The 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement It Is

One of the Troofers posts this video with the note that "The 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement cutting edge: Announcing the truth to the officialdom. The politicians."



As you can see, it's the usual fruitcake stuff. Note that when Gage gets off onto the other "evidence" presented, he actually mentions the put options. Seriously.

In the comments at the post on Flogger, someone asks about the new term, 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement. The poster replies:

Now, the 2009 Nanothermite report of Dr. Jones and Prof. Harrit proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 is a controlled demolition, therefore an inside job. The invaluable scientific research of Richard Gage and his foundation only confirms this. And this is also being presented in their public education campaigns and their attempts to initiate a new investigation.

So, 9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement is a group of people who understand that 9/11 is a controlled demolition. The intellectual potential required for making this deliberate conclusion, in my view, must be around IQ70 and higher.

About half of the Troofers qualify under that standard.

You Can't Go Back, Jon

There's a long and interesting argument over at Truth Action about whether Controlled Demolition arguments are hurting or helping the 9-11 "Truth" Movement. In general the Truth Action folks try to avoid "evidence-based" arguments in favor of "warnings" and "the families' questions" and "air quality" arguments. However, no less an eminence than David Ray Griffin has recently pronounced LIHOP dead and only MIHOP as acceptable, now that the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust has been "proven".

Jon Gold writes:

It's not a prerequisite. It would be nice if the movement came to terms with the fact that focusing solely on Controlled Demolition, when the masses have been saturated with hit pieces, documentaries, and media pundits saying how crazy the idea is, is not the best course of action in my opinion. It is STILL the #1 roadblock I come across with people. "You're one of those nuts who think there were explosives in the buildings." Just happened to me yesterday.

I have some sympathy for Jon on this point, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The fact is that almost all "Truthers" push controlled demolition as a major part of their argument. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have no other focus. If you read that post, you'll see that even the people who are defending Jon on this point almost all agree with the CD hypothesis.

Victronix:

To me, the movement seems to be growing right now because of the scientists, engineers, etc who are behind demolition and have risked or lost their careers to do so.

Arcterus:

I endorse controlled demolition but I do find it best to, at the least, refrain from mentioning it until I've hit the more solid and documented evidence.

Zombie Bill Hicks:

Ok, be careful there, because I've never spoken out against CD or said that I don't believe in it. Ever.

I'm particularly amused by the CD true believers, like Pavlovian Dogcatcher, who thinks it's truth inviolate:

You don't need anything but a high school level understanding of Newtonian physics to accept the fact that the official story in regard to the buildings coming down contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics. You really don't even need any formal understanding of the physics, particularly in the case of WTC7, just a reasonable grasp on reality.

So denying that "Truth" is synonymous with Controlled Demolition is a lost cause. It's nutty, but then everything the "Truthers" believe is nutty.

Compelling Evidence of Controlled Demolition

That does it, I'm convinced!

How They Did It

Hat tip to TDMVP at the Orange Mane Forums (free registration required), where a terrific bunch of guys are doing a wonderful job debunking Troofer Mark Gaffney. Thumbs up!

What A Government-Planned Controlled Demolition Looks Like

Hey, even with all the bright people at NASA, they couldn't get this one right.

Hat Tip: Captain Banana at Gaijin-Pot.

The Truth-Seeker

Diane over at NYC Activist continues to impress me with her well-reasoned posts. Check out this one on why the Troofers shouldn't hang their hats on controlled demolition.

For an example of what I mean by overstating the case, a lot of folks have claimed that the sheer speed of collapse inherently violates Newton’s laws.

In fact, the towers did not fall with exactly free-fall acceleration. They fell a little bit slower than that.

The question is whether they fell slower enough to be consistent with an alleged purely “natural” collapse. That’s a quantitative question, not one that can be answered with simple hand-waving.

Zdnenek Bazant and other defenders of the official story have claimed that, once the collapse of either of the Twin Towers got going, the resistance of the columns to being shattered was “negligible” compared to the impact of the top part of the building falling on top of them.

If indeed this claim is true, then what should be the expected collapse time? Using my own oversimplified computer model for WTC 1, assuming a top-down collapse starting at the 95th floor, with totally inelastic collisions and no matter being ejected out of the building, I got 10.5 seconds for the time of descent of the collapse front. Adjusting my model to eject about 70% of the mass of each floor outside the building (probably an unrealistically high estimate), I was able to increase the fall time only to 12 seconds.

So, it seems to me that we can’t prove demolition based on collapse times alone. Based on my own calculations, the fall time might be consistent with the official story, if indeed it’s possible that the resistance of the columns to being shattered could be “negligible” compared to the impact of the top part of the building falling on top of them. Is the latter claim plausible? That too is a quantitative question. It can be answered only by people with an in-depth familiarity with the properties of steel, including how steel deforms.

And she goes on to admit that's not an area in which she has expertise.

Now that strikes me as a truth-seeker. The post is not perfect (she apparently does not know about the photos of WTC 7 which clearly show the building collapsed slightly to the south, not symmetrically by any means). But she's serious about learning, as we can see from here:

For more about this issue, see the September 11 archives page on the Progressive Review site, including a synopsis of a 1976 book by New York City Fire Commissioner John O’Hagan, High Rise Fire and Life Safety, in which O’Hagan worried about the possibility of the Twin Towers collapsing due to fire.

Whether or not these worries were in fact justified on the grounds given, it would seem that the hypothetical possibility of a steel high-rise building collapsing was not totally unheard of among fire fighters or among fire safety experts before 2001.

It will be instructive to see how the "Truth" movement reacts to someone like Diane. Those who are sincerely interested in uncovering what happened that day will embrace her honesty and diligence because if there really is something to be uncovered, (something I admittedly doubt strongly) it will be folks like her who will uncover it. And those who are interested in selling DVDs and books and holding conferences will undoubtedly attack her for failing to toe the "Controlled Demolition is Truth inviolate" line.

Solid Video on the Collapses

More terrific videos from RKOwens4 here. Great job!

Hat tip to emailer Bill. Thanks!

The Cult of 9-11 Denial

Mary MacAlveen is back with another column touching on a topic we've discussed quite often around here:

I often wonder if those who believe in conspiracy theories act in a cult like fashion in which anyone who questions the group as a whole is often shunned. One definition of a cult is a small group of devotees. In challenging the conspiracies that surround 9/11 even though I said I would not address this issue again, I felt the need to. It was in challenging these beliefs I was told by someone that I was in the minority and as stated previously, I asked; who was this person polling.

I will state again that while in the beginning I too believed in these theories, I had to open my mind to other possibilities which brought about the devastation of that day. In speaking to so many people outside the Internet community, I did not find one who did believe that it was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by our government. When I relayed to most of the people I spoke with that certain articles were being circulated around the Internet that Virginia Tech was a perpetrated by the government, it was met with complete outrage and disgust. I stated to those I conversed with, do not shoot the messenger, meaning me. But, they were dumbfounded.

She takes on Loose Change and mentions the Screw Loose Change movie, and Debunking 9-11.

Some excellent discussion of controlled demolition, especially this very telling point:

In this feed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ which was NOT a CDI (Controlled Demolitions Incorporated) project, you will clearly see how the building is first weakened throughout the structure through a series of timed and sequential blasts. But at the bottom is the major blast which takes down the building. Please tell me if any janitor at the bottom of the Twin Towers could live to tell about it. The answer is no. Also take note of the sounds coming from that structure as they are blowing it. In the case of all of the towers, you did not hear anything like that.

Do-Over Boy Looking for Help

Dylan puts out a plea for assistance:

As you may or may not be aware, the legendary Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada will be imploded at approximately 2:30 AM on Tuesday, March 13th. The nearby main road is being closed off between midnight and 4:00 A.M, and all signs nail the demolition at 2:30 AM.

The more steady, descriptive shots the better. We'll do whatever we can to compensate those that shoot footage. If you happen to get some coverage of it, please let us know.

Also, Professor Steven Jones is requesting dust samples. Anyone who can help us both out wiil be thanked extensively. In fact, anyone who helps us will get a special credit in the Final Cut.

Of course, Dylan provided plenty of advance notice on this; he posted his request at 7:30 last night, about 7 hours before the building came down (yep, it's too late to get your name in Dylan's cruddy movie).

Here's a video of what the Stardust looked like about a month ago; amazing how much stuff they cleared out, unlike in that WTC job a few years back. This also reveals how goofy Steven Jones' request for dust is; let me guess, he's going to use this to prove that the sulfur at the WTC didn't come from drywall?



Video of the implosion here.

Update: Here's a YouTube Video:



Leave it to Las Vegas to turn it into a production number. Unfortunately, you can't actually see the building come down; you get a better view here: