Simple Logic Part II

Reports from FEMA and NIST which attempt to explain how airplane impacts and the subsequent fires brought down the towers on 9/11 suffer from two major flaws. First of all, investigations by government agencies can hardly be considered independent; secondly, both documents attempt to explain the collapses based on the foregone conclusion that the airplanes impacted the towers creating a set of circumstances eventually resulting in their collapse. These reports concede that the collapses were not brought down by the impacts themselves nor the burning jet fuel, but rather by the resultant infernos which were responsible for weakening the structure of the towers causing their demise. Considering the fact that a third tower collapsed that day without suffering any airplane impact or jet fuel fire, the official story DEMANDS that plain old office fires caused the collapses, because if they didn't, the official story falls apart.

This is the second part of an article entitled "Simple Logic Exposes the Truth" that illustrates how logic and common sense can be used to come to reasonable conclusions about what really caused the collapses that day, without having to wade through complicated and often conflicting technical reports from engineers and government talking heads.

Since pundits of the official story like to reference the FEMA and NIST reports as proof positive of the official story, it seemed necessary to write a second part of this article that once again uses simple logic to come to the most reasonable conclusion. Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest these two agencies have in releasing these reports, assumptions made by the authors of these reports ultimately remove any credibility from their conclusions. They have attempted to explain how the collapses happened based on the foregone conclusion that 19 hijackers crashed planes into the buildings causing them to collapse. What if we don't automatically make the assumption that the planes and resultant fires caused the collapses? Lets look at what happened objectively, consider ALL the evidence, and come to the most logical conclusion.

History is a great teacher, so lets look back in time. Has catastrophic damage to any building of any size caused a collapse in the manner we saw on 9/11? Because if something can happen three times in one day, it must be fairly commonplace correct? Physics doesn't behave any differently from one day to the next, something that can happen today, can also happen tomorrow, and could have happened in the past. Something that happened three times in one day has undoubtedly happened before, either something is possible or it isn't.

However, this is not the case. Regardless of what caused the damage, collapses like we saw on 9/11 has never happened before or since 9/11. Everyday, throughout the world, buildings endure damage from hurricanes, missiles, bombs, fires, etc, and they suffer catastrophic damage of some sort, and yet they never react the same way.

Here is what catastrophic damage does to a building:

As for the non-existent infernos that occurred on 9/11, well, here is what happens to buildings that have suffered real infernos:

That argument that the towers were "weak" or uniquely built, therefore causing the collapse, is nonsense as well. WTC7 had a completely different design as the two twins and it suffered the same fate, so that argument is flawed. Furthermore, the two twins suffered a bomb and inferno in the past so history again tells us that neither of these occurrences were capable of causing the collapses.

So, again, looking at it logically, without any preconceived notions of what caused the collapses, it becomes increasingly clear that neither the crashes nor the fires could have been responsible. Again, we want to consider ALL the evidence, not just what we've been told.

First of all, looking back in history, what is the likely cause of the collapses? Controlled demolition of course, that is the only occurrence in the past that has caused building collapses, at freefall speed, into their own footprint, while expelling huge amounts of dust.

We also know that it takes weeks of planning to set the charges up correctly in a building to ensure it falls within its own footprint, collapses such as this don't happen by accident, it takes detailed planning, pouring over blueprints, and the delicate placement and timing of explosives. The same result cannot be achieved three times in one day by random building damage and fires. So, history is telling us that the only way buildings could have collapsed like they did three times on 9/11 was due to controlled demolition.

But again, lets consider ALL of the evidence, is there anything else that supports the theory that controlled demolition brought down the towers? Do we consider the dozens of witnesses, firefighters, and reporters that saw/heard/felt explosions in the buildings that day?

Do we consider the story of William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the WTC who felt a massive explosion under his feet before the plane hit above him? Someone who risked his life to save others that day, someone that lost close friends that day, and someone who feels so strongly about what happened he is touring the U.S. and abroad telling his story?

Do we consider the fact that firefighters actually made it up to the 78th floor of one of the towers and saw two small pockets of fires that could be put out with two lines?

Do we consider the numerous images of people in the impact area of the towers proving once again that there was no inferno, the fire was not that hot, and the theory that a white hot inferno caused the collapses is further debunked?

Do we consider the strange statement made by Larry Silverstein, the Leaseholder of the WTC, regarding making a decision to "pull" WTC7? Does the fact that Silverstein made billions in insurance payouts make his statements even more suspicious?

Do we consider the fact that the "pancaking collapse" theory directly contradicts the possibility of collapse at free fall speeds? Do we consider the fact that huge dust clouds are the distinguishing factor of controlled demolition? Do we consider the videos and images that appear to show demolition squibs and waves?

So, without making any assumptions or forgone conclusions and based on ALL the evidence, what is the likely cause of the collapses? Based on logic and common sense, what is the most reasonable conclusion? Since 9/11 has been used as the catalyst for two invasions so far, including one that has no end in site, as well as the raping of our basic civil liberties via the Patriot Act, should we not consider ALL the evidence?

great writeup somebigguy.

great writeup somebigguy. this is the type of stuff i like to see. ppl can think demolition is crazy all they want, but the facts are the facts, and the idea is A LOT more plausible than WTC7 and the twin towers coming down from fires that consumed less than 10% of the entire structure.

my favorite point to make is pointing out that 80+ floors of the twin towers were completely intact superstructures, and how those superstructures provided no resistance at all to the freefall 'collapse'..

great stuff, keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback!!!

Thanks for the feedback!!!

This stuff doesn't interest

This stuff doesn't interest me, as you already know... but you made your point, and it was very well written.

If its very well written and

If its very well written and makes a good point, why would it not interest you?

Ok... do I think the

Ok... do I think the buildings were demolished? I'm 99% sure... good enough? It's just not my "strong suit". Doesn't mean I don't believe it. WTC 7 proves that beyond the shadow of doubt. I'm good at other things... I've never really needed it...

Nobody who is familiar with

Nobody who is familiar with basic facts of the WTC7 collapse seriously doubts that WTC7 was demolished. Even the 911 commission didn't claim the cause was an "inferno" or damage from falling debris. They basically said that they couldn't explain it.

This certainly SUGGESTS that WTC 1 & 2 were also demolished, but that certainly doesn't prove the case.

Chapter 2 of the FEMA report is a real laugher. Everybody should read it. ( )This is the chapter in which they admit that they need an extra source of energy to explain collapse, and make the statement that this missing energy was provided by secondary fires. They don't provide ANY references for this extraordinary claim, and in point of fact, if you look at the references for Chapter 2, you'll see that most references aren't technical at all. Instead, they're first person accounts of the disaster.

If you think about it just a little bit, how much combustible material is in a modern office building made primarily of steel and concrete? I seriously doubt that if you added up all the combustibles in a few floors of office space: copier paper, book, magazines, carpets, toilet paper, etc., that it would come close to the providing the energy equivalent of the estimated 7,000 gallons of jet fuel that burned inside each of the WTC buildings.

Yet FEMA claimed that the energy provided by all these combustibles was "estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station"

HA HA! Get it? In science and engineering, we call this "proof by waiving of the hands".

The biggest laugh of all in the FEMA report is the photo, in Chapter 2, that shows a woman standing in the gap carved out by one of the planes. (There is even video out there somewhere of her waiving.) Her clothes are not on fire, she is not suffering from the "inferno" (which mostly burnt out after about 15 minutes.), etc.

In other words, the photo in Chp. 2 of the FEMA report ITSELF provides evidence that the FEMA claim of a source of energy powerful enough to actually weaken steel sufficiently to allow collapse is bogus.

Most of the heat energy from the burning fuel went into heating air, not steel. The air became lighter and vented up and out of the buildings.

However, even if you decide to humor FEMA and pretend that ALL of the heat energy of the kerosene-based fuel went into heating the steel of the building, and the heat "stayed there" (in the steel), you still find that you need at least 10 more jet planes of fuel to weaken the steel by 40%. (Which is still insufficient to create collapse. )

My guess is that no more then 20% of the heat energy went into the steel. So immediately you would need more like 50 jet planes worth of fuel. However, even this is not realistic, since they system is not closed at all. This means that not only did most of the heat energy from burning fuel not go into the steel, but also there's no way that the temperature of the steel could ever exceed the temperature of the flame. Since the system is open (not closed), it exchanges energy with the enviroment, which keeps the steel cooler (less hot) than it would otherwise get.

So, even if you unleashed 10,000 gallons worth of jet fuel EVERY HOUR for a HUNDRED YEARS, the steel would still not melt or get hotter than the temperature of the jet fuel flame.

So, any of you who were afraid that your cooking pots would suddenly melt or fall apart after using them for 20 or even a HUNDRED YEARS, you can relax.

Enjoy your dinner. :-)

A prior post of mine at the

A prior post of mine at the Randi Rhodes Show forum had the exact FEMA quotes:

FEMA says ( p. 2-37) that "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses." The report immediately goes on to blame the effects of other combustibles:, "However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from theses fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

Thanks for the link!!!

Thanks for the link!!!

NIST shill outs himself on

Hey SL, make a little

Hey SL, make a little article of your post here and spread it around.

Thanks. I am posting right

Thanks. I am posting right now to, with username metamars. Should be up in 20 minutes.

Posted at

Posted at

That was a long 20 min...

My username on that board is metamars

Hey SL, I just checked it

Hey SL, I just checked it out, good job!

I'm noticing more and more support for us on message boards lately, more and more people seem to agree with us. Of course, there's always at least one putz.

Unfortunately, getting

Unfortunately, getting branded as a "conspiracy theory" has gotten researchers of diverse topics so categorized censored from various media. E.g., and purged threads regarding the huge vote scam in the 2004 Presidential election - even though the undoctored exit polls in Ohio clearly showed Kerry as the winner, and thus the legitimate President.

As for 911, are you aware of the fact that Hoffman as tried posting articles to NYC indymedia, and the stories have been spiked with a very short while (minutes, if I recall).

That tells you that there's not just self-censorship, but overt censorship going on. The powers that be don't want this discussed....

I've personally seen a

I've personally seen a magnesium flare burn through a steel ammo can in seconds. That's the kind of temperatures we're talking about with burning jet fuel. You're an idiot.