What Conspiracy Theory?
JEFF STRAHL / Mindfully.org 30apr2006
This is a response to an article by Ernest Partridge which was posted at
the Common Dreams website on 4/27/06, sent to him via email.
The article follows the response.
This is regarding your article, "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View", [below] posted at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm You claim to examine both the Official Version and Conspiracy Theory with equal skepticism, but the article makes it quite clear which one gets the benefit of doubt—it is the Official Story. I am renaming OV as OS, since it is also a "conspiracy theory" with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda being the conspirators, yet you reserve the "conspiracy" label for Alternative Stories (AS), which generally brings scorn by readers upon those who tell such "tales". In such matters, articles which attempt to cast aspersions upon AS quite often take the tack of appearing to be equally skeptical of both sides, even somewhat sympathetic to critics, so as to appear more "objective" to readers who wish to dismiss critics but want to feel like they are being fair. Your article is a good example of this. I am stating my qualifications now to preclude even the thought that i can be snowed by "scientific" jargon. I have a degree in mechanical engineering (CCNY, 1970, 3.47 GPA, 3.6 in my major), and have for many years worked for the UC Berkeley School of Engineering, doing workshops in second year calculus, the foundation of engineering and physical sciences.
I will focus on your statements in "The World Trade Center" section. Your quotes are in bold.
"The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel." True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies.
BOGUS! Analyses by Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin,....have been very careful to state that the temps were not hot enough to even WEAKEN steel, LET ALONE "melt it", and quite specific that the OS is that of WEAKENING, not melting, at least after the first day or two. Your claim is the one made in the Scientific American article by Michael Shermer supposedly debunking "conspiracy stories" from a year ago, an article thoroughly debunked by Jim Hoffman at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html
Indeed, the very title of the SciAm article, Fahrenheit 2777, is based upon a falsehood, as 911research never used that figure, as claimed by Shermer.
In fact, experiments done by Corus Construction in Britain were not capable of producing temps higher than 680 degrees F in fossil fuel fires set in steel and concrete structures, even with furniture and computers and.... http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/fires/car_park_tests.htm
And the NIST investigation, also discussed by Hoffman in a home page essay, could not find any evidence of temps higher than 500 deg F, way below the 1170 level. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Click on link, in index see article How Hot which has a careful calculation for the possible temp of a fire that could have been produced under ideal circumstances with the given, with the result being about 560 deg F.
"The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for recycling." False. It was relocated to a collection site at Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits from a search for "World Trade Center" and "Staten Island" and "Debris")
Fire Engineering Magazine in Jan '02 bitterly complained about the lack of access to the debris before it was shipped off, as did Prof Astenah-Asl of UC Berkeley, who headed the investigation by ASCE, he did so in front of a congressional committee in March '02. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/fireengineering_manning.html
No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire." Another "fact" repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or impact from planes — a problem for the CV which we will discuss later).
Two theories have been put forth, the Truss Failure Theory, and the Column Failure Theory. Both theories were shown to be impossible via analysis and computer modeling done by Underwriters Laboratories, as shown by Kevin Ryan's article "Propping Up the War on Terror" which can be found at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org under "articles". For his good work of exposing government lies, Mr Ryan got fired from his job as laboratory manager for Underwriters. Jim Hoffman has further debunked both these theories, as has the writer of the "guardian" mirror site, see previous reference, under the article about Prof Eagar.
As for the collapses starting for the top, what's the big deal? Why couldn't demolition be set up to try to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE the result of plane impacts and fires? Interesting that you note the towers disintegrating, but do not note, or pretend to not note, the contradiction between the lower portions offering no resistance to the falling debris if you wish to explain the short collapse time, vs the top portions disintegrating as if encountering massive resistance. So, which is it, Mr Partridge? Did the lower portions offer zero resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR? I know, it's a total contradiction, but only if you insist upon the OS.
Also at the 911Scholars site, you can see an article by Judy Wood, ME professor at Clemson (specializes in structures) titled Case for Controlled Demolition at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html, a matter of the collapses' timing. And at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm Wayne Trumpman does a thorough physics analysis of the collapse of the first few floors, shows the build-up of a deficit of energy required to disintegrate the floors as is visible in comparison to energy available from the potential energy of the standing towers, not even discussing the energy required to expand the debris cloud as far as it did, or throw out large pieces of steel hundreds of feet.
As for the Pentagon, researchers have disagreements. But where are the photos of human parts, or plane parts? Rescuers did not find human parts, had to use DNA remnants (which somehow remained behind even though the fire left virtually nothing of the plane, as even the salvage crews said) And of the hundreds of witnesses, only a few actually claimed to see the plane not simply fly in the vicinity, but actually hit the Pentagon, and each one of them made claims that are downright physically impossible, not just conflicting with the evidence, such as that the plane dragged its wing along the ground, though the lawn shows no such gouge, and if such contract had been made, the plane would have flipped or had its wing shear off. See http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html including all five addendums, the last of which deals with "witnesses" (i dissociate myself from the stupid stuff at other pages on that site)
As you can see, this is being copied to other researchers, and will be posted. If commondreams was a fair site, i would have requested it to post this response, but it has proved itself totally closed to any genuine questioning of the OS unless it is a defense of the OS that masquerades as a critique, as your article is.
Ernest Partridge / Common Dreams 27apr2006
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish... —David Hume, On Miracles
This essay is certain to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Last month I was a guest on a progressive radio talk show. About half-way through the hour-long program, the conversation was going well, until I expressed some doubts about the “controlled demolition” hypotheses of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That comment sealed the fate of the remainder of the hour, as it prompted an unvarying succession of angry rebuttals and a deluge of alleged “facts” supporting the view that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I felt obliged to take a closer look at the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
After many hours watching videos this weekend of long presentations by David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both affirming and rejecting "the official version" (OV), and reading numerous articles, it appears to me that the OV of the destruction of the World Trade Center is not credible. Too many anomalies are not explained. A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions. Thus one must conclude that the 9/11 attack on the WTC never took place.
No wait, that’s absurd. Of course it took place! So what we are left with is an abundance of contrary claims, unconformable [sic] “evidence” leading to utter confusion and no firm conclusions — none, that is, regarding the World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however, should present little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.
The Evidence Problem
All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence – “weak,” that is, to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence with a secure “chain of custody.” For all others, including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd, and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available to us, when relevant, are photographic and video images, and even these are subject to various interpretations.
Until recently, the public could rely on published evidence from government scientists and government-supported scientific research, as well as reputable media. But no more. We now know that the Bush Administration alters or withholds scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma, and pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense of their policies. As for the media, even that most reliable and respected "newspaper of record," The New York Times, has become a font of misinformation, including the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports of the Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith Miller’s notorious reports of Saddam’s alleged WMDs.
Even so, the critical reader should be capable of identifying and dismissing bizarre assertions, such as Morgan Reynold’s claim that no aircraft struck the twin towers on 9/11 – this in spite of thousands of eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video images.
The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn’t hit the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:
Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path [on a map displayed by Fetzer] is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity... Then a plane, probably a n A-13 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC. Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this "radar disappearance." Have you?) Then it gets much worse: “hypothetical or imaginary path,” “may have taken,” “my belief.” Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this fantasy.
The World Trade Center
Much of the “evidence” presented by the WTC conspiracy theorists is demonstrably false, fallacious, or irrelevant. For example:
“The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel.” True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies. “The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for recycling.” False. It was relocated to a collection site at Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits from a search for “World Trade Center” and “Staten Island” and “Debris”)
No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire.” Another “fact” repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or impact from planes — a problem for the CV which we will discuss later).
Now look very carefully at these images of the collapse of the WTC towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and here. (The numbers in parenthesis indicate the time locations in the videos). Notice that the collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration proceeds from the top down.
Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the charges were set.
Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:
Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved downward from the impact points.
In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north tower.
Nice try, but it won’t wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This did not happen.
However, the official version is not without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:
Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own “footprint.” The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.
Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 9/11 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.
And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:
There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.
Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.
When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.
There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.
The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous additional anomalies; no doubt many of these are bogus, but there are others that are troubling.
The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of 'splainin to do.
The Attack on the Pentagon.
Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The evidence is clear, unequivocal, and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.
This conclusion is compelling when we apply "the David Hume test” to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:
Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.
Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.
Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.
Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.
Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.
What Does it all Mean?
How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this “new Pearl Harbor?” I don’t know, but that doesn’t keep me from speculating. So here’s my hunch – and it’s only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned (“Bin Laden determined to strike in the US”), but they expected attacks on the scale of the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen casualties — "acceptable." They did not take countermeasures because they saw a strategic advantage in such a “mini-Pearl Harbor.” For such a purpose, the attack on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their “war on terror," along with the policy outrages that were to follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.
All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.
First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the critics’ anomalies explained. And this must be done fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.
Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the OV assumes and claims that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon, etc.
Third: there is no shame in suspending belief — i.e., in being skeptical. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this case.
Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way of a rational assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web publications testify that I yield to no one in my contempt for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would like as much as anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the evidence (however weak) is what it is.
What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers." His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm. E-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm 30apr2006