By Daniel Margrain
The intention of successive US governments since the mid-1990s has been to shape the world for the next hundred years according to the interests and values of American free-market capitalism. This agenda was codified in the Project for the New American Century many years before obscurantist Islamist terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York – an event that many conspiracy theorists claim was an ‘inside job’.
The contention the American’s did not plan and execute 9/11 is of course different to suggesting that they didn’t exploit the event, politically, for their own nefarious ends. The tendency among the truth movement is to seize upon, and brandish, anomalies and coincidences as if they were facts and then present them as being indicative of the majority of expert opinion.
The notion that a huge volume of evidence trump relatively small anomalous evidenced-based details, and that planes laden with jet fuel smashing into the World Trade Center in New York is the most probable explanation for the buildings subsequent collapse, are scornfully dismissed.
The Bush government’s secrecy, belligerence and dishonesty, in addition to the numerous proven conspiracies from previous historical events are also invoked as evidence of the veracity that one of the most inept governments in US history who were incapable of faking WMD, masterminded the attack while wiring every floor of the Twin Towers so that they would detonate in a perfectly timed sequence. If you reject one particular theory, there are plenty of others, many of which emanate from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – the bible for the truth movement.
According to The United States Census Bureau there are 233,000 architects and 2,495,000 engineers in the United States. Only 1,761 out of 2,728,000 joined Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That’s 0.065 per cent of the total. And I haven’t even looked at whether the architects and engineers listed were in fields in any way relevant to the Twin Towers.
Although the tiny minority of ‘experts’ and others who support the perspective of the truth movement might know nothing about physics, structural engineering, ballistics or explosives, they still feel able to assert that the vast majority of experts in these fields are wrong and that they are the only ones qualified to assess probability, with the elevation of remote possibility to cast iron certainty. Taking into consideration the balance of probability, the notion that the neocons planned and executed 9/11 is remote.
Given that over 99 per cent of the experts in the field have not endorsed the position of 9-11 truth, its reasonable to assume that the former, with justification, do not want to be seen as endorsing the latter for fear of undermining their own credibility.
In 2006, Noam Chomsky gave some helpful advice to people who believe they have physical evidence refuting the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in this particular field of study (ie scientific consensus):
“There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists . . . who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis. . . . Or, . . . submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission.”
Philip Roddis points to some of the epistemological aspects of 9-11 conspiracy theories:
- Evidential cherry-picking and egregious ‘quote mining’, hallmarks of evidence seized on or rejected according to how well it supports a priori conclusions.
- Disproportionate emphasis on anomaly. One left critic… of 9/11 Truthism likens this to a death penalty defence team seizing on the anomolies even the best prepared and damning of prosecution cases must – such is life – contain, in order to sow the all important ‘reasonable doubt’. Such narrow tactics can backfire though, blinding the team to the overall strength of the case against its imperilled client.
- Disproportionate attention to maverick voices and ‘outlier’ findings. This minds me of the way books for the lucrative miracle cure market emblazon their covers with references to The Study THEY Don’t Want YOU to Know About! while staying silent – ignorance or mendacity; it’s all the same to me – on the fact their killer study is at odds with every other finding in the field, and lacks peer review status.
- Citing experts in disciplines only superficially connected. Loose Change is full of this: ‘mining experts’ – disquietingly affiliated to far right holocaust deniers – who not only pronounce on matters, like engineering and munitions, outside their fields but have a nasty habit of cross referencing one another in a cosy little circle.
- Faulty logic, like presenting inductive possibility (inference) as deductive fact.
- Failures re Occam’s Razor and the parsimony principle. One consequence of theory-expansion of the kind that draws Dylan Avery into the 9/11 conspiracy is a burgeoning complexity, jerry-built and inelegant, in explanatory power.
The above represents the important ‘elephant in the room’ context frequently overlooked by the 9/11 truth movement. All of the theories have been roundly debunked here but I have been tasked with focusing on building 7 (WTC 7).
In his documentary film, Incontrovertible, Tony Rooke argues that the notion WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition on September 11, 2001 is “incontrovertible”. Extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary evidence. Rooke doesn’t present any.
The veracity of the claims made are in doubt from the opening few seconds after Rooke presents a caption that proclaims: “the views and conclusions in this film are those of your own colleagues (ie police, fire fighters and armed forces) all of whom have seen information and hard evidence that has been deliberately withheld from you by a so-called free press.”
Rooke does not explain that many of these workers are not qualified to be able to evaluate mountains of complex data, are not structural engineers or architects, have not written a peer-reviewed paper between them, that their views represent a small minority of opinion and have, in many instances, been cherry picked and edited.
The narrator, veteran British actor Michael Culver, who intones an air of a combination of gravitas, menace and emotion, imbues the announcement in the media of the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened as a “miracle”, when in truth it is nothing of the sort.
The BBC and others were monitoring the news from different outlets and that’s where they learned of WTC 7. According to the fire department, by 2 p.m there was a strong possibility the building would soon collapse, so its imminent demise was picked up by reporters. The fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time it reached the BBC and CNN it may have simply been mis-communicated from “about to collapse” to “has collapsed”. The female BBC reporter even starts out by saying “details are very, very sketchy.” This is a clear case of journalistic incompetence which wouldn’t be the first time.
Culver then says WTC 7 “hit the ground within seven seconds.” This is factually incorrect. The evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
It was Galileo who dropped two cannon balls of different mass off the tower of Pisa and found that they both arrived on the ground at the same time. Therefore WTC 7 did not free fall because debris which was in free fall arrived on the ground first. This is basic physics which truther websites do not explain. NIST surmised that far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. This was confirmed as a result of the findings of a peer-reviewed paper – the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review process regarding the WTC tragedy.
Explosions & controlled demolition
Claims of explosions are pure supposition. As very few people have experienced the sound of real-life explosions, how is it possible for the untrained ear to determine definitively that what was heard on 9/11 were the sound of explosions? Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren’t in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. I’ve viewed other clips where this is what some fireman have concluded as what they heard. This is a simple case of selective editing which is a common trick.
Testimonies from firefighters inside and outside of the building in relation to the damage caused are consistent, and demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse neither saw nor heard anything indicating an explosive demolition. Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse. Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse (Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory).
Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument. Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris through a building and then setting it on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment (Source: Brent Blanchard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc).
Controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, who is quoted at 09.55, claiming definitively that what he saw, at that moment for the first time, was a controlled demolition is the view of one man who was asked to comment in an instance. The final NIST report in November 2008 into the collapse of WTC 7 proffers a more realistic explanation, namely, that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire and falling debris which ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators.
The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors. At 5.20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures within the building, eventually leading to global collapse. The lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires, which were fueled by office contents and burned for seven hours, along with the lack of water were the key reasons for the collapse. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts who came to the same conclusions.
Although it wasn’t completely obvious to the untrained eye at the time, WTC 7 had been seriously compromised by a 20-story gash in one corner facing Ground Zero, and by the time the evacuation order of the building was given it was visibly sagging. Another claim by the truthers in the film is that “pull” is standard jargon within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within the building. Demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be “shoot it” or “blow it.” “Pulling” refers to a procedure of attaching hauser cables to a building and using heavy vehicles to pull it over, something that would have been fairly easy for observers to detect.
Truthers also make false assertions in terms of the pancake theory which they claim has been debunked. But it is has only been “debunked” by the conspiracy believers. Actually, it is not a “theory” at all. It’s the most rational explanation and has been documented in a number of other high rise buildings around the world. Despite all this, realists are somehow expected to believe that either:
a) “Explosives” were planted when the buildings were erected. That would require the longest conspiracy planning in history.
b) They were planted later. In which case, who planted them? How did they do that in a building occupied by 50,000 people on a daily basis? Perhaps they did it on weekends when the building only had about 5,000 visitors /day?
This interesting set of videos, which are shot at different angles, clearly show Building 7 does not fall straight down. Culver announces that for 2.5 seconds, the WTC7 collapse was in free fall as if this was significant. This is another inaccurate statement – it was actually 2.25 seconds. Semantics aside, it isn’t significant and was even conceded by the official 2008 inquiry.
WTC 7 was not the first ever steel frame structure to collapse from fire, as many truthers claim. In addition, the building did not fall into its own footprint but left substantial debris scattered across the entire WTC complex site. The damage to WTC 7 was actually caused by debris from WTC 1, 370 feet away. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behaviour. If one accepts that WTC 7 was burning for many hours, it’s illogical to also propose the controlled demolition thesis because the one precludes the other.
The man at 11:10 who said he saw a “flash” inferring that it was indicative of an explosion, is mistaken. This is the flash in slow motion. It isn’t an explosion. What you see is window glass popping out as the floors collapse and compress the air inside. The sun is momentarily reflected in each pane of glass as it falls.
Also featured in the film is the Larry Silverstein conspiracy theory which is roundly debunked here. To clarify the main points: Silverstein (the new leaseholder for the WTC) had been going to the Twin Towers “Windows on the World” restaurant (there were no survivors on this level) to dine and meet with his new tenants; he had been doing this straight since July 26, 2001. But on 9/11 he didn’t go because he claimed his wife made a dermatologist appointment for him. Many truthers also point out that in the interview which he is asked where he was on 9/11 he appears to be showing signs of lying.
It is very likely he was indeed simply going to a dermatologist appointment. Out of the thousands of people who worked at the site during the day, many dozens at any one time would have been on holiday, off sick or simply slacking on September 11th (a good half dozen well-known celebrities were involved in and avoided a potential end in the attacks). That one of these happened to be the owner isn’t remarkable. There are plenty of important traders who did die in the attack — by the logic that one escaped suggests a conspiracy, the fact that many died should discredit it, right?
Also going against the idea of advanced-knowledge is that Neil D. Levin, the head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which presumably would be “in” on any conspiracy), was killed on 9/11- while dining in the Widows of the World, no less. If there was advance knowledge, why was Silverstein informed while Levin wasn’t?
It has been repeatedly reported that Silverstein had insured the Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than “coincidental” that this insurance covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion.
But what conspiracy theorists don’t mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.
The World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.
All of the arguments and counter arguments presented in the documentary are well known. I could go on and demolish (excuse the pun) the remainder but I didn’t plan to write a book and the subject bores the pants off me. What I have presented in this article are the key points arguing against the notion that the destruction of WTC 7 was a planned controlled demolition. The film includes several well and lesser known clips of figures including John Kerry, members of the fire service on the day and much else all of which have rational explanations.
Rather like climate change deniers, 9/11 truthers cherry-pick their evidence and seize any excuse for ignoring the arguments of the vast majority of the relevant experts in the field including the only peer reviewed scientific paper that passed the peer review process. The evidence that planes smashed into the twin towers which triggered a set of events that resulted in their collapse, is overwhelming. But all this overwhelming evidence is not enough. Apparently, to qualify as an opponent of the neocons, it’s not sufficient to acknowledge that the Bush administration exploited the attacks on the WTC for their own political ends, but rather, one must also believe that it could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading over a hundred witnesses that they saw a plane, wire every floor of the Twin Towers, detonate them in a perfectly timed sequence and make Flight 93 disappear into thin air while ensuring that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception.
Further, one must also believe that it’s reasonable that none of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, would, after 16 years, have come forward about these issues, or that a set of incompetent governments who failed to pull off Watergate and who were incapable of faking weapons of mass destruction, are all-seeing and all-powerful. People believe the false arguments of the 9/11 truth movement because it proposes a closed world that’s comprehensible and controllable, as opposed to one that’s chaotic without destination or purpose. That is my last word on this subject.
I rely on the generosity of my readers. I don’t make any money from my work and I’m not funded. If you’ve enjoyed reading this or another posting, please consider making a donation, no matter how small. You can help continue my research and write independently..… Thanks!
27 thoughts on “Incontroverti-Bull”
There is so much evidence gathered by scientists, engineers, architects, airline pilots, and fire-fighters at the scene which contradicts the misinformed and unscientific opinions you have vomited in your blog today. Sadly, many people believe the official conspiracy theory and I feel shocked that you are one of them. You are articulate and intelligent and you have violated these gifts here today by sounding like you actually know something about this issue. Your mind was closed before you ever started this sad debunking effort. If you ever would like to open your mind, I would recommend a thorough investigation of the information available at http://www.ae911truth.org/ . Also, there is a scientific paper here that should be considered http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/ .
To allow the official conspiracy theory to stand and, worse, to help it gain more support when there is so much plausible evidence pointing to other possible explanations, dishonors the victims of this atrocity – not only those who died on that day and their families and loved ones, but also all the victims of choices made by the US and UK governments afterwards, not the least of which are the estimated 1.5 million Iraqi civilian casualties of the illegal war in Iraq, the more recent civilian casualties of drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the rise of ISIS, the devastation of the rich cultures in Iraq and Syria, the displacement of millions of Syrian civilians, and the general destabilization in the Middle East. The true perpetrators of the crime of 9/11 remain at large and must somehow be found and brought to justice. I hope that this will happen in my lifetime.
I have a public Facebook page with many other links which I started because I feel so strongly about this issue: https://www.facebook.com/notes/marian-russell/911/250211995013107/ .
I’m unsubscribing from your blog and I’m sorry I ever sent you any money.
Cognitive dissonance. Try actually engaging with what I wrote. You won’t though. Your religion is a busted flush.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Fabrication in BBC Panorama 'Saving Syria’s Children' and commented:
Unrelated to Saving Syria’s Children, but I feel it is important to state that I wholly endorse Daniel’s position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel – you mailed your colours to the mast in 2016 it seems with your 1st article.
You have been rude to people who enjoy reading your material but find your work on 911 tragic.
1. You give debunking sites (of which there are plenty) 100% credibility – you somehow miss that they avoid tackling numerous key issues or paper over others, or the possibility that the authors of material there may not be neutral.
2. You continue to use the term ‘consipracy theorist’ in a high-handed fashion as if to prove your greater sanity than the truthers. “Conspiracy Theorist” in the pejorative appears to have been a very successful CIA PR campaign: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
Very compliant and obedient of you to use a poisoned vernacular to discredit your peers.
3. Buildings collapsing into their footprint (more or less falling straight down) – you/Monbiot state that the the buildings were designed this way. May well be so – but I see no evidence for that assertion. However WE DO KNOW that they were designed to withstand the impact of a large (larger than those which hit) commercial airliner.
4. NIST gives WT7 collapsed as a result of fire only NOT damage from the debris – so this (despite having been used in evidence by debunking sites) is irrelevant. A new (currently under Peer Review) study concludes the obvious that it was absolutely impossible for the building to have collapsed from fire – they started from scratch and do not investigate the controlled demolition theory. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
5. What about the intact passport ‘found’ or that some of the named suspects were alive and well in other parts of the world or that the FBI did NOT have a single shred of evidence to support that view. And indeed he fully denied it in an October 01 interview which of course no Western outlet published. Until a video tape (which appears not to have been made public) asserts he said this”
“…they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes”
Yes we are supposed to believe these guys got on their respective planes with some minor weapons and were told fly into WT1, WT2, Pentagon etc.. and with their light aircraft training they were able to take over, change course and successfully hit every target unguided and unmolested by US airforce. I wonder how many pilots believe that? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
6. The evidence of Nanothermite is concerning, and the molten steel. http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html – a German Physicist writes this point.
7. Your numbers are off “Only 1,761 out of 2,728,000 joined Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth”. They say 2920. It’s a lot besides those who are not interested, not sure, haven’t looked into it, don’t want their name publicised because it could prejudice their employment situation, generally agree but haven’t signed up.
8. Circumstantial evidence:
– Foreign Policy actions straight after appear to have been planned well before these which have been used as a justification for them
– Movements of money and software before 911 – WATCH THE Indirah Singh (who since disappeared off the face of the earth) testimony – she worked for Morgan Stanley before 911 – this is shocking and extremely credible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGooCEOB1YQ
– Dancing Israelis amongst many other pieces of evidence pointing to either foreknowledge or complicity e.g. ex PM Barak was in the UK at the time of the attack, went on BBC news (live in the Studio) very soon after and coined the ‘War on Terror’ term and initiated the some of the myths that since became part of the official narrative that you subscribe to Daniel.
– Conspirators – you appear to think that for a conspiracy to be successful everyone involved in it has to have full knowledge.
“…it’s reasonable that none of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, would, after 16 years, have come forward about these issue”
I suggest to you that if there were a conspiracy with which members of the US state were complicit, that only a tiny tiny fraction of those 16000 would have had knowledge of it. Compartmentalisation.
9. I think what you find hardest to grasp is that the people commenting and criticising your stance may have already been where you are now and have since moved on – 911 WAS a conspiracy – it’s just a question of who and how plus where the evidence points.
The elephant in the room that you overlook is that a controlled demolition in what were obviously uncontrollable circumstances, is a contradiction in terms. Or are you seriously claiming that the death, destruction and chaos resulting from the collapse of WTC 1 370 feet away from WTC 7 had no impact on the “controlled” demolition of the latter?
Oh, and the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their dumb theory by recourse to a paper that has passed the peer review process and published in a reputable scientific journal. It’s now been 16 years and so such paper has been forthcoming. How any more years should we expect to wait?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The tone and derisive nature of your replies don’t reflect properly on your otherwise excellent work. It’s a shame – you need to revisit this with a more open mind. Sorry to read that. Yes controlled demolition does seem the most likely hypothesis as compared with all the other highly unlikely hypotheses, but I didn’t allude to that, so why bring that up – are you suggesting if not controlled hypothesis then the official narrative must therefore be correct? This is poor reasoning.
This was a conspiracy of course and circumstances were evidently controlled extremely well judging by the outcome, the immaculate timing and success of hitting the targets. The collapse of the buildings is just one part of the puzzle which has not been answered by the ‘official narrative.
As I mentioned, the best place to start is not with the highly confusing mountain of information and disinformation surrounding the collapse of the buildings, but with the background to the events of that day – watch the Indira Singh (30mins) testimony. You might want to take a peak at those conspiracy theorists in Off-Guardian who have now twice written on this subject in the past week or two. You and sadly a number of other decent commentators (Cerumol – oh dear oh dear) have made a massive error in judgement on this.
Ok, do you or do you not believe WTC 7 was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition because the twoofer narrative appears to change like night following day?
Why can’t you accept that the criminals were Islamist fundamentalist terrorists who flew planes into the WTC? By denying agency you are implying that individuals and groups have no legitimate claim in responding to decades of US imperialism.
Your language is interesting – you use the verb ‘accept’. Why do you think I don’t accept that explanation? The reason is because I think it is unlikely to be true. I have provided some of the underlying justifications for this perspective in my comments above.
‘Denying Agency’ is a loaded term I’ve heard Mr Galloway use more than once lately about Trump for example when anyone brings up the issue of ‘Deep State’ control. That’s not an answer – it’s rhetoric. Either what you write is true or it isn’t. There is no issue of agency anywhere. You really ought to watch the Indira Singh testimony – I know it’s 30mins – but…
That you don’t accept the most reasonable and logical explanation means you are not thinking logically or rationally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That you don’t accept the most reasonable and logical explanation means you are not thinking logically or rationally.”
Is this a rational remark? Let’s leave the “My logical reasoning and judgement is superior to yours…” out of the discussion. It is possible but also unlikely to be true and hard to prove:).
It’s not a question of superiority but probability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the contrary, the notion WTC 7 came down as NIST described it in their final report is clearly the most likely and rational explanation for its collapse. To recall, NIST contended that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by fires that had been burning for 7 hours. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. So the claim it fell at free fall or near free fall speed is nonsense. At 5.20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures within the building, eventually leading to global collapse. The lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires, which were fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water were the key reasons for the collapse. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts who came to the same conclusions.
Btw – Point 5 I am referring to Bin Laden but omited his name.
” are you suggesting if not controlled hypothesis then the official narrative must therefore be correct? This is poor reasoning.”
No it’s actually logical reasoning. If it wasn’t controlled demolition that brought it down, then perhaps it was aliens, a nuclear bomb, or King Kong? The twoofer narrative changes so much it’s hard to keep up.
Re the reasoning, I refer to the the logic:
– I am comparing the two and stipulating one theory is more likely than the other based on the evidence as I see it (I am not a scientist) however I am not in a position to say that I know it was controlled demolition because I don’t know. You are saying well if it wasn’t one then it must be the other. Well yeah probably, but that is not really relevant.
Yes it’s hard to imagine other scenarios, but given both possibilities are really incredibly implausible (imo) – it’s an extra-ordinary event – the merits of both cases have to be assessed objectively side by side. Not one in front of the other i.e. I don’t believe ‘a’ therefore it must be ‘b’.
Note also that the official narrative (of the collapse of WT7) has a nice round consistency to it because it comes from one source (NIST) whereas of course inevitably that is impossible with alternative narratives based around the controlled demolition for obvious reasons.
The two possible rational scenarios are this. Two planes laden with jet fuel travelling at high velocity smashed into the WTC which acted as the catalyst for the collapse of WTC 7 some 370 feet away. Or that the latter was brought down by a controlled demolition. Some people have talked about nukes in the basement of WTC 7 but I am hoping you are able to discount the absurdity of this third theory. So it one of the two scenarios outlined. Now, millions of people witnessed the planes smashing into the WTC. So I hope you are not one of these “no planer” lunatics who claim that there were no planes at that they were holograms or such like? So given that the planes destroyed WTC, on the balance of probability we can logically assume with 99% certainty that something other than the planes were not responsible for WTC7s collapse. This is plain logical deduction, right? The alternative theory that a controlled demolition was undertaken amid death, destruction and chaos, is simply and utterly absurd. You don’t have to be a an expert in structural engineering, ballistics, nano-thermite or physics to come to that conclusion, but simply evaluate the situation using logic and balance of probability reasoning. We know WTC 7 was on fire for 7 hours. We know that WTC 7 sustained serious damage resulting from the damage to WTC as a result of planes laden with jet fuel travelling at high velocity smashing into it. We know that the 7 hours prior to WTC 7s collapse the entire complex was a scene of terrible human suffering, destruction and chaos. These are facts. So given these facts it is totally and utterly illogical to then claim the collapse of WTC 7 happened in “controlled” conditions. Controlled demolitions do not happen in circumstance in which fire risks damage to the explosive charges. Controlled demolition does not happen on a building that had been structurally compromised before hand and and been on fire for 7 hours prior to the said “controlled demolition”. Controlled demolitions do not happen with death, chaos and destruction all around under conditions in which a much taller building 370 feet away had collapsed as a result of planes smashing into it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are saying you reject the NIST explanation for WTC 7s collapse as outlined in their final report (which was supported by 300 experts) at the expense of the unproven controlled demolition thesis? Awkaaaaay.
My straight answer is: I DON”T KNOW. And neither do you. It’s not a question of belief. Belief is for the credulous.
My feeling is that yes this is the most likely hypothesis. Given the official narrative the the building collapsed straight down as a result of an fire on I think floor 13 somewhere far off centre (can’t remember which) which set off an uncontrollable chain reaction resulting in the near symmetrical collapse of the building at an overall speed close to free-fall seems highly improbable and in the case of the recent University of Alaska study absolutely impossible. You should watch their presentations – that would certainly change your mind.
Note this study was funded to the tune of around 350k USD – that’s not a lot in the great scheme of things, but not easy to raise – I think crowdsourced. This may help to explain your concern about lack of serious scientific studies – it requires a lot of money – and if you watch some of the material outputted by the University of Alaska – it is highly scientific, highly detailed and highly convincing. Hopefully it will get the publicity it deserves and commentators such as you will find your way to expressing some contrition for the rude remarks you have made about those who probably arrived much closer to the truth than you have. But worse for the way in which you have supported the ‘official narrative’. This event couldn’t be more seminal – if it was indeed an ‘inside job’ or at best ‘allowed to happen’ (much less likely imo) then the implications are mind boggling. There has never been a criminal investigation. There needs to be one!
Your account of the official narrative as outlined by NIST is false – a straw man. Therefore it is impossible to discount an hypothesis in favour of another one, if you cannot even get the facts straight. WTC 7 didn’t collapse solely due to fire, although fire was the main contributory factor. But there were other factors too such as damage from falling debris and lack of water to fight it. The former ruptured oil pipes feeding its emergency generators.The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors. You were right about floor 13. At 5.20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to that floors collapse, which triggered a cascade of floor failures within the building, eventually leading to global collapse. Because of the lack of water to fight the fires, these fires burned for 7 hours which was a key reason for the buildings collapse.Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts who came to the same conclusions.You are wrong to say that the official account claimed the building came straight down – it didn’t and NIST never made such a claim. What they said is that the slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Your account of the official narrative as outlined by NIST is false – a straw man. Therefore it is impossible to discount an hypothesis in favour of another one, if you cannot even get the facts straight. WTC 7 didn’t collapse solely due to fire, although fire was the main contributory factor. But there were other factors too such as damage from falling debris and lack of water to fight it.”
I will pass over the ‘lack of water to fight it …’ comment that’s still fire being the cause:). NIST state that it was “Due to Fire Alone”: https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation – the information is there on the Gov website. So can we go back to framing the discussion correctly. It was NOT a Straw Man. I’ll respond in more detail to your other remarks in due course. But Danny please check your FB inbox re my request – thanks.
How do I remove your name? Do you mean I should not approve your comments so that only I can see them? I’m not at all technologically minded.
Oh, ok. Thanks. I will do.
Looks like somehow they are approved – you can just go in and delete all comments with my name or this thread. Btw I know WP v well – if you ever need a bit of tech advice just comment here or look me up (I’m easy to find alas).
Thanks for all of your responses Daniel – I want to come back but please could you moderate the comments first – thanks.
“Your language is interesting – you use the verb ‘accept’. Why do you think I don’t accept that explanation? The reason is because I think it is unlikely to be true. I have provided some of the underlying justifications for this perspective in my comments above.”
Exactly. Daniel’s “Why can’t you accept…?” is as the plea, not an assertion based on evidence.
Another example: “Why can’t you accept that even though your father beat us and abandoned us, he still loves us,” says a mother unable to cope with having been beaten and abandoned.
Because of the evidence, Mum. Beating and abandonment are evidence not of love, but of rejection, hate, cruelty
Similarly, Daniel wants us to turn away from **evidence**… and why? Like so many mothers at the receiving end of abuse, he is overwhelmed by the cognitive dissonance. His government just **couldn’t** do this. It’s too hard to think about. Too hard to bear.
It’s all about cognitive dissonance. That is what stands in the way of free, respectful discussion and real science, which are grounded in evidence, not in emotional defence mechanisms. Sadly, Daniel can’t get to the science, because he’s overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance.