We are often accused of attacking easy target when we criticise 9/11 truthers. But the fact is they are all easy targets, it's just that some of the sillier ones are more entertaining.
I thought that I would bring together the things the more persistent players in the 9/11 truth movement would regard as their best case and see how it looks. These have been gleaned mainly from the ironically titled Beyond Misinformation.
The first is, of course, WTC 7 which the 9/11 truth folk seem to regard as vessel which will carry all their hopes and aspirations. Prove that 7 is a demolition, they say, then all the others will start to fall in place - WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, Flight 93, JFK and so on and so forth.
For a best case it seems remarkably weak, its basically
WTC 7
- It fell at freefall acceleration for 2-3 seconds
- It fell symmetrically
- Some people reported hearing explosions
- Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire.
- The Hulsey Report
- It collapsed suddenly
- No one expected it to collapse.
- A lot of people expected it to collapse.
- "Sulphidation" of steel in rubble.
WTC 1 and 2
- They collapsed vertically, with sudden onset of collapse.
- Collapsed at near freefall acceleration
- Debris fell almost entirely into the footprint
- Explosive ejections outward with most debris falling well outside the footprint
- They collapsed through the alleged "path of least resistance"
- "Dustification"
- Bodies of victims pulverised and some remains found scattered widely on roofs of buildings
- Lots of people reported explosions at various times
- The simple collapse model allegedly shows the buildings would not collapse
- "Missing jolt"
- Molten material seen pouring from one particular corner of WTC 2
- Molten metal reported in the rubble for up to months after the collapse.
- Nano thermite allegedly detected in dust.
- High heat
The first thing to notice is that some of these things are contradictory. If debris was not forced outward during the initial collapse of the top part, where did they expect it to go? Straight down? Through the alleged "path of most resistance"?
Or the way that the collapse of WTC 7 was an unexpected event that lots of people expected. Of course they expected it because they were experienced emergency responders who had made careful inspections, both externally and internally, of the extent of the fire and the damage. So it was not expected and there is nothing sinister about the fact that it was expected.
But the main thing is that all of this is better explained by the damage and fires caused by the impact of commercial airlines, flown in at high speed and at an angle calculated to create the most damage or, in the case of WTC 7 damage caused by extensive fires and by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
None of the truthers are willing to be anything but vague about the kind of setup of explosives and/or thermite would fit the observational evidence we have of the event. And no one will explain how explosives and or thermite can keep metal molten and cause high temperatures in the ground for months afterwards. However the raging fires in the rubble and the compressed combustible material from hundreds of collapsed floors can easily explain this. Neither would explain molten steel, so whether this was a fiendish conspiracy or not, the molten metal was not steel.
Obviously we could go into detail on any of these claims but this has been done again and again over the years. Most of it more than it needed to be. A single paper in an open access chemistry journal would never be considered adequate evidence for anything.
Even the "best case" for the 9/11 truth movement is unbelievably flimsy after 20 years.
I thought that I would bring together the things the more persistent players in the 9/11 truth movement would regard as their best case and see how it looks. These have been gleaned mainly from the ironically titled Beyond Misinformation.
The first is, of course, WTC 7 which the 9/11 truth folk seem to regard as vessel which will carry all their hopes and aspirations. Prove that 7 is a demolition, they say, then all the others will start to fall in place - WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, Flight 93, JFK and so on and so forth.
For a best case it seems remarkably weak, its basically
WTC 7
- It fell at freefall acceleration for 2-3 seconds
- It fell symmetrically
- Some people reported hearing explosions
- Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire.
- The Hulsey Report
- It collapsed suddenly
- No one expected it to collapse.
- A lot of people expected it to collapse.
- "Sulphidation" of steel in rubble.
WTC 1 and 2
- They collapsed vertically, with sudden onset of collapse.
- Collapsed at near freefall acceleration
- Debris fell almost entirely into the footprint
- Explosive ejections outward with most debris falling well outside the footprint
- They collapsed through the alleged "path of least resistance"
- "Dustification"
- Bodies of victims pulverised and some remains found scattered widely on roofs of buildings
- Lots of people reported explosions at various times
- The simple collapse model allegedly shows the buildings would not collapse
- "Missing jolt"
- Molten material seen pouring from one particular corner of WTC 2
- Molten metal reported in the rubble for up to months after the collapse.
- Nano thermite allegedly detected in dust.
- High heat
The first thing to notice is that some of these things are contradictory. If debris was not forced outward during the initial collapse of the top part, where did they expect it to go? Straight down? Through the alleged "path of most resistance"?
Or the way that the collapse of WTC 7 was an unexpected event that lots of people expected. Of course they expected it because they were experienced emergency responders who had made careful inspections, both externally and internally, of the extent of the fire and the damage. So it was not expected and there is nothing sinister about the fact that it was expected.
But the main thing is that all of this is better explained by the damage and fires caused by the impact of commercial airlines, flown in at high speed and at an angle calculated to create the most damage or, in the case of WTC 7 damage caused by extensive fires and by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
None of the truthers are willing to be anything but vague about the kind of setup of explosives and/or thermite would fit the observational evidence we have of the event. And no one will explain how explosives and or thermite can keep metal molten and cause high temperatures in the ground for months afterwards. However the raging fires in the rubble and the compressed combustible material from hundreds of collapsed floors can easily explain this. Neither would explain molten steel, so whether this was a fiendish conspiracy or not, the molten metal was not steel.
Obviously we could go into detail on any of these claims but this has been done again and again over the years. Most of it more than it needed to be. A single paper in an open access chemistry journal would never be considered adequate evidence for anything.
Even the "best case" for the 9/11 truth movement is unbelievably flimsy after 20 years.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/ufv5nxp
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire