9/11

The truth about the 9/11 truth claims

9/11

Today is of course 9/11 and like previous years, I feel it is appropriate to write a few words on the topic. Each year I do the same. Here is a list of past postings …

Briefly

Let’s jump directly in and cut to the chase.

No, it was not a controlled demolition, there really is no convincing evidence for that claim or any of the other related conspiracy claims.

But, but, but …

The assertion that there is no robust credibility to the 9/11 conspiracy claims will of course be met with a passionate rebuttal. It is generally my experience that such rebuttals consist of a lot of hand-waving, and a tedious gish gallop that will simply wear most people down.

How passionate?

Well, imagine engaging with a devout Catholic who has just been on a pilgrimage to Lourdes and advising them that miracles really don’t happen. Picture in your mind the emotions this would invoke. They would strenuously assure you that they really do, and proceed to cite examples.

You need not doubt the depth of the sincerity in play.

In a similar manner, people who believe specific things about 9/11 are deeply hooked emotionally, and have spent a lot of time on it, hence no amount of rational argument will persuade them that it just might not be as they believe it to be. Too much has been invested in the idea and so it becomes hard to consider the reality that they just might be wrong.

The evidence offered has many parallels to the Lourdes experience. There is just enough to convince those that believe, but nothing of any substance that is sufficiently robust enough to persuade a skeptic. Many things tend to find a natural balance like this, and 9/11 is a good example.

The truth is this – the 9/11 Truther movement has failed to establish its claim.

Each and every argument presented as “evidence” has a solid wholly reasonable rebuttal. If you tune in to just one side of the conversation, or simply watch a movie on YouTube, then it is easy to be fooled, or at least confused. Widen your scope to also include the rebuttals, and you quickly discover that the arguments presented rapidly fall apart.

Evidence for 9/11?

It never emerges. Claims are made, but the specifics, the supposed proof, always appears to reside within some blog or YouTube clip, or consists of anecdotal quotes.

Engage to play that game, and what happens?

Nothing solid ever emerges, it is always just over the horizon.

That is perhaps a cue for a rant about biases from somebody who truly believes. The thought is that you need to just look at X, but since you refuse you are biased … except when you do look, you find nothing of any substance … ever.

Biased?

Yep, guilty as charged. It is not up to me or you to go research a claim, it is up to those making the claim to make a good argument and to then back it up. It should not simply fold like a house of cards when you do look at it a bit more closely. If those that believe can’t present clean clear decisive evidence, then there is really no reason to believe the claim.

Why do conspiracy beliefs take root and flourish within human minds?

University of Miami political scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent have a 2014 book on the topic titled “American Conspiracy Theories“. The basis for the book is the empirical data they gathered …

Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent draw on three sources of original data: 120,000 letters to the editor of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune from between 1890 and 2010; a two-wave survey from before and after the 2012 presidential election; and discussions of conspiracy theories culled from online news sources, blogs, and other Web sites, also from before and after the election. Through these sources, they are able to address crucial questions, such as similarities and differences in the nature of conspiracy theories over time, the role of the Internet and communications technologies in spreading modern conspiracy theories, and whether politics, economics, media, war, or other factors are most important in popularizing conspiratorial beliefs

Of immediate interest is this (from Page 11) …

“inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see nonexistent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations”

… and also this …

“there is evidence that disasters (e.g., earthquakes) and other high-stress situations (e.g., job uncertainty) prompt people to concoct, embrace, and repeat conspiracy theories.”

Given our current circumstances, a pandemic, job uncertainty, a mortality rate rapidly climbing, wildfires, and a highly contentious election, you will no doubt have observed a huge uptick in conspiracy claims.

Given the date today we can perhaps also anticipate a bit of an uptick in 9/11 truther activity.

When dramatic things happen, many turn to conspiracy thinking because it meets an emotional need, and not because it is actually true. If you care about believing as many true things as possible and rejecting as many false claims as possible, then when it comes to 9/11 truth claims, hit pause until there is sufficient evidence that justifies the claims.

That generally applies to everything.

Further Reading

Wikipedia …

Subject matter experts.

Most of the civil engineering community accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers …

  1.  Bažant, Z.K.P.; Verdure, M. (2007). “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” (PDF). Journal of Engineering MechanicsAmerican Society of Civil Engineers133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308)As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows: [continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure].
  2.  Bažant, Z.K.P.; Le, J.L.; Greening, F.R.; Benson, D.B. (2008). “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?” (PDF). Journal of Engineering MechanicsAmerican Society of Civil Engineers134 (10): 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.

9/11 – Tweets

11 thoughts on “The truth about the 9/11 truth claims”

  1. Nah. The historical reference is apt. A maligned narrative held the German public in tow through lies and secrecy, through the distraction of the war economy providing jobs and the propaganda of nationalism. Disloyalty and dissent was rewarded with death or prison. It all came crashing down as the Third Reich overstepped its ambitions. For as long as the Nazis could control the narrative they could maintain their hold on governance and the public imagination. There is no comparison beyond the concept of controlling a narrative to maintain public support for an idea, an expedient narrative. That’s as far as it goes. Godwin’s law doesn’t apply here. You’re not a Nazi, just a mook on the wrong side of this argument. But as far as continuing a pissing contest with you by this discussion, it’s pretty clear you’re not interested in anything beyond imagining yourself above politics. Funny in a way, as if it matters one jot or tittle who is closer to the truth in this has any bearing on changing how the world is.

    Talk to you next year maybe… Stay safe, wear a mask, social distance…

    Reply
  2. Credible rebuttal? As I said, having no engineering in my resume I’m in no position to judge on the technical merits whether Newtonsbits reply to Ross is credible. Do you? What I do know without any reservations is what Bazant said himself about his own theory, and that political expediency hasn’t allowed for an honest reckoning of the facts. A firefighter was invited to privately share with the 9/11 Commission his experience in the one of the towers before it came down. His questioners had no interest in hearing what he had to say about the nature, number or scale of the explosions he witnessed, was involved in really, in the execution of his duties. He said they were twisting his words to fit what they wanted to hear and believe. He walked out of the hearing because he recognized they weren’t interested in his testimony. The guy’s name is Louis Cacchioli, 20 yr veteran of the NYFD.

    A couple of thousand professionals in a wide range of areas do have opinions contrary to yours based on their expertise. I listed 15 highly credentialed individuals out these thousand. I’ve posted the name of the website where you can see for yourself who and what they believe. You make the circular argument that their opinions are meaningless because they are not published, arguing that because they are not published their opinions are meaningless. (Even those who are published you disparage and reject.) Should I assume you believe in fairies and unicorns also and that politics never succeeds at interfering with and quashing inconvenient truths? I imagine you’ve heard that an ad populum argument relying on numbers of believers rather than findings of fact is a logical fallacy. Your “vast majority” is what you imagine to be the case not actually knowing what “the vast majority” of subject matter experts think specifically. More importantly your “vast majority” claim being an ad populum argument the presumption is illogical. You’ve made the argument before, and it is still hollow.

    Those two Wikipedia paragraphs appear at first glance to be an accurate description. Conspiracy theorists are people who propagate conspiracy theories, exactly what you do, what the official narrative does, glaring inconsistencies and all. Those who best describe the conspiracy, and 9/11 most certainly was a conspiracy, with the available evidence are those closest to the truth. As victors are the ones who write the histories, simply winning an argument based on circular logic, deflecting from glaring inconsistencies, lying about or covering up evidence, denying witnesses when their testimony is corroborated their dignity to be heard, doesn’t prove the “victors” have the truth. It just means they control the narrative. The Nazis had the public’s imagination until their bullshit came crashing down as Germany was reduced to rubble. Orwell elaborated on this when in “1984” he explained when those who control the narrative force, dupe, cajole the public to accept their “final, most essential command,” “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears” they have won, if only temporarily.

    You’re on the wrong side of the argument, and don’t know it. Probably never will.

    Reply
    • With the emergence of your reference to the Nazis, I hereby note that we have an instance of Godwin’s law.

      To quote your own comment …

      You’re on the wrong side of the argument, and don’t know it. Probably never will.

      Reply
  3. You’ve come out of the shadows! Good show, old man.

    Is it credible? Let’s see if that’s even the right question to ask.

    Not having any training in engineering I’m the first to admit not having the technical expertise to critically evaluate the Newtonsbit reply to Ross. I haven’t looked at the chronology of correspondence to see whether Ross at any time responded to the technical arguments put to him in your link so I can’t comment on how or if that apparently heated technical debate progressed or what its outcome was. I know for a fact having a robust debate on technical issues which bear such weighty importance is exactly what the 9/11 Truth community has been asking for since they started examining the official “science.” You, on the other hand, have done nothing to advance a robust debate on the technical issues or resolve the inconsistencies in the official narrative. You have, in this blog post AND in this reply to me, continued with the same blind motivation of not presenting scientific findings of fact arrived at through experts arguing their positions but with a lazy “rinse and repeat” logic that assumes everything anyone who agrees with your bias is infallible, and who disagrees with your bias is rubbish, their reputations trash, their credentials and expertise beneath contempt. Apparently how science is conducted doesn’t have much meaning to you.

    Bazant proves nothing in his papers. He theorizes and can’t make definitive conclusions. His theories are based on assumptions he can’t provide empirical evidence for. If I recall correctly at one point he declares in trying to describe how progressive collapse continued after the first few moments of one of the towers, “the dust and smoke obscured further observation.” What does that prove? Of course his assumptions will be challenged on technical grounds. I suspect I could make the same arguments about Newtonsbit reply to Ross; empirical evidence is lacking for an unequivocal conclusion, all other concerns given the weight they deserve, i.e. length of time fires burned, speed at which each tower disintegrated in spite of different damage profiles, experiences and observations of people in and outside the buildings just before failure occurred.

    You might say Ross suffers from the same lack of empirical evidence to reach a conclusion, but I’m quite certain Ross acknowledges where Bazant and others likely don’t, the short burn times and lack of intensity of the fires on a steel infrastructure (based on NIST findings,) the fact two buildings with different damage profiles and different initial responses to the damage disintegrate under a single model having no empirical support for the model, the observations of eyewitnesses in and out of the buildings, to list a few intervening considerations. Ross and Bazant were undoubtedly starting from different assumptions in their analysis.

    Any number of the structural engineers that I’ve listed here, all credentialed experts with years of experience, if robust debate had been allowed in the years since 2001 might have resolved the inconsistencies that you ignore and that still simmer in that community of experts. The philosophy of scientific inquiry is robust in spite of folks like you working against it, in spite of an active cover up, in spite of a prohibition on debate of this nature. Political expedience demands robust debate about unanswered questions is unwelcome, and you agree working to that end. That was the entire motivation behind you disparaging the Europhysics News article. The issues discussed are verboten and must not under any circumstances be discussed or debated.

    I have called you lazy in your approach. Your reply, offering a distorted view of a debate of technical issues likely outside of your own area of expertise (correct me if I’m overstepping here), doesn’t address any of the most grievous sins in what you have to say about 9/11 but in fact proves my point that you don’t welcome a scientific challenge to your biases. You instead disparage the credibility of those making the challenge. You disparage the reputations of every person I’ve listed here who disagrees with your assessment and bias about these events.

    So is the question, “Is it credible?” the right question? You are in no position to prove it is or isn’t. Your bias disqualifies you from passing judgement. You have your opinions, but the facts don’t support your conclusions. It’s true, nothing stands a good hard look. So if one wants to influence perceived conclusions and has something to hide, make sure a good hard look never really takes place. THAT is what sweeping the inconsistencies under the rug is all about, Dave.

    Reply
    • Credible rebuttal to a rebuttal by somebody pointing out that Ross is wrong with actual evidence – None.

      Number of personal attacks against myself – Lots, I’ll let all that slide and just roll my eyes.

      If your experts have anything more than a personal opinion, then why don’t they publish evidence within a credible and appropriate journal. They never do, and so every credible engineering publication is part of some grand conspiracy?

      What you are dishing up is a conspiracy theory and that is the opinion of the vast majority of subject matter experts.

      To quote the Wikipedia article that discusses 9/11 Truth in detail …

      “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The group disputes the consensus that Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, crashed them into the Pentagon and the original World Trade Center Twin Towers, where the crashes led to their collapse. The primary focus is on missed information that they allege is not adequately explained in the official NIST report, such as the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. They suggest a cover-up and, at the least, complicity by insiders.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

      They analyze evidence from the attacks, discuss different theories about how the attacks happened and call for a new investigation into the attacks.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Some of the organizations assert that there is evidence that individuals within the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks. Motives suggested by the movement include the use of the attacks as a pretext to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to create opportunities to curtail American civil liberties.[2][16] Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering.[17]”

      Let me guess … that’s also a “biased” article that is itself “pseudoscientific” and/or part of some grand conspiracy against “truth”… right?

      Reply
  4. Dave writes in this posting: “some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.”

    Well, yes, but “exploited…?” How about engaged scientific principles in an effort to illicit the mechanism for destruction of the buildings plane strike, fire, and gravity are incapable of explaining? He mentions this in relation to articles written by an accomplished structural engineer, Z.K.P. Bažant, whose work, and similar work, has been refuted by equally accomplished structural engineers, physicists, architects. Dave disqualifies the opposing voices NOT with a discussion supporting Bažant’s work but by disparaging the other experts as non-experts. This is dishonest and unscientific, and unfortunately the basis for most of what this blog post above does, disparage anyone who disagrees with Dave’s biases with specious arguments that don’t support his chosen experts specific arguments or refute the arguments of those he disparages. Please, Dave, it behooves you to be more honest about this in these yearly homilies.

    From a comment posted on another thread Dave published on 9/11 referencing a legitimate discussion between Bažant and a structural engineer, Gordon Ross, about Bažant’s limited analysis:

    “Experts such as Greening, Bažant, Garcia and several others have made efforts to support the official conspiracy theory. But in every case the counter-factual arguments made by equally top quality physicists, architects, structural engineers ONLY takes place outside of official journals because the politics of these events necessitate silencing any and all opposition that casts doubts on the official narrative protecting the Bush admin accomplices, and what has become the dominant driving theory behind American foreign policy regarding extremist Islamic ideology for the last 17 years.

    Bažant’s theories have been credibly challenged by structural engineer Gordon Ross.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

    (Please if you choose to argue that the Journal of 911 Studies isn’t a credible source of information, as Dave is wont to do WITHOUT actually addressing the arguments any the authors there make, and in this case which Ross makes in his response to Bažant, realize that doing so doesn’t support Bažants theories or dispute Ross’s. If that is how you want to respond — with a specious argument that dodges the actual discussion between two notable experts — you aren’t worth debating in this forum, imho. So, please, stick to the expert’s arguments if you want to respond.)”

    Dave in today’s posting once again attempts misplaced pedagogy to disparage alternatives to his favorite bias about 9/11saying people resort to “conspiracy thinking because it meets an emotional need.” Here are some experts with highly esteemed careers that approach the issues Dave disparages because of their expertise, not as an emotional crutch. Again from comments I made on another of Dave’s threads:

    “Dave asks: “So why do such beliefs take root and flourish within human minds?” And then quotes a couple of psychologists to bolster his own particular (peculiar) bias about those who cannot accept the official conspiracy theories to give this bias a veneer of scientific respectability. Sorry, Dave, but I call bull shit, deep and broad.

    There is perhaps a psychological weakness that compels someone to demean and relegate noted academics, structural engineers, professional physicists, architects, literally a thousand other professional people in a range of professions from research scientist to head of state to intelligence officials to international finance to commercial pilot, law enforcement, government… to demean and relegate these highly capable people to be hapless slaves to their emotions unable to resist the lure of ideas outside an official orthodoxy deliberately promulgated complete with gaping holes a mile wide.

    Here are a few minds immune to the weaknesses Dave requires to uphold his silly denial of the science behind why so much of the official conspiracy as described by the Bush Administration, is nonsensical. That regime took the liberties afforded them by these shock and awe events and fashioned two wars, both arguably illegal under international law, extending the battlefield to encompass the entire planet, a torture regime, a domestic surveillance system that makes the East German Stazi look like middle schoolers spying on their classmates… just to name a few of the consequences that flowed directly from the events of 9/11.

    David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.

    Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999.

    Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics – Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist. Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter. Recipient of NASA’s Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award. 33-year NASA career. “Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations.”

    Robert H. Waser, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Retired Research and Development Engineer, U.S. Naval Ordinance Lab. 33 year career, of which 15 years were as Chief Engineer of the laboratory’s wind tunnel complex, which includes the world’s largest hypervelocity wind tunnel. “The ‘official’ 9/11 story seems to violate laws of physics and engineering analysis, specifically with respect to the collapse speed and the temperatures of molten iron. The only explanation that seems to be in accordance with all observations is controlled demolition.”

    George M. Campbell, PhD – Retired Research Scientist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, specializing in plutonium chemistry 1963 – 1991. “Pictures of collapse are not consistent with a burning building. I believe that someone is covering up the facts for some reason.”

    Raymond L. McGovern – 27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. Responsible for preparing and presenting the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole ‘war on terror’ was based on a prior deception.”

    William Christison (1928 – 2010) – Joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world. “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. …

    An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. …

    The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive.”

    Michael Scheuer, PhD – Former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit (aka Alec Station), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorism Center 1996 – 1999. Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden unit, September 2001 to November 2004. 22-year CIA career. Currently author, political analyst and media commentator. Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University. “Judge Napolitano: Was the 9/11 Commission report a whitewash as Colonel Shaffer says and as one of the 9/11 Commissioners to whom he spoke, and you heard him talk about this person, pretty much agrees?

    Michael Scheuer: It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom, Judge…”

    Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 – 1984, commanding 15,000 intelligence and security personnel. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”

    Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. “Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise—including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots—have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

    They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

    Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. “In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. …

    The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …”

    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. …

    There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …

    I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

    The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter.”

    Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. “Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems.

    All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”

    Jonathan H. Cole, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, States of Connecticut, Florida, and New Hampshire. Over 28 years experience in civil engineering and construction management, including building, bridge, utility and infrastructure design. “There is so much evidence that has yet to be ‘debunked’ or explained by the ‘official story’.

    The initial antenna drop in WTC 1 before the perimeter walls drop, accelerating into the path of most resistance, the concrete dust analysis and energy it took to make it, why the corners of the towers did not collapse at the same rate as the floors, the cut up core columns at ground zero, the lack of any photographic evidence whatsoever of any ‘pancaked’ floors, the time it took to collapse, the energy needed to throw steel hundreds of feet, the squibs well below the collapse wave, and of course the collapse of WTC 7.

    Until such time that all this can be clearly explained without the use of explosives, I will throw my lot with fundamental laws of physics rather then the ‘official story’ which defies those laws.”

    Christopher Hahn, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Illinois. Mechanical Engineer with over 15 years of experience. “The collapses do not add up. Even with manipulated models, getting the results they have tried to show seems impossible.”

    I could list another thousand people who in their professional capacities have expressed serious doubts as to the explanation contained in the official conspiracy theory.”

    These profiles and comments by the experts can be found on http://patriotsquestion911.com.

    Dave, please think more deeply about what you are saying and try to get by your biases. It really does offend me to read some of the nonsensical things you write about this.

    Reply
    • Picks first item at top of long long list because I assume this is perhaps the best strongest bit of evidence.

      Bažant’s theories have been credibly challenged by structural engineer Gordon Ross.

      Is it credible?

      Nope, here is the rebuttal including all the actual calculations that clearly demonstrate that Ross is wrong – https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/newtonsbit

      Rinse and repeat and you will find the same again and again for everything on offer. Nothing withstands a good hard look.

      Reply
  5. I didn’t mention above how the youtube video continues after 01:20 to another nationally broadcast report, this one by Fox News, to not distract from the point in my first post. The report does however demonstrate how a photographer, one of the first to arrive at the hole in the ground in Shanksville, PA, did not see parts from a commercial aircraft at the gouged out crater the report centers around. Nobody did. No major aircraft parts were seen at the supposed crash site to substantiate the claim Flight 93 crashed intact into the ground.

    The official narrative is Flight 93 passengers charged the cockpit and fought with the alleged terrorists who commandeered the plane, crashing to the ground in the process of the fight. An heroic story certainly, re-enforced and bolstered with an imagined and dramatic cinematic re-enactment. Ignored in this narrative are local witnesses who did in fact find large aircraft parts and other detritus that would be found from a commercial passenger craft spread over a large area. This reporting in local press was vigorously denied by federal officials. As no evidence exists in the original reporting around a large hole in the ground that a commercial jet crashed, no large aircraft parts, no bodies, no luggage which always attend the wreckage of large commercial crashes, once again the public has been told to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears, this time in a more straightforward cover up as many local people did in fact discover evidence spread over a large geographic area covering some 8 miles. Disinformation, distraction and lies in this case apparently have worked to conceal the fact Flight 93 didn’t crash directly into the ground as the official narrative declares definitively, but was more likely shot out of the sky, parts of which caused the gouged earth the reporter reported on and as well as the wide ranging debris field. What I see is a glaring inconsistency in the officially sanctioned narrative. The movie and a memorial at the site memorialize the officially sanctioned narrative. The alternative narrative supported by witnesses and physical, though less available, evidence goes unexamined and largely completely out of sight of the public. A real X-files type conundrum.

    Reply
  6. At least you made a personal effort this year with your denial theories. As I recall, last year you chose to cut and paste other people’s unsubstantiated theories which fail, as they always do, to disprove the evidence the official conspiracy narrative is self contradictory and built on political expedience not a thorough scientific inquiry. Your approach denying science as it does sounds similar to our current public health conundrum with the COVID 19 crisis in both our countries. Wishful thinking in service to the respective political agendas of two proto-fascist leaders willing to lie rather than adhere to scientific public health methods the result being out of control spread of sickness and death. It’s been sad over the years to see you taken in by lazy denial of hard scientific fact and analysis, of hard observed evidence preserved in photos, videos, witness statements, in firsthand reporting on worldwide media networks, in the intelligence made available in the months before the attack. You are able to grasp the nuances of global warming science and faithfully report on the issue, but you fail to see the possibility of maligned nuance in political science, where many of the same public manipulation tactics using disinformation, deflection, lies that deny global warming have also made the politically expedient 9/11conspiracy theory affordable to lazy minds. That this nuance is hard for many to grasp helps explain why at this moment our countries, and many others, are taking such a dangerous turn toward fascism. Perhaps that is why I welcome these yearly chats, hope springs eternal you’ll grasp a clue about this eventually.

    My other posts on your site detail facts, such as NIST admitting to a correction regarding free fall acceleration of Building 7, a phenomenon not explained by asymmetric fire damage, stand by themselves. You have ignored replying directly to them for the most part, showing you are unwilling to confront the laziness in your approach, and ultimately unable to address the inconsistencies. This year will be no different I imagine but I still feel compelled to try.

    I will offer this year a clip of a reporter early on the scene at the Pentagon describing for the world audience that there is no evidence of a commercial jetliner having crashed. It wasn’t directly called “fake news” at the time; it was ignored and swept out of public consciousness because it is inconsistent with the politically expedient conspiracy theory propagated as part of the cover up. You won’t address it because it is a stark inconsistency that can only be explained by a narrative completely foreign to the official narrative. Like so many other facts, observable phenomena, details about the 9/11 attacks they are too hard to address. But, as they say, “there is a recording.” That difficulty IS hard to explain, exceedingly difficult I admit, but the difficulty is not sufficient to disqualify the inconsistency from consideration, as you and many others do. You claim to have “science,” offer none and vigorously hand wave away the things you can’t confront directly and explain.The many physical, observable inconsistencies are sufficient to call into question the entire official narrative.

    I don’t at all vouch for the entirety of this youtube posting. The relevant segment I point to is from a CNN network broadcast and starts at 00:37 and runs until 01:20.

    That this CNN report is difficult (possibly impossible) to find as a stand alone segment of an original broadcast is a curious thing one might be compelled to think is itself evidence inconvenient inconsistencies in the official narrative are not for public consumption or consideration. To date, no one has satisfactorily publicly explained the inconsistency. Instead the public has been given “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” In a cover up it is the conspirator’s “final, most essential command.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: