Because Google is forever.

On 5/28/07 1:28 PM, “g” <g> wrote:


I have to respect you for continuing to try, but I’d love to have that hour of my life back.

All of the sources in the presentation cite each other or sources I’ve already read. There is no new material here except a presenter who has consumed all the same material you have — the same material you’ve already presented to me — and believes what you believe. The movie segments that get played over and over again show nothing new, because those are the same movie segments I’ve seen over and over again already.

Also, I challenge you to go through this presentation and make a collection of all the sensationalist adjectives: “shocking”, “devastating”, “damning”, etc. You’ll need several pages of paper. These go in the same category as the “nearly” and “almost” from previous discussions. These words have no value except to manipulate the emotions of the viewer/reader, and if your argument can’t get by without them, then you don’t have an argument. I’m offended as a journalist and a scientist, and I’m insulted as someone who is theoretically capable of looking at evidence and making my own decisions.

The more I look at these video segments, the more I am utterly convinced that this is not any kind of demolition other than the kind planned for and hoped for by the building designers.  No controlled demolition would involve “squib” demo-packs on every single floor blowing out every single window. The flames we see popping out of the windows are clouds of superheated material getting sudden access to oxygen and igniting — something every trained firefighter on earth knows about. I see nothing in this presentation that is inconsistent with trapped air from a collapsing building being puffed out floor-by-floor as the ceiling above comes down in less than a tenth of a second.

And even more importantly, nothing ever addresses the most important question of “Why?”. Here are a bunch of “why?” questions that, if there were a conspiracy that blew up the WTC buildings, need some plausible conjectural answers, at minimum:

If the buildings were going to continue to stand, why bring them down at all?

If there were ways that the buildings could have come down that would do more damage, i.e., toppling, why (hypothetically) go to truly exceptional lengths to bring them down in a manner that would cause the least amount of collateral damage?

Why go through all that trouble to pancake the buildings then and there when, as damaged as they were, demolition companies would have to have done so later anyway?

Why involve planes at all if the buildings were already mined with explosives? Why not just pin the bombs on whoever they chose?

Why involve planes at all if the building designs show that planes wouldn’t be sufficient?

Why pin the crime on someone other than Saddam Hussein?

I’ve asked all of these questions before. I assume you don’t have answers. I can’t come up with any either without resorting to the same unfathomable bullshit spewed supporting “Intelligent Design” theories — a vast all-powerful intelligence that makes deliberate mistakes in order to amuse and confound. I understand that we’re not dealing with cosmic-level intelligences, but an alliance of imperfect human beings, but that’s yet another strike. Conspiracies keep things simple to keep down the risk of mistakes creeping in and compounding. Conspiracies keep just a couple of people involved to keep down the chance that someone will rat the rest of them out.

Each time a level of complexity is added to the theory, if becomes less likely to have succeeded and less plausible. Each time you add in a factor that means another individual, another expert, another team had to be involved, that’s another strike. For someone who already has some personal credibility invested in the theory, each new explanation is an angel — an endorsement and a salvation. For someone who hasn’t bought in, however, each new addition that doesn’t simplify other details is just another elephant to swallow.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? As many as you like. How many elephants? Zero. Your angels are my elephants here. Every explanation that complexifies rather than simplifies? I can’t swallow ’em.

The simplest solution is that these buildings were designed to collapse like a stack of pancakes if overstressed beyond their tolerances, just so they would not topple and wreck the entire south end of Manhattan. I know this to be the practice of engineers who design skyscrapers.

I know these buildings were designed to withstand the impact of the largest aircraft known at the time. I also know they’ve been standing for forty years ungergoing normal stresses. I know that buildings tend to get weaker instead of stronger as they age. I also know that builders and subcontractors skimp if they think they can get away with it because it improves their profit margins. Suburban Atlanta is rife with houses and buildings that have been shown to have been built deceptively out of poorer materials than the specs called for. There have been many scandals, including people who have disappeared or been murdered before they could testify.

On one hand: 19 terrorists. Planes larger than designed tolerances. Old buildings. Buildings designed to collapse into their own footprint.

On the other: 19 people pretending to be terrorists. An individual or team of individuals who could design a non-standard building demolition scenario that specced out explosives to demolish three buildings, including possibly a fourth that no plane ever impacted. An individual or teams of individuals who could build those explosive devices. An individual or team of individuals who could deploy those devices. An individual or team of individuals who could trigger those explosives. (I concede the possibility of one bomb designing/deploying/triggering genius, but odds are low that a single individual would be up to the task. Odds are better that a single team of individuals could do all three tasks.) An individual or team of individuals dedicated to subtly poisoning an ongoing investigation with disinformation. At least semi-rational answers to absolutely all of those “why” questions above, plus possibly a couple more that I haven’t thought of.

Occam’s Razor is frequently too sharp. I don’t like to use it much, because I also know that sometimes complex things happen to simple people. Occam’s Razor has sent plenty innocent people to jail. However, our current administration over here has already shown themselves to be incapable of running a conspiracy, which is why Scooter Libby is headed to jail.

If they had geniuses around that could pull this stuff off, then they’d have geniuses around that could have implicated the right enemy. They’d have had geniuses around that would have double-checked the underlying reasoning and come up with something that would have been way more clear-cut, way more plausible, and way more effective in achieving a way more useful goal.

I’m tired of saying the same things over and over again, G. Feel free to keep sending me links to material. I’ll read and watch what I have the time for. But I’m not responding anymore to anything that requires me to say what I’ve already said. And all I’m doing now is solidifying my arguments to convince people of the opposite of what you believe. You can keep giving me fuel for that if you like, but it’s not in your best interests.


— X


May 30, 2007 · by xalieri · Posted in Everything Else  


Leave a Reply