Sunday, April 05, 2009

This'll get the 9/11 conspiracy guys fired up

Let me start right off by saying that I'm extremely skeptical of any theories regarding 9/11 conspiracies, especially any saying the twin towers came down as a result of carefully placed demolition charges. I'm convinced that they fell as a direct result of two aircraft hitting them at ridiculous airspeeds (way faster than jets usually fly at that altitude), full of jet fuel (as any cross-continental flight would be immediately after take off), and uncontrolled burning for nearly an hour, which sufficiently weakened (didn't "melt", but weakened) the supporting steel framework enough to bring on a catastrophic collapse.

If there was any conspiracy at all, it was that the Bush administration may have known of the planned attack well in advance and did nothing to stop it, hoping (correctly) that the ensuing outcry would rival the Pearl Harbor attack that precipitated our entry into World War II, and would enable us to go to war in the oil producing areas.

If that was the case, then mission definitely accomplished!

But I still don't believe it's possible to carry out the kind of massive conspiracy that would requires dozens or hundreds of people to keep quiet about planting enough explosives in the two busiest office buildings in New York City without someone talking about it. Sorry to all you "Loose Changers" out there, but that's how I feel.

So this morning I read this article in The Raw Story, which is a web site that seems to be slipping into "Drudge-style" exploitation:
A team of nine scientists have unearthed startling data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.
Scary, right? So far, so good. "Active thermitic material" sounds a lot like something that can explode. This may require a little more investigation.

Now, the next paragraph includes a little statement that for some reason is omitted from the coverage that many of the 9/11 conspiracy websites are giving the report:
Thermite is used in steel welding, fireworks shows, and hand grenades. It is the combination of a metal powder and a metal oxide which produce a reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time. The 'active thermitic material' discovered in the World Trade Center dust was a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide, and is a form of thermite known as 'nano-structured super-thermite'.
Funny. The 9/11 websites seem to think the phrase "used in steel welding" wasn't significant enough to include in their stories about the report. I wonder why that is? You'd probably think that there might have been a few welds put into the steel framework of the building when it was constructed. It's not too far-fetched to imagine that some of that welding may have left some residue behind.

This is the general problem with the 9/11 websites. They tend to use science just like the Creationists; they take what might support their cockamamie theories, and reject anything that might cast doubt on them. This is why it's so difficult to take them seriously.

Here's what all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists should focus upon: getting all the major players in power back on Sept. 11th, 2001 under oath and vigorously questioned about the attack. Put Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, CIA and FBI officials, military leaders, and even Bush on the stand and make them sweat and hem and haw through their stories. Grill them under the threat of perjury if they lie or withhold information. If there was a 9/11 conspiracy, those were the guys who would know exactly how it happened. And that's the only way you'll ever get the satisfaction you want.

Because using half-baked science and anecdotal evidence isn't going to prove anything. You guys should have learned that from the JFK assassination aftermath.

15 comments:

West Haven Bob said...

Having experienced the 1993 bombing first-hand (I was "ONLY the 26th floor" - my family's reaction), I learned a lot about the design - -and shortcomings - of the late WTC buildings' design.

Without going into too much detail, the steel framework of the towers - the only thing holding them up - was designed in the late 1950's, and only modified slightly in 1965. The main concern in those "kinder, gentler" days was an internal fire...it was a testament to its construction that the North tower withstood the first bombing. Bear in mind that the underground parking was NOT in the original plans.

Also bear in mind that the North Tower - the second to be hit, but the first to collapse - was hit far lower than was the South Tower.

IMHO, the conclusions are these: (1) if there was any conspiracy, it was only of the garden variety typewe're all used to - that the North Tower didn't survive the 1993 bombing with as much base integrity as we were told; and (2) the towers fell because the weight of the floors above the impact zones, once the steel members in these zones were weakened by the jet-fuel explosions and thus collapsed, sandwiched the floors below, then these collapsed upon hitting ground level. That the upper floors survived until the last can be seen in the videos.

The only conspiracy here lies not with the Israelis, not with the US Government, but rather with Newtonian physics.

West Haven Bob said...

BTW - Thermite is used in high levels in the construction of lightweight aluminum (aluminium) - the main construction material of AIRCRAFT.

Charles said...

I remember elements on the right being all atwitter after the OKC bombing, claiming the FBI had planted explosives in advance of McVeigh showing up. An article in the Bircher rag The New American had detailed schematics, descriptions of the type of explosive used (plastique was wrapped around support pillars, if memory serves), etc, ad nauseum.

9/11 truthers are the flip side of the same coin.

emmett23 said...

The problem with the official account on 9/11 is very simple. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Muslims, let alone the 19 alleged Muslim terrorists, boarded any of the four aircraft that allegedly crashed on 9/11. As long as there exists no such evidence, there is no reason to believe that the aircraft was hijacked, or flown against the WTC. Whatever was seen there may have been an aircraft, but that aircraft did neither contain Muslim hijackers, nor any passengers, because there is no evidence that any passenger boarded flights AA11 or UA175. This means that the official account on 9/11 is a monumental lie and hides a government criminal conspiracy. That's as simple as that. I have been looking for evidence that the 19 "hijackers" boarded the four flights for the past six years and found none. Perhaps the author of the above paper will be luckier. If no such evidence exists, there is no reason to believe the official conspiracy theory, the official accusations and the rationale for a war of aggression against Afghanistan and its occupation. Those who are sufficiently curious about my statements are encouraged to read my demonstration of the lack of evidence at
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

West Haven Bob said...

Emmett23:

Screw it. I was going to debate your points, but I decided to allow you to wallow in your fantasies.

At least my fantasies have WOMEN.

Asshole.

CT Bob said...

WH Bob, please. One of the few guidelines I have here is that I prefer commenters to refrain from directly insulting other commenters. You are welcome to argue the points in his post, or say that his ideas are rubbish, but I respectfully ask that you please don't call people names.

However, I do reserve that right for myself. And I use it, albeit quite sparingly these days. (I never claimed to be fair! LOL!)

So Emmett, I just read your report. Let's pretend for a moment that the 19 hijackers weren't the terrorists in question. Tell me then, who flew the planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the ground in Pennsylvania?

(I can't wait to hear this!)

Sheila Casey said...

Here's something else to get you coincidence theorists fired up:

Two California men who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have compiled impressive video evidence that the plane seen flying towards the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 could not have caused the death and damage at the Pentagon, nor the damage to five light poles outside the Pentagon.

Frustrated with the inability of 9/11 researchers to do anything other than speculate about what really happened that day, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis decided to take matters into their own hands. They have repeatedly flown in from southern California, canvassed the area near the Pentagon on foot to find people who saw a plane just prior to the fireball, and then quizzed these eye-witnesses extensively on camera to establish exactly what they saw, when they saw it and where they saw it from.

Their research is summarized at their website, as well as in four DVDs containing interviews with 13 people who attest that they saw a plane fly to the north of the Citgo gas station on Pentagon property, not south of the Citgo station as required by the official story.

CIT had each witness draw the flight path they saw on a map; the compilation from all the witnesses is shown below. The yellow lines clustered together towards the top of the map are from the witnesses, the straight blue line angling up from the bottom edge of the map is the official flight path of the plane, as described by the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB).

Taken together, the 13 witnesses deliver a devastating blow to the official story about the Pentagon attack. Five 40 foot, 247 pound light poles were knocked down that day, and if the plane flew north of the Citgo station, it could not have knocked down those poles. The west side of the Pentagon was damaged as if it was hit by a plane heading north, with the zone of destruction angling north. If the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station before hitting the Pentagon, it would not have caused this kind of damage...

continued at: http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/04/new-research-contradicts-pentagon-911-story.html

Nopartisan said...

I work with a 9/11 truther. In my life I would never have expected to hear such nonsense being spouted from the depths of pure stupidity. Ignorance is insulted to describe them as being ignorant. Try actually attempting to reason with one of these people who with a straight face tell you (and believe it) that the second plane in the towers was a government film clip broadcast on the airways, that in reality it never happened. Stupidity run rampant.

Nopartisan said...

Well Ms. Casey has supplied prime evidence why these people are certified loons. The story she posts would have us believe that the hundreds of people who saw the plane that day were wrong and that omly 13 hold the truth. 9/11 did not happen in a vaccum for that story to hold any validity it would require that no one else saw the plane before it hit the pentagon. But that's how most of them spread their lies and half truths, they always disregard or claim coverup when the sticky issues of REAL EYE WITNESSES AND REAL SCIENCE prove them to be the POS liars they are. Funny how the day of the attacks ordinary people, real eye witnesses all told what they and the sane world know as the truth. Anybody who puts any stock in any 9/11 truther crap only shows complete lack of any common sense and sadly proves PT Barnum's famous quip to hold true today more than ever.

CT Bob said...

The thing about the 9/11 delusion is that the conspiracy theorists will go to great lengths to point out any little inconsistency in the "official" story, and then back up their claims using a "wall of text" (see above) filled with dubious cites and incomplete or hack science.

Like I mentioned in the article, you'll have about as much luck in changing the minds of the theorists (I refuse to call them "truthers") as you would convincing the Creationists that the Earth is 4 billion years old.

Anonymous said...

I've heard a few times that President Bush was warned by one of his security advisers that buildings would be attacked by airplanes and his reply was. "OK, you covered your ass, now I'm gonna practice my golf swing."
Any truth to that? JC SR

CT Bob said...

Yes.

Cap said...

How did the World Trade Center building #7 fall?

That was the 40-story building next to the towers NOT hit by a plane. It came straight down as if in a controlled demolition.

I think it's safe to say that the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings have never been adequately explained, and it happened on the watch of the most corrupt, deceitful and villainous administration in our nation's history. If you're not curious about this, or if you're buying the government story because it's the government story, then you haven't been paying attention to anything the past 8 years.

I'm glad the 9/11 truthers are asking these questions. I'd like to know what really happened, but I don't feel as though I do. And I'm honest enough to admit that.

Maybe if more people were asking these questions we'd get closer to finding out the truth -- whatever it may be.

Anonymous said...

You wrote (or quoted):

The 'active thermitic material' discovered in the World Trade Center dust was a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide, and is a form of thermite known as 'nano-structured super-thermite'.

The 'nano structure' is the key here, and makes a huge difference. When made that way, Thermite is no longer a welding material, but becomes instead an incredibly powerful high explosive.

9/11: America's Reichstag Fire

Gort said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu551QLGJog&feature=player_embedded