TRIPLE TOWERS 'COLLAPSE' PATTERN - PHYSICS TRUMPS SOCIOLOGY

[Keith Mothersson]

The following began life as a 'PS' in a letter to a nephew who is very sussed about many things but, in my opinion, perversely cautious about accepting evidence confirmatory of certain conspiracy hypotheses (the first part of the e-mail was about the repeated election thefts in the US). So the first part of this posting is me giving him the key URLs with the Physics of the WTC demolitions;
Towards the middle of this posting I discuss ways that people manage to shield themselves from the truth and/or full impications of the explosive demolition of the Triple Towers.
And at the end of this posting I shift to mostly talking with 9/11 movement people (or website visitors) and I list a series of additional reasons why the decisive clinching and increasing emergence of the physical arguments about the Triple towers is such amazingly encouraging news .

I hope people will not just read my ineffable prose but check out the links to the best WTC physical evidence sites that I know of (any others people might like to add?)
Best wishes, Keith Mothersson

Dear X,
..........
PS
On 9/11 triple tower demolition here is conclusive VERY TIGHTLY ARGUED EVIDENCE on PHYSICS grounds: tight enough for you?:

WTC1, 2 and 7 were the first ever (and only) steel framed buildings to come down because of fire, WTC7 unhit by any plane, and all of which came down more or less dead-centred and by the path of maximum resistance, i.e. through themselves, at the speed of mere air resistance!

Please see http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html ;

on the overall physics of the Triple towers' 'collapse' see also Prof Steven Jones at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html which is utterly compelling - it presents a very clear case and demolishes the various stages the official story has gone through. It draws considerable atention to the significance of the hot molten steel still reddish hot many weeks later as one of the smoking guns - proof of chemical cutter explosives;

also see Andrew Johnson's very short and elegant powerpoint presentation which was posted on a professional physicists' website (physorg) and led to 90 plus pages of forum comment - here at
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.ppt ;

also see http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
(by a Top Republican official in Bush'es first administration)"

Then I added an Additional Note for my nephew, which I've also expanded upon:

Also, on Conspiracy theory, check out this that Prof Jones points us to :
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.doc

One point which Fetzer, a top philospher of science, makes is that calling something a 'theory' can mean something is little more than speculation/guesswork or the word can designate a disprovable hypothesis. In this case the triple demolition 'theory' is more probable than any known rival hypothesis (Occams razor).

Moreover what we could call the Hoffman-Jones hypothesis isn't simply 'more probable' than the official tale ('Gravity driven downward 'pancaking' of the 110 stories consequent upon fire'). That wouldn't be difficult because this official outcome is physically impossible, given the officiallypresent physical inputs, and therefore has a likelihood of minus zero or null !

Rather, positively put - and in the absence of further information emerging which casts doubt on it - , the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts very well for a wide range of anomalous facts and as Fetzer and Griffin conclude should be considered as established beyond any, any reasonable doubt.

But of course people (even many 'radicals') will keep desperately trying to tweak the original falsified hypotheses and engage in petty fault finding of the very highly probable hypothesis because they are understandably unconsciously apprehensive about coming to conclusions along lines which run counter to the force-fields of Power. (Nor do they care to draw the obvious inferences from the government destruction or withholding of a huge range of physical and other evidence whose release could enable researchers to reply even more definitively to their desperate 'lack-of-conclusive-evidence' nit-picking.)

SYSTEMS OF DENIAL
It is also amazing but sadly true how many normally intelligent people people try to put up supposedly well-established SOCIOLOGICAL aprioris (e.g. about the number of people who can or can't be kept in a conspiracy without someone leaking or blowing the whistle) and then privilege these shibboliths as subjective certainties even against clear-cut and disprovable scientific-PHYSICAL hypotheses and refutations
(and ones which are moreover
a) consonant with our physical common sense that stuff falls faster through air than though other stuff and
b) confirmable by simple inspection of the publicly available video footage of the buildings coming down, with squibs of energy and even huge steel girders being thown out horizontally ahead of the collapse).

In the eyes of our post-modern friends and those still trapped in the demial stage of coming to terms with the truth about 9/11 these proferred considerations based on the Laws of PHYSICS are constantly liable to appear 'nebulous' not because the above websites and articles are particularly difficult or obscure or inaccessible, but mainly because 9/11 denyers are beginning to know the truth well-enough not to care to look at this material too closely! (as a hypnotised person can both see and not see a chair in the middle of a room).

Such a (non-)cognitive strategy can only be sustained by deeming these clear-cut proofs as necessarily too murky and complex to be worth spending time on trying (and probably failing they will claim) to get to the bottom of. Surely it must be flakey science, and merely amount to one lot of 'opinions' against other people's 'opinions'! After all can not some Establishment Profs and corporate Engineers [NOT many actually] still be found to go along with the absurd FEMA and NIST reports on the collapse of the buildings? - even though none of these official-account supporters actually engage with the concrete arguments of Prof Steve Jones or Andrew Johnson's powerpoint presentation or Jim Hoffman's pioneering, well-organised scientific proofs in www.911review.wtc7.net!).

So these people who are steeped in the official 'memes' about fanatical conpiracists and only scarcely less dangerous conspiracy theorists have matters exactly the wrong way round: As anyone who reads Steven Jones et al should conclude (unless they come up with better reasons) the buildings are virtually 100 percent certain to have been demolished by high explosives and chemical cutters. It is only then, after first absorbing that central PHYSICAL FACT very soberly and seriously that we - or society in general - may or may not need to revise our SOCIOLOGICAL assumptions about 'conspiracies,: do they happen?, and how many folk can be threatened/bribed/motivated, etc to go along with a really big conspiracy?

The empirical answer to this sociological question will vary from case to case: among key variables are not just number of conspirators and operatives, but also
the quality of customised cover stories provided to operatives,
how compartmentalised the various components/teams in the overall grandplan are so that they can or cannot be kept from comparing notes and seeing through their various cover stories,
what level of automation can be drawn on,
how long those in the know have worked with each other (many of team Bush go back to the struggle for opium in Indochina);
their corporate beliefs, morale, fraternal bonding mechanisms (Skull and Bones, etc),
what rewards are available for compliance, and
how easy it is to blow the whistle and remain alive. (In any case potential whistle-blowers see non-conspirators who report additional explosions being defined out of the corporate media picture, so why take huge personal risks and probably fail anyway?)

Remember the people who first tried to tell the world about Auschwitz were mostly disbelieved. The neocons are big on the Noble Lie (insiders know x but pretend y in front of the children/masses) and the Bush clan are keen students of the Nazis, whose Big Lie technique relied upon being so wicked (and so sublimally menacing) that most people said - 'oh no, those stories must be false, exaggerations, put about by inexpert out of the loop folk, frustrated people with a grudge or perpetual malcontents (Jews probably) or now (Muslims probably)'.


THE TOWERS CAN BE ICONIC AND 'CATALYTIC' FOR US NOW
It really is amazing how these iconic towers, whose collapse initially worked so well for the neocons that it is estimated that they've been shown a million times on world television channels, are now such a huge embarassment to Bushco, bloody great smoking guns with them caught bang to rights in the car headlights of a steadily escalating Watergate of scientific and academic and journalistic and popular exposure (the latter coming from grass-roots folk across the political spectrum).

Of course there are many other smoking guns: e.g. Where's the Boeing at the Pentagon; utterly improbable air-defence 'failures'; non-tracing of the Put-options; the Naudet brother film as proof of very detailed foreknowedge; etc, etc. But in my view the Triple Towers constitute (in most contexts and with most people) the best suit to lead on for the following reasons:

A) THE TOWERS ARE MUCH MORE ICONIC THAN EVEN THE PENTAGON, which nobody we speak with saw happen in real time, nor even subsequently.

B) PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE TOWERS MORE not just because more people died there but primarily because they have been emotionally wounded by the sight of the planes smashing into the Twin towers - a necessary psyops dimension, as www.911review.com makes clear. So people think they know what happened, they think they saw the Muslims destroy the towers [maybe the Tavistock bus spectacular had to happen because underground explosions aren't visually iconic enough??];

C) As the first part of this article tried to show WE HAVE OUR PROOFS TOGETHER NOW ON THIS AREA - in a much more coherent way than with most of the other smoking guns, so that whenever we run into lack of evidence or uncertainties or ambiguities or disinfo or resistance on other issues, we can keep inviting people to come back to the Physical impossibilities of the official account of the 'collapse' of the Triple Towers;

D) ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TRUST THEMSELVES, NOT EXPERTS! Those who take refuge in 'not being an expert' can be gently encouraged time and again to keep validating their own common sense: it looks like a controlled demolition and the official newsreels clearly establish that the buildings came down at the speed of mere air resistance, when they are supposed to have clunked through huge steel bolts all the way down. You don't need to be an expert to know that the official story is nonsense! (The same applies to the vanishing Boeing at the Pentagon, but there can be a lot more arguments about authentic photos, angles, times, etc)

E) The more people learn about WTC7 and can be encouraged to see the physical proofs concerning the buildings, then they can be encouraged to reflect on ask: WHAT ELSE MAY WE HAVE BEEN TRICKED, MISINFORMED AND JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT? and to reflect how strong were the factors that led many of us (relatively more white/middle class people than working class/ethnic minority people , I think) to have denied the evidence of our senses concerning the contolled demolitions on Sept 11th
[Here I am thinking of factors such as:
psyops societal hypnosis,
compliant corporate media, many of which have many spooks working in them
readiness to be intimidated by sneers about 'conpiracy theories'
propensity to believe false witness, especially of officially designated 'Others'
all our tendencies to identify with Power.

F) So most of the people who died that terrible day didn't die at the hands of Hi-jackers (even if Attah and co were in the planes). Thus from INSIDE JOB it is but a short hop to (racist and Islamo-hostile) FRAME UP. Unless people believe that Muslims can defy the laws of Physics!
(Of course we should 'concede' - though acknowledging the truth should always be a ready freeing thing in an inherently co-operative process, never a grudging concession in a win-lose argument! - that there were certainly some Military-recruited and CIA-duped Arab patsies being positioned in the run up to 9/11 - but if they were indeed on any of the planes, how come no CCTV footage?, how come no black box records?, etc);

FINAL THOUGHTS
So these are additional reasons why the decisive clinching of the physical arguments about the Triple towers is such amazingly encouraging news - we're on a roll! As a veteran of the class of '67, how long is it I wonder till we again see teach-ins and even sit-ins across the land?

Who knows, maybe even people like Noam Chomsky, Mil Rai, the editors of Freedom and Red Pepper, and the current Harman-Callinicos-Rees-Germain leadership of SWP/StoptheWar/Respect (as also various Right and Centre 'Gatekeepers') will eventually be 'forced' to engage with the 9/11 'Conspiracy' 'theories' (facts) and admit that actually there's masses of tightly argued evidence supporting our perfectly rational and scientific conspiracy hypothesis.

(And then will they tell us that they knew it all along, it is all old hat anyway and moreover it brings no added-value to the common struggle?! Let them tell that to the Muslims! )

[Ally]

Show him 911Eyewitness and let him hear the WTC being blown the f**k up.

[Alan Firminger]

You have been to see a film ( movie ) with friends.

Your party emerges into the night all elated with the generated excitement. On the way home someone says "But he could not have swung on the wire because he had a broken arm." Then the group argues about whether the arm was broken before or after the wire. He also swam a river. Yes, you conclude, the arm was broken first.

This discussion leads on in two strands with a subtext that the spectacle was overpowering.

The party find more and more holes in the logic of the film - perhaps "When she 'phoned her father why did she not tell him who the murderer was, that would have save being chased to the top of the bridge." And all the questions of the form "How did he know ... ."

And all agree that despite all the flaws of logic, "It was a great film." Everyone enjoyed it and was glad to have been. The spectacle was overpowering.

This is where we are with 911.

Who scripted it ?

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

I think Keith's article above is good reading for all who are interested in persuading others of our case.

Noel