Article at Counterpunch on 9/11


John Landon
 


David Walters
 

I suspect Louis P. would of torn this conspiracy laden article apart.


Ryan
 

Which article is conspiracy laden. The one by Medea Benjamin (there was no link in the article) or the one saying they’re all lying? Or the the ones who are allegedly lying? I have no idea what’s going on here. 

—Ryan
 

On Sep 6, 2021, at 8:33 AM, David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:

I suspect Louis P. would of torn this conspiracy laden article apart.


Les Schaffer
 

Hold that thought. We have a moderation issue to solve.

Les


On Mon, Sep 6, 2021, 11:33 AM David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:
I suspect Louis P. would of torn this conspiracy laden article apart.
_._,_._,_



Chris Slee
 

Popular Mechanics refutes the "controlled demolition" theory:




Politically, the effect of the spread of this theory was to distract attention away from the actual crimes of US imperialism.  People spent their time debating the truth or falsehood of the "controlled demolition" theory, instead of looking at the history of US intervention in Afghanistan and around the world.  

Such intervention included the US alliance with Osama bin Laden against the Soviet Union and the PDPA government.  But it also included invasions and US-backed military coups in many parts of the world, such as the coup attempt in Venezuela in April 2002.

Chris Slee



From: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io> on behalf of John Landon via groups.io <nemonemini@...>
Sent: Friday, 3 September 2021 1:07 AM
To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Subject: [marxmail] Article at Counterpunch on 9/11
 


John Reimann
 

I used to be a supporter of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. That was until recently when I started to see how this method of thinking involves adding together disparate and unrelated fact to draw patterns that are really an illusion. Yes, I'm referring to covid and Trumpism in general. In the case of 9/11, there are a lot of unexplained issues, but I think that's almost always true in any crime.

One request: Chris Slee posted a link to an article in Popular Mechanics. However, that article is behind a pay wall. Can he or somebody please copy and paste it. Thank you.

John Reimann

--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


John Obrien
 

The Larouchites and some right wing libertarians and birchers, were the main forces in the 9/11 Conspiracy promoting. 
The impressionable and non-thinking, were quick to accept the WTC and Pentagon attack on 9/11, as a hidden government conspiracy.
Many simplistic progressives who were libertarian leading or influenced by libertarian anti-government ideas, were willing to accept
the conspiracy put forth - of instead of a passenger airline plane hitting the Pentagon, it was they contended actually a missile.

They contended that plane actually was hijacked and landed (and all passengers murdered) to cover up that instead a missile was used 
on the Pentagon instead.  People were willing to believe that missile story, despite that the passengers of that airline plane, died in the 
Pentagon attack.  The wife of noted reactionary lawyer Ted Olson (who argued a year earlier before the U. S. Supreme Court to have 
GW Bush be president) was a passenger of that airline plane, that crashed into the Pentagon (and not a missile!).


From: John Reimann <1999wildcat@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:55 AM

 
I used to be a supporter of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. That was until recently when I started to see how this method of thinking involves adding together disparate and unrelated fact to draw patterns that are really an illusion. Yes, I'm referring to covid and Trumpism in general. In the case of 9/11, there are a lot of unexplained issues, but I think that's almost always true in any crime.

One request: Chris Slee posted a link to an article in Popular Mechanics. However, that article is behind a pay wall. Can he or somebody please copy and paste it. Thank you.

John Reimann


_._,_._,_


Michael Meeropol
 

I have an old friend (we have "agreed to disagree") who sent me a picture of the Pentagon allegedly proving that a plane could not have made such a small hole (nonsense of course, the wings would have been sheared off by the structure).   He pushed my buttons because a very close friend of my sister-in-law was on the plane and the government found and returned her WEDDING RING to her husband.   When I wrote him that fact he said, "Well, that doesn't.prove the ring was in the rubble"

THe unflinching scientist Noam Chomsky never bought one iota of the "arguments" from the 9-11 truthers (unfortunately that argument became one of my last conversations with Ed Asner -- I loved him but he was so cookoo about 9-11) and went to the SCIENCE>

Langewiche's articles in the ATLANTIC ("The Unbuilding of the World Trade Center") made clear the science of how the buildings collapsed once the planes hit and ignited the fires --

So I never was tempted by 9-11 conspiracies.  I have to admit, I was initially supportive of the JFK assasination conspiracies but once again with OCCAM'S RAZOR, one has to believe it there actually HAD been a conspiracy, it would have LEAKED by now ... Chomsky again with his scientist's mind never bought any of that stuff and I have changed my mind.

It is so goddam DEBILITATING for leftists to get involved in conspiracy theories --- the truth is bad enough for the ruling class, we don't have to make stuff up!!

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:10 AM John Obrien <causecollector@...> wrote:
The Larouchites and some right wing libertarians and birchers, were the main forces in the 9/11 Conspiracy promoting. 
The impressionable and non-thinking, were quick to accept the WTC and Pentagon attack on 9/11, as a hidden government conspiracy.
Many simplistic progressives who were libertarian leading or influenced by libertarian anti-government ideas, were willing to accept
the conspiracy put forth - of instead of a passenger airline plane hitting the Pentagon, it was they contended actually a missile.

They contended that plane actually was hijacked and landed (and all passengers murdered) to cover up that instead a missile was used 
on the Pentagon instead.  People were willing to believe that missile story, despite that the passengers of that airline plane, died in the 
Pentagon attack.  The wife of noted reactionary lawyer Ted Olson (who argued a year earlier before the U. S. Supreme Court to have 
GW Bush be president) was a passenger of that airline plane, that crashed into the Pentagon (and not a missile!).


Andrew Stewart
 


Chris Slee
 

As requested by John Reimann, here is the text of the Popular Mechanics article.



The collapse of both World Trade Center towers—and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later—initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.




Widespread Damage

Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."


FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.


The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel—and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."


Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.


"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.


"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Puffs of Dust

Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."


FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."


Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."


Seismic Spikes

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com. A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."


FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs


WTC 7 Collapse

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."


FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.


Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.





Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11165) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic


POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [chris_w_slee@...]
_._,_._,_