Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Coco Au Revoir | Today the Stranger Suggests »

Thursday, March 1, 2007

OK, 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists, Here You Go

posted by on March 1 at 10:25 AM

Below are the videos that are causing such a stir in the comments. But first, here’s Wonkette’s take on them. And here’s the BBC’s explanation for how it could have reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it happened (along with an explanation for how it then lost all original recordings of that day’s broadcast).

Plus, here’s the BBC’s attempt to look at the truth of various 9-11 conspiracy theories. And here’s the Popular Mechanics attempt to do the same.

And now, here are the videos. Go, uh, crazy…

RSS icon Comments

1
Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 10:44 AM
2

What explanation for this makes more sense to you:

1. A perfectly executed vast international conspiracy -- lead by Bush, Cheney and Rummy -- involving the CIA, news outlets worldwide, tens of thousands of employees at the towers, the pentagon, airline passangers, the airlines and presumably me after this post.

2. News outlets more suited in temperament and skill for coverage of celebrity hair cutting or death make many mistakes while covering the most surprising event in the last five decades.

I know where I'll place my bet...

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 10:45 AM
3

OK, I call bullshit on Phil.

Damnit, Eli, this is really unpleasant of you.

Posted by Fnarf | March 1, 2007 10:46 AM
4

There is a big danger is selectively reading -- picking and choosing what to listen to. Have you read 102 Minutes? The American Society for Civil Engineers' report?

For some of us, this isn't some abstract discussion. I call bullshit too.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 10:49 AM
5

So the debunkers have been debunked by the debunkees?

Occam is not pleased.

Posted by buffalo | March 1, 2007 10:54 AM
6

What #2 said - a straightforward application of Occam's Razor would suggest that the probability that a reporter made an embarrassingly obvious screwup far exceeds the probability that a conspiracy that apparently required the collusion of thousands of people has sucessfully stayed under wraps for more than five years.

Posted by tsm | March 1, 2007 10:55 AM
7

golob, for the sake of clarity, on whom are you calling bullshit? Phil or the Mainstream media or the CIA? (Maybe this is obvious but I have not read 102 Minutes)

Posted by Jude Fawley | March 1, 2007 10:55 AM
8

Here's my difficulty with the whole 911 conspiracy deal...

You have two camps. Camp "A" says that the official story is deeply flawed, that there are many unanswered questions. Camp A often tries to tie up all the loose ends into rather convulted, difficult-to-believe conspiracies.

Camp "B" essentially says "move away, folks, nothing to look at here". Camp B gets very bent out of shape when ANY part of the official story is questioned. Camp B seeks to squelch free speech, which is disturbing. Camp B's anger and paranoia involving any questioning should be a red flag.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 10:56 AM
9

Camp B gets very bent out of shape when ANY part of the official story is questioned. Camp B seeks to squelch free speech, which is disturbing. Camp B's anger and paranoia involving any questioning should be a red flag.

Puh-leeze. Saying "You're out of your mind" is not "squelching free speech", nor is it a sign of anger or paranoia. If anything, it's a sign of frustration when encountering those who seemingly demonstrate a bias for convoluted, poorly supported explanations for events over comparatively well-supported simpler ones. The 9/11 conspiracy folks are kind of like Holocaust deniers - they find some small point that may not be well explained or understood and say "Aha! This proves the whole thing is a Big Lie!"

Posted by tsm | March 1, 2007 11:03 AM
10

From the morning news post:
"golob, out of curiosity, which collapse theory are you referring to?"

The only one that has any factual basis: The towers collapsed due to heat-induced weakening of the load-bearing floor trusses followed by the crumpling of the already damaged exterior scaffolding and interior support towers.

The WTC 1 and 2 building were quite unusual for high-rises. In most, the exterior of the building serves little or no load-bearing purpose. It is there mostly for decoration. In the WTC towers, all of the wind loads and a significant amount of the gravity loads were carried by the exterior of the building. Each floor was actually a truss, transferring lateral loads to the center support columns. In essence the sides of the building leaned on the center core through the floors (and vice versa).

When the planes struck, some of the floor trusses at the top of the building were bathed in burning jet fuel. Steel is really strong until it is heated. As the superfire heated the steel in the floors, they began to weaken and deform (as well documented in multiple 911 calls from people stranded above or below those floors in both towers.)

Without these trusses, the building was basically like standing on an empty soda can. The sides and central support columns were already partially deformed by the initial impact. As the floor trusses weakened, the sides and center supports of the building crumpled just like the soda can does.

The potential energy of the buildings was MASSIVE. The equation is mass * gravity * height. Energy on the scale of a small nuclear weapon. When a few floors crumpled, the potential energy of all the floors above the crumple zone was converted into massive amounts of kinetic energy -- far beyond what any building could support. Each floor was collapsed by the one above it until the whole tower was gone.

I'll give the engineers credit: The building did remarkably well, standing long enough to huge numbers of people to evacuate.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 11:03 AM
11

What golob said. I can't believe people are still trotting out these conspiracy theories. Oooh, a British reporter and a reporter from Seattle don't recognize WTC 7 in the background. What a scoop!

@BD: What about Camp C - people who smile and nod and listen to the conspiracy theory, then say, "Um, that sounds ridiculous. I don't believe that for one second."

Posted by him | March 1, 2007 11:03 AM
12

Whether we agree with the conspiracy theorists or not, polls have shown that around 30% to 35% of the public believe that the US government was involved or at least allowed 9/11 to happen.

It doesn't help matters that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the lying psychopaths in the Republican Party are still around and acting like the Gawd appointed members of the Fourth Reich.

We've all got to get involved by removing people like them from office and electing sane, competent politicians who can restore faith in the government.

Posted by Original Andrew | March 1, 2007 11:05 AM
13

Thank you, BD. I'm in camp A, although I'm not trying to tie any of these loose ends together. I just want to bring attention to them. The 9/11 Commission was headed by Condi Rice's best buddy, Phillip Zelikow for god's sake. It was a joke. It presupposed the story that we were all told within about an hour of the attack, and did not even consider others.

Golob, you're one of the more reasonable commenters around here, so I take your recommendation to heart. I just ordered a copy of 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. Please consider reading The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, which I'm about half way through reading now.

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 11:06 AM
14

The easiest conspiracy to pull off is the type Sy Hersh says the Cheney/Bush gang is doing right now in Lebanon: covert funding of Sunni terrorists.

If there was a conspiracy, that is the most likely scenario. With the elaborate conspiracies involving bombs and fake planes and shit like that, the likelihood of exposure is too high in case of unsuccessful plan execution

Posted by mirror | March 1, 2007 11:11 AM
15

TOO SOON!!!

Posted by Adam | March 1, 2007 11:12 AM
16

Phil --

102 Minutes is heartbreaking, but is the best report of what happened that I've ever encountered.

I'll at least skim the Omissions and Distortions book. I lost friends and acquaintances at both the WTC and Pentagon, so it is actually quite difficult for me to get through these books. Given the credibility of what I've read so far, I don't think my mind will be changed about what happened.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 11:14 AM
17

The important thing in any such discussion is to use terms such as "conspiracy theorist" or "tinfoil-hat crowd" as often as possible, and try to work in some version of the word "crazy" in there somewhere too. That way you can discuss the strange irregularities in the official story and transmitted wisdom surrounding that day without causing anybody to infer that you are refuting those narratives.

It is also important that all parties on every side of this debate pretend they have all the facts and that there are no missing pieces in their version of events whatsoever, or if there are then they are unimportant ones. Any other stance projects weakness.

Following these guidelines, we can assure that any attempt to find the truth is conducted by self-interested parties looking for evidence to support what they think they already know and ignoring anything that seems to contradict that version of events. If everybody starts out with a closed mind, there's virtually no chance anybody will end up believing something they didn't intend to. It's a win/win!

Posted by flamingbanjo | March 1, 2007 11:19 AM
18

Often times when I see people confront the conspiracy theories, they get caught up in the ineptitude of the administration and cry impossible. Don't think about bad guys first.

How come two 110-story buildings turned to dust because they were struck by airplanes? They didn't just collapse. They disintegrated. How is this possible? What happened to the vertical steel cores of the buildings. I'll buy the pancake theory if there was some accounting for the record-player spindle that should be there. If these buildings were being demolished could the job have been done any neater than the way they came down? Sure, but not much. Right?

Posted by Gugh | March 1, 2007 11:20 AM
19

Is Eli going to weigh in on this? Or is he just a catalyst?

How about a Stranger poll?

Are 911 conspiracy theorists mostly Democrat or Republican?

Are those that accept the official story mostly Democrat or Republican?

It might be interesting to see the results.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 11:22 AM
20

All I know is that Bush invaded Argentina after Japan attacked us. Or was it Iraq after Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia attacked us.

One of the two.

Meanwhile, we're still stuck in a cycle of lies coming from the Red House and the Liar-in-Chief.

But was it a conspiracy? Nah.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 1, 2007 11:23 AM
21

Gugh, please tell me you've at least heard of the consensus I summarized @10. What don't you believe? What evidence do you have for not believing it?

I loathe the Bush administration, but these conspiracy theories are so ridiculous and irrational that spouting them is helpful to those incompetent enough to allow this to happen.

"Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" is reality. If there was any "conspiracy" it was one of ignorance, of idiocy, of laziness, of petty political rivalries. The reality is far more disturbing than any controlled demolition fantasy.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 11:27 AM
22

golob,

I'm familiar with the theory you've described. What it doesn't explain are:

1) What happened to the steel core of the building? If the trusses had failed, the core would have been left. There is no explanation in any of the government reports for what happened to the core.

2) How could it possibly fall at near-freefall speed? The buildings collapsed in around 10-15 seconds. This would imply that each floor's collapse added little to no additional resistance.

3) The collapses were completely symmetrical. This is highly improbable given that each truss on each floor would have had to fail simultaneously.

4) The concrete in the buildings was completely pulverized into dust. This just does not happen in the type of progressive collapse that you are describing. It is indicative of explosive energy. The total amount of potential energy in the building would not have been sufficient to accomplish this.

5) Molten steel was found under both building sites weeks after the collapses. The fires in the buildings could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel (even NIST agrees on this).


There's more, but I'll leave it at this for now.

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 11:35 AM
23

Golob, so leave the ideas of controlled demolition behind. You don't have to accept them to accept the idea that this attack could have been avoided and was not. Or that it fits perfectly with the plans laid out by the Project for the New American Century, and that what we've seen since is exactly what PNAC (members include: Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad) have very publicly stated that they intended to do.

Why is everyone so hell-bent on believing these people who keep lying to us?

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 11:39 AM
24

It's exactly like arguing with creationists. I don't blame Fnarf for having no patience. 9/11 conspiracists have already made up their minds and by god the facts will NOT get in the way.

Most of the 9/11 stuff is kooky. Take the Pentagon for instance: they maintain that no plane hit the Pentagon, despite all the plane debris. It was a missile!

Of course, they don't explain where Flight 77 and its passengers went. Or why the Conspiracy would fire a missile at the Pentagon and then disappear a plane and all its passengers instead of, you know, simply taking the plane and ramming it into the Pentagon. What does a missile accomplish that a plane wouldn't?

Rampant stupidity for rampant stupidity's sake abound in the world of 9/11 conspiracies.

If you're bent on the "Bush administration planned 9/11" angle, there are much much more plausible theories ranging from "they knew about the attack and did nothing" to "they helped Islamic terrorists plan the attacks". Lots of fertile ground and questions unanswered there.

But, nooooo, the 9/11 kooks focus on elaborate theories involving controlled demolitions and swapping planes with missiles and tens of thousands of people across the United States knowing the detailed schedule for the attacks.

These deluded fools so blatantly undermine the legitimate questions about 9/11 that one has to wonder if the Bush administration is behind it....

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 11:48 AM
25

Golob, so leave the ideas of controlled demolition behind. You don't have to accept them to accept the idea that this attack could have been avoided and was not.

Except that the idea that this attack could have been avoided and was not has squat to do with the "evidence" we're talking about here.

Seriously, what is the claim here? What on earth does a BBC reporter's premature declaration of a building collapse have to do with this? Is the theory supposed to be that authorities not only didn't see the attack coming, but whispered to international media figures that it was going to happen? And that said media, rather than reporting on the enormous scoop of the US government passively plotting to kill its own citizens, opted to report on the collapse instead? And keep mum for years?

If you're not claiming this, how did she find out, and what does her mistake have to do with ANY of these "theories"?

Ridiculous.

Posted by tsm | March 1, 2007 11:49 AM
26

correction: "not only didn't see the attack coming" should be "not only saw the attack coming"

Posted by tsm | March 1, 2007 11:49 AM
27

Bucky --

You should just read the reports yourself -- every one of your questions is addressed in detail in either the original report or follow-ups. I doubt I could convince you by paraphrasing them here. After reading these reports in detail AND talking to multiple structural and civil engineers, I'm convinced by the consensus.

I should move on at this point, but here are my short responses for any third parties that are reading:

1. The steel core was heavily damaged after the initial impact. Whatever remained was also crushed under the massive amount of kinetic energy.

2. You made my point: "near free fall" is not free-fall. Kinetic forces are far more difficult to resist than static forces. The remaining structure in the building put up some resistance that is accounted for in your "near".

3. It wasn't quite symmetrical. Look at video of the South tower in particular. There is a definite lean. This was a classical positive feedback loop resulting in a catastrophic collapse that often appears to be symmetrical when it isn't.

4. You are flat out wrong here. The energy involved in this collapse was truly vast. Again, there are multiple engineering reports that have calculated these numbers. The energy was more than enough to pulverize concrete.

5. The fires were not hot enough to melt steel, just hot enough to change young's modulus (make the steel less stiff) and initiate the collapse. The kinetic energy released was partially resisted by the remaining structure of the building. This resistance produced heat -- enough heat to melt steel.

I really do not want to get in a tit-for-tat on the Stranger's blog's comments on the finer points of structural engineering, material science and the physics of collapsing structures. There are many many many sources on the internet that can do a better job than I ever could.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 11:51 AM
28

I really do not want to get in a tit-for-tat on the Stranger's blog's comments on the finer points of structural engineering, material science and the physics of collapsing structures

Then don't do so.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 11:54 AM
29

Surprise surprise. After getting pwned on controlled demolitions, Phil attempts to change the subject. But I don't think he'll be dissuaded from spouting his discredited theories in the future.

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 11:54 AM
30

Aexia,

has Phil actually proposed a whole theory here? I haven't seen it. You're playing a game of misrepresentation. I question the sincerity of your previous post now.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 11:56 AM
31

tsm is right. We're way off-topic here.

So, does anyone think it's odd that the BBC says they lost all the tapes of their broadcast from a day of such historical significance, and that every time someone slaps a copy of the relevant (to this disucssion) part up on Google Video, it is promptly removed, and that Internet Archive's BBC archive for that day also disappeared?

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 11:57 AM
32

Aexia,

This is part of the problem. There are so many theories out there (many of them implausible or downright debunked already), and ANY questioning about 9/11 gets lumped into the same group. Some (many) of us are completely rational and would be happy with a logical, scientific explanation of the events.

Even if the administration knew about it in advance and did nothing, isn't this something that we should know about, and that they should answer to? Doesn't this amount to high treason?

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 11:58 AM
33

BD, you need only explore the sites Phil's linking to for all the kooky stuff.

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 12:03 PM
34

Bucky, that'd be great, but we've got morons like Phil pissing in the swimming pool.

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 12:05 PM
35

Aexia, do you think the Project for the New American Century is kooky?

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 12:08 PM
36

Aexia,

what does that have to do with Phil proposing a theory? He hasn't done so, that I've seen.

He's brought up issues both scientific and political. But hasn't weaved together a theory for all of us here to discredit.

Once again, I question your sincerity.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 12:09 PM
37

I gotta say I don't by this theory working, if only for reasons already stated above.

That is not to say I don't believe in conspiracy theories... mine being that The Bush Administration looked the other way when faced with glaring intel (Found HERE and HERE) in order to attack Iraq and errode American's personal freedoms. (Wouldn't be the first time a leader has done this- Hitler and the Reichstag fire come to mind. For me the only debate is whether this was negligence or an act of treason. In either case it baffles the mind that they're still in power.

Posted by Colin | March 1, 2007 12:14 PM
38

golob,

Thanks for your measured responses. At the risk of taking this far further than others reading would like to go, I'll respond here as well:

1) The building was designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707. The differences between a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 767 can be found here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Saying that the core was "heavily damaged" may be disingenuous. Even if the core had been almost completely severed at the point of impact, the remaining core would have been perfectly fine.

2) If the core is taken out of the picutre, your comments about free fall might make sense, but the fact that the strongest part of the building was still mostly intact doesn't jive. Which leads me to #3:

3) Right. The top of Tower 2 starts to shear off to the side. What should have happened is that it follow the path of least resistance and fall, mostly intact, to the ground. Instead it disintegrated in midair, following the path of most resistance.

Additionally, if the steel in the core had been weakened to the point of collapse, it is highly unlikely that it would have collapsed straight down. Again, why would it follow the path of most resisteace? I would like to see this recreated with real-world models.

4/5) I don't have the numbers onhand to cite, so I'll leave the question of potential energy for now. I will say that with points 4 and 5 you're stating that the potential energy in the buildings was enough to sustain complete, symmetrical, progressive collapses, pulverize all the concrete into dust and melt enough steel that there was a substantial amount of molten steel found weeks later.

I would also be interested in any previous examples of progressive collapse that involve such utter pulverization of concrete. How could there be little to no macroscopic chunks of concrete left?

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 12:24 PM
39

If the Bush administration orchestrated this to justify a war on terra and the war on Iraq, wouldn't they set it up to look like Iraqis or Saddam were involved?

Posted by keshmeshi | March 1, 2007 12:27 PM
40

mine being that The Bush Administration looked the other way when faced with glaring intel (Found HERE and HERE) in order to attack Iraq and errode American's personal freedoms.

See, but that's not just a crackpot theory. There's actual evidence to support that - e.g. Richard Clarke's testimony.

Posted by tsm | March 1, 2007 12:30 PM
41

In the WTC towers...the sides of the building leaned on the center core through the floors (and vice versa)...Without these trusses, the building was basically like standing on an empty soda can. The sides and central support columns were already partially deformed by the initial impact. As the floor trusses weakened, the sides and center supports of the building crumpled just like the soda can does...The building did remarkably well, standing long enough to huge numbers of people to evacuate.

This proves it! The two towers were deliberately constructed back in the 60s so that, in 2001, when hit by planes, the buildings would collapse, and in exactly the right way to minimize casualties. By God, our government is sinister!

Posted by keshmeshi | March 1, 2007 12:33 PM
42

I have not totally closed the door on there being a conspiracy, partly because I truly believe the people in charge of the country on 9/11 (which doesn't include Bush, by the way) were and are capable of extreme evil in the name of "national security." Also, I think at least a couple of the theories I've heard are at least vaguely credible, and shouldn't just be dismissed because of the enormity of the lie ("the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" --Josef Goebbels)

But mostly -- and I think this is true for the majority of that 35% or whatever it is that believes something fishy happened on 9/11 -- I just don't want to believe that our government, intelligence and security apparatus is that incompetent.

While many here have said it's hard to believe in all these co-conspirators somehow coordinating their efforts and then keeping a lid on it for 5 1/2 years, I have almost a harder time believing our national defense structure was so badly comprimised, our reaction time so unbelievably slow and our foresight so completely absent. It's really a breathtaking level of failure we're talking about here. A disturbing level, I should say.

It's not surprising that people are hoping our leaders aren't this dangerously, murderously, world-threateningly incompetent.

Posted by Matthew | March 1, 2007 12:40 PM
43

@41. Heh.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 12:42 PM
44

keshmeshi-

Where have you been? The false conclusion that Saddam was linked to Osama bin Laden was a main selling point for the War in Iraq. In fact, as recent as September, 46% of Americans still believed there was a link (found HERE) even though it has been proven false.

Posted by Colin | March 1, 2007 12:44 PM
45

The false conclusion that Saddam was linked to Osama bin Laden was a main selling point for the War in Iraq. In fact, as recent as September, 46% of Americans still believed there was a link (found HERE) even though it has been proven false.

Why didn't they just get *actual* Iraqis to hijack the planes? It would've made the whole case for invading Iraq much much more convincing and they needn't have bothered with any of the WMD nonsense.

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 1:12 PM
46

Quick response to #1 @38:

The towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 that was trying to AVOID hitting the buildings, i.e. had powered down its engines, and probably dumped its fuel. They were never intended to withstand the impact of a 767 (or a 707) at full throttle with full fuel tanks, nor was this possibility even studied in the design of the buildings.

BIG difference.

Posted by Tone | March 1, 2007 1:17 PM
47

I'm with Fnarf @ 3. Encouraging this kind of thread is not a great idea.

Posted by Gabriel | March 1, 2007 1:17 PM
48

Eli, why did you change your post from this:

And here's the BBC's explanation for how it could have reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it happened (and then lost all original recordings of that day's broadcast).

to this:

And here's the BBC's explanation for how it could have reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it happened (along with an explanation for how it then lost all original recordings of that day's broadcast).

When in reality, the BBC offered no explanation of how they lost the tapes, other than to say it was due to "cock-up, not conspiracy"?

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 1:21 PM
49

I'm with Gabriel.

Questioning should be silenced. Discussion needs to end.

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 1:23 PM
50

Ok, so I have read all these damn comments, and I will say this:


@Bucky: As stated on ALL engineering reports about the fall of the towers, the biggest effect on the towers was the MASSIVE amount of jet fuel. The planes they picked were scheduled for cross-country flights and were flown into the towers with almost all that fuel. The reason the towers stood as long as they did was because they were built to withstand, as you said, a plane crashing into it. They just weren't built to stand a plane with a shit ton of jet fuel. Which leads me to this.....

What no one has said here is how original the whole "crash planes full of people into shit" idea was. All other hijackings of planes ended in a list of demands, some dead people (not the entire plane), and dead hijackers. Yes, the administration could have done more to stop this, but honestly there is no precedent, not even close!, that you can compare it to. As such, I am sure that someone working for BBC mis-heard a conversation about how the towers 'might' collapse, and fucked up the telepromter/headset (whatever was feeding info into the reporter) so that the reporter said the wrong thing. That seems reasonable to me. And missing tapes? How many people work in an office and have really important shit accidentally shredded or copied over by some new hire or temp?


@ Asking for more detailed info on the towers: The problem is that you can't go crashing planes into other towers just to prove how all the jet fuel created the situation that Golob spelled out above. We can't re-create that situation, expect with formulas and engineering knowledge. I am sorry, but I will believe engineers and their findings before I will believe somone who says that "well, concrete would not look like that, parts of the building are missing, blah, blah, blah. HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW? HAS THIS EVER, IN HUMAN HISTORY, HAPPENED?


Oh I didnt think so. We can talk about demolitions all you want, but the fact remains that if there was credible engineering evidence, from a credible engineer/materials analyst, we would have heard about it. So are all engineers in the world part of the conspiricy too? How did Bush manage that????

Also, @ Golob: Thanks for posting some great info in the comments. I am very sorry that you lost friends in this horrible tradgy. My deepest condolences.

Posted by Monique | March 1, 2007 1:29 PM
51

Ok, so I have read all these damn comments, and I will say this

Smells like somebody's in Camp B!

Thanks for setting this all straight, Monique. Move along now, nothing to see here!

Posted by BD | March 1, 2007 1:33 PM
52

Actually, there had been scenarios worked out involving the possibility of people flying planes into buildings prior to 9-11, so it wasn't totally unheard of.

But what about those planes? For all we know, they had extra explosives of flammables in their cargo hold. Even today we don't screen for that shit.

The best conspiracies are the ones were few people know about them, and most of them die with it the consipiracy. There's no need to get fancy about it.

Posted by Not a tinfoil hat, but not a sheep either... | March 1, 2007 1:39 PM
53

Phil and BD summarized:

"If you don't buy our fact-challenged conspiracy theories, it means you don't want ANY questions asked about 9/11 and that you're a sheep. Also, LOOK OVER THERE!"

Posted by Aexia | March 1, 2007 1:57 PM
54

@Monique

Are you saying that you trust the mainstream media to report all relevant information in a timely and unbiased fashion?

FEMA's report clearly states that most of the jet fuel burned off on impact. It was the content of the buildings that provided most of the fuel for any fires that were present.


@Tone

Please provide references for your claims. Only one of the towers was hit head on. I'm skeptical that any engineer would design a building to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner and not take fuel and velocity into account. Terrorism and accidental collision (not knowing you're going to crash, for whatever reason) are certainly plausible scenarios.


In addition, we have barely discussed the subject of this news item, WTC7.

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 2:30 PM
55
As stated on ALL engineering reports about the fall of the towers, the biggest effect on the towers was the MASSIVE amount of jet fuel. The planes they picked were scheduled for cross-country flights and were flown into the towers with almost all that fuel.

Quoting FEMA403 - Executive Summary (PDF):

The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either ot have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minute sof the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both the buildings.
Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 2:36 PM
56

You're right, it's time we look at the truth behind these great conspiracies, starting right over here:

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

Yep, it's Star Wars as a conspiracy theory. Or, to quote a friend of mine:

"Any sufficiently developed incompetence is indistinguishable from conspiracy."

Posted by Chris B | March 1, 2007 2:44 PM
57

Chris B,

Ok, so instead of actually knowing for sure that it was due to incompetence you would rather assume/hope that it was incompetence and let those responsible in our government (either by being incompetent, letting it happen or making it happen) not only get away with it but continue to serve?

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 2:51 PM
58

Where have you been? The false conclusion that Saddam was linked to Osama bin Laden was a main selling point for the War in Iraq. In fact, as recent as September, 46% of Americans still believed there was a link (found HERE) even though it has been proven false

Yeah, duh. That was my point. If 9/11 was orchestrated, why load the planes with Saudis? If there had been a single Iraqi on any one of those planes, selling the war would have been even easier. Also, if the government managed to pull this kind of massive conspiracy off, why weren't they able to manufacture a better paper trail between Saddam and Osama?

Posted by keshmeshi | March 1, 2007 2:51 PM
59

Yeah, duh. That was my point. If 9/11 was orchestrated, why load the planes with Saudis? If there had been a single Iraqi on any one of those planes, selling the war would have been even easier. Also, if the government managed to pull this kind of massive conspiracy off, why weren't they able to manufacture a better paper trail between Saddam and Osama?

Probably because it would have been far too obvious and transparent, especially since any such documentation would have been elevated to the forefront of international consciousness. As it was, Bush and co merely suggested that there was a link, mentioned the two together a lot, you get the drift...

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 3:04 PM
60

Phil - you forgot the next few sentences where it said the heat output from the fires was sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

bucky - the concrete wasn't all completely pulverized. I was there two months after and I still saw chunks of concrete lying around that had gone flying after the collapse.

As to the topic, 2 things:
1. pre-reporting collapse: it was mayhem that day, if anyone remembers. Lots of reports of things that might have happened, and stories reported when received, with no time for vetting. I remember all the stations saying that WTC 7 was evacuated because it was going to collapse. So some said it had collapsed. Easy answer: they f'd up. Still can't see any motivation for 2 reporters to try some lame cover-up (when WTC 7 is in the background).

As for pulling the vids off Google. BBC and CNN have copyrights on those videos. Google is liable for violating those copyrights if they left them up there. BBC & CNN may have asked Google to pull them down. Why? Well, why would they want video posted where their reporters look like idiots, saying WTC 7 had collapsed when it was still standing? Makes them look bad. Not a conspiracy by BBC and/or CNN.

I'm Camp C, btw, not Camp B.

Posted by him | March 1, 2007 3:10 PM
61
Phil - you forgot the next few sentences where it said the heat output from the fires was sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

I didn't forget it so much as felt it was irrelevant. I was refuting the OP's assertion that "As stated on ALL engineering reports about the fall of the towers, the biggest effect on the towers was the MASSIVE amount of jet fuel."

In fact, the FEMA report says that a significant portion of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs. It goes on to say that the remaining fuel -- that which did not burn off within a few minutes of impact -- flowed down into the building, igniting the building's contents (what, fire-resisitant carpet, office furniture, paper, and lots of concrete?) on several floors, which weakened the steel, and then -BAM- led to global collapse.

That the buildings' designers considered a jet hitting it but not the fuel that jet would carry is ridiculous.

Posted by Phil | March 1, 2007 3:35 PM
62

Conspiracy theories about an orchestrated 9/11 conspiracy are bunk, IMHO. However, if you haven't read about the Israeli "art student" mystery, you really should.

As Fox News (a generally pro-Israel outfit) reported, there was an attempt by more than 140 Israeli nationals claiming to be art students to "sell art" to 36 DEA & FBI offices. One of the houses these people had rented was down the street from Mohammed Atta's house.

That has never been explained to my satisfaction. We just deported them all, and nothing came of it.

Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein | March 1, 2007 3:46 PM
63

Oh, sorry, I meant the collapse of WTC7, not the BBC stuff.

It's secondary to me if the BBC is complicit in a conspiracy or if they were simply reporting some information that was leaked too early. It does raise a lot of questions about who knew in advance and how.

I'm not saying that there were no macroscopic chunks of concrete (my mistake if I stated that earlier), simply that the amount of pulverization was uncharacteristic and unprecedented for the claimed progressive collapse. I think it's safe to say that most of the concrete was pulverized.

The full mass of each building had nothing to do with this. The pulverization and collapse occurred from the top down. Drop a building section as large as the top segment of WTC2 (above the impact) as far as you want-- I guarantee that it won't explode into fine dust, and definitely not from the top down.

Where is this magical weight crushing the floors below if most of the materials have already disintegrated into powder and are being suspended in the air?

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 3:57 PM
64

Emmanuel @ 62--

Thanks for the "art student" link, interesting reading.
I don't at all call bunk on 9/11 theories, but I do believe it diverts away from the IMPORTANT conspiracy that is being blogged about on JEWCY.

Posted by JEWCY | March 1, 2007 4:20 PM
65

Sorry for all the posts, but golob, when you refer to the ASCE report, do you mean the report issued by FEMA, who absorbed the efforts by the ASCE (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html)?

Posted by bucky | March 1, 2007 4:24 PM
66

Both that and the original reports found in the ASCE publications. There are many journal articles on the collapse worth reading.

I gotta move on.

Posted by golob | March 1, 2007 5:51 PM
67

Why no intercepts?...a historical perspective.

Robin Hordon checks in...

First, I have handled BOTH intercepts and hijackings in my ATC career, both occurred in Boston Center airspace. Here's a thumbnail that the public is yet to understand.

Givens:
1. There are/were TWO types of intercept protocols that need to be understood in order to get an idea about the military's failures to intercept and shoot down on 9/11/2001.

2. Pilots of interceptors have permission to shoot down aircraft, even a full jetliner, under certain circumstances WITHOUT needing presidential approval. An example would be a uncontrollable, perhaps crashing aircraft headed to a metropolitan area.

Historical background...

The original scramble and intercept protocol was developed BEFORE a rash of hijackings occurred in the 1970s. This scramble protocol was an IMMEDIATE and rushed scramble of pilots climbing into the fighters and the ensuing expedient and prioritized immediate take-off. This was because of two reasons.

One...
The high speed IMMEDIATE scramble was originally designed for the fastest possible departures to intercept incoming bombers from Russia, and in some instances, the possible shoot down of ICBMs on their descents into the atmosphere near their intended targets.

Two...
This "high speed" protocol was also used to provide assistance to civilian aircraft suffering "in-flight emergencies" such as complete loss of electrical supplies affecting their abilities to navigate to safety if there were cloudy conditions. This is the type of an intercept that I was involved in, and we DID save a lost aircraft by leading it through the clouds to a safe landing. I have a copy of my "Commendation", and a clear memory of the eyes and handshake that the pilot offered me and my brothers and sisters who also worked their asses off getting this airplane down without radio or any other systems working when he came by that afternoon to thank us for saving his life. In the above paragraph it is important to remember the words "in-flight emergency". Additionally its imprtant to remember that there was never any "approval" needed from the pentagon to get these fighters airbourne. These scrambles were always presumed to be needed immediately, and I think that I have made the points why in my above explanations.

Then, in the 1970s there began a rash of "hijackings" where aircraft were taken over either on the ground, in the air, or both and certain "demands" were made by the hijackers. These WERE NOT the "hijackings" like those that the American public has been conditioned to think of as a result of 9/11. These hijackings usually were "NON-in-flight emergency" situations where ransoms, prisoner swaps, or transportation out of the country to such places as Cuba were the objectives of the hijackers.

The key here is to understand the differences in the urgency and "speed" of responses needed to deal with these ongoing negotiations with the hijackers. Consequently, the hijacking protocol was designed so that the fighter-interceptors would remain UNKNOWN to the hijackers by sneaking up behind the airliners [with the help of ATCs such as myself], and then simply would follow, shadow or trail the flights. Often the captain of the airliner knew that the fighter-interceptors were there because there were special transponder codes and specific sets of radio communications that were used between ATC and the crew which were NOT known by the hijackers. It was quite "James Bond-ish" actually.

The HIJACK scramble protocol had little urgency and the fighters were never really given ATC "handling priority" such as the "priority" that we all give to emergency vehicles when they are on the way to a fire or an accident. I'm sure that its easy to remember situations when we all pull off to the side of the road allowing them expedient passage with an open road. This is an example of an IMMEDIATE emergency protocol that all us drivers participate in even if YOU do not know it.

Another difference between an "in-flight emergency" scramble protocol and a "hijacking" protocol is that the hijacking protocol needs approval and notification to the pentagon BEFORE the scramble is allowed off of the ground. This may seem wierd to many folks but there are suitable reasons for this. Some of it has to do with ongoing military aviation operations at the nation's Air Force bases where they did not want to disrupt all sorts of events with "emergency scrambles" when there was no real emergency. But more-so, the pentagon needed to set-up alerts and airbourne resources well ahead of the hijacked aircraft along its intended route of flight. Fighters have a very short range due to small fuel tanks and to follow a hijacked aircraft from, lets say, northern Maine to Cuba, there would have to be four sets of fighters replace each other all along the way. It was a fair challenge considering all that was, or might be happening. So, notification and approval of the pentagon was a reasonable idea. Also, there were instances where the hijacking occurred out over the noth Atlantic well out of radar coverage, and even well beyond interceptor's range of flight. So, in those circumstances, we would have fighters already in the air waiting for the hijacked aircraft to get near enough to the mainland to then be SECRETLY intercepted from behind. Therefore, pentagon "pre-approval-notification" seems quite logical.

So, to repeat, the main difference between the IMMEDIATE scramble and the HIJACK scramble was one of priority, timeliness, and most of all...the hijacking protocol needed pentagon permission to fly.

Further background on the hijacking protocol...

It was known that there was going to be "negotiating time" for the hijacking demands, and CONVERSELY, it was also known that there was NEVER any spare time for incoming bombers, or for getting to a civilian aircraft suffering an "in-flight emergency".

Therefore, the slower "hijacking" responses were not only accepted, but they were designed into the scrambles resulting in a more "laisse-fair" [sp]approach to scrambles.

Here is an important point to remember about "shoot-down" orders.
One...
CLEARLY...an interceptor pilot would not need pentagon or White House approval to shoot down a Russian bomber or missle. HOWEVER, should those hijacked aircraft have begun to descend down upon a large metropolitan area as though they would crash into it and should the interceptor pilots FAIL at taking control of the hijacked aircraft [which would have been done by pulling alongside and signalling the pilot to obey such commands from the interceptor pilot], then the interceptors would get permission to shoot them down from the pentagon. BUT...should the permission NOT have been received in time, the interceptors had the RESPONSIBILITY to make "on-the-spot" decisions to do what hey needed to do to save the greatest number of people and prevent massive damage on the ground. In other words, if the president, or the pentagon did NOT yet say OK, they could shoot it down if it were headed into the population of, lets say, Miami.

OK, if you all are still with me in this little explanation about scramables and the like, the next few paragraphs may create a need for another case of beer, or another wine cork to be popped. So, take leak, grab a drink...and settle in for some interesting moves by Rumsfeld.

So, from the 1970s on there were TWO scramble protocols, one fast-the "in-flight emergency" protocol, and one slow, the "hijack" protocol. This duality lasted until June of 2001 when Donald Rumsfeld's pentagon made a change linking the FAST protocol to the SLOW protocol. Consequently, this required ALL scrambles, "in-flight emergencies" suffered by civilan aircraft AND "hijacked aircraft", to be approved by the pentagon BEFORE they departed the ground. Did I mention that ALL scrambles had to be approved by Rummie's pentagon BEFORE they got off the ground? If not, I meant to say it! In other words, only the slower "hijack" protocol was to be used between the FAA and the military after June 2001...starting just three months before 9/11.

Now, when one does the homework and digs into the timing and sequence of events of 9/11/2001, and especially into the earliest parts of when the airliners went off course, [most noteably AA11 the first aircraft in trouble], and lost radio and radar contact, one can see how the slower "hijack" intercept protocols would affect the speed of the intercepts.

What NOBODY really understands about all of the flights that were "eventually hijacked" is that before the hijackings were discovered "formally" to have been hijacked, each airliner gave ALL the signs of aircraft suffering "in-flight emergencies". These aircarft should have been handled as "in-flight emergencies" and scrambled upon immediately. BUT, lo and behold, Rummie had to give the OK. HOWEVER, some REAL FAA air traffic controllers, their supervisors, and some renegade NORAD military types actually BROKE RUMMIE'S HIJACK SCRAMBLE PROTOCOLS getting the interceptors off the ground as soon as they did because the pentagon NEVER gave any permission to release the fighters until way too late.

Most folks have been led to believe that it was the FAA that was slow to respond. Both Dr. Griffin and I have inside testimony that the EXACT opposite is true...that there were appropriate calls made, at appropriate times, and to appropriate military facilities. Nobody "picked up the phone" at the pentagon to release the fighters...again, it was some mavericks in the military [NEADS] and the FAA who finally took charge and did what they ALWAYS USED TO DO WITH "IN_FLIGHT EMERGENCIES"...scarmble NOW! But it was too late...Rummie's "built-in delay" had had its affect.

And to wrap it all up, starting 9/12/2001, ALL scramble protocols were changed BACK to the IMMEDIATE "in-flight emergency" protocols.

To shorten all of the above:

before 1970...
...one high speed scramble protocol...

1970-June 2001...
...one high speed scramble protocol...
and
...one non-priority low speed "hijack" protocol needing pentagon approval...

June 2001-September 11, 2001...
...one non-priority low speed "hijack" protocol needing pentagon approval...

September 12, 2001-present...
...one high speed scramble protocol...

There are many, many more details some of which come from several FAA "insiders" and overlooked information that has been buried by the official 911 Commission report. For anyone interested in learning more about any of this, I suggest that you read Dr. Griffin's definitive book: "New Pearl Harbor" first, then his critique of the 911 Commission report: "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distrotions", and then look forward to his new book to be released this month: "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechnics and other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". Should you want a video touch, try 911Mysteries, Loose ChangeII and the first half of Alex Jone's "Terrorstorm" which will give you insight on historical "False Flag ops" all across the world. And there are many, many more credible DVDs. DO NOT...accept the "no plane theories" or the "weapons from space" theories as they are yet to pass any credible muster. Only look into credible authors, scientists and researchers.

Now, for those folks on this thread who have some troubles with the credibilty and dedication for those MILLIONS of us worldwide who are doing some heavy "lifting of the fog" surrounding the truth behind the events of 9/11/2001, I have this to say:

For the 68% of the folks who are NOT open to the concept of "911truthleadstoPEACE" and the developing information slowly rolling into the public ethos, you are riding upon ignorance, or fear, or disblief...or most likely on all three...

For the 32% of the folks in this country who are hard at the job of exposing this ROUGE GOVERNMENT, we are riding on deep, deep patriotism and are determined and are dedicated to get our democracy back...

Its just a matter of time before those numbers will swap. Keep an open mind...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Posted by Robin Hordon | March 1, 2007 7:36 PM
68

*Sigh!* Well, I guess we'll just have to wait for this item to fall below the page break, at which point Phil & Robin will be forced to find yet another virtual apple crate on another virtual street corner from which to shout their paranoid fantasies to an unlistening, uncaring public.

Good luck with that, fellas.

Posted by COMTE | March 1, 2007 8:27 PM
69

Oh, "my" "God", it's ROUGE "government". "We" Are "really" "In" TOURBLE "NOW", "people". Listen TO "Me".

It's spice aliens, I tell you. Cheney is one of the Lizard People.

Posted by Fnarf | March 2, 2007 8:57 AM
70

Fnarf --

Can't blame you for losing patience. Frankly, I had managed to get myself far too upset after all this crap. The skills of critical reasoning seem to be dying.

Thank god for the long tail....

Posted by golob | March 2, 2007 9:22 AM
71

I'm less than concerned about ROUGE governments than I am about MAUVE ones.

Posted by Aexia | March 2, 2007 1:08 PM
72

Or Puce.

Posted by COMTE | March 2, 2007 4:01 PM
73

The pentagon called in the strike on the CIA's offices in the WTC, so the CIA hit the pentagon with a missile. The CIA had enough info in advance to rig demolitions just in case a dirty bomb went off in Manhattan and the buildings were contaminated but not destroyed. When the planes hit the demo charges started going off at random, and when the top started to go they pulled the charges to implode the building.

Each agency was off the reservation, but not in collaboration with each other. The NSA, the Secret Service, the CIA, FBI, and defense: all had wildcards kept independent enough for plausable deniability, all had massive screw ups, all followed up with massive cover ups.

Posted by RainMonkey | March 2, 2007 11:50 PM
74

Golob, as a fan of critical reasoning, you should recognize the below assertion - particularly "far beyond what the building could support" - as a tautology:

"The potential energy of the buildings was MASSIVE. The equation is mass * gravity * height. Energy on the scale of a small nuclear weapon. When a few floors crumpled, the potential energy of all the floors above the crumple zone was converted into massive amounts of kinetic energy -- far beyond what any building could support. Each floor was collapsed by the one above it until the whole tower was gone."

The massiveness of the building means that the lower portion offered massive resistance to the upper portion. Even if one or more floors miraculously disappeared, uniformly and instantaneously, which is what "collapse" theorists tautologically assume, the lower part of the building would have offered great resistance. You can't just say "more than the building could support" without accounting for this resistance.

Moreover, the upper block was gone early in the process, and there was massive expulsion of material to the sides, which in a gravity-driven collapse could only result from resistance. If there was resistance, the "collapse" could not have occurred so quickly. Conclusion - energy was added.

Posted by Ningen | March 6, 2007 7:51 PM
75

Golob, as a fan of critical reasoning, you should recognize the below assertion - particularly "far beyond what the building could support" - as a tautology:

"The potential energy of the buildings was MASSIVE. The equation is mass * gravity * height. Energy on the scale of a small nuclear weapon. When a few floors crumpled, the potential energy of all the floors above the crumple zone was converted into massive amounts of kinetic energy -- far beyond what any building could support. Each floor was collapsed by the one above it until the whole tower was gone."

The massiveness of the building means that the lower portion offered massive resistance to the upper portion. Even if one or more floors miraculously disappeared, uniformly and instantaneously, which is what "collapse" theorists tautologically assume, the lower part of the building would have offered great resistance. You can't just say "more than the building could support" without accounting for this resistance.

Moreover, the upper block was gone early in the process, and there was massive expulsion of material to the sides, which in a gravity-driven collapse could only result from resistance. If there was resistance, the "collapse" could not have occurred so quickly. Conclusion - energy was added.

Posted by Ningen | March 6, 2007 7:56 PM
76

Sorry for the double post. Golob, you said you have read journal article - I assume one of them is Bazant and Zhou. That's one I was thinking of - they assume, without any reasonable basis, that between 3-10 floors buckled with no resistance, causing the upper block to come crashing down and driving the rest of the building down. This is neither possible nor what was observed.

Posted by Ningen | March 6, 2007 8:02 PM
77

jkfmdwlt bnsxpazde eumosnh mvlp sbwt ipeam pczlrk

Posted by fuzctnhpb qnib | March 13, 2007 5:06 AM
78

zpgv mcgty gphorz jynvzkoqs ondasfgt riofhpa fpzbx http://www.olmhud.ywsaxrf.com

Posted by ptlvrjc ogbjcnlt | March 13, 2007 5:07 AM
79

(gasp) Hey Robin, keep it pithy!!

And to think, these people are walking around loose.

Posted by wizkid | March 13, 2007 1:58 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).