifications - I'd also guess I'm not the first to point out.)

3) But enough - I am not willing to continue performing the 'heavy lifting' in this 'relationship.' Kindly review the two posts in question. Specify anything you still do not "understand" in them, and specify any disagreement. But no more equivocation, please - it's unmanly and 'fails to meet the benchmarks' of "honest[y] and serious[ness]" you claim to live by.

logrithmic wrote:
"Now if you're asking me to take the word of "Tractorguy" over the word of (etc.)…"

I didn't ask you to do that. What I did was point out a few reasons why even the well-intentioned testimony of a witness *might* be less than completely reliable. Whether or not you choose to give any weight to that possibility is totally up to you.

"First, I find it disingenous that you suggest you cannot gain video access over the Internet."

I can gain slow video access (no high-speed here) in most but not all formats. But the videos I saw were not on the web. I don't know if they are available on the web. And I wouldn't know how to find them if they are.

"PCs that can play back video are widely available and I'm sure you have at least one friend who would permit you time to view these videos."

You might want to rethink putting on display your capacity to be sure about something for which you have no evidence. It doesn't help you at all.

"You write that the first one proves "the collapse appears to have initiated very close to the level that was hit by the jet." This is false.

I'm not offering any proofs. I deal with appearances and likelihoods.

"There is video evidence showing that the collapse began in the basement of the WTC."

So if the collapse began in the basement, why did it look like the tower broke at the impact level, and why did the lower portion remain standing stationary as it was being demolished from the top down--especially if all the concrete in the tower was powderized in the initial demolition blast?

"You will see this if you watch the video recommended by Evanviewer"

In another format, I probably could have. But he also recommended this sequence: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_jets_frames.html The image quality sucks, but there are still a couple of things that seem clear. 1) The collapse begins at the top, right at, or very near the impact levels, and the lower section remains stationary until demolished from the top down, and 2) there are two, very confined smoke leaks just ahead of the collapse front, which suggest all the other windows were not leaking for some reason.

"You state that this photographs were taken approx 3 minutes after the collapse intiated."

Three seconds.

"Yet you see no evidence of concrete pulverization or broken windows?"

I specified where--in the lower section of the tower. And I certainly see nothing that would suggest all concrete in this tower has already been powderized by explosive blast energy.

"If you're talking about the floors that have not been imploded yet, well, they haven't been imploded."

Imploded by what? The explosives in the basement? I have no idea what blast scenario you are proposing now. Do you even have in mind a specific sequence of events?

"Please provide me with supporting written documentation"

As if that would make a difference. A governor says something you like and he's an expert. An engineering expert says something you don't like, and he's not credible. There's nothing I can find for you that you won't be able to ignore or dismiss. I just hope at some level you know what can happen when you cherry-pick reality to fit a faith-based conclusion.

"and not two photographs you purport were taken at some time interval that is unveriable."

It's verifiable if the lower portion is stationary. You can see how far the lowest collapse debris has fallen (roughly 12-14 stories), and work backwards from that.

baska, I thought your original point was to "expose" me as a supporter of the Iraq war. Am I correct? If so, then what?

"I'm not asking them to test theories."

But you had said this:

"Why won't NIST test for controlled demolition?"

And I thought you meant to test the theory.

"So I'm not sure if you're responding to me or yourself."

I was responding to myself, IOW, I know of no point where Griffin claims to prove his theory by discrediting another. I think Mackey was cautioning readers not to make that conclusion.

"So I ask you again, why not turn this steel over to an independent authority blessed by the 9-11 Truthers and Griffin that could run independent tests on it? "

As stated bofore, I think there should be reasonable access to the materials.

RE: SNAPPISH? DISCOURTEOUS AND UNGRATEFUL, in my humble opinion

jakenewton September 22nd, 2007 9:51 am
"make your point. Assume I am pro Iraq war and pro Bush. Stop wasting time."

1) I am perplexed and disappointed by your snappish tone: you stated that you did not "understand" the point of the last two posts, but that you were "interested" in understanding them. Though incredulous, I assumed your declared incomprehension and interest were "honest and serious" (jakenewton September 20th, 2007 12:20 pm); and – therefore – I obliged you by, first, summarizing the point of the earlier post.

It appears ungrateful to confess a failure of comprehension, declare interest in understanding, and then accuse the poster who patiently obliges you of "wasting time."

2) If you cannot be courteous, at least don't hold up the show: if you are satisfied that you now understand the point of the first post, please acknowledge so, so that we can move on.

3) Last, as requested, please specify what it is you do not understand (or disagree with) in the second of the two posts: you doubtless have more important labors to attend to – exposing the intellectual error of conspiracy whackjobs on other websites, and, thereby in our post-911 world, making the "world...a little better" (jakenewton September 20th, 2007 12:20 pm); specifying what it is you do not understand will save both our valuable time.

Jakenewton:

You write: "Mackey demonstrates as follows: 'The burden of proof issue is significant because, even if NIST's response above and its meticulous final report could be shown to be incorrect, it would still not imply that "explosives" of any kind were responsible for the WTC collapses. It is possible for both NIST and Dr. Griffin to be wrong. One would still need to advance evidence supporting the explosives hypothesis before it could have any merit. In phrasing his question reactively, (Jake here, the question is the one used as the title of the chapter) Dr. Griffin is declining to outline the case for his own, positive claim, or even to define the claim itself with clarity. Instead he is satisfied to simply cast doubt upon the NIST FAQ and NIST Report, while never accepting his own burden of proof.'"

Two things:

Point 1) Griffin does not have to "prove" his theory of why the buildings fell, though I think he has made several points that support this possibility. It is, however, NIST's obligation, duty, responsibility, etc., to prove why the buildings fell. Here's how NIST itself describes it's responsibilities and duties (from NIST website: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

"What are the main objectives of the investigation? The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine: why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response); the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.

(and)

Why is NIST doing this investigation? NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building's failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, "third party" investigator. Additionally, under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, signed into law in October 2002, NIST is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.

Point 2) I do not see anything in the above comment by Mackey that suggests, as you do, that by discrediting pancaking (which NIST has also discredited I might add) Griffin is PROVING controlled demolition. I can understand Mackey's frustration that Griffin has not proven controlled demolition to Mackey's satisfaction. But again, without access to the "recovered steel," how can such a proof be made? Please feel free to answer this question.

You write: "I'm loath to do so but I bet you a virtual beer I could find an example by a poster somewhere in this monster thread. Instead I am satisfied that you know it to be bad practice and will be on your toes about it."

I'm on my toes about a lot of things and you might win your bet, but you and I know this is beside the point.

You wrote: "There is an excerpt from them in the Mackey document addressing this. I am certain they should evaluate facts. But to test theories? I would ask, how do you determine that a theory has worth? How would you then make meaningful tests given the scale of reality?"

I'm not asking them to test theories. I and others would like them to test the "recovered steel" for explosives residue. When guns are fired, a person's hand will carry residue of firing a gun. Likewise with explosives. It is this residue that's important. It seems like a simple thing to test for. Again, NIST's refusal to do what would silence critics of their work is bizarre to me. It's a lot like the Pentagon refusing to release video related to what actually struck the Pentagon. Do you believe the Pentagon has video that would show what struck the Pentagon? If so, why in your opinion, don't they simply release it and silence the critics?

You write: "I would support reasonable access to whatever evidence is held. I am not sure that it isn't already there, but you tell me."

Well here's NIST's document on the recovered steel:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/295093/NIST-Mechanical-and-Metallurgical-Analysis-of-WTC-Structural-Steel

I bring your attention to the very first paragraph:

"The World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of damage inflicted by aircraft and the ensuing fires. The properties of the steel played an important role in how the building performed, from the initial impact to the final collapse. Structural steel recovered from the site has been a valuable resource in the investigation of the disaster, providing information ranging from details of structural response to the aircraft impact to data on steel properties for insertion into models of building performance. This report is an overview of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of structural steel from the WTC, part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Investigation of the WTC disaster. The purpose was to analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 to determine the metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal, weldments, and connections, and provide these data to other part of the NIST WTC Investigation for insertion into models of building performance. THE ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON STEEL FROM THE TOWERS TO PROVIDE DATA FOR MODELING BUILDING PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERIZING THE STEEL QUALITY. In addition, the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered. The three goals were to: 1. Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel, Determine the quality of the steel and if it met its design requirements, and Analyze and provide insight into failure mechanisms for guiding the development of models of building performance and validating their output. E.1.1 Building Design and Steel Specifications." MY EMPHASIS.

I emphasized those words because I feel it is important to demonstrate to you that NIST used these steel samples to build their model. In other words, they went from their evidence to the model. But they have never tested the steel for explosive residue. Why?

Furthermore NIST writes:

"A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers. The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns. Samples were available of all 12 strength levels of perimeter panel steel, the two strength levels of the core column steel that represented 99 percent of the total number of columns, and both strength levels used in the floor trusses. A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses. The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance."

So I ask you again, why not turn this steel over to an independent authority blessed by the 9-11 Truthers and Griffin that could run independent tests on it?

The below response from you is confusing.

"Mackey demonstrates as follows:"

And I really don't think he is, Griffin isn't coming up to the standard, not as far as this discussion has gone. I think Mackey is attempting to nip a problem in the bud, by cautioning readers."

First, You wrote "Mackey demonstrates as follows:" I did not. So I'm not sure if you're responding to me or yourself.

Then you followup with an unidentified "he." I assume you mean Griffin. Griffin has never said that the discredited pancake theory is proof of controlled demolition. If you go to the links posted by Evan Viewer at September 14 at 1:04 p.m., you'll find two links of talks by Griffin. The second link shows Griffin providing 11 characteristics of controlled demolition and demonstrating the consistency of these characteristics with what happened at the Towers. Please review these links and then we can discuss what Griffin actually says provides evidence of controlled demolition. If you're unable to review this video, please let me know where in the three books Griffin has written that he makes the claim that because the pancake theory has been disproven, it proves the hypothesis that controlled demolition was used to destroy the towers and WTC 7.

baska, make your point. Assume I am pro Iraq war and pro Bush. Stop wasting time.

jakenewton September 20th, 2007 7:32 am
"I do not understand the point you are trying to make in your last couple posts to me, but I am interested in what it is."

The posts were clear and, therefore, it is questionable whether I can assist your "understand[ing]." But - since you state that you are "interested" - I will try.

Let's take the "last couple posts" in order.
baska September 19th, 2007 5:47 pm
Although it seems impossible that the point of this post could be unclear, I will repeat it. The post observed that the vagueness with which you had advanced a position made it impossible to know what you meant, and requested that you specify what - in your clinically detached phrasing - you referred to as a "theory" that "people seem to have."

If there remains confusion about the "point" of this post, please specify what you do not understand about the request for clarification. Then we can proceed to the second.

(By the way, if there are specific things you fail to understand in the second, longer post, please state them now so that I can address them better.)

"Mackey demonstrates as follows:"

And I really don't think he is, Griffin isn't coming up to the standard, not as far as this discussion has gone. I think Mackey is attempting to nip a problem in the bud, by cautioning readers.

"We are agreed. You cannot discredit pancaking to "prove" controlled demolition. But I am surprised that you think Griffin and others are doing this. Please demonstrate why you think this is."

Mackey demonstrates as follows:

'The burden of proof issue is significant because, even if NIST's response above and its meticulous final report could be shown to be incorrect, it would still not imply that "explosives" of any kind were responsible for the WTC collapses. It is possible for both NIST and Dr. Griffin to be wrong. One would still need to advance evidence supporting the explosives hypothesis before it could have any merit. In phrasing his question reactively, (Jake here, the question is the one used as the title of the chapter) Dr. Griffin is declining to outline the case for his own, positive claim, or even to define the claim itself with clarity. Instead he is satisfied to simply cast doubt upon the NIST FAQ and NIST Report, while never accepting his own burden of proof.'

I'm loath to do so but I bet you a virtual beer I could find an example by a poster somewhere in this monster thread. Instead I am satisfied that you know it to be bad practice and will be on your toes about it.

"Why won't NIST test for controlled demolition?"

There is an excerpt from them in the Mackey document addressing this. I am certain they should evaluate facts. But to test theories? I would ask, how do you determine that a theory has worth? How would you then make meaningful tests given the scale of reality?

"This is the hard evidence that was used to create the models. I would like to see this "recovered steel" turned over to an independent authority, "

I would support reasonable access to whatever evidence is held. I am not sure that it isn't already there, but you tell me.

Thanks for the various links.

Tractorguy,

You wrote: "If you are looking for current evidence sufficient to secure a criminal conviction, no, of course I don't have that."

Nuff said.

You wrote: "If you actually believe that, I expect you are virtually alone in believing that."

People lie for their own self-interest. For example, someone may lie to protect a criminal, if they believed by telling the truth, they would be killed by the criminal. I do not think I am "virtually alone in believing that." I would suggest you are "virtually alone" in believing that self-interest was not the prime motivator (which would, if Rice were actually indicted and Bush were out of office, give way to total self interest very quickly). To further this along - I guess John Dean was not a "team player."

You wrote: "A good team player knows what is expected. The best teams need very little explicit coordination."

That's probably true. But I still believe her primary motivation was self interest - not the team.

You wrote: "That is one remarkable and peculiar claim. I'm not sure what to make of it. The windows were plainly intact until obscured by the descending pulverization cloud (okay, a tiny percentage were already broken), so I can see only three possibilities for what you mean here–the critical issue being when and how the windows were destroyed."

Deep breaths, tractor guy, deep breaths....

Please give me your photographic evidence that shows the windows "were plainly intact." I've not seen it. Here's what Jim Hoffman says: "The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away." The rest of your suppositions I will not respond to. Waste of time (though I appreciate your efforts to make me look like a buffoon). I will look forward to your posts of evidence demonstrating intact windows.

You write: "Even if it is granted that that statement is factually correct (which it isn't) Jefferson and indeed all the Founders certainly knew that extremely few governments in history operated in this way."

Well this was certainly how they envisioned our country working.

You write: "That proposition is entirely compatible with both of the following: Governements may derive unjust powers from the consent of the governed. Governments may derive unjust powers from elsewhere than the consent of the governed. Those pose no logical contradiction whatsoever."

I never said they did. But I do maintain that this government was not set up to function in the manner above, regardless of your logic, making your argument irrelevant.

You write: "To demand is to require–as in a forcibly-imposed obligation. Some individuals have asked for a fuller explanation and conveyed their strong wishes for such an explanation, but nothing has made this a demand or obligatory requirement."

Unless, that is, there is a REAL investigation supported by criminal indictments for lying under oath. So we're back to the start of the same circle. Arguing with you is like Waiting for Godot....

You write: "Acquiescence *is* consent. In acquiescence, the governed, as a whole, have already given their consent to receiving no further explanation."

This bit of nonsense is again contradicted on its face. Not all the governed have acquiesed. The 9-11 truth movement has not acquiesed and they are part of the governed.

Perhaps you think that they have? Then why the defense of NIST, which you claim has responded to 9-11 truth criticisms (see your comment below)?

You wrote on Sept 20 at 3:06 p.m.: "...The good news is that they (NIST) have actually listened to, and acted upon questions and challenges, and they seem to be taking their job seriously. In many respects, they have demonstrated greater responsiveness and sense of accountability than our politicians have."

To accept your arguments means to give up your rights as a citizen in this democracy. I assure you, I have no intention of giving up my rights. I hope you don't either.

logrithmic Wrote:
"You sitll have not connected the dots to the "paymasters.""

If you are looking for current evidence sufficient to secure a criminal conviction, no, of course I don't have that. But is there any doubt about how this is going to play out? She'll be paid off handsomely after the fact, at which time it will be easy to connect the dots, but by then it won't matter. She'll be home free. The dots that can never be connected beforehand are the ones in her head, where she is able to anticipate the rewards she will reap for her actions.

"that people will lie under oath for "the team" is a bit of reach."

If you actually believe that, I expect you are virtually alone in believing that.

"I think we can both agree that she lied, at least in part, to protect herself - but I doubt that, unlike Libby, there was any discussion of pardons prior to her testimony in front of the commission."

A good team player knows what is expected. The best teams need very little explicit coordination.

T: "What sort of explosive could generate a blast wave powerful enough to reduce all the structural concrete in the towers from top to bottom to powder, and yet somehow leave the much more fragile glass exterior windows intact?"

L: "The exterior windows were not left intact."

That is one remarkable and peculiar claim. I'm not sure what to make of it. The windows were plainly intact until obscured by the descending pulverization cloud (okay, a tiny percentage were already broken), so I can see only three possibilities for what you mean here--the critical issue being when and how the windows were destroyed.

1) You mean the windows were not left standing and intact after the towers collapsed, and that they were destroyed in and by the collapse. I this case, you would be correct, but also fatuously disingenuous, because I was talking about the windows being destroyed by an explosive blast. And if you admit that the collapse destroyed the windows, then you are also admitting that no explosion destroyed the windows.

2) You mean there was some exotic blast scenario--like having all the concrete virtually wrapped in tons of explosives top to bottom, but rigged to go off in sequence, only after the descending pulverization cloud could hide the shattering windows. This could conceivably allow for explosives to be the actual cause of the destroyed windows, but depending, as it does, on the ongoing collapse to hide that fact, the explosives in this case would still not have served to precipitate the collapse, but only ensure that all concrete was turned to powder in the fall. While this scenario might just barely be within the realm of the physically possible (requiring extremely controlled shaped blasts to ensure no lower windows shattered), it beggars belief that there could have been so much fabulously expensive and detailed preparation for something so totally pointless.

Or 3) you mean that each tower collapse was caused by a blast powerful enough to powderize the concrete top to bottom, and that the shock wave from this blast also, and at the same time, destroyed all the windows top to bottom (and all facing windows in adjacent buildings) in roughly one second, and all the photographic evidence to the contrary has been faked, and there has been a massive conspiracy of silence among all the witnesses regarding this window breakage. If that's what you mean, then there is no way to answer it. But lost in a world of your own creation, you convince only yourself.

"Let's take a look at the Declaration of Independence, shall we? "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…." Jefferson.

Even if it is granted that that statement is factually correct (which it isn't) Jefferson and indeed all the Founders certainly knew that extremely few governments in history operated in this way. This claim only addresses the source of "just" powers. The logic of their proposition is this: If the governmental power is just, then it must be derived from the consent of the governed. That proposition is entirely compatible with both of the following: Governements may derive unjust powers from the consent of the governed. Governments may derive unjust powers from elsewhere than the consent of the governed. Those pose no logical contradiction whatsoever.

"The governed demand an explanation"

To demand is to require--as in a forcibly-imposed obligation. Some individuals have asked for a fuller explanation and conveyed their strong wishes for such an explanation, but nothing has made this a demand or obligatory requirement.

"Are you looking to provide the government an excuse for not responding to the consent of the governed?"

Acquiescence *is* consent. In acquiescence, the governed, as a whole, have already given their consent to receiving no further explanation.

Jakenewton,

Both the standard model and general relativity are being modified by string theory. Here's an excellent description of what is going on and why there were problems with the standard model and general relativity, problems discovered by Einstein himself. Even Einstein believed that general relativity required retooling and sought to do so until his death.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3013_elegant.html

Theories must stand up to experimental rigor. That is, they must be confirmed ostensibly in the real world for them to remain relevant. If they fail to confirm their predictions they are either discarded or modified.

Here's some helpful statements from Wikipedia:

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or OTHERWISE FALSIFIED through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity." (MY EMPHASIS)

Also from Wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is PREDICTIVE, LOGICAL, AND TESTABLE. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory." (MY EMPHASIS)

Perhaps we're quibbling over the use of the word holes. Do you mean things that cannot presently be tested and confirmed? In which case, I may have misunderstood you.

You wrote: "To try to make clear that if you discredit pan caking, you don't prove controlled demolition."

We are agreed. You cannot discredit pancaking to "prove" controlled demolition. But I am surprised that you think Griffin and others are doing this. Please demonstrate why you think this is.

You wrote: "(Griffin)is "asking" that NIST or anyone else should prove a negative. It's right in the title of the chapter."

The chapter in Griffin's book that you're referring to is titled: "Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?" I've not read Griffin's second book. But I can say this. As has been pointed out in other comments on this page, NIST has not tested the hypothesis that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. It's similar to the 9-11 commission's statement that,"[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgement which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics." (See the Wikipedia citation below). I call it the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach to investigation. Why won't NIST test for controlled demolition?

I would recommend that you take a look at the posting on Wikipedia about the 9-11 Commission. You will probably find some things in there that you are not aware of. Pay special attention to the role of Bush and his administration. Here's the citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

You wrote:

"If you could specify what evidence that NIST used to come up with its findings are unavailable, or show me where to look. That would seem to be an area worth discussing, but it was not the discussion on the table by Mackey."

Here is what NIST looked at (the following was taken from the NIST website): http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

"The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, RECOVERED STEEL, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation."

This is the hard evidence that was used to create the models. I would like to see this "recovered steel" turned over to an independent authority, blessed by the 9-11 families for evaluation(I know my friend Tractorguy will roll his eyes).

If you go to the Wiki article on the 9-11 commission, it does a great job of outlining the poor performance of this commission.

I believe that we an investigation that is independent of the government - not one that is run by a buncha political hacks looking to cover the ass of the government they're investigating.

Let me know what you think!

"It was a beautiful day for golf - a horrible day for scoring - though my short game was working well. Thanks!"

Sounds like a good time.

I should have stated before that the reason I posted the Mackey article is because Griffin's work is so widely cited by Truthers, and that it should be shown that he has detractors.

"I don't believe that theories have holes in them."

I strongly disagree. I can't think of a single theory thought to be perfect, without holes or shortcomings.

"Take for example the Theory of Relativity. While it is explanatory of many things, it does not explain quantum-level reactions. "

Are you saying the Theory of Relativity should be discarded?

Regarding energy, there are wave theories and particle theories. Each has shortcomings but they haven't been discarded.

"I don't know why you choose to speak in abstracts."

To try to make clear that if you discredit pan caking, you don't prove controlled demolition. Many assert this fallacy regularly and the practice is correctly dismissed out of hand.

"Do you agree with Mackey that NIST may be wrong?"

Yes, in that there may be a Theory C that is the correct one.

"Please explain what negative Dr. Griffin is trying to prove?"

He is &asking& that NIST or anyone else should prove a negative. It's right in the title of the chapter.

"How can Dr. Griffin and his associates offer definitive proof without having access to the evidence?"

If you could specify what evidence that NIST used to come up with its findings are unavailable, or show me where to look. That would seem to be an area worth discussing, but it was not the discussion on the table by Mackey.

Jakenewton,

You wrote: "Hope you had fun at the golf outing."

It was a beautiful day for golf - a horrible day for scoring - though my short game was working well. Thanks!

You wrote: "It's a bit beside the point, which is that most theories are not perfect and have various holes or shortcomings Do you disagree with that?"

No. I don't believe that theories have holes in them. If they did, they would no longer be relevant theories. They would be discredited and discarded, or those parts that no longer offer valid explanations for the way things are. Take for example the Theory of Relativity. While it is explanatory of many things, it does not explain quantum-level reactions. It's failings are being addressed by string theory and other theories that are attempting to unite quantum mechanics with elements of relativity to provide a picture of how things are. Again direct observation of a graviton is not a reason to reject the theory of gravity.

When I pointed out that Mackey admits that NIST and Griffin may be wrong, you wrote: "This merely points to a basic principle that can be shown as such: Given theory A and Theory B about a particular phenomenon. If a proponent of A can discredit or disprove B, it does not prove A, because Theory C may be the only correct theory after all."

I don't know why you choose to speak in abstracts. Let's just deal with the statement - Mackey suggests NIST may be wrong. So does Griffin. Do you agree with Mackey that NIST may be wrong?

You write: "Burden of Proof. I'd refer you back to the Chapter Overview heading, where the author criticizes the framing of the debate as expressed in the very title of the chapter. That title is 'Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?' The author observes: 'Dr. Griffin is not advancing any theory, but rather speculating about an entire multidimensional space of possible theories." And: 'The only common element to these theories is that buildings were damaged deliberately by "substances or devices," understood to be destructive devices placed in the WTC buildings prior to aircraft impact. What Dr. Griffin demands is proof of a negative, and this is a logical fallacy.'"

Please explain what negative Dr. Griffin is trying to prove? How can Dr. Griffin and his associates offer definitive proof without having access to the evidence?

You wrote: "The discussion above is about models only, not evidence from the scene."

Without access to the evidence, we can model all day and still not prove anything. NIST should permit the evidence to be evaluated by independent experts, and to put Dr. Griffin's questions to rest, give the evidence to Dr. Griffin and his team and let them submit it to evaluation.

You wrote: "Because the point was not about evidence, only models. Not sure about the confusion here."

The confusion is that models are models, but proof is proof. You can draw anything up on a computer, run the numbers and make something conform to a set of givens. But why not short circuit all of this by providing the fragments and other items NIST used to reconstruct what happened? This is what I think Mackey should demand. If fact, he should demand it for himself instead of attacking those who raise questions.

Tractorguy,

You write: "The point was that team players work for, and are rewarded by, the team. I was addressing how she could be working on behalf of people who do not currently have a direct line of support to her. (Those "dots" you challenged me to connect")"

You sitll have not connected the dots to the "paymasters." I do believe you are correct in general, but in specific, that people will lie under oath for "the team" is a bit of reach. For anyone to "plan" that someone would lie about the events leading up to 9-11 to protect the team is a bit of a reach. I think we can both agree that she lied, at least in part, to protect herself - but I doubt that, unlike Libby, there was any discussion of pardons prior to her testimony in front of the commission.

You wrote: "What sort of explosive could generate a blast wave powerful enough to reduce all the structural concrete in the towers from top to bottom to powder, and yet somehow leave the much more fragile glass exterior windows intact?"

The exterior windows were not left intact.

You wrote: "All duty is contingent, situational, and contextual. There is no such thing as a necessary duty, an intrinsic duty, or a self-sufficient duty."

Let's take a look at the Declaration of Independence, shall we? "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Jefferson. The governed demand an explanation and the government should respond. The duty is not contingent.

You wrote: "The mere fact of something being contingent does not render it void. When it comes to values and priorities, here is the principle that underlies everything: Nothing, absolutely nothing in the universe matters–except, and only except, where someone thinks it does."

Exactly. So why the point about contingent duty at all? Are you looking to provide the government an excuse for not responding to the consent of the governed?

logrithmic wrote:
"So all team players lie under oath. False on its face."

The point was that team players work for, and are rewarded by, the team. I was addressing how she could be working on behalf of people who do not currently have a direct line of support to her. (Those "dots" you challenged me to connect")

"Where your assertion breaks down is that you think she will be rewarded for lying about 9-11."

Did you notice she got promoted to a more important position, her dismal performance in front of the commission notwithstanding?

T: "Let's say for the sake of argument that the concrete was as completely pulverized as you propose…."

L: "I did not propose it. This was how Govenor Pataki described it."

The first point to keep in mind is that eyewitnesses can be mistaken. The second point is that they can sometimes characterize things in a way which aren't technically accurate. But even granting that he might have been describing just what he saw, there could have been much he did not see. If you drop a load of material broken into inhomogeneous sizes through the air, the air will sort the fragments and particles based on the ratio of mass to surface area. Larger chunks land first, then smaller, and finally the whole mess is blanketed by the slowest descending (smallest) particles. Perhaps the governor only saw the surface blanket, and not what lay beneath.

T: "What, then, are you suggesting was the cause of this pulverization?"

L: "Demolition."

Hum. Well, I know you haven't been happy with the way I've been interpreting your words, but there isn't a lot of meat to work with here, so I'm going to have to speculate some more. I'm going to hazard a guess that by "Demolition" you mean explosive demolition--as something distinct from the demolition caused by the hijackers. I gather further that you do not think the collapse phase of the demolition is what pulverized the concrete, and my impression is that you think the pulverizing was due to the demolition explosives in particular. Does that fairly characterize what you are suggesting?

Before you answer, I'll let you know where I'm going. The question I would have about such a scenario is this: What sort of explosive could generate a blast wave powerful enough to reduce all the structural concrete in the towers from top to bottom to powder, and yet somehow leave the much more fragile glass exterior windows intact?

"Again show me exactly where in the paragraph below I said our wars of agression are a national tragedy"

You cited the deaths and injuries on *our* side from our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as part of your case that this was a national tragedy. No hint or implication that the tragedy might extend to those we brutalized in the invasions that generated those casualties you listed. From the perspective of someone in one of the countries we demolished, I imagine that would look a lot like the big schoolyard bully whining about how tragic it is that he skinned his knuckles while beating up little children to steal their lunch money.

"This is not a contingent duty."

All duty is contingent, situational, and contextual. There is no such thing as a necessary duty, an intrinsic duty, or a self-sufficient duty.

"Heck, why do you even post at all if any duty, as you put it, is contingent?"

The mere fact of something being contingent does not render it void. When it comes to values and priorities, here is the principle that underlies everything: Nothing, absolutely nothing in the universe matters--except, and only except, where someone thinks it does.

Evan_viewer,

I finally had time to go out and look at the website you posted at Sept. 18, 10:17 a.m. on the missing plane evidence.

I agree, it is mysterious and confounding.

The government has the power to dismiss these accusations if they would simply produce the evidence. This has been one of the more troubling aspects of their theory as to what happened.

Producing plane fragments, or in the case of United 73, the entire plane, would silence critics of the lack of plane evidence. I still don't know why they won't produce the videos showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon. It is very troubling.

I do agree that the military has the ability to fly these planes remotely. I think that is beyond dispute.

Tractorguy,

You wrote: "Are any of the ifs here far-fetched? No."

I would say it was a helluva risky strategy on Libby's part if he lied thinking somewhere down the line he'd be pardoned. But I would agree with you that the fix probably was in.

You wrote: "You seem to be working from the quaint belief that Condi is a fully independent official whose chief loyalty is to the public which currently, nominally, employs her."

Thanks for putting beliefs in my head. To clarify, I do not think this. If anything, that should be obvious.

You wrote: "How do you think she got the job in the first place? She's a team player."

So all team players lie under oath. False on its face.

You wrote: "Is there going to be an obvious and direct money trail from a corporation straight into her pocket, right now while she is in office?"

Quaint beliefs again? Geez... you really know how to hurt a guy! LOL.

You write: "No, Condi will be rewarded later, after she is out of office, so that it can be claimed that such a reward after the fact could not possibly have represented a conflict of interest or bribe."

This is self evident and we agree to a point. Where your assertion breaks down is that you think she will be rewarded for lying about 9-11.

You write: "And anyone who believes that probably also believes there was no conflict of interest when Cheney engineered the war which, by sheer coincidence, has deposited billions in no-bid contracts into Halliburton's coffers."

Cheney is still technically an owner of Halliburton. But Condi is not an owner of General Electric, which is where this all began - when you asserted that she and the media are paid from the same source "the same paymasters." See where your logic breaks down? Please note I used your exact words.

You write: "I'm still not following where this is going. Let's say for the sake of argument that the concrete was as completely pulverized as you propose...."

I did not propose it. This was how Govenor Pataki described it. You should be able to find the video with him saying it on CNN at the scene of the devastation.

You write: "What, then, are you suggesting was the cause of this pulverization?"

Demolition.

You wrote: "I'm not disputing that there have been any number of successful criminal investigations. And, speaking hypothetically, if that is your prime objective, you could absolutely run a 9/11 investigation as a criminal investigation, and you might even break out a few weak links and get a few convictions that way."

Hmmm... seems like you need a refresher course in Watergate. Wikipedia: "On March 1, 1974, former aides of the President, known as the Watergate Seven — Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian and Kenneth Parkinson — were indicted for conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation. The grand jury also secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. Dean, Magruder and other figures in the scandal had already pleaded guilty.... Charles Colson pleaded guilty to charges concerning the Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of CRP was dropped, as it was against Strachan. The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974, and on January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977. Ehrlichman entered prison in 1976, followed by the other two in 1977." Oh, and Nixon resigned in disgrace (but you probably knew that).

You wrote: "By the way, to call our wars of aggression a National tragedy, neglecting the far greater harm inflicted on non-Americans, seems just a tad insular and self-absorbed."

Again show me exactly where in the paragraph below I said our wars of agression are a national tragedy (please note the sentence - UNLIKE PLAME, 9-11 IS A NATIONAL TRAGEDY - and in case you have trouble reading this, please ask a friend to read it to you):

I wrote: "With 9-11, the damage was national in scope. Sure it directly affected the 3,000 some odd families directly harmed. But then there are nearly 4,000 familes that have lost a loved one in the Iraq War. Some number beyond that for Afghanistan. 30,000 soldiers suffering serious injuries. Unlike Plame, 9-11 is a NATIONAL tragedy."

You wrote: "But if you want to drag this back to reality-land, I think it *won't* be fobbed off because it won't be necessary. No one will ever be held to account. That is the way both the major parties want it now."

Unfortunately, we agree on this unless someone comes forward.

You write: "Duty is the felt need to meet an obligation or responsibility. That means you would be right 1) if the US Gov. concurred that it has the responsibility to explain, and 2) if it felt the need to meet that responsibility. Can you spot the two defects in your opinion?"

This is not a contingent duty. Please.... The only defect in your opinion is that you want to make duty to tell what happened contingent. If that is so, why are you crying about the country's wars of agression? Heck, why do you even post at all if any duty, as you put it, is contingent?

You wrote: "The bad news is that NIST is all we're going to get."

So you say. Maybe yes, maybe no.

You write: "The good news is that they have actually listened to, and acted upon questions and challenges, and they seem to be taking their job seriously. In many respects, they have demonstrated greater responsiveness and sense of accountability than our politicians have."

Refusing to debate their findings or submit their evidence to independent investigation does not suggest "responsiveness" and "accountability."

You wrote: "And frankly, the track record of supposed independent investigations set up by politicians is not very good."

Again putting words in my mouth. If you'd stop trying to read so much into my comments, you might find we have a lot of commonality. Geez....

Arg. Looks like the "edit this" feature doesn't quite work with my brouwser.

logrithmic wrote:
"So you believe that Libby lied purposely with the idea that he would be convicted of the lesser crime of perjury and pardoned? That seems like a lot of "ifs" to me."

Do I believe he lied (and participated in obstruction)? Yes. On purpose? (as opposed to accidentally) Yes. Did he do it with the intention of being convicted? Of course not. He did it with the intention of getting away with it--as most political liars usually do. Do I think he had assurances he would be protected if did get caught? Yes. Do I think that knowing he had a safety net was a factor in his decision to risk the slim chances of his getting caught and convicted? Of course. Is there an "if" involved in each step in that sequence? Yes. (There are a lot of ifs behind any outcome.) Are any of the ifs here far-fetched? No. Indeed, the more remarkable string of ifs was the one that led to a conviction at all. Multiple levels of protection had to break down for that to have happened.

"Please connnect the dots: Contracts to GE and salary/lobbying position for Condi Rice."

You seem to be working from the quaint belief that Condi is a fully independent official whose chief loyalty is to the public which currently, nominally, employs her. How do you think she got the job in the first place? She's a team player. She works for a political team which is itself supported by corporate teams. Is there going to be an obvious and direct money trail from a corporation straight into her pocket, right now while she is in office? I would be very surprised if she or her patrons are that stupid or careless (though the Cunningham case shows at least some players were under the impression that the rules which currently sanitize bribery were a coy pretense and obsolete formality which no longer need be observed). No, Condi will be rewarded later, after she is out of office, so that it can be claimed that such a reward after the fact could not possibly have represented a conflict of interest or bribe. And anyone who believes that probably also believes there was no conflict of interest when Cheney engineered the war which, by sheer coincidence, has deposited billions in no-bid contracts into Halliburton's coffers.

"It establishes that the buildings did not "fall" from weakening of the steel by heat from fires. Concrete would not pulverize into dust as a result of this."

I'm still not following where this is going. Let's say for the sake of argument that the concrete was as completely pulverized as you propose, and let's further say that the fall of the buildings could not have accomplished this. What, then, are you suggesting was the cause of this pulverization?

"You do not need a carrot. Place them under oath and let them take the fifth. Remember John Dean?"

Did he not seek and receive immunity? Look, I'm not disputing that there have been any number of successful criminal investigations. And, speaking hypothetically, if that is your prime objective, you could absolutely run a 9/11 investigation as a criminal investigation, and you might even break out a few weak links and get a few convictions that way. I'm just saying that running it that way decreases the likelihood of arriving at a broad consensus on the truth behind it. You'll get less cooperation going in and any convictions will prompt the smearing of the investigation as politically motivated.

"With 9-11, the damage was national in scope. Sure it directly affected the 3,000 some odd families directly harmed. But then there are nearly 4,000 familes that have lost a loved one in the Iraq War. Some number beyond that for Afghanistan. 30,000 soldiers suffering serious injuries. Unlike Plame, 9-11 is a NATIONAL tragedy."

If you want to extrapolate in that manner to the people directly affected, the logical implication is that the people who should be running the investigation should include the families of thousands of American and foreign nationals killed directly on 9/11, plus tens of thousands of vet families, plus millions of relatives of innocent civilians killed in the subsequent wars. That is either going to be one very complex and messy investigation, or someone is going to have to draw a line somewhere and exclude the vast majority of those people. So who gets to draw that line? (By the way, to call our wars of aggression a National tragedy, neglecting the far greater harm inflicted on non-Americans, seems just a tad insular and self-absorbed.)

"I personally don't think it can be "fobbed off" as you put it."

Can be or could be? I was speaking hypothetically--that it *could* be fobbed off if that ever became necessary. But if you want to drag this back to reality-land, I think it *won't* be fobbed off because it won't be necessary. No one will ever be held to account. That is the way both the major parties want it now.

"I feel that the U.S. government has a duty to explain what happened on 9-11."

Duty is the felt need to meet an obligation or responsibility. That means you would be right 1) if the US Gov. concurred that it has the responsibility to explain, and 2) if it felt the need to meet that responsibility. Can you spot the two defects in your opinion?

"Think about it: if we leave it to the experts, then we should just let NIST tell us what happened without question."

The bad news is that NIST is all we're going to get. The good news is that they have actually listened to, and acted upon questions and challenges, and they seem to be taking their job seriously. In many respects, they have demonstrated greater responsiveness and sense of accountability than our politicians have. And frankly, the track record of supposed independent investigations set up by politicians is not very good.

logrithmic wrote:
"So you believe that Libby lied purposely with the idea that he would be convicted of the lesser crime of perjury and pardoned? That seems like a lot of "ifs" to me."

Do I believe he lied (and participated in obstruction)? Yes. On purpose? (as opposed to accidentally) Yes. Did he do it with the intention of being convicted? Of course not. He did it with the intention of getting away with it--as most political liars usually do. Do I think he had assurances he would be protected if did get caught? Yes. Do I think that knowing he had a safety net was a factor in his decision to risk the slim chances of his getting caught and convicted? Of course. Is there an "if" involved in each step in that sequence? Yes. (There are a lot of ifs behind any outcome.) Are any of the ifs here far-fetched? No. Indeed, the more remarkable string of ifs was the one that led to a conviction at all. Multiple levels of protection had to break down for that to have happened.

"Please connnect the dots: Contracts to GE and salary/lobbying position for Condi Rice."

You seem to be working from the quaint belief that Condi is a fully independent official whose chief loyalty is to the public which currently, nominally, employs her. How do you think she got the job in the first place? She's a team player. She works for a political team which is itself supported by corporate teams. Is there going to be an obvious and direct money trail from a corporation straight into her pocket, right now while she is in office? I would be very surprised if she or her patrons are that stupid or careless (though the Cunningham case shows at least some players were under the impression that the rules which currently sanitize bribery were a coy pretense and obsolete formality which no longer need be observed). No, Condi will be rewarded later, after she is out of office, so that it can be claimed that such a reward after the fact could not possibly have represented a conflict of interest or bribe. And anyone who believes that probably also believes there was no conflict of interest when Cheney engineered the war which, by sheer coincidence, has deposited billions in no-bid contracts into Halliburton's coffers.

"It establishes that the buildings did not "fall" from weakening of the steel by heat from fires. Concrete would not pulverize into dust as a result of this."

I'm still not following where this is going. Let's say for the sake of argument that the concrete was as completely pulverized as you propose, and let's further say that the fall of the buildings could not have accomplished this. What, then, are you suggesting was the cause of this pulverization?

"You do not need a carrot. Place them under oath and let them take the fifth. Remember John Dean?"

I'm not disputing that there have been any number of successful criminal investigations. And, speaking hypothetically, if that is your prime objective, you could absolutely run a 9/11 investigation as a criminal investigation, and you might even break out a few weak links and get a few convictions that way. I'm just saying that running it that way decreases the likelihood of arriving at a broad consensus on the truth behind it. You'll get less cooperation going in and any convictions will prompt the smearing of the investigation as politically motivated.

"With 9-11, the damage was national in scope. Sure it directly affected the 3,000 some odd families directly harmed. But then there are nearly 4,000 familes that have lost a loved one in the Iraq War. Some number beyond that for Afghanistan. 30,000 soldiers suffering serious injuries. Unlike Plame, 9-11 is a NATIONAL tragedy."

If you want to extrapolate in that manner to the people directly affected, the logical implication is that the people who should be running the investigation should include the families of thousands of American and foreign nationals killed directly on 9/11, plus tens of thousands of vet families, plus millions of relatives of innocent civilians killed in the subsequent wars. That is either going to be one very complex and messy investigation, or someone is going to have to draw a line somewhere and exclude the vast majority of those people. So who gets to draw that line? (By the way, to call our wars of aggression a National tragedy, neglecting the far greater harm inflicted on non-Americans, seems just a tad insular and self-absorbed.)

"I personally don't think it can be "fobbed off" as you put it."

Can be or could be? I was speaking hypothetically--that it *could* be fobbed off if that ever became necessary. But if you want to drag this back to reality-land, I think it *won't* be fobbed off because it won't be necessary. No one will ever be held to account. That is the way both the major parties want it now.

"I feel that the U.S. government has a duty to explain what happened on 9-11."

Duty is the felt need to meet an obligation or responsibility. That means you would be right 1) if the US Gov. concurred that it has the responsibility to explain, and 2) if it felt the need to meet that responsibility. Can you spot the two defects in your opinion?

"Think about it: if we leave it to the experts, then we should just let NIST tell us what happened without question."

The bad news is that NIST is all we're going to get. The good news is that they have actually listened to, and acted upon questions and challenges, and they seem to be taking their job seriously. In many respects, they have demonstrated greater responsiveness and sense of accountability than our politicians have. And frankly, the track record of supposed independent investigations set up by politicians is not very good.

It amazes me in these debates the amount of time and effort spent by some to attack the arguer rather than the argument. It is a beginner's mistake, easily identified, and correctly dismissed in only a split second, negating the time spent. The fallacy stems not from whether the discredit of the arguer is correct, but rather from it's irrelevance to the argument itself, which usually remains untouched.

There are several variations on this theme, all of which should be avoided by anyone interested in honest and serious debate. If anyone here learns this or better appreciates this, the world is a little better.

Tractorguy:

You wrote: "I'm saying that if they were, that would tend to increase the incentive to lie, not decrease it."

Agreed.

You wrote: "I understand quite well that there is a risk of criminal penalty involved *if* you get caught and *if* you get convicted. But your own example of Scooter Libby illustrates how people in charge can find that a risk worth taking (especially when they have a "get out of jail free" card–as your example also illustrates)."

So you believe that Libby lied purposely with the idea that he would be convicted of the lesser crime of perjury and pardoned? That seems like a lot of "ifs" to me.

You wrote: Oh c'mon. Could you possibly be this naive? Take, for just a single example, General Electric. They own or run NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, the USA network, Trio, Telemundo, Bravo, and other media outlets. They also make hundreds of thousands of dollars in political campaign contributions, and reward useful government employees with fat lobbying positions. Why do you suppose they do this? Did you, perhaps, think it was sheer coincidence that GE receives billions of taxpayer dollars in government contracts? (eg. $2.2 billion in defense contracts alone–in 2005 alone.) And GE is by no means unique in this. That's business as usual now. And it can be very good for business when you own both the politicians and the media."

Please connnect the dots: Contracts to GE and salary/lobbying position for Condi Rice. Or use a more relevant company - Condi's Chevron. Your general position is of course true. But your specific charge that Condi and the media serve the same paymasters has yet to be proven. Seems you might have better luck proving squip venting than proving Condi and the media have the same paymasters, but I'm all ears.

You wrote: "I wasn't there, so I don't know how pulverized the concrete was. From the photos, it looks like the pulverization cloud had a broad mix of debris sizes. But still, I don't know what the significance of the concrete is. You seem to think it establishes or suggests something, but what?" It establishes that the buildings did not "fall" from weakening of the steel by heat from fires. Concrete would not pulverize into dust as a result of this.

You wrote: "If you want to do a technical investigation, and if you want to maximize the incentive to be forthcoming and cooperative, then immunity is really the only carrot you have for that. Otherwise, you only have threats and cudgels, which people tend not to respond very openly to. Without immunity, you lose an important tool, and that decreases the likelihood of a successful technical investigation."

You do not need a carrot. Place them under oath and let them take the fifth. Remember John Dean? There will be those who fail to disclose but others will step forward. It's just a matter of finding the right person.

You write: "Well, think about it. Our leaders kill millions, demolish whole countries, wreck and plunder the planet, abduct, torture, spy, and loot in a system run on outright bribery, and they do it all with minimal political blowback and negligible consequences. Next to that, you think a pardon would be any problem at all? Naturally, it wouldn't be their first choice, of course. First would be to hang it on someone from the other team. Second would be to hang it on an expendable patsy. But if it was necessary to save a loyalist, it would not only be possible, it would be absurdly easy. You just get your think tanks, pundits, "experts" and media echo-heads to blather on about how the convicted was the noble victim of a political vendetta, or high-tech lynching, or whatever, and fob it off on a gullible public as correcting a miscarriage of justice. And even if it didn't sell well, so what? What's to stop them from going ahead anyway? Voter outrage? Some threat that is. The two parties just swap back and forth, and whoever is on vacation gets to fatten up at the corporate trough."

I would tend to agree with you if the damage was limited. With 9-11, the damage was national in scope. Sure it directly affected the 3,000 some odd families directly harmed. But then there are nearly 4,000 familes that have lost a loved one in the Iraq War. Some number beyond that for Afghanistan. 30.000 soldiers suffering serious injuries. Unlike Plame, 9-11 is a NATIONAL tragedy. And I personally don't think it can be "fobbed off" as you put it.

You write: "But as to the rest about the investigations, it looks like we aren't going to find common ground there. You seem to feel that the American taxpayer has somehow incurred a debt to the 9/11 families, and that we owe them a privileged position in a publicly-funded investigation, and I don't see how we incurred any such obligation."

I feel that the U.S. government has a duty to explain what happened on 9-11. Elements of the government, including the Bush White House, the FAA, the DOD, have admitted to lying under oath or lied under oath during the 9-11 investigation. The government spent about $6 million on its investigation. On Clinton's indiscretion, it spent $60 million or more. This is not about "a debt." It's about getting at the truth, as Evan put it. I would argue that the American taxpayer would be willing to fund a REAL invesigation of 9-11, and I believe that most would agree with the famiies heading up the investigation rather than "fobbing" it off on the experts. Again, the experts can act in support roles, but they would not be the ones who get to ask the questions. Think about it: if we leave it to the experts, then we should just let NIST tell us what happened without question.

"you supported (and presumably continue to support) Bush's invasion of Iraq, and you believe it was justified."

baska, I do not understand the point you are trying to make in your last couple posts to me, but I am interested in what it is. Towards this purpose, just go ahead and assume that I am as pro Iraq war etc. as you say in the above quote. Now what are you trying to say? I advise you to Avoid Appeal to Motive, I will just dismiss it. The central discussion is about whether anyone can prove controlled demolition of WTC buildings, and underlying motive is irrelevant by standard and accepted norms that are centuries old. Thank you.

RE: "SEEM TO HAVE"? "TEND NOT TO BELIEVE"?

jakenewton September 18th, 2007 8:38 am
"I was not stating [the idea that the Bush administration had taken "excessive liberty in exploiting" 911] as truth, rater as a charcterization of a theory people seem to have. I tend not to beleive it."

jakenewton September 19th, 2007 11:15 pm
"It's clear to me that many people say Bush went to war with Iraq based on 9/11 events, and that these people think doing so was unjustified. To be clear, I am simply uninterested in that debate"

1) It is "clear" to you that "many people say Bush went to war with Iraq based on 9/11"? But this cannot be what you regard as a "theory people seem to have," nor what you "tend not to believe": first, because a post-9/11 "war on terror" was the main, explicit and declared Bush administration justification of the Iraq invasion; and second, because you have stated your agreement with this view (and, in fact, that you "disagree strongly" with those who would reject the cause-effect connection):

jakenewton September 15th, 2007 11:18 am
"Had the three towers not collapsed...if the death toll were limited to hundredsdo you really think there would be no so called war on terror, blood for oil...? Especially when we consider the premise that the elites are as supremely evil as people say? That they would not beat the war drums and the people would not do the same? If you say no...then I strongly disagree"

2) Therefore, what you chararacterize as a "theory" that you "tend not to believe" must be the view that the Iraq invasion was "unjustified." That is - it is necessary to infer - you supported (and presumably continue to support) Bush's invasion of Iraq, and you believe it was justified.

To be clear: it is necessary to infer this due to the weirdly circuitous and disociated way you advance your pro-war position.

"Mackey, Page 7: Mackey writes: "In the NIST report, specifically NIST NCSTAR1-2 [13], the NIST team calculates a range of possible impact damages using highly detailed models of the buildings and impacting aircraft. Dr. Griffin has the opportunity to criticize this calculation and its conclusions, but does not even mention it in this section. He also has the opportunity to produce his own or other researchers' calculations if those support a different conclusion. He has not done this either."

The discussion above is about models only, not evidence from the scene.

"It appears Mackey can't get his head around the idea that Dr. Griffin and others in the truth movement do not have access to the evidence"

"Sure they could run simulation after simulation to prove point A or B, but without access to the evidence, how can Dr. Griffin and other subject the basis for NIST's calculations and conclusions to any meaningful tests? This again is fairly self-evident."

Because the point was not about evidence, only models. Not sure about the confusion here.

I'll try to get back to you on the additional points later.

"Jakenewton,"

Hope you had fun at the golf outing.

"Direct observation of a graviton is not a missing detail in the theory of gravity. Mackey's metaphor does not hold up."

It isn't? It's a bit beside the point, which is that most theories are not perfect and have various holes or shortcomings Do you disagree with that?

"Interesting. Mackey suggests that NIST and Dr. Griffin could both be wrong."

This merely points to a basic principle that can be shown as such: Given theory A and Theory B about a particular phenomenon. If a proponent of A can discredit or disprove B, it does not prove A, because Theory C may be the only correct theory after all.

"Why does Mackey believe that Griffin would offer anything more than speculation?"

Burden of Proof. I'd refer you back to the Chapter Overview heading, where the author criticizes the framing of the debate as expressed in the very title of the chapter. That title is 'Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?' The author observes:

'Dr. Griffin is not advancing any theory, but rather speculating about an entire multidimensional space of possible theories."

And:

'The only common element to these theories is that buildings were damaged deliberately by "substances or devices," understood to be destructive devices placed in the WTC buildings prior to aircraft impact. What Dr. Griffin demands is proof of a negative, and this is a logical fallacy.'

What did you think of this point?

evan_viewer wrote:
"You have opted for the "venting theory" that has been conveniently offered with no evidence like the fire melts steel theory and the pancake theory (both since abandoned)."

I never found the internal pancaking theory very compelling. And there have been a few accounts where people claim to have seen melted steel, but 1) the accounts are very few 2) it isn't clear how they determined the liquid in question was steel, and 3) this would have had nothing to do with the collapse anyway. I don't think anyone proposed the towers stood until the columns actually liquified. At best, this is a question about whether an underground fire could build up enough heat to melt steel. (Apparently some coal seam fires can.)

But as regards "squib" evidence, what we have are some stills and video footage. So far as I know, that's all the direct evidence we have to work with. From that, we have to work backwards using what we know in other areas to see what theory seems to have the best fit to what we see. I didn't opt for the venting theory randomly, and I'm not totally committed to it. I just haven't seen or thought of an explanation which seems like a better fit.

"The steel pieces / outer wall fragments flying outward does not constitute a cloud."

They are the heavier elements of the overall cloud.

"Are you introducing another theory?"

I don't think so. I just assumed it was generally accepted that's what that was. It at least seemed obvious to me that's what it was.

"That falling tower portions throws steel? Do collisions of this type throw steel outward?"

Of course. Virtually all high-energy pulverizing collisions throw material out away from the collision path. (Ever seen a lunar crater?) And in this case, you see the beams traveling out beyond the powder cloud because the beams are less affected by air-resistance.

"What "theory" will you introduce to explain the pieces thrown sideways in the picture? What force causes this?"

Collision force. The pulverization zone is going to have a lot of kinetic energy being imparted to a debris mass which has poor marginal containment. It's like if you hit a small rock with a sledge hammer. Most of the rock will pulverize in place, but the margins will escape sideways at high velocity, faster even than the speed of the descending hammer. And if you try dropping the hammer on a taller rigid structure, like a Coke bottle, you'll find an even higher percentage of it escaping sideways.

"You do realize that the revised "official theory" is that the walls were pulled "inward" "

Okay, first, I don't commit to a theory on the basis of its official status. And second, the official account has the floors sagging in the fire zone, pulling in the outer columns by several feet (if I heard that correctly on Nova) until the load on the columns causes them to snap (inward) at this point. This only describes the point of failure that precipitates the collapse. It is the collapse itself that will throw many tons of material outward (and that would be the case no matter what initiated the collapse).

"Again…how does steel and other pieces fly outward?"

Well, there are lots of ways this can happen. There is steep angle ramping (like when you split wood with an ax, and the descending faces push the wood outward), shallow angle ramping (like when you hit a nail with the hammer face at a slight tilt, and the nail goes flying sideways), fulcrum levering (like when you hit the short end of a spoon), toggle action (like when you put a large load on two or more dominoes stacked vertically end to end until they collapse and shoot out sideways) hammer transfer (where material is kicked out by a kinetic beam that does not itself escape) spring release (where a beam flexes and bows before snapping, releasing a lot of stored energy in the direction it was bowed) and probably several other mechanisms of kinetic transfer which aren't occurring to me offhand.

But again, how do you have an explosion powerful enough to propel beams weighing dozens of tons large distances without the blast also destroying the comparatively fragile glass skin of the towers in the initial shock wave?

"To be clear: I am not asking you to justify your view (that the administration did not "exploit" 911? that it did not exploit it "excessively"?) - because it is not clear what the view with which you disagree IS. "

It's clear to me that many people say Bush went to war with Iraq based on 9/11 events, and that these people think doing so was unjustified. To be clear, I am simply uninterested in that debate, while thinking it's a legitimate debate for people to have should they wish.

For your information and for others who seem to wonder about my time and motivation about posting on this board, my motivations are completely selfish and no one's business but my own. None of this changes the words I put here. I decide what I want to talk about. It's the words people need to respond to, not my motivations. That's pretty basic. Check in advance, "Appeal to Motivation".

"I am simply stating that these look like squibs because I have seen squibs before when buildings collapse due to explosives. Therefore, I conclude that explosives cause the squibs I see in WTC as well."

To be crystal clear: We can *still* dismiss this out of hand, along with any additional arguments with the conclusion of the above statement as a premise. Until such time that someone can prove it is not a logical fallacy, that is what should be done. This observation remains untouched, pristine.

"I am simply stating that these look like squibs because I have seen squibs before when buildings collapse due to explosives. Therefore, I conclude that explosives cause the squibs I see in WTC as well."

Fits the Questionable Cause Fallacy definition perfectly. Sure does, this observation remains unscathed and on the table. Just sayin'.

logrithmic wrote:
"You seem to suggest that Rice's actions leading to 9-11 are criminal."

I'm saying that if they were, that would tend to increase the incentive to lie, not decrease it.

"I don't know whether this is true or not. But I know lying under oath is criminal. Ask Scooter Libby if you have trouble understanding that."

I understand quite well that there is a risk of criminal penalty involved *if* you get caught and *if* you get convicted. But your own example of Scooter Libby illustrates how people in charge can find that a risk worth taking (especially when they have a "get out of jail free" card--as your example also illustrates).

"You wrote: "Same paymasters." Please explain how Rice, a U.S. government employee is paid by the same people that write the paychecks for Katie Couric, Dianne Sawyer, Wolf Blitzer, et. al. This rather flippant response serves no purpose and is false on its face."

Oh c'mon. Could you possibly be this naive? Take, for just a single example, General Electric. They own or run NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, the USA network, Trio, Telemundo, Bravo, and other media outlets. They also make hundreds of thousands of dollars in political campaign contributions, and reward useful government employees with fat lobbying positions. Why do you suppose they do this? Did you, perhaps, think it was sheer coincidence that GE receives billions of taxpayer dollars in government contracts? (eg. $2.2 billion in defense contracts alone--in 2005 alone.) And GE is by no means unique in this. That's business as usual now. And it can be very good for business when you own both the politicians and the media.

"Buildings falling down do not pulverize concrete to the extent witnessed at the WTC."

I wasn't there, so I don't know how pulverized the concrete was. From the photos, it looks like the pulverization cloud had a broad mix of debris sizes. But still, I don't know what the significance of the concrete is. You seem to think it establishes or suggests something, but what?

"You do not have to grant immunity."

If you want to do a technical investigation, and if you want to maximize the incentive to be forthcoming and cooperative, then immunity is really the only carrot you have for that. Otherwise, you only have threats and cudgels, which people tend not to respond very openly to. Without immunity, you lose an important tool, and that decreases the likelihood of a successful technical investigation.

"pardoning someone for lying about 9-11? You really think that is a possibility?"

Well, think about it. Our leaders kill millions, demolish whole countries, wreck and plunder the planet, abduct, torture, spy, and loot in a system run on outright bribery, and they do it all with minimal political blowback and negligible consequences. Next to that, you think a pardon would be any problem at all? Naturally, it wouldn't be their first choice, of course. First would be to hang it on someone from the other team. Second would be to hang it on an expendable patsy. But if it was necessary to save a loyalist, it would not only be possible, it would be absurdly easy. You just get your think tanks, pundits, "experts" and media echo-heads to blather on about how the convicted was the noble victim of a political vendetta, or high-tech lynching, or whatever, and fob it off on a gullible public as correcting a miscarriage of justice. And even if it didn't sell well, so what? What's to stop them from going ahead anyway? Voter outrage? Some threat that is. The two parties just swap back and forth, and whoever is on vacation gets to fatten up at the corporate trough.

But as to the rest about the investigations, it looks like we aren't going to find common ground there. You seem to feel that the American taxpayer has somehow incurred a debt to the 9/11 families, and that we owe them a privileged position in a publicly-funded investigation, and I don't see how we incurred any such obligation.

THE OBVIOUS PATTERN OF A BOARD TROLL

jakenewton September 12th, 2007 9:44 pm

I don't have to address the evidence if I am not championing a theory about what happened.

{Isn't interested in the evidence}

jakenewton September 13th, 2007 8:09 am

Simple Physics my ugly butt. The demolition theory seems full of holes to me, far more holes than the official theory…

{His true intentions begin to emerge}

jakenewton September 13th, 2007 8:09 am

I'm an average Joe with limited time. There is so much information on this, there is no way I am going to personally take the time that others have to look at it.

{Does not realize that he has personally taken time posting on this board, more than 10 posts at this point at various times during the day}

{He doesn't want to take the time to research, but he'd
rather "troll" on board to distract those who have.}

jakenewton September 13th, 2007 10:18 pm

Logical fallacy ignores other possible explanations. You keep doing this, like many of the other debunkers.

{After many more posts…offer nothing but rhetorical questions & lame accusations. He seems to have found a lot of time (all day) to go back and forth with those who have actually researched into the truth movement.}

jakenewton September 13th, 2007 10:18 pm

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.

Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing.

{With no in depth research, he boldly parrots a statement from debunking911, not realizing that the two 1 level buildings only had a roof collapse. He has not yet addressed this "fallacy". But he at least has shown that he has chosen the debunkers "theory" to start with his research).

{All throughout this same night he continuously posts links to debunker sites championing their theory, odd for a guy who claimed he would not personally take the time}

jakenewton September 14th, 2007 7:21 am

You are supposed to have *already* looked at these things and have had your answers ready to go, being able to explain why the stuff you say is fact in the face of this. Instead I had to take time out of my day to go through this. *You* are supposed to have taken the , you, Evan, etc.

{He now demands answers to his rhetorical questions.)

{He now blames us for him having to take time to post…it's 7:21 AM (est.)…I think we were all sleep or getting ready for work or doing something else more constructive with our lives. I wonder if he had his breakfast yet.}

jakenewton September 14th, 2007 7:21 am

Are we now going to have to go through another linky posty thing with this PNAC item you guys obsess over? Which doesn't prove anything and doesn't seem at all what you try to make it out to be?

{Still taunting others…but hasn't even read the referenced document. Complains about the links, but will soon offer many of his own to the same sites over and over again.)

jakenewton September 14th, 2007 2:48 pm

Oooo how exciting! I'm undercover! This is so flattering, thank you! *blush*

{Just some self-indulged lunacy}

jakenewton September 14th, 2007 2:55 pm

You need to get over yourself, and I'm starting to get embarrassed for you.

{He actually said this to me …???}

jakenewton September 14th, 2007 10:17 pm

I do not suffer fools gladly and I have limited patience. I have been more than charitable with you

{He has limited time and limited patience, but has spent much tine on this board with "nuts" like me, I have actually lost count of his posts all throughout the day and night,…in just two days from a guy who claims to not have time}

jakenewton September 16th, 2007 9:26 am

You are unprepared for debate. The link provided is old news.

{Oh, was he looking for a debate all this time?}

jakenewton September 16th, 2007 11:12 pm

I am sure Evan is a nice kid in real life, but it is his own behavior, that can be verified by anyone wishing to go through the agony of looking at all of his posts, that is the source of his disgrace.

{Hmmm…}

jakenewton September 16th, 2007 11:30 pm

You are unprepared for debating this issue. You are a beginner. You have embarassed yourself in public by your own conduct.

{Hmmm…}

jakenewton September 19th, 2007 12:17 pm

Time is Up…

{Is he referring to that limited time he dedicated to trolling this board? }

----------------

Need I go further with examples (evidence) from this guy? For someone who claims to have limited time, his ranting posts (all day and night) have shown otherwise. He has clearly referenced material he has not read / researched in an effort to taunt and poke at others who have.

While he continues to "blindly" post away (day and night), he has (once again) "overlooked" that his time and dedication trolling this board exposes the lies he told when he began his self-defeating journey. And he can't post a "debunking link" about this evidence..its all right here.

Just in case we forgot…

jakenewton September 13th, 2007 8:09 am (almost a week ago)

I'm an average Joe with limited time. There is so much information on this, there is no way I am going to personally take the time that others have to look at it.

{We know, jakenewton,…We Know}

Tractorguy,

Responses to your post at September 17th, 2007 10:58 pm

You wrote: "And people who commit the most serious crimes should be the most forthcoming about them too. But how do we convince them of that?"

You seem to suggest that Rice's actions leading to 9-11 are criminal. I don't know whether this is true or not. But I know lying under oath is criminal. Ask Scooter Libby if you have trouble understanding that.

You wrote: "Same paymasters." Please explain how Rice, a U.S. government employee is paid by the same people that write the paychecks for Katie Couric, Dianne Sawyer, Wolf Blitzer, et. al. This rather flippant response serves no purpose and is false on its face.

You write: "Using common sense to deduce that she lied is still many miles from proving it to the legal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'."

To be equally flippant, I respond - Ya think?

You write: "It's an example of rewarding loyalty to the gang over fidelity to oath and office."

To this I say we are in agreement.

You write: "The buildings falling down will be the dominant source of energy in any scenario." Buildings falling down do not pulverize concrete to the extent witnessed at the WTC.

You write: "If you go for the technical investigation to get at the truth, the best shot at that will involve liberal use of immunity agreements to gain maximum cooperation, and there are different procedures and standards for collecting scientific and documentary evidence vs. collecting criminal evidence. Conversely, if you go for the criminal investigation, you greatly diminish the likelihood of cooperation, and because of the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement for overturning presumption of innocence, the stakes are higher, as are the evidentiary hurdles. And say you do succeed in getting a conviction. Your technical investigation to get at the truth could permanently go down the toilet if that person is pardoned, because of the strong need to protect the political viability of the pardon. Your chances of getting two bites at this apple are extremely small. You can go for the truth or go for prosecutions. If you try to do both, you'll probably fail at both."

You do not have to grant immunity. If they take the fifth, then it will be up to a special prosecutor to invesitgate further. The risk of taking the fifth is that it automatically suggests guilt. It is also getting late in the tooth for Bush to pardon anyone. However, it does seem likely that should the conviction occur on a Republican successor, a pardon would be in the offing. Even so, pardoning someone for lying about 9-11? You really think that is a possibility?

You wrote: "As if that would be any impediment at all for lawbreakers–especially in cases where the charged offense carries a far higher penalty than perjury."

The charge would be lying under oath and Rice, if she were found guilty, would be in jail. I seriously doubt that such lies would stand alone and the investigation would suddenly end. Don't you? Instead, a more reasonable scenario is that such lies would bring the whole house of cards down.

You write: "Or maybe (the family members might be seeking) vengeance. At any rate, it doesn't matter how motivated they are. It matters how competent they are, and it matters that they are too close to the issue for the integrity of the process."

I respectfully disagree. I think if the pool was large enough, say 30, from all different walks of life and all different political affiliations, the motivation would not be vengeance. It would be getting at the truth. At this point, the subject upon which the vengeance would be predicated has not been determined. It's impossible to seek vengeance on something unknown.

You write: "The questions, and all other investigative decisions, should come from people who have the training and experience to be proficient in the type of investigation they are running. The likelihood of getting a better result by letting amateurs run all over the process is about the same as the likelihood of improving the surgical outcome of a child patient by letting the mother come into the operating room to direct and manage the operation."

Nonsense. Your metaphor is an exaggeration. But even with your exaggeration, if a doctor came to you and said your child could either have operation A with a cure rate of 70% but with certain drawbacks or operation B with a cure rate of 80%, but with potential drawbacks far more severe, you would still make the call, regardless of whether you actually directed or managed the operation, or had expertise in the actual method. Investigations need motivated truthseekers. They don't need experts except in support role, such as testing the evidence to check for explosive residue, etc.

Jakenewton,

Further comments on Mackey:

Mackey, Page 3: "The NIST hypothesis is not a "house of cards" that disintegrates utterly at the first hint of inaccuracy or missing detail. There are missing details in virtually every theory produced in history. For example, nobody has yet observed a graviton particle, but this does not mean that gravity does not exist."

Direct observation of a graviton is not a missing detail in the theory of gravity. Mackey's metaphor does not hold up.

Mackey, Page 5: "The burden of proof issue is significant because, even if NIST's response above and its meticulous final report could be shown to be incorrect, it would still not imply that "explosives" of any kind were responsible for the WTC collapses. It is possible for both NIST and Dr. Griffin to be wrong."

Interesting. Mackey suggests that NIST and Dr. Griffin could both be wrong. But why would NIST be wrong? Are they not equipped to determine the ACTUAL cause? Dr. Griffin does not have access to the evidence. If he did, he and other experts might be able to PROVE explosives were used.

Mackey, Page 7: On page 7, Mackey gives us a laundry list of points Griffin makes in his book. He then concludes, "Not one of his (Griffin's) points above contains anything other than speculation."

Why does Mackey believe that Griffin would offer anything more than speculation? None of the "evidence" has been turned over to any independent non-governmental source for analysis. Seems this is fairly self-evident.

Mackey, Page 7: Mackey writes: "In the NIST report, specifically NIST NCSTAR1-2 [13], the NIST team calculates a range of possible impact damages using highly detailed models of the buildings and impacting aircraft. Dr. Griffin has the opportunity to criticize this calculation and its conclusions, but does not even mention it in this section. He also has the opportunity to produce his own or other researchers' calculations if those support a different conclusion. He has not done this either."

It appears Mackey can't get his head around the idea that Dr. Griffin and others in the truth movement do not have access to the evidence. Sure they could run simulation after simulation to prove point A or B, but without access to the evidence, how can Dr. Griffin and other subject the basis for NIST's calculations and conclusions to any meaningful tests? This again is fairly self-evident.

Mackey Page 7: Mackey writes: "Dr. Griffin is attempting to dispute NIST's calculations with opinions, and does so as a classic 'appeal to authority' fallacy."

Interesting. Mackey suggests that Dr. Griffin falls victim to a fallacy that according to Wikipedia is the following: "An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it." Yet, how can one appeal to authority, when no authority exists in relation to the underlying evidence regarding the destruction of the towers except for NIST? This is a bizarre conclusion.

Mackey, page 7: "The burden of proof remains on Dr. Griffin, not on NIST."

Why? Why would Mackey state such a ridiculous assertion? It is NIST who is confirming the government story. And it is NIST that possesses or has access to what remains of the crime scene. So how is it that the burden of proof remains on Griffin? Better stated, how can that possibly be so?

Mackey, page 8. Attacking Frank DeMartini's comment that "the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it," Mackey suggests that because the requirement wasn't formally stated in the building code, such a claim without a formal design in the building code "was simply mistaken."

I find this extremely disingenuous. The calculations for the buildings to withstand such an accident need not be stated in any formal building code to have been accomplished and implemented during the construction of the buildings.

Mackey, page 8. Makes a good point that the 707 and 767 were different planes, and therefore the design considerations related to an impact from a 707 would not suffice to account for the differences. But to make this claim, Mackey quotes Mr. Leslie Robertson, the Engineer of Record for the WTC Towers, who says: "We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707." So since he has discredited DeMartini's similar claim, why then use Robertson to support his contention, when Robertson affirms DeMartini's statement that the building was designed for an impact of a Boeing 707? If Robertson is lying about this point, how can he be truthful about the other points Mackey would suggest Robertson is truthful about? Can Mackey have it both ways? It appears he thinks he can.

Reading to continue….

RE: PLEASE SPECIFY THE VIEW WITH WHICH YOU DISAGREE

jakenewton September 18th, 2007 8:38 am
"To be clear, I was not stating [the idea that the Bush administration had taken "excessive liberty in exploiting" 911] as truth, rater as a charcterization of a theory people seem to have."

That was clear.

"I tend not to beleive it, and am not all that interested in it. Sorry for any confusion."

There was no confusion, although your prior response did not suggest lack of interest. There was vagueness. Precisely what is it you "tend not to believe"? What is this "theory" that people "seem to have" of the Bush administration's "excessive liberty in exploiting" 911 that you do not believe?

To be clear: I am not asking you to justify your view (that the administration did not "exploit" 911? that it did not exploit it "excessively"?) - because it is not clear what the view with which you disagree IS. Therefore, as I requested, please specify your terms - i.e., the specifics of the view with which you disagree.

evan_viewer wrote:
"You would have to see the videos on squibs to understand my point."

It would seem that leaves you at considerable disadvantage, since people on the non-demolition side appear to be having no trouble putting their arguments into words.

"Your looking at debunking911 that shows you one aspect that deos not even relate to my point gets us nowhere."

So you are saying that the puffing-smoke phenomenon which appears in the video link I posted is not what you are referring to when you speak of squibs? Because it is definitely what many in the Truth Movement are calling squibs.

"You have the disadvantage of seeing the debunker without first seeing what it is they claim to debunk."

I evaluate arguments based on their merits. Not on the basis of which I hear first.

"Here is a written link for your reference"
www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

That only confirms that they, too, are talking about the horizontal jets seen puffing out at various points shortly ahead of the descending collision interface. And that sequence they call "Some of the clearest visual evidence" isn't as clear and detailed as the video link I posted.

"I simply showed you a picture that meets (actually exceeds) the characteristic of your expected reaction from explosives."

What you showed was a picture of the pulverization cloud created in the collision interface between the falling and standing tower portions. That has nothing to do with the so-called squib phenomenon (which refer to tiny puffs seen ahead of the pulverization cloud).

And if you are suggesting that the cloud itself was the result of a blast, then you would be proposing a blast requiring many tons of explosives. The shock wave alone from a blast of that magnitude would have destroyed every window in the towers in the first second. And this would be nothing at all like the way explosives are used in demolitions. Demolition explosions are very small and economical, focusing all their energy at key points to cut critical supports. The amount of energy released in the fall of a large building is orders of magnitude greater than the energy released in the comparatively tiny cutting blasts.

If you watch a controlled demolition of a tall building, the charges are placed low, and they go off in an advancing line for a progressive side-slumping collapse, or across an entire level or multiple levels for a vertical-drop collapse. I have seen many examples of both types of demolitions, but I have never seen a deviation from this sequence of events: The charges go off first, then the structure deforms in the vicinity of the charges, then the structure collapses. That goes along with the time rule for causality. If A causes B, then A precedes B. If A does not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B. (Those are logical equivalents--different formulations of the same rule.) That, as I see it, is the biggest problem for the squib theory. All the examples I've seen happen after the collapse is well underway. (Which is one of the requirements of the pressure venting theory.)

Time is up. The following statement:

"I am simply stating that these look like squibs because I have seen squibs before when buildings collapse due to explosives. Therefore, I conclude that explosives cause the squibs I see in WTC as well."

Fits the Questionable Cause Fallacy definition perfectly:

A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

A is explosives
B is "squibs"

The statement can therefore be dismissed out of hand, along with any additional arguments with the conclusion of the above statement as a premise.

Hint: Tractorguy is innocent.

It's Fun with Fallacies time! Can anyone spot a *very recently posted* example of the following logical fallacy known as Questionable Cause? Here is a description from the awesome Nizkor Project:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html

From the link:

"This fallacy has the following general form:

A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B."

And some *great* advice from the link:

"The key to avoiding the Questionable Cause fallacy is to take due care in drawing causal conclusions. This requires taking steps to adequately investigate the phenomena in question as well using the proper methods of careful investigation."

evan_viewer wrote:

1) When have you ever seen "pressure venting" during a building collapse...

Never. All of the other tall building collapses I've ever seen were controlled demolitions, and this was very unlike those. But does this matter? Are you suggesting that we cannot identify a thing by its characteristics if we have not seen it before? Given what you are arguing here, that would seem be a larger problem for you than for me.

2) What does pressure venting "look like" in relation to a building collapsing, can you reference any other examples.

I can tell you what it should (and should not) look like in comparison to a demolition explosion. Venting should look like a sustained low velocity jet, maintaining or increasing in strength as the collapse front approaches. An explosion should have an extremely brief high-velocity expansion rate that falls off almost immediately. Venting should be sporadic in distribution, blowing out puffs here and there with only localized damage to windows. Explosions strong enough to cut columns yet close enough to the exterior to cause outgassing should shatter windows regionally from the shock, extending several stories above and below, and the distribution of explosions should be more systematic. Venting, being driven by the collapse, should only be seen after the collapse is well underway. Venting should have no discernable effect on the structural integrity of the building, as it only damages windows. And finally, there should be no detonation flash with venting.

The video links you posted didn't work on my computer (if they require the new Flash player, there's something corrupting it on my machine). I did find this older Flash movie http://debunking911.com/overp.swf and it meets every characteristic we might expect from venting, but perhaps this is not what you are talking about. Have you seen any videos of squibs that occur before the initiation of collapse, or that have a visible detonation flash, or that shatter windows regionally, or that seem to have some local effect on the integrity of the building? Any such squib would not have venting as a possible cause (even if I can't view it, you could still post the link for the benefit of others).

On the other hand, if the only videos you've seen of squibs take place after the process of collapse is well underway, and don't seem to have any effect on the structure, this would go back to my question about the supposed purpose behind the squibs.

3) Are you now convinced that a huge downward force caused "pressure venting" as opposed to explosives causing squibs?

In the very few squib pictures and videos I've seen, the outgas artifacts appear to be more consistent with what we could expect from venting than from explosions (though this would not rule out some third cause we haven't considered). But there could be other images I have not seen which are more consistent with explosions. So all I can say at this point is that I have seen some things for which the best explanation I currently have is pressure venting, and I haven't yet seen anything for which the best explanation appears to be explosions.

Tractorguy September 17th, 2007 4:53 pm

But frankly, I'm unclear on what the claimed purpose of the squibs is. What was their purported function?

My response

These should explain...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6500526189190423155&q=9%2F11+squibs&total=175&start=0&num=10&...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2338920337455136122&q=9%2F11+squibs&total=175&start=0&num=10&...

---------------------------------

Tractorguy September 17th, 2007 4:53 pm

The early pancake theory was that the floors detached and pancaked internally prior to the column failures, but even if the columns failed first and the floors were successively demolished in the collapse, there would still have been a great increase in air pressure in the lower portion of the towers–if pressure venting is the explanation you are referring to. I have seen a few videos which purport to show squibs, but they looked like pressure venting to me.

My Response…

1) When have you ever seen "pressure venting" during a building collapse to be so confident in your explanation?
2) What does pressure venting "look like" in relation to a building collapsing, can you reference any other examples.
3) Are you now convinced that a huge downward force caused "pressure venting" as opposed to explosives causing squibs?

--------------------------

They must find it difficult….those who have taken authority as truth instead of truth as authority."

Logarithmic & Vfor911,

I am not sure if you have come across the following point…

[The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 ... yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.]

- George Nelson Colonel, USAF (Ret.) "Scholars For 9/11 Truth"

This site looks into the plane evidence (or lack there of) presented by the GOV that morning. I have not yet confirmed the pictures he uses (from the source he references), but the author makes a damaging blow to the credibility of the evidence presented by US GOV.

Here is the link.

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

Let me know what you think.

""Excessive liberty in exploiting" 911? Vs. 'normal' liberty in exploiting it? Meaning what, specifically? Specify your terms, please."

To be clear, I was not stating it as truth, rater as a charcterization of a theory people seem to have. I tend not to beleive it, and am not all that interested in it. Sorry for any confusion.

"Thanks Jakenewton."

Sure thing.

"But stay tuned for Wednesday."

Unless this thing has imploded under it's own weight by then.

RE: "EXCESSIVE LIBERTY"? MEANING WHAT?

jakenewton September 17th, 2007 2:48 pm
"The Bush administration took excessive liberty in exploiting the above events. I would not tend to believe this myself, but it's a fair question and open to honest debate."

"Excessive liberty in exploiting" 911? Vs. 'normal' liberty in exploiting it? Meaning what, specifically? Specify your terms, please.

Thanks Jakenewton.

The reason I find it important is that Mackey only attacks one part of Griffin's book. That does not mean he discredited the entire book. I think your statement regarding the chapter he takes on is valid.

I want to read this book because it influenced you and I think it is important to study all points of view, no matter if I disagree or not.

I will keep posting my observations of Mackey as I get deeper into the paper. I will not be on tomorrow - coporate golf outing BS. But stay tuned for Wednesday.

logrithmic wrote:
"If there was a time for candor, this was it."

And people who commit the most serious crimes should be the most forthcoming about them too. But how do we convince them of that?

"why wasn't she excoriated in the press,

Same paymasters.

"criminally indicted,"

Using common sense to deduce that she lied is still many miles from proving it to the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

"Is this an example of failing upward or treason?"

It's an example of rewarding loyalty to the gang over fidelity to oath and office.

"Well, the focus on dust is what force would do the pulverizing?"

The buildings falling down will be the dominant source of energy in any scenario.

"And I don't believe that an [technical] investigation would seriously damage the possibility of criminal investigations. Why?"

If you go for the technical investigation to get at the truth, the best shot at that will involve liberal use of immunity agreements to gain maximum cooperation, and there are different procedures and standards for collecting scientific and documentary evidence vs. collecting criminal evidence. Conversely, if you go for the criminal investigation, you greatly diminish the likelihood of cooperation, and because of the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement for overturning presumption of innocence, the stakes are higher, as are the evidentiary hurdles. And say you do succeed in getting a conviction. Your technical investigation to get at the truth could permanently go down the toilet if that person is pardoned, because of the strong need to protect the political viability of the pardon. Your chances of getting two bites at this apple are extremely small. You can go for the truth or go for prosecutions. If you try to do both, you'll probably fail at both.

Lying under oath is against the law."

As if that would be any impediment at all for lawbreakers--especially in cases where the charged offense carries a far higher penalty than perjury.

"The family members are driven to seek the truth."

Or maybe vengeance. At any rate, it doesn't matter how motivated they are. It matters how competent they are, and it matters that they are too close to the issue for the integrity of the process.

"the questions should come from the family members themselves."

The questions, and all other investigative decisions, should come from people who have the training and experience to be proficient in the type of investigation they are running. The likelihood of getting a better result by letting amateurs run all over the process is about the same as the likelihood of improving the surgical outcome of a child patient by letting the mother come into the operating room to direct and manage the operation.

Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the moon, had the best response to one of the Moon Landing Truthers. He punched them in the face.

Anger is a symptom of depression.

To live a lie can have extremely detrimental effects on one's self esteem and personal integrity.

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 5:39 pm

Jakenewton,…

You wrote at 2:43 that "The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". All I'm saying is that Mackey has not expressed an opinion on three quarters of the book! So it does not "directly address" Griffin's book, but only the portion that deals with the NIST report.

Now I ask you again, do you want to modify your statement?

My Response...

This is your second explanation to jakenewton who is clearly avoiding your point instead of admitting he was wrong. This has been his pattern. Much like he will not admit that debunking911 uses a roof collapse of an exhibition center as a challenge to the truth movement's statement that "no steel building has collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11."

He clearly has not researched into the claims of the debunking sites he references. His error you cited above suggests that he has lied about reading the pdf doc he has referenced and praised for its content. His statement "directly addresses" has come to haunt him considering that now he won't directly address it. LOL

Tractorguy,

Regards my portion of your interesting post at 4:53.

You wrote: "Why would Condi, the person responsible for national security, lie about one of the most massive national security failures in history? Well, how about to try to deflect or minimize her culpability and to try to dodge the blame she so amply deserved? Isn't that a common reason for lying?"

Well yes. But we are talking about 9-11. Richard Clarke said it best when he said "Your government failed you." If there was a time for candor, this was it. And Condi failed in spades. The better question is why wasn't she excoriated in the press, criminally indicted, and why did the Congress approve her "promotion" to Secretary of State? Is this an example of failing upward or treason?

You wrote: "Why would the puppet king and the ventriloquist not agree to separate testimonies? Does this really need an answer?"

Hell yes it requires an answer. This goes to the heart of the matter. We will never know, but it needs to be asked and answered!

"Do we have unseemly and lying "leaders"? Yes. Even moreso than usual, I think."

Again, I want to state that I believe there is a huge gulf between lying about budget numbers and lying about 9-11, the catlyst for the War on Terror.

You wrote: "Did all the concrete get pulverized to dust? I'm sure some of it did. That would be normal. Did all of it? I don't know, but I would be surprised if there weren't many chunks that were not completely pulverized. But I don't get the significance of the focus on the dust."

Well, the focus on dust is what force would do the pulverizing?

You wrote: "Were the 9/11 commission findings unsatisfactory? Yes. Should there be further investigation? I don't know. To what end? Do you want to get at the most probable account of the truth of what happened and how, or do you want a criminal investigation? Those are largely incompatible types of investigations, and pursuing either will seriously damage the possibility of ever being able to do the other."

Both, to get at the truth of what happened. And I don't believe that an investigation would seriously damage the possibility of criminal investigations. Why? Lying under oath is against the law. In fact, we could have dual tracks - an investigation while pursing criminal indictments - one feeding on the other. Those in the FAA and the DOD, as well as Rice should be indicted. Simply admitting they lied is not good enough.

You wrote: "In either case, should the investigation be headed by the victim's families? Absolutely not. It should be in the hands of a fully independent prosecutor, or it should be conducted by a team of objective, skilled, and impartial technical investigators. No politician or anyone with an axe to grind should be allowed to influence or participate in either sort of investigation. If the integrity of the process is compromised, the results will necessarily have the taint of illegitimacy, and the whole exercise will have been in vain."

I respectfully disagree. The family members are driven to seek the truth. And they will be unrelenting. The technical investigators will do the technical investigating. But the questions should come from the family members themselves. Let the chips fall where they may. A dual-track is required. The special prosecutor would be free to bring criminal charges against those lying during the course of the investigation.

Jakenewton,

I've only read a half dozen pages of so and I already have problems with Mackey:

Mackey (page 1): "The former acronym stands for Let It Happen On Purpose, and the latter stands for Made It Happen On Purpose….The LIHOP contingent believes that the September 11th attacks were conducted by roughly the same people and in the same fashion as determined by the 9/11 Commission Report, but that the United States Government, being aware of the impending disaster and seeing advantage in letting it proceed, deliberately hampered investigators and defense systems that should have thwarted the attacks. The MIHOP group, on the other hand, contends that the plan was conceived and executed by the United States Government, or at least powerful figures therein, and that the real attacks happened in a completely different fashion, since the MIHOP hypothesis is totally incompatible with al-Qaeda sponsorship."

I find this description false. These groups are not mutually exclusive. For example, one can believe both that the U.S. government, more precisely relevant portions of it, did nothing to thwart the attacks AND believe that the U.S. government, more precisely relevant portions of it, could have conceived and executed the attacks with al-Qaeda sponsorship. This is why I suggest that Osama bin Laden may be a double agent, working for the CIA while heading up Al Qaeda, a perfect foil for the war on Terror.

Mackey (page 1): Further explains LIHOP and MIHOP through the lens of the real Pearl Harbor attacks. But while there have been historians who have proposed a LIHOP explanation for Perah Harbor, unlike 9-11, NO ONE HAS EVER PROPOSED A MIHOP EXPLANATION FOR PEARL HARBOR.

Mackey (page 2): "For reasons that should be obvious, the LIHOP conspiracy theory is much simpler and more popular in the case of Pearl Harbor – indeed there are such theories even today, even though all of them have been thoroughly repudiated in official investigations and the popular press." This is not true. None other than Gore Vidal recently brought the LIHOP version of Pearl Harbor to my attention in a book he published in 2002 titled "Dreaming War." Why would Gore Vidal, one of America's leading intellectuals bring this up in 2002 if it had been "throughly repudiated?"

Jakenewton,

Please don't be offended by my criticism. I did not mean for you to take offense. I merely show this because I do believe it to be important. You suggested that Mackey was attacking Griffin's book. Instead Mackey says "By choice, this review is RESTRICTED to one of the four major chapters in Dr. Griffin's book, and no quotations are taken from any of the other chapters, the introduction, or conclusion." (my emphasis)

Furthermore, on page 2 Mackey reiterates: "This analysis will ONLY consider the third chapter (of Griffin's book), having to do with the final report of the World Trade Center Investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, hereafter referred to as the "NIST Report." (my emphasis).

You wrote at 2:43 that "The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". All I'm saying is that Mackey has not expressed an opinion on three quarters of the book! So it does not "directly address" Griffin's book, but only the portion that deals with the NIST report.

Now I ask you again, do you want to modify your statement?

Please let's not deal in abstracts. I'm merely pointing out that I'm going to read 200 pages by Mackey per your suggestion. But I ask you to concede that Mackey's treatise is not an attack on the entire Griffin book, but only that part covering the NIST report. Fair enough?

evan_viewer wrote:
"They basically changed their story because of the many holes poked in it by the critics."

I think the many and varied critics have been valuable in this capacity, and I expect their work is far from done.

"But the pancake theory was used to support PMs early explanation of the squibs"

The early pancake theory was that the floors detached and pancaked internally prior to the column failures, but even if the columns failed first and the floors were successively demolished in the collapse, there would still have been a great increase in air pressure in the lower portion of the towers--if pressure venting is the explanation you are referring to. I have seen a few videos which purport to show squibs, but they looked like pressure venting to me.

But frankly, I'm unclear on what the claimed purpose of the squibs is. What was their purported function?

"You will have a hard time dreaming up alternative explanations to explosives."

I think you mean a totally satisfactory alternate explanation, but the explosion theories don't meet that criteria either. Psychologically, the biggest problem for me with the explosion scenarios is that the main tower collapses have every appearance of initiating very close to the levels of the airplane impacts, with the bottoms standing largely intact until demolished, top-down, by the descending upper portions. The part I can't wrap my mind around is how the demolitions could be set to initiate collapse so very near to the level the planes hit.

"There are many disinformation campaigns to divide the truth movement."

I've seen people argue passionately that the prime culprit, Satan, was clearly visible in the smoke of the towers, and that this event was Biblically foretold. I've seen others claim it was the bad space aliens (not the good ones) who were responsible. Even the more mundane accounts have a broad variety of agents and villains. The Truth Movement is already divided and may never have been united--except in rejection of the official account. Even if their criticisms have prompted progress, those divisions are deep, irreconcilable, and they ensure that there will never be an account which is satisfactory to all. If any one version from the Truth Movement became official tomorrow, all the other divisions would continue to object and attack it. And to people at every point on the conspiracy continuum, those who argue for less extreme conspiracies are naive dupes or establishment shills, and those who argue for more extreme conspiracies are cranks and nutters, or discrediting shills.

On other matters:
Regarding heavy beams being ejected to large distances away:
1) It isn't surprising that there could be oblique-angle energy transfers. Anyone who has ever hit an inadequately restrained nail with a hammer is familiar with this, to say nothing of the possibility of beam fragments getting catapulted by fast-acting levers. It doesn't seem remarkable to me that there might be an assortment of ramps and levers flinging material out of the violent interface between the falling and standing tower portions. In most crashes, some material is ejected sideways.
2) Unconstrained open-air explosions (unlike, for example, those in cannons) would be a very ineffective way to propel multi-ton beam structures large distances. It's possible, but it would take huge quantities of explosives. (The equal and opposite reaction problem, when pushing against air to move steel.)

Regarding the tidy way the towers fell into their own footprints.
1) Okay, which is it? The debris is too concentrated, or the debris is too far-flung. I've seen both used to support the explosive demo theory.
2) Why make it tidy? If the whole point is shock and awe, and if there are no apparent constraints on willingness to sacrifice life and destroy property, why would dropping the towers into a tidy pile be any more terrifying than having the towers topple?

Regarding the towers coming down at free-fall speeds:
I've seen multiple photographs where the ejected material has clearly outrun the descent of the upper tower portions, so I take that to be a strong indication that the claims of a free-fall speed collapse are in error.

Regarding burn temperatures insufficient to weaken steel:
Claims along this line would be more compelling if we were talking about a small open-air fire, but a critical factor in combustion temperature is how effectively the heat is being carried away. The temperatures go up when the combustion is constrained and insulated even a small amount. I have seen ordinary cardboard (from appliance cartons) take a 500 lb. woodstove up to glowing cherry red, even though the open-air combustion temperature of cardboard is way too low to accomplish that. I don't know how efficiently heat was being retained in the cores of the towers, but absent an efficient mechanism for transporting the heat away, it would not be so surprising that the heat could build up to the point of softening steel.

Did some people believe an attack of that sort was coming soon? I think so. Did some of those people profit from acting on that belief? Very likely yes. Could that have happened without anyone using any missiles or explosives? Again, I think yes.

re. logrithmic's questions:
Why would Condi, the person responsible for national security, lie about one of the most massive national security failures in history? Well, how about to try to deflect or minimize her culpability and to try to dodge the blame she so amply deserved? Isn't that a common reason for lying?

Why would the puppet king and the ventriloquist not agree to separate testimonies? Does this really need an answer?

Do we have unseemly and lying "leaders"? Yes. Even moreso than usual, I think.

Did all the concrete get pulverized to dust? I'm sure some of it did. That would be normal. Did all of it? I don't know, but I would be surprised if there weren't many chunks that were not completely pulverized. But I don't get the significance of the focus on the dust.

Were the 9/11 commission findings unsatisfactory? Yes.
Should there be further investigation? I don't know. To what end? Do you want to get at the most probable account of the truth of what happened and how, or do you want a criminal investigation? Those are largely incompatible types of investigations, and pursuing either will seriously damage the possibility of ever being able to do the other.

In either case, should the investigation be headed by the victim's families? Absolutely not. It should be in the hands of a fully independent prosecutor, or it should be conducted by a team of objective, skilled, and impartial technical investigators. No politician or anyone with an axe to grind should be allowed to influence or participate in either sort of investigation. If the integrity of the process is compromised, the results will necessarily have the taint of illegitimacy, and the whole exercise will have been in vain.

"Also, related to your post at 2:43, you state that "The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

A quibble. If you are right, ask why it's an important point.

"By choice, this review is restricted to one of the four major chapters in Dr. Griffin's book, and no quotations are taken from any of the other chapters, the introduction, or conclusion."

There was more as to why he did it. And it was nearly 200 pages against just the one chapter. Maybe he has limited time? You don't have to read all of it to get an idea of what he is doing, and how he might treat the other chapters.

"I don't know if you want to correct your statement or not, but felt it was important to point out that the author would disagree."

Nah, I don't think so on either one. Let's try this. Go to the fallacies link and identify by name which you think this is.

A is a subset of B. C is directed at A. Therefore C is directed at B as well.

By substitution we get my alleged fallacy:

A is a chapter of the book
B is the book
C is the article I posted

Or:

A is Jake's foot (has a hang nail)
B is Jake
C is a doctor's treatment of Jake's foot

Did the doctor treat Jake when he treated his foot? All you need to do though is show one substitution to be false and you win. Or find one of the formally named one's and show it fits.

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 1:42 pm

We (they) should have put this to rest in the first year after the tragedy! This is an outrage and again suggests coverup and complicity.

My response…

Exactly, one of the first signs of the cover-up was Bush's hesitation to launch an investigation. The removal of key "steel" evidence from the "ground zero" was another.

The steel beams were numbered. A proper investigation could have been identified which steel pieces came from certain floors to determine what happened. But of course this evidence was destroyed such that we could be left with constantly changing "official" theories…to debate forever. This act, like the collapse, is not just another coincidence.

The reality is that the new NIST theory is worst than the original. We are now to believe that the walls were pulled inward when we can clearly see steel / dust shooting outward…with no top mass "pushing down" to continue the collapse.

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 1:42 pm

BTW, I especially enjoyed your video links on Google

My response

Thanks to the internet…it has been the most important means of communicating / exposing the GOV's cover-up. Without it, we would be at the mercy of the mass media that further aids in covering the most crucial topics.

Jakenewton,

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not trying to convice the vast majority of anything. You should be aware that about half of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9-11. So the vast majority is probably a lost cause. That does not mean that the government "conspiracy" theory should not be examined, and I don't think that you believe that legitimate questions cannot be raised.

Also, related to your post at 2:43, you state that "The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

According to the author, Ryan Mackey, the document only covers one of the "four major chapters" in Griffin's book. Here are Mackey's exact words from his note on fair use, page vi: "By choice, this review is restricted to one of the four major chapters in Dr. Griffin's book, and no quotations are taken from any of the other chapters, the
introduction, or conclusion."

I don't know if you want to correct your statement or not, but felt it was important to point out that the author would disagree.

I too appreciate a dialog more than a heated debate. Again, I came to my conclusions because so much of what Bush and his cronies have told us are lies that it's hard for me to NOT believe he and others in his admin are lying about the events of 9-11; the proof is self-evident.

I may or may not have pointed out earlier that I was flying between Kansas City and Salt Lake City on my way to LA on 9-11 at the very moment the towers were struck. After getting off the plane that morning, I passed several TVs showing the replay of the second tower being attacked. Neither had collapsed at that time.

Two things:

I was flying on 9-11 and I was on top of the WTC in July 2001, showing a friend of mine the spectacular views.

It disturbs me greatly that, during the summer of 2001, the government was aware of the level of threat from the, as you would put it, "Militant Islamists," and yet there was no extra security, no warnings, etc., regarding travel by air. My life was put needlessly at risk because the government did not do its job. In fact, I flew in and out of New York 8 times that year, including two weeks after the Towers were destroyed (the area was still smoking even then). So I feel I have a personal beef with how this thing went down.

To your four points:

1) "Militant Islamist hijackers crash planes into buildings. Very believable, expected even." Expected by who? As I said, I was flying into and out of the city and visited the WTC less than two months prior to the attack. If it was "expected," why did the government not alert the public or beef up airport security? It certainly had no problem implementing changes AFTER 9-11.

2) "Three buildings collapse as a result of the collisions fires, etc. Rather believable, as a layman, given everything I know." I know, and you SHOULD know, that one of the buildings was not struck by a plane. So suggesting otherwise is disingenous. Fires bringing down WTC-7? Extremely unlikely.

3) "The Bush administration took excessive liberty in exploiting the above events. I would not tend to believe this myself, but it's a fair question and open to honest debate." Please recall that the Bushies used the events of 9-11 as justification for the War on Terror (and the illegal wiretapping, torture, national security letters, and enemy combatant/detainee directives that stemmed from it) as well as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't consider that "excessive" or "exploitative?"

4) "The Bush administration conspired to cause the event outright. Not very believable, there is much more convincing that needs to be done, in my case and in the case of the vast majority." Two things about this. The Bush administration seemed to ignore all the warnings, did not beef up airport secuirty, and the military was nowhere to be found on 9-11. And, as I've pointed out (and is made clear in Evan Viewer's video 9-11 Press for Truth), the Bush administration, including the FAA and the DOD, lied during the 9-11 Commission Investigation, and this was after it tried to derail it, underfunded it, and only agreed to let it go forward if Bush and Cheney could testify together without having to be sworn in.

Now I ask you simply, would you, if you were president, refuse to testify under oath about 9-11 if 9-11 happened on your watch? I know I would testify under oath. Why? Because I'd have nothing to hide and I would tell the truth, as would the "vast majority" of Americans (to use your words).

But then when it came to Katrina, instead of flying over the scene at 10,000 feet, I'd have landed my plane and been on the scene at the stadium and auditorium, PERSONALLY directing the federal government response. I'm sure you would too, if such was your choice.

"is there any chance you'd consider letting us know you're views related to why the buildings fell. At this point I see only attempts to discredit the idea of planned demolition."

I will respond in general terms. The events of the day were spectacular and without precedent. There could be no way to reenact, simulate in a lab, or model on a computer in a reliable way what sequence of every detail occurred. Given these conditions it's no wonder that there are some questions that lack any answer, and that some of the answers are not satisfactory. That the official version was put together the way it was impresses me as a layman, even if it in fact was a cover for some other way it went down.

As a layman, I can't think of any particular problem with the official theory that would seem to me a show stopper, to topple the whole theory. Nor would any such problem prove another theory.

Here is a ranking of sorts on some of the theories, I hope this is helpful.

Militant Islamist hijackers crash planes into buildings. Very believable, expected even.

Three buildings collapse as a result of the collisions fires, etc. Rather believable, as a layman, given everything I know.

The Bush administration took excessive liberty in exploiting the above events. I would not tend to believe this myself, but it's a fair question and open to honest debate.

The Bush administration conspired to cause the event outright. Not very believable, there is much more convincing that needs to be done, in my case and in the case of the vast majority. Keep trying though

"I'm going to read the critique of Griffin's work. I remain open to these types of critiques."

Thank you for your civility. The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". Of course the next logical step would be to see a response to this document by Griffin or his supporters. I would be interested in reading a well written response. It would be debunking the debunker debunker debunker as it were, at that point, you have to laugh.

"I also don't believe you are closed to the idea that the buildings might have been imploded."

I am open, In a theoretical sense. I think people should be free to ask questions about the official account. When someone asserts that something is true about an alternate theory, I can ask why, and the onus is on them.

" please tell me which of the items you've posted are critical for me to view."

I would suggest reading over all the sites posted in a general way. Most of them have the content divided up reasonably well to dial down to specific areas of interest.

Evan_viewer,

You wrote: "These revisions show a desperate need to rewrite the original bogus script as the truth movement exposes their attempts to distract from the overwhelming visual and physical evidence of explosives."

One can only wonder whether the initial government explanation would still be in circulation if it hadn't been for the 9-11 Truth movement.

One of the questions I asked Jim Hoffman was why the government has not done a critique of itself? I mean, four alternative theories put forth as to why the buildings fell, including two by NIST. He could only grin and shake his head.

We (they) should have put this to rest in the first year after the tragedy! This is an outrage and again suggests coverup and complicity.

BTW, I especially enjoyed your video links on Google. The 9-11 Press for Truth video explaining the timeline and the discrepancies was incredible and showed exactly what was I was saying - Condi Rice lying to the 9-11 Commission. And I'm in the middle of the one "9-11 Mysteries." It is also a five star video. Thanks again!

from evan:

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 10:20 am

"I'm going to read the critique of Griffin's work."

My response

Once you are done, I would recommend you read…

David Ray Griffin's fourth book…"Debunking 9/11 Debunking" where he answers NIST, PM and other 911 Debunkers. He also analyzes the multiple stories (accounts) given by NORAD. He plainly shows the lies, misstatements, contradictions, and distractions these debunking authors use to confuse or lead their reader to accept the official story.

About 20% of the text identifies the deception tactics of the debunkers. Therefore, the book also teaches you how to identify the intended deceit before you even engage in the "theory" of what these debunkers are presenting.

Here is a link to amazon.com where several reviews are given. Some of these reviews give examples of how DRG exposes the debunkers. A must read for those in the truth movement.
----

good post ev, the link is very good and all should read it, and, dare i say, the DRG book referred to.

well done!

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 12:49 pm

Evan_viewer,

The next book in this area I'm going to read, however, is the one titled "The 9-11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America" by Fetzer....

.... Perhaps you've read it?

My response

No I haven't...and I see that it has some contributions from David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds (another person I'll research for info). Thanks for the link...I will most likely read this...I am alomst done with Debunking 911 Debunking.

Tractorguy wrote…

Now I see in a recent Nova that they have revised the explanation to say the floor joists failed by sagging, but they did not detach, so as the floors sagged, they pulled the outer beams inward, deflecting them (if I heard this correctly) by as much as 5 feet.

My response.

They basically changed their story because of the many holes poked in it by the critics. From what you wrote, they seemed to have latched onto NIST's new theory, which clearly Debunks the "pancake theory". But the pancake theory was used to support PMs early explanation of the squibs…which NIST tries its hand at reinventing as well.

These revisions show a desperate need to rewrite the original bogus script as the truth movement exposes their attempts to distract from the overwhelming visual and physical evidence of explosives.

You will have a hard time dreaming up alternative explanations to explosives. Note: Explosives stands as the complete explanation in and of itself...it needs no revision...and it does not need a "6 year" hiatus to conclude what happened to WTC 7.

Tractorguy wrote…

All the conspiracy scenarios seem to quickly develop problems and complications at least as serious as the wobbly official version.

My response.

This is true, but it is best to look at where the truth movement exposes the lies / bogus explanations of the GOV and go from there. There are many disinformation campaigns to divide the truth movement. Plus remember, it was the "official" conspiracy theory that claimed to be "the truth" and launched two wars as outlined in the PNAC document.

here is a link from youtube on the phantom flight in shanksville, you know, the one that wasn't there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJ7jEpmapQ

also if you poke around you can find the fox news coverage on the ground that day - both reports are similar.

there was no plane. no bodies, no wreckage, - there was a hole in the ground, 20 feet wide, 10 feet deep, with no metal fragments available anywhere, only pieces of paper.

there were no fires as well.

so now it seems, in order to swallow the government story, we need to believe that buildings fall according to a "one time in the history of the world" scenario (three times in one day) and then the plane that crashes but doesn't burn and also leaves no trace.

this once in a lifetime phenomena is also replicated at the pentagon that day.

sounds believable don't it?

i mean, like, it could happen.

Evan_viewer,

I read Griffin's excellent first book about 9-11, "The New Pearl Harbor." The Pop Mech response was a joke. It picked at individual threads in the hope that the entire tapestry of questions would unravel. I thought it was great that Griffin responded with another book.

The next book in this area I'm going to read, however, is the one titled "The 9-11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America" by Fetzer.

Here's the info on the book: http://www.amazon.ca/11-Conspiracy-Scamming-America/dp/0812696123

My friend says its a point by point analysis of the governments official conspiracy, that its very well written, and sets forth logical explanations related to the events of that day. Must reading for me.... Perhaps you've read it?

logrithmic September 17th, 2007 10:20 am

"I'm going to read the critique of Griffin's work."

My response

Once you are done, I would recommend you read…

David Ray Griffin's fourth book..."Debunking 9/11 Debunking" where he answers NIST, PM and other 911 Debunkers. He also analyzes the multiple stories (accounts) given by NORAD. He plainly shows the lies, misstatements, contradictions, and distractions these debunking authors use to confuse or lead their reader to accept the official story.

About 20% of the text identifies the deception tactics of the debunkers. Therefore, the book also teaches you how to identify the intended deceit before you even engage in the "theory" of what these debunkers are presenting.

Here is a link to amazon.com where several reviews are given. Some of these reviews give examples of how DRG exposes the debunkers. A must read for those in the truth movement.

Jakenewton,

I'm going to read the critique of Griffin's work. I remain open to these types of critiques. I also don't believe you are closed to the idea that the buildings might have been imploded. I think you have asked questions about motive, which I and others have tried to answer. And you've admitted that the official explanation has weaknesses. Since I have only a limited amount of time, besides reading the PDF files, please tell me which of the items you've posted are critical for me to view.

In return for my viewing of these documents, is there any chance you'd consider letting us know you're views related to why the buildings fell. At this point I see only attempts to discredit the idea of planned demolition. What is your personal opinion on this issue after all your research and applying your BS meter?

Thanks.

"how is a match stick analogous with the WTC" . Same way dropping a marble and watching it fall to the floor is analogous with anything to do with gravity. Some asked how a girder could be propelled sideways, same way as a matchstick being pressed on both ends. It will not collapse down like an accordion, it will kick out to the side.

Jakenewton,

I'm hoping you will respond to my series of questions at 11:14 a.m. and 5:13 p.m. yesterday, 9/16. Thanks.

"invested more into this than I'm sure they had intended to going in "

You got that right, nice piece of writing, thank you.

I remember watching the first Nova on the collapse of the towers, back when the theory was that the floor trusses successively broke loose from the external columns and then the columns failed because they lost the lateral support the floors provided. I was surprised that losing a small segment of support could have dropped the towers without something pushing over or twisting the top, especially when I heard the core had heavy diagonal reinforcement. But at that time, I just chalked it up to inadequate design. Now I see in a recent Nova that they have revised the explanation to say the floor joists failed by sagging, but they did not detach, so as the floors sagged, they pulled the outer beams inward, deflecting them (if I heard this correctly) by as much as 5 feet. I would not have expected the weight of a few floors could deflect the external beams this much, especially since they were under a heavy compression preload from all the floors above. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, but it would not surprise me if the new theory ends up getting discarded and replaced like the old theory.

However, even though I'm unimpressed with the official theory, and even though I firmly believe this administration is evil enough to be capable of (indeed, already guilty of) killing on a mass scale in grimy pursuit of wealth and power, I haven't yet run across a deliberate demolition conspiracy theory which I feel is simple and elegant enough to be within the capacity and competency of the Bush gang. All the conspiracy scenarios seem to quickly develop problems and complications at least as serious as the wobbly official version. Did the Bush administration try to suppress, hide, obfuscate, misdirect, and lie about 9/11? Clearly, yes. But that appears to be a standard modus operandi for these people on everything, and ordinary negligence and incompetence would be enough to explain their behavior here. And I'm sure they were well aware how independent investigations can start out on one thing and lead to something else (eg. Ken Starr on Whitewater).

This was an informative thread for me though, and thanks to those who posted links and invested more into this than I'm sure they had intended to going in (esp. jakenewton). It's been educational to watch the psychological interplay. The Truth Movement seems driven by a sense of rightness and certainty, resting on the obvious connection between motive and results. Also passion, clinging to the hope they have found the weak point that can bring down whatever evil cabal is running the show here (though there appear to be differences of opinion on who exactly that is). But the desire for a thing which subsequently happens doesn't establish guilt (or I'd be in trouble for the deaths of Falwell and D. James Kennedy) and I think the hope for the perfect proof which will convince the doubters is probably futile. It is extremely difficult to disprove a conspiracy, and that cuts both ways. Whatever evidence the Truth Movement produces now can be dismissed as having been manufactured by an anti-Bush conspiracy.

For me, I think the Bush gang is at least guilty of criminal negligence, and I await a more compelling explanation for the towers' collapse, and I certainly have sympathy for anyone who can't trust the official accounts, but I can also see that the Truth Movement has taken on a measure of zeal which has much in common with those who passionately maintain that evolution, global warming, and the moon landings are all similarly grand-conspiracy hoaxes. I hope it is a similarity in appearance only, but even so, the appearance is bad enough that I see I'm going to have to take care to distinguish my own skepticism from the views of the Truth Movement. A passion for Truth can be a good and reasonable thing. Passion for a particular truth, however, is another thing altogether.

"The material is from an agency (NASA) that brought you the fake moonlanding."

Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the moon, had the best response to one of the Moon Landing Truthers. He punched them in the face.

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The material is from an agency (NASA) that brought you the fake moonlanding.

R. Mackey can never prove his calculation/theory outside the setting of 9/11.

Yikes!
Elvis lives.
Diana lives.
Osama's dead.
Osama doesn't exist.
Prince Charles killed Diana
The Queen killed Diana.
Camilla killed Diana.
The Titanic was a bungled insurance fraud.

Muslims could not have done this job because they're not smart enough.If this takes smarts then they definitely did it because they are definitely smarter than the Bush White House.

Simplicity is the key and simplicity is the answer. All the conspiracies proposed require too much coordination, too much thought. Do you expect a government or organizations associated with the government to do something like this when they can't even send out the right form; when you get three different answers from the same section for the same question? Come on.

In all sincerity, do you Yanks really believe that your government is truly that malevolent, that cold-blooded, that calculating to sacrifice that many people in such an horrific manner to further their ends? I guess you do. Once again - yikes! Democracy truly is dead in America. Certainly in perception.

I truly believe with all my heart that Muslim extremists perpetrated this horrible, horrible action. It was brilliantly simple and brilliantly executed; and had all the hallmarks of the cowardly attacks that occur on an almost daily basis throughout the world wherever Muslim extremists interface with the kaffir and other Muslims whom they consider unworthy.

What Americans should be worrying about is the cost of your war in Iraq. Billions into the trillions. What is occurring in the U.S. is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, from the American middle class to a technocratic elite whose position is being reinforced by the dollars of the unwitting American taxpayer. If there is any reason for a conspiracy, this is it. However 9/11 was not a conspiracy, rather, it was a golden opportunity, upon which your technocrat CEOs immediately acted.

"David Ray Griffin"

Here's a 200 page PDF critigue of some of Mr Griffin's work:

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

I've started reading the above document. Griffin, who is a 911 Truth Hero to Crayon Boy and his ilk, is getting taken to school in this article. I would be very interested in whether Griffin has responded to this, anyone?

You are unprepared for debating this issue. You are a beginner. You have embarassed yourself in public by your own conduct.

"i'll tell you where it is - your confusion is between your ears."

Dead.

*PLONK*

And here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

"silverstein said they decided to "pull" the building - demolition industry term for imploding. where is your confusion?"

Go here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

"jake jake jake - how can i engage in a conversation with someone who is so unable to simply believe what his eyes see and his ears hear?"

I do not like your tone here, and I'll note that this post is completely ignoring all the points it's replying to. Why even repost my entire post if you ignore all the points made? You are a beginner.

"Your posts are becomong (sic) (snip post continuing obsession with a point I already said was irrelevant anyway)"

By being unwilling or unable to follow the simple directions given to you, you get a zero on the test. This was your final exam.

*PLONK*

I am sure Evan is a nice kid in real life, but it is his own behavior, that can be verified by anyone wishing to go through the agony of looking at all of his posts, that is the source of his disgrace. Hopefully he will learn from his humiliation here. I wish him the best as he continues his schooling as well as with whatever career he chooses.

BTW, here are two interesting links from debunking911 that discuss aspects of perimeter and core columns:

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm