29 September 2020
19 September 2020
17 September 2020
11 September 2020
REMEMBERING 9/11
9/11: Why the Official Theory Has Collapsed: Opinion
Submitted by ABN on Wed, 2006-09-13 12:10.
American Politics | Science | America
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 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.”
What do you believe is the percentage of those skyscrapers susceptible to collapse due to fire, taking into account that no skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11 or since, being that you believe the Bush version as to why three skyscrapers collapsed upon their footprints all in the same day as a result of fire?"
Should the people of New York City - residing and working in all those skyscrapers have cause for alarm, the fear that the building(s) will come down on top of them should there be a fire?
Consider that once the aircraft impacted each tower most if not all
of the fuel on board burnt up on impact with the buildings in huge
fireballs!
Concrete does not burn!
The Towers were designed to withstand the impact from a much larger aircraft.
The Towers were not hollow.
WTC 7 was not struck by an aircraft.
"We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about, we have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.” Donald John Trump
Concrete Can't Burn, But It Can Blow Up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
