9/11 Twenty-Two Years Later

Top o' the Stack.

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'? I take no position on this question. Here is a review of David Ray Griffin's latest.

To say it again: linkage does not constitute endorsement in whole or in part.

UPDATE

New York Tony writes:

Since I was a kid, I would annually see the demolition of public housing, buildings imploding and pancaking into their footprint in the last half-minute of a local news broadcast. So had millions of others. But in a macabre illustration of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, nearly everyone, including me, fell for it on 9/11: the Towers fell after the planes hit, therefore they fell because they hit, imploding and pancaking into their footprint, so geometrically conveniently.  And Tower 7 wasn't hit at all. (In Iran, a jet slammed into a smaller building which burned for three days but didn't collapse.) It was a controlled demolition (see videos here), so the only question, which I remember posing to you then as I do now, is who strategically placed and who detonated the explosives? And why did we not instinctively connect what we saw with what we remembered and so easily accept the official narrative? Someone did, even if we can't agree on who. 

If two different spatiotemporally contiguous events, E1 and E2, occur with E1 temporally prior to E2, one cannot validly infer that E1 caused E2. To think otherwise would be to commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There has to be more to causation than spatiotemporal contiguity and temporal succession. To show that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' however, one has to do a lot more than avoid the fallacy in question. One has to work out the details of a plausible account of who placed the explosives without being detected and who detonated them, and why.

 

I suspect Tony will agree with what I just wrote. Twenty-two years ago I looked into the matter and was unconvinced of the 'truther' allegations. To mollify Tony, I will now make a major concession. We now have a mountain of evidence that Deep State apparatchiki are hard at work in nefarious and lawless ways destroying our republic and "fundamentally transforming" -- you know the origin of the phrase -- the U.S. into something like the S. U.  These undeniable facts make me more receptive to the 'truther' allegations.

 

The hard Left's takeover of the Democrat Party also explains why the events of 9/11/01 were not taken as an impetus to bring the southern border under control. Uncontrolled illegal immigration without assimilation is a most effective means of bringing a democratic, constitutionally-based republic to its knees. 

 

Orwellian globalists love the word 'democracy,' but please note that what they mean by it is oligarchy. As I have said more than once, the subversion of language is the mother of all subversion.

 

UPDATE 9/13)

 

1) Rod Dreher asks: Was 9/11 a metaphysical event?

I have never gone in my interpretation beyond the conclusion that in some real sense, God had removed His hand from America, and had given us over to our sins, as He had done in ages past with Biblical Israel. Of course I have no proof of that, but if you look at the trajectory of our country since that terrible September day, you will find ample evidence to confirm the thesis.

2) Hugh Murray on 9/11.

 

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

I'm an architect. I know how buildings work. 9-11 was not an inside job.

[BV]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[Joe Odegaard]

Here is a little more detail on the WTC twin Towers and WTC7 collapses:

Preparations for controlled demolition are labor intensive, and involve removal of interior finishes and / or working very visibly on the outside of the building. They usually involve noisy, dusty drilling and the running of visible wires. There is NO WAY to prepare a building for implosion without MANY PEOPLE noticing.

The initial airplane impacts on the twin towers took out some columns initially, but not enough to cause collapse, because the loads which had been carried by the initially severed columns were able to get around the gaps because the remaining grid of columns and floors acted for a time as a “Vierendeel Truss.” (https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1936/193660402011/html/)

The Vierendeel structure was further compromised as the fires - jet fuel AND building contents - began to weaken the light open bar joists that held up the concrete-filled floor pans. These lighter elements do not typically have extensive fireproofing, though main steel beams and columns will typically have spray-on insulative fireproofing.

As these floor pan structures progressively failed, the outer columns lost the lateral restraint that their connections to the floors provided. Thus the columns became twice, then three, and maybe for times skinnier from a structural standpoint, and so the columns buckled out of the way of their loads according to Euler’s formula. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/critical-buckling-load#:~:text=The%20Euler%20formula%20is%20P,the%20length%20of%20the%20column.

5.The columns did NOT have to “melt.” Steel is ductile even at normal room temperature.

6. When enough columns buckled, the floors above started to fall, and these became an immense, consolidated weight which smashed its way straight down (gravity pulls straight down), demolishing everything below. When the upper structure eventually slammed to a stop on the debris pile, its own momentum wrecked it too.

Any lateral movement of the substance of the upper parts of the towers would have soon been overwhelmed by the acceleration of gravity & the path of the stuff would quickly become nearly vertical. And in fact the piles were slightly outside of the building footprint anyway.

WTC7 had un-fought fires in its lower level for 7 hours and that is what collapsed WTC7. Fire sprinklers weren’t working in WTC7 because of the damage to the water mains caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers. Heat from the fires expanded steel parts and shoved them off their supports and out of alignment. Read about it here: https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation.

I would direct anyone who wants further information to read the issues of Engineering News-Record magazine for the month of September 2001.

Joe Odegaard, Architect.

[Anthony Flood]

Bill, you suspect rightly, I’m pleased to note, although I wasn't aware I was in need of appeasement. (:^D)

It does take more than alertness to a formal fallacy to confirm the late David Ray Griffin’s “inside job” theory of 9/11, a theory I didn’t assert. (Thank you for the link to Hagen’s review of Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration, a book I wasn’t even aware of.) To survive attempts at falsification, that theory requires more than realizing that controlled demolition almost certainly occurred, but I no longer have the interest to confirm that he met those requirements. I once did have that interest and concluded, at least provisionally, that he did meet them, as his portal on my old site attests: http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin.htm

My narrow point is that the affirmation of controlled demolition irresistibly invites inquiry to the best explanation of what it presupposes (e.g., device-rigging experts with access to the buildings, etc.). If the best explanation be a conspiracy theory, make the most of it. (See my 2020 post on the topic: https://anthonygflood.com/2020/08/conspiracy-theorist-our-eras-red-baiter-complementary-warnings-from-diana-west-and-murray-rothbard/)

Joe Odegaard’s comment is a series of fallacies (appeal to authority, ignoratio elenchi, and assertion) and merits no answer.

[Joe Odegaard]

It is a violation of Occam's Razor to assert controlled demolition for the building collapses of September 11, 2001; but, apparently, for some people, reality isn't good enough.

Joe Odegaard, Architect.

[Anthony G Flood]

Odegaard’s later comment deserves a response from those qualified to give one, and they'll be found among the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: https://www.ae911truth.org/ They're in the business of addressing defenses of the official "don't believe your lying eyes" interpretation of what was ostensibly controlled demolition (which interpretation has all the credibility of the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet theory of JFK's assassination). That would include defenses found in Engineering News-Record magazine. Of course, if one googles Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, one is immediately told what to think about them by Wikipedia, ADL, and other gatekeepers of the hive mind.

[DaveB]

"Cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it." - Wiki

Example: This morning I read Bill's excellent column, and Tony's excellent comments, concerning 9/11/01. (Other reading I've done has also shown a rift in the interpretation of the 9/11 event).
After reading Bill, I checked my email and saw that a new book is being published 'Bridging the Testaments: The History and Theology of God's People in the Second Temple Period' ($49.00!!), a study of the history and meaning of the inter-testamental period.
Cotemporally I am also reading 'The Drama of Scripture' by Bartholomew and Goheen.
Cognitive dissonance! In the same morning: the remembrance of a horrific event that happened as we prepared for work on 9/11/01 - which event I'm told goes even deeper than what we originally thought; a book that purports to show the history that prepared the world for the Messiah; and a book to help us in "Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story."
Navigating these and many other narratives can be a challenge.

[Joe Odegaard]

United flight 93, which Todd Beamer and friends brought down short of target, was heading to either the US Capitol or the White House. "Truthers" ought to be able to find the explosives and hidden wires in those buildings too. But they can't. Get a grip, people.

[Anthony G Flood]

The Architect doesn't show how the principle he invokes covers the event in question. He simply invokes it, snarkily. Respect for Occams's Razor inclines one to prefer controlled demolition as an explanation of what we observed to a complex conjecture whose only purpose is to rescue the official narrative. "There is NO WAY to prepare a building for implosion without MANY PEOPLE noticing" is a gratuitous assertion. The answer to NO WAY is, of course, WAY: https://911truth.org/demolition-access-wtc-towers-part-two-security/

[Anthony G Flood]

Over the course of his long life Hugh Murray has done more than write letters to the editor: http://anthonyflood.com/murray.htm

[oz the ostrich]

" "There is NO WAY to prepare a building for implosion without MANY PEOPLE noticing" is a gratuitous assertion."

It's not a gratuitous assertion. Joe gave convincing justification for it. "Preparations for controlled demolition are labour intensive, and involve removal of interior finishes and / or working very visibly on the outside of the building".

Moreover the collapses occurred at the point of impact of the planes, not from ground level.