the most fake claims for WTC controlled demolition
- 9/11 bait: "Pull It" and Rumsfeld's "missile" statement
A few of the fallacies:
The "Scholars for
Truth" group promotes
nonsensical claims of complicity (including "mini-nukes" destroyed
the towers), avoids linking to the best analyses and investigations, and
has no academic requirements for participation (it is not a group of "Scholars").
Update, December 2006: James Fetzer, who runs the "Scholars" website, expelled Jones and continues to post hoaxes to that website.
"Pull It" quote ("bait" left by Larry Silverstein to distract the skeptics)
North Tower fires had gone out (from Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds) - numerous photos refute this
(in reality, the towers fell onto WTC 6)
bombs in the basement:
In Plane Site and others claim that a giant explosion cloud at the base of the towers brought them down (In Plane Site, among others) This is the exact opposite method of controlled demolition (a large detonation at the base would have risked toppling the towers). In Plane Site used images of the South Tower dust cloud to promote the idea there was a giant explosion - which shows either incompetence or duplicity on the part of the film makers.
explosion in the basement of the towers (if true, probably just jet fuel that cascaded down the elevator shaft) - peddled by William Rodriguez, whose "RICO" lawsuit against Bush contains significant disinformation (missiles supposedly fired at WTC and Pentagon) - controlled demolitions of skyscrapers do NOT involve detonations in the basements an hour before collapse
the towers were destroyed with nuclear explosives (John Kaminski, Jimmy Walter, "9/11 Eyewitness," Scholars for 9/11 Truth) - probably the most ridiculous nonsense that anyone has offered
Physics refutes nuke nonsense
from John McPhee, "The Curve of Binding Energy," Ballantine
The book is an extended interview with Ted Taylor, a nuclear weapons designer turned peace activist. None of the features described in this hypothetical scenario are actually what happened to the WTC on 9/11:
"The rule of thumb for a nuclear explosion is that it can vaporize its yield in mass," he [Taylor] said. "This building is about thirteen hundred feet high by two hundred by two hundred. That's about fifty million cubic feet. Its average density is probably two pounds per cubic foot. That's a hundred million pounds, or fifty kilotons -- give or take a factor of two. Any explosion inside with a yield of, let's say, a kiloton would vaporize everything for a few tens of feet. Everything would be destroyed out to and including the wall. If the building were solid rock and the bomb were buried in it, the crater radius would be a hundred and fifty feet. The building's radius is a hundred feet, and it is only a core and a shell. It would fall, I guess, in the direction in which the bomb were off-centered. It's a little like cutting a big tree.
"... Thermal radiation tends to flow in directions where it is unimpeded," Taylor was saying. "It actually flows. It goes around corners. It could go the length of the building before being converted into shock. It doesn't get converted into shock before it picks up mass. ....
"An explosion in this building would not be completely effective unless it were placed in the core. Something exploded out here in the office area would be just like a giant shrapnel bomb. You'd get a real sheet of radiation pouring out the windows. You'd have half a fireball, and it would crater down. What would remain would probably be a stump. It's hard to say which way the building would fall. It would be caving one way, but it would be pushed the other way by the explosion." ... "Through free air, a kiloton bomb will send a lethal dose of immediate radiation up to half a mile," he went on. "Or, up to a thousand feet, you'd be killed by projectiles. Anyone in an office facing the Trade Center would die. People in that building over there would get it in every conceivable way. Gamma rays would get them first. Next comes visible light. Next the neutrons. Then the air shock. Then missiles. Unvaporized concrete would go out of here at the speed of a rifle shot. A steel-and-concrete missile flux would go out one mile and would include in all maybe a tenth the weight of the building, about five thousand tons." He pressed up against the glass and looked far down to the plaza between the towers. "If you exploded a bomb down there, you could conceivably wind up with the World Trade Center's two buildings leaning against each other and still standing," he said. "There's no question at all that if someone were to place a half-kiloton bomb on the front steps where we came in, the building would fall into the river."
pp. 164 - 166
websites that finish off the "mini nuke" nonsense:
A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.
In September, 2006, James Fetzer posted a series of articles on ScholarsFor911Truth.org suggesting that 'mini-nukes' were used to destroy the Twin Towers. Fetzer pitted Dr. Steven Jones' one article debunking the idea against six, implying that the idea had merit.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Back to the Wilderness
These days in the 9/11 Truth demimonde, early and clear-eyed researchers like [Peter Dale] Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed are rarely heard over the likes of Morgan Reynolds and the thermate/"mini-nukes" debate, and rather than contributions such as the discovery of 9/11's concurrent war games we have "scholars for 9/11 Truth" tearing one another new impact holes over speculation on space-based beam weaponry. If you think that indicates progress, and that we're closer to 9/11 justice than we were three years ago, I don't know what more to tell you.
|Bush official promoting demolition hoaxes|
From: jim hoffman
Date: October 17, 2005
Subject: New Critique on Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse
I'm announcing a new critique of the not-so-new article in the Boulder Weekly featuring Morgan Reynolds hyping his no-jetliner theories:
"Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse"
by Jim Hoffman and Gregg Roberts
I gave Reynolds the benefit of the doubt when I first critiqued his article: "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?," about 40% of which pushes the no-jetliners poison pill, sandwiched in-beteen a reasonably good summary of the case for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7:
911Research even published Part I of Reynolds' response to my critique:
But the promised Part II has not been forthcomming. Instead, Reynolds has become more strident in pushing the no-jetliner nonsense, on the Coast-to-Coast radio broadcast and in the recent Boulder Weekly article.
Here are the results I get by searching Google for sites linking to:
( the URL for "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" )
All of these sites uncritically link to the article, thus serving its trojan horse agenda.
|Building 6 hoax|
World Trade Center Building 6 demolition hoax debunked at:
Note, the "guardian" site debunked this myth in 2002. All of these pages have been prominent for a long time. Anyone who continues to promote the Building 6 explosion myth is at best a sloppy researcher.
|fires had NOT died out before collapse|
ERROR: 'Both Towers' Fires Diminished Before Their Collapses'
The often-repeated assertion that the fires in the Twin Towers were becoming less severe prior to the collapses is only partially true: The evidence shows that the South Tower's fires remained confined to a limited area and were dwindling before its collapse; but it shows that the North Tower's fires became more severe after the collapse of the South Tower.
|WTC powerdown claims|
UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'
Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.
- It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. This would create a profound disruption of business for dozens of companies, and would be noticed by thousands of people. Thousands of e-mails would have been broadcast and a great deal of work would have been done by scores of employees to prepare for the outage.
- It makes less sense that they would take such a drastic action but only for one half of one tower. Why was the disruption only necessary for the upper floors of the South Tower, or how would similar power-downs of the other sections have gone unnoticed?
- Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.
- Contrary to the e-mail's assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. If power to the security systems were interrupted, many doors would remain unopenable except by key.
|basement bomb hoax|
Basement Bomb Theories Lack Support
The idea that powerful explosions in the Towers' basements initiated the collapses or were instrumental is not supported by credible evidence, but is contradicted by several bodies of evidence.
- The conclusions that seismic spikes preceded the collapses is based on flawed analysis.
- The body photographic and video evidence contradicts the idea that large explosions in the Towers' bases precipitated the collapses.
- The testimonies of emergency responders do not include descriptions of large-scale explosions low in the towers preceding the descent of the dust clouds.
- The survival of 18 people in the rubble near the center of the North Tower contradicts theories that basement bombs destroyed the bases of the core columns.