Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Ever since I started Your Friday Dose of Woo (YFDoW) back in June, I had always intended that someday I wanted to expand this loving deconstruction of various forms of woo beyond just medical woo and quackery. True, having a little fun with woo that claims to treat disease or restore health is something that I've gotten pretty good at. You may wonder why I would want to move beyond medicine occasionally. After all, there's no shortage of medical woo to deal with every Friday, and I'll almost certainly return to it next week.
Sometimes a skeptic needs a change of pace, and this is one of those times. Believe me, there's lots of really potent and strange woo out there that has little or nothing to do with medicine or health. There's paranormal woo, various forms of pseudoscience, and there are conspiracy theories, among other things. All share the same sort of magical thinking, cherry picking of data to support bizarre beliefs or conclusions, and the tendency to discount vast quantities of data that do not support their woo. So, consider this an experiment. If it doesn't work out, I'll drop it. So what woo did I have in mind this week? Well, this week marked the 65th anniversary of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor; so I had contemplated Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, but in reality very few people believe in those any more, other than a certain commenter yesterday. However, there is an event as traumatic that occurred a mere five years ago that is sometimes conflated with Pearl Harbor and that has already spawned a cottage industry of woo greatly beloved by the tinfoil hat brigade. So I decided to pull a particularly bizarre bit of 9/11 woo out of the woo folder on my computer in which I store potential targets for YFDoW. It's woo so strange that, until a few weeks ago, even I, connoisseur of all that is woo, hadn't even heard of it.
No doubt you've heard of the 9/11 "skeptics" who don't believe that the impact of two large jetliners was enough to bring down the Twin Towers. These and conspiracy theorists like them have been responsible for the movie Loose Change (the producers of which, contrary to their claims that they are doing this "for the victims," have some really vile and despicable things about those who died) and the 9/11 "Truth" movement. These guys love to spin tales about how somehow the U.S. government (sometimes, depending on who's telling the tale, with the help of the Mossad) was actually responsible for the attacks, how supposedly the planes alone were not enough to bring the buildings down, and how there must have been bombs or other devices already in the towers. All of this was done, if you believe the tinfoil hat brigade, for nefarious purposes like giving the government a pretext to invade Iraq, to enrich Haliburton, or a variety of other reasons connected to reality only in the most tenuous way, if even that. One of the more prevalent among the many competing claims (some of which are mutually exclusive) is that it wasn't really commercial jetliners that struck the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon at all, but rather missiles or refueling military tankers. Never mind the thousands of eyewitnesses and the copious photographic, documentary, and physical evidence that do in fact support the conventional idea that it was suicidally murderous Islamic terrorists who hijacked these jetliners and piloted them into these buildings. It must have been the government or the Jews who did it. Popular Mechanics and the most recent episode of Skeptic Magazine have deconstructed the conspiracy theories of the 9/11 "Truth" movement quite well, as has the blog Screw Loose Change and the website Debunking 911, including its claims that the fires in the building couldn't have weakened the steel enough to cause the buildings to fall and that there must have been explosive charges that caused a "controlled implosion."
So what do some 9/11 conspiracy theorists do when faced with such copious evidence refuting their crackpot ideas? They descend deeply into woo, of course! But what form does this woo take? Easy! Some argue that, even though so many photos, videos, and eyewitnesses documented commercial airliners crashing into the towers, it still wasn't really airliners because the government cleverly did something to disguise what really crashed into the towers. And how'd the government supposedly do it? And what sort of woo could top the woo already purveyed by the more "conventional" 9/11 "Truth" movement?
Holograms, of course. They postulate what is known as The Hologram Theory to explain how those alleged cruise missiles could appear to be jetliners:
The "Hologram Theory," as it relates to 9/11, proposes that no commercial airliners hit the World Trade Center on Sept 11 2001. Proponents of the theory contend that rather than full sized airliners, the World Trade Center was hit by "Cruise" type Missiles which appeared to the naked eye to be airliners through the use of sophisticated hologram technology. Rosalee Grable is one the the theory's leading proponents. One eyewitness described the 'airplane' he saw: "It just disappeared. It disappeared like a, like a, bad special effect. Disappeared right into the building." Eyewitness Accounts. This theory is controversial even among 9/11 researchers.
I never knew our government was so sophisticated. I wonder why it can't track down Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, according to some of these woos, our government in actuality doesn't want to find Bin Laden. Never mind. This "hologram theory," though, goes truly beyond the pale, far beyond conspiracy theorists who claim that there was never any plane in sight, but that it was all missiles hitting the buildings, and that the photographic evidence was misinterpreted, probably intentionally, or nearly every video that was taken that day was somehow altered. But let's hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Here is a purveyor of this particular brand of strange woo named Stefan Grossman putting forth the case for holograms:
The hologram theory says that south tower (WTC2) was not hit by a large Boeing 767-200 (flight UA175) but by a small USAF cruise missile or drone with a large holographic cloak around it that made it look like a flight UA175, i.e. a flying deception.The hologram theory has been attacked and ridiculed like no other theory relating to 9-11. In fact, however, it is based on stringent science, on reports from the military community and on careful analysis of the photos and mainstream media news videos of the alleged "plane" crash into south tower and of at least 11 military stealth crafts close by the south tower.
Woo.
Serious woo.
Breathtakingly amazing woo, so much so that I stand in awe of how anyone can believe this stuff. And it amazes me even more that Mr. Grossman seems disturbed that this theory has been "attacked and ridiculed like no other." What reaction did he expect? People to slap themselves on the forehead and exclaim, "How obvious!"?
And there's more:
1. Based on the MIT study of the attacks and twin tower collapse, it is established science that the visible flying craft could not have done any, nor all, of the following:- the entering craft is in south wall's shadow wedge but parts of the craft shine white like a lamp
- the visible flying craft emits a yellow flash instants before nose-touch-wall event
- the visible flying craft cuts six floors which is impossible (Prof. Wierzbicki, MIT)
- the entering craft creates dust pimples that blow outward as from explosions
- the sensitive wing tips do not bend or break off, nor do they flip forward
- the sensitive tips of tail rudder and elevator (winglets) do not break off
- no veer or teeter despite flying in at an angle (about 13 degrees)
- no deceleration despite calculated loss of kinetic energy of 26%
- no deformation, crumple or smash-up of the visible flying object
- no explosion until the visible flying object has faded out of sight
People who are not dumb brainwashed American hoodlums and idiots, i.e. people who can use their senses and their brains, have observed that all the videos that CNN, ABC, NBC and other mainstream news stations showed on 9-11 and the days and weeks thereafter document beyond any doubt that the visible flying craft at south tower did all of the above.
According to the video documentation, not contradicted by any eyewitnesses, the outer skin of the visible flying craft did not react with the solid steel-column south wall of south tower as a physical solid object. It behaved like a purely visual thing like a hologram. It is very clear that "something" that made a (unusually deep) plane-like noise did fly into the south wall of south tower (and then faded into the building out of sight like a TV special effect, the explosion being delayed nearly for one whole second, etc.).
2. There is sufficient news from the military community to establish a prima facie case that such a hologram technology did exist on 9-11-1. See e-book "T MINUS 9-11" at www.gallerize.com with many links in the hologram chapter, further the web sites mentioned above.
There are two military project code names for this, namely project "Ghost Gun" and project "Blue Beam".
We actually have full proof of the existence, function and commercial useability of such 3D virtual imaging technology in form of so-called "Zebra holograms", see www.zebraimaging.com/ a spinoff of MIT and military research.
In keeping with statements from the military community, an Air Force theory manual outlines an "airborne holographic projector" that projects clouds, mountains, troops, tanks, airplanes in the air in order to deceive enemies or enemy populations, see
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm
These conspiracy theorists are big on pictures that purport to show that the planes supposedly "disappeared" into the buildings in a way that, according to them, was not physically possible. For example, here is one such animation. Here are more. Nearly all of them involve heavy manipulation or the dubious interpretation of what might be dust or artifacts. For example, here is a picture that purports to show the "hologram generators":
Convinced yet, or are you just another one of those "dumb brainwashed American hoodlums and idiots" (which you obviously must be if you don't buy this woo)? Then how about this picture?
Nahhh, those dots couldn't possibly be specks of dust on the lens of the camera, distant aircraft, or other things. Nosirreee, they have to be hologram generators. But I see from your silence that you're still not convinced. Well, then, how about this picture?
See? It's clear as day. It couldn't possibly be smoke or debris falling from the building, given how close the highlighted area is to the tower, could it? Perish the thought! It must be hologram generators. At least it is to the woos:
Diligent research has proven that these and many related photos are undoubtedly authentic. Apart from the hologram theory there is no other explanation for the many cloaked orbs in the air (nearly invisible due to their accommodation to their respective background, chameleon-type) together with the non-solid "ghost plane" that fades like a Hollywood special effect in a reactionless way into the steel highrise. The orbs were airborne holographic projectors, and the visible flying craft that did not crash but glided reactionless nearly a second prior to the explosion through the steel wall was a holographic projection, probably with a much smaller cruise missile inside (such as would fit the merely 99 foot wide entry hole). This is well within reach of the military technology and the rabidly insane intentions of the Bush-Clinton idiocracy.
So let me get this straight. To accept this woo--I mean "theory"--you have to believe a lot of highly improbable things. First, you have to believe that the U.S. government would commit mass murder of its own people in order (1) to provoke a war; (2) consolidate power; (3) protect Israel, and/or (4) eliminate civil liberties and bring about a dictatorship, plus whatever other unclear reasons that the tinfoil hat woos like to put forward. Now, I really, really don't like President Bush, but I don't think he's capable of such cold-blooded murder of Americans, and I doubt even the most rabid Daily Kos diarist or commenter does, either. Even if he were, I highly doubt that he or anyone in the present government (or in the Clinton Administration, for that matter) was competent enough to pull off something like this. Next, you have to believe that the U.S. government possesses some sort of secret hologram technology so sophisticated and so convincing that its images could fool tens of thousands of witnesses, photographers and TV cameramen, many of them professionals and many of them taking pictures and amateur video from a variety of angles, into thinking that little Cruise-type missiles were in actuality big passenger airliners. Of course, these guys also seem to neglect to explain how so very realistic a roar was created as the "hologram plane" flew overhead, given that Cruise missiles are neither as large nor as loud as a passenger airliner. And, of course, the "no plane" 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem to have little or nothing to explain what happened to the passengers on the planes who died. But if you can swallow all of that with utter credulity, you still have to believe that a government in command of such awesome secret technology would use it to disguise missiles as passenger airliners when it would be far more straightforward and inexpensive to use real passenger airliners rather than such elaborate trickery (trickery that might be discovered), not to mention that the government would intentionally destroy a section of the Pentagon and kill its own soldiers and employees to achieve this and that it would crash a plane in Pennsylvania to provide a "myth" of passengers resisting the terrorists.
And that's just the minimum you have to believe to buy this "hologram theory." Truly, magical thinking that leads to serious woo is not something that is restricted to quacks.
Of course, looking at the pictures above, it reminded me of the sort of evidence that UFO mavens like to produce in favor of their brand of woo. Yes, it's all there, the grainy pictures that don't definitively show a recognizable object, the pseudoscientific analyses of photos and video, and the fervent belief that the government is hiding something from them, the only people "smart enough" to "see through" the deception. Naturally, it's therefore not surprising that some "no plane" 9/11 conspiracy theorists would start saying that UFOs--yes, UFOs--were responsible:
2. Apart from these three large UFOs there were many strange things in the air around the Twin Towers in the morning of 9-11-1. Such as:birds, some of them seeming unusually large
cruise missiles flying by/from the Woolworth building
helicopters buzzing above the attack site in that day's no-fly zone.
none of them identified or identifiable (not even the birds...).Let me put all those things aside here. They have been discussed, to the extent that they are important.
In the remoter drawers of their archives, researchers silently keep the records of the strange UFOs of 9-11. When I say strange, I mean: strange. - Details:
3. I totally agree that the UFO community is distracted with Aliens and ETs in a way that makes them sound like Chicken Little (the cartoon which runs around saying "the sky is falling").
In other words: Believing in a massive plot by the government to use sophisticated holographic generators to hide the use of Cruise missiles to destroy the buildings and murder thousands, all in order to start a war and consolidate power, is reasonable, but don't bring aliens or ETs into this. That's just crazy talk. But he goes on:
Here, it wasn't the sky is falling but the towers and the Pentagon. It takes no Chicken Little to reiterate that these buildings were attacked and fell (at the Pentagon, only a building wing, the WTC altogether). At the Manhattan towers, the many cameras of that day unwittingly captured a flotilla of unidentified and strange flying objects. Commonly acronymed as UFOs.These appear to be advanced forms of electrokinetic/antigravity experiments of secret military programs, see:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/grangemouth.htmIn particular, Los Angeles has its share of observable encounters with flying orbs, see:
http://forum.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/cutecast.pl?session=LQY2J5A2sA0jw1QQ92kbZa1VsJ&action=&forum=20&thread=8&user=&query=&msgid=&page=1&sort=&do=&key=&others=
5. A specialized site for the Los Angeles type orbs and comparing them with the WTC orbs of 9-11-1 was the site: http://www.orbwar.comThis site by early April 2005 was killed, presumably because it was blabbing out hot military secrets relating to the Pentagon's stealth technology. Fortunately for the cause of the truth coming out, archive copies exist on disk. Now I am happy to see that the site is back on the air again.
Hmmm. Not a very effective goverment conspiracy if it couldn't shut down a simple website like Orbwar and keep it from ever going back online, is it? (Maybe its owners failed to pay their ISP bandwidth charges or something.) I mean, if there really were such a conspiracy and I were in charge of it, I'd make damned sure that websites like this went down and stayed down (or never appeared in the first place). I suppose this "conspiracy" could be letting such sites remain because they are so kooky and cast discredit upon the "real" 9/11 "skeptics," but I probably wouldn't take the chance. In any case, these guys look less and less like Dr. No and more and more like Dr. Evil.
But if you really want to know just how loony this "no plane" woo is, consider this quote:
Advocates of the 'blue screen' or 'hologram' theory hold that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, or at least Flight 175, were ghost aircraft and that sophisticated image projection technology was used to fake the illusion of them entering the towers.The evidence they present to validate this notion is the contention that Flight 175 should have "bounced off" the tower yet sliced through it like a knife through butter.
The vast majority of the evidence is supported not by scientific analysis of what one would expect to happen when a large commercial airliner impacts a skyscraper at over 500 miles per hour, but with grainy Internet videos and hastily interpreted statements made by news reporters at ground zero.
If we are to believe, and the evidence suggests it to be so, that western intelligence agencies are carrying out acts of terror, to go to such lengths mandates the necessity of multi-layered fallback options if the criminals are caught red-handed. This is why a large scale terror attack is always shadowed by an almost identical government drill, as was the case with 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings. If significant and damning evidence were to be presented in a court of law powerful enough to have any impact that implicated high officials in acts of gross treason - the fallback option that it was "just part of the drill," remains as a last chance saloon.
If we are to consider that some form of high-tech hologram technology was utilized as part of a David Copperfield style sound and lights magic show that only made it appear as if Flight 175 had hit the south tower - then we are seriously entertaining the notion that the criminals who ran the attack did not bother to construct any fallback explanation if this massive public stunt had gone wrong.
What if the bombs inside the tower had failed due to faulty wiring or had only detonated a second after the hologram had been sent into the tower? How could that one be explained away? Who in their right mind would make such a huge gamble with no fallback option?
The above was written by 9/11 conspiracy theorist true believer Paul Watson and came from Prison Planet, a veritable cornucopia of conspiracy theories and woo-filled paranoia that routinely posits that Israel knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks and were somehow complicit in them. Pat over at Screw Loose Change has the perfect rebuttal to this:
Yes, and what if the bombs in the tower that caused the controlled demolition had failed due to faulty wiring, or had detonated in the wrong order, causing a bottom-up demolition? Who in their right mind, etc?
But what really amuses me about Paul Watson's article is what it says about the "no plane" 9/11 conspiracy theorists. After all, when people like Eric Salter, another 9/11 "skeptic" who clearly seems to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy to cover up what "really happened" on 9/11) writes a long article debunking your position and then a kook like Watson, who clearly believes that it was the U.S. government, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists acting at the behest of Osama Bin Laden, that was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon, trashes you (and sounds almost reasonable doing it), that's a pretty big red flag that your position is some pretty amazingly bizarre woo indeed. In fact, it should tell you something when even died-in-the-wool woomeisters like the tinfoil hat brigade that believes that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy (rather than a result of government complacency and incompetence that allowed terrorists who had been threatening for years to attack the U.S. homeland succeed in doing so) fear being tarnished by association with you and even go so far as to write, "The hologram theory is severely damaging to the credibility that the 9/11 truth movement has fought so hard to obtain and should therefore be sidelined and shunned at all costs."
Woo attacking even more woo-ey woo. It is a delicious irony indeed to savor.
ADDENDUM: Given that Christmas is just around the corner, here's a little bonus woo, a little cartoon poking fun at the woo that is the 9/11 conspiracy movement: The 12 Days of 9/11. My favorite line from this parody? It's got to be:
"Fiiiive dancing Jews!"
Comments
I predict that you will be over 1 million hits sooner than you think. Great, comprehensive analysis. I'm still curious how WTC 7 came down, though.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | December 8, 2006 9:38 AM
Well, I know what comments section to be reading this weekend!
I'm sure you'll be able to handle it. Have fun...
Posted by: themann1086 | December 8, 2006 9:54 AM
Abel,
WTC7 was badly damaged in the collapse of WTC1.
Pictures, analysis, and first hand accounts of firefighters on the scene here:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html
Posted by: Raymond | December 8, 2006 9:56 AM
Oh, if this blog can handle the antivaccination brigade, I doubt the 9/11 tinfoil hat brigade will be too bothersome.
It's had to say. Lots of times, posts that I expect to provoke a lot of reaction to get none, and posts that I never would have expected much reaction to get 100+ comments. Consequently, after nearly two years at this, I've given up trying to predict which posts will provoke a reaction or lots of links and which won't. If I had known about this "hologram theory" back before September 11, I could have posted it then and probably gotten a reaction, though.
Of course, if any of the woos featured in this post notice the traffic coming from here and decide to pay us a visit, things could get--shall we say?--"interesting."
Posted by: Orac | December 8, 2006 10:02 AM
"Unusually large birds"?
WTF?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 8, 2006 10:52 AM
That is some broad-band hologram, since the planes were tracked on radar too! At what point did the missle get seamlessly switched for the plane?
Or was it a giant hologram at the terminal, too?
Posted by: KeithB | December 8, 2006 11:02 AM
And who piloted the holographic planes?
"Please state the nature of the medical emergency."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 8, 2006 11:28 AM
Do you know "Counterpunch"? A very good, very anti-Bush leftist magazine. Well, after 9/11, the editor, Alexander Cockburn, was baffled by the copiracy theories he heard, and felt the need to debunk them. His strongest argument: you can't conduct such a huge plot and keep it 100% secret. Someday, someone, maybe a disgruntled agent, or one who has remorse, will spill the beans. That's one of the lessons of history. I don't have a link to this very good article, but a search in the counterpunch.org archives will surely lead to it.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 8, 2006 11:35 AM
I figure the extent of government 'involvement' was that they knew something was going to happen, and did want to use it to justify a war and for political purposes, but they didn't expect anything as bad as what actually happened.
That certainly fits with the story that when a CIA briefer warned Bush, Bush told the briefer "okay, you've covered your ass". And the fact that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial that summer about the time the warnings were going around.
And, really, if there's anything the Bush administration has been consistent in, it's in far underestimating how bad something can turn out.
Posted by: Jon H | December 8, 2006 11:43 AM
You know, the beautiful part about the cruise missle theory in general, of which this hologram theory is the most loony variation, is how monumentally anti-Occam the whole thing is. Okay, so suppose you believe that the two airliners, with significant loads of fuel, were insufficient to cause the observed damage; why postulate cruise missles rather than explosives-laden airplanes? Which is easier: disguising cruise missles to look like airplanes (or doctoring a whole bunch of photos and videos and brainwashing a bunch of people), or filling an old jetliner with explosives and rigging it to fly into a target? The latter method is within the reach of existing technology, requiring only a massive government conspiracy and coverup; the former method practically requires hiring Vorlons as consultants.
Posted by: Ghafla | December 8, 2006 11:51 AM
I ran across a pretty good 9/11 one somewhere last week where the website claimed it was some sort of directed energy weapon (space based, of course) and not aircraft that brought down the towers.
I'll have to see if I can find it again to repost for your viewing pleasure.
Posted by: IAMB | December 8, 2006 12:10 PM
You might have gotten it via me.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 8, 2006 12:16 PM
I was debating this "I'm enlightened because I know about the cover up you sheeple" guy on the Internet, and I referred him to the more common debunking sites. Futile, I know, because the debunking sites were "in on the conspiracy".
Sigh. Breathe in. Breathe out.
Posted by: Icequeen | December 8, 2006 12:17 PM
Hoo-boy... How do you tell where the woo ends and the paranoid psychosis begins?
Posted by: has | December 8, 2006 12:28 PM
Shouldn't that be "birds of unusual size?" Is there a Fire Swamp somewhere near New York City?
Posted by: Lee | December 8, 2006 1:22 PM
Deepakwoo is back for another go!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-god-delusion-answe_b_35875.html
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 8, 2006 1:27 PM
I must concur with Jon H, in that I'm sure the intelligence community knew something was coming, the administration didn't take it seriously enough, and afterwards, they used it as justification to go beat up Iraq.
But holograms? Unusually Large Birds? Maybe the Vorlons just looked like birds to us...
I think 'Unusually Large Birds' needs to become Orac's 'PYGMIES + DWARFS' slogan.
Posted by: stogoe | December 8, 2006 1:29 PM
Am I the only one who noticed that this is merely stealing the plot from various episodes of "Scooby Doo"?
Those meddling teens.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 8, 2006 1:47 PM
World Trade Center Building #7 was not struck by any aircraft and suffered only minor internal fires, yet neatly collapsed into its own footprint in less than ten seconds in perfect controlled demolition style at 5:30 PM, September 11th, 2001. Here's a video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0
Posted by: a | December 8, 2006 1:51 PM
Let's not forget that this ultra-powerful, secret hologram technology is also simultaneously unable to project a simple blue background to disguise itself.
Or perhaps you could point out that jpeg quantization error is potentially much larger than the spec of dust, err, "hologram projector", in the first picture. Or you could point out that the middle of the "hologram projector" falls on an obvious jpeg block boundary with the attendant DCT/image discontinuity that that implies....
Posted by: Terrence | December 8, 2006 1:53 PM
I've seen these theories before -- who hasn't? -- and the one thing I've never seen them try to explain is the Flight 93 which went down in Pennsylvania. There's way too much real evidence there which supports the "official" 9/11 narrative for them to handle.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | December 8, 2006 2:04 PM
Hey guys,
Get a clue!
The vast majority of this article is an attempt to debunk straw men!
Those that promote holograms are simply trying to create easily debunked arguments. - which makes all of 911 truth look bad.
Suffice it to say if you look at the official conspiracy theory with a critical eye, they virtually ALL of it falls apart.
I don't pretend to know what happened on that day, but I CAN tell you that the official story is provably false.
Try looking around at www.scholarsfor911truth.org
Here a few questions for you to answer:
William Rodriguez, a janitor at the world trade center, reports hearing and seeing the results of explosions in the North tower basement - seconds BEFORE the first plane hit. His claim is backed up by DOZENS of other witnesses. His claim is also backed up by Columbia University siesmographs, which makes it clear that explosions occurred 14-17 seconds BEFORE the first plane hit - which occurred at a time precisely identified by FAA recordings. Why was there no mention of this in the 911 Commission Report?
Why has the 911 Commission not investigated the molten metal found under the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 which stayed red hot for over six weeks? What could possibly melt metal when it is impossible for any building fire to be sot hot as to melt steel? In fact, there has never been a steel frame high rise that has collapsed due to fire. There have been high rise fires that have been MUCH hotter and much longer lasting and NONE led to total collapse, except on September 11th.
Why cannot the 911 Commission and the associated NIST report explain the reason for the symmetrical, total, near free fall destruction of three World Trade Center towers, which completely turned the twin towers into dust? How can the 911 Commission explain the horizontal ejection of multi ton steel beams, some of which were thrown over 200 feet? The 10,000 page NIST report investigated many aspects of the events at the world trade center that day, but has refused to release it's computer model of the collapse, and has admitted that it's model stops at the "moment of collapse inevitability."
We are told that the collapse times of the twin towers were 9.7 and 10 seconds. This is FASTER than free fall.
Why are we supposed to believe that the buildings fell in a way that defeated a basic law of nature?
Why did the 911 Commission not mention World Trade Center building 7 in it's report? The first analysis of building 7 (by FEMA) says that it's best analysis "has a low probability of occurance." This is not surprising, given that building 7 fell faster than free fall speed into it's own footprint - it exhibits ALL the characteristics of controlled demolition. After FIVE years, why cannot the government explain the collapse of Building 7?
There has never been a building that has exhibited all the characteristics of controlled demolition that has not been controlled demolition.
Why didn't the Secret Service immediately protect Bush after the flight 175 hit the second tower? Why did the Secret Service leave the president and all the children in the school unprotected? On 911, the very same Secret Service DID protect Cheney and immediately brought him to a "secure location."
Why did the 911 Comission not investigate the many war games that occurred ON Sept. 11th, including the simulation of an jet attack on the Pentagon, the artificial injection of "hijacked blips" on FAA screens, and live fly planes pretending to be hijacked?
Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers admitted that the many war games that occured on 911 "helped the response time" to the attacks. How can this be true considering that the Pentagon was attacked 34 minutes AFTER the second World Trade Center tower was hit? After the whole world new that America was under attack, how did the military let their headquarters in the most defended airspace in the country be attacked? Who was responsible for this inaction? Why has there been no investigation?
Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta testified that he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center at 9:20, and Dick Cheney was already there. By 9:25, a young man came in and out of the room three times to tell Cheney the position of Flight 77, and asked for confirmation of orders. Orders that couldn't have been a "shoot-down" order because according to the latest Vanity Fair article "NORAD Live", fighter pilots claimed by 10:10:31, they had, "negative clearance to fire." So what order was it? Who is the young man, and why didn't he testify before the 9/11 Commission? Why did Dick Cheney claim that he had given a "shoot down" order? Why did the 9/11 Commission claim that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC by 9:58am? Why did the 9/11 Report completely omit Norman Mineta's testimony?
The 911 Comissioners now admit that they knew that NORAD generals lied about what happened on 911. The commissioners even considered criminal charges. NORAD ended up giving three contradictory timelines of the day. If the last timeline was correct then the first two were either lies or represent criminal negligence. If negligence, why has no one been reprimanded?
We are told that the fire at the Pentagon was so hot that it "vaporized" the plane that hit the Pentagon, yet we are told that the DNA for most of the passengers has been identified. How can a fire be so hot as to melt, multi ton titanium engines, and the entire airframe, seats, luggage, and all the bodies, yet the DNA (which is very fragile) from most of the passengers survived?
Bush has now acknowledged that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. The FBI now admits that there is "no hard evidence linking Osama to 911." If it's not Saddam and not Osama then who was responsible and why have we seen NO trials in America of the alleged purpetrators of 911? (Note that Zacarius Massoui admitted complicity in a plot that was NOT related to 911.)
How can the 911 Comission say that the financing of 911 is "of no practical significance."
Yet, put options (bets that stock prices will do down) against American and United Airlines, placed before 911, were never fully investigated because "they led to individuals that could not possibly have anything to do with 911."
This is meaningful only if Al Qaeda was truly behind 911. So far, there has been NO such proof.
Why did the 911 commission not investigate the wiring of $100,000 from the head of the Pakistani intelligence services to Mohamed Atta a week before 911? This is particularly curious when you consider that the head of Pakistani intelligence services meet with Senator Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of Sept 11th.
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 2:07 PM
These conspiracy theorists are unimaginative.
Why believe there ever was a World Trade Center? The apparent World Trade Center was obviously a giant pair of stereo speakers.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | December 8, 2006 2:11 PM
I heard Noam Chomsky interviewed a while back, and the conspiracy theory -- specifically, the "must have been controlled demolition" argument -- came up. The core of his response, as best I can recall it, was:
Whatever your view of his politics, it's clear that Chomsky shares at least this portion of reality with the rest of us.
In fact, the calculations needed to demonstrate that "pancaking" is expected (indeed, inevitable) once a dynamic failure begins are perfectly straightforward. The duration of each floor's failure is extremely brief, approximately the same length of time that a conspiracy theorist takes to consider the evidence when you explain all this to him.
Posted by: jre | December 8, 2006 2:11 PM
this is indeed Woo of Unusual Cruddiness.
but, does anyone happen to know: what is that unmanned dual-rotor helicopter pictured? judging by the photos, it looks useful for traffic reporting, military and police surveillance, possibly even the search part of search and rescue. who builds that cool toy?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 8, 2006 2:20 PM
I love it!
Just in the time it took to compose a brief comment, I see that solar roller has posted a breathtakingly goofy comment. If I may, Mr. Roller, I'd like to address just one point in your comment, viz.:
In free fall, x=a*t^2/2.
Solving for time, we have t=sqrt(2*x/a)
The roof of the WTC was 1368 feet above ground. This gives us
time (sec) = sqrt(2*1368 ft./(32.17 ft/sec^2)) = 9.2 sec.
... which would appear to be shorter than the times you've quoted as "FASTER than free fall."
In fact, the exact time for either tower to collapse is difficult to determine, because the cloud of debris made observation difficult, and portions of the towers stood after the bulk had fallen. Just the same, from the numbers I've just quoted you, there is no way on God's green earth that the towers fell faster than free fall. There -- did that convince you? I thought not.
And I want to see that funny helicopter, too!
Posted by: jre | December 8, 2006 2:41 PM
Source, please. This, even more than the crap you posted, sounds like misinformation.
Woo.
If that were true (and it's not, by the way), then it wouldn't have the characteristics of a controlled demolition. The laws of physics make it impossible for a building (or anything else) to fall faster than its "freefall speed" unless some external force pushing from above or pulling from below adds to the force of gravity, something that does not happen in controlled free-fall demolitions. Perhaps next you'll propose that it was some sort of repulsor beam pushing down on the building from above or a tractor beam pulling from below.
I'll let a pro give your statement the ridicule that it deserves:
Posted by: Orac | December 8, 2006 2:43 PM
You don't say.
So, before this thread goes completely out of hand... something I've been thinking about lately is that there really needs to be some kind of good single central FAQ or other resource covering the arguments used by 9/11 deniers. If you run into an evolution denier, you have the talk.origins FAQ. If you run into a tax protester or a holocaust denier, there are good itemized FAQs. In the case of the 9/11 deniers, though... there's a couple good pages on Scopes and there's this "screwloosechange" blog linked above (which I'd never heard of, but it looks pretty good), but there's no single claim/debunking index like there are in all those other cases.
Meanwhile, this is a subject on which a source for credible details is needed. Although most of the 9/11 denial arguments are so transparently badly thought out that they can be debunked without understanding the underlying issues, a lot of them do have to do in one way or another with specialized knowledge-- stuff having to do with architecture or engineering.
Although (like biology or climatology) these are subjects best commented on by someone with background and experience in the subject, architecture and engineering seem much simpler than they really are, so it's very easy for someone who lacks a factual background in these things to get fooled, or fool themselves, by running across an argument that looks good on the surface but falls apart if you actually know anything about large buildings. On the other hand though there are people like me who don't really know anything in particular about architecture and engineering but are openly willing to admit it; on running across such an argument, it's often quite easy to show that the denialist argument is flawed or poorly supported, but without specific engineering background it's generally not easy to explain exactly why the denialist argument is outright wrong. The "reality-based community" people are at a disadvantage in such situations, because the 9/11 deniers are generally perfectly happy to make stuff up on the fly to win an argument, but those of us who wish to argue from fact cannot be so nimble.
So it would be really great to have an index of "here's some common 9/11 denial argument / here's what an ACTUAL engineer has to say about the subject", possibly like the talk.origins FAQs in that they explain or link the relevant engineering knowledge to the reader as they go. In addition to being convenient, though, I think that something like this is more or less necessary. The 9/11 deniers are starting to put together relatively sophisticated media packages for themselves, things like these new couple of "documentaries", or whatever that long report was concerning "problems with the official story" compiled by that particle physicist (a particle physicist, meaning that, like most of the people who attack evolution or the scientific consensus for climate change, he was working out of his field, but hey who'd ever notice that...). In face of this increasingly well-organized bunch of delusions, the truth needs to be organized as well.
Posted by: Coin | December 8, 2006 2:50 PM
Wow, it's very much like dealing with creationists, isn't it?
Look at the long rambling post by "solar roller"; it's filled with half-truths, misinformation, cherry picked data, and unreliable anecdotes.
When presented with solid evidence that their assertions are wrong, rather than change their assertions, they just get louder.
I almost expect something like "if you don't think that bush/clinton/cia/fbi blew up the WTC, then why are there PIGMIES + DWARFS???"
Posted by: Raymond | December 8, 2006 3:02 PM
solar loon writes; "Why has the 911 Commission not investigated the molten metal found under the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 which stayed red hot for over six weeks? What could possibly melt metal when it is impossible for any building fire to be sot hot as to melt steel?"
Um, steel isn't the only metal. Copper, tin, lead, aluminum, brass, and bronze are some of the metals which would be plentiful in the WTC, in the form of miles and miles of wires and conduit, thousands of computers, thousands of phones, etc.
Posted by: Jon H | December 8, 2006 3:36 PM
Ire:
I'm just a regular guy and I'm certainly not a physicist.
I do stand corrected in my statement.
The WTC Towers 1 and 2 fell at roughly freefall speed (NOT faster) and the times are based on those stated by the 911 Commission.
I agree that the timing is difficult but that is what they said!
Since you AGREE that they fell at roughly freefall speed then tell me how the alleged fire induced collapse of the top of the buildings could fall through massively built, cold steel and concrete - the path of MOST resistance?
The official story is essentially telling me the top section hit the ground as though there was NOTHING below it!
Thank you for pointing out my error in my statement.
How about the rest of my questions?
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 4:15 PM
Orac:
You asked for a source for the FBI allegation:
First, notice that the FBI's most wanted website does NOT refer to Osama as being wanted for the events of 911.
Is that credible enough for you?
As for the statement by the FBI saying that there is no hard evidence linking Osama to 911 go here:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html#_ftn1
As for my statement that Building 7 fell faster than freefall....
I stand corrected. Building 7 fell at freefall speed JUST LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Are you disagreeing that it fell into it's own footprint and exhibited all the characteristic of a controlled demolition?
Please don't put words in my mouth regarding what really happened.
I have no clue.
I just know the official theory is false...
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 4:16 PM
Coin, here are a few resources you might find useful:
Mark Roberts' "Loose Change Viewers Guide". Although this is aimed at examining the claims made in "Loose Change", it's still pretty general-purpose because those same claims are and will be endlessly regurgitated by the paranoid conspiracism industry:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Mark has also produced another paper, "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement" ":
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Mike Williams' site, http://www.911myths.com , examines a great many popular CTer claims in a fair-minded, evidence-based fashion and is organized in an easy to navigate, near-FAQ way- sort of a Clavius for the 9/11 deniers.
Mike's put a lot of research effort into his work, and the site also hosts papers from other contributors and other valuable material.
The "conspiracy theories" section of the JREF forum is also well worth exploring:
http://forums.randi.org
I hope this is helpful.
Posted by: Ktesibios | December 8, 2006 4:22 PM
Raymond:
You say: "Look at the long rambling post by "solar roller"; it's filled with half-truths, misinformation, cherry picked data, and unreliable anecdotes.
When presented with solid evidence that their assertions are wrong, rather than change their assertions, they just get louder."
I'm just saying that the official conspiracy theory has not been proven.
My rambling post asked a lot of questions.
Please don't just call them half truths, misinformation and cherry picked without giving some details.
I'm not getting louder, I'm just asking questions...
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 4:24 PM
Jon H.
Sure there were many metals at the WTC - you are correct.
But steel represented the majority of it.
I urge you to look at the work of Physicist Steven Jones, formerly a professor at BYU.
He says that all examples of the molten metal he has examined are iron and or steel.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Hey, you don't have to insult me to get my attention.
If you don't agree with me that's fine...
Just try to answer some of the questions I raised....
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 4:27 PM
From the FBI's most wanted site:
From wikipedia's entry on the "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" list:
The lack of a reference to the September 11 attacks on that one "most wanted" website means nothing; the FBI is simply following their own procedural rules here, as they should.
Well, that pretty much just sums it up, doesn't it.
Posted by: Coin | December 8, 2006 4:30 PM
And here's the quite reasonable explanation why:
There you go. The only reason they aren't listed as being wanted for the 9/11 attacks is because they haven't been indicted yet for that particular crime.
Try again
As for you other comment, in which you said:
Actually, if you bothered to look at the link that I provided, it suggests that that WTC 7 actually fell slower than free fall:
Popular Mechanics also points out that WTC 7 was much more compromised and that fires burned in it for a long time.
Posted by: Orac | December 8, 2006 4:34 PM
Coin:
Thank you for the clarity on who shows up on the FBI's most wanted list.
OK, then the question is.. WHY has Osama OR ANYONE ELSE been indicted for the crimes of 911?
You would think we would have SOMEONE under indictment by now...
After all, we supposedly have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody? (Kalheed Sheik Mohommed)
Where's the indictment or trial?
Please don't bring up Zacarias Moussaoui...
He was NOT put on trial for 911, nor did he confess to any involvement with 911.
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 4:52 PM
Orac:
You said:
"Actually, if you bothered to look at the link that I provided, it suggests that that WTC 7 actually fell slower than free fall:
More important, the amount of time that it took WTC 7 to fall was significantly longer than either of the two towers, at least according to the seismic readings that the Truthers cite as the source for the information that WTC 1 and 2 fell in 10 and 8 seconds, respectively. WTC 7 was a much smaller building than the two towers and yet it fell in 18 seconds according to seismic readings.
Popular Mechanics also points out that WTC 7 was much more compromised and that fires burned in it for a long time."
WTC 7 tooked LONGER to fall than the twin towers?
Are you saying that the MANY videos for all three collapses are all fake?
Just time the videos yourself!
I DID glance at the link that you provided. There is a lot there, so I can't absorb it quickly. I WILL look at it though..
Sure Popular Mechanics SAYS that WTC 7 had lots of fire.
I certainly haven't seen any photos to prove that.
Have you?
Please post them for all to see if you have...
Even if the south side of WTC 7 had some fire, how did the building's columns fail ALL AT ONCE in a way exactly like controlled demolition?
Please answer me - regarding the twin towers... How did the tops of the buildings fall through the path of MOST resistance at roughly free fall speed?
Posted by: solar roller | December 8, 2006 5:02 PM
Ktesibios, thanks for the links.
Posted by: Coin | December 8, 2006 5:12 PM
Gee..holograms. I never guessed that those planes that I watched fly into the towers, the explosions and flames that followed it, were holograms. Forgive me, but watching that and the fall of the towers was too horrific to even review mentally. I am not a builder or a physicist or an architect, so can't answer your questions, but I would imagine they fell that way because they were built in that manner.
Posted by: Maggie Rosethorn | December 8, 2006 5:22 PM
"practically requires hiring Vorlons as consultants"
Ooooh!
"Vorlon Consulting Agency, this is Lyta speaking. How may I direct your call?"
"Yes, I'd like to speak to Mr. Kosh."
"Which Mr. Kosh would that be, sir?"
"Oh, I'm sorry, there's more than one?"
"Yes, sir. We have quite a few Koshes here."
"Ah. Family concern, is it?"
"You might say that."
"Well, I'm afraid I didn't get a first name. Last time we spoke he said he was late for an appointment with some vicar. Said something about calling back at the 'hour of scampering' or something like that. I thought he might have meant rush hour, so I hope I'm not catching him on his way out...?
"Ah, you must have spoken to Mr. Kosh. One moment please."
"Well, yes, but I didn't get his first--"
(Click. Tangerine Dream plays briefly. Click.)
"You have...a question?"
"Mr. Kosh! Oh, glad I got through to you. I wasn't sure your secretary understood who I wanted. Sorry, I didn't actually get your name...?"
"Kosh."
"Yes, sorry, it's actually your first name I missed...?"
"We are all Kosh."
"Yes, I've...heard. Uh. Anyway, I was wondering if you could help us out. You see, I represent the government, and we're having a bit of a PR problem. Yeah, I know, big shock there, but you see this is a strange one. A lot of people seem to think we faked the 9/11 attacks. Sure, we've done our fair share of the cloak-and-dagger, but we had nothing to do with these, and what's worse, the conspiracy nuts have some utterly bizarre ideas...I mean, holographic planes? We've heard you can be very effective in altering public perceptions, and--"
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
"Um...does...that mean you don't think you can help me? I don't think I understand."
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."
"I'm beginning to realize that. Tell me, am I already being billed for your time, or do you contract per week?"
"Yes."
"I see...covering all the bases?"
"You have forgotten something."
"Sorry? That's pretty much the situation as it stands, don't think I'm missing anything. (background murmur) What? Dinner with IPX was next...this week. Oh. Damn. Mr. Kosh, I'm sorry, I've gotta go, I'm late for a dinner date with a bigshot defense con--wait...how did you know...? Uh...nevermind. When can I call you back?"
"I will always be here."
"Workaholic, eh? My kinda guy! Well, talk to tomorrow then!"
Posted by: rrt | December 8, 2006 5:27 PM
S.R. - With all due respect, answering an endless series of questions from you is a mug's game.
To be taken seriously, you have to answer a few yourself. For example:
Why did you think 9.7 and 10 seconds duration was faster than free fall? Did you do the calculations for yourself?
When you said that the towers fell faster than free fall, what mechanism did you have in mind that might have made them accelerate more quickly than they would have under gravitational acceleration?
As you must know, this is the most thoroughly examined structural failure in history. Engineers with specific expertise in this area have analyzed the towers' collapse and described exactly why, how, and how fast they fell. Do you think they are simply wrong, or part of the conspiracy?
Posted by: jre | December 8, 2006 5:35 PM
solar roller:
A question I have wanted to ask someone who thinks the WTC and building 7 were controlled demolitions: if they were controlled demolitions, why not just set them off as controlled demolitions, and blame it on terrorists? Why the whole involved scenario with planes or holograms or whatever?
It's not as if the American people would say "I can believe terrorists hijacking jets and crashing them into skyscrapers -- but NO WAY would terrorists plant bombs in a building beforehand and set them off later. That's just *inconceivable*."
Posted by: Sastra | December 8, 2006 5:36 PM
ire:
With all due respect to you, my questions are not endless and I DID correct my statement about faster than freefall.
Here is my statement above, directly to you:
"Ire:
I'm just a regular guy and I'm certainly not a physicist.
I do stand corrected in my statement. The WTC Towers 1 and 2 fell at roughly freefall speed (NOT faster) and the times are based on those stated by the 911 Commission. I agree that the timing is difficult but that is what they said!
Since you AGREE that they fell at roughly freefall speed then tell me how the alleged fire induced collapse of the top of the buildings could fall through massively built, cold steel and concrete - the path of MOST resistance?
The official story is essentially telling me the top section hit the ground as though there was NOTHING below it!
Thank you for p