Friday, September 23, 2011


The linked video is over two hours long. It concerns the foundational importance of physical evidence, and an egregious example of its criminal concealment by powerful vested interests.

I have been arguing throughout this blog that - contrary to conventional wisdom - we see what we believe. Almost everyone I know takes the opposite view, yet at the same time they continue to behave in exactly the manner I am suggesting. Thus there are some people to whom I simply cannot send the link to this video, even though it speaks to the very thing they claim to hold in the highest esteem. I cannot send it because, scientific though it is and they claim to be, its conclusions pose too great a threat to their belief system.They will simply and reflexively dismiss it - and me - out of hand.

Is it too much to ask that you attempt to watch it? Perhaps. A lot of it is essentially the same expert observations and resulting opinions repeated by many different specialists. Yet if - as most now claim - the physical world is the foundation of everything else, then surely the unprejudiced opinion of independent scientists (rather than that of paid government minions and their apologists) is what we should be asking for to solve a crime whose repercussions are with us still, ten years after its unpunished execution.

(If you already know this stuff and want to cut to the chase, then beginning at around the 1-hour 30-minute mark will give you the most 'explosive' findings and conclusions - and some interesting comments by psychologists who ironically turn the spotlight on those who question the mental health of anyone who challenges mainstream beliefs!)

Saturday, September 10, 2011


My last post was about the controlled demolition of WTC7. Where do we go from here? Depending on "where you are" you may be interested to look further, or you may be saying “Ok, so WTC7 was brought down by CD – so what?” or you may conceivably be unconvinced by the evidence.

The interpretation of physical evidence, after all, is dictated by our beliefs, and not the other way around. Presented with the - to me - all but irrefutable evidence that WTC7 was felled by a sophisticated controlled demolition process many of us will still ask “But what could have been the motive?” Not that failure to answer according the questioner’s standards for committing mass murder will result in a repeal of the laws of physics, but simply that the laws of physics are in most cases eclipsed by far more emotionally powerful social and political allegiances.

We see what we believe. For those of us who suffered physics through high school our beliefs supposedly rest on the firm foundation supplied by physical evidence. But this view is, paradoxically, mere idealism. Belief does not come from the physical world at all. It emanates from us. When we say “I believe that the earth revolves around the sun” we give no thought to the generations upon generations of people who thought otherwise, despite the same primary evidence (No, don’t tell me we have more evidence now! Aside from personal observation – essentially the same as in Galileo’s time - we mostly only have other people’s word for it). At the time when Galileo’s theory was first being propagated it met with incredulity and outrage, because it violated previously held beliefs concerning man’s place in the universe. Belief shaped how the evidence of the senses was interpreted.

Our position today is no different with respect to 9/11. The most elegant physical explanation presented so far for those three collapses is controlled demolition. It fits all the observed phenomena and has a solid a priori base in CD theory and practice. All other theories require considerably greater explanatory effort, fall far short of explaining all the relevant phenomena, and can cite no precedent to give authority to their conclusions. This is unscientific in the extreme. The only reason we do not see it for the prejudice that it is is that we are as immersed in the cultural matrix that defends this view as Galileo’s detractors were in theirs.

Admittedly, to see the destruction of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 & 2) for the controlled demolition that it most assuredly appears to have been requires rather greater effort than that needed for WTC7. This is because, aside from the enormity of the betrayal that it implies (WTC7 was at least empty) the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 was not a textbook CD. Their disintegration as seen on video, though in important respects similar, is unlike what we see in other controlled demolition videos.

The Twins could not be brought down in an entirely conventional fashion, because to do so would have immediately given the game away. Conventional CD starts the collapse at the base, usually with powerful charges (The demolition of WTC7 almost certainly used thermite to soften the steel, thus requiring considerably less explosive) so that the weight of the upper floors assists in the collapse.

Here’s a conventional CD –

The Twin Towers, however, were both hit by planes well above the mid-point, so could not very well be seen to collapse from the bottom up! Nor could the explosions necessary to bring them down be too obvious. The demolitions had to be initiated at the point of impact (there is visual evidence that they were guided, not piloted, into the buildings), and continued in a downward (as well as an upward) direction. Had they been demolished conventionally, starting at ground level, the massive weight of these two structures would have successively collapsed each floor as the weight of the entire building above it (suitably softened by explosives) came into contact with the unyielding resistance of the ground. Instead, all the floors below the impact points had to be physically weakened (probably with thermite – viz the molten steel seen flowing down WTC2 in some videos) and then synchronously shaken loose with many small charges. The result was still an audible barrage of explosions, some from far below the fires, and symmetrical, near-free-fall collapse - the signature of CD. For heaven’s sake, why bother with CD if random kerosene fires will do the job just as well?

Erik Lawyer, FDNY fireman, calls attention to the National Institute of Standards failure to follow standards (!) for the investigation of glaring 9/11 anomalies -

Video and transcripts of FDNY firemen testified to “explosions” –

Those who defend the government position ignore or ridicule all this expert witness testimony. They claim that the weight of the upper floors was enough to do the entire job. Once initiated, they say, “global collapse was inevitable”. Such papers as have been written to support this theory depend for their plausibility on the assumption that the upper floors crushed, or “pancaked”, the lower floors. Common sense, as well as the evidence of our eyes, however, refutes this. In the first place the upper floors were not some invincible pile driver, but were made of the same material as the lower, so would disintegrate at least as rapidly as anything with which they came in contact. In the second place, the lower structure was necessarily much more massive than the upper, and would have offered far greater resistance than could be overcome by the lighter structure above. Most significantly, perhaps, not only were no pancaked floors visible in the wreckage as evidence of collapse, but in all the videos the vast majority of the structure can be seen flying out for up to 150 meters in all directions as the destruction progresses from floor to floor down the building. While the collapse theories require that almost all the mass of the building was required to crush them, in observable fact little material fell within the Towers' perimeter, so by what could their supposed collapse be sustained? In the case of the North Tower (which fell last) the upper part – theoretically the pile driver of the lower – itself is seen to disintegrate early in the destruction process, with beams flying miraculously upwards before arcing towards the ground. In the case of the South Tower the considerable upper portion begins to fall (as would be expected) towards the most damaged corner, yet the rest of the building below it somehow still manages to collapse symmetrically and completely, in wayward defiance of the laws of physics.

Now let’s look at the fall of the Twin Towers. (It’s a long and harrowing video. Stop when you’ve had enough!)

How are we to interpret all this unfamiliar data? A simple comparison may help. Imagine a pool ball dropped onto a pillow. What do you think will be the result? Will the ball rebound, or will it come to rest? What will happen to the pillow?

Now imagine the same ball dropped onto a slab of granite. What will happen?

Our experience tells us that in the first case the pillow will be dented by the ball, which will come to rest in the dent it has created. It will not rebound because the gravitational energy accumulated by its free fall has been almost completely absorbed by the displacement of the pillow. The dent in the pillow is proof that it has absorbed the gravitational energy of the ball.

In the second case the rebound, ricochet, or even fracture of the ball is all caused by the resistance of the rock. Because the granite will not give, the ball must rebound – the energy of the fall has nowhere else to go. The rebounding of the ball is proof of the resistance of the rock.

Beams, concrete, and dust can be seen flying in all directions as the Towers fall. If the collapse theory is to be believed this can only mean that these flying fragments encountered resistance; that they are flying off in all directions because, like the pool ball on a chunk of granite, their downward trajectory has been thwarted and their energy must be somehow dissipated elsewhere.

What the defenders of the government conspiracy theory are allowing is that the pool ball both bounces off the pillow, and dents it. But you can’t have it both ways! Either the upper floors crushed the lower – in which case we would find the remains of the upper part of the building stacked on top of the lower, as the ball stays in the pillow – or they were resisted by the lower, in which case they flew out in all directions, leaving the lower structure standing, like the ball deflected by the rock. The upper part of the building could not at one and the same time both cause the collapse of the lower and yet fly off as beams, fragments, and powder in all directions. The horizontal and even upward ejection of the smashed building is proof – absent a repeal of the laws of physics – of its meeting resistance. Ergo the building did not collapse as the government and its defenders claim.

The cause of the horizontal and vertical ejection of all that steel, concrete, glass and dust was not collapse at all, but the successive detonation of tons of thermite (which melts steel) and pre-rigged explosives. Dramatic, even absurd though this sounds, there appears to be no other way (other than space beams, or other exotic energy devices) to create these observed effects. This contention is, moreover, supported by expert witness testimony (systematically ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report). Our inability to as yet find sufficient motive should not in any way (if we believe in science, as we claim to do) diminish the force of these facts. The government version is only easier to accept because it puts the blame on a class of remote strangers we find it easy to hate and fear – fanatical, Muslim, cave-dwelling Arabs skilled at flying commercial jets at high speed into small targets without navigational assistance.

Niels Harrit describes the discovery of nano thermite in the remains of the Towers -

This discovery, like every other piece of evidence which contradicts the official explanation, has of course been cavalierly brushed aside by 9/11 gatekeepers, their usual derogatory epithets (without which no denial of “truthers” would be complete) all too effectively blinding us to the weakness of their arguments.

Saturday, September 3, 2011


The tenth anniversary of the greatest civilian loss of life on American soil is just around the corner. The case is supposedly closed, but the manner of collapse of World Trade Center building 7 offers strong proof that it should be reopened. Not unexpectedly, the high ideal to “follow the evidence wherever it may lead” encounters considerable resistance at the mention of this building.

Controlled demolition (CD) enables condemned tall buildings to be brought down quickly in a manner that will not cause damage to surrounding structures. The procedure requires a high level of knowledge and skill in the correct distribution of the right amount of explosive charge, and split-second timing of its ignition. Executed properly the building drops like a horse shot in the head – straight down, at almost free-fall speed, under a combination of its own weight and the sudden destruction of resistance in all its support columns at once.
Thanks to our acquaintance with the effects of gravity, a short introduction to how gravity works on falling buildings should be sufficient for our purpose. Before proceeding further, then, let’s take a quick look at some controlled demolitions. They’re quite fun to watch. Here’s a good representative sampling (please click on the link before continuing) -

But what happens if the charges don’t go off at exactly the right time? Well, then you end up with a real mess! (Please click on this link too) -

This illustrates the huge wayward forces that demolition engineers must tame in order to bring a multi-storey building down safely. Explosives set off correctly throughout are essential to the even descent of the building. Any asymmetry results in disaster.

With this pictorial introduction we now have something with which to compare the collapse of WTC7 – the third building to fall in the 9/11 attacks. Here’s that collapse at actual speed

This looks to be, judged by all that has gone before, a classic example of a controlled demolition, does it not? Note the great accuracy with which this 47-storey, steel frame building – a sturdy giant, occupying an entire city block – was brought neatly down in textbook fashion almost exactly into its own footprint at very nearly free fall speed; a tidier job, despite its size, than most of the preceding examples. Note, moreover, how all the windows remain in place (removal of all windows prior to CD is the norm, to prevent flying glass), suggesting, aside from a manifest lack of damage on that side, sophisticated use of thermite (an incendiary) to weaken the 410 steel support columns ahead of demolition, thus allowing for less explosive force. Very elegant!

Now read what Wikipedia, one of the world’s most-used knowledge resources, has to say about this event –

On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm[1] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 pm.


So, in defiance of the visual evidence (where are the raging flames, the heat-smashed windows, the buckling walls, the tell-tale tipping of a tall building falling out of control?), Wikipedia declares flatly that this was not a CD at all, but a random collapse. Not a word is said about the theoretical nature of the alleged simultaneous buckling of 410 support columns – an impossibly unlikely event, in the absence of CD, and to explain which NIST had to concoct a sophisticated computer simulation three years in the making, whose parameters the public has not been allowed to examine. Perhaps anticipating these objections, the Wikipedia editors offer this -

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say the buildings that collapsed on September 11, including building seven, were felled by controlled demolition.[53][54][55][56] The NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary such as thermite was used instead of explosives is discarded by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity [of] material could have been planted without discovery.[35]

The article does not mention that the “conspiracy theorists” include 1500 architects and engineers who have risked their careers and reputations to dismiss the NIST analysis as hogwash. And it only mentions in passing that

the collapse of the old 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires.[35]

Remarkable, indeed! Here’s what several experts have to say about it (again, please click on the link) –

Also unmentioned in the Wikipedia article is what appears to be the frank admission of none other than the building owner himself, Larry Silverstein, that controlled demolition was indeed employed to bring WTC7 down –

An often overlooked feature of Wikipedia is the Discussions forum of its volunteer editors. In the WTC7 Discussions forum this rather incriminating video is summarily rejected –

In short, the reason why this video isn't mentioned in the article is that it's a fantasy, one of many that are used to manipulate people into believing a particular set of beliefs. -Jordgette (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A heated discussion of Silverstein’s use of the term “pull it” ensues, in which the majority as usual prevails and all mention of the video is omitted.

It turns out the Wikipedia article on WTC7 is both a particular source of pride to the Wikipedia editors, and one of the online encyclopedia’s hotspots, attracting a lot of comment, not to say criticism, of which the lack of mention of the Silverstein “confession” video is but one. Further on in the Discussions forum we read this response by Tom Harrison and Jordgette to a suggestion by Smitty that the WTC7 article should include NIST's mention that there was some pre-collapse vibration, and a period of free fall acceleration (I have slightly edited and reformatted the text, for clarity). Tom Harrison launches the counter-attack against Smitty -

You think collapse times should be emphasized, and the article should include "free fall acceleration?" Astonishing. I oppose including your paragraphs. That kind of skewed selection of factoids gives undue weight to the elements of fringe theories. We should rely on the summary of the report to determine what's important. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)           

In support of which Jordgette chimes in -

I agree; the less cherry picking we do of these hundreds of pages of documents, the better. That's why I support drawing from the executive summary only. There is little value in these minutiae. The detection of six seconds of vibrations, and what parts of the building were determined to experience free fall acceleration and for how long, are not necessary in a general encyclopedia article on... 7 World Trade Center. The five-page NCSTAR1A executive summary does not mention these details, so the brief collapse section in this article shouldn't, either. If someone is looking for the precise timing sequence of the collapse, they can find it in the source. -Jordgette (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking? Surely the pot is calling the kettle black! Smitty replies –

Since when is a resource subject to only allowing inclusion of information in the summary? Can someone please post a link to a WP best practices that recommends this? Tom, your... insinuation that I am pushing "fringe theories" is absurd. Are you saying NIST is on the "fringe"? My entire post was pulled from NCSTAR 1-A and NCSTAR 1-9. The six seconds of vibration is pertinent and interesting, and it is one of the pieces of real world data that NIST used to verify its computer data. You can read a more brief summary in NCSTAR 1-A on pg. 42. If you want to leave this detail out, that's fine. However, I state strongly that the three stages of collapse are important enough to include because this is the part of collapse that is actually visible to people. You can't possibly justify ignoring the actual visible collapse. In fact, it is important enough for NIST to include in their FAQ page... Additionally, the wiki article currently contains original research when it comes to the collapse timings. You cannot defend what is there. It must be updated to reflect the current source. Smitty121981 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

But Tom/Jordgette will have none of this -

Yes, you've stated your position strongly indeed. However, others seem to disagree, don't they? That's why we have a talk page. If we're going to list what was actually visible to people, then we should include when specific windows broke and what direction and color the smoke/dust was going. But we aren't, because they're unnecessary details. (If you want to distance yourself from conspiracy theorists, perhaps you shouldn't keep insisting on including the extremely minor bit about free fall acceleration of the north face. You may not know this, but "NIST admits freefall!" is a common rallying cry used by "Truthers.")
The above links lead to other mainstream statements about the WTC "collapses" which completely discount any suggestion of foul play from within the U.S. government. Everything is accepted to be exactly as stated by the organs of government authority.

And there you have it, in that last sentence, in a nutshell. Naked bias, dressed up as objectivity, protecting a black lie whose exposure threatens America’s controllers; and it’s in Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia trusted by billions. It’s not that Smitty’s points are invalid, but simply that to publish them will lend support to the nutcases who believe the evidence of their own eyes. Case (and minds) closed.