Computer models are not a replacement for actual testing and only a dumb ass would claim it was.
Any script kiddie can create a dubious computer model where a slight modification of a Clapper can make dogs fly backwards and glow in the dark; but unless the computer model’s prediction of Clapper-induced canine flight holds up with actual flight testing and peer review, it’s worthless.
This was a wonderful opportunity for critics and real scientists to attack and expose the glaring inconsistencies, flaws, and outright lies in the official story. Thermite, used in demolitions and which can burn through steel, was found in abundance at the site, e.g.. Also, the BBC was reporting the building as already down 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. You can even see the building, still standing, in the background’s live feed as the claim is made. What this means, at the very least, is foreknowledge of what NIST claimed was an unpredictable “new phenomenon” (Rudy Guiliani also let it slip that the building would collapse.) At worst, the foreknowledge implies high level complicity from Mayor Guiliani’s office, not just in a controlled demolition, but a false flag operation.
Pitted against Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST is Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects. As noted in RawStory: [Gage’s] group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute’s claim in a press conference..
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”
“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.
A Challenge for Skeptics
Find a way to validate the NIST “new phenomenon” theory using the Scientific Method or shut the fuck up, because the one thing we do know is that the theory of demolition can be tested and retested by other scientists, even without appealing to computer simulations. That said, which theory do you really think has a chance of duplicating the collapse of Building 7? Here’s a primer for Sunder since clearly, the scientific method is a concept more alien to him than self-respect…
The Scientific Method
- Define the question (what caused the collapse?)
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis
- Perform experiment and collect data
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
The Sunder Method Used by NIST
- Define the question (“How do we convince experts that fire alone caused the abnormal free-fall consistent only with demolitions?”)
- Gather information and resources (only those facts which support or partially support lone fire theory)
- Form hypothesis (“Stop laughing. Fire caused it. I’m serious.”)
- Perform experiment and collect data. No experiment on test building conducted, only computer simulation.
- Analyze data (WTC 7 videos and documents)
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis Conclusion was drawn at the beginning.
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists). No retest possible since experiment was never conducted.
A New Hypothesis
- Define the question (Is Dr. Sunder a fraud and scat muncher?)
- Gathered information and resources (WTC 7 report and diet-related data)
- Form hypothesis (Dr. Sunder is, indeed, a fraud and scat muncher)
- Perform experiment and collect data (monitor his reaction to a plate of feces and spoon; and if no objective, scientific testing is possible, resort to computer simulations of him eating scat and call it experimentation using the Sunder Methodology)
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (Impious Digest computer simulation confirms hypothesis)
- Publish results (yes, he is a scat munching fraud)
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists).
9/11 False Flag Allegations Have Compelling Supporting Evidence…
Before you read any further, let’s have a look at a very interesting false flag operation from 1962, Operation Northwoods:
“The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro‘s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s. Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.”;
So does this mean the government was behind 9/11? Since there was a previous terrorist attack on the WTC back in the 90s, that’s not my argument at all. What is obvious, though, is that we can’t put foreknowledge and enabling of an existing terrorist plot past the Bush Administration given its unnerving parallel with Operation Northwoods, and the idea that there was a false flag operation is not a “wild-eyed” conspiracy theory but a belief based on accepted historical precedent, such as the Spanish-American War and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Right now, however, my only argument is that WTC Building 7 fell by demolition, not fire. Regardless, you should take a look at what Gen. Wesley Clark had to say about the matter. He described Bush’s five year plan for seven wars. See the last video below.
Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Collapse
September 11, 2001: BBC reporter Jane Standley discusses collapse of WTC Building 7 some 20 minutes before it actually falls . It is even visible in the background live shot as she speaks. The source of this information is critical. Whomever told her it was already down was clearly aware of demolition plans or implicated in them. So who was it? Specifically, it’s not clear. But the original source was none other than Rudy Giuliani. Building 7, a.k.a. the Salomon Brothers building, has yet to fall, and again, it is still clearly visible and standing in the live shot behind Jane Standley.
You will notice the anchor describes the collapse in past tense , and even details the specific reason for the collapse long before it is officially “confirmed”, and vehemently disputed. The point of contention, thereafter, was a criminal demolition versus the official story. What’s the official story? In short, Building 7 was deeply saddened by the attack on the Twin Towers, then poured gasoline over itself to self-immolate, simultaneously eschewing its supporting beams, and collapsing on itself. Okay, that’s not the official story, but it’s just as plausible as the contention that it was all due to a sentient, intelligent fire targeting critical support beams.
- Truthers nail Maher
- Why Bill Maher is an Ignorant (or Complicit) Pussy
- NYC firefighters discuss the controlled demolition of WTC 7
- Computer Models Made Predictions Impossible to Duplicate with Test Buildings
In the video clip, Maher appeals to a classic straw man to refute arguments that were never made. For example, from the beginning the main contention regarding Building 7 was not that the government was behind 9/11, it was simply that it was a controlled demolition. Of course, Truthers do believe it was and that it was orchestrated by the Bush administration, but what Bush and the Truthers have in common is the assertion that explosives were used on 9/11. In the video, we see that Maher equates anyone who believes it was a demolition contends it was a government conspiracy, and that’s pathetically dishonest and/or an ignorant pussy gambit. In the first place, you don’t have to believe it was a government conspiracy to believe it was a controlled demolition. You could believe it was Al Qaeda behind the demolitions, as well. Eventually, Bush stated as much on national television. As seen in the Bush video below, he states it was a controlled demolition, but that it was executed by terrorist operatives, and as Bush claims placed there to make sure as many people as possible would be trapped and killed under the building collapse. By 2008, this would be retracted, and once again the building collapse of Building 7 was said to have been caused by a fire, which brings us to the bogus NIST findings discussed herein.
NYC firefighters discuss the controlled demolition of WTC 7
Bill is a Professional. Do Not Question Him
|Why would Bill Maher assume his experience and credibility eclipses that of firefighters that were actually at the scene? I never saw this fucker in a fire truck and no one ever has. Oh wait. Yes I have.|
The video of the NYC fire fighters above was taken on 9/11. Nowhere in the video do you hear them discussing a government conspiracy, they are pointing out a simple fact gleaned from professional experience: they are firefighters, they deal with building collapses all of the time and would know more than anyone if it was due to a fire or not. This was not a collapse that could be attributed to fire, and it was obvious to everyone there. Moreover, a fire alone couldn’t explain the explosions recorded above— immediately preceding the collapse– and noted by major news networks.
So why would Maher literally call these heroes lunatics? It wasn’t even an implied insult, it was aimed directly at ANYONE who mentioned controlled demolitions. Why would this pedant, this smegma-sucking biped pig assume his experience and credibility eclipses that of firefighters that were actually at the scene? I never saw this fucker in a fire truck and no one ever has. I ask you: who would know better about fires and the behavior and effects of fire in concrete and steel structures if not firefighters? So, controlled demolition was was the argument posited by fire firefighters who would know better than anyone. Actually, it wasn’t even an argument. It was an eyewitness observation by the most objective and knowledgeable witness possible aside from a demolitions expert. I think I’ll side with them, and just take Bush’s own words that explosives were used on 9/11.
Truthers may contend that Bush was behind 9/11 and their own arguments are anything laughable. They are well within the realm of possibility, as is the argument that Al Qaeda planted the thermite in the critical support beams and was the true party responsible. But that’s not the question here. The question is what could compel the audacity and maliciousness of Maher’s smear of anyone with informed dissent?
Simple Question, Actually
Bill Maher was already put in his place by researchers pointing out that two planes hit two towers, but none hit WTC Building 7. What brought it down? It wasn’t fire, as Bill asserts, because diesel fuel blamed for fire doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. If it did, the fuel would melt engines. Same thing with jet fuel. A similar building engulfed in an inferno, such as the 1980 MGM fire in Las Vegas, never came close to creating such a collapse because that time the fire behaved itself, and observed the natural laws of the universe. This fire didn’t believe in fairy tales and superpowers, trying neither to fool itself or others. Building 7 had no such moral distinction. If it did, to explain its innocence in regards to the collapse, the Building 7 fire would have appealed to Occam’s Razor, or as Isaac Newton stated the rule: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
It would reason that if thermite was found in abundance in the ruins, then yes, it was probably a controlled demolition. If the building fell in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition but never with fire, it was probably a controlled demolition and not fire. If numerous explosions were recorded by countless audio and visual sources in the key structural support areas where they would actually create the most damage, then yes, it was probably a controlled demolition, and not a fire. Fire can cause explosions, but you need something explosive in the building to be there or fire will behave itself. This is Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is probably the real one. In the case of it being a fire that caused the miraculously uncharacteristic collapse, you’re being told that one impossibility can follow another, and yet another, and yet another, and create the the only logical and true conclusion. And to Bill I say, “My good man, I dare say I must opine contrarily to your considered position. Fuck you.” Besides, how did Rudy know it would fall? Well, Bill didn’t like the mention of Building 7, and threatened to kick the ass of the woman who asked.
But of course, what was found was something far more devastating than nanothermite that caused the freefall collapse at Ground Zero. It was micronukes and molten steel in the underground pit that stayed hot for three months.
All of that was classified. You were never meant to know about the radiation, the radioactive dust clouds still killing thousands and affecting millions, the nuclear heat signature recorded by NASA and other countries, about the FBI investigation into the planning of 9/11 in Fort Lee, New Jersey; Able Danger. What some did know, but quickly forgot, were the Israeli agents arrested on 9/11 for planting thousands of pounds of explosives on the George Washington Bridge on 9/11 to maximize casualties.
As for the MGM Grand Fire, the third worst in American history, this is how bad it looked:
Pretty bad huh? Even so, the building wasn’t ever in danger of collapse. It was actually repaired and improved. A new sprinkler system was added and an automatic fire alarm added.
As intense as the fire was, it simply wasn’t hot enough to melt steel, and it burned much longer than WTC Building 7…
“Mr. Giuliani, six years ago you told Peter Jennings that ‘we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse,'” Hicks said, quoting a remark from the former New York City mayor made during an interview with ABC News. “Where did you get your foreknowledge that the World Trade Center was going to collapse?” Also see:
- Rudy’s Ties to a Terror Sheikh: Giuliani’s business contracts tie him to the man who let 9/11’s mastermind escape the FBI
“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Ex-president of Italy Francesco Cossiga, regarding “false flag” operations of a government against it’s own people to push an unspoken agenda, e.g. dictatorship or the scapegoating of political opposition. Cossiga, who participated in such operations in Operation Gladio under NATO auspices, believes 9/11 is a false flag attack. Operation Gladio was overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.