Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a

[TRUTH]

The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.

The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:

Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false


The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.

Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that

in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:

1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).

If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.

The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.

1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.

5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.

6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.

7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.

8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.

10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.

12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.

15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.

16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.

17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.

22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

[spiv]

Truth, in my opinion, simple maths does show the official 9/11 story to be a lie. Physics demonstrates it to be a lie. The problem is, most people have not studied physics, and have little or no understanding of it.

There are some simple equations which have long been accepted by physicists, which are taught in schools (at least they were in my time) and these are based upon classic mechanics. One of the fundamental incontrovertible laws of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another, i.e. potential energy (such as the top of a building of a World Trade Centre tower) being converted to kinetic energy (such as that top part of the tower crashing down in a fall to earth).

Imagine someone throwing a stone from the top of one of the Twin Towers, and imagine, just for a second, that the Twin Tower was in a vacuum. The stone would have fallen in a very defined way, accelerating towards the centre of the earth by gravity, such that we can calculate that it would hit the ground in a certain number of seconds. Now this assumption relies on the fact that there was no air in the way.

But if there was air, then this would slow the drop of the stone a little, and so it would take longer to fall. Imagine that, instead of air, the stone was dropping through treacle. The rate of descent would be further slowed, and so the stone would take far longer to fall.

Well, now put this thinking to the top of the World Trade Centre tower. That had a certain amount of potential energy when it was sitting at the top of the tower. But it did not fall through air, or treacle, it fell through many tons of concrete and steel. The only way this could have fallen, without any other sources of energy, in approximately the same time as a stone thrown off the top of the tower, was if it had infinite mass (and hence infinite momentum), or if the lower floors had zero mass (and hence zero inertia). Now we know that this is impossible, the whole building had finite mass. We also know that the materials in both towers were pulverised, which, in itself, would have used up a tremendous amount of the potential energy of the falling top of the building, thus slowing it. Even if the steel in the lower floors was weakened, each lower floor would have offered some resistance to the falling upper floors. If each lower floor slowed the falling top by, say, ¼ of a second, then the fall must have taken longer, but, of course, it didn’t, we are all witness to how long it took to fall.

If one studies closely the films of the falling Twin Towers, it does appear that the upper floors fall down onto the lower floors. Not all the floors seem to start falling together. So, by my reasoning above, the top just could not have fallen to earth in approximately the time it takes a stone to fall to earth, at least, not without some other energy source which is added to each lower floor just as the upper floors reach it.

This fact alone makes 9/11 a lie. Something else had to be in the equation, as the simple laws of Newtonian physics were not abided by that day. It is clear that the 9/11 Commission seem to have no grasp of basic physics.

A very good explanation, with some simple maths, can be found at http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml and the author has put across the point far more eloquently than ever I can.

Something else had to be added to the equations. Now suppose (and this is all my own speculation to try to explain how I saw the buildings fall) starting from the top and working the way down the building at preset split second times just as upper floors would have been reaching lower floors, modern computer programs triggering explosive charges could, just at the correct instant of time, be what would be required. But, I emphasise, that is my own speculation, I don’t know if that is what was added. All I can say with any certainty is that the fundamental laws of physics just cannot be ignored, not even by a technologically advanced country such as America!!