9/11 and what a fool believes

After 16 years, I wonder if most people still believe the official explanations for what happened on 9/11. From the very beginning I was struck by the sheer improbability of everything that followed the impact of the planes into the towers. By the time the official report came out, I knew it was a lie. I didn’t know who specifically was lying, but I knew I wasn’t comfortable about how the buildings fell.

I remember being stunned when the first tower fell so quickly after it was hit. I felt weak and sick. How could a building like that just fall? When the second tower fell on the same day, I was in disbelief. How on earth could 2 buildings fall in the exact same way on the exact same day? It was unreal. Nothing computed. How could the buildings be so fragile? I wondered if both buildings shared some major design flaw. But 2 buildings falling within such a short time? The idea of design flaw was the best my brain could muster at the time. Even that answer left me uneasy.

Enough time has passed that I don’t remember my specific thoughts about Building 7, other than I knew that one more building had come down. The loss of the twin towers gave me enough to think about, so the smaller buildings were secondary in importance.  Everything was such a blur. I don’t remember when I first paid attention to *how* Building 7 fell. In the end it was WTC 7 that really got me thinking, but that thinking came later. On the day of the attacks my thoughts were guided by what I saw on the news. I had no other information to go on, and I didn’t have a reason at that time to reject what I was being told.

Below is a quote written in 1951. I think it has application to events of 9/11 as well as today.

“Never has there been so large and so generally sophisticated a population so defenseless against such an enterprise as the people of America. Generous in their attitudes, disturbed by the long siege of war, exposed to the most powerful engines of propaganda the world has ever known, they have been a mark for the experts trained in their use.

Here we may recall the parable of Jesus in the early days of His mission—the parable of a man who sowed good seed in his field. But when the blade was sprung up and brought forth good fruit, there were tares also. And when his servants went to him and told him what they found, he said—an enemy hath done this, while we slept.” — John T. Flynn, “While You Slept”

When I was around 12 years old my bike was stolen. I always left it on the lawn before I came inside the house. This time, when I went out to ride my bike, it was gone. I looked around the yard multiple times with the hope that I had just not looked carefully enough. I looked again and again. The idea of theft came to me only when I was out of options. The bike was gone and nobody in my family had taken it. At first I couldn’t bring myself to believe it had been stolen. I knew that no other explanation fit the observable facts, but theft was a foreign concept to me. I kept hoping my bike would still turn up. It was probably several days before I fully realized that it wasn’t coming back.

Coming to grips with the 9/11 attacks led me through similar thought patterns. I kept looking for other explanations while the most obvious explanation became harder and harder to avoid. I did not want to believe that the destruction had been orchestrated by people most likely inside my own government. Why would I assume that the collapse of the towers was by design? But, there was too much order in those accidents:

  1. Three buildings fell on the same day.
  2. Each fell into its own footprint on a perfectly vertical path.
  3. Each fell smoothly with no indication of internal resistance.
  4. Each fell within 10 to 15 seconds, similar to freefall.

If these buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition, what would a controlled demolition have looked like? How would controlled demolition differ from what I saw in all the videos? Could a controlled demolition fall any straighter? Could it fall any faster? Could the destruction have been any more complete? And yet it happened 3 times on the same day, in the same location.

I see it like this: You are playing poker with someone. That player ends up winning the first hand with 4 aces. You might chalk that hand up to amazing luck. You play another hand and the same player wins again with 4 aces. Do you still think it’s luck? Do you suspect a manipulation of the game? Let’s say you decide to play another hand, and the same player wins again with 4 aces. What do you think about the odds now? Would it make you feel better if a commission was appointed to study the results of the game and the commission concluded that luck was the only factor? Would the matter be settled at that point?

The fall of the buildings on 9/11 is similar to the poker game. The fall of Tower 1 was highly improbable, and the manner in which it fell was pretty much impossible if fire alone was the cause. But, if it had been the only tower to fall, I might have been able to think of the collapse as a freak of probability. But, Tower 2 fell in exactly the same way, on the same day. Now I have to believe that two physically impossible events occurred within hours of each other. And then there is Building 7, which has a trapezoidal footprint by the way, came down in the same smooth, symmetrical, vertical freefall. What are the odds that 3 separate buildings have perfectly symmetrical collapses on the same day, and that fire alone is the cause? What are the odds that the collapse of the buildings was planned? My money is on the planned collapse every time.

I have seen people try to use Occam’s razor to explain away the possibility of controlled demolition. I think Occam’s razor actually supports the argument of controlled demolition as the simplest explanation:

Question: Has controlled demolition produced results similar to those seen in video clips of 9/11?
Answer: Yes, numerous times.

Question: Previous to 9/11, had fire ever caused the freefall collapse of even one high-rise building, let alone 3 in one day?
Answer: No. There was no precedent for what happened on 9/11. There was no history of high-rise buildings falling due to fire.

Probability and physics point to controlled demolition as the cause, not fire.

A story in Popular Mechanics says that: “World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest“. I don’t see it that way. The science is not settled. The NIST report introduces the previously-unknown theory of thermal expansion to explain how a building could start falling. NIST’s Shyam Sunder said, “For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.” What he doesn’t explain is the collapse that was captured on video—the real one—all of it, including the 2.5 seconds of symmetrical, vertical, freefall of Building 7. While the PM article says the NIST report “conclusively rebuts those claims” [of explosives being used in the collapse], it does nothing of the sort. It just creates more questions.

Below are some informative video clips that talk about the physics. You don’t have to get into engineering, or metallurgy, or thermite. Look at the simple physics and probability. You can’t have vertical freefall if there is any resistance. Where did the resistance go? Why was there no resistance in any of the 3 buildings? They had asymmetrical damage in each building, yet each building had a symmetrical fall. That points to a symmetrical loss of resistance in buildings that had large portions still undamaged. Why didn’t those undamaged portions push back to slow the fall, or even alter, the fall? That is physics.

Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation
“Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse. It is very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because, it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents order—very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason. It will gravitate towards chaos. It is very difficult to get a building to collapse symmetrically.”

WTC7 in Freefall–No Longer Controversial –
Published to YouTube by clbackus on Jan 14, 2009
“Freefall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion. In other words, the gravitational potential energy of the building is not available to crush or deform anything. During freefall, all of the gravitational potential energy of the building is being converted into kinetic energy and nothing else. Any breaking, bending, crushing, or pulverizing of the building components is occurring without the assistance of the free-falling portion of the building. Any force the top portion of the building might exert on the lower portion would be reflected in a reaction force that would produce an observable slowing of the rate of fall. Reaction force is observable in this graph only in the last seconds when the velocity strays from the straight line.”

9/11 Collapses Violated Fundamental Laws of Physics – Explained

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

9/11 In Plane Site – Directors Cut