Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

@ Ben Phillips

re โ€œThe controlled demolition theory is not a rational theory to default to when the primary theory has holes.โ€

You base this conclusion on the following:1.The unprecedented nature of the demolition.2.The possibilty of something 'going wrong' 3.The difficulty in wiring the building and therefore the number of people needed to be involved in such a 'conspiracy'

What's interesting about this is that though have you set the 'controlled demoliton' theory up to a high evel of scrutiny (which is good, if one wishes to be rational) you have failed to apply this level of logic to the 'planes alone caused the building to collapse theory' (or, in your words, 'primary theory').

If we go through your points with reference to this 'planes only/primary theory':

1. Prior to 9/11 how many sky-scrapers had collapsed as a result of plane collision (WTC1&2) or localised fires (WTC7)? All these events were unprecedented yet you accept them.

2. You say: โ€œsome of the explosives could have failed to go off the timing could have been off and the towers could have collapsed at a different rate than that predicted by our knowledge of physics, bad timing could have caused a part of the tower to fall sideways instead of vertically, etcโ€

Do you not find it odd that an uncontrolled event such as the impact of a plane into one side of a building, or the outbreak of fire in only a certain area, should have produced collapses that were vertical and (in the case of WTC) symmetrical?

What you fail to acknowledge is that the towers did collapse โ€œat a different rate than predicted by our knowledge of phyicsโ€ should one accept the โ€œplanes only hypothesisโ€. Without wishing to go too much into the details, you may want to consider:

- WTC7 collapsing at free-fall speed (a fact now acknowledged by NIST), symmetrically and into it's own footprint, implying that all its supporting columns were removed virtually simulteaously โ€“ incompatable with localised fires.(http://www.youtube.com/watch v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related)

- The uniform downward acceleration of the upper portion of WTC1 generating insufficient force to destroy the building beneath it, suggesting something else was needed to create the necessary energy. (http://www.youtube.com/watc...

3. All we can do is speculate as to the number of people needed to rig the three buildings with explosives.

Not being a demolition expert I am not qualified to comment. All I can say is that Danny Jowenkwo (a Dutch demolition expert) is on the record as saying it would take 30-40 men to have wired WTC7 - but that was if they had been forced 9/11 after the collapse of the other towers (note. Jowenkwo was not implying anything machiavellian, simply if WTC7 had to be imploded for safety reasons). http://www.youtube.com/watc...

In conclusion, I agree that the 'controlled demolition' hypothesis is currently weak. However, the only suggested alternative โ€“ the 'planes only hypothesis' - has been completely discredited: it fails to explain explain either the collapse sequences of the buildings, or the presence of nanothermites in the dust.

Infact the only things this 'official conspiracy theory' has going for it, are that it was the first theory to be offered, it is government-endorsed, and it has been parrotted unreflectively for the last eight years.

Personally, if forced to choose between a weak theory and an insane one, I'll take 'controlled demolition' every time.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

@Robin

"You are welcome to publish links to longer stories elsewhere, but that is too long for a tangential comment."

Thanks. For those interested, my long story with some allegorical moral can be found here.

Perhaps Robin you could post some guidelines on how long comments should be and the form you would like them to take?

Expand full comment
59 more comments...