Logic and the Perception of Conspiracy

A popular argument advanced by supporters of the official conspiracy theory against any suggestion of government connivance or complicity in the events of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, can be summarized fairly simply, as follows ...

It would require too many people to be involved in a conspiracy of that magnitude ... with so many people involved, someone would have spoken by now, and anyway, the government is just too incompetent to pull off something that sophisticated.

Now this really is a nonsensical argument. For starters, the logic involved in the first statement, that a conspiracy of this nature would require very many people, is contradicted by the official claim that 19 Arab hijackers were the only conspirators involved in 9/11. The only logical explanation for this apparent contradiction is that terrorists are way more competent than government. This proposition is oviously absurd.

But the "incompetence theory" has gained enormous support and credence from within the ranks of government itself. Richard Clarke, former White House Counterterrorism Adviser, is a prominent exponent of the "incompetence theory".

An interesting aspect of the "incompetence theory" is the fact that no government official has ever been fired, reprimanded, investigated or even directly accused of anything aproaching incompetence, let alone dereliction of duty, as a result of their inaction or incompetence before, on and after 9/11.

So it seems that the "incompetence theory" applies solely to the institutional structures of government, and not to the individuals who populate those structures.

However, this logic then allows for the possibility that certain competent individuals (say at least as competent as terrorists) within the institutional structures of government, could feasibly exploit these institutional incompetencies for their own ends.

In other words, corrupt government officials could take advantage of secretive government agencies, bureaucratic barriers, executive orders and the constraints of hierarchical command structures to further criminal self interest.

Without proper, independent judicial review of all the evidence, with full and frank deposition under oath of all the officials involved, we cannot reasonably rule out the possibility.

Characteristics of Controlled Demolition

Controlled demolition is a technique used to bring down skyscrapers.

There are several distinguishing characteristics of controlled demolition.

Here are five ...

1. Sudden onset

2. Symmetrical descent

3. Freefall acceleration

4. Complete collapse

5. Dust cloud or plume

All of these characteristics were observed during the collapse of WTC Building 7.



None of these characteristics, however, are associated with fire ravaged buildings.

In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."

Dr Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, told No Lies Radio on August 21, 2008, that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC Building 7.

WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, with freefall acceleration, generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.28 pm on September 11, 2001.

To the casual observer, the collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition.

And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.

Instead, NIST decided the most credible hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."

NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.

NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.