Saturday, March 20, 2010

You Say Science, I Say Hogwash

Friends! Fans! Grab a pen and start writing your mother! Carve it into your neighbors' palms! Go tell it on the mountain! This will be my last 9/11 post! Well, at least for now. I'm sure after the last post, the few of you who read this probably think I've gone batty, that I might have the deep down crazies. And you might be correct. But this whole situation is crazy, so I'm right where I belong, I suppose.

Today, I finished David Ray Griffin's book, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7: How the report was unscientific and false. The title doesn't lead much to the imagination. And just like the title, the entire book spells out each little detail to the point that it is cumbersome and nearly redundant. Nevertheless, Griffin has once again proven that the official story of what happened on September 11 is riddled with holes, mysteries, and all sorts of whodunnits. And once again he made a believer out of me.

I will give you the basic rundown of what the reports say. There is a lot of science mumbo jumbo, so I'll give you the easy History Books version. The official story of what happened to World Trade Center Building 7 is that debris from the collapse of the North Tower damaged WTC7 and started fires. These fires eventually got so hot that they caused thermal expansion within the steel beams and girders. The girders, because of the expansion, busted through the shear studs that held them in place and began to collapse and fail. A few central columns were then left without any support and they, too, collapsed. The video footage of WTC7 collapsing was nothing but a hollow shell of a building, as all of its inside had fallen apart. That is the explanation of the global collapse of WTC7.

Now, I am going to point out a few things that Griffin spends way too much time on. Should we do bullets? Yeah! Let's do bullets!

  • Fires were reported way before 10:28, when the North Tower collapsed. Remember Barry Jennings? He reported explosions and fires before 9:30. Michael Hess as well originally reported fires, though later he changed his story.
  • The fires that were started were extremely manageable. About six floors were reported to be in flames. These floors, however, were, for the most part, offices. The amount of combustible material was thin. Many experts agree that there was combustible material present, but enough to keep a fire in one place for about 40 mins. NIST reported some fires sitting on certain floors for nearly seven hours.
  • The combustible material available would have not been able to sustain a fire for a very long length of time. Not only that, but the temperatures it could have actually got to is nowhere near hot enough to create the kind of thermal expansion in steel.
  • The steel beams were reinforced in concrete. What normally happens in buildings is that when the steel is heated, so is the concrete. That way, they both expand with the heat and the beams and girders don't fail. In NIST's computer simulations, only the steel was heated and the concrete was completely ignored.
  • A few scientists looked at the logistics of that kind of thermal expansion. It takes an awful lot of heat spread out across the surface of a steal beam in order for it to expand even a small amount. NIST reported that there were isolated fires that each stayed on its floor, and only a couple moved across the entire floor. With about 40 minutes of combustible material in each location, there is actually no way for the fire to heat the entire beams or girders simultaneously and at the same rate in order for it to expand enough to break the shear studs.
  • NIST originally said that the girders didn't have shear studs. That was proven false. There were in fact shear studs. NIST admitted that they fabricated it.
  • All of NIST's research was done through computer simulation. Nothing was done with hard evidence with the steel or any piece of that actual building. NIST, in their report, admitted that they not only ignored the more likely scenarios and chose the less likely that fit their hypotheses, but also admitted that they embellished the heat of the fires, the length of the fires, and the amount of combustible material.
  • It is completely implausible for a building to collapse in a near free fall without the use of explosives. NIST's explanation that the columns fell and what we saw collapse was the empty shell of the WTC7. In order for that to happen, in order for the building to collapse that quickly without resistance, every column and every beam would have had to fail in unison. And remember, NIST said that there were fires on about six floors (8-14). How in God's green earth could fires in the lower middle of a building create enough heat across the entire building for each column and beam to fail in unison? It doesn't make sense. At all. NIST actually said in its report that what happened was "a miracle." You are scientists, you intergalactic ninnies! You aren't supposed to believe in miracles!

There you have the short version. Also, the term "intergalactic ninnies" is a name my cousin Josh used to call me when we were kids. It is no less fitting in this circumstance.

Now, one important question kept popping up when I would bore people to death with my knowledge of WTC7. Why? Why take out building 7? It was a good question that Griffin never answered directly. What was so important inside this building that was actually further away from the towers than some other buildings that needed destroyed? I emailed David Ray Griffin's webmaster, Edward Rynearson, and asked him this exact question. And though he isn't the friendliest pen pal, Mr. Rynearson did answer my question. He wrote:

WTC7 may have contained the control mechanisms for the attack. They may have used microwave beams like they use at airports to guide the planes in. Also, the SEC was storing evidence against energy companies involved in fleecing California consumers during the blackouts. This evidence was destroyed. CIA had offices in this building.

We really need a real investigation to determine exactly what happened.

Ed
Whoa, mama! Thanks for opening up a whole new can of worms, Ed!

The SEC aside, just take a look at the information that was available. There were in fact reports that people knew that WTC7 was going to come down before it actually did, when never in history had a fire brought down a steel structure of that size. There were reports of explosions. The building came down in what looked like a controlled demolition. The reports that NIST gave are improbable, implausible, and smeared with the nasty stench of scientific fraud. Griffin provides an enormous amount of evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC7. At the very least, NIST should have investigated it. At least give it some thought. Instead, their reply was that the use of explosives seemed so ridiculous that they didn't even bother considering it as an option.

My question now, as I continue my research and reading, is what if NIST did believe in the theory that explosives were used. If they created a report that supported this, what holes would be evident from that side? Would there be as many pieces missing from that story as there is in the official one? I am certain that some would show. However, from a scientific approach, the rule is to follow the most likely hypothesis and to never ignore evidence, no matter how weak it might be. You have to follow up on the evidence. You have to answer the questions of professional people in the fields of engineering, fire control, and demolition. You have to present your work to your peers for analysis. NIST did not do any of these things. That is why a new investigation, one that wouldn't be pressured by the Bush (or Obama) administration to force the story to fit an outcome.

And I intend to help. It looks bleak, yes. The masterminds are all but off the hook. Thousands of lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if we can help bring the truth to light, we can maybe save a few thousand more. We can bring our soldiers back to their families. We can unmask the stereotypes we've given Muslims. We can punish the ones who are actually responsible. We can tear off Dick Cheney's nut sack and staple it to his forehead.

These things will likely never happen. So why pursue it? I guess I like the mystery. I like absurdity of it all. I believe too much in the truth.

1 comment:

S. Kahlon said...

I came across your blog through a dear Katherine DeVoursney's facebook. And I must say: I agree, I agree, I agree. Something about 9/11 just doesn't add up.

I've got a nice khaki trench coat on, and I have just pulled out a magnifying glass and pipe. If you're interested, we could walk around DC in the late hours of the night and crack this mystery once and for all. If you have one available, bring a hound dog. It'll complete my look perfectly.