Skip to content or view screen version

What we know and don’t know about 9/11

Paul Craig Roberts | 17.08.2006 20:23 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Repression

Despite the dark days in which we live, some readers find optimism in recent polls that show more than one-third of the US public now disbelieve the official account of 9/11 despite the Bush regime’s propaganda faithfully trumpeted by the US media.

08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “Gullible Americans,” (  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm ) The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.

Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America’s reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting “our government” is un-American.

Among the issues raised are:

How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission’s reporting of the facts, and “conspiracy theories”?

What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?

What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11?

What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with the official explanation instead of examining the explanation, especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with 9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC?

Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of people, including our own troops?

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure.

This leaves us with the incontrovertible fact that buildings cannot “pancake” at free fall speeds.

The only explanation known to science for the free fall collapse of a building, especially into its own footprint, is engineered demolition, which removes the supports for each floor of the building at split second intervals so that the debris from above meets no resistance on its fall. To call this explanation a “conspiracy theory” is to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or engineer who maintains that buildings can “pancake” at free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or is a total incompetent fool.

The WTC buildings are known to have collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprints.

This fact does not tell us who is responsible or what purpose was served.

Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” I would not be surprised if some of the most far-out “conspiracy theories” consist, in fact, of disinformation put out by elements in the government to discredit all skeptics. But I do not know this to be the case.

How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime. Many Christians think that Bush is “a man of God” who is protecting American morality from homosexuals and abortionists. Others who wear their patriotism on their sleeves think Bush is standing up for America and innocent Israel, and that they must not let anti-American anti-war protesters cause America to lose another war and repeat the Vietnam experience. Americans are both ignorant and full of resentments against the left. This makes them easily manipulated by the neoconservatives who dominate the Bush regime and the media.

Also, many anti-war and anti-Bush online sites are scared of being called “crazy conspiracy kooks.” They protect their sites by staying away from the 9/11 issue, just as so many Americans are scared to death of being called “anti-semitic” and thereby do not dare criticize Israel no matter the heinous war crimes that state routinely commits. Of all the online subscribers to my column, only vdare.com and NewsMax had the courage to post my column. Realizing that even antiwar sites would serve as de facto gatekeepers for the neocons, I offered the column to ICH, whose editor cannot be intimidated.

The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know.

We know nothing about alleged suicide flyers led by M. Atta except what the government has told us, a government that has lied to us about everything else, such as Iraq’s alleged WMD and alleged links to Osama bin Laden, and Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, a program for which the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors cannot find evidence.

According to reports, the BBC has found 6 of the alleged suicide hijackers alive and well in their home countries. I do not know if the report is true, but I do know that the report has been ignored and there has been no investigation. Both the US government and the US media have turned a blind eye. We have no way of knowing if Atta and his named accomplices hijacked the planes, or, if they did, whether they were dupes of intelligent services that pretended to be a terrorist cell and organized the cover for the engineered demolition.

The fact that we do not know any of these things, and the fact that the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen now tell us that their report is flawed, are good indications that we have no documented information of who was behind the plot, why it occurred, or how it operated.

With regard to the role of the US media, if it is indeed a media rather than a propaganda ministry, one reader cited remarks by the distinguished investigative reporter, John Pilger, made in an address at Columbia University on 14 April 2006:

“During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. ‘I have to tell you,’ said their spokesman, ‘that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?’”

This quote is probably apocryphal, but it is well used to make a valid point. The answer to the Russian’s question is that during the cold war the American public viewed the Soviet Union as a dangerous adversary and were amenable to reports to that effect. The fact that the Soviets were a potentially dangerous adversary made Americans blind to the roles of the US military-industrial complex, which benefitted financially from cultivating the adversary relationship, and the US government, which benefitted politically from cultivating the adversary relationship, in keeping the adversarial relationship alive.

The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives--not by journalists--whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.

Despite the dark days in which we live, some readers find optimism in recent polls that show more than one-third of the US public now disbelieve the official account of 9/11 despite the Bush regime’s propaganda faithfully trumpeted by the US media. Bush’s own rock-bottom polls show that Americans, like the Russians of the Soviet era, can read between the lines of the propagandistic US media. Many Americans can still spot a liar and a cheat when they see one.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Paul Craig Roberts

Comments

Hide the following 41 comments

More conspiraloon bollocks

18.08.2006 12:21

There is a dispute over the science of climate change. The vast majority of climate change scientists are in agreement that human activity is causing the warming of the earth's climate but a tiny minority disagree. Certain political and economic interests have seized on this and exploited it, claiming the science is inconclusive. Now it's hard to judge the issue with out spending a lot of time researching and comparing the claims made by both sides. But of course you don't have to, the fact that the over whelming majority of scientists agree and that you can read the political interests informing and funding the opposition is enough to act on.

Similarly the link between smoking and lung cancer still has small areas of dispute that has been exploited by tobacco companies. Of course there is no doubt about it in the real world.

The collapse of the Twin Towers isn't like that. There is no disagreement amongst expert opinion at all. But completely opposite to the insane lie by our right wing foe inthe posted article. There is in fact not one structural engineer in the whole world that thinks the towers couldn't have collapsed because of the impact of the planes, alongside the fires causing the steel trusses to lose their structural integrity (not melt that is a red herring, nobody makes that claim).

Now if I was going to build a skyscraper or investigate its collapse I would call a structural engineer, these are the experts in their fields. Of course tower collapse is a matter of physics as is everything. How computers work is just a matter of physics but if I wanted to fix a computer I wouldn't look up physicists in the phone book.

Now there are some non-experts that disagree with the structural engineers however their political motivations for doing so are pretty transparent. The fact still remains that any alternative explanation has to account for one phenomenon above all others: Why is there not one structural engineer in the whole world that agrees with them?

WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane but was struck by debris from the twin towers and had fires raging for 7 hours. It got to a stage where the fire service pulled all its officers out and let it burn because it looked like it was going to collapse. They were right it did.
This page provides testimony from fire fighters to this effect:  http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Now these are just theories that best account for the phenomena encountered. Theory that best suit the phenomena we experience is how we live our lives. That the Earth goes around the Sun is just a theory but it seems a pretty adequate one.

What would be an alternative theory for the collapse of WTC 7 than the one I've just outlined? One put forward is that it was blown up in a controlled explosion. There is no evidence for that except that it looks that way to some people from a certain angle with inexpert eyes. This alternative theory though would have to account for the fire fighters evidence. Perhaps they were in on the conspiracy? That is getting to be a pretty huge conspiracy. Why include fire fighters giving false testimony in the conspiracy, surely they aren't needed and the more people in on it the less likely it is to remain secret.

Then there is the question why blow up WTC 7 at all. Surely the Twin Towers collapsing would have been enough. Why wait several hours before blowing it up. There were hundreds of people around after the 2 towers came down who might see the evidence of preparations for those controlled explosion. Also they would have known that the collapse would be filmed and so more evidence of their conspiracy would have been provided.

Can you see how many holes appear in the controlled explosion theory after just a cursory examination? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

There have been false flag operations before and there is continuous corruption and manipulation but these are nothing like what is being proposed here. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are an enormous magnitude more complex and unlikely than the Bologna Train station bombing or the Gulf of Tonkin incident (the latter would just be called spin these days); there is no evidence or phenomena that call forth such a preposterously unlikely theory to account for it. The alternative theories make no sense at all. One last example, once you've crashed the planes into the Twin Towers what is gained by controlled detonation, which would raise the risk of detection exponentially? Why not just let them burn?

Of course none of this will be addressed by the conspiracy theorists because it was not their interpretation of physical evidence that drew them to their theories, it was a predisposition to interpret events as the result of conspiracies that drew them to search for evidence to fit their worldview.

The same way that Bush compelled the "intelligence" services to find evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

Now this wouldn’t matter if it stayed in the anti-Semitic, racist, far right survivalist circles in which it originated but some previously on the “left” have been attracted by the anti-government rhetoric and have made common cause with the far-right over these theories. One result is that Indymedia is plagued by such conspiracy theories, including thinly disguised anti-Semitic rants that Neo-Nazis would happily agree with alongside links back to far right conspiracy sites. I don’t think many people take them seriously but that is part of the problem, there is no other context in which we’d allow Neo-Nazi propaganda and links to be published on our sites or tolerate such right wing activism within our movements. The time has come to put a stop to it.

Anti-bullshit action


Bravo

18.08.2006 13:20


Everything that Anti-Bullshit Action has just written seems totally spot on.

Even for those who believe this conspira-loon rubbish (& there are so many more credible conspiracies to be worried about), Paul Craig Roberts loses credibility right at the start when he says that the 9/11 pancaking theory is a uncontrovertible "non-controversial fact".

No matter what you're perspective is, you can't call it "non-controversial" or suggest it's undisputed - particularly given the number of structural engineers who have said it is bollocks.

It is disturbing how keen many of those on the left are to jump into bed with right-wing Zionist conspiracists like PCR who worked with Reagan (remember such great plans as the Star Wars project...). Just because he's bashing Bush doesn't make him right. Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

will shut up now before I start making a sermon

Norville B


We Know Bush/PNAC Can't Prove Their Conspiracy Theory

18.08.2006 15:30

This quest to discover what happened that terrible day, and who was responsible - lest we reward the guilty and punish the innocent - persists because of the absolute failure over the past five years of the Bush/PNAC Regime to support their Conspiracy Theory with compelling evidence.

Several gaping holes exist in the Fable told by the "Iraq has WMD!!!" War Criminals, and despite many calls, they've been completely unable to produce the independently-originating and verifiable evidence which would exist - and be forthcoming - if their Theory of events, solely upon which they've launched a premeditated program of Fascism and Aggression, were true.


911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad


Just a cursory examination?

18.08.2006 17:01

It's rather amusing that "Anti-bullshit action" admits that s/he has only made "just a cursory examination" of the "controlled explosion theory"...

World Trade Centre 7, the 3rd skyscraper to fall down that day (47 stories -- a BIG building the higest in the UK is 50) was not hit by an areoplane.

 http://wtc7.net/

You can watch the videos of it's collapse:

 http://wtc7.net/videos.html

The evidence is fairly overwhelming that this building was brought down with controlled demolition.

And if this building was brought down in this way then you have to question what caused the collapse of the twin towers:

Take the collapse time, between 10 and 15 seconds -- this doesn't fit with collapse from fire:

 http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

And there are a lot of other unanswered questions about the structural failure of these buildings:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The best video to watch, just an hour long, to introduce to all these facts is September 11th Revisited:

 http://911revisited.com/

Don't be a bullshitter -- take more than just a cursory look at this material...

shadowplay


thank you

18.08.2006 17:07

thank you for posting this article. the author seems to call for an investigation that should have, but unexplicably never occurred. why not investigate the greatest crime of the century? seems like a simple request. instead we get rationalizations from folks that swallow bush & company's explanation. the above comments, do not disprove the author's contention that buildings can not free fall with out internal detonations due to friction, symmetrical disparaties, and temparature differences, among other reasons. structural engineers say it is theoretically possible but not probable. either way, the issue should be investigated. it never has been. in fact, efforts to that effect have been stonewalled. also, molten steel had been found in the sites, contrary the above comment. this is a fact. how can this be explained? many facts such as this one have been over looked, including statements by fire men that saw and heard a series of explosions right before the collapse. these were described as being just like those that occur during controled demos. read stephen e. jones' paper (found on the net) to further understand the basis for the call by the independent-minded for, finally, a full and thorough investigation into this matter.

ad


very lucky

18.08.2006 20:54

As i understand it if you happen to own a very large building and decide you want to demolish it and have a car park or a bit of unused land on one side of it you can call on anyone one of a couple of dozen companies to do the job.
If however you there is no space and you want it to fall down in a nice neat pile in it's own footprint, then there are only a couple of firms in the world that will be able to help you.
If you happen to watch Discovery channel they show a programme about all the big buildings that have been blown up in spectacular demolitions using carefully placed charges that take
specially qualified engineers and explosives experts weeks of very highly detailed planning.
So all in all we have to admit that those arab dudes with their box cutters and zero experience of flying full size commercial airliners did a pretty good and managed to park one in the underground car park of the pentagon with super heroes like this around it's no wonder that the israelis are getting battered by Hezbollah.. INNIT

Lucky


Why collapse the buildings?

19.08.2006 09:34

Hang on I don't get it. If the US government was prepared to kill thousands of its own people and destroy a large part of Manhattan then why would they be concerned about collapsing the buildings straight down. Surely it makes no difference, in fact if you believe the conspiracy theories the more destruction the better, it causes more shock. I've got to agree that story makes no sense. Once the planes are in the building, live on TV then job done.

Harry R.


greatest crime of the century

19.08.2006 14:07

???

I think not.

3000 dead american bankers pales into insignificance in comparison to their MILLIONS of victims.

The total destruction of manhatten would not even match it.

Despite the reality of it being SELF inflicted anyway.

karen eliot


Why the towers had to fall

19.08.2006 14:10

OK So there are a couple of theories as to why the Towers had to fall.

One is the psychological effect.

If the towers stand then psychologically America stands defiant hurt but not bowed.
If the towers fall then America looks more vulnerable and the people need more "protection' from their Government and would be more willing to trade Liberty for Safety.

The towers were also in need of refurbishment or even demolition the cost of this refurbishment was prohibitively high. It's called killing two birds with one stone.

Funny - the only buildings that had to be demolished after the attack, and the three buildings that were demolished in the attack were all owned by Silverstein Properties and were exclusively part of the WTC complex. All the other buildings around the WTC complex (not owned by Silverstein) were relatively unscathed even though many of them were closer to the towers than WTC7. Now what are the chances of that happening?

"the more destruction the better."

No if you believe in conspiracy theories - as much destruction as the budget will stand - especially if one of the targets is to rip-off Silversteins' German insurance company. Silverstein bought the WTC complex 6 weeks before the attack and insured the towers specifically against terrorist attack,

If you're a genuine terrorist - then the more destruction the better.

I hope that answers your question

twopercenthuman


Good deal though ...

19.08.2006 16:06

... $200million to $7billion in 6 weeks ...

... and with all that real estate left already ...

Tel aviv celebrates (the bank at least).

jsl


Damning evidence?

20.08.2006 00:42

I'm not sure that insuring the twin towers against terrorist attack is such damning evidence - they had already been attacked by er...terrorists in the '90s. Remember?

Dom


Exactly

20.08.2006 22:54

No, what damns the Official Conspiracy Theory is the complete lack of evidence presented by the LIARS in the criminal Bush/PNAC Regime, the people using the attacks to pursue the indefenisble.

This quest to discover what happened that terrible day, and who was responsible - lest we reward the guilty and punish the innocent - persists because of the absolute failure over the past five years of the Bush/PNAC Regime to support their Conspiracy Theory with compelling evidence.

Several gaping holes exist in the Fable told by the "Iraq has WMD!!!" War Criminals, and despite many calls, they've been completely unable to produce the independently-originating and verifiable evidence which would exist - and be forthcoming - if their Theory of events, solely upon which they've launched a premeditated program of Fascism and Aggression, were true.

911 = PNAC, CIA, Mossad


Controlled Demollition , My Beam End

21.08.2006 09:14

Let's take a simple look at the evidence.

Fact: WTC 7 was struck by falling debris from the WTC 1 & 2 collapses . And we don't mean wee bits of glass, lads.

Fact: WTC 7 was left to burn unchecked for close to 7 hours without any firefighting attempts.

Fact: Tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fueled the fires on the 5, 6 & 7 levels.

Fact: WTC 7 was considered dangerous and unstable by firecrews on the ground over 5 hours before it collapsed, including reports of a large buldge developing.

Fact: 3 hours before the collapse, WTC 7 was reported as having 6 major fires on differening levels.

Fact: WTC 7 was build using a unique system of cantilevers and trusses used to transfer load between the support columns and hold the building up over the con-edison substation.

Fact: WTC 7 had been structuarally modified, including the addition of two mechanical plant rooms at roof level, resulting in additional critical loading to three of the main columns.

Fact: WTC 7 began the collapse internally, evidenced by the plant rooms (East first) falling into the building, a full 6 secondss prior to the outer facade starting to come down.

Fact: The collapse of WTC 7 casued serious damage to several of the nearby buildings and clogged up the streets.

These are the facts, taken from engineer's reports and fire crews witness statments. Most CT sites either ignore these facts, or handwave them away, however all of these have been testifided to by the firecrews in various interviews or can be located in the Preliminary NIST report into WTC 7.

Instead, the CT sites post selective images and talk - endlessley - about the "pull it" quote, even though (and let's be clear on this) that's not the term we use in controlled demolition anyway!

You're just wasting your own time, never mind ours. Go out and do some real activism. Something that's (a) right, and (b) makes a real difference to ordinary people.

Architect


WTC fell straight down on it's beam end

21.08.2006 22:06

So how does random damage and random fire make this building fall straight down

All the vertical columns must have failed SIMULTANEOUSLY !

Don't be a fucking idiot Architect.

Open your eyes the war on terror is a lie

twopercenthuman


It is not as rare as you think...

22.08.2006 06:44

....for a building to collapse on its own footprint, without the use of explosives. Only the other day I was watching a programme on the history channel where a couple of divers were trying to establish the location of the great lighthouse off the coast of Alexandria, which collapsed into the sea some seven centurues ago after an earthquake. As part of their efforts to establish exactly where to dive, they spoke to a structural engineer about how the building may have collapsed. After discussing the various forms of impact earthquakes can have on built up structures, the structual engineer said the lighthouse most likely fell onto its own footprint rather than toppling to either side.

There was much talk of the 'latent energy' of tall structures. This gravitational force, once released can easily cause a building to come down vertically - the structural engineer interviewed did not seem to find this phenomenon unusual at all. Besides, one thing the conspiracy theorists of 9/11 have ever adequately explained in my opinion, is why on earth anyone would bother to secretly plant explosives into two buildings that 'they' were planning to smash two enormous fuel laden planes into anyway? It makes no sense. Face facts, the planes provide 'sufficient cause' for the collapse of the twin towers and the manner of their collapse is not as unique and unusual as conspiracy theorists like to think.

Historian


No explosives just an earthquake!

22.08.2006 10:55

"This gravitational force, once released "!

So how is the gravitational force released?

In your lighthouse it took an earthquake

In WTC7 it took explosives

Wake up wake up you sleepy heads.


New World Disorder - The War on Lies


you are missing my point...

22.08.2006 13:56

....which is that buildings falling on their own footprints is not unique to controlled demolition, contrary is what some on this site are saying. Indeed, as I understand, many modern buildings are constructed precisely so they will pancake down if they collapse, to cause minimal damage to other structures. Damage incurred during the twin towers collapse and fires left to burn for seven hours could well have caused WTC7 to collapse. The fact that it fell straight down is not necessaily indicative of explosives. You cannot seriously contend that every structural engineer on the planet has been bought off or silenced about this 'mystery' - it is ludicrous, get a grip mate.

Historian


An amateur demolition expert, eh?

22.08.2006 17:56

Okay two percent, you show me evidence of controlled demolition including a firm analysis of the collapse pattern. On you go!

Or is that all you have? That it "Looks" like demolition to you, who (I suspect) have no structural engineering or demolition expertise?

Architect


911 Inside Job no doubt

22.08.2006 17:57

Do you understand the Law of Conservation of Energy Mate?

You compare a, presumably, stone built lighthouse, with a steel framed building?

So how the do you explain the simultaneous failure of all the vertical steel support in that building?

Because that's what it would take for the building to fall straight down.

Check out the twin towers' collapse there is no way you can explain that without the addition of significant ammounts of kinetic energy.

Now if you can't understand that I'm sorry its not my fault - the way science is taught these days, trust me 911 was an inside job! no doubt. The Law of the Conservation of energy says it was and there's nothing we can do about it.

You can't get your head round it because of what the statement "911 was an inside" job actually means. Just because you dearn't get your head round it doesn't mean it's not true.

WAKE UP SLEEPY HEADZ

New World Disorder - The War On Lies


Human Zeros

22.08.2006 19:08

Please read this before we go on....
 https://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/347911.html

The War on Terror is a Lie


J'accuse

22.08.2006 20:42

WTC 7 After Collapse
WTC 7 After Collapse

You're misrepresenting the evidence. Take this, for example:

 http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

 http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html



Now, let's look at a picture of this "perfect collapse". You'll notice that it hasn't neatly collapsed the way our friends suggest. The north face is on top of the debris pile. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north.

Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance.

Now, sleepy head, like to explain that?




And the challenge to find a single credible structural engineer, architect, fire engineer, or demolition expert - real ones, mind, not the pretendy guys of ST911 - who casts serious doubt on the official explanation. Or perhaps we're all in on it too, eh?

Architect


Your explanation does'nt fit with the videos.

22.08.2006 21:43

The building fell straight down as seen on the few videos that are available. To get a steel framed to fall straight down you need to simultaneously pull all the vertical support. Watch the video.

Now if you want to cling on to the belief that this just was a random event that's up to you.


Do you know what the Law of the consevation of energy is?

Do you think that that law is satisfied especially with the 1st 4 seconds of the collapses of WTC 1&2 ?

Bored wth this


Your explanation does'nt fit with the videos.

22.08.2006 21:43

The building fell straight down as seen on the few videos that are available. To get a steel framed to fall straight down you need to simultaneously pull all the vertical support. Watch the video.

Now if you want to cling on to the belief that this just was a random event that's up to you.


Do you know what the Law of the consevation of energy is?

Do you think that that law is satisfied especially with the 1st 4 seconds of the collapses of WTC 1&2 ?

Bored wth this


The Building fell straight down

22.08.2006 21:48

To get a building like that to fall straight down then you need to destroy all the vertical support.

Your explanation does'nt sound like what you see on the videos of the collapse at all.

The fire man heard some creaks so that would suggest to me that the building was possibly being weakened structurally hence the fires.

Have you read the other post?

Do you understand the physics?

The Law of the Conservation of Energy


Laugh? I nearly paid my poll tax!

22.08.2006 23:08




So let's get this straight; you have set at naught the witness testimony not on the basis of any forensic analysis of their evidence, or indeed any physical evidence itself, but rather because you believe that the collapse pattern is simultaneous and therefore suspicious.

Lets leave to one side your failure to consider the witness evidence properly and look instead at the simultaneous collapse. I'm going to guess that you have none - zilch - zero engineering or demolitions experience here. But you also have a problem with research.

You see the building's didn't collapse in the manner you describe. Take a look at the photographs here.

Note that in the first photograph the building has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south. Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.

Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.

If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, then how does that square with your suggestion of uniform collapse? What evidence do you have to support this amazing assertion?

This final line might also be the right time to challenge you on the hand-waving re: witness statements. How do you explain them, then?



Architect


There you go again

23.08.2006 10:51

You compare a, presumably, stone built lighthouse, with a steel framed building?

I was not comparing the two buildings at all - what I was illustrating was that structural engineers in general do not seem to have a problem with the whole notion of buildings collapsing near enough onto their own footprints - it is not 'mysterious' to them at all and crops up in a variety of contexts, including those which have nothing to do with 9/11.

In order for you to explain the stony silence that the 'demolition' theory has met with from professional structural engineers, you invariably have to posit some far fetched notion that all such engineers are either too scared to speak out, or are complicit in the conspiracy. I, on the other hand, would assert the far more basic explanation that they do not say anything because they do not see anything strange or unusual in the way the buildings collapsed.

I may not have any expertise in science, but it seems plain to me that the twin towers collapse started on the floors directly above where the planes hit - so ascribing the failure to the impact of the planes does not seem a particularly far fetched explanation.

The fact is, supporters of alternative theories to 9/11 have a severe paucity of expert opinion within their ranks, or at least, experts with 'expertise' in relevant fields - not just theologians and philosophers. The closest they have is Steven Jones, who has a PHD in physics. Big deal, I have a doctorate as well. It is not the only factor to be taken into account. As I understand, Jones's prime area of expertise is in 'cold fusion', an area considered by many within the physics community as the 21st century equivalent of alchemy. He also has published in the past on the notion that Christ visited ancient america!! I am afraid to say, I view him as something of a crank - he certainly has no expertise in the area of structural engineering and none of his colleagues with expertise in that area at BYU seem to agree with him with regard to his 'thermite' claims.

Historian


There you go again

23.08.2006 10:51

You compare a, presumably, stone built lighthouse, with a steel framed building?

I was not comparing the two buildings at all - what I was illustrating was that structural engineers in general do not seem to have a problem with the whole notion of buildings collapsing near enough onto their own footprints - it is not 'mysterious' to them at all and crops up in a variety of contexts, including those which have nothing to do with 9/11.

In order for you to explain the stony silence that the 'demolition' theory has met with from professional structural engineers, you invariably have to posit some far fetched notion that all such engineers are either too scared to speak out, or are complicit in the conspiracy. I, on the other hand, would assert the far more basic explanation that they do not say anything because they do not see anything strange or unusual in the way the buildings collapsed.

I may not have any expertise in science, but it seems plain to me that the twin towers collapse started on the floors directly above where the planes hit - so ascribing the failure to the impact of the planes does not seem a particularly far fetched explanation.

The fact is, supporters of alternative theories to 9/11 have a severe paucity of expert opinion within their ranks, or at least, experts with 'expertise' in relevant fields - not just theologians and philosophers. The closest they have is Steven Jones, who has a PHD in physics. Big deal, I have a doctorate as well. It is not the only factor to be taken into account. As I understand, Jones's prime area of expertise is in 'cold fusion', an area considered by many within the physics community as the 21st century equivalent of alchemy. He also has published in the past on the notion that Christ visited ancient america!! I am afraid to say, I view him as something of a crank - he certainly has no expertise in the area of structural engineering and none of his colleagues with expertise in that area at BYU seem to agree with him with regard to his 'thermite' claims.

Historian


911 Inside Job No doubt

23.08.2006 15:30

THIS IS NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PROBLEM.

IT'S A PHYSICS PROBLEM TO DO WITH
THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
AND
THE FREEFALL COLLAPSE OF THREE BUILDINGS.

The most you need to understand this is A-level physics! you don't even need to know what instigated the collapse!

How do two blocks of floors having two significantly different masses fall with an acceleration close to that of gravity through steel and concrete? They are falling with the same acceleration as they would falling through air and yet they are doing the work of pulverising concrete and destroying steel welds + bolts as well as throwing thousands of tons of matter away from the building. All this energy must be accounted for which would mean that the acceleration of these blocks would decrease and decrease at different rates due to their different masses.They don't.

No Structural Engineer in their right mind would make a statement without the engineering documents and they are being withheld.

And again I repeat that 2 engineers did put their heads above the parapit and one was fired and the other quickly changed his mind. So I think fear and intimidation are factors that would persuade anyone to keep quiet and not rock the boat. It would take a lot of bravery to stand out from the crowd especially if you were being threatened.

So any independent structural engineer that does put forward a theory without basing it on the engineering documents is not above suspicion and likely to be mistaken. Add to this the fear of reprisal by the ruling class.

YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY and the methods used by the ruling class to maintain their position of Power.
You are very naive about the MO of the ruling class. You are ignorant of history and a reactionary.
You're objections to the truth movemant are irrational and based on fear, ignorance, and paranoia.

You don't need anyones permission to think what you think. You don't need some authority to make up your mind for you.

Why you desperately cling on to straws is beyond me
Basically you are both a right pair of useful idiots
The Law of the Conservation of Energy tells me so.

Useful Idiots then?


The Law of Physics and the Twin Towers

23.08.2006 15:56

Yes Yes the war on terror IS a LIE

 http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/

Get yer 'eds round it!

zkt


Character Assassination? How Low can you go?

23.08.2006 16:36

Newton was an alchemist yet you rely on his work every day.
Einstein was jewish and later believed the "Steady State" theory of the universe and yet much of his work has helped us understand the workings of the universe on both sub-atomic and macro scales
Turing was gay and yet you sit there typing your bollocks on a machine largely invented by him

You sare on thin ice if you have to use character assassination to win your argument.

Why don't you piss off? If that's all you've got..

The War on Lies

The Truth


This word is not meaning what you are thinking it is meaning

23.08.2006 18:56

Collapse - Free Fall Columns Well Ahead of the "Roof"
Collapse - Free Fall Columns Well Ahead of the "Roof"

"How do two blocks of floors having two significantly different masses fall with an acceleration close to that of gravity through steel and concrete"

Well, mate, I do remember my physics and I think you'll find that all masses accelerate at the same rate under gravity - so why mention different masses? Anyway, perhaps you can tell me what speed you think the collapse (a) occurred at, and (b) should have occurred at?

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground?

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

A paper written by Dr. Frank Greening, demolishing the spurious free fall argument, can be found at  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Anyone telling you they know is lying. We KNOW it wasn't 10 or 11 seconds, per the half-truths mermeated by the CT community. Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse.


Back to some of your other points

"2 engineers did put their heads above the parapit and one was fired and the other quickly changed his mind. So I think fear and intimidation are factors that would persuade anyone to keep quiet and not rock the boat"

Tell me, how many structural engineers, architects, and other construction specialists are there in the world? Not just in the UK and USA, but in unfriendly countries such as China? Korea? Iran? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that they're all involved in this grand conspiracy or climate of fear? Don't be ridiculous.

"YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY"

Very true. However I am postgraduate qualified in architecture!


Architect


Reposted Picture

23.08.2006 19:38


Here's that picture again

Architect


Gravity dear boy

23.08.2006 19:52

The first 4 secs of the collapse are near freefall - and that's all you need to show that a Law of physics is being suspended.
The photo you show is much later in the collapse.
You can only see the top of the towers in the 1st 4secs of the collapse after that they are obscured by the dust clouds. and so you can only speculate...

The mass is important because - this is how you work out the kinetic energy of the falling block
The falling block of floors of tower one is much smaller therfore has less kinetic energy than the significantly larger mass of tower two.

As the blocks fall they are doing work. This has to be taken into account in terms of the conservation of energy. In other words they should decellerate. Further they should decellerate at different rates due to their different masses. Not only do the not decelerate, but they BOTH continue to fall with an acceleration close to gravity.

(in the 1st 4secs) i.e. no deceleration.

The only way you can explain this is if the force acting on the blocks is increased (i.e. gravity increases at different rates for each tower) improbable I think you'll agree.

Or the obstructing mass is being moved out of the way allowing the blocks to continue to fall with an acceleration close to that of Gravity.

911 False flag to start the war on terror. So the Military-Industrial-Complex can go on it's merry way.

twopercenthuman


Not Great at Physics, Huh?

23.08.2006 22:20


Oh dear, Two Percent. Your argument doesn't stack. Let's take a look at some more real evidence, rather than broad assertions:

WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed close to the aircraft impact points.We also know that this was showing deformation prior to the actual collapse (photgraph above)

Anyway, these impacts are centered at floor 96 for WTC 1 and floor 81 for WTC 2. Thus we assume that a mass of 14 (more or less intact) floors fell onto the remaining 96 (more or less intact) lower floors of WTC 1 and 29 upper floors fell onto 81 lower floors in WTC 2.

We can't be quite sure what speed upper fabric would have been moving at when it first encountered floor 95 or thereabouts (WTC1) and 80 (WTC 2). What we do know, however, is that the shear loadings used in the design calculations wouldn't be capable of accommodating the momentum of 14 or 29 floors landing on them - at ANY speed.

In fact, it's not even going to break it's stride particularly. And what's more, as an increasing number of floors fail then the downwards mass increases and any minimal resistance that there might of been further reduces.

Now Two Percent, if you want to start arguing on a structural engineering basis then feel free. I've done 4 years of compulsory structures and (dull as it was) am well equiped for a detailed discussion. In particular I'd like you to:

- Tell me a bit more about the shear characteristics of the frame connections

- Calculate the load failure points

- Show me that the momentum (or kinetic energy, if you will) of the upper portions is rather less than these load failure points.

But to be frank, I don't think you can. It seems to me that you expected the floors to pause for a perceptible period of time, but haven't done any maths to back it up. Because if you do, then you're theory doesn't stack.

I notice you've not responded to any of the substantive points I made re: WTC 7, btw.

More hand-waving?

Architect


And Another Thing

23.08.2006 22:31

Incidentally, I'd love to know how they (a) hid the explosive on the required floor(s) - presumably they'd have to do the entire upper building in case the planes were a little askew - and (b) how said explosives survived the aircraft impact and ensuing explosion.

Keep hand-waving, pal.

Architect


You can't spin a Law of Physics

24.08.2006 10:15

The maximum rate of acceleation of decent is that of gravity
The "Twin" towers act as a control for each other.
The two blocks of falling floors have significantly different masses
If you were observant which you're not the initial initial explosion in tower one begins ABOVE the impact floor and in Tower two below the plane impact floor.

How do you account for the fact that both blocks continue their decent at a rate of acceleration close to gravity? You can't can you? so you blither on and flash you're credentials in an authoritarian hierarchical fashion You can still be an idiot you know. I think it's your understanding of Physics is limited e.g."Why is the mass important?" Duh!

Going on about structural engineering is missleading you hav'nt accounted for the vertical support of 47 central columns and the perimiter columns. The way you describe it the floors are responsible for supporting the building what utter bollocks.
Call yourself an architect? Can you give us a list of buildings you've designed so that we can avoid going into them.

Why do the two blocks of floors having significantly different masses and doing significant ammounts of work continue to fall with an acceleration close to gravity? Now if you can't answer that question
and you can't coz you can't spin a LAW OF PHYSICS the shut the F$$k up

As for how explosives were planted that's hardly for me to speculate is it?
Now GW Bushes' brother was in charge of security and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed, and there were power downs in the towers before the events.

You are a very serious useful idiot indeed I think you should be asking your architecture mates and your structural engineering mates to have a look at this problem and not hounding people who have realised the truth and that

911 inside job absolutely no doubt A LAW OF PHYSICS tells us so

twopercenthuman


Struggling, eh?

24.08.2006 20:01

Well two percent, I have to hand it to you. You've not made a single substantive point there. A new first.

1. How do we account for the speed of the collapse? Well, I think that's pretty clear from my previous note and the earlier linked Greening paper. The slowing effect of the floor slabs was minimal in view of the overall momentum of the massively heavier upper floors.

If you want to challenge that, you're going to have to present a structural calculation showing that the shear points were sufficiently high to arrest the load. Come on, let's see some figures!

2. 47 central columns and the perimeter columns. Yup. What about them? At WTC 1 and 2 the external envelope in fact includes the columns. It's them that's buckling in the photograph I posted above, not a simple curtain walling or cladding system. BTW, the floor trusses and slab brace the central columns and the outer structure. What do you think happened when the floors went?

3. Architecture and engineering mates. Yup, it's been discussed before. And I'm afraid that we're all pretty happy with the official explanation, although the boys at Arup's think that thermal movement of the outer structure in response to the fire may have led to failure even without the explosion.


Now back to some other points: how are you going to respond to the real evidence on WTC 7 (more handwaving?) and why do you feel so confident about claiming controlled explosions (with no real evidence) but refuse to speculate on how they amgically placed all the gear or made it work. You don't have any real evidence, do you?

Architect


Cocky Arogant Tosser Eh?

29.08.2006 21:23

Do some study......

We're not talking about "speed" we're talking about ACCELERATION i.e. the rate of change of speed you can have a drop in acceleration and yet the speed can continue increasing. The thing about The Law of the Conservation of Energy is that the conversion from, in this case, potential energy into kinetic energy is dependent on the force applied. In this case the force is gravity,

Here we're asking that force to do two kinds of work one is the pulverisation of the material and the second is the continuing transfer of potential energy into kinetic at a rate consistent to that seen in freefall. This means in order to carry out the work of pulverisation there is a transfer of kinetic energy to the material being flung out in all directions.

This transfer of energy must be accounted for so there will be a corresponding reduction in the kinetic energy of the falling blocks i.e. a decrease in the rate of acceleration.

Therefore the ONLY way that the falling block of floors can continue to fall at the rate of gravity is for additional force to be applied. You can imagine it as a huge hand pushing downward i.e. you need the force to be greater that the force of gravity.

Now there is absolutely no evidence of some huge hand pushing down so the most likely hypothesis is that the work of pulverising the concrete and moving thousands of tons of material away from the buildings is being done by the ADDITION of kinetic energy i.e. Using explosives. The material is being shifted out of the way of the falling blocks and this allows them to continue to drop at the above stated rate. i.e GRAVITY.

GRAVITY is the limiting factor on the energy transfers You can't have kinetic energy transfer from the falling blocks AND continue to fall with constant acceleration.

You clearly don't understand the physics involved.

As for your mates ? Well they're all deluded and useful idiots just like you.
If you continue to believe in the pancakes of doom as described by the liars that call themselves structural engineers then don't let me stop you, but I would ask you to look at the video evidence in the light of a study of THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

It seems to me that you are the one being evasive and dismissive.

As for building 7 there is plenty of video evidence to show that it fell straight down at freefall speed - the video stills you carefully selected just show the art of the controlled demolition expert.

WAKEY WAKEY !
The War on liars.

twopercenthuman


Some "Numbers" for the analy retentive

29.08.2006 21:28

Get yer mates to check this one out.

 http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

peace

twopercenthuman


9/11 truth campaign (Britain & Ireland)

12.09.2006 02:32

Are you good people aware of this website and forum?

www.nineeleven.co.uk

All welcome

Ian Neal
- Homepage: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk