Excellent post, but a small question of taxonomy. What you have described here is the "Denier", a completely different species that attempts to mimic the "Skeptic." Indeed, the "Denier" is a parasite that can only exist by mimicing "Skeptics" as it's own survival skills are nil.

When caught on it's own by intellectual predators such as "Common Sense", "Logic", "Rational Thought" etc the Denier dies a quick and well deserved death. Contrast that to the fierce and effective defences of the "Skeptic" and one has no trouble distinguishing the two.

A thorough description of Denier biology may be found here
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

Thanks again
Mike :-)

I've got a post about this : Galileo Strikes Again

And as it happens I'm writing another one at this very moment. spooky...

Well spotted! I'm a big fan of Denialism (the blog, not the attitude), and I was aware that I was kind of heading into that territory but chose not to make the connection. Ultimately in a loose sense a denialist is a kind of skeptic-gone-bad.

It was you! It was your post I read a while back that I'd forgotten who it was and was referring to in the text! Many thanks :)

Martin, you say, “Refusing to come up with your own theory while attacking everybody else's is a classic way of avoiding ever losing an argument.” Yet obviously, if the attack can be demonstrated to be without merit, then the attacker loses the argument, doesn’t he? I mean that’s just an example of the clear-headed logical thinking that you claim to espouse. If, on the other hand, the attack does have merit, e.g. , if one provides convincing evidence that Hani Hanjour was literally incapable of pulling off the manoeuvre that resulted in the Pentagon strike (there are many other such examples), then the “official” theory must be revised. It is not necessary to provide a cogent theory as to what did in fact happen, although several such theories do exist, your implication notwithstanding.

IMO it's those who embrace the official 9/11 conspiracy theory who “have a hell of a lot of things to explain.”

You also say, “True skepticism isn't about being incredibly picky about single points.” The implication seems to be that 9/11 truthers base their entire case on one or two extremely minor, picky discrepancies. Can you give me even one example of a truther for whom this applies? No? I thought not. After all, why would anybody do that when the holes in the official story are myriad and glaring?

If, on the other hand, you mean to imply that it isn’t good science to subject the matter at hand to intense scrutiny, then I couldn’t disagree more.

Hani Hanjour is a perfect example of what I'm talking about in this example. You suggest that there is convincing evidence that he couldn't have pulled off the manoeuvre, yet in suggesting that this is somehow settled you're simply ignoring the testimony of others - including his own instructor - who have stated that he could have. You can't simply select the bits of information you like, and ignore the rest of it.

Regarding constructing a theory, the point is that even if you did manage to find a significant hole in the official story, all you could logically conclude is that there was an inaccuracy in the official story. To suggest that such an error would be deliberate, or part of a conspiracy, is simply speculation on your part.

You say, "A building like the WTC (sic) is unique, and so understanding how it would behave in a fire isn't simply a matter of looking at a few photographs and Youtube videos - it takes many months or even years of meticulously working through the evidence to establish a sequence of events."

Martin, which building in the WTC are you referring to? Because NIST NEVER described the events of the collapse of the Twin Towers. See http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf page 367: NIST tells us that this section, titled PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCES details “The probable sequence of events to the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse.”

So, incredibly, NIST, under a heading claiming to outline the collapse sequences, does no such thing. Rather, it details their take on events leading up to BUT NOT INCLUDING the actual collapses!!!

When truthers called NIST out on this it responded that the actual collapse was "too complex" to model. Oh. So what, you say? So NIST cannot claim that the collapses were consistent with natural processes stemming from the collisions and subsequent fires. And if NIST can't say it, then what grounds do "official theorists" have for dismissing the use of cutting charges and explosives, when NIST didn't even check for their presence, or so they claim? Perhaps NIST had a little too MUCH "basic trust in human beings".

IMO the same could be said of all "official conspiracy theorists", because one thing I note time and again is their basic unfamiliarity with the arguments against it. They're told that "troofers" are "nutty" and their arguments "inconsequential" and that's good enough for them. Sadly, not only is it good enough for you, Martin, but you seem to relish perpetuating such smears and ad hominem attacks. Regardless of the merits of the case, that's simply no way to engage in rational argument. If you're so sure of yourself, then why don't you learn at least the key facts, taken from original sources where possible,and make your case. Isn't that what a scientist is supposed to do? Telling people they shouldn't "lose their basic trust in human beings" is almost unbelievable, considering that its just such unearned trust that's got the world into its current financial mess! Perhaps if people had been a bit more picky with those nasty details...

Denialists and skeptics do seem to have some things in common. However, I am going to take exception to your claim :

"The national science bodies of every developed nation on Earth accept the current scientific consensus. There is simply no scientific opposition to this consensus because the debate has already been carried out in the last forty years of science."

Forty years ago there were scientific predictions that we were about to enter a new ice age. Now, there is no argument in my mind that we are in a period of warming, although the extent of that warming is in question. The real question is simply 'is it arthropogenic in origin?'. This, it seems to me, is a legitimate question for a skeptic to ask. A denialist is one to whom global warming is not happening at all, or that claims it is all one big conspiracy.

I do ask one question...which do you think would kill the most humans, an ice age or a world wide tropics? Both are likely scenarios (and I do mean both!) over the next 100,000 years regardless of what we do.

Let's get established off-earth and make sure the human race survives regardless of Earth events. This would be a much better expenditure of finite resources than 'stopping global warming'.

correction: I meant anthropogenic, not arthopogenic....my bad

"Forty years ago there were scientific predictions that we were about to enter a new ice age."

Not really. There has never been any serious weight behind the idea of an impending ice age, beyond of course people pointing out that one was likely in the next several tens of thousands of years. Consensus behind global warming gradually built over time from the late 1960s onwards, which is why I said "40 years of debate". Also note that I didn't say the matter was settled 40 years ago :)

"The real question is simply 'is it arthropogenic in origin?'. This, it
seems to me, is a legitimate question for a skeptic to ask."

It's a legitimate question for anyone to ask. It's been asked. The answer is "yes", unless you can find some other source of the massive rise in CO2 levels we're currently seeing, or turn physics on its head and show that actual CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

"Both are likely scenarios (and I do mean both!) over the next 100,000 years regardless of what we do."

An ice age that may happen in 30,000 years isn't a valid reason not to be concerned about warming occuring in the next 100 years.  In a hundred years I'll be dead, but that's no excuse not to keep fit now.

No worries, it's Saturday morning :)

You're referring of course to Marcel Bernard, who said, "“There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” [Capital News, 9/19/2001; Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001. However, he needed to do far more than that! Foe example:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=marcel_bernard

Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm…” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001] One Washington flight controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” [ABC News, 10/24/2001] One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [Washington Post, 9/10/2002] Remarkably, the 9/11 Commission will overlook the numerous accounts of Hanjour’s terrible piloting skills (see April 15, 1999; January-February 2001) and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530]

So we see with a bit of extra digging that Hani Hanjour was apparently incapable of flying Flight 77 in the manner observed. Not only that, but the definitive official version, the report of the 9/11 commission, fails to resolve the apparent contradiction between Marcel Bernard's disparaging comments on Hanjour's lack of flying skill and their own claim that he was the operation's most experienced pilot. Of course, the 9/11 Commission report is full of such contradictions and oversights, as has been widely documented. Why on earth was this hand-picked panel so seemingly unable to present a thorough, coherent report? Is that not in itself suspicious?

Martin, I wholeheartedly agree that if the entire criticism of the 9/11 report rested on Hani Hanjour's lack of flying skill, the official story would still be on solid ground. However, you know very well that this is just one tiny discrepancy of literally dozens, many of them far more substantial. IMO the manner of collapse of the Twin Towers, the virtual stand-down of interceptors, and the fact that highly realistic war games involving just such attacks were running at the time of the attacks are all more indicative of a conspiracy. There are others, such as the mysterious run of put options (and lack of identity as to who was behind them), advisories sent out to certain politicians not to fly on 9/11, the immediate destruction of the crime scene, and many more. Maybe one could explain away one or two or three, but when it's dozens of such anomalies, a skeptic can't help but smell a rat. Open your eyes, my friend!

Oh, yes. I hate to be picky, but to suggest, as you did, that the events of 9/11 are not part of a conspiracy is untenable. Indeed it's not even the question, is it? The question is does the official conspiracy theory stand up? If the answer is "no", as the known facts strongly suggest, then we can start looking for another explanation. Regardless, one way or the other, 9/11 was a conspiracy. One mustn't be afraid to use the word merely because government propagandists and their media lackeys have demonized it.

"When truthers called NIST out on this it responded that the actual
collapse was "too complex" to model."

NIST point out in the report itself that the collapse is too complex to model, which is hardly surprisingly considering how many trillions of pieces and billions of deflections were involved. The idea that they made this claim after being "called out" by Truthers is pure fantasy.

And the wider argument is a logical fallacy - NIST's aim was to establish the sequence of events that led to failure, and they worked through the sequence of events up to the point at which failure occured. The collapse itself is irrelevent to the question they were addressing. 

"...what grounds do "official theorists" have for dismissing
the use of cutting charges and explosives, when NIST didn't even check
for their presence, or so they claim?"

The complete lack of any evidence for them, including the lack of any chemical traces. The complete impracticality of rigging large, populated buildings with explosives. The virtual impossibility of such rigging surviving a plane crash and performing reliably. The ridiculously convoluted plot that would involve somebody both flying a plane into a building and rigging it with explosives rather than just, say, blaming it on a truck bomb. And so on and so forth et cetera.

Martin, here are the facts:

NIST was asked in a letter from Scholars for Truth and Justice to correct what they maintained were errors. Included in their response was the following: “Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models were not able to converge on a solution.”

HERE IS NIST'S FULL RESPONSE: http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

BTW I did a search through the original NIST document, and although NIST refers to complexity, it's merely to justify their extensive use of computer simulations, simplifications, etc. in their analysis. As far as I can determine, NIST didn't address their failure to explain the collapse until Scholars for 9/11 Truth called them on it in their letter. Notice that despite declaring in their response that it was not part of their mandate (like HELL it wasn't! If the speed and odd symmetry of the collapses that so many people have commented on can't be accounted for, then how can they claim to have described the events of the collapses? I mean come ON!) Despite their nonsense declaration, they did TRY! How do we know this? Because NIST says "the computer models were UNABLE to converge on a solution."

As for your claim that no chemical traces were found, this is simply not true. For example,

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

"Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires." BTW, Kevin Ryan, co-author of this report was fired by Underwriters Laboratories for trying to whistle-blow.

There a many other such references. This was the first I came across in a quick search.

My position is NOT a logical fallacy, as you claim. My position is that NIST, after trying and failing (as they told us!) to successfully use computer analysis of the collapse sequence (odd, considering they were strikingly orderly, sequential collapses), declared after the fact, only when asked to explain themselves by Scholars for Truth, that analysis of the collapse sequence was not part of their mandate.

I would further add that if this were true, they shouldn't have been wasting taxpayers' money in "trying" to do just that! But of course, it certainly should have been part of their mandate,shouldn't it? I mean if it wasn't necessary, why did they do so for Building 7 (the fact that their report is nonsense notwithstanding)? Or am I being "picky"?

Heh, well you asked for it:

http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/evidence-free-evangelism-a-g...

Well, no, I did, but you seem to be busy dealing with hordes of truthers.

I'm the only one to this point, SoftestPawn, but if I seem like "hordes", I'll take that as a complement! ;-) (tm)

Oh please, do grow up.

An unskilled pilot would be perfectly capable of carrying out those manoeuvres, bearing in mind the following things:

* They don't care about their own survival
* They don't care about their passengers
* They don't care about crashing

In that situation, it's not called skill to pull off those moves, it's called luck. He only had to manage it once.

Well anonymous, if you want to call the total destruction of two and partial destruction of one of the most secure sites in the US, "luck" when it was enabled in part by the fact that these events occurred on on the day NORAD was gaming an almost identical scenario, and when the VERY BEST of the pilots (according to the "official" 9/11 Commission report) was "incompetent" (according to his instructor) then I would say to call it "luck" is breathtaking understatement. But even allowing for the theoretical possibility that the operatives behind 9/11 were just phenomenally "lucky", why even plan for such an operation, when the chances of hitting even one of these three targets was nearly zero? Were the principles really that astoundingly stupid? Oh, and yes, lucky. Only stupid, nit-picky "troofers" would see matters any differently, right? I mean the truth was all so obvious, Bush really didn't see the need for an investigation into it until he was pressured. Sheesh! Some people are just too darn SUSPICIOUS! I mean the very concept of a conspiracy theory is nutty in the first place, right?

Yes, they were lucky. These freaks were in a win-win situation.

If they got lucky, they'd hit their target, kill a load of infidels, kill the infidels in the plane, and land themselves in paradise with a load of virgins. Win.

If they didn't get lucky, they'd miss their target, but still might kill some infidels on the ground, kill the infidels in the plane, and land themselves in paradise with a load of virgins. Win.

If you don't care about crashing, flying a plane is easy.

I say again, grow up. Grow a brain. Try using it.

Mark, clearly you did not read what the pilot of Flight 77 DID, according to eye-witnesses, in order to align itself with the Pentagon, so I'll repeat it:

Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm…” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001] One Washington flight controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” [ABC News, 10/24/2001] One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [Washington Post, 9/10/2002]

I find it telling that whenever I try to debate believers in the official theory I fail, all I get in response are ad hominem remarks like "grow a brain", rather than reasoned arguments. This is supposed to be a science blog devoted to rational thinking. You have every right to disagree with me, and yes, you even have the right to insult me. Just be aware that such comments as "grow a brain" say far more about your reasoning skills than they do about mine. Peace.

Mr Olsen's posts here illustrate nicely the single most striking features of denialism: anomaly hunting: Forget context, bent, twist, hustle, form opinions on aspects of the theory under attack to arrive at discrepancies. These discrepancies are either not resolved but are left as is and considered proof of the alternative hypothesis or resolved by speculation.

Fallacy indeed.

Anon, I'd love to reply to your comment, but I honestly can't make any sense out of it. Perhaps if you could provide a specific example? I mean on the face of it, if I expose unresolved discrepancies, that would seem to undermine the official theory, would it not? Also, I'm not sure what alternate hypothesis you're referring to, as I haven't offered any. Indeed, my central thesis is to point out, Martin's opinion notwithstanding, that one is NOT required to offer an alternate hypothesis in order to be entitled to point out problems with the official one.

I find it telling that whenever I try to debate believers in the official theory I fail, all I get in response are ad hominem remarks like "grow a brain", rather than reasoned arguments.

Please, Mr Olsen, read paragraphs 3 and 5 in the section titled "Logical Fallacies" in http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php.

It applies to you.

You get reasoned arguments, yet you insist on your position that is solely based on a selection of opinions that are quoted out of context, ignoring opinions and evidence that run contrary to your position in the process. That's when people run out of patience. That you hit upon this mechanism a few times already might be a hint to you that it is not due the lack of reasoning skills on the side of your opponents but rather due to your delusions.

I mean on the face of it, if I expose unresolved discrepancies, that would seem to undermine the official theory, would it not?

Here we have the core of the deniar's fallacy. It hits upon another profound deniar trait: complete lack of self-critism. It doesn't enter his mind that the factlets, factoids and opinions are at odds with the accepted theory or favor the alternative hypothesis can be inacurate or wrong. The accepted theory is gauged by these factlets, factoids and opinions. If these don't match up with the accepted theory or established facts, rather than questioning these factlets, factoids and opinions the deniar draws the conclusion that the accepted theory is wrong.

Others here have already provided examples, casuing you to get into the classic "get a brain" loop. You yourself have provided examples. Investigate these, question your assumptions, go to the primary sources and resolve the discrepancies.

Anon, you say, "You get reasoned arguments..." You mean arguments like Martin's, "The idea that they [NIST] made this claim after being "called out" by Truthers is pure fantasy"?

Here is the "pure fantasy" Martin refers to. Please note that it is a PDF of the original NIST reply to Scholars for Truth and Justice's letter to NIST.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

If I made such a claim as Martin's and had then been presented with an original letter clearly disproving it, I would have acknowledged the fact. That is what people involved in reasoned discussions do.

I also disputed Martin's assertion that NIST's claim that the collapse was too complex to model was made in NIST's report. I was referring to the final one, but if Martin or anybody can direct me to such a claim in ANY NIST report, I would appreciate it.

You see, Anon, what I find in response to my reasoned arguments and statements of fact, often complete with links to original documents, is personal insults and scoldings.

For instance, I note in your comment that it is entirely devoid of a single example to back up your aspersions. That isn't reasoning, my friend.

Oops! Comment below is from me. Sorry.

Anon: "Investigate these, question your assumptions, go to the primary sources and resolve the discrepancies."

You mean discrepancies like NIST's claim, only after being challenged by Scholars for Truth and Justice, that the complexity of the collapses of the Twin Towers overwhelmed their computers (meaning that they undertook such an analysis), and that such analysis was "not part of their mandate"? Oh, so why did they attempt such analysis, then? Were they just goofing around? And why on earth WOULDN'T a collapse analysis of the Twin Towers be part of NIST's mandate? I mean we had towers full of people that both suddenly collapsed TO THE GROUND in mere seconds, ostensibly because of a collision and fires involving a few of the upper floors. NOBODY anticipated such a collapse. It was totally unexpected. Investigate away, Anon. I defy you to reconcile these facts with NIST's claim that analysis if the collapse sequence was not part of its mandate. I could continue with literally dozens of other such anomalies, but it would run to pages.

Second to last sentence in my comment below should read,

"I defy you to reconcile these facts with NIST's claim that analysis OF the collapse sequence was not part of its mandate."

You mean discrepancies like NIST's claim...

Yes, I mean discrepancies like these.

Thank you for adding more of the factlets and opinions I referred to to the example and at the same time failing to resolve the discrepancy. This way it illustrates my observation more clearly.

Kerosene is a volatile organic chemical (as would some of it's incomplete combustion products).
2 great big aeroplanes can hold an awful lot of kerosene.
If 2 great big aeroplanes crash into the WTC, it should be unsurprising to anyone with half a brain that there would be high levels of volatile organic chemicals in the air around the WTC after these 2 great big aeroplanes have crashed into the towers.

Did you not see those fucking huge aeroplanes crash into the towers? And still, 7 years on, you wonder how the towers collapsed? They were each hit by a fucking aeroplane. durrr.

Anon, I can't find this word "factlet" in the dictionary. If you dispute any of my facts, I'd like to hear about it. I'm puzzled by your concern over my "failure" to resolve the discrepancy. This is particularly odd, because any reasonably astute reader can see a rather obvious resolution regarding NIST's odd behaviour. It is this: NIST ran computer simulations of the conditions at the moment collapse began for each of the Twin Towers (we know this because they tell us their computers were overwhelmed by the task), but they couldn't obtain results consistent with the symmetrical, near-free-fall collapse. Rather than seeing if they could obtain the observed results by positing the use of explosives (which, would likely have produced the observed results), they realized that they couldn't find a plausible explanation for the dynamics of the collapse WITHOUT the use of explosives. In support of this hypothesis, I note that an increasing number of engineers and physicists are risking their careers by claiming with reasoned argument that the Twin Towers (and Bld. 7) couldn't have been brought down in the manner observed without the use of cutting charges and explosives.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ ).

I also note in support of this hypothesis that NIST wrote their analysis up to the moment of collapse--and even then using temperatures higher than is likely given the observations [as a retired power engineer, I am qualified to comment on such matters]--under the misleading heading, PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCES. I maintain that if NIST felt comfortable with its failure to address the collapse sequences of the Twin Towers, it wouldn't have tried to muddy the waters with such a patently false header. I also argue that given the unprecedented and totally unexpected collapses of the Twin Towers, that NIST WOULD in fact have been mandated to provide an analysis of the collapse sequences. And finally, I argue, as I have elsewhere, that it was only when NIST was called out by 9/11 Scholars for Truth, that they admitted that it couldn't analyze the collapse sequences, but no worries, because it wasn't part of their mandate, anyway.

I apologize for the long response, Anon, but it is in answer to your challenge that I "resolve the discrepancy". Now I have a challenge for you: If you disagree with my analysis, please tell my why, with supporting arguments, and also if you have a better resolution, please state it, also with supporting arguments, as I have done.

I look forward to your response.

Good point Tom, although I note that other suspicious substances were also found. However, if NIST had looked for residues (for the TT's certainly LOOKED LIKE they were brought down by cutters and explosives), we wouldn't need to speculate, would we? As it is, nobody has been able to provide a rigorous analysis of the dynamics of the TT's collapses without positing the use of cutters and explosives, not even NIST, so the argument that explosives were clearly NOT involved is without scientific merit. Martin's argument that there was no evidence for explosives is certainly disputed by Prof. Steven Jones and others, and so far explosive use is the only hypothesis which fits the known facts. Even if one wishes to dispute Prof. Jones' findings (and I don't have the necessary expertize to be certain one way or the other), Martin's dismissal of the only hypothesis so far advanced that accounts for the observations is just bad science, IMO. Sorry, Martin, nothing personal, but that appears to be the inescapable conclusion. If I am shown to be wrong, I'd be more than glad to revise my position--I really have no personal investment in it.

As I noted earlier (http://layscience.net/node/430#comment-38491)

These discrepancies are either not resolved but are left as is and considered proof of the alternative hypothesis or resolved by speculation.

(emphasis added)

Thank you for illustrating this so wonderfully.

Most of the arguments regarding 9/11 that I've made below can be distilled to this:

We know that few people, if anybody anticipated the Twin Towers' complete collapse to the ground.

We know from lead investigator Shyam Sunder's comments that NIST did not look for evidence of explosives after 9/11.

We know from the various NIST reports and NIST's letter to Scholars for Truth and Justice that NIST tried and failed to model the collapses without positing the use of explosives.

It is self-evident that had NIST been successful in its attempts to model the collapses, it would have released its data and explanation, because it is clearly in the public interest to do so.

NIST must have recognized this public interest, for it did TRY to model the collapse. We know this because NIST says that the "complexity" of the collapse overwhelmed their computers.

Furthermore, NIST described its version of events leading up to, and ONLY up to the point of collapse, under the highly misleading heading, PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCES.

FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE, it is clear NIST's claim that the modelling of the collapse sequence was not "part of its mandate" is utterly implausible.

The above suggests the following questions:

WHY did NIST make this implausible claim that modelling or explaining the collapse sequences was "not part of its mandate" in their response to Scholars for Truth and Justice?

Also, how plausible, really, is NIST's claim that the remarkably orderly, sequential collapses of the Twin Towers "overwhelmed" NIST's supercomputers?

To me the most reasonable answer, given these facts, is that NIST tried, but being unable to present a plausible model of the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers without the use of explosives, was forced, only after ST&J's challenge, to maintain the fiction that such analysis was not part of its mandate. If you see things differently, I'd be interested to hear about it.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Martin maintains that NIST should not have looked for explosives because "there was no evidence for their use." There are two points to be made here: NIST did not LOOK for evidence. Others, however, DO claim to have found such evidence. Even if they are mistaken, the fact remains that the collapses appeared to have involved cutting charges and explosives. Why? Well, although (unlike Bldg. 7!) they didn't resemble a classic controlled demo, nobody has been able to demonstrate that the observations are at variance with the cutting charges/explosives (c/e) hypothesis. Let me be crystal clear: Whether these occupied buildings could have been wired for explosives is a logistical debate. I'm talking straight-up physics--the observed physics strongly support the c/e hypothesis. Indeed, it's the ONLY hypothesis which HASN'T been criticized on the basis of physics.

THAT FACT ALONE is enough evidence to require NIST, not to mention the FBI, to have searched for explosives. So why didn't they? And why was Mayor Giuliani, a former prosecuting attorney, in such a hurry to dispose of the evidence of this major crime?

As Webster Tarpley notes, "Guiliani has not had a word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel; the priority was to make it disappear fast."

Even NIST admits the resulting paucity of evidence caused them problems. That simply isn't how major crimes and accidents are investigated. Literally thousand of pieces of TWA Flight 800 were brought up from the bottom of the Atlantic in order to "reconstruct" the aircraft, in order to understand just what brought it down. 9/11 killed far more people, and is considered as perhaps the greatest crime in US history. That Giuliani managed to ship the evidence to China, where it was melted down before it could be examined is frankly unbelievable. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence. Why did the FBI allow it? How high up the chain of command did the directive go? Why? Those are the questions that an inquiring mind asks.

Despite my extensive links elsewhere, often to original documents, people on this site have accused me of not looking to resolve such questions. They are mistaken. The truth is that time and again, what I find (as in my analysis of NIST's behaviour above) strongly suggests a Government conspiracy. I only wish I had all the answers, but that's far beyond the scope of any one individual. Anybody that's done even moderate research on 9/11 quickly comes to realize the crushing volume of facts which lead inexorably to that conclusion.

A final observation. Many believers in the "official" 9/11 conspiracy theory--The 9/11 Report--like to mock any and all conspiracy theories. Regrettably, they include Martin, who writes this blog whose underlying theme is, I gather, to teach us to think scientifically. Some conspiracies, like "the moon landing was faked" or "no planes hit the Twin Towers" are indeed lame. HOWEVER, it doesn't follow that because many conspiracy theories are lame, that they are ALL lame. Our history books are filled with conspiracies, from the Gunpowder Plot to Watergate to Iran/Contra (which, btw, lasted for several years and involved dozens of people, WHO ALL KEPT QUIET--please note, Martin--and so on, ad nauseam. The demonization of all conspiracy theorists as half-brains is mere fact avoidance, for if the theory is lame, it should be easy to shoot down with facts. Never avoid facts or conclusions that may make you feel uncomfortable. Garner the facts from those representing BOTH sides of the issue, consider them, attempt to engage in civil debate, and then make your decision, but NEVER PERSONALLY INVEST IN IT. That way, if you need to revise it or even abandon it, you can and will readily do so. Don't be put off by those who would divert you with worthless insults like "9/11 conspiracy nuts". People genuinely interested in the advancement of science don't engage in such behaviour.

In my 62 years I have learned to be very suspicious of officialdom, (especially the likes of the deeply corrupt Bush administration), to ask lots of questions, and to think for myself. I highly recommend it!

Please Mr. Olsen, do give a constructive argument for your case.

Personal opinions on people's and organizations' actions and motives are not evidence. Personal interpretations and opinions on what should have happened and should have been done do not prove the "official story" wrong. FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 commission having it wrong does not make you be right. Statements like "strongly suggest", "strongly supports" where there's several lightyears between de premise and the conclusion are rather unconvincing. That there are conspiracies in the world does not imply your theory is true.

Put all the available evidence on the table: e.g. all video footage, all photographic evidence, all eyewitness accounts, all audio recordings, all relevant radar data, all relevant seismic recordings, all cockpit voice recorder data and audio etc. etc., than step by step build an hypothesis as the hard evidence dictates your heading and show us how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

If your position is true, you should be able to provide such an argument.

Upon that time your theory is indeed just a conspiracy theory in the popular sense of the word: a nutty one. One that is based on personal opinions, perceived anomalies that are based on personal opinions, and for which only feeble proof positive is provided while ignoring the greater body of evidence.

The real conspiracy theories are accepted to be true because such a constructive argument based on tangible evidence was mprovided, ie these are conspiracy theories in the scientific sense of the word.

I couldn't have put it better myself. I spent a long time in forums working my way through pretty much every piece of 9/11 evidence out there, and I've yet to see a single piece of actual evidence presented that contradicts the accepted version of events without having to add some kind of subjective judgement or personal interpretation to it. And even if some serious flaw were found in the official story, it still wouldn't mean anything more than that there was a flaw in the story unless people could provide evidence of an actual conspiracy or cover up.

Also, I have to point and laugh at this piece of ignorance:

"Also, how plausible, really, is NIST's claim that the remarkably
orderly, sequential collapses of the Twin Towers "overwhelmed" NIST's
supercomputers?"

Are you serious?! It's self-evident!

Okay, let’s all point and laugh. Just remember this; it wasn’t Carl Olsen that tried and failed to model the collapses, it was NIST! So as long as you’re pointing and laughing, just remember that it’s NIST’s credibility that you’re calling into question, just as I have done over NIST’s entire position on this matter (unlike you, though, I used reasoned argument). I mean why even bother to TRY to model the collapses if the outcome is so self-evident as to be a laughing matter? Especially when NIST claimed after the fact that it “wasn’t their mandate” to do such modeling!

“I've yet to see a single piece of actual evidence presented that contradicts the accepted version of events without having to add some kind of subjective judgment or personal interpretation to it.”

Well, Martin, you’re about to lose your 9/11 virginity:
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
• The [9/11Commission’s] Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped." In fact, the core structures were composed of bundles of steel columns numbering 47 and having outside dimensions, in most cases, of 36 by 16 inches and 54 by 22 inches.

“And even if some serious flaw were found in the official story, it still wouldn't mean anything more than that there was a flaw in the story unless people could provide evidence of an actual conspiracy or cover up.”

Indeed. Trouble is, there are literally dozens of flaws, and although I have repeatedly argued this point, with supporting links, you STILL misrepresent my position. Also, there are matters that should have been, but were not addressed, in the Report of the 9/11 Commission:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUuHIuWtoU

The latter is a video of David Ray Griffin giving a speech in which he lists all the obvious omissions. I think he pushes the envelope on some, but it’s still a pretty damning commentary on the 9/11 Commission Report.

"Put all the available evidence on the table: e.g. all video footage, all photographic evidence, all eyewitness accounts, all audio recordings, all relevant radar data, all relevant seismic recordings, all cockpit voice recorder data and audio etc. etc., than step by step build an hypothesis as the hard evidence dictates your heading and show us how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

If your position is true, you should be able to provide such an argument."

Good plan, and I'm sure that the US government would just love to grant this Canadian citizen the necessary subpoena powers needed to gather all of this documentation. I should have it all assembled and my report compiled in a week or two. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

Why am I not surprised that this unnecessary and clearly impossible task meet with Martin's full approval?

Why do I say "unnecessary"? Because others have come about as close to that ideal as any group of private citizens can reasonably be expected to do:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

or

http://911scholars.org/

From Architects and Engineers for Truth:

"Why didn't we see the truth about about 9/11 before?
Did the 9/11 Commission keep the true cause of the "collapses" under wraps?
Did FEMA and NIST lie in their reports?
Is the mainstream media controlled enough to manipulate this story from the very beginning?
WE WILL ONLY KNOW IF WE GET A NEW TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!"

That is precisely my position.

BTW, what's this about "personal opinions"? I specifically invited reasoned arguments if you disputed any of my conclusions or took issue with my reasoning. Your failure to offer any speaks volumes.

Yes, here's an example from Architects and Engineers for Truth, perhaps the leading "truther" org:

http://www.ae91truth.org

WE WILL ONLY KNOW [the truth about 9/11] IF WE GET A NEW TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!

Oh, wait...

"That there are conspiracies in the world does not imply your theory is true."

True, but then I never suggested otherwise, did I? In fact what I said was "HOWEVER, it doesn't follow that because many conspiracy theories are lame, that they are ALL lame."

Most reasonably intelligent people would be able to distinguish between those two positions.

The Perfection Fallacy

And more personal opnions ("should").

You hold the position that

1. the events of 9/11 are likely brought about by a Government conspiracy, and
2. that the collapse of the WTC towers appear to be caused by explosives and explosives.

Well fine, you as a Canadian citizen lack "the necessary subpoena powers needed to gather all of this documentation.". Please, Mr. Olsen, do give us a constructive argument based on the evidence that you do have.

Note that a significant amount of relevant evidence, no shortage of video footage, no shortage of photographic evidence, radar data, CVR audio and transcripts, FDR data, radar data, a great volume of eyewitness accounts, is already available publicly.

Do show us how the tangible evidence you do have leads you, step by step, to your hypotheses, show us tangible evidence, observations that can not be explained by the progressive collapse theory. Work out the physics of the controlled demolition and show us how it makes the pieces of the puzzle fit.

You are in the position to provide such an argument. If your position holds true there should be something tangible that gives rise to it. Show it to us.

Until that time your position is one that lives in an intellectual vacuum, has no connection to the physical world, i.e. is a fantasy, a belief.

The burden of proof is on you.

"explosives and explosives" should read "explosives and cutting charges"

In responese to my "personal opinions and interpreations" observation you here said:

BTW, what's this about "personal opinions"? I specifically invited reasoned arguments if you disputed any of my conclusions or took issue with my reasoning. Your failure to offer any speaks volumes.

That's rather easy to answer, albeit a lot of work. It's akin to addressing "what's this about Hydrogen existing in the universe?". You offer personal opinions and interpretations abundantly:

• We know from the various NIST reports and NIST's letter to Scholars for Truth and Justice that NIST tried and failed to model the collapses without positing the use of explosives.
• It is self-evident that had NIST been successful in its attempts to model the collapses, it would have released its data and explanation, because it is clearly in the public interest to do so.
• NIST must have recognized this public interest, for
• it did TRY to model the collapse. We know this because NIST says that the "complexity" of the collapse overwhelmed their computers.
• Furthermore, NIST described its version of events leading up to, and ONLY up to the point of collapse, under the highly misleading heading, PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCES.
• FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE, it is clear NIST's claim that the modelling of the collapse sequence was not "part of its mandate" is utterly implausible.

  The above suggests the following questions:

• WHY did NIST make this implausible claim that modelling or explaining the collapse sequences was "not part of its mandate" in their response to Scholars for Truth and Justice?

  The underlying opnion is that explaining the full collapse sequence should be part of NIST's mandate

• Also, how plausible, really, is NIST's claim that the remarkably orderly, sequential collapses of the Twin Towers "overwhelmed" NIST's supercomputers?

  The underlying opinion is that NIST's computer models should have converged.

• To me the most reasonable answer, given these facts, is that NIST tried, but being unable to present a plausible model of the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers without the use of explosives, was forced, only after ST&J's challenge, to maintain the fiction that such analysis was not part of its mandate. If you see things differently, I'd be interested to hear about it.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------

  Martin maintains that NIST should not have looked for explosives because "there was no evidence for their use." There are two points to be made here: NIST did not LOOK for evidence. Others, however, DO claim to have found such evidence. Even if they are mistaken,

• the fact remains that the collapses appeared to have involved cutting charges and explosives. Why? Well, although (unlike Bldg. 7!) they didn't resemble a classic controlled demo, nobody has been able to demonstrate that the observations are at variance with the cutting charges/explosives (c/e) hypothesis. Let me be crystal clear: Whether these occupied buildings could have been wired for explosives is a logistical debate.
• I'm talking straight-up physics--the observed physics strongly support the c/e hypothesis. Indeed, it's the ONLY hypothesis which HASN'T been criticized on the basis of physics.
• THAT FACT ALONE is enough evidence to require NIST, not to mention the FBI, to have searched for explosives. So why didn't they?
• And why was Mayor Giuliani, a former prosecuting attorney, in such a hurry to dispose of the evidence of this major crime?

  The underlying opinion being that every piece of remnant should be left at Fresh Kills

  As Webster Tarpley notes, "Guiliani has not had a word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel;

• the priority was to make it disappear fast."
• Even NIST admits the resulting paucity of evidence caused them problems. That simply isn't how major crimes and accidents are investigated. Literally thousand of pieces of TWA Flight 800 were brought up from the bottom of the Atlantic in order to "reconstruct" the aircraft, in order to understand just what brought it down. 9/11 killed far more people, and is considered as perhaps the greatest crime in US history.

  The underluyng opinion here being that every piece of debris was essesential to conducting a thorough envestigation

• That Giuliani managed to ship the evidence to China, where it was melted down before it could be examined is frankly unbelievable.
• Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence.
  Why did the FBI allow it? How high up the chain of command did the directive go? Why? Those are the questions that an inquiring mind asks.

And that's just the personal opinions and interpretations. I didn't highlight the fallacies.

“NIST tried and failed to model the collapses without positing the use of explosives” is not my opinion. It is from two sources:

1. NIST’s letter to Scholars for Truth and Justice, et al. See

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

The following statement is from the bottom of page 3:

“NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are unable to converge on a solution.”

2. NIST research leader Dr. Shyam Sunder publicly stated that they did not consider the use of explosives in any of their modeling. This statement is consistent with the fact that NIST didn’t look for explosive residues in the above-linked letter. There is no reason not to doubt that Dr. Sunder is telling the truth when he says explosive use was not modeled.

I apologize for rehashing material that I have already provided elsewhere, but you obviously missed it.

I state, It is self-evident that had NIST been successful in its attempts to model the collapses, it would have released its data and explanation, because it is clearly in the public interest to do so.

No, it’s not just my opinion. As I stated, it is self-evident. That is unless you want to argue it’s in the public interest to hide such results. Good luck with that!

• NIST must have recognized this public interest, for
• it did TRY to model the collapse. We know this because NIST says that the "complexity" of the collapse overwhelmed their computers.

NIST is a government body funded by public taxes. Everything it does is considered to be in the public interest. Thus if it attempts to do a computer model of the collapse sequence of Towers 1 & 2, it must have deemed it to be in the public interest. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. Furthermore, I find it absurd to have to explain that such an analysis would indeed have been in the public interest.

Furthermore, NIST described its version of events leading up to, and ONLY up to the point of collapse under the highly misleading heading, PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCES.

Again, it is a fact, not just my opinion, that there is no analysis of collapse sequences under this heading or anywhere else in the document. Consequently, the heading is indeed highly misleading.

FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE, it is clear NIST's claim that the modeling of the collapse sequence was not "part of its mandate" is utterly implausible.

Perhaps I should have stated that it would be clear to any impartial reader with at least an average IQ.

• WHY did NIST make this implausible claim that modeling or explaining the collapse sequences was "not part of its mandate" in their response to Scholars for Truth and Justice?
The underlying opinion is that explaining the full collapse sequence should be part of NIST's mandate.
In disputing this self-evident statement as “opinion” you imply that any reasonable person might argue otherwise. This self-evidence is underscored by the fact that NIST did in fact try to do such modeling. At the risk of redundancy, NIST had no grounds for such an attempt if it didn’t, at the time of the attempt, deem it to be in the public interest. What made it change its position?

• Also, how plausible, really, is NIST's claim that the remarkably orderly, sequential collapses of the Twin Towers "overwhelmed" NIST's supercomputers?
The underlying opinion is that NIST's computer models should have converged.
NIST’s whole conclusion is deceitful. It argues that it modeled the towers to the point of “global collapse”, implying that once the collapse initiated, it was inevitable that the collapse sequence would progress to the ground, yet it provides not a shred of evidence to back up its contention. It doesn’t have to provide computer modeling. But if it refers to modeling to the point of global collapse, then it has to at least demonstrate the global collapse(s) (i.e. the total razing of the buildings) with mathematical calculations, before it can talk about such a collapse being inevitable. That is logical analysis, not my “opinion”.

You have bolded several other comments of mine without any commentary of your own, so I can’t respond to it. You then quote me:
And why was Mayor Giuliani, a former prosecuting attorney, in such a hurry to dispose of the evidence of this major crime?

And respond:
The underlying opinion being that every piece of remnant should be left at Fresh Kills
Initially, yes. The FBI, NIST, and any other parties with legitimate interests should have bee3n given the time to comb over the wreckage, in order to identify and studied material, or removed it for further examination. Only when they had completed this, should the material have been removed. That is not my opinion—It’s SOP. As it was, Interested parties were urging Giuliani to leave the material, but to no avail, and indeed NIST justifies its paucity of hard data on Giuliani’s intransigence.

You also claim that I am of the opinion that every piece of debris was essential to conducting a thorough investigation. No. But there’s simply no way to know what is and isn’t essential until all the examining bodies have had a chance to completely comb the site.
You claim, I didn't highlight the fallacies.
Well, that’s just too bad, isn’t it? Because unless I know what you consider to be fallacies, I have no way to respond. Nevertheless, it leaves the reader with the impression that there are indeed fallacies. Do you really think that’s fair?

Technical papers on many aspects of the collapses can be found here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

Here’s just some of the evidence that I maintain strongly indicates the events of 9/11 are likely brought about by a Government conspiracy:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?
3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?
4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?
5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?
THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS
6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?
7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)
FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS
8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.
9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.
10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)
11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).
12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects...
THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006
13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?
14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.
15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.
16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)
17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?
18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.
19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.
20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.
21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."
22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?
23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.
24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)
25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.
26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).
27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.
28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?
GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES
29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.
30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.
31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.
32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.
33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.
34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.
35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?
36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?
37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?
HISTORY
38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)
39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?
40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.
REASON NUMBER 41:
RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES
Ground Zero aftermath movements:
- Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
- "Radio Silence" (radiosilencefdny.com)
- Skyscraper Safety (www.skyscrapersafety.org).
Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)
Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)
Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.
Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, "The War at Home")
Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten - May 9, 2008!)
Whether you call it "Globalization" or "The New World Order" - An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.
Martin, you state, "Right, of those 67 scrambles, how many do you think were intercepts, and of those intercepts, how many were in U.S. airspace, and how long did they take on average?"
That it was considerably more than one is self-evident, as I pointed out. Feel free to diagree if you like. I doubt many readers will agree with you. As for time, again, I think it's safe to say that it's considerably less than 90 minutes, on average. That's just common sense. As for research, I'm the one whose backed up just about every assertion I've made with links. You've made several assertions for which I asked and received no evidence, like your claim that "had a missile brought it [Flight 93] down, the debris would have been scattered over about 20 miles". Where did this number come from?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s some evidence that the collapse of the WTC towers appear to be caused by [cutting charges] and explosives.
From Architects and Engineers for Truth http://www.ae911truth.org
[…]the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Unnatural symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20-40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten iron found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples

13. FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
[…]WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed

4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten
metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation
of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

That is the information you requested. Thanks for asking, and enjoy your reading.

I challenge anyone who embraces the "findings" of the 9/11 Commission and NIST to consider the implications of this short video from Architects and Engineers for Truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

From the commentary:
"Any analytical model of the collapse, no matter how simple or how sophisticated, is a bad model and bad science if it does not come back full circle and explain the actual observations. What do you see?"

Go from observables to your hypothesis, step by step. Build your case.

Long inchorent lists of points that are littered with subjective language, ie personal opinions and interpretations, and falsehoods are rather unconvincing.

A skycraper collapsing upon itself, maybe?

Cut the nonsense, Mr Olsen. Repeating a video clip ad infinitum, asking questions, a deep "I am in the know" voice, suggestive wording and factlets that are remotely consistent with a hypothesis are proof of nothing.

Repeating your mantra's ad nausium doesn't make them true.

Build your case, step by step as the observations dictate your heading.

Inchorent? I believe you mean "incoherent". Ironic, that. Look, I'm not particularly interested in the demands of people who have already firmly closed their minds on the issue. First off, the lists are anything but incoherent. Indeed, I challenge you to offer an example. Secondly, if I offer fact after fact contradicting or unaddressed in the "findings" of the 9/11 Commission, then it is not incumbent upon me to offer an alternative theory, in order to demonstrate that the 9/11 Commission's report is a highly politicized document with little merit, is it? I don't know the precise details as to what happened on 9/11, nor do I have access to enough material to formulate such a precise theory. However, I believe I have clearly demonstrated, with my links, that there are fatal flaws in the 9/11 Commission's report. One of the biggest flaws is the failure to address pressing concerns as to what DID happen that day. You demand of me what clearly was NOT provided by the 9/11 Commission's report, yet you're prepared to accept it, full of errors, distortions and omissions though it is. Why is that?

Finally, I note that like virtually all the commenters on this thread, you have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your contentions.

Adding more opinions, rephrasing some to counter the assertion that your case rests on opinions. It's just lovely.

As is true for virtually all the comments attacking my assertions, your response is devoid of a single example. I have demonstrated that much of what you claim are my opinions are in fact hard facts. Such opinions as I have offered, I have backed up with known facts. Disagree? Then please say so, and state why. Or is it that you're simply attacking them, even if reasonably held, merely because they're opinions?

Ultimately, the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission's report of which you are so enamored, are nothing more than opinions. There is nothing wrong with opinion per se. Indeed they're all but unavoidable outside of mathematical texts. What matters is whether the opinions offered are justified by the known facts. So, now that you understand that, what do you actually disagree with?

Rather than nonsense, the repeating of the video clip is appropriate, as it allows close observation of the various aspects of the tower's collapse as explained by the commentator. His voice isn't notably deep, and of course he is reading from a script. If his voice had been high-pitched high-pitched and lacking in authority, I'm guessing you would have found fault with that, too, wouldn't you? How petty.

I note that you have set the bar artificially high (as other responders have, in answering my critiques) in claiming I have not offered "proof". Anybody with a nodding acquaintance with science would know that not only is a hypothesis not considered proof, but neither is a theory, though a theory must be internally consistent and must provide a possible explanation for all, or nearly all known facts, unlike the 9/11 Commission Report. Proof is the domain of the mathematician, not the scientist. So why do you point out the obvious, that the video is "proof of nothing"? No such claim was ever made, was it?

The final words in the commentary are "What do you see?" It is inviting you to consider some of the anomalies observed by doubters of the official theory. To me the two "money quotes" are:

(3:21) "The NIST investigators have claimed that the top section of the building above the plane impact point came down like a pile driver, crushing the undamaged lower section of the building all the way to the ground. The top section of the building is, however, noticeably absent. There is nothing above the ring of explosions, except for a fountain of debris. Can you see a pile driver? It does not appear that the building is being crushed by anything."

and

(4:42) "Anything that occurred during the collapse itself, such as the evidence you are seeing here, was explicitly scripted out of the investigation [by NIST]. Any analytical model of the collapse, no matter how simple or how sophisticated, is a bad model and bad science if it does not come back full circle to explain the actual observations."

Agree? Disagree?

Martin, just to let you know I appreciate your prompt removal of spam, while permitting comments that I know you don't agree with-- namely mine. Not all web sites are as tolerant of dissent!

Bolded: an unresolved anomaly and a personal opinion. That's proof of nothing.

You haven't built your case yet.

If these are hard facts, as you claim, you should be able to build your case.

Build it. The burden of proof is on you. The "official story" having it wrong does prove nothing other than that the "official story" has it, well, wrong. Dodging doesn't help you building your case.

Finally, I note that like virtually all the commenters on this thread, you have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your contentions.

There's hardly a contention on your opponents's side. It is you that is being asked to build your case. Thus far, you failed.

That an analytical model that doesn’t explain the observations is a bad model and bad science is not an opinion that too many people would disagree with. How about you?

And why do you insist on nothing short of proof? You remind me of a religious fundamentalist shouting “evolution is just a theory, not proven fact.”

I have already explained that proof is the domain of the mathematician, not the scientist. You appear to disagree. Please explain.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

9/11 Trutherism is a belief.

Thank you for your cooporation.

Actually, your inability to address any of my arguments eloquently demonstrates that it is your mind that is made up (and the facts be damned!), not mine.

I mean how ironic that you would claim that my comment "proved" that "9/11 Trutherism [wtf?] is a belief," without offering a shred of evidence to back up your contention.

How do you square such a statement with the one I quoted to you in a previous comment, from Architects and Engineers for Truth?:

"Why didn't we see the truth about about 9/11 before?
Did the 9/11 Commission keep the true cause of the "collapses" under wraps?
Did FEMA and NIST lie in their reports?
Is the mainstream media controlled enough to manipulate this story from the very beginning?
WE WILL ONLY KNOW IF WE GET A NEW TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!"

As I said to you before, that is precisely my position, (i.e. we can speculate, but we don't know what happened) thus your latest comment is nothing more than a fact-free smear.

Go to http://www.911truth.org and check out the extensive menu on the top left.

EnoughAlready, you say, "The "official story" having it wrong does prove nothing other than that the "official story" has it, well, wrong."

Exactly! So now let's have a proper independent no-holds-barred investigation to get to the bottom of things, like those crazy "troofers" keep demanding.

You provided the evidence.

There are two themes in your position. a) That the US government is likely complicit in the events of 9/11 and b) that the WTC towers where brought down by controlled demolition.

When asked to build your case you dodge by 1) saying that you lack the "necessary subpoena powers needed to gather all of this documentation." and 2) you do not need to provide such a constructive argument on the grounds that "that proof is the domain of the mathematician, not the scientist." (*)

That is, i) you are sure that the documentation from (1) does exists, without there being any kind of proof that it actually exists and ii) you are unable to even begin to build a case on the volume of evidence that is available.

Your position thus has no basis in reality, ergo it is a belief.

We do know pretty well what happened, Mr. Olsen. It's only when one ignores the available evidence, eyewitness testimony, FDR data, CVR audio, phone calls from the planes, radar data, photographic and video evidence, DNA fingerprints, debris etc. that one can proclaim "we can speculate, but we don't know what happened."

For me to address your arguments you have to come up with something of substance, arguments that are based on ignorance (like ignorance of computer modelling and chaotic behaviour of dynamic systems) and arguments of the "opinions and reality do not match, therefore reality has has a problem" kind can only be laughed at for the stupidity that they represent.

Provide a fact that does not fit into the narrative of the "official story", i.e. that falsifies the latter. Build your case.

(*) I nearly died laughing at this particular piece of stupidity, I might add.

You have yet to provide a fact that falsifies the "official story". Perceived anomalies based on personal opinions do not quite do so.

You have yet to provide a fact that falsifies the "official story". Not true, EnoughAlready! I quoted below, "The [9/11Commission’s] Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped." As the cores were composed of 47 braced steel columns, this is a gross distortion of the key fact which has so far prevented a cogent explanation of the collapses without positing the use of explosives. Think about that.

How could such a gross mischaracterization occur? Well, here are a few facts regarding the "objectivity" of the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e. the "official story") of which you are so enamoured: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leY9SJAQqnU

Why are you so slavishly accepting this piece of trash, which raises more questions than it answers? Do you not understand the enormous conflict of interest in the WH's appointment of one of its own, Philip Zelikow as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, and thus in full control of all the information fed to the Commission? Or do you agree with the "sceptical" Martin, "be skeptical of the claims of others, but don't lose your basic trust in human beings"? Isn't that an oxymoron? How can one be both sceptical and trusting of scientific claims at the same time? As for myself, I choose to be highly sceptical of the Bush White House's claims, because human beings such as Cheney, Rummy, Zelikow, Wolfie and W himself don't warrant such trust. But then, that's just my opinion, so you can discount it and go back to sleep.

Please Mr. Olsen, do cut the nonsense.

Adding some more detail to a footnote to a paragraph in a section that gives a gross overview of the WTC towers in a chapter on emergency response preparedness does not falsify "the official story."

A video from a speech from an individual who in an entire 7 minutes soup of words draws in only two facts from reality, two key members being Republicans, to substantiate his claim that the 9/11 Commission's Report is "properly characterized as a work of fiction" does not falsify "the official story."

Come up with a hard fact that is inconsistent with the overall narrative of "the official story."

EnoughAlready, you accused me of not providing a fact that falsifies the “official story”, which is that gravity alone was sufficient to raze the Twin Towers to the ground. But I pointed out that I had already provided just such a fact, as indeed I had. If the centres of the Twin Towers had been “shafts” as the 9/11 Commission Report claimed, then the biggest single stumbling block to the “official” hypothesis—the 47 braced core columns-would be removed. But the existence of these columns renders the “official” hypothesis laughable to anybody with a good grasp of physics and engineering principles. Indeed nobody to this day has been able to demonstrate that this event could occur as suggested by either FEMA or NIST (the two reports are contradictory, btw). Furthermore, such an event is considered by physicists and engineers who have actually studied the problem to be well nigh impossible without the aid of cutting charges and explosives. Did you know that? See http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php for an extensive list of such articles. Also watch this short video of a discussion by MIT engineer Jeff King on the problems with the FEMA and NIST reports: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related

None of these links provide a fact that falsifies "the official story."

Papers that rest on falsehoods and personal opinions that XYZ can't happen or papers that rest on semantic games, or critique concerning the events surrounding the investigation do not falsify the official story.

Expressing falsehoods doesn't either.

Adding some detail to a footnote does not falsify "the official story" either. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

You need to come up with an observable that falsifies "the official story."

It's telling that while you falsely accuse me of not providing "an observable that falsifies 'the official story'" (did you not watch the video to which I linked? And is an MIT engineer's expert "personal" opinion not good enough for you?) not only do you not back up your accusations, you don't even give examples of them! What "falsehoods" are you referring to, and where is the evidence to back up your claim? Similarly, what "semantic games" are you referring to? As I told you before, when you don't give examples, I'm unable to refute your accusations. In my opinion, that's just dirty pool. It's certainly not science!

The onus is on you to provide an example of an observable that falsifies "the official story."

What I did find in the papers at http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php and in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related I characterized in my post. If you feel otherwise and believe any of these papers, video (or any other source) reference an observable that falsifies "the official story," please tell us and show us that fact.

Yes, you characterized those links as “falsehoods” and “semantic games”, without providing even a single example, never mind an argument. You still haven’t, even after I pointed this out and criticized you for it! Telling indeed.

I, on the other hand, said, The [9/11Commission’s] Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped." As the cores were composed of 47 braced steel columns, this is a gross distortion of the key fact which has so far prevented a cogent explanation of the collapses without positing the use of explosives.

Experts such as engineer Jeff King insist that the collapses couldn’t have occurred as observed without the use of explosives. On the other hand, I have previously pointed out that to the best of my knowledge, nobody has argued that the observations are inconsistent with cutting charge/explosives use, other than that the Twin Towers’ top-down collapses are atypical of a normal cd, [but perfectly “do-able”]. So any objective person will conclude that therefore the onus is on those who insist that explosives weren’t used, to demonstrate how this is even possible, or at a minimum how the observations are inconsistent with a cd.

The fallacy in your reasoning is that you give special status to the contra-indicated “official” theory because it is, well, “official” (notwithstanding that it was compiled by politicians and political operatives!). In fact that counts for zip in the world of science, and the “official” theory that explosives were not used remains unsupported by the observations, which is what Jeff King and an increasing number of engineers and physicists, as well as the short video showing no “piledriver” are telling us. Wake up, my friend. Seriously!

PS I have now found the complete video of Jeff King’s speech. It starts at 1m 25s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRIdlb88tg&feature=related

Correction: Jeff King is apparently not “an MIT engineer”, as I previously stated. He says, “I studied physics at MIT. I did electrical engineering for about eight years. I’ve had quite a bit of practical engineering experience.”

You argue from the position that the "official theory" being falsified is an established fact ("contraindicated") yet you thus far failed to provide a single fact that actually falsifies it. Adding detail to a footnote to a section that gives an overview of the towers in a chapter on emergency response does not falsify the "official theory." Opinions of a presumed expert do not falsify a theory. Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't either. Only tangible facts can do.

I claim that the links you provided contain only opinions, falsehoods and semantic games. Prove me wrong by showing they contain a fact that falsifies the "official story."

Kill two birds with one stone.

No such constructive argument to be found there.

No EA, you show me where the official report (NIST or the 9/11 Commission Report, take your pick) gives a scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC Towers 1 & 2. My point is that you have no basis for slavishly believing the official line--despite visual evidence to the contrary, and despite the inability of anybody to provide a scientific explanation of how this could occur--that the Twin Towers were brought down without the use of cutting charges and explosives.

BTW, if you're looking for definitive proof that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives, you won't find it from me--at present there is strong visual and perhaps trace evidence, plus the lack of a cogent explanation as to how this could happen without explosives. That is why we need a proper independent investigation. As things now stand, you simply have nothing to back up your counterintuitive position that explosives were not used. Indeed, remarkably, NIST claims it didn't even bother to look for explosive traces! This is the government engineering safety organization that claims that it had "no mandate" to provide an analysis of the unprecedented collapses of the Twin Towers. If you can swallow that whopper, I guess you can swallow just about anything.

As there's about a month's worth of reading from dozens of sources beyond that link, I know full well that you haven't actually checked it out beyond perhaps the most cursory glance. Here is just one source listing omission after omission and inaccuracy after inaccuracy in the 9/11 Report.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

The "constructive" argument to be made of the 9/11 Report after reading this devastating factual assessment (note that this is not an opinion piece) is that it would be quite useful as toilet paper.

So it appears we agree that no such constructive argument, ie an argument that builds the case for controlled demolition and government complicity step by step as the observations dictate the heading, can be found there.

You hold the position that the "official" theory is wrong. You therefore should not have difficulty in coming up with a relevant fact that cannot be explained by it. Articulate that "visual evidence to the contrary." Dodging by attempting to shift the burden of proof does not help you in demonstrating the ""official" theory being wrong. Neither does displaying your ignorance on computer modelling and sensitivity to initial conditions of dynamic systems.

"Strong visual and perhaps trace evidence" for the use of explosive exists? Build your case, than. Despite your attempt at dodging, the burden of proof lies with you.

Note: This comment belongs at the bottom of the discussion immediately below, but the thread column has grown too narrow to readily read. Any further comments to this thread should continue below this comment.

“Articulate that ‘visual evidence to the contrary’"? I already did, EA. Several times!

If you had gone to the technical articles that I previously linked to (http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php), you would find articles such as this:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here is an excerpt: The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.

This conclusion is backed up with detailed engineering analysis. The paper’s author? Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both mechanical and manufacturing engineering.

There are several similar critical articles by highly qualified experts. Here’s a fairly straight-forward one from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

As for my "visual evidence to the contrary" remark that you object to, the argument made in the video is also my argument: As one can see, there was little mass of material to act as a relentless downward force in Tower 2, as the top tipped over and rapidly disintegrated. Just what stopped this pivoting moment and caused it to fall straight down and almost instantly disintegrate remains unexplained, unless one posits the use of explosives. The collapse of Tower 1 is also resists explanation by positing gravity alone, as the collapse started almost at the top. No pile driver there, either. So the observations belie the official “crush down, crush up” hypothesis. In both towers, one can see that a huge volume of material was explosively pulverized and ejected laterally at tremendous force. As the engineering analyses I have linked to tell us, there simply wasn’t enough material left to “crush down” and keep the collapses going. The theoretical explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers as observed remains unexplained, unless one posits the use of explosives.

So there you go, EA, I have yet again backed up my position with links to expert analysis.

When are you going to show me what your position is based on?

"So it appears we agree..." Where did I say that, EA? Go to the current top post, "Note: This comment belongs", submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 01:12, for just one example of why I strongly disagree with your position that explosives were not used to bring down the Twin Towers. The evidence also points to explosives being used to bring down Tower 7, but that's another subject.

As for an argument that "builds the case for controlled demolition" as per your requirements, how about this, which I previously linked to?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's the step by step case for government complicity (with observations dictating the headings), as per your demand:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_3_Complicity_inferen...

The "piece of stupidity" that you almost died over is my assertion that proof is the domain of the mathematician, not the scientist.

Here is a link that backs up my statement:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/2008...

Note in particular the opening sentence of the second paragraph:

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

I have long known this to be true, as does anybody who has the first clue about the philosophy of science, and scientific method. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, EA, I don't dodge. You do. I provide links and arguments to back up my positions. You provide nothing.

"It's only when one ignores the available evidence, eyewitness testimony, FDR data, CVR audio, phone calls from the planes, radar data, photographic and video evidence, DNA fingerprints, debris etc. that one can proclaim 'we can speculate, but we don't know what happened.'"

Glad you think this evidence nails it all down, EA, but millions of people, including experts, disagree with you. There are just too many contradictions and anomalies, as I have already listed. Are you even aware of the widely discussed problems (with supporting evidence from the FBI) with those "phone calls from the planes"? For just one example, what man would phone his mother and say, "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham?"

As for "eyewitness testimony", you mean like this?:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

Photographic and video evidence? Yes, there's plenty of that, but it sure as hell doesn't support the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report, as I have exhaustively detailed elsewhere on this page.

Etc., etc.

We desperately need a proper, independent investigation. Your absurd statement that the evidence supports the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission notwithstanding.

Sorry, but I just can’t resist giving this excerpt from a comment of yours (Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:24) the prominence it richly deserves:

When asked to build your case you dodge by…saying that…you do not need to provide such a constructive argument on the grounds that "that proof is the domain of the mathematician, not the scientist." (*)

(*) I nearly died laughing at this particular piece of stupidity, I might add.

EnoughAlready, if you want to learn the basics of scientific reasoning, go to
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/2008...
Note in particular the opening sentence of the second paragraph:
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."
‘Nuff said.

Semantics

Well, mathematical proof doesn't exist in science. I didn't ask to provide mathematical proof for your position.

I asked you to provide a constructive argument for your position, going from observations, step by step, as they dictate your heading. In the colloquial sense of the word: prove your position.

In the emperical sciences such constructive arguments are given.

In the emperical [sic] sciences such constructive arguments are given.

And I have linked to just such arguments. For instance, see my comment below (Wed, 01/07/2009 - 01:12.)

I didn't ask to provide mathematical proof for your position.

You most certainly did! What else could “proof positive” be? No matter what evidence I provided, you repeatedly replied that it’s not “proof” or “proof positive” (and I can’t get my head rapped around your concept of “feeble proof positive”). So when I expose your sophistry by pointing out that proof is the domain of mathematics, not science, you first viciously ridicule my claim, then when I back it up, you try to maintain that “proof” and “proof positive” means something less to you than actual, you know, “proof”. Your whole style of “argument” is unprincipled and entirely fact-free.

Mr. Olsen. the depth of your delusions and ingorance know now bound.

Yeah.. what else could "proof positive" be.

Personal opinions, personal interpretations and factlets only remotely consistent with your hypothesis are not evidence. As long as you push those forward as "evidence" I'll repeat that notion.

(I intentionally left a spelling error, giving you the opportunity to do one thing right.)

Mr. EnoughAlready the depth of your delusions and ignorance know no bound double times!
There, I win!!!

What an intelligent way to argue, EnoughAlready.

”Yeah…what else could “proof positive” be.”
Funny, I thought that was my question.

”Personal opinions, personal interpretations and factlets only remotely consistent with your hypothesis are not evidence. As long as you push those forward as "evidence" I'll repeat that notion.”

You mean like this from my comment just below?:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Oh, sorry, you couldn’t mean that, because it’s a step-by-step engineering analysis demonstrating that the collapse of WTC 1 would not have continued to the ground, as it did, without explosives.

You must mean this then, from the same comment:

http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

Oh, no, not that either. That’s a physicist’s critique, first published in Engineering Mechanics, of an analysis by an apologist for the “no explosives” hypothesis.

Hey, wait a minute! How come you keep summarily rejecting the evidence I offer without even so much as an acknowledgment, while you don’t feel you need to offer any evidence in support of your position? You keep telling me the onus is on me to “prove” my position, when the “official” position hasn’t offered any explanation as to how it’s even possible. How does that work, EA?

Oh yes, and what are these “factlets” you keep talking about. False statements? No? How about nasty facts that stand in the way of the “official” theory, so you’ll trivialize their importance by making up a new word? Yes, that sounds more like it.

“I intentionally left a spelling error, giving you the opportunity to do one thing right.” Gee, thanks, EA, you’re all heart! You wouldn’t lie to me, would you?

Crickets...

Due to space constrictions, my response to the above comment is at the top of this thread (Wed, 01/07/2009 - 01:12).

“Articulate that ‘visual evidence to the contrary’"? I already did, EA. Several times!

No you haven't. Visual evidence remotely consistent with your explosives/cutting charges position that is consistent with the impact damage/fire induced auto-collapse hypothesis is not "evidence to the contrary."

You will have to come up with evidence that is consistent with the explosives/cutting charges position and inconsistent with the impact damage/fire induced auto-collapse hypothesis.

Ross's bookkeeping error

On the debit side of his energy balance Gordon Ross incorrectly lists the loss of kinetic energy as the result of inelastic collision of the 16 floor upper block with the 17th (counted from the top) floor as an energy sink. Furthermore, he incorrectly lists the plastic strain energy in the lower impacted floor and upper impacted floor as energy sinks.

Ross' analysis is thus flawed.

In reality the kinetic energy lost due to inelastic collision is used to i) generate the wave through the columns (the energy being converted to the elastic strain energy in the upper and lower floors) and to ii) plastically strain the materials of the colliding floors (the energy being converted to plastic strain energy). At the point in time that the stresses in the materials making up the colliding floors exceed their load bearing capacity, this strain energy is than used to break the materials.

When we eliminate the items on the debit side of his energy balance that are not energy sinks we arrive at an energy surplus of 2105 - 1389 = 700 MJ.

(By conservation of energy, the 1389 MJ being the sum of all energy sinks: elastic strain energy, pulverization and energy sinks that he fails to identify. One of the latter most notably being kinetic energy of ejected debris.)

"Evolution is just a theory"

No you haven't. Your "hard facts" have personal opinions and interpretations mixed in with them. You have to go from observables to conclusion, step by step, using valid rules of inference.

Much less have you backed them up. Quote mining is not backup them up. Neither is referring to someone who agrees with you.

Ultimately, the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission's report of which you are so enamored, are nothing more than opinions. There is nothing wrong with opinion per se. Indeed they're all but unavoidable outside of mathematical texts. What matters is whether the opinions offered are justified by the known facts. So, now that you understand that, what do you actually disagree with?

People can formulate and express uninformed opinions, informed opinions, logical conclusions, theories (in the popular sense of the word), hypotheses, theories (in the scientific sense of the word) and a wide range of intermediates and derivatives. Lumping these together and label them "opinions" suggests an equality where there is none.

You have to build your case, "justified by the evidence" is not good enough, particularly when that "evidence" comprises of personal opinions and interpretations. Start with weeding out the subjective language from your "hard facts."

But where is the analysis showing that the collapse is "consistent with the impact damage/fire induced auto-collapse hypothesis?" That's what I keep asking you for, and you have as yet failed to provide. Why do you insist that I back up my position without you having to back up yours?

EA, I have provided many examples which I claim are facts. Other claims are backed by informed opinion, and still others by both. If you disagree with an alleged fact or opinion, then you need to state, first of all which alleged fact or opinion you disagree with, then why. All you are doing is making accusations to which I can't respond, because I don't know which specific instances you are talking about. I've told you that at least twice before, but still you keep doing it!

I see that you have now responded to the Gordon Ross analysis above, the first time you have made such an attempt. This is good, EA, but you still need to back up your own position.

Although I am not a structural engineer, the point I would make is that your critique of Ross's analysis apparently overlooks the energy required to pulverize the material and eject it laterally, where it is of course no longer available to impact on the floors below.

If you want a better explanation, or perhaps even a concession, then I would suggest you contact Mr. Ross. He says on http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

There have been one or two other people who have responded to my article with criticism. There was one individual who was standing in the US elections who promised faithfully to forward my work, "How the Towers were Demolished", to two of the best debunking sites. That was nearly three months ago and I haven't heard a cheep from them or him in all of that intervening period. Does this mean that my article is "undebunkable"? No. If you examine the individuals responsible for these debunking sites you will find mostly anonymous individuals who are clearly ill-equipped for the task that was set to them. I would ask again that if anyone has any criticism or question, or would like to put forward an alternative theory then they should do exactly that.

At the end of the day, EA, I still maintain it's inexplicable and inexcusable that NIST didn't do such an analysis. Good comment, BTW. Looks like you did alot of work! Are you a structural engineer?

You hold the position that the auto-collapse hypothesis is false. As the hypothesis is well articulated in publicly available documents, if it is indeed false, you should be able to provide evidence that is inconsistent with the fire/damage induced auto-collapse hypothesis. Your position fails or succeeds solely on its own merits, not on my position.

Crockett Grabbe's paper criticizes K.A. Seffen's collapse analysis and to a lesser extend such an analysis by Bazant and Zhou.

At best, Grabbe's paper invalidates these analyses. It does not falsify the auto-collapse hypothesis. It doesn't offer a single fact that falsifies the latter.

Please explain how criticizing 2 papers does anything other than show potential holes in these 2 papers. Please explain how criticizing 2 papers falsifies the auto-collapse hypothesis. Please explain what, and if, how, facts it offers that falsifies the auto-collapse hypothesis.

What you refer to as the "auto-collapse hypothesis" is the official position of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Government safety standards agency NIST. Why, when it offered no evidence to back up its hypothesis beyond vague generalizations? It is simply unacceptable to consider this hypothesis--which many people, including structural engineers, architects, physicists, and demo experts, consider extremely unlikely--as anything more than the unsupported hypothesis that it is. Any work done in an attempt to provide evidential underpinning has been post facto, after the matter has supposedly been "put to rest". Nevertheless, anybody who dared to challenge this unsupported hypothesis was (and still is) branded a "conspiracy nut" by those that insist that the "official findings" of the 9/11 Commission are "the truth". Furthermore, this late evidence for the official "auto-collapse hypothesis" has not withstood scrutiny. What, then, is left to support this hypothesis? And why, when it is no more than a hypothesis, it is accepted as gospel, and those who question it branded "nuts"?

I really don't know how I can make myself any clearer, EA. There are dozens of outstanding questions over what happened on 9/11. That's why the 9/11 truth movement wants to have a full, independent investigation. Until such an investigation is held, nobody can claim to know what happened on 9/11. Don't you see EA? The "official" story is a house of cards built on quicksand. Why is it that anybody who points out this unassailable truth is branded a "conspiracy nut"?

My position isn't that it's false. That's a mathematical concept. My position is that this "auto-collapse" hypothesis has little to support it and much to throw doubt on it, yet it is considered the "official" account of what happened, and those who dare so much as question it are branded "conspiracy nuts". What is wrong with this picture? I mean even you agree that the auto-collapse hypothesis has so far failed as a theory, otherwise you would call it a theory, which requires testable supporting evidence, rather than a hypothesis, which requires no such evidence. For more on this, see my comments posted on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 06:23.

As for my "visual evidence to the contrary" remark that you object to, the argument made in the video is also my argument: As one can see, there was little mass of material to act as a relentless downward force in Tower 2, as the top tipped over and rapidly disintegrated.

Firstly, that the upper block disintegrates is not something we can infer from the video footage: it is simply not possible to see because of the increasing volume of debris that is being ejected.

Having said that, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it did progressively disintegrate. That it disintegrates does not imply that there was "little mass of material to act as a relentless downward force", disintegration doesn't make the mass go away. The tens of thousands of tonnes of material that once where the upper block are still falling downwards and still have a considerable amount of kinetic energy available to consume more of the tower. An amount of mass and kinetic energy that aren't to decrease as more mass starts falling down and the falling mass speeds up as the collapse progresses. To say "there was little mass of material to act as a relentless downward force" is just silly.

Just what stopped this pivoting moment and caused it to fall

As the South tower's upper block starts to tilt, the velocity farthest away from the pivot point is highest. Hence the upper blocks meats more resistance there than at the other side, resulting in a torque on the upper block, that arrests the tilt.

straight down and almost instantly disintegrate remains unexplained,

No such "almost instant disintegration" is to be observed. What is visible of the upper block continues falling downwards until it is obstructed from view by the developing debris cloud.

unless one posits the use of explosives. The collapse of Tower 1 is also resists explanation by positing gravity alone, as the collapse started almost at the top. No pile driver there, either.

The North tower's upper block comprises of about 16 storeys. That amounts to several tens of thousands of concrete and steel. To say that there is "pile driver there" is beyond silly.

So the observations belie the official “crush down, crush up” hypothesis.

At best you have falsified B and Z's simplified model. Perceived anomalies are readily explained. The observations are in agreement with the impact damage/fire induced auto collapse hypothesis.

In both towers, one can see that a huge volume of material was explosively pulverized and ejected laterally at tremendous force.

This is also consistent with the official hypothesis: as the collapse progresses kinetic energy lost in the falling mass colliding with up to then undamaged material is used to break material and accelerate the remnants.

To falsify the official story you need to come up with a fact that contradicts it, ie that cannot be explained by it. What you have put forward here is easily explained by it, the opposite of contradicting it.

"To say that there is "pile driver there" is beyond silly.", of course, should read "To say that there is "no pile driver there" is beyond silly."

The top must have rapidly disintegrated to produce the enormous amount of pulverized ejecta observed from the first moments of collapse. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it was caused by the impact with the first floor or two. The remaining fine material, because it is no longer a single unit imparting its force instantly, would break through the floors below slowly, if at all. Not only that--most of it is ejected away and thus can no longer contribute to the progressive collapse. Imagine a one pound rock dropped on your head from a height of ten feet. It could possibly break your skull. Now imagine a pound of sand poured on your head from the same height and landing over a one second period. By spreading the single impact of the rock into many small impacts over a second, little damage is done. And that’s not even accounting for the loss of material lost to lateral ejection.

Your observation that the velocity is high the farther from the pivot point is true for any toppling tower, building top, etc., yet once it starts to topple, it doesn’t spontaneously right itself. Why? Because, among other reasons, the greater velocity of the falling top overcomes the slight increase in resistance.

Despite the floor-by-floor loss of kinetic energy that you refer to, and despite the loss of the ejected material, the towers continued to fall at near free-fall velocity. How is this possible if each floor would need to break away and begin to fall? That was essentially the “pancake theory” proposed by FEMA, but later rejected by NIST after independent engineers roundly criticized it. NIST’s explanation? None. It “wasn’t part of their mandate”.

So you see, the “official story” that you maintain I haven’t falsified doesn’t even exist!

Correction: The official “story” exists, but since NIST officially abandoned the “pancake theory” without replacing it with a revised “theory” (not even a bad one!), no official explanation exists.