Keith's NO EMPIRE Blog

A radical dissident perspective on various topics. Comments welcome at

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

911 Diversion

Shortly after the 911 attack in 2001, when questions should have been raised regarding the Bush administration's laxity/culpability for these attacks, the focus of citizen concern was diverted from the attacks themselves onto a ludicrous assertion of a controlled demolition bringing down World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 & 7. Not content with promulgating this idiocy, Pied Piper Theologian David Ray Griffin has also questioned the reality of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon, suggesting a missile instead. Forget the witnesses and wreckage. And so, a well-funded David Ray Griffin has acted as the 911 Truth version of Lyndon LaRouche in discrediting those questioning the involvement of the US government in these attacks which were utilized as a pretext for an endless war for imperial hegemony. It should be noted that a core of 911 Truth supporters are, in fact, Lyndon LaRouchies. The 911 Truth movement has sapped the energy of the Left opposition, contributing significantly to the decline of any serious anti-war movement. I wrote about this back in 2006 in a post titled "911 Conspiracy Cult."

I personally think that the evidence against a controlled demolition scenario is so obvious and overwhelming that it is practically an insult to the intelligence to discuss it in detail. Yet, I fear that I must. With the 15th anniversay of these attacks, some unexpected comments caught me by surprise and were truly dismaying. I am going to focus on one in particular because it raises disturbing questions. It is by The Saker, a former military/strategic analyst who has a blog dealing primarily with Russia and the Middle East. Much of what he says on these topics makes sense and provides valuable information. To a degree, I trusted his analytical judgement. Alas, the anniversay prompted him to write about his conversion to the 911 Truth movement. In the article, he references an earlier article which I will quote from to begin my discussion.

"The reasoniong looked all fine and dandy to me until I came to a truly momentous realization: the "official theory" did not explain one major fact: there is absolutely no way that two planes could have brought down three buildings in New York. Not only that, but the way the buildings fell simply cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse induced by fire." (The Saker)

The first thing one should notice is the Creationist logic. Since evolution couldn't possibly create something as complex as the eye, there must have been the divine intervention of a supernatural creator. If evolution is impossible, then God is the default reality. No need to show the existence of a deity or of divine magic. Likewise, 911 Truthers never bother to demonstrate that a controlled demolition following airplane strikes and massive fires is even remotely possible. Their entire "proof" lies in attacking the possiblity of collapse due to structural damage combined with fire damage. That they have hundreds of PhD engineers (out of hundreds of thousands) who believe as they do is seen as additional proof. Creationists and global warming deniers can make the same claim. So, let us see what happens when we turn the tables on the Truther movement and look at the inherent fallacies in their argument.

Let us begin with the obvious. Who would want to collapse buildings 1, 2 &7, and why? Lets begin by designating Osama bin Laden as representing Islamic fundamentalists in general without worrying whether or not he was personally involved. Osama bin Laden appears to have good motivation for crashing airplanes into buildings 1 & 2, the Pentagon and the White House (plane 4). Asymetric retaliation for the empire's Middle East policies. Building #7 a much lower and unrealistic target and of no symbolic value in any event. Bin Laden doesn't have the ability to rig any of the buildings with high explosives, hence, the use of fully fueled airplanes to cause damage. A controlled demolition of buildings 1, 2 & 7 absolutely requires a massive governmental conspiracy involving hundreds of people and thousands of man hours to somehow position tons of high explosives in three building which were occupied and had the walls, floors and ceilings intact. Wow! Outrageous! Normally, we would stop right there, however, I regret that we must proceed with this ludicrous scenario.

Obviously, bin Laden didn't place any high explosives. How about the US government? Many of us are aware of Operation Northwoods and that false flag operations are not uncommon, perhaps even somewhat routine. Indeed, the big boys calling the shots are usually either sociopaths or psychopaths with zero empathy and a history of commiting mass murder. When it comes to false flag operations, however, getting caught tends to be counterproductive. Of course, bin Laden was perfectly capable of enlisting suicide recruits to fly airplanes into buildings, even to train them in the US and Germany. Since many of these terrorists are CIA assets, did the CIA covertly recruit them? Or be aware of them and turn a blind eye? A controlled demolition implies considerable coordination between the US government and the perpetrators. Why a controlled demolition? The airplane strikes alone virtually guarantee that the Bush administration will have their new Pearl Harbor. You think not? The airplane strikes by themselves killed many hundreds of people and essentially destroyed the two buildings. With the support of the imperial media, that wouldn't have sufficed? They had to collapse three buildings (not merely destroy the larger two) to achieve their objectives? Having struck buildings 1 & 2 with airplanes (to make it look like the airplanes alone caused the collapse), they then abandoned all pretense and demolished building 7 with explosives bcause building 7 was so critical to their plans that getting caught out was seen as worth it?

Controlled demolition? A controlled demolition has always placed the primary charges at the base of the structure so that the weight of the building causes the building to effectively implode due to gravity and the force of the impact upon the lower sections. I am unaware of any controlled demolition where the primary charges were set at the top of the building where buildings 1 & 2 failed. Apparently this never before used technique was necessitated by the need to make it look like the airplanes did it. How the planners knew exactly where these fast moving jets would impact (15 stories down? 20 stories down? etc) is a mystery. Also, there has never been a controlled demolition following an airplane strike. One would think that the force of the impact would dislodge many of the explosive charges and disrupt the wiring. And then there is the fire. Both towers had fires of intense heat estimated at up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. What type of explosive could be exposed to that and not pre-detonate? Yes, I know that C4 is very stable, but not when armed with detonators as it surely would have been. And building 7? A raging fire for 4 hours with no uncontrolled explosions, then a controlled detonation after that? A controlled detonation following an airplane strike and intense fire is a virtual impossibility. And why wait so long after the strike to demolish the buildings (75 minutes for the first building struck, 45 minutes for the second building struck)? And why demolish the second building struck before the first one struck? A weird sense of humor perhaps? And on and on it goes. People, including a relative small percent of technical people, forcing the facts to fit their bias.

A good example of this forcing the facts to make a Creationist argument is an article that several Truther technical people got published in Europhysics news. "...neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise...." (Europhysics News)

An obvious response to the above is "so what?" The collapse of the Twin Towers was a unique event. Neither before nor since 911 have large airplanes been used to cause severe structural damage to high rise buildings followed by intense fire. A thorough investigation of the event followed involving simulations. There is no logical reason to doubt that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the airplane strikes and fire, or that building 7 didn't ultimately collapse after a 4 hour fire. The circumstances were such that a controlled demolition was virtually impossible. There never has been a controlled demolition following an airplane strike. There never has been a controlled demolition following an intense and lengthy fire. The Bush administration (the obvious culprit in a controlled demolition) had no need for a controlled demolition, effectively destroying the Twin Towers would have easily sufficed to qualify as a new Pearl Harbor. A controlled demolition in building 7 was not a realistic option and would serve to jeopardize the entire operation. Using planes to effectively destroy buildings 1 & 2 was a relatively simple operation. A controlled demolition on all three buildings would have been a horrendously complex conspiracy involving hundreds of people and thousands of man hours over a considerable time overseen by a small group of people technically qualified to perform controlled demolitions on all three buildings even without airplane strikes and intense fires.

In spite of the irrationality of the controlled demolition scenario, the 911 Truth movement has been able to attract a surprizingly large number of otherwise rational people who go along with this nonsense. I suspect that the deep state indirectly supports the 911 Truth movement, just as I suspect that the deep state supports Lyndon LaRouche. If something is impossible to hide, simply discredit the critics. The problem for me is when someone like the Saker takes up this nonsense. In so doing, he has gone a long way in destroying his credibility with me. In view of his background, he, more than most, should realize the impossibility of a controlled demolition of a building on fire for four hours. Surely he is aware that high explosives armed with detonators would pre-detonate in short order? So how can I trust his analysis on other matters? Or is he of the same ilk as David Ray Griffin?