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.

1 comment:

  1. Beautifully put. I couldn't have said it better myself - and I've been practicing full-time for seven years!