9-11 “Nut-Balls”
In reply to somebody who posed a reasonable question about 9-11 “conspiracy theories,” a blogger made the following comments.
“Not to mince words, I deem the 9-11 conspiracy theorists — both Far Left and Right — uninformed, ridiculous, dangerous, and sinful. . . But they have overstepped the bounds of reason and Scripture when they publicly declare that the Bush Administration had previous knowledge of or, worse yet, was in collusion with the 9-11 terrorists.”
Let’s unpacked his claims and see if there is any substance to them.
(1) Conspiracy theorists. “Conspiracy theory” is a dirty term in many quarters and it is often used to intellectually bully those who adhere to them. This despite the fact the history teaches that some of the most significant events have been incited by conspirators. But this aside, when it comes to 9-11, everybody is a conspiracy theorist. There is the official conspiracy theory (19 Arabs with support from a vast and nefarious international terrorist network were the culprits) and then there are those who are skeptical about the official conspiracy theory. Prima facie, why is one conspiracy theory superior to others?
(2) Uninformed. My experience has been that those who believe the official conspiracy theory are the uninformed ones. There are dozens of web sites (some better than others) that are dedicated to questioning the official account. The arguments cover a vast deal of ground. For example, there was a statistically improbable volume of short-selling airline stocks a few days before the attack (indicating somebody had prior knowledge), vast quantities of physical evidence was destroyed (a federal offense); eyewitnesses testify to hearing and seeing explosives going off in the basements of towers, NORAD abandoned its protocol and stood down, transmissions of firemen tell us that the flames could be knocked out by one or two hoses (hardly the inferno the official theory claims); the collapse of Tower Seven is inexplicable (a forty-seven story steel framed building that was not hit by any aircraft and had only small, isolated fires), BBC reported that Tower Seven collapsed at least fifteen minutes before it actually did, and the testimony of engineers, physicists, architects and demolition experts argue that the collapse of Towers One and Two could only be caused by controlled charges. And this is just a small sampling. Most Christians are probably not aware of any of this. So who are the uninformed?
(3) Ridiculous. This charge is vacuous as it stands. One can call those who are skeptical of the official conspiracy theory ridiculous only after they have proved that the case is airtight. Argumentation not pontification is needed.
(4) Dangerous. This charge is too vague to be useful. Just how is questioning the government’s position dangerous? Even if Al-Qaeda did it, what is dangerous about demanding proof?
(5) Sinful. It is not clear why the writer thinks it is sinful to question the government position. It seems to have something to do with slander. But how is questioning the official story any more slanderous than questioning other “official” reports that the government spoon feeds us?
The blogger then goes on to state that those who are skeptical of the official story should file law suits. But who are we supposed to sue and what would be the charge? To hold the view that either skeptics must bring their case to court or shut up (lest they violate the ninth commandment) is itself ridiculous, dangerous, and probably sinful. It is ridiculous since the principle cannot be generalized, dangerous because is imprudent to take government claims as gospel truth, and sinful because it goes well beyond the biblical teaching on slander.
The blogger continues: “Their theory actually charges Bush and Co. with murder.” Well, I suppose some 9-11 skeptics do this, but certainly not all. I do not pretend to know who was behind the attacks (though I have informed opinions on the matter), and neither do most 9-11 skeptics. How then can I or other skeptics be guilty of slander against Bush if we do not claim to know he was involved?
“While, as I said, there may be reasonable disagreement on all sorts of political issues, these people are nut-balls who deserve ridicule.” Maybe 9-11 skeptics are “nut-balls,” but it would be nice to hear an argument. As it stands, though, this is just mud-slinging.
And on the general charge of being a “nut-ball,” my guess is that the writer of this piece fell for every single one of the justifications that the Bush Administration gave for attacking Iraq – WMD’s, Saddam was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda, and the other half-dozen or so fraudulent reasons given for invading a sovereign nation that never attacked the United States. Indeed, he probably still believes these lies. Who is the real “nut-ball”?
The writer gets down to his “ultimate” principle in the next sentence. “In my opinion, their position says nothing about the objective facts and everything about their self-reinforcing psychology of perpetual social marginalization.” Social marginalization is the big evil that we need to avoid at all costs. After all, how can we be cultural leaders if we do not accept the propaganda that politicians serve out?
If skepticism about the government’s conspiracy theory leads to social marginalization then so be it. Truth trumps political influence. At least in my understanding of Christianity.
Besides, the thought that Republican leaders take people like the writer of this piece seriously is, to use his favorite word again, ridiculous. People like him have little money, a small constituency, and limited media outlets. In the game of American power politics, they bring nothing to the table. Why they think they have any influence is a much more interesting psychological question.
I do not know what the real story of 9-11 is, but I am confident that the official story is bogus. I would be happy to debate the issue, but I am confident that nobody will take up my offer since it would only dignify a “nut-ball” position.
And I may be wrong to be skeptical about 9-11. I am open to refutation. Indeed, I would welcome it. It would be somewhat comforting to believe the official story.
But whether one holds to the official story or not is of little importance. What matters is that Christians get beyond cheap rhetorical tricks pawned off my government mouthpieces and the “cultural leader” yes-men and start thinking.
Wittgenstein was once walking with a friend and read the headline of a newspaper article as they passed a newsstand that said that German government accused the British of attempting to assassinate Hitler. Wittgenstein commented that he would not be surprised if the story were true. His friend took issue with him. Wittgenstein considered his friend’s remark to be ‛primitive’ and said:
“. . . what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious than any . . . journalist in the use of the DANGEROUS phrases such people use for their own ends?”
Exchange ‛philosophy’ with ‛theology’ and you have got the right idea.
I read that blogger’s piece today and was appalled. Every “nutball” accusation always seems to come from someone who cares little to deal witht the nutball arguments.
Since interacton with the arguments is insignificant and irrelevant in order to warrant the “nutball” charge, then, the presupposition here is that to disagree with the offical theory is to be a nutball. One is a nutball before he gives his evidence. I’m reminded of Rome’s doctrine of Implicit Faith.
Comment by Joshua — May 16, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
MRB wrote:
What would be the thesis of the debate? Would the thesis be that the account contained in the Report of the 9-11 Commission is generally accurate, with someone like the present commenter taking the affirmative? Would a written debate suffice, or would it have to be oral and in person?
-TurretinFan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 17, 2007 @ 8:43 am
TF -
I was not thinking of anything formal, but I suppose I would be open to something like that.
Let’s start with Tower 7. Here are some questions:
1) How did small, isolated fires cause it to collapse?
2) How could the building come down at free fall speeds without the use of explosives?
3) Why did it collapse in a perfectly symmentrical way just like a controlled demolition?
4) Why did the owner said that he and the fire officials agreed to “pull” the building when the official story is that it collapsed by fire?
5) How did many people know the building was going to collapse when a steel frame building never collapsed due to fire before 9-11?
6) Why did the BBC report that the building collapsed 15 minutes before it actually did?
This site and this one are good places to start.
Comment by MRB — May 17, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
I can’t accept #6. (a) That wd be too easy to verify, even by a low-level guy at the BBC archives. (b) On any conspiracy theory, it don’t make no sense.
Comment by Tim H — May 17, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Dear MRB,
Others have done the job of collating much of the evidence:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
And we could throw in the NIST report, which found no indication of the use of explosives. The first of those two web sites actually tackles the bulk of those questions head-on with citation of eyewitness reports.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 17, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Tim,
The controversial BBC footage is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0
The BBC’s official story (and no one has come forward from the BBC with a contrary story) is that IF the circulated footage is correct, and the collapse was prematurely reported, it was just a mistake among many mistakes based on incomplete or inaccurate information.
Normal “men in the street” had been expressing concerns over the immanent collapse of WTC 7 during the afternoon, and it seems likely that neither the studio man nor the on-the-scene reporter were familiar with which building was called the “Solomon Building.” The reporter (or was it the studio man) identified the “Solomon Building” as “next tothe Marriot, which also partially collapsed” (paraphrased).
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 17, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Blogman’s reference to “their self-reinforcing psychology of perpetual social marginalization” is disturbing from another angle as well. The converse is, that one should accept the establishment’s story even if only to avoid social marginalization. This suggests that Blogman’s own assertions may be motivated by avoidance of marginalization more than on a rational judgment, evidence, or even sincere persuasion.
Comment by Tim H — May 18, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
TF #6:
1) The circulated footage is “correct”.
2) Just a mistake, eh? Reporting that building x rather than building y collapsed is a mistake. Reporting that a perfectly intact structure has collapsed when in fact it is standing right behind the reporter making the remark is not. Obviously somebody told the reporterette that it was going to come down and obviously they only knew this because it was to be imploded.
3) No. The “man on the street” would have no idea the building was coming down. Why would they? Except for a two small fires the building had little damage. Buildings are made of steel not balsam wood. They do not collapse due to fires.
4) Certain officials did get the word that it was coming down. And some time before it did fall, they warned people to get back. There is only one way the officials could have known this in advance. As the owner of Tower 7 said, “we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down.”
5) The building was obviously demolished by charges. But who put them there? Why did they blow it up? And why does the official story say that it was brought down by fire?
The fraud is so obvious that I am already weary of this “debate”. People who want to believe the official story and want to believe that the wars we are fighting are because Arabs attacked us on 9-11 are not open minded. They adhere to the absurd neocon worldview that we are the good guys and everybody else is evil. But when you hold to the Christian position that everybody is evil and capable of just about anything, then evidence begins to matter.
Despite my weariness of this topic, I will continue if there are any takers.
Comment by MRB — May 18, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Well, getting back to the sources listed in #5, first a general comment about both. There is an extreme prejudicial use of rhetorical tricks. The first link is particularly egregious in this regard. (And I see no identification of the author’s identity, such that he could be subject to the same ad hominem allegations that he so quickly dishes out against others.) But even in the second: try subsituting, every time the phrase “conspiracy theories” is used, the phrase “skepticism of the US Government’s conspiracy theory” and a whole different attitude would ensue.
Many of the arguments in second link seem weak or at least unsubstantiated, and I would like us to come back to them later; but I see we are to focus at this point just on Building 7.
The first link gives two main lines of evidence that Building 7 could have fallen down naturally.
1. There really was a fire there! Video; video; video.
The raging fire coming from, it looks like, one office suite, looks exactly like an apartment fire in a high rise building that I happened to be the first to discover and report, in 1986. High-rise buildings are designed so that fires don’t spread from one spatial area to another. As a result, the smoke and fire all gush out of the main appertures of the unit, like a blow torch. Despite all the flame and smoke, they are apparently not necessarily very hot. In the one I witnessed, I was amazed, after the “blow-torch” had been raging for several minutes, to see the resident dash out onto the balcony, right through it, and swing down to the balcony of the apartment below him. (BTW that building did not, of course, collapse. I’m not sure everyone even evacuated during the blaze itself, though many did.)
2. Huge columns tipped over and smacked building 7, causing severe structural damage.
This is something I had not heard before. He says, “while building 7 wasn’t hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.”
I guess the obvious question is, is there any photographic evidence of columns 1/4 mile long tipping out and over and smacking the neighboring buildings (and people, cars, trucks, and everything else)? I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. This is something we almost certainly would have seen on camera, and also there should be the rest of the columns, 1/4 mile long, lying around somewhere, no?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Most of the rest of the discussion seems to deal with the “pull it” statement. Link #1 volubly points out that “pull” is also a word that can be used when a building is literally pulled down with cables; and “pulling people out of there” is also an English expression.
Granted, link #1, those are English expressions. Now, can we get back to the question: why did Silverstein say, “pull it”?
The BBC thing is still confusing to me. On either the government’s conspiracy theory or its denial, how does this make sense? That is, why would “those in the know” have tipped off the BBC about what was about to happen, why would the BBC have reported it prior to it actually happening, and above all, for what purpose in either case? So for me, the BBC angle is still somewhat neutral as far as supporting a position.
Comment by Tim H — May 19, 2007 @ 8:37 am
MRB:
1) So far the evidence is against you.
From the most current NIST report: “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event.”
Yet you claim: “The building was obviously demolished by charges.”
Furthermore you claim:
The quotation from Mr. Silverstein actually was:
Evidence:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
Furthermore, Mr. Dara McQuillan, Mr. Silverstein’s spokesman has explained that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
2. Explaining the “Pull” comment.
Tim (and MRB), context is key. Mr. Silverstein was talking with the fire department commander, not a demolition team. In that context, “pull” would - to a fireman - mean remove firemen from the area.
In view of the clarification of Mr. Silverstein’s response the alternative to the official account would have to include:
a) Silverstein was a conspirator who cleverly coordinated with whoever else to destroy his own property;
b) Silverstein idiotically during an interview for a documentary spilled the beans on the conspiracy; and
c) Either NIST is covering for Silverstein, or Silverstein was able to prevent NIST from obtaining physical evidence of the demolition.
While (a) might be imaginable, even that hypothesis raises extraordinary questions:
1) Why would he want to destroy his own property?
2) Why would he choose criminal means for doing so?
3) Why would he be so willing to lose lives in the WTC 1-2, but so unwilling to lose lives in WTC7, when doing so would reveal his prescience of the event?
4) Why delay the collapse of WTC7?
When you turn to (b), new issues are raised, such as:
If Silverstein was going to commit fraud in broad daylight in downtown Manhattan, why would he admit the damning fact in a documentary interview?
(c) really illustrates the way that what are conventionally called “conspiracy theories” tend to expand as contradictory evidence is brought forth.
First, it’s just an elite group of trilateralists, then its them plus the puppet leaders of the government, then you add the national security advisors, the FBI, the NYPD, the FDNY, NORAD, NIST, various individual firemen, Mr. Silverstein, the BBC, and so on. Eventually, the conspiracy even encompasses those who are part of the official cover story, such that Osama Bin Ladin and his deputies and agents become part of the plot, and the various embassy bombings and previous attempts by Bin Ladin on the WTC complex become part of the overall conspiracy.
In addition to the NIST report already mentioned (which is due to be finalized this spring), there is also a FEMA report.
Here’s the link:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
These reports also can be dismissed be a dogmatic denier of the official reports, but to do so - again - the conspiracy must expand to include FEMA or to include those who could delude FEMA.
3. The superiority of the Official Story
On the other hand, the official story is backed up by evidence all around. Although, in some cases, additional evidence would be useful, the absence of that evidence is easily explained.
For example, there are few photos of the massive exterior damage to the exterior of WTC 7, but this explained by the fact that the only place from which to take such photos would have been from the south side of the building, which was in the destruction zone of WTC 1.
Furthermore, the “small isolated fire” claims that are brought against the official story are usually based on a photograph of the north face of the building around 3 p.m. Recall that the side facing the debris was the south side.
There is photographic evidence of fires on other floors from the southwest corner of the building, and of still other floors on the east face of the building.
In any event, however, the official story so far is that the best guess is a fed fire around the 5th floor, which led to an internal vertical collapse on the east side, an internal, horizontal collapse at the 5th floor level and then the entire building collapse inwardly toward the collapsing core.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 19, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
TF — Most of your hypothetical questions re Silverstein have easy (even obvious) answers, but for me neither he nor BBC are decisive or central, but rather (possibly) corroborative. So I (at least) am not going there, at least at the outset. Too many words for too little payback.
Can we all agree that (1) absence of evidence of extensive damage on the south side of Seven means appealing to such damage is mere special pleading, and (2) fires of carpets, wallpaper, desks, and paper do not bring skyscrapers down. At least here, we have no jet fuel to complicate the issue.
Comment by Tim H — May 19, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Tim,
Re: your (1)
- There is direct evidence of significant damage to the south side of WTC7 (photographic evidence of the southwest corner and testimony of eyewitnesses)
- There is indirect evidence of the damage, by comparison to the damage done to the Banker’s Trust building by the collapse of WTC2.
- There is indirect evidence of the damage by evidence of the damage to the northen end of the pedestrian walkway and the volume and size of rubble in the street in front of the south side of WTC7.
On top of which, the current “best guess” engineering explanation requires maybe only one sizable chunk of debris penetrating roughly half way into the core of the building.
(2) Yes, the building was designed to resist the confligration of its contents. In this case, if you read FEMA’s report the fuel source was possibly fuel that was intended to be pumped through pressurized lines to generators on the 5th floor.
I encourage you to read the FEMA report and the NIST report when it becomes finalized (apparently later this Spring).
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 19, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Not meaning to interrupt a good fight, but you might notice that Ron Paul seems to believe that al Qaeda is responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and he believed/s that we should go and get them. Point of interest.
Comment by ElizaF — May 19, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Eliza: No, I don’t have a dog in this race. I’m trying to function like a “chorus,” commenting on aspects of both sides. However, I hope Ron Paul didn’t throw in the towel too easily. When I read your comment, I was literally looking for my checkbook to send a donation to him. But, now I’m going to wait.
Comment by Tim H — May 19, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Tim and Eliza - Food for thought:
Alex Jones has stated on record that Ron Paul told him in private correspondance that he does not buy the official 911 conspiracy theory. He says that Paul would/should not explicitly reveal his stance on this issue because it would be “political suicide”.
Paul supports a new investigation and even stated on C-Span that he thought another terrorist attack would be staged to justify war with Iran. His argument with Guliani has actually only given him more exposure and support from what I’ve been hearing.
These articles provide up to date info on the situation:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/ronpaul/index.htm
Comment by Josh — May 19, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Josh-thanks for the link. That answers that.
Comment by ElizaF — May 21, 2007 @ 5:53 am
TF #10:
Try to make your posts shorter. Too much verbiage makes it tough to slog through.
1) The NIST reports are unreliable. Here is just one critique of its Towers 1 and 2 theory. Among other things, notice how they are dishonest about the size of the core columns.
2)Regarding “pull it.”
A) “Pull it” is jargon demolition companies use.
B) Silverstein had no authority to “pull” firemen out of the building. So why does he say that “we” decided to pull it?
C) If one is talking about firemen, one would say, “pull them out,” not “pull it.”
D) There were no firemen in the building. The following is from the New York Times 11-29-01
“With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.”
The FEMA Report (5-21) corroporates this.
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.”
Sorry, TF, Silverstein meant what he said. I don’t need to speculate about Trilateralists or anything like that. One can think of plenty of motivations to take the building down. (Silverstein insured the building for a record about of money and received well over 3.5 million after the dust was settled.)
Comment by MRB — May 21, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
MRB:
It’s tough to respond in a detailed manner without the posts getting long. The short version below is the result of not being able to explain things in detail.
1) As for your claim that NIST is “dishonest,” I don’t know what to tell you. The link you provided does not support that assertion. The complaint seems to be based on the fact that a wire model of the building makes the core columns look thin.
2) As for your Silverstein remark that he “meant what he said,” that has never been in dispute. While it is possible for people to say things they don’t mean, that’s not the case here.
What he did not say is “demolish the building,” and what he did say, he later explained, so we don’t have to speculate about what he meant.
3) As for his motivation being 3.5 million dollars, you must be joking.
a) That’s a pittance when it comes to the value of Lower Manhatten real estate.
b) And we still left wondering whether Silverstein planned this demolition in advance (meaning he was part of the conspiracy) or whether Silverstein demolished the building on the spur of the moment, seizing the opportunity presented by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
c) The obvious motivation for insuring the WTC complex is the previous attempted destruction of the building by … ah, yes, fanatical Muslims.
The truth is so simple. Two planes flown by fanatical Muslims hit the buildings, the buildings collapsed and took out part of the neighborhood in the process.
The question-asking is neverending. If only one building had collapsed, that would have been proof that it was dynamited. If WTC7 had not collapsed, that would have been more proof that fires cannot cause steel-frame buildings to collapse. And so on, and so forth.
-Turrertinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 21, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Does anyone have a theory on why so many theonomists are prone to believe in conspiracies? Is it that people with a certain psychological tendency become theonomists, or is there something about theonomy that promotes this kind of mindset? Or is there some other answer?
Comment by mkm — May 21, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
TF -
In debating you I am violating one of my own rules - don’t wrestle with a tar baby.
Yes, the models make it look as if the columns were much weaker than they were. Indeed, in one gov’t report (I forget which now), they failed to mention the 47 massive core columns.
Apart from this, making reference to the NIST report as an authority is like citing the New Testament (or Old Testament for that matter) to a Jew. If you want to use an argument that the gov’t uses, fine. But don’t cite it as something that has authority.
Enough on Silverstein. I have showed the absurdity of the gloss of his statement and yet you come back with, “let’s take him at his word.”
I meant $3.5 Billion. Even for a New York Judaic, that is serious cash.
Comment by MRB — May 22, 2007 @ 12:05 am
#19-
Do you want the official theory or the conspiratorial one?
On the chance that your question is in earnest, two points come to mind.
1) It has been my experience that most theonomists are not into what you label conspiracy theories. When I was a young theonomist I was Greg Bahnsen’s assistant and the only thing that he held to that could be called a conspiracy theory was his skepticism of the Warren Report on the JFK murder. I was not interested in that at the time and we never spoke about it. Incidently, 80% of those polled do not believe the Warren Report so there seems to be no connection between theonomy and skepticism about the official JFK story.
Rush did question some official historical dogmas — the Kabbalistic 6 million Holocaust figure, for example. But even Judaic historians such as Hilberg reject that number.
North is perhaps the best known theonomic “conspiracy theorist.” One could say he wrote the book on the topic.
Apart from this, I do not know of anybody else. As far as I know, Gentry, DeMar, Sutton, Chilton, Morecraft, and others are fairly conventional in this regard.
So one bona fide conspiratorialist and two who hold to a relatively few non-offical views. So regarding your psychological probing, there is hardly enough fertile ground to go digging in.
2) Since theonomists are Calvinists and presuppositionalists, we realize that God’s word is true and fallen men are in a conspiracy against his Son. Sinful men have every motive to lie and deceive. We should not find it surprising when they actually do just this. Why Christians are so willing to believe even the most outlandish lies told to them by their goverments is what is genuinely surprising. Especially given the fact that we can look back on history and find so many of them.
Think of the burning of Rome, the Katyn Forest massacre, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Israeli attack on the U.S. Liberty. The official story of each of these events was pure fiction and and the purveyors of the stories knew their stories were fiction. Must one have some “psychological tendency” to be open to the possibility that other government stories may be fictitious as well?
Comment by MRB — May 22, 2007 @ 1:11 am
TF — I get the feeling that nothing short of a full and public confession by the responsible parties would convince you.
Comment by Tim H — May 22, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Tim (#22): Ironically, we do have confessions from at least some of the responsible parties, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and yet folks refuse to believe.
Recall as well the video released on the fifth anniversary of the attack.
TurretinFan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 10:10 am
MRB (#21):
a) I won’t touch the tar-baby rhetoric.
b) Using wire-frame models in computer simulations is conventional, it’s not an attempt to be deceptive.
c) I will keep on citing the evidence presented in the NIST reports (and FEMA reports, and other reports of people who studied the evidence) to 911 deniers and keep on citing the evidence presented in the NT to unbelieving Jews.
d) In any event, though, the more government agencies, the more experts, and the more reports that are issued, which say the same thing require the continual expansion of the “conspiracy” to include more and more people, as is normal in “conspiracy theories” as that term is conventionally used.
e) The absurd thing with regard to Silverstein is to ignore the context, and ignore the clarification provided.
f) Yes, 3.5 Billion is not mere loose change, but then again, it’s roughly what Silverstein had agreed to pay to lease the buildings:
“Just seven weeks before the terrorist attacks, the authority reached a deal with Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, which agreed to lease the towers and other authority-owned facilities in the area for $3.2 billion (over 99 years), with $616 million paid up front.”
Source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_the_twin_towers.html
g) And, btw, that huge amount of money is an equally big incentive for the insurance companies to identify fraud as a reason to reduce the payment amount. Again, the conspiracy, however, can expand to include the insurance companies.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 10:12 am
TF — I’m fine with considering the evidence from any source, even NIST and FEMA. The problem I have with the contents, for example, of the links you gave in post #5, is that there was precious little evidence, but a lot of rhetoric. Heaping up such references makes me think you are appealing to authority, not evidence.
As to the “continual expansion” of the “conspiracy,” your thinking so makes me think you have never worked for a large corporation, or for the government directly or indirectly, or even read C. S. Lewis’ penetrating studies of the dynamics of the “inner circle.”
Try this thought-experiment. Suppose FEMA and NIST were fully staffed by clones of Turretin Fan. Do you suppose there would be any more chance of them doing a serious investigation of this matter contrary to the official line?
And yet, they would no more be part of an explicit conspiracy, than the real Turretin Fan is!
Comment by Tim H — May 22, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Dear Tim (#25),
The first page linked in #5 is (and I’m just eyeballing here) more than half evidence and less than half analysis of the evidence. The bulk of the column is direct quotations from witnesses, photographs, and videoclips.
The second linked page is less evidence-driven, but does have a nice “Allegation/Fact” format after the introduction.
Your argument regarding the corporate mentality is a useful one and is not entirely special pleading.
Nevertheless, we see whistleblowers come forth from administrative agencies and corporations all the time, when the prevailing wisdom (as they like to call it) is contrary to the facts.
Recall, for example, how many people came forward claiming that they had tried to warn of the risk of airplane attacks on skyscrapers after the fact, even when the official line was that we could not have anticipated the attack?
But, whether you call it “serious” or not, NIST is undertaking analyses of intentional destruction scenarios (including explosives and thermite) in its report on WTC7.
I seem to recall (but I may be mistaken), that they analyzed similar alternative scenarios in their study on WTC 1 and 2.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 11:43 am
TF -
You never deal with the hard questions. If there were no firemen in Building 7, how could Silverstein pull them out?
Comment by MRB — May 22, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
How do the official conspiracy “nut balls” explain the presence of thermate in the towers?
Comment by MRB — May 22, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
MRB wrote:
If you had read the web page linked at comment 5 above, you would already have your answer.
- Richard Banaciski
And corroborating:
- Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
and again:
- Chief Cruthers
and yet again:
- Lieutenant William Ryan
But you could just read that and the wealth of additional information presented on the site linked at comment #5 above.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
MRB wrote:
Probably they have a good laugh at the idea that the thermate hypothesis is either supported by evidence or internally consistent.
Thermite and Thermate are not particularly explosive, they are difficult to control (you can’t readily shape a thermite charge), and the presence of molten metal streaming from a fire (while it is consistent with a thermate or thermite hypothesis) is not evidence that thermite or thermate charges were used to bring down the building.
Watch some thermite in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyVD8V0016w
http://www.digg.com/lbv.php?id=1346473&ord=1
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Help me TF: what do these verbose quotes in #29 prove? This is not a challenge; I seriously don’t get it.
Perhaps it would help if you would extract from these quotes a timeline for me. BRIEFLY. Something like, (I’m just making this up:)
10:00 Bianci declares that Bldg 7 is raging
11:10 Ferguson pulls out the remaining firemen
12:00 Silverstein concurs that firemen shd be pulled.
2:00 Last fireman is out
4:00 Bldg falls.
Comment by Tim H — May 22, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Dear Tim:
The quotes are there to show that the firemen used the term “pull out” to describe their withdrawal from the area, and that there is corroborating evidence that they withdrew from the area. In other words, there were firefighters assigned to the area, although they did not manually fight the visible fires.
The only time mentioned in the quotations is 3:00 (which should probably be viewed as approximate). The building collapsed around 5:20, if I recall correctly, with the BBC prematurely claiming it had already collapsed around 5:05.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
So you’re admitting that MB’s question in #27 is not addressed by these quotes in any meaningful way. If anything, they strengthen the urgency of his question.
Why do you waste our time and space with this kind of garrulous nonsense?
TF, no offense intended, but have you ever considered taking the Critical Thinking course at BTS?
Comment by Tim H — May 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Tim wrote:
That’s not a fair or accurate characterization of what I said, Tim.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 22, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Yes, it is fair and accurate. The quotes show nothing that would answer the question, “If there were no firemen in Building 7, how could Silverstein pull them out?”
Comment by Tim H — May 22, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
The most extraordinary aspect of the collapses, and I think the most useful for disproving the government version of 9/11, has to be the speed and symmetricality with which they fell. Even if you were to grant that the fires could seriously weaken the steel(which I do not), how does asymmetrical damage produce such neat and clean drops, at free-fall speed? For the first time in history, and thrice in one day. And this evidence doesn’t depend on believing anyone’s testimony who just happened to be there that day; it’s all there on video and you can watch it over and over here.
I don’t believe I have seen a government apologist attempt to explain how all the building support could give way so suddenly and simutaneously. Perhaps someone in this “room” could direct me to such a discussion.
Regarding the blogger’s directive to put up or shut up, there have indeed been some 9/11 related lawsuits, the stifling of which is mere fly-swatting for the Feds. Perhaps he was too self-marginalized in the Republican party to be aware of them:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lawsuits_suppressed.html
http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml
Maybe though I am too hard on our courageous blogger, who has indeed gone out on a limb and said our government is too large. It is not exactly “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” but it’s a start, even if it does sound a little like saying Antarctica is too cold.
Alas, it is late, and this nutball must get some sleep so I can return on the morrow to making an honest living, where I suppose I really do belong.
Comment by Doug Wood — May 23, 2007 @ 6:33 am
Tim wrote:
Perhaps there has been some miscommunication.
Let me try more directly to answer the question:
a) Straw man. Silverstein does not claim to have pulled them out. He claims that he concurred in the fire department’s decision to pull them out.
b) Red Herring. You can pull firemen supporting the building out of the area (the area the firemen were calling the “collapse zone” before the collapse) without the fireman having to be inside the building, and this is what happened.
The evidence I presented in #29 supports (b), while the evidence I presented in #10 (part 1) supports (a).
Whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the arguments I am making, do you see the relationship between the evidence and the arguments, or does it still appear to you that I am “admitting that MB’s question in #27 is not addressed by these quotes in any meaningful way.”
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 23, 2007 @ 9:20 am
Dear Doug,
You wrote:
Most of the “how could such-and-such have happened” questions are answered in summary form here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
A detailed explanation of the reason why the collapse appeared to be “simultaneous” is provided in the midst of this rather larger .pdf file.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Chapter 9, page 285 (p. 367 of the .pdf), provides the “Probable Collapse Sequences,” which provides a detailed answer to your question.
Personally, I don’t think that a P.E. (in civil or mechanical engineering) could read through the hundred page report and be left with any serious questions regarding the viability of the government’s position, unless that person had a severe prejudice against government reports.
And, of course, there are always counter-questions to the questions that are presented by the conspiracy theorists.
In this case a couple of counter questions are:
1) Why did the upper part of the south tower rotate 8 degrees immediately before the collapse?
2) Why take the extra time and risk involved in planting roughly 12,000 charges per building in rougly 4,000 locations per building in order to accomplish a controlled demolition of the buildings?
Compare how much work it took for the controlled demolition of the Hudson building, the tallest steel frame building ever destroyed by a controlled demolition.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120
Here’s a video of that controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khD2gZkkSu0
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 23, 2007 @ 10:23 am
TF -
This is getting tedious. Ask yourself, how did Silverstein know that the building was going to collapse? Remember, the steel buildings had never done so before. But he decides (he said “we”) to pull out the non-existent firemen right before it falls in a perfectly symmetrical manner.
Your links to government sources are a waste of time for two reasons. First, there is no possibility that government agents or contractors are going to come to some other conclusion than the official line. To not realize this is to be hopelessly naive. Second, you need to give us the arguments. I have read most reports on 9-11, but most have not. It is a lot to get through. Summarize the arguments and then give a link at the end if you must. This will save everybody a good deal of time.
Comment by MRB — May 23, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
TF -
And the document you link to does not make reference to Tower 7. That is the tower we have been discussing. Doug obviously included this one when he used the plural.
While you are googling this one, please also explain the short selling that took place before 911. If Al Qaeda had done this, the SEC would have reported it long ago. But as of today, we (the public) still don’t know who did it. But you can be sure the SEC knows. I wonder why they have not released the info.
Comment by MRB — May 23, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
MRB wrote:
Let’s count the misstatements of fact in that single statement of yours:
1) You claim: “he said ‘we’” whereas, in fact he said “they made that decision to pull.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
2) You claim the firemen are non-existent, but the firemen were both existent and have testified to the truth of the fact that they were in the area and were pulled from the area.
http://butler-harris.org/archives/236#comment-7987
3) You claim that the pull-out was “right before it falls” though the evidence linked above shows that the evacuation began earlier, around 3:00 (and according to the quotations you provided, even earlier than that).
4) You claim it fell in a “perfectly symmetrical manner,” but it did not. Neither was the collapse footprint symmetrical (it extended much more torward the north east than any other direction) nor was the motion of the collapse symmetrical - a section under the east penthouse collapsed first and then the remainder of the building collapsed around 5 seconds later (this would seem to explain the eastern bias of the collapse footprint).
You ask the question:
The answer from the evidence linked above is that there was massive damage to the building, it was creaking and bulging and there was an enormous hole in the south side of the building as well as fires visible on various floors on all four sides.
Your claim that steel buildings had never done so before is false: WTC 1 and 2 had done so earlier that same day. Undoubtedly that experience made the collapse of WTC7 seem more likely to the people who were there.
Conversely, of course, no steel building that large had ever been brought down by demolition teams.
The remainder of your comments are just more assertions coupled with rhetoric.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Does anyone know the precise time that Silverstein’s famous statement was made?
Comment by Tim H — May 23, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
TF wrote:
“Personally, I don’t think that a P.E. (in civil or mechanical engineering) could read through the hundred page report and be left with any serious questions regarding the viability of the government’s position, unless that person had a severe prejudice against government reports.”
I find the last part of this statement telling. “Severe prejudice” might better read ‘prudent presupposition,’ given the history of our government and most others. The ruling elite lie habitually, gut the constitution, and bend the rules so that they usually win. I offer as evidence this 48 min. video on the Carlyle Group.
As the first two minutes are in Dutch, here is the translation.
Finally, consider their latest power grab.
The same government scientists who wrote these reports would probably to a man consider the theory of Evolution to be an established fact, only disbelieved by those with a severe prejudice against the biological sciences.
There seems to be the assumption that the large numbers of scientists working on these reports or agreeing with them insures their integrity.
Scripture indicates the larger the number of unregenerate gathered together, the greater the propensity to evil, e.g. Prov. 1; Gen. 11; 19; Judges 19
While the collapses may not have achieved “perfect” symmetry, I do not believe MRB was arguing for that. Rather a symmetry sufficient to ‘fool’ a controlled demolition expert, complete with squibs and a kink or crimp(I forget the term) in the penthouse from the onset of the collapse.
I find Jowenko’s reactions compelling, but then I do not have a severe prejudice against independent contractors who specialize in controlled demos.
Presuppositions, like facts, are hard things, both to recognize and even more so to change.
Comment by Doug Wood — May 24, 2007 @ 2:49 am
Good points. Let me also add that “P.E.” is an engineer that has passed a test in order to be “certified” in order to get certain union or government jobs.
Comment by Tim H — May 24, 2007 @ 6:23 am
I seem to have missed comment 40 when I was responding yesterday. Lest another charge of “You never deal with the hard questions,” be flung, here is a brief response.
MRB wrote:
When NIST finishes the report on WTC7, which promises to explore the controlled demolition hypothesis, and I become aware of it, I will happily point it out. Nevertheless, I don’t expect it will be much different from the FEMA report, which I already provided above.
MRB continued:
The second link I posted in these comments answers the short selling question. There are plenty of obvious reasons for not disclosing the identities of people who would instantly become targets of the same kind of antagonistic speculation as Silverstein has, no matter how innocent they were. The argument from the SEC’s silence is just that.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 24, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Doug,
If you are not prejudiced against that particular demolition expert as it relates to WTC7, then perhaps you will consider what he has to say about WTC 1 and 2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 24, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Let me repeat my statement in #22, in the form of a challenge. For, if nothing short of a full and public confession by govt insiders would make TF sceptical about the govt’s conspiracy theory, then there is no point in trading little factoids.
So, TurretinFan, please outline an example of the kind of evidence that would change you into being a sceptic of the govt story.
In return, I will do the same in reverse– I will give a brief outline of the kind of evidence that would remove my scepticism.
Why don’t we stay with Bldg 7 on this. I’m going to show why #5/link #2’s analysis of the put options is inadequate, after we close on Bldg. 7.
Comment by Tim H — May 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Dear Tim,
I’m open to all kinds of evidence, and I tend to weigh evidence rather than look for a smoking gun.
Since we’re talking about WTC7, whatever evidence was brought to bear would have to be enough to provide a counter-balance to the evidence in the reports and web sites I already mentioned.
While it is not going to come down to just one thing, trace evidence of commercial grade explosives at the site of WTC7 would go a long way toward making the demolition hypthesis credible.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 24, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
TF #41-
Yes, I misquoted. Nothing rides on this, though. Besides, Silverstein gives the impression that he was involved in the decision. “Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
This is the scenario you weave. Silverstein gets a call from the chief who wants to consult with him about the situation. (This implies that Silverstein was not on hand.) The chief and Silverstein presumably come the conclusion that the building is going to collapse. Silverstein then advises the chief to pull out all of the firemen from the general area. The building then falls down.
Questions:
1) How did they know the building was going to collapse? Oh, yes. Everybody could just tell. But then why does the NIST report:
“The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated to have occurred with the failure of core columns.”
Let me save you some time and reply for you. “The NIST said the global collapse occurred with few external signs. But they were not expecting a global collapse; they were expecting a local one.”
2) Since there were all kinds of people in the area (police, officials, reporters), why did Silverstein only make reference to the firemen? Why not say, “hey, lets move everybody back since this thing can go at any time.”
3) Silverstein’s quote gives the impression that these things happened in a short sequence. Phone call, “pull it,” the building falls. On your scenario it should be, phone call, “pull it,” Larry gets a cup of coffee, he calls his insurance agent and asks him how much loot he will collect if Bldg 7 falls, he leisurely goes over the figures in his head and imagines the new Silverstein Tower that he will build on the site one day, he strolls over to the chief and they chew the fat while they wait for the building to come down.
As to your claim that the collapse was not symmetrical, watch the many videos of it coming down. But I guess on TurretinFan’s worldview gov’t reports trump sense experience.
Comment by MRB — May 24, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Yes; and even that rather amusingly implausible scenario grants as an assumption that someone would say “pull it” meaning, “pull those guys out.” Let’s not forget that that itself is strained and implausible for a native English speaker.
Comment by Tim H — May 24, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
TF said (#48):
“While it is not going to come down to just one thing, trace evidence of commercial grade explosives at the site of WTC7 would go a long way toward making the demolition hypthesis credible.”
So trace evidence of commercial grade explosives would move you. But what about evidence that thermate was used thermate? You say, “Thermite and Thermate are not particularly explosive, they are difficult to control.” What does being explosive have to do with anything? Thermate melts steel. At the bottom of all three towers there was molten steel. Steven Jones has done a lot of work on this and finds a great deal of evidence supporting his theory that thermate was used.
Think about this. If somebody did want to bring the buildings down and use airplanes as diversions, would they use commercial grade explosives? Such explosives would give the game away. Not only could it be easily detected, but videos of the collapse would show explosions going all the way down. It would not fool most people.
Thermate, however, avoids these problems. It is not as explosive a conventional demolition charges and so there would not be the tell tale signs of demolition and it would be less likely for anybody to test for thermate. Indeed, the NIST says it did not, in fact, test for thermite or thermate.
Comment by MRB — May 24, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Speaking of Larry, he really cashed in big today. His 3.5 billion insurance policies are paying out 4.55 billion. Read all about it here.
The key paragraph is:
“Shell said he wasn’t worried that the case had set a precedent for policyholders to receive more insurance than they paid for. The trade center attacks were ‘a very unique experience,’ he said. ‘There is no precedent set.’
Imagine that. Larry received more cash than what he insured the buildings for. (And as I mentioned before, his 3.5 billion policy was the largest ever taken out on a set of buildings.) But lest the goyim get excited and think they can ever scam an insurance company like this, the insurance spokesman makes it clear that no precedent has been set.
Larry’s prophetic abilities (leasing the buildings just six weeks before the “attacks,” knowing to take out a monster insurance policy and knowing that Tower 7 was going to collapse) had already led him to some nice profits. Now with a little help from Eliot Spitzer, his profits have become even greater. Looks like Larry’s kids will be having a very happy hanukkah this year.
Comment by MRB — May 24, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
TF
Thank you for #46. That was a bit of an eye opener. It makes your dilema worse though, because Jowenko sees a controlled demo in #7, and the official government story in #’s 1 and 2. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that if WTC7 is acknowledged to have been a controlled demolition, then the jig is up.
Regarding the statements in the video that the building fell from the top down and therefore could not have been a controlled demolition, I would like to point out the many reports of massive explosions on the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 prior to their collapse. Most notably William Rodriquez, a janitor there for some 20 years, is adamant that there was a massive explosion in the basement just prior to the first plane strike. He was also noted for his heroism in helping survivors escape the building, and recognized by President Bush. Nonetheless Mr. Rodriguez does not believe the official story. He was actually interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, privately of course, and gave his account of the events of that day. Because his account transgressed the party line, it was ignored in the final report. So numerous reports come in that day of massive explosions on the lower levels of WTC 1 and 2, and are ignored by the Orwellian 9/11 Commission. Doesn’t it make you at least a little suspicious?
Comment by Doug Wood — May 24, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Dear Doug,
I think just about everyone recognizes that WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top down. Basement explosives 102 minutes before the collapse are not consistent with a controlled demolition.
Nevertheless, some attempted response to the janitor’s claims should be made, and has been made. The following web site provides a very detailed response.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 25, 2007 @ 10:03 am
TF: I am not arguing for a normal controlled demolition, just trying to point out other reasons for the buildings otherwise inexplicably sudden collapse.
From the link:
“Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building.”
Rodriguez never claimed to have seen the plane hit the building to my knowledge. He claims to have heard it, after the basement explosion. As I am sure you are aware, many people were testifying to explosions in the lower parts of the building. To say these were all elevator-shaft fireballs doesn’t seem credible to me.
Comment by Doug Wood — May 25, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Dear Doug,
I fully agree with you that the paragraph you quoted is a very weak argument by itself.
There’s a great deal more and stronger arguments on that page.
I could be wrong, and I’m open to correction, but I do think that loose string has mostly been wound up.
I find the molten metal problem that MRB brought up more interesting, because of the timing issue. Did you notice when the pools of molten metal were observed?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 25, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
One thing is amazing to me re the “pull it” quote. Supposedly, that remark was made in a conversation with the “fire commander.” And whoever he is, if our suspicion about Silverstein is right, then the commander is on it too at some level.
So who is he? Is he still alive? Has he been interviewed? Can’t find anything on a google search, but I’m not the best googler.
Comment by TJH — May 26, 2007 @ 8:26 am
The State Department (hereafter: SD) discussion at the second link in comment #5 is unsatisfying in its treatment of Silverstein and the building’s collapse.
1. Imagine a crime novel where someone says, “I heard Mugsy say he killed them off,” whereupon the cops come back later and say, “we asked Mugsy, and he said he meant the ants that had invaded his kitchen. So that ends it.” Ridiculous!
2. There are typos that change the meaning. We make typos; but when we find them, we fix them. Consider this statement on the SD page: “NIST has seen so [sic] evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.”
Yes, SD, we see so [much] evidence too; why aren’t you investigating? (Or however the grammar is to be fixed.)
Then, it links to “Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6)”; but there is no page 6 on that report.
3. SD’s terminology (e.g. “allegation” versus “fact” — why not present arguments and let us decide?) is question-begging and deceptive. This is why we have urged our readers to substitute rhetoric with the opposite import, to test their thinking. Think, “government’s conspiracy theory” versus skeptics thereof. Think, “government’s allegations,” versus certain facts that call for an accounting. TF wants to appeal to “convention” to retain the government’s nomenclature; but nothing is more important than throwing mere convention overboard to test how much mere wording has affected our thinking.
4. SD says, “NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to ‘fire and/or debris induced structural damage.’”
First, they admit that that is an hypothesis, though it is listed under the “fact” section. (Very few SD readers will pick up that their having an hypothesis is the “fact,” not the content of that hypothesis.)
5. Now look at the grammar of their hypothesis: “fire and/or debris induced structural damage”. In other words, they don’t know what caused the structural damage. They don’t know (or won’t say) if fire would be sufficient, of if debris would be sufficient. Therefore, they don’t know if something else is actually what caused the structural damage. (But of course, it’s only an hypothesis.) Their statement boils down to, “The building’s structure collapsed because the building’s structure was damaged.” Which, I think, all parties can agree to.
Comment by TJH — May 26, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Dear Tim,
As to (1), add in that the context of Mugsy’s comment was a pest problem in the house, and that Mugsy was on the phone with the exterminator, and it becomes much less ridiculous.
As to (2), yes it is a silly typo (especially in view of the lead-in of “unambiguously”) and the SD should fix it. The citation to page 6 of the referenced document does confirm that the original is “no” not “so much.” Here is a link:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
Not sure why you claim it has no page 6, perhaps you ended up on an incorrect document?
As to (3), it’s good to shake things up and look at things from different angles. A certain amount of non-conventional language can be excused in the process.
As to (4), you are right. The scientific process of crime scene investigation begins by generating various hypotheses and then testing those hypotheses. Among the hypotheses that NIST will be testing is also a controlled demolition hypothesis.
As to (5), the reason for the uncertainty is that they have not completed the study. Based on what they have released so far, it looks like they will conclude that it was a combination of structural damage and fire damage, with the fire damage being far more significant, given the timing of the collapse. Fire indcuded the collapse of the east side core, and then the collapse of the east side core racked the fifth floor of the building, effectively chopping the west side core, and consequently overloading the perimeter columns at about the fifth floor level and producing global collapse that was essentially bottom up.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 26, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Dear Tim:
Re: the fire commander, all I’ve seen in this regard are questions, and the only fire commander associated with the 9/11 crime scene (that I’m aware of) is Richard Picciotto. He tells a story that generally tends to confirm the official report regarding the collapse of the twin towers, and I think he’s even written a book.
However, Picciotto doesn’t seem like a probable candidate for the call, because he was inside the north tower when it collapsed and was consequently buried for several hours that day.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 26, 2007 @ 11:19 am
My colleague’s comments (#58) are quite good and should be reflected upon for a time before they get buried.
As for the NIST still trying to figure out what happened, this would have been possible had the evidence been left there and a full investigation by gov’t AND independent researchers taken place. But the evidence was all carted away. To tamper or destroy evidence of a crime is a felony. But this law only applies to the serfs, not our masters.
Comment by MRB — May 26, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I’m hoping to do some more research into the 9/11 Truth Movement this summer, especially from an engineering perspective. Until then, I’m pretty skeptical of both sides.
Also, Mr. Butler, I posted a comment on an old post of yours dealing with epistemology and I’d really appreciate a response. Thanks.
Keith
Comment by Keith — May 27, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Keith -
That’s the spirit. Be skeptical — of both sides. As I said before, one of my major concerns is not that Christians believe the official 9-11 story, but that they cannot conceive of the possibility that the gov’t may be lying.
Good to have you back. I’ll try to respond to your other comment next week.
Comment by MRB — May 27, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Thanks for the response. I look forward to your comment on epistemology.
I watched a documentary by Alex Jones on google video yesterday. (It was my first day in over 5.5 months that I didn’t have schoolwork looming over my head, so anything sounded good.) While I think he overstates his case at times, he made an incredible point in saying that since knowledge is power, secrecy regarding that knowledge is just as powerful… hence the obsession with occultism (which means “secrecy”, apparently) at the highest levels of any organization. Secrecy = power, and the US government is an institution of power, therefore they obviously will hold secrets… for better or for worse.
Comment by Keith — May 27, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
TF(#56)-
What you call a “loose string” I call a credible witness who has wrecked his life by sticking to his testimony: ‘basement explosion before plane strike.’ His reward has been to be associated with holocaust deniers, not the path to career advancement. Had he kept his mouth shut about what he heard and when he heard it, he could have parlayed his role as 9/11 hero into fame and fortune.
Regarding molten metal found at ground zero, my understanding was that these pools were observed weeks after 9/11 and represented a necessary degree of energy for which the government theory could not account. The alternate theory, a controlled demolition, would account for this because the explosives would release energy sufficient to melt steel. In other words a smoking gun. Searching the 9/11 Commission Report for the topic was a dead end. Have any of the agencies addressed the moletn steel issue?
Comment by Doug Wood — May 28, 2007 @ 9:02 am
I made an unfortunate concession in putting words (#58) into Mugsy’s mouth that have an equally natural meaning on two interpretations. It would be more to the point to have Mugsy’s statement “I killed that gang” and later, come back to say he meant “that gang” of ants in the kitchen.
I think this single issue shows how post 5/link #1 is verbose and uncogent. It would actually make a good exemplar to use in a Critical Thinking class for identifying fallacies. The plethora of quotes from firemen could be summarized, “various firemen at various unknown times talked about sending men in or out, up or down, back or forth.” Fine link #1: no one would dispute that; save the quotes for someone that would challenge that obvious and banal thesis.
None of the quotes establish a context for Silverstein’s alleged conversation. They are all different conversations.
I say alleged conversation, because WHERE IS THE CONVERSATION PARTNER? Let’s hear Dan Rather interview him. And prior to the interview, let’s have him sequestered.
The Mugsy analogy could be extended to capture the other elements of the case here.
Someone says, “I heard Mugsy say he killed the gang off.” It turns out, the statement occurred an hour after the time the coroner gave as the time of death of the Molina boys down at Johnny’s Garage. It turned out that Barzini had offered a $20,000 bounty for rubbing out the Molina gang. The police later discovered that $20,000 was deposited in Mugsy’s bank account a couple days later.
Now TF comes back and says, “Mugsy says he was talking about killing the ants in his kitchen. We have quotes from neighbors that also had problems with ants. One even bought a can of Raid last week. So we have no reason to question Mugsy.”
Like I said: Ridiculous!
Comment by Tim H — May 28, 2007 @ 9:41 am
And there are two different layers of ridiculousness that should be distinguished.
1. The proferred alibi is itself strained and barely credible on its own merits.
2. The idea that the suspect’s mere word would settle the case.
Comment by TJH — May 28, 2007 @ 10:11 am
This one is from way back (#23).
TF said:
“Ironically, we do have confessions from at least some of the responsible parties, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and yet folks refuse to believe.”
That TF thinks Khalid’s confession is not only credible, but is evidence of obstinancy by those who do no believe him, shows that he (TF) is either hopelessly naive or so committed to pin the blame on Muslims that he will believe almost anything.
See this article for why Khalid’s confession is worthless.
Just for starters, look at all the plots he confessed to. Below is the complete list.
* The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
* A failed “shoe bomber” operation
* The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
* The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
* A plan for a “second wave” of attacks on major U.S. landmarks including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
* Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
* A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
* Plans to assassinate former U.S. presidents
* A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
* A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
* Plans to “destroy” Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
* A planned attack on “many” nightclubs in Thailand
* A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
* A plan to destroy buildings in Elat, Israel
* Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan
* Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
* Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
* Sending several “mujahideen” into Israel to survey “strategic targets” with the intention of attacking them
* The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
* The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport
* Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
* Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
* Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
* A plot to attack Nato’s headquarters in Europe
* Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the “Bojinka Operation”) to bomb 12 American passenger jets
* The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
* “Shared responsibility” for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
* Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
* An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, “owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger”
* The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl
* The assassination of Abraham Lincoln
* Accomplice to Jack to the Ripper
* An attempt to chain Superman with kryptonite and help Lex Luther escape from the Metropolis Jail
(Well, I added a few at the end.)
Comment by MRB — May 28, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Doug,
You wrote:
If so, I’m not aware of the discussion. I hope that NIST will address it in the final analysis of WTC7, but I’m not expectant.
The problem with trying to use it to support the thermite story is that thermite burns out fairly rapidly. Recall the video links above. If thermite were used, one would expect to all be combusted by the time the building completely collapsed, and there would be none left to stoke pools of molten metal for weeks on end.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 29, 2007 @ 9:30 am
MRB:
The charge that I am “either hopelessly naive or so committed to pin the blame on Muslims that [I] will believe almost anything” is a false charge. Please, on your honor, withdraw it.
What evidence could I accept, though, that would not render me liable to such charges?
If confession from a perpetrator is something that only the gullible or the anti-Muslim would accept, what evidence can an ordinary, rational person accept?
Or is anyone who accepts ANY evidence that favors the government’s story in one of those two categories in your view?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 29, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Dear Tim,
You wrote:
Do you think it would make a difference?
Do you suppose there is any possibility that the fireman would come forward and say that Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC 7.
Even assuming that Silverstein did not fabriacte the entire conversation to make himself look more involved than he actually was, I don’t think there is any chance that the fireman he talked with would set forth a significantly different story.
If the government story is correct, there is no obvious reason the fireman would lie.
If there is conspiracy with billions (or trillions) to gain from the conspiracy, the conspiracy has plenty of incentive to “get to” the fireman and persuade him that it is worthwhile to toe the party line, either monetarily or by other traditional NY methods of witness intimidation.
Perhaps that’s why few people on the conspiracy side have tried to identify and interview the fireman. What would be the point? Is there any real chance he would say “Silverstein told us to blow up the building, so we sent in the FDNY sapper squad and took it out.”
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 29, 2007 @ 10:42 am
It would not just be a “fireman.” It would be someone up the chain of command that Silvie would be talking to. It would not be someone hard for the authorities to identify.
I’m hypothesizing that the man does not exist.
That would explain why, not “few people,” but NO ONE on the conspiracy (i.e. govt) side has tried to identify and interview the commander.
Call my bluff, anyone.
Comment by Tim H — May 29, 2007 @ 11:24 am
TF #70 said -
“The charge that I am “either hopelessly naive or so committed to pin the blame on Muslims that [I] will believe almost anything” is a false charge. Please, on your honor, withdraw it.”
1) A “charge” cannot be made against an anonymous poster on a blog’s comment section. For all I know you may be Hal the computer, George Bush, a composite of people who use the tag “TurretinFan,” or Tim Harris trying to increase the buzz on this web site. If you submit your real name, an address, and where you have your church membership, I would, of course, protect your name. Otherwise, you have no name to protect.
2) You need to learn the distinction between rhetorical give and take and slander. If somebody wrote, “Christians who do not believe that Khalid’s confession is credible are either doing crack or have less than $13.26 in their checking account,” and I reacted to this by demanding, on their honor, that they repent from such a charge, I would be demonstrating a complete lack of understanding how language is used in these types of debates.
So enough of this grand-standing, TurretinFan. Stick to the issues or stop commenting here.
Comment by MRB — May 29, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
TF #70 -
A rational man does not accept the confession of someone who has been tortured, whose children may have been tortured, and who confesses to just about every single terrorist activity that has occurred in the last fifteen years. If you think otherwise, well, good luck to you.
Comment by MRB — May 29, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Tim (#72):
You wrote:
I agree, assuming that Silverstein got the rank right, it should be easy to find out who it was, by process of elimination if nothing else. As I recall there would have been around 20 or so people with that rank at that time.
I agree, and that the conversation did not actually take place, or did not take place the way it was described.
The easier explanation is that they felt the explanation by Silverstein’s spokeman would settle the matter, but there’s certainly no way to disprove the explanation you provide.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 29, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Repeat #67 pt. 2.
Comment by Tim H — May 29, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
And, yes, there is a way to disprove the explanation I provide. Deliver the man.
Think before you blurt, TF. Think!
Comment by Tim H — May 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Dear MRB,
I think I’ve upset you with my recent comments, and I apologize for that. For the record, I am one man (not Tim Harris, not a composite, and not Hal the computer). In order to avoid offending you, a Christian brother for whom I have great respect, I think I’ll take a voluntary time-out from this particular thread of discussion.
I understand from #73 that you meant your comment rhetorically, and that is good enough of an explanation to satisfy me.
May peace be upon you,
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
While TF is taking a break, I have a debate debt (#47) to discharge, namely, a brief outline of what it would take to make me accept that the fall of Bldg 7 was a natural occurance, an unexpected side-effect of the fall of the twins.
The basic anomalies of Bldg 7 are,
1. Silverstein’s statement, “pull it.”
2. Steel buidings don’t fall down because of fire.
Therefore, these two aspects need to be overcome to remove my suspicions.
For (1), I would be satisfied if the fire commander was identified and interviewed by a real investigative journalist (i.e. not someone working for Fox); and with followup interviews with firemen that were on the scene and whose names are known to their local communities, verifying that the commander’s words ring true. There needs to be a time-line that can serve as an anchor of objectivity to see if all the known facts and claims can be combined consistently.
For (2), there needs to be some explanation for sufficient damage that makes sense. Comment 5/link #1 suggests that the “columns” of the twin towers could have splayed out and whacked neighboring buildings with sufficient kinetic energy to slice through their framing. The columns were 1/4 mile high, sufficient to reach out to Bldg 7.
But: why don’t we see the columns splaying out in any of the videos? Why don’t we find them lying around in 1/4 mile long radiuses, having smashed cars and people in their trajectory?
Without any positive evidence, why not just say some foofoo dust settled on Bldg 7 and caused it to fall?
The govt story of Bldg 7 is just about that ridiculous.
So, for (2), I would be satisfied by some explanation for which there is evidence, which is widely recognized by mechanical engineers as obviously sufficient. Show us pictures of the splayed-out columns. Examine the damage the columns did to other buildings to assess how much damage they were capable of inflicting. Let an investigative team that is govt-independent and which includes skeptics make the case and present it publicly.
Comment by TJH — May 31, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I am no expert on the events of 9/11, and quite frankly, the amount of information one has to wade through is daunting. But I do find it interesting to observe that so many people are more than ready to believe that our government was in some way complicit in these events for some larger purpose.
What could possibly make people want to believe that their government could actually have the nerve to engage in such tactics? Could it be that in examining history, we find that men in power always want more, and are more than willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that end? History shows us this is true. Is America somehow exempt from the sinful machinations of the power hungry? Do we have some sort of false idea that our government is run by saints while the rest of the world is tyranized by sinners?
No, there are good reasons that we distrust our government, and these reasons have to do with the sinful nature of all men and the history of mankind in which we see a constant desire of the wicked to rule over all others.
If you wish to glibly swallow all the data being pumped out by the defenders of our current administration, be my guest. I do not wish to be that gullible. I find that there is far too much talk coming from Washington and far too little reality. Thus I will continue to keep an open mind as I wade through this massive volume of facts.
Brother Ed
Comment by Edward Hara — June 3, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Ed-
Good comments. And for those who still don’t believe the government would lie about a big event, just think of the global warming farce. The only reason the Feds are pushing the scam is to give them another excuse to control us.
Comment by MRB — June 19, 2007 @ 10:37 am
This individual’s testimony adds *massive* weight to the alternative position:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
Comment by Josh — June 19, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Having taken some time away from this thread, and looking back over the various arguments, I think I would concur with MRB to the extent that MRB is indicating that the liquid metal issue is the most troublesome issue for the “Official Story.”
I don’t think it’s a fatal problem, and I can’t see how thermite (or thermate) could create pools of liquid metal that would remain liquid for days, let alone weeks.
I also recognize that there are explanations out there that provide an attempted explanation (under heat from compression/ordinary fire, gypsum decomposes to inter alia sulfer dioxide => sulfer dioxide “rapidly” oxidizes steel producing excess heat => steel that is not consumed by the reaction melts => gypsum that was not previously decomposes decomposes in the presence of the additional heat of the on-going reaction => etc.)
The main shortcoming of that particular explanation is that I’m not aware of the phenomena occuring in other demolition/building collapse sites. If it did occur at other demolition/building collapse sites, that would seriously undermine the thermate hypothesis. Also, if the reaction could be demonstrated under controlled conditions, that would also help to buttress the official story.
The main drawback of the thermate view (in its most popular form) is that the appeal to “super thermate” is gross special pleading. It’s only about three steps short of saying that the building was demolished by “pixie dust.”
That said, I respect the authors of this blog, even though I personally feel they are being overly suspicious of the official report. I recall Bahnsen’s comments on the JFK assasination to mind, and suggest that the available facts may be more favorable to the “official story” than they were in that scenario.
Whether 9/11 was done by KSM and co. or Silverstein and co. is of relatively little concern (I think, and to me) to the problems of abortion, promiscuity (and other forms of sexual deviance), pluralism, modernism, and nationalized education.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — June 20, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
TF-
I’m not too interested in proving what actually caused the structures to collapse. Steven Jones and others have been working on that issue and I’ll leave it to them. What we know did not cause the molten steel is fire from jet fuel. This directly undermines the official story.
Speaking of Larry Silverstone (with his recent haul I hear he’s thinking about changing his name to Goldstone), here is an interesting fact sheet on him.
Comment by MRB — June 21, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Right. Since some people find an argument more convincing if stated in syllogistic form:
if the govt’s conspiracy theory is right, then kerosene caused the molten steel.
Kerosene did not cause the molten steel.
Therefore, by modus tollens…
Comment by TJH — June 26, 2007 @ 11:37 am
TJH and MRB,
I’ve read many government reports. Not one that I read ascribed an effect of molten steel to a cause of kerosene/jet fuel. Did I overlook one?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — June 26, 2007 @ 11:50 am
T-fan — correct me if I’m wrong, but kerosene is the only heat-generating substance available in the official conspiracy theory — or am I wrong? What do your reports say?
Comment by TJH — June 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
I believe the NIST position is that the molten metal is aluminum. One NIST engineer does not even seem to realize that there was molten metal. Here is a nice compilation of eye-witness accounts of molten steel.
For a quick look at the absurdities of the official conspiracy about how the buildings came down see here. For an good examination of the problems raised by molten steel see here.
Comment by MRB — June 26, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
TJH,
I’ll take that as an admission that you were and are unaware of any such allegation (i.e. that kerosene produced molten steel) in the official reports.
Obviously, there were an almost innumerable number of combustible and oxidizable materials in the twin towers and WTC7, ranging from alcohol and paper to diesel fuel and structural steel. I don’t specifically recall what percentage of those materials were listed in the official reports.
Oh yes, and the offical reports did not promote a conspiracy theory.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — June 26, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
T-fan. Cut it out. The official theory is a narrative, not a “report.” Stop acting silly.
And yes, the official narrative is nothing if not a conspiracy theory.
Comment by TJH — June 26, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
And, all Americans are well-versed in the salient points of that narrative; there’s no need to pretend ignorance. And the only combustibles in that story are what I am calling, generically, kerosene, and — yes, I neglected to mention — paper plates and napkins and such.
Comment by TJH — June 27, 2007 @ 8:00 am
TJH,
Let me ask the same question another way, i.e. sequentially.
1. Do the official reports (the NIST report, the FEMA report, or any of the other government reports) address the “pools of molten steel” that are alleged to have existed?
2. If so, do they identify a cause?
3. If so, is that cause the combustion of any hydrocarbon substance?
If your answer to any of those questions is “no,” then I believe I have rebutted your and MRB’s claims.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — June 27, 2007 @ 9:36 am
TF-
You are persistent. The NIST story seems to be that it was molten aluminum not steel in the collapse zones. Jones has refuted this view. If the Feds don’t accept molten steel was there, (1) they obviously are not going to give an account of how it got there and (2) by not acknowledging the molten steel, they show themselves to be frauds.
Let’s summerize the “debate” up to this point.
FW: “If it was not jet fuel, what caused the steel to melt?”
TF: “The government nowhere theorizes on what caused steel to melt.”
FW: “But it could not have been jet fuel, right?”
TF: Awkward silence. “Well, I guess not.”
FW: “Then it follows that the government story is false.”
TF: “NO IT DOES NOT!!!! THE GOVERNMENT NEVER SAID JET FUEL MELTED THE STEEL.”
FW: “Then what did?”
TF: “Well, there were lots of combustible materials in the buildings. There were carpets and computers and paper and alcohol (mainly from Larry’s liquor cabinet), diesel fuel, and, of course steel.”
FW: “Granted, but so what? Diesel burns at about the same temperature as jet fuel. Larry’s liquor cabinent is an interesting hypothesis, but it would only account for Tower 7. As for the other material, are you kidding?
TF: “The steel, don’t forget the steel.”
FW: “What about the steel?”
TF: “Steel is flammable, right?”
FW: “Well, yes . . .”
TF: “The steel could have burned and melted the steel.”
FW: “Okay, TF, I think its time for you to take a vacation from the internet.”
TF: “AD HOMINEM!!!”
FW: “Well, TF, you’ve got to admit . . .”
TF: “APPEAL TO FORCE!!!” I DON’T ‘GOT’ TO ADMIT ANYTHING.”
FW: “All we are saying . . . ”
TF: “APPEAL TO THE SPEECH ACT HERESY; I KNOW WHAT A PROPOSITION IS WHEN I SEE IT.”
FW: “Well, we’re not speaking of Clark here, let’s get back to the molten steel.”
TF: “ILLICIT CHANGING THE TOPIC FALLACY.”
FW: “Okay, we give up, but explain how the steel which melted the other steel burned in the first place.”
TF: “Oh, is that all you’re asking? Easy. As I wrote in comment #89, ‘Under heat from compression/ordinary fire, gypsum decomposes to inter alia sulfur dioxide => sulfur dioxide “rapidly” oxidizes steel producing excess heat => steel that is not consumed by the reaction melts => gypsum that was not previously decomposes decomposes in the presence of the additional heat of the on-going reaction => etc.’”
FW: “Wow, TF, that’s fantastic and incredible. Thanks for sharing this interesting theory with us.”
TF: “You’re welcome. Now admit that I have refuted you . . . and apologize for all the egregious calumnies you have made against the sole remaining defense we have from instant death from Islamo-Fascist terrorists — the Federal Government, led by Mr. President George Walker Bush, Commander-in-Chief.
FW: “Will you stop commenting on the 9-11 issue if we admit defeat?”
TF: “Yes!”
FW: “Settled. We admit defeat.”
NB: No comments will be allowed on this string until Monday, July 2.
Comment by MRB — June 28, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Excellent. That is classic MRB satire.
And I think the first three subjects we have discussed in detail — Sil-baby’s statement, “pull it,” the fact that there is no known reason why building 7 should have fallen, and the fact that kerosene does not melt steel — still stand as serious matters calling for an explanation. And the reports we have been referred to (e.g. in comment #5) do NOTHING to dispel these suspicions.
Now let’s consider the insider trading issue.
Everyone admits that statistically high levels of trading on American and UA stock and/or futures occurred in the days just before the Eleven.
The govt report given as link #2, post #5 above, says this:
“Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.”
Such a claim of “no connection,” even with lots of names and quantities attached (which it doesn’t give) would seem to require something like omniscience to make. After all, how do they really know who would have insider information?
But it gets better:
“A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6…”
Think about it. “No conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”
But on the alternate theory, al Qaeda is, at most, a patsy in the Eleven; more likely NOT INVOLVED AT ALL. So you see, the govt report “refutes” counter evidence by assuming the truth of their own story!
It continues:
“…as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.”
The argument is not spelled out, but appears to be this: it would be irrational to buy puts (of a stock that one believes will soon plummet) and at the same time to buy stock (of another stock that one has just as much reason to believe will soon plummet). One would profit from the puts, but lose on the stock purchase.
However, this argument is unsustained by the information given. It may be that all the facts would sustain it; but what the report gives does not.
1. If the “institutional investor” is a brokerage firm, then the purchase of American stock could be ordinary investment activity by parties not apprised of the upcoming attack. It would in that case, be irrelevant.
2. More importantly, the argument only holds water if we know how many put options were involved in comparison to the quantity of stock purchased. If there were 10x as many puts as stock, then the purchase of a (comparatively) small quantity of the stock would be just the sort of thing a manipulator would do to cover his tracks. If I lose a dollar with my left hand for every 10 dollars I gain with my right, I’m doing well.
I have not been able to find the exact quantities involved with a quick google search. It is odd that they are not both listed as part of this report, if the argument is indeed definitive.
The newsletter mentioned later is completely fatuous, since we don’t know who the newsletter writer is. Why couldn’t he be an “insider”?
Maybe they have proven he could not be (how?). Why not give us those facts?
So again, we find that the august govt report is a lot of blowhard chaff that does NOTHING to assuage our suspiciouns aroused by the insider trading phenomenon.
Comment by TJH — July 4, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
T-fan responded with this; by common consent (that is, of MB and me) we moved it to the padded room because it doesn’t wrestle with the substance of this debate, and we don’t want these threads to turn in to “chat room” fluffy dialogue.
T-fan’s overarching theme seems to be “if the govt says ‘we have looked into it, and everything is ok,’ we should take its word