Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

9/11 Truthers Ride Again

with 20 comments

I see there have been a lot of comments on my previous two 9/11 Truther posts. I haven’t even been reading them to be honest, though I will at some point. Maybe. Primarily because I don’t want to get upset or cause hard feelings, people do seem to get emotional around 9/11 conspiracy theories. And since I am still experiencing blunted affect as a result of my stroke, anything involving emotion is a minefield for me. Also, I seriously doubt anyone is going to say anything I haven’t heard before. Lastly because I like to examine things from original principles, so I have been keeping my mind clear while I give 9/11 more thought. Or thoughts …

I’m still amazed at the conviction of 9/11 Truthers. Suspecting there is a conspiracy is one thing, being absolutely convinced that your explanation is the only possible explanation is something else entirely. This is another reason why I am not terribly inclined to debate with Truthers, debating with people who can’t imagine that they are wrong is generally not very productive, though sometimes it does lead to new lines of inquiry. I’ve made it very clear there is evidence that could convince me it was an inside job. Apparently, correct me if I’m wrong, there is no evidence that could convince a Truther that the buildings collapsed as a result of natural forces.

Speaking of natural forces, one of the arguments Truthers often make is that “it’s basic physics.” Um, no, it’s not. Not at all. These were very large buildings subject to unique events. Tons of structural details. All sorts of unknowns. It’s not like anyone has ever flown jet aircraft into buildings as part of any scientific study. This is not basic physics, it’s expert physics. Which means even the experts are going to have trouble parsing this event, and lay people have no chance. Even a cursory glance at any discussion between experts in the field bears this out. So, um, anyone who says that somehow “basic physics” proves their point in this debate is well, ignorant at best. Dishonest at worst.

Which, to be honest, I’ve been guilty of myself. For years Truthers have been telling me that the fact that these buildings “fell into their own footprints” is proof they were deliberately demolished. And I have rejoindered with some variation of  “basic physics says that is the only way these buildings could collapse.” Well, after reviewing the various collapse videos, I was wrong. These buildings, particularly the first tower that collapsed, most definitely did not collapse into their own footprints. The top part of it was almost perpendicular to the street when the rest of it started down. Yes, when the buildings ultimately completely failed, most of the motion was straight down as the huge masses involved would suggest, but all sorts of stuff happened first, and during. From some video angles, yes, the buildings came straight down. From others, all sorts of shit was going on. These collapses were much messier than the “collapsed into their own footprints” meme.

So, um, I’m less impressed by the Truther position than before I opened this can of worms. And eager to move along. Still, a commenter took the trouble to email me their answers to the questions I posed on my last 9/11 Truther post. I was hoping my skeptical commenters would field those, but alas I didn’t express that explicitly. So, gentle reader and commenter, I would be terribly remiss if I didn’t respond to your answers, and I will dedicate a post to that in the near future. Could be fun, and since I haven’t looked at your answers yet, maybe I will be blown away and have to review my thinking. It’s happened before.

(The above image of Tower Two “collapsing into its own footprint” speaks for itself.)


Written by unitedcats

January 25, 2012 at 6:08 am

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The above image of Tower Two “collapsing into its own footprint”… this is the point where the plane hit it. I believe that if the controlled demolition didn’t occur when it did, that part of the building would have fallen alone. I don’t know why you won’t/don’t/can’t see the explosions occurring all the way down BOTH buildings. And … what about the explosions that occurred in the sub-basements long before the planes hit either building?

    Sorry to hear about your stroke. Hope you are on the mend.

    Carol Day

    January 25, 2012 at 6:38 am

    • exactly.

      the plane was remote controlled into kroll offices, and demos were planted in anticipation of this entry point, sending the top off in such a fashion…

      one thing that followers of the official conspiracy theory fail to apprehend is that HEAT RISES.
      should there have been a fire of such magnitude at such a high level, with the elevator and central support shafts acting as chimneys drawing up cool ground air by the draw of the blazing inferno pretended by the official conspiracy theory, then the top of the building may have gotten quite hot, but the bottom, not so much.

      oh, and one more thing, such a blazing inferno it was that there are photos of people standing in the hole in the sides of the building, on the very floors into which the planes crashed, ostensibly waiting for rescue…

      truly, i am amazed, that the followers of the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory would believe such a thing possible at all, suspending comprehension of physical forces only to save them the discomfort of cognitive dissonance with political forces.


      January 25, 2012 at 8:07 am

  2. Hmm, well if there were no explsives then those buildings must have been built really shitty to fall the way they did….Including bldg 7…Seems like somebody should be held accountable for neglecting the bldgs if there is no conspiracy…


    January 25, 2012 at 8:03 am

  3. Here are some building demo failures..this ones a HOOT!:

    This ones so British! :

    Oh my, another blooper:

    Of note is the tendency of the upper floors to remain somewhat intact.

    Buildings do not fall into themselves unless they are very carefully rigged.. with the center of the structure being detonated slightly before the edges. This provides a bias, directing the structure in on itself.

    Here are some more fails:

    John Galt

    January 25, 2012 at 9:18 am

    • Since I’m sure you’ve checked the structurals for all of those buildings, John, would you point out the ones with ~45′ girder and ~52′ beam spans, and the ones that used lightweight bar joists over 60′ long, and tubular columns with 1/4″ walls? Which ones were reinforced, poured-in-place concrete instead of steel-framed, and which ones were hit by ~140-ton airliners at 440 or 540 mph? Did any have fires that burned uncontrolled for half a day or so? Thanks in advance.


      January 30, 2012 at 5:30 am


        as evidenced by his inordinate amount of official spin regurgitation, ( a quick google for albury smith 911 will show a history of his commenting on every blog concerning 911, posting the same lies, distortions and obfuscations ad nauseam, 24/7 ) this shows that he is either paid to do this or has severe mental disabilities, as pointed out by most everyone who has the misfortune to have ever crossed paths with the unflushable turd, and is as obvious as is the explosive destruction of the 3 towers that day.

        the only people who would argue against a transparent, unfettered independent investigation into the events of 911 are those with a vested interest in supressing the truth.

        there is irefutable evidence that the events of 911 did not happen as we are being told,

        but despite that, and despite not being asked, albury will continue to offer his unqualified, anonymous opinion, as if he is some sort of final arbiter of truth, in relation to ANYTHING to do with 911. a self proclaimed expert..

        its so pathetic, if it wasnt for the fact that on the backs of the lies of that fateful day, hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed, civil and constitutional rights have been shredded, and the world has been subjected to a never ending war of terror, it would be funny.

        This video puts to rest ALL of alburys arguments and shows exactly why 911 needs a proper investigation.
        Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) – 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up


        April 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm


    I stumbled onto this woman’s theories – and while I’m not a scientist in any way imaginable I find her ideas intriguing – if for no others reason than she describes the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy and the necessity of controlling the opposition, i.e., thermite.

    Keep people distracted and arguing about aspects of two possibilities and no one looks at the potential for a third.

    Also – anything suggesting the involvement of Tesla’s ideas and inventions – his FBI confiscated notes – has a whiff of possibility. If “our” technology is 30 years behind the military Tesla’s technology may well have been on display that day.

    But at this point I’m not sure what “the Truth” would accomplish – the sheeple apparently intend to stay asleep.


    January 25, 2012 at 9:21 am

    • Right on Dana, agree 100% I usually keep my mouth shut on tesla stuff, people tend to group his stuff with the fringe(auto disconnect). I don’t follow the “tesla wizzard cult”, but I do build tesla coils and other high voltage projects for fun and understand, basicaly, how some of his inventions could cause a building to fall like a demolition. I have said before most folks do not understand basic physics, no It doesn’t prove anything, buy try to explain possible advanced technology involved in a politically charged terrorist conspiracy and its just too much for anyone not already interested in Tesla and other fringe science (HAARP, scalar waves, time-reversed waves, resonance, ZPE). Yes, I know its called fringe for a reason, could be total bull I guess, I haven’t built anything myself that could bring down a building, but I don’t have an unlimited budget and access to Tesla’s classified works. I get a “a whiff of possibility” though lol.


      January 25, 2012 at 10:34 am

    • Were you wide awake when you read NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, dana? Unlike Judy Wood’s bunk, they actually make sense.


      January 30, 2012 at 5:20 am

      • wake up shill – not only was there never any investigation to confirm that any of the planes said to be used on 911 were in fact those planes.. but

        No evidence of god, dragons, unicorns, leprechauns, mermaids, or bodies from flight 93!

        you wouldnt know common sense if it jumped up and bit you on the a%&*!

        Troll Buster

        July 8, 2012 at 12:05 am

  5. Doug, this is not directed at you, but at conspiracy theorists in general: Go find Hoffa or something. Seriously.


    January 25, 2012 at 11:21 am

  6. When I watch the demise of Building 7 I do not see “a collapse due to fire”.

    When I learn the Pentagon “hijacker” could not park a Cessna two months before – I conclude that this same “hijacker” was not capable of the extremely intricate, convoluted and skilled approach the FAA claims for the object that hit the Pentagon.

    Others are free to look at the same evidence, they can look at who benefited, they can look at motivation, and they can come to their own observations and conclusions.

    Or they can choose not to look – they can instead blindly accept what others tell them without bothering to think – they have that privilege as well.

    Individuals who believe in the 19 lone gunmen with box-cutters “conspiracy” do have all of MSM on their side – and we know what a fair and balanced job the MSM is doing with Ron Paul’s candidacy.

    But reality is relative, our past impacts our present and what is truth to some is propaganda for others.


    January 25, 2012 at 11:56 am

    • How would the collapse of WTC 7 have looked if the NCSTAR 1A hypothesis had occurred, dana? Hani Hanjour probably couldn’t do a triple Salchow/triple toe loop either, and it appears that you “blindly accept what others tell [you] without bothering to think” if you believe that parking a Cessna has anything to do with steering an already airborne 757 in perfect weather conditions into a huge target, after earning a Commercial Pilot Certificate from the FAA for training done in Boeing cockpit simulators for wide-bodied twins.

      I don’t “blindly accept” anything people tell me, but the numerous eyewitness accounts here make a lot more sense than anything I’ve seen from your 9/11 “truth movement”:

      American Airlines didn’t blindly accept anything either; they, the NTSB, and other agencies investigated the Pentagon crash site, and found AA 77 wreckage and contents there, including DNA or other forensic matches to everyone aboard with the exception of one small infant. They even matched the guy who couldn’t park Cessnas:

      Since he wasn’t a commercial pilot, he certainly had an unusual hobby, huh?


      January 30, 2012 at 5:17 am

      • Response to Albury Smith RE Building 7

        He knows full well the 47 storied 81 vertically columned steel framed high rise WTC7 took 6.5 + seconds to come straight down into its own footprint during its FINAL global collapse phase, described by eyewitness reports as ‘In the manner of Controlled Demolition”.

        He also knows 2.25 seconds of that was at FREE FALL speed and has to rely on the ‘new phenomenon’ magic bolt hypothesis of Pinocchio Sunder, leader of creatioNIST Agnotology, to explain the complete removal of the 81 vertical columns all at once to allow observed NO RESISTANT FREE FALL.

        The hypothesis is coming apart. We already know NIST WTC7 “Normal Office Furnishings Fires’ is a computer program. A construct. An ‘animation’. Un-tested and secret, not based on forensic study nor eyewitness testimony.
        We know that in this untested theory ‘critical collapse initiation’ began with fires already out on ONE floor [12] somehow heating 4 major beams enough to axially expand them in ONE direction, without SAG, breaking 3/4? shear studs@22? centers,’walking’ the massive girder between columns 44 and 79 off its ONE seat, thus, in NIST La La, creating a ‘cascade collapse’ somehow spreading within split seconds throughout the super strong infrastructure
        and dropping it at FREE FALL, all concrete pulverized to nanothermate ridden DUST, 6.5seconds + later.
        We know that no steel framed high rise has EVER fallen in such manner due to fire. We KNOW that serious experts contested the breaking of shear studs
        and that NIST engineers themselves doubted the methods being used compiling the report
        We know that major fire studies by Cardington institute with fires burning hotter and much longer produced NO such differential stresses breaking the shear studs.
        Yet NIST said that’s what happened.
        An NISTs ENTIRE theory rests upon those shear stud breaks.

        Recent studies presented
        based on study of WTC7 plans have utterly refuted the possibility of the axial expansion as presented by NIST, showing the strength of connection at column 79 seat and the skewed parameters of modeling data preclude seat failure.
        [NIST equations done on UNrestrained steel][Plates securing both sides of vertical girder flange to column,TWO lines of shear studs on internal girders], a presentation adding to the excellent work done by AE911truth researchers and definitive WTC7 ‘Mysterious Collapse’ book by D R Griffin, which identifies just HOW the differential stresses were CREATED in the model to crack the critical shear stud NCSTAR1-9:352 “No thermal Expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.

        Author – rogermorris

        Informed Citizen

        April 21, 2012 at 7:42 pm

  7. “I see there have been a lot of comments on my previous two 9/11 Truther posts. I haven’t even been reading them to be honest, though I will at some point. Maybe. Primarily because I’m a troll.”

    Fixed it for you.

    Mike Goldman

    January 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm

  8. Norwegian television presented an interesting theory in a science program .
    Check out:


    January 31, 2012 at 2:58 am

    • What was the theory?


      January 31, 2012 at 4:43 am

      • That 30 metric tons of burning aluminium, the plane itself, was the cause of the explotions in the lower floors.
        As the floors gave way, burning aluminium came into contact with water from the fire extinguisher system.
        Superheated alumimium reacts violently with water.

        Of course, it’s just a theory, but a simpler explaination than rigging explosives down the whole structure.


        February 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm

      • There are numerous reasons for the sounds of explosions reported in the lower floors of the WTC towers, and they all make more sense than the demolition explosives “theory.” Several of the elevators in each tower went top to bottom, and flaming debris fell through the shafts from the impact areas right into the basement levels. There were fuel vapor explosions in them that knocked off elevator doors and even killed people when other elevators bottomed out at the 78th and 44th floor sky lobbies, and badly burned at least one man in the basement. Building fires also trigger tank explosions, BLEVEs, flashovers, backdrafts, and other explosions, and the plane crashes shorted secondaries, causing transformers to explode.
        Many of the first responders reported hearing these explosions, but the sounds of demolition charges would have carried for miles, happened right before the collapses, and come from the collapse initiation areas. These eyewitnesses are quote mined by truthers for the word “explosion,” but few to none of them are in the 9/11 “truth movement.”


        February 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm

  9. This is SO RIDICULOUS! It is BASIC PHYSICS but so many people don’t understand the BASIC PHYSICS they don’t demand the OBVIOUS INFORMATION.

    Yeah they were MASSIVE building. So they had to hold themselves up against gravity and withstand the wind. So how was the steel and how was the concrete distributed down the buildings so they could accomplish that before the airliners hit. If that information is not known and understood then we do not really comprehend what the airliners hit.

    So where has the physics profession been demanding that information and where have structural engineers been supplying it? I asked Richard Gage that to his face in 2008. He looked at me like I had grown a second head and claimed the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But gravity works the same way all over the planet. The physics of skyscrapers is the same. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. Whether or not airliners could destroy buildings that big that fast should have been resolved in 2002. So what is with the physics profession? Who did it is irrelevant.

    Without accurate distribution of steel and concrete data they can’t even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers. Frank Greening got it all wrong by dividing the total mass by 110. What about the mass in the SIX BASEMENT LEVELS? Was that part of the total? Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. The top level could not be the same weight as the first level. This is BASIC PHYSICS nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: