This is an excerpt from a show airing tomorrow night (8/31) on the National Geographic channel that examines the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I haven’t heard of a single conspiracy theory that I think warrants anything other than mockery. But this video/modeling doesn’t “prove” anything except that you can model whatever you want to.
Why didn’t they add secretly placed explosives on the interior of the building??? If they had included that in the “model” would that have been “proof” OF the conspiracy??
How about if they had monkey riding pink unicorns in the hallways? What would that prove?
Really!!
bobbo,
“If they had included [explosives] in the “model” would that have been “proof” OF the conspiracy??”
No, Because when they ran the simulations, it showed the same results as the physical evidence showed. Adding explosives would have shown a much bigger effect than occurred.
#2–Uncle Dave==I thought about that and I “hope” you are correct. However==that would certainly rest on the size and location of those explosives which was not specified. They have to be “modeled.”
My point, that I think you might agree with once we wrangle thru the details, is just about universal: models don’t prove anything.
In fact, when I said I mock all conspiracy theories ((implicit support for your own position, at least on this thead)), I might on further thought have to actually ADD one and only conspiracy====and its based on modeling.
That would be MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. But thats another issue.
What are the limits of modeling? When can it be said to “rule out” other theories vs affirmatively demonstrating proof of one theory?
Modeling is not proof.
A much more accurate, but not sensational finding would be “we ran 18 different simulations with this model and together they showed that the building could have come down the way it did by the impact of the plane and gas acting alone. This does not mean that other contributers may not have been also involved, but they were not necessary under most reasonable assumptions.”
Thats not proof.
#1,
Wow I have heard one conspiracy theory that I continue to accept. Nothing has come close to disproving proving it, in fact all the evidence supports it. Some one in the administration decided to let one attack through in order to get support for the Iraq war. Remember, the evidence more closely supports my conspiracy theory than the official conspiracy theory, which seems to be the administration was a bunch of incompotent boobs, the “we never could have imagined” theory.
Would have like their research to cover Tower 7 as well. Most of what we got from Pres.Bush Administration were lies (wmd’s etc).
#4–Postman==you have me there. OK, I do have dozens of conspiracy theories based on government stupidity and incompetency. But if 911 Conspiracy was true, that would require a stupid goverment that was very competent. Just doesn’t fit our mutual definition.
Isolated incidents of stupidity and incompetency does not make a conspiracy. Several such incidents “pre-planned” leading to a specific goal need to be shown. Even with this expanded definition, still quite rare. But I’m open to starting a list.
1. BushCo was doing a great job in protecting the country. No one could have seen a jet flying into tall buildings.
2. Next????
#3: You can rule out other theories when starting with unbiased data on the plane and buildings, then compare the model’s results with the physical results and they match. Without tweaking the model which is where issues can arise. Assuming these researchers aren’t ‘in’ on the conspiracy, I prefer Occam’s Razor.
#4: How the planes got to their destinations is a completely different, unrelated issue than how the planes and buildings interacted.
#7–Uncle Dave==not to belabor the point, but I do think it is important. Yes, “if the model starts with unbiased data.” How do you do that? The only way I know is to create your model, and then test it. Not the other way around.
I actually came back to post: an accurate model could provide some usefull information:
1. could the airplane have hit in a way that would NOT have brought down the building?
2. How much fuel would have to be on board in order for the collapse to have happened? ie==how many gallons was the tipping point?
3. How much insulation would have been needed to prevent the collapse, or could any amount have worked given how much would be blown off?
4. Would a different floor suspension design have prevented the collapse?
I wonder. What would the Perdue Team have done if their first model showed the Tower would have stayed up? Would they have reported that, or tweaked the model until it performed in a like manner to what was observed?
I don’t need a model to prove what I saw with my own eyes and with what only makes good common sense. My common sense is not challenged by a fanciful conspiracy theory. Perhaps, at the most, a model from a reputable source, that shows a result consistent with what I already believe to be true is “comforting.” But I feel I’m being pimped all the same.
#6,
Ok, I take it back. If we ignore the results of the 911 commission, which implied that the administration knew about the attack and did nothing about it, and look at later actions (or rather inactions) of that administration, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the administration was paralyzed by a trifecta of stupidity, incompetence, and lack of imagination on virtually every issue and world event from the captured spy plane right after that guy took office up to the total collapse of our financial system.
Given his near perfect record of total failure on virtually every issue (except for the national do not call registry) I think you can see how it is easy to mistake incompetence for malevolence.
#10–Postman==What is your full working Resolution? State it in as much detail as you wish.
My own definition of the 911 Conspiracy as only hinted at above is that the Bush Admin had planted explosives in the World Towers and hired Saudi’s to fly airplanes into them. As much a criminal outfit as I think BushCo continues to be, I reject that theory.
If your 911 Conspiracy Theory is that BushCo Ignored early warnings (I agree) and therefore “caused” everything else that happened, well, thats just not my understanding of any version of the 911 Conspiracy==so you gotta spell it out. The failures of ATC and Air Defense that day are just standard bureaucracies not reacting well to new and unique situations. There would be proof of conspiracy in my book had they reacted competently. By the way, reluctantly, I have to agree with Condi Rice==I don’t think the report Bush Got regarding Obama Plans to Attack within the USA was “actionable.” Thats a bit inconsistent with also thinking the FBI should have been able to connect the dots with the Saudi’s taking flight lessons and not learning to land reports they had in their system. Most data bases, especially government ones, are not meant to interact with one another. Such functionality leads to too many other conspiracy theories.
BUT really==please define what you think people should realize.
I never believed in any conspiracy theory. They were all rather hairball anyway.
The real takeaway is the not conspiracy theory itself but rather the distrust Americans had and still have of the Cheney presidency.
#3 & #6…. there is a corollary of Occam’s razor that I think explains the government prediction/prevention of 9/11 perfectly.
“Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence”.
Ron Larson: incompetence of genius?
Ron Larson: incompetence or genius?
#11,
You and I basically agree… But for one thing. On that August 6th memo… I think (but can’t ever prove) it was ignored deliberately as the attack would have (and did) supported their agenda to go to war with Iraq.
That is to say, I am directly accusing the former president of the united states of the crime of capital treason.
I think the only “failure of imagination” was the extent of damage that the attack would cause.
But otherwise I think the president was criminally willfull is letting the attack happen.
But other than that, you and I agree.
#15–Postman==so you are changing arguments, right? No long a conspiracy, just a single act of capital treason? What is your evidence that it was deliberately ignored rather than judged not to be actionable? Could reasonable people differ on that determination?
#13–Ron==a good pithy touchstone. Although, I have to comment that “ignorance and incompetency” is also the main defense criminal conspirators use, so Occam’s Razor has to be read very carefully. Absent reasonable evidence of intentional activities—–
#15,
We can use all the same facts and come to different conclusions. The only thing that matters is ~why~ they took no action. If they took no action because they wanted to further their agenda in the Iraq war, then it was treason. If they took no action because it is as you say, incompotence (even though the US had been attacked by Al’Queda just 9 months prior to the August 6th memo) then I guess it was not a crime. Unless we get the opportunity to water board the accused we will never know the truth of their intent.
This dosen’t prove anything except what we already know as a fact- A plane flew into the building!
I’m still not buying that once the building started falling, it dropped at the rate of gravity…so all the steel support beams melted at the exact same second to bring the building down in a uniform fashion? And none of the lower floors slowed the fall of the upper ones?!
By that logic, next time we need to bring down a building for demolition, lets just set it on fire with jet fuel, it should come down all at once after an hour or so!
All I know is that if you work for the Government, you are not allowed to talk about 911 at all, and that right there tells you something stinks…
“Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence”.
I completely agree it is a simple matter of (pseudo) logic.
Clearly Osama wasn’t trying to attack those buildings. He was probably trying to send the passengers for a surprise day trip to Disneyland but through huge systematic incompetence, which he subsequently covered up at every turn to hide the fact, his organisation happened to slip through the most advanced air defence system in the world destroy eight buildings in New York and hit the most heavily defended building in the world bringing the wrath of the US Government down on him and large parts of the Muslim world (and American citizens) through incompetence. It is the most logical explanation, I mean c’mon the man can’t even say ‘nuclear’ properly.
New cliché; If something is a conspiracy it is and if it is not, consider the possibility of incompetence and/or competence on the part of the other party (not quite as simplistic or reassuring I am afraid but life is like that).
Call me crazy but if the government was organized enough to plan to destroy the world trade center they would have planed to destroy it in such a way as to make it look like we expect a collapsing building to look like. Heck, if they were organized enough to plan this great conspiracy they could have also included “terrorists” planting explosives in the building too.
#17–Postman==sorry to bug you but you are changing your argument AGAIN. Do you THINK BusCo deliberately did nothing in face of actionable intelligence in order to justify an attack on Iraq, or do you merely think its possible given you don’t actually know anything at all?
Have you ever read the full report? What action would you have taken based on what was in the report? Would YOU have been guilty of Capital Treason as well?
This is backwards “science.” Making a sim prove a conclusion does not prove the lie that jet fuel, which burns at no more than 800 degrees F, can melt steel, with a melting point of nearly 3000 degrees F., nor could it weaken the inner structure of the building, and take it down at free fall speed.
More info.
#22,
Nope, Ive used the same argument all the way through. The administration let one through.
This is silly science created to peddle soap as we used to say in the old days. All smoke and mirrors to draw the attention away from the real conspiracy. That being, it could have been avoided if Cheney and his stooge Bush hadn’t needed an excuse to start a war.
OK, HOW is this going to convince the irrational conspiracy fools any more than all the other evidence given?
Face it these people will be the same kind that bury their heads in the sand like the people that have no clue WHY some Arabs hate the US. Why the Soviets (and some Russians still) mistrusted the US and of course the American dimwits that still believe in mythology like Plymouth Rock, The Ride of Paul Revere, Christopher Columbus, Manifest Destiny and The Pilgrims.
Cursor_
Vid is gone…
#22,
Also to answer your other questions… Yes I am a history buff, I listened to the entire unabridged 911 commission report in books on tape format. I also read every credible accounting of 9/11. Perhaps the most notable being Dick Clarks “Against all enemies” where he stops just shy of making the exact same accusation than I am.
The fact of the matter is, Bush let one through. The only opinion that is required is why he let it through. Did he let it through because of incompetence or malevolence.
Given his conduct through the years, I say malevolence.
#23
http://popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
“Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.”
” He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. “
Somebody put bombs inside, and then, after crashing two jet airliners into the building, detonated the bombs. That makes perfect sense.
#28–Postman==its good to have a few hobby subjects like this. So, with all that study you can’t determine if it was because of incompetence or malevolence. What does THAT tell you?
Notice the bio’s coming out now. Every little rat revealing the little secrets they knew. Conspiracies, illegal conspiracies, conspiracies against the interests of the USA, tend to fall apart. Even Repuglicans have a sense of honor that some years after services, regrows, spouts, festers, has to be relieved.
No. Rather than default to either incompetence or malevolence, I would default to “they had a different agenda at the time.” They were pushing tax cuts for the rich. Not interested in National Security. Why should they??? We hadn’t been attacked in a long time–long enough for it not to warrant diversion from what they all agreed was number one on the program===destroying the middle/working class.
BushCo got gone what they went to office to get done. Everything else can be explained by “lack of interest.”