9/11: Why the Official Theory Has Collapsed: Opinion

Wed, 2006-09-13 12:10 — ABN

Science must lie at the core of all theories about what happened on 9/11, including the "official theory" of 19 hijackers.

by Alvin Revere
American Buddhist Net News
09/14/06

To be credible, a scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just some of it. In science this requirement is known as the "requirement of total evidence" or the "burden of proof." A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theory--it is an opinion. Though an opinion may be held by many people, and though it may have considerable emotional or political appeal, it simply cannot be considered good science if it ignores evidence, distorts evidence, or contains serious anomalies or contradictions.

Below is a short list of some of the most serious problems with the "official theory" of what happened on 9/11.

--The World Trade Center towers collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. The official theory claims that these collapses were "gravity-driven" after the initial failures of floor trusses in the towers. This is simply not possible as the intact structures of the buildings below the failed floors would have provided considerable resistance and slowed the descent of the towers markedly.

--There is a great deal of audio, video, and eye-witness evidence that "secondary explosions" occurred in WTC 1, 2 and 7 shortly before they fell. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this evidence.

--There is video evidence of considerable damage to the lobbies of WTC 1 & 2 before the towers fell. The official story claims that jet fuel and/or a fireball descended down the towers' central cores and caused this damage. This is simply not possible as the towers were constructed with partitions designed to prevent the spread of fire in this way. Additionally, the damage in the lobbies is not consistent with fire or a fireball.

--Steel beams can be seen being blown horizontally away from WTC 1 & 2 as they fall. This is inconsistent with a gravity-driven collapse. The official story does not adequately explain this evidence.

--The official story about the collapse of the towers keeps changing. This is OK as the issues are complex. What is not OK is the following. No matter how NIST chooses to explain the collapse of the two towers, its explanation must account for the fact that the two buildings were damaged in different places and in different ways, and yet they fell in almost exactly the same way. This peculiar, and very telling, piece of evidence cannot be explained by gravity-driven collapses starting in different places in either tower and starting for different reasons. And yet it can be explained by the theory that explosives brought the buildings down. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this very serious problem.

--There is a considerable amount of video and recorded evidence that rescue workers and the landlord of WTC 7 knew in advance that the building was going to collapse. The official story does not account for this evidence.

--WTC 7 also collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. NIST's most recent explanation of this is that the building was damaged on its south side and that this damage caused its collapse. Although photographic evidence of this damage has not been made public, and thus we are not required to believe it, NIST's explanation is not credible for other reasons as well--it does not account for the near free-fall speed of Building 7's collapse, and it does not explain why the building did not simply topple over toward the south.

--The collapses of all three WTC buildings produced a pyroclastic flows of very fine dust that is inconsistent with gravity-driven collapse, but perfectly consistent with collapse caused by explosives. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report explains this dust.

There are many other problems with the official story than just these. But this short list should be enough to indicate to any rational person that the case for the "official theory" has not been proved and does not conform to even the most basic requirements of good science. The official theory has not met its "burden of proof" nor its "requirement of total evidence."

Comments

Wed, 2006-09-13 21:00 — Kaleema (not verified)

There may be a public health

There may be a public health approach to this event as well, not a public health expert. But is there a way to examine the types of health effects being seen now by 9-11 responders, residents in the area of the tragedy, etc.

Now what kind of health effects would we see if the building simply burned and an explosion resulted as a result;

as opposed to being imploded. What I mean is how is debri released and ingested by the public in or near the site
1. in the case of a "fire" caused destruction
2. in the case of an implusion

What level of particulants would be released, how would we expect to see them in the atmosphere and what chemical traces would be left in the bodies of those who succumb later to the effects OR what chemicals will be find in thelungs, etc. of survivors. What medical conditions are likely to appear?

I know this is probably splitting hairs, but is there someone who is more sophisticated who can try to understand what is being suggested and perhaps put it in a form that can be address in a scientific manner.

Is there a difference in the way debri would be distributed, travel between the various versions of what happened to the Twin Towers and how as a result of the manner, difference in the health effects - degree, scope, post event mortality rates, etc.

peace
ks

Thu, 2006-09-14 01:05 — Gringobonk (not verified)

Re: There may be a public health

I understand what you're getting at. To the best of my knowledge the approach to determining their deaths would be autopsy. I doubt they could be certain with out examining their lungs. The lungs of the victims probably contain asbestos and all kinds of other junk which would match a profile of the dust that scientists collected for data purposes. Then we can confirm what we pretty much already know. The EPA responded with criminal negligence and our heros are slowly and painfully dying for it.

Thu, 2006-09-14 05:12 — Joseph (not verified)

temperatures as hot as the inner earth

Anyone have an idea where â€œtemperatures as hot as the inner earth â€œ came from at the World Trade Center?

RE: 9/11: Remains of the day
In a hangar at JFK, World Trade Center artifacts are treated as sacred
NBC VIDEO
By Brian Williams
Anchor & â€œNightly Newsâ€ managing editor
NBC News
Updated: 7:25 p.m. ET Sept. 11, 2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789146/

â€œWe next enter a room containing a form that's difficult to describe. In any other museum, it could be passed off as a meteorite. And while this was born of intense heat, this is altogether different. This formation is really four separate stories of the World Trade Center, compressed, compacted, incinerated â€” exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth.â€

Thu, 2006-09-14 08:22 — a person (not verified)

rebuttal

The towers imploded from gravity because:
Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100Â°F and jet fuel burns at 800Â° to 1500Â°F Finally, "at 1800Â° it is probably at less than 10 percent." or loses 90% of its strength.

The so called explosions before the towers collapsed was merely the steel girders buckling. The planes took out a fair share of the girders when they hit. Forcing more weight on the other girders.

Stop ignoring the real truth and trying to find a conspiracy.
Review pop. mech. to see how your ignorant theories are de-bunked.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Thu, 2006-09-14 09:39 — Max Flowers (not verified)

Answer to rebuttal

Hey genius, your rebuttal is worthless for the following reason (besides the fact that you're an obvious federal shill):

90% of the the jet fuel in those crashes burned off in those massive fireballs OUTSIDE of the towers. Whatever amount didn't, burned off very quickly. For the steel to lose "50% of its strength at 1100Â°F" as you describe, it would have to be a SUSTAINED 1100Â°F, like hours, and this did not happen, and you know it. People were hanging out of the holes in the towers. If things were anywhere near 1100Â°F, they would instead have been popping like kernels of popcorn, not waving white shirts out of the gashes in the towers.

Never before in history had a high-rise fire caused a high-rise to collapse, not even ones that were inferior in design and had much bigger fires burning for DAYS. Then on 9/11, two happen within an hour, and a third (WTC7) falls without even a big fire or being hit by a plane. Wild, huh? No, PLANNED.

I think you're a deceitful, malicious troll who is making a weak effort on behalf of a government that finds itself in a deeper hole every day over this. The comment above that mentions the huge physics-related problems in the government story have some veracity. What you wrote is scientifically STUPID. And the Popular Mechanics crap is federal disinformation.

I bet you sleep well at night after going around defending treasonous murderers.

Thu, 2006-09-14 11:56 — Anonymous

rebuttal, rebutted

Let's see if I understand this: a limited amount of burning jet fuel supposedly spread throughout the entire structure (through many walls and concrete) and weakened massive steel beams to the point of failure, all at the same time within a time window of less than one hour?
Then the falling structure while turning to dust (therefore getting lighter) overcomes the massive steel frame below it, all happening in about the same time it would take to drop a bowling ball off the top? So these lighter than they were floors are now "pan-caking" down from one floor to the next at a speed faster than they would even if they were free floating in space (no steel between them - like dominoes)? Oh, yes, I see that these buildings overcame simple laws of physics.
Calculations show it would take about 16 seconds for free floating floors one hitting the next and so on to reach bottom. How is it possible to fall faster than that? ONLY IF THE FLOORS WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY AS IS DONE WITH CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
Free fall speed because there was no resistance. Add to that the pyroclastic flow of pulverized very hot concrete powder, we have enough evidence to show this was a controlled collapse.
also see Dr. Jones report at www.st911.org on evidence of use explosive charges
Add eye-witness testimony of explosions BEFORE plane impact - it leaves little doubt.

Peace,
TW

Thu, 2006-09-14 11:24 — Anonymous

Rebuttal

What are buddhists doing spouting conspiracy theories anyway? Stick to religion.

'A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theoryâ€”it is an opinion.' You start off with this pompous statement and then go on to present wild theories for which you offer no proof. Your statement about scientific theories seems to better apply to your own list of 'serious problems'.

'This is simply not possible as the intact structures of the buildings below the failed floors would have provided considerable resistance and slowed the descent of the towers markedly.' How do you know? Are you an expert? Where are the equations and discussions of potential energy to backup your claims. There was an enormous amount of potential energy stored in the dozens of floors above the impact zone. The release of that energy would easily overcome the resistance of the structural members below.

'Additionally, the damage in the lobbies is not consistent with fire or a fireball.' So now your an expert on explosions and fire science? Tell that to the people seen coming out of the lobby with all their skin burned off.

'No matter how NIST chooses to explain the collapse of the two towers, its explanation must account for the fact that the two buildings were damaged in different places and in different ways, and yet they fell in almost exactly the same way.' Read the NIST report, it's 10000+ pages, it discusses the damage caused by the planes and the differing number of core support columns destroyed. If you don't take the word of the thousands of technical and scientific experts who contributed to the report then I suggest to you that in future you only live and work in buildings you yourself designed since you seem to be such an expert on structural engineering, fire science, explosives, etc.

'And yet it can be explained by the theory that explosives brought the buildings down.' Really? How? Where is your proof that only explosions could have brought the towers down that fast. Show me how your theories have met the burden of proof required for your ramblings to be considered anything other than opinions. As I mentioned above, you don't need the input of energy from explosives to sever structural members when you have the massive input of energy from the dozens of floors above the impact zone collapsing onto the floors below.

'There is a considerable amount of video and recorded evidence that rescue workers and the landlord of WTC 7 knew in advance that the building was going to collapse.' Duh! There was a gapping hole in WTC 7 and a side of the building was bowing outward, a sure sign of structural overload. Even a layman could see that the building was in danger of collapse and that the firemen needed to be 'pulled' out.

Sat, 2008-10-25 17:16 — Jim Corkern

Buddist are for truth, and

Buddist are for truth, and the lies and deceptions are not setting well with them, and no, I am not a buddist, but want the truth and I registered to respond to your comment.

I have been in the construction Industry for about 20 years, have 6 years of Military (U.S. Army) and have seen what explosives do. So I do have experience in these 2 fields. I am also a private pilot, so I have some flight experience also and understand how planes work and what a pilot can do with them.

Let's start with construction, and let's start at the pentagon. There were 6 steel reinforced 4 ft thick walls that were penetrated by a commercial aircraft? With the 6th and final wall with an almost perfect circle of about 12 ft., now this is after going through the first 5 walls. Here is a major contradiction of the official story, they claim the aircraft disentigrated and that is why there was very little debris, but it made a perfect circle after 24 ft. of steel reinforced concrete. NOT! The planes are made mostly of aluminum, even the structure, there are some titanium parts, like the 6 ton engines that went away into nothing, yet, no large pieces were recovered from the site.

Next, the aircraft that were used have a 2 to 3 second delay from the time you touch controls because of the systems used to control flight surfaces, so, flying at 500 miles an hour, with a pilot with little experience , at that altitude trying to hit a specific target is NOT possible. Do you know why they have slow approach and landing speeds on runways, because at 500 miles an hour, it is not possible for an experienced pilot to even hit the runway, just plain out too fast to make adjustments, so even the world trade centers would have been a majic trick for the most experienced pilots, Period! And you believe a pilot who could barely fly a small craft cound hit a building that is NOT as wide as a runway, and they hit it on the first shot? All of the "terrorist"???? I think not, we did not even mention the 2 to 3 second control delay when targeting the buildings at 500 miles an hour! How foolish of us!

Next , they flew it into the most guarded airspace in the world to hit the pentagon? Silly terrorist! Allah must have been with them that day, ya think?

Back to the WTC's. First, we already covered how crazy the idea of them even hitting the building was. Now let's look at some structural facts, no building in history has ever "pancaked", much less at freefall speed for over 50 stories. I really can not believe you even argued this point at all, surely you jest! Science does not back that at all, and neither does history, no, not once! The fire temps on kerosene will reach about 2k degrees F. for about 15 mins and then it burns off, the steel was recorded by CODES to deal with this exact same situation PLUS 1k degrees for 4 hours. You must have been half asleep when you heard the official story, science says it is easy to lie to someone when they are sleepy (hense the sleep deprivation of the tortured at gitmo).

There were residues of thermate, which is exactly what C.D. uses to cut beams to bring building down. There are tapes, witnesses, recording of firemen stating that they needed only one line to put the fire out in the WTC's, and exactly what caused building seven to collapse? the BBC reported it had fallen 26 mins before it fell in a live shot with it plainly standing Behind the reporter. Do a search for "building 7 bbc" on Google and watch for yourself. Fox also done the same thing, guess they were on central time when reporting. LOL, how shallow can you be???

"Duh! There was a gapping hole in WTC 7 and a side of the building was bowing outward, a sure sign of structural overload." so, now you are the engineer?

"Even a layman could see that the building was in danger of collapse and that the firemen needed to be 'pulled' out" That was not the context of the statement, he said "Pull It" this is speaking of the building, if he were speaking of people he would have said "Pull Them Out"!! That only makes sense.

What about the testimony of several people that proves Dick Cheney has plenty of time to respond to the pentagon incident?

What about the scholars for 9-11 truth, they all have degrees in relevent fields and have been practicing their professions for thousands of years collectively?

Why was the "steel" evidence of the wtc's disposed of without investigation? That is tampering with a crime scene, and the mayor is guilty of doing exactly that!

Why was the shootdown chain of command changed less than 60 days prior to 9-11 and given to rumsfield, and then delegated to Cheney?

As you can see, I can go on and on, better come armed with FACTS of your own before spreading more Government propaganda in public! Wise up, it is shallow people that are throwing away our country. Learn to think, investigate, then make a decision, the official story is 100% lies and deception!

I really could go on, I could dcome up with opver 300 things that just do not fit, but too many cowards and politicians are burying the truth.

_______

My profession is water damage ,My Quest is for Truth.

Mon, 2008-10-27 03:49 — ABN

Hard to fly like that

I agree, and I especially agree with your point about how difficult it would be for even an experienced pilot to hit either the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, to say nothing of amateurs who had trained on small planes. I think this point should be brought up more often as it aids understanding the problems with the official theory of what happened.

Readers might consider how difficult it would be for the average automobile driver to suddenly have to operate a tractor-trailer, back up an SUV with a boat trailer, or step up from a small scooter to a full-on sports motorcycle with no prior training.

Below are the words of an experienced pilot on this matter:

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory... RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Fri, 2008-11-28 14:49 — Cristiano

There were residues of

There were residues of thermate, which is exactly what C.D. uses to cut beams to bring building down. There are tapes, witnesses, recording of firemen stating that they needed only one line to put the fire out in the WTC's, and exactly what caused building seven to collapse? the BBC reported it had fallen 26 mins before it fell in adtech ile reklam 2.0 dönemi basliyor ve Trkycmhrytllbtpydrklcktr r10.net seo yarismasi a live shot with it plainly standing Behind the reporter. Do a search for "building 7 bbc" on Google and watch for yourself. Fox also done the same thing, guess they were on central time when reporting. LOL, how shallow can you be???

Fri, 2006-09-15 08:59 — ABN

Technical problems

We have been experiencing fairly substantial technical problems on American Buddhist Net.

Unfortunately, we may have lost comments that had been posted under this article. We apologize for this and are trying to fix the problem.

ABN

Mon, 2006-09-18 09:50 — Anonymous

The video released last week- Sept 11th 2006

Mid-week last week, I received a notice that there was a new and compelling video that had been shot from the apartment or condo of someone who lived only 1200 FT from the World Trade Center Plaza on Sept 11 2001. Such is the life of someone who reports the truth at www.coastalpost.com (I have been a staff reporter there for over nine years)

The video was hosted by Alex Jones' Prison Planet website.

What was remarkable about the film is that it begins with the
camerawoman (who probably is a stay at home Mom) recording the
intense fire burning at the first tower that was hit.
NOTE: THE video is not real time -she has turned off her camera or the film has been edited to be under 25 minutes long

Then someways into the film, a second jet comes along and implodes into the second tower to be hit. Nineteen minutes into her footage, the first tower that is hit goes down - the outer surfaces of the floors collapse - you see the inner core then explode and collapse. The fact that the inner core goes down last is in direct contradiction to all testimony stating that it was the core that gave out and then everything else pan-caked. Demolition, deliberate and totally planned can be the only reasonable explanation.
The video is now removed from the hosting website with no explanation why. Also while is was up, the filmmaker is not identified.

Mon, 2009-06-29 03:05 — jenny

floors

floors collapse - you see the inner core then explode and collapse. The fact that the inner core goes down last is in direct contradiction to all testimony stating that it was the core that gave out and then everything else pan-caked. Demolition, deliberate and totally planned can be the only reasonable explanation.
The video is now removed from the hosting website with no explanation why. Also while is was up, the filmmaker is not identified.

Tue, 2008-05-20 17:21 — maryadavis

I have a feeling that this

I have a feeling that this subject will become a myth, just like the moon landing or some similar stories. Will we ever find out the truth behind the WTC attack?
---
Mary-Anne Davis, flood damage repair specialist.

Mon, 2008-12-01 04:55 — johannabartley

Probably not. There are two

Probably not. There are two sides here: the ones that will accuse the state of doing this and the ones that have too much faith in their leaders and blame it on the hijackers and Al Quaeda. I'm a nihilist. I don't believe any of the stories. I know the truth is somewhere in the middle.
____________
Cigar

Mon, 2008-12-01 10:32 — ABN

The main focus of 9/11 truth

The main focus of 9/11 truth is the enormous weakness of the official story and due to that the desire to see a new investigation with subpoena powers and testimony taken under oath.

Thu, 2009-04-16 04:54 — RedSeo

What about marvin bush being

What about marvin bush being in control of security of the complex and his contract exspiring that day? Why did Jeb Bush declare martial law in florida on 9-7-01, just 4 days prior to 9-11? Did he know something was up?
Why was the shootdown chain of command changed less than 60 days prior to 9-11 and given to rumsfield, and then delegated to Cheney?
As you can see, I can go on and on, better come armed with FACTS of your own before spreading more Government propaganda in public! Wise up, it is shallow people that are throwing away our country. Learn to think, Muhabbet , mirc investigate, then make a decision, the official story is 100% lies and deception!
I really could go on, I could dcome up with opver 300 things that just do not fit, but too many cowards and politicians are burying the truth.

American Buddhist Net

Navigation

Categories

Regions

Recent comments

New forum topics

Recent blog posts

User login

Syndicate

Useful external links