9-11 truth gets into Slate
explainer
Heated Controversy
Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009, at 5:18 PM ET
In the new season of the FX drama Rescue Me, firefighter Franco Rivera espouses the belief that 9/11 was "an inside job." According to a Sunday New York Times article, the show's writers added this assertion because actor Daniel Sunjata is a "truther"; but the real firefighters on set—who work as script advisers—were offended by his allegations. This got the Explainer wondering: Do any firefighters believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Yes. There's no evidence that firefighters buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories at higher rates than the rest of the population. (A 2007 Zogby poll found that 26 percent of Americans believe the government "let it happen." A 2006 Scripps-Howard poll found it was more than a third.) But some firemen do believe the government was behind 9/11 and use their status as first responders to draw attention to their statements.
The most common conspiracy theory held by firefighters is that the Twin Towers—as well as a third building, 7 World Trade Center—collapsed not because planes crashed into them but due to a "controlled demolition." On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers. After the attacks, the New York Fire Department interviewed firefighters to create an oral history of 9/11. These tapes—which were not released until 2005—contain numerous references to explosions heard just before the buildings fell. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, concluded that "blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.")
Another common theory is that federal agents found three of the planes' four black boxes and then hid or destroyed them because they contained incriminating evidence. Nicholas DeMasi, a firefighter formerly with Engine Company 261 in Queens, was quoted in a 2003 book saying that he was there when federal agents made the discovery. Another first responder corroborated his account. Although his allegations are contradicted by The 9/11 Commission Report, which says the boxes were never found, many truthers choose to believe there was a cover-up.
Do other professions marshal their own expertise to poke holes in the official story? Absolutely. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth point to the physics of the towers' collapse—its "free fall" pace, the "lateral ejection" of steel, the "mid-air pulverization of concrete"—as evidence that they could not have fallen exclusively because of the planes' impact. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have their own set of theories that focus on the planes' black boxes and flight paths, arguing, for example, that the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 would have had to perform an extremely difficult aerial maneuver to hit the Pentagon where they did. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth conclude that the 9/11 Commission investigation was inadequate. There's also Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (not to be confused with its rival, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which tackles scientific aspects of the towers' collapse, such as the alleged residue of explosive materials like thermate in the dust at Ground Zero. One notable group that does not have its own 9/11 truth group is the police force.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Mike Berger of 911Truth.org, Mark Fenster of University of Florida, Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Barrie Zwicker.
Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2215703/
ongoing debates at
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/1787/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=22157...
LeftWright is in there duking it out with doubters
I just have no friggin' patience
and a hair-trigger Hulk reflex these days, but there's another very good discussion going on at the site associated with the Young Turks show here
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/4/17/214329/289/Diary/9-scientis...
The debunkers are hardly even trying these days, it seems. What they ARE doing is demonstrating that they stopped paying attention to their own OCT a while back. I keep reading stuff like "Bldg 7 had a huge gash in it from debris" and "the Towers pancaked."
"Bldg 7 had a huge gash in it from debris"
They're probably thinking of things like this testimony from Captain Chris Boyle, Engine 94, 18 years:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Precisely my point.
The NIST report addressed the issue:
"Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.â€
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
Everyone now knows that the OCT incorporates the thermal expansion theory for the collapse of WTC 7 -- or in other words, that if you hold a sealed jar of pickles under hot water over the sink, you may be able to get it to replicate a controlled demolition. The huge gash theory is SO OVER.
It's not a very good idea to
It's not a very good idea to make an argument against a report which one is trying to refute depend upon narrowly selective citations from the same report. The NIST report does place thermal expansion in the primary role in causing the collapse, before any of the damage caused to the building by flying debris. But if one is seeking to argue that the NIST report is fundamentally wrong in attributing the main cause of the collapse to thermal expansion caused by fires, then you need to be prepared to go back to every one of the many reports from firemen on the scene at the time who reported serious damage caused by flying debris and take that fully into account. Citing an isolated phrase from a public announcement by NIST which plays down the significance of such debris-caused damage and then leaping over the rest of the report to claim that the whole report was merely a cover-up is not a real scientific methodology. Whatever flaws the NIST report may have (one of which might plausibly be an underestimation of the damage caused by such debris, I won't pretend to know offhand, I'm not an engineering expert) you'll have to do better than that if an enduring critique is to be made.
Let me spell it out for you.
My argument concerns people who are defending the OCT whose opinions diverge from the "official" part of the "official conspiracy theory." That is, the "arguments" of people who continue to attribute significance to a supposed gash in the building reported by a witness and not substantiated by photographic documentation at the same time that the OFFICIAL explanation DENIES that any such damage caused the collapse as observed.
I'm not claiming here that the whole report is a cover-up, although that is certainly my opinion. I am talking about the way debunkers are failing to keep up. What do you think caused Bldg 7 to collapse? Please explain in detail or your subsequent posts in this thread will be deleted by yours truly.
"explain in detail"?
I'm not a professionally trained structural engineer, and I doubt that anyone else on this board is either. Those are the only people who could seriously pretend to explain anything in detail.
I'm more or less satisfied that thermal expansion caused by fires was probably the main reason for the collapse, with the possibility that some of the damage caused by flying debris may have played a role that is difficult to measure. I was simply referring to the way that would-be-truth-activists fail to follow what is the logical rules of analysis. Citing a passing comment in a second-hand summary of the actual NIST report where they casually state an opinion that thermal expansion was sufficient to cause the collapse without needing any structural damage from flying debris and trying to turn into an argument that anyone who recalls the damage (which was partly captured in photos) from flying debris is "failing to keep up" is a jump over logical rules. NIST is probably correct that thermal expansion would have caused the collapse regardless of the damage from flying debris. The fires were burning in WTC & all day long and fire department officials had indeed abandoned the building as a lost cause well before the collapse. Whether or not they were right in abandoning the building early on is pointless to argue. They had a lot to do that day, and so they agreed not to worry about stopping fires in WTC 7. With the fires going on all day like that, thermal expansion was probably sufficient to cause the collapse without needing much damage from flying debris. That's all that the statement which you've cited from NIST is saying.
The reason it sometimes comes up that people who disagree on some points with one or another would-be-truth-activist will point to the reports from professional firemen on the spot as to damage in the buildings caused by flying debris is because many would-be 911-activists speak of the decision to abandon WTC 7 as if it were something mysterious and unexplainable in the absence of a hidden conspiracy. In fact, firemen on the spot did see signs of significant damage caused by the flying debris and there was nothing odd about the NYFC's decision to accept that the building was not worth saving. Now whether or not that means that the flying debris really played a major role int he collapse, or whether the collapse would have happened just based on the fires and thermal expansion alone, is a different question. The point is we know that there isn't any hidden secret in the decision by the firemen to accept a likely collapse and abandon the building. We have reports from firemen on the spot that they saw a gash in the building and such reports are among the many reasons why there is nothing odd about abandonding the building.
Okay, to save you the time of writing future posts
that will be deleted, we don't countenance -- especially from anonymous users -- fantasy-land speculation about fire and gravity induced destruction of the WTC here. It's a waste of our time. Kthxbai.
Debunkers who parrot old
Pro government debunkers who parrot old theories that have been discredited by government officials are just arguing for arguments sake. 9-11 truthers are countering the inconsistencies of the official conspiracy theory not the independent pro government apologists who are formulating their own arguments. If debunkers really have a good idea supporting the governments narrative, they should send it to the NIST or tell their local police authority. Perhaps their twisted sense of patriotism will be rewarded. Engaging truthers with the pancake theory, burning diesel fuel, the gash or other WTC arguments that NIST itself no longer subscribes to is just a waste of everyone's time.
k thx bye
yeah, why do they bring those things up us instead of NIST?
Is there a petition somewhere that people can sign to have NIST acknowledge the importance of the gash?
The gash clearly is
[Thanks for playing. Buh-bye.]
If you are arguing for the
If you are arguing for the government, you have to be consistent with the government. If you are arguing against the government then you are one of us. If you are going to rehash what the government has already discarded, you are not defending them and you are representing only yourself. We don't want to waste time arguing with you, our cause is against the OCT. In other words, nobody wants to listen to you. Get it?
I'm prepared to go back to the many reports
"then you need to be prepared to go back to every one of the many reports from firemen on the scene at the time who reported serious damage caused by flying debris and take that fully into account."
Where are they? I mean, since there are no pictures of video of said damage, I guess we have nothing but those many reports. Cite, please!
This link carries quite a
[Thanks -- you shouldn't have! Bye now.]
a request to my learned colleagues
can you be a little less enthusiastic in your deleting of comments, especially those that are responses to something I asked? you can just leave them in the queue if you don't want to publish them... thanks!
LeftWright is a rock
He seems to be all over online discussions, including Alternet--and he does a great job. He's my idea of a real truther!