ISTM that there's two completely deluded, irrational views regarding the attacks on 9/11. The first is that the Bush Administration has told us the complete truth on pretty much anything, let alone something so significant as what happened that day. To think that we have correct information about those attacks is to ignore the record of secrecy and deception that the Bush Administration was already accumulating before 9/11.

The second irrational view is what Fisk talked about, which is the idea that the Bush Administration could have actually pulled those attacks off. That they could have done that much planning and kept it quiet both before and since.

Though they may seem like polar opposites, those who believe "Bush did it" and those who believe that the government is telling us the whole truth occupy side-by-side spots on a continuum that turns back onto itself.

I would not have expected to see a site like Ezra Klein's blog, usually so readable and interesting, descend into silly tinfoil-hat talk. How disappointing. I hope Ezra is back soon to take his site back from Ms. Tornello.

For information on some of the old chestnuts raised in the linked article, such as the steel beams and the WTC7 collapse, see the long, exhaustive Popular Mechanics article debunking 9/11 myths:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Vidor,

Spare us the stupid insults, please. Also, take a moment to actually read the linked article - or go to your community college for a remedial reading comprehension course.

How you managed to take an article that denigrates 9/11 conspiracists so completely and turn it into an example of that which it denies is, quite honestly, beyond me. But then I try to make a habit of paying attention to the meanings of various words and the way that putting them into sentences conveys information that may or may not be already rattling around in my head.

Fisk has some questions about the things we have been told about 9/11. So do I and so should you. Regarding the steel beams specifically, had you been able to understand what Fisk wrote, you would have seen that he was questioning how the steel beams could have snapped, especially with beams in separate parts of the buildings snapping at pretty much the same time.

And by the by, the question of snapped steel beams wasn't addressed by Popular Mechanics.

One hardly needs to be a conspiracy theorist to have serious questions about what we've been told. But then, you seem to be the type of person I described in my first comment, one who appears willing to accept wholesale the various stories we've gotten from the Bush Administration despite their record of deception.

For the record, I am deeply--and oftentimes thoroughly--skeptical of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories and so-called explanations floating around, including the ones Bush et. al. sold to the American public. At the very least, any non-biased, science-based view of the matter should include the questions Fisk raises, along with this one: why, six years later, haven't they been addressed?

"Spare us the stupid insults, please."--Says the man who then lets fly with a lot of stupid insults. Unfortunately, it is Stephen who apparently cannot comprehend the article enough to notice that it includes several tropes taken from the paranoid fantasies of 9/11 conspiracy theorists: the "lack" of airplane debris at the Pentagon (there was debris) the business about the melting point of the steel beams (Stephen again can't read, it seems; the Popular Mechanics article does indeed address that very issue), and all the chattering about the "mysterious" collapse of WTC, which, as it happens, was badly damaged both by debris and by fire.

I do not find an article that basically says "Hey, I'm no crackpot, but what about all these things the crackpots say" any more defensible than an article actually written by a crackpot. Like I said, hope Ezra starts blogging more, soon, and hopefully Ms. Tornello can find other ways to occupy her time. Like doing some basic research about 9/11 conspiracy theories, for starters. Anybody still weaving fairy tales around the melting point of kerosene does not deserve our attention, or a spot on Ezra Klein's blog.

melting point of the steel beams (Stephen again can't read, it seems; the Popular Mechanics article does indeed address that very issue),

Do you know the difference between the words snap and melt? Dictionary.com is a good reference; once you're clear on the meanings of those very different words, you might want to read the relevant portions of Fisk's article, my comment and the article at Popular Mechanics. Until you manage to address the things that are actually written down and not the presuppositions in your head, it's going to be hard to discuss this with you.

Fisk wasn't so much declaring that there never was any debris at the Pentagon; rather he wants to know what happened to it. There was as surprisingly small amount of debris there as far as us regular folks were able to see.

Again, read what's there. That you keep raving on about the melting point of steel when that's not really the question that Fisk raised shows how you're way more interested in expounding upon your intellectual superiority than engaging what people say. Your obsessive hold upon your beliefs about 9/11 in the face of evidence - especially the approach of the Bush Administration toward sharing information about any subject - puts you squarely in the realm of crackpot conspiracists. Just because your irrational beliefs are different than those described by Fisk doesn't mean they are inherently more valid.

Litbrit, I love you... but the questions raised in Fisk's article, ostensibly about science, but really meant to continue a vague conspiracy theory that planes could not possibly have achieved the destruction of the Pentagon and WTC, have been asked and answered repeatedly. As Vidor notes, the extensive work of Popular Mechanics (hardly a tool, so to speak, of the right) on this has laid most of these issues well to rest, despite people like Stephen insisting, over and over, that they don't. Many, many engineers have offered answers about what likely happened within both towers (and 7 WTC), and the issues about the Pentagon have been almost thoroughly debunked. It s terribly sad to me that we can't simply let this rest. If people find the answers we have so far unsatisfying, I'd submit that there's just not an answer that will. The "mysteries" of 9/11 are not about the science of what happened; they're about understanding the capacity of people to cause so much needless, needless death and destruction. Americans, especially in recent history, have never been exposed to it, and it's no wonder, really, that we have trouble processing it. But there's nothing here to debate, no "answers" that will satisfy the people challenging these conclusions, and giving more life to this line of discussion serves, I am convinced, little useful purpose. Please, litbrit, look into the reporting of PM and other engineers, and let this rest.

From the silly article:

***I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers - whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C - would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.)***

From the good folks at Popular Mechanics:

***However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."***

So what Fisk is getting at, besides the same kind of baseless rumormongering he purports to dismiss, I can't imagine. The beams got hot. They weakened. They snapped. End of story.

Why did Flight 93's wreckage scatter? IT WAS TRAVELING AT 300 MILES AN HOUR WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND, that's why.

Where's the Pentagon plane debris, Fisk asks? Well, go to the Pop. Mechanics article here for a picture of a chunk of airplane:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#flight77debris

Where were the engine parts at the Pentagon, Fisk asks? Well, go here to see PHOTOGRAPHS OF ENGINE PARTS:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

It took me only a couple of minutes looking on Google. I wonder why Robert Fisk couldn't be bothered to make a similar effort. Or why Ezra Klein's blog hosts such silliness.

Yeah, Ms. Tornello, let those big, strong, manly engineers tell you all you need to know, silly girl.

Asking questions about things and stuff is soooo lame and dumb and dorky. We should just accept what we're told. That's the serious person's way.

Anyone who has any question about the events of 9/11 is automatically a crazed conspiracy theorist who totally buys into every conspiracy theory about 9/11, even ones they haven't heard of yet.

And anyone who doesn't believe that is also a crazed conspiracy theorist who automatically believes all the conspiracies, even if they don't. It's logic, that is.

More ad hominem, which is all one gets from the 9/11 conspiracy mongers, because they have no actual evidence.

For what it's worth, I desperately would love to see the conspiracy come true, as it would be proof positive for not only impeaching Bush's entire administration but locking them all up for a loooong time.

(on the other hand I'd rather not see it come true for what it would say about humanity ... religious fundamentalism is easier to stomach than naked greed and psychopathy)

But anyway, what I wanted to say was - as attractive as the conspiracy seems sometimes, its defenders always fall back on the defense of "but you have to question authority, if you don't you're just a mindless sheep!"

The thing is, it's one thing to ask lots of questions. It's quite another when those same questions have been asked and answered multiple times. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is not a sign of sanity.

Kevin, you're welcome to make this as personal as you like... but really, I'm not some man who thinks, by virtue of being a man, that I have "the answers"; I'm all in favor of woman engineers. Indeed, I'd rather hear from them. I'm really not making the broad-brush statements you ascribe to me; I simply think that these pseudo-scientific challenges to the 9/11 evidence we have don't get us anywhere - if there's something these questions will help us figure out, by all means, discuss that. Calling me a sexist jerk isn't really going to get you there... especially since I'm pretty much as far from that as possible. I'm just satisfied that what we know about what happened to the planes and the buildings on 9/11 explains what happened in terms of the science and engineering - nothing, I think, can explain the level of inhumanity.

"For what it's worth, I desperately would love to see the conspiracy come true . . .

Support for Bush would drop to 19%.

"Hey, I'm no crackpot, but what about all these things the crackpots say"

That does rather sum up the problem, though not in the most charitable way. There are a lot of very normal, smart people who believe in some form of the September 11th conspiracy theories, as many liberals as conservatives (actually somewhat more liberals, according to the last data I saw), and more young than old. As can be seen from the article quoted and some of the reactions to it, there is also some uncertainty and wondering that isn't quite belief in the conspiracies but isn't ruling out some of their main claims either.

Even though Vidor has been too harsh about it, he's basically right that it doesn't take much effort to see how ill-founded these questions are. That they persist shows a willingness to allow skepticism about Bush and the government to, ironically, suspend a proper degree of skepticism about questions about their honesty. Skepticism needs to functions just as vigorously in regard to things that feed our fears and desires.

When reading an article like the one quoted, one might immediately wonder how on earth such basic questions could have escaped attention in the mainstream accounts of September 11th--in fact they haven't. We shouldn't take for granted that what the questions assume is true, as we see in this case it isn't. That probably explains why the article was pulled from the original source.

For the record, I am deeply--and oftentimes thoroughly--skeptical of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories and so-called explanations floating around, including the ones Bush et. al. sold to the American public. At the very least, any non-biased, science-based view of the matter should include the questions Fisk raises, along with this one: why, six years later, haven't they been addressed?

They have been, and Fisk's questions are simply non-evidence based conjecture. That you would post this makes me wish Ezra will take away your guest blogging status once he returns, for this is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this blog.

The comments against librit are way over the top. She's been doing great work here. Ezra too sometimes posts things that seem plainly wrong to me, but that doesn't make me wish he would stop posting.

Even with his disclaimer, Fisk's piece provides a good example of how conspiracy theories can take hold among those with a strong desire to believe in them. Regardless of the subject of the theory, the method is usually similar: identify a few facts or events that seem inconsistent, extremely unlikely, or impossibly coincidental, and imply or assume that those facts must be hints to something bigger and darker.

In the case of 9/11, many of the supposed inconsistencies have been debunked already. But, even if they were accurate, that wouldn't necessarily mean much - and the reason it wouldn't mean much is simple probability.

Any long or complex series of events (and the 9/11 attacks definitely qualify) can be viewed as containing countless sub-events and facts, if you look closely. By pure chance, at least some of those thousands of sub-events and facts will appear extremely unlikely, because they are unlikely. A one-in-a-thousand shot comes through one out of every thousand times on average; if you play the pick three lottery every day for ten years, you'll probably win a few times. The logic of the conspiracy theorist is to focus obsessively on a few "winning tickets," and ignore the massive number of "losing tickets."

Essentially, if you look closely enough at any complicated reality, you are pretty much guaranteed of finding at least a few facts or events that seem inconsistent, extremely unlikely, or impossibly coincidental. That doesn't mean much unless those inconsistencies or coincidences add up to an alternative story that approaches the standard story in terms of plausibility.

Uhm- the last post is false, but whatever. The point is that there is a mythology around 9/11 now. Even if new facts come out, it won't change that dynamic. I have no idea what happened. I think the conspiracy theories are wrong, but I also do think that the official version of what happened is b/s. I am less worried in my formulation of Machivellian plots by the American government here, and more concerned by issues like what was happening iwith the Saudis. Thats not a big theory, it's just concern over the I scratch your back, you scratch mine with getting the Saudis out of the US.

and to explain very briefly with out a pointless back and for tic-for-tac, disproving a narrative doesn't require proving another narrative. This is the mentality of someone looking for a myth to believe in. Disproval,only requires- well disproval. that's it.

What N said is quite true. Why do you doubt the conventional accounts, akaison? What does getting the Saudis out have to do with it? If there had been any conspiracy there, wouldn't it have made more sense to get them out well in advance?

I'm not really sure that Fisk was doing much more than giving himself future protection from "the Ravers", by now being able to say, "Hey, look, I did question the official story, I've done my bit, now leave me alone."

The point is that there is a mythology around 9/11 now. Even if new facts come out, it won't change that dynamic. I have no idea what happened. I think the conspiracy theories are wrong, but I also do think that the official version of what happened is b/s. I am less worried in my formulation of Machivellian plots by the American government here, and more concerned by issues like what was happening iwith the Saudis. Thats not a big theory, it's just concern over the I scratch your back, you scratch mine with getting the Saudis out of the US.

I would cautiously agree with this, depending on what you mean by "official version of events" - there are aspects of what led up to 9/11 in terms of diplomacy and international relations that I think still need examination, and some things about what happened right after that I find curious (though I think, it has turned out, that the claim of Saudis being spirited out of the country during the Ground Stop has turned out to be not true; if true, it concerns me as well). I think, though, that those are different questions than the kind of "Bush had the military shoot missiles at the Towers" craziness, or even the "I don't know how jet fuel melts steel" stuff that Fisk is bringing up. When I say some questions are not really worth continually being raised I'm really only thinking of the science and engineering discussions around the Tower collapse and the Pentagon damage, which are practical matters that can be answered. Bigger geopolitical questions, I'd agree, are still out there.

That doesn't mean much unless those inconsistencies or coincidences add up to an alternative story that approaches the standard story in terms of plausibility.

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening is that when someone brings up a question - any question at all - about the events of 9/11, they're set upon by a rabid band of shrieking harpies ranting about 9/11 conspiracy theories, whether anyone has actually claimed to believe one of them or not.

I've never believed that Bush was responsible for what happened on 9/11, at least insofar as committing the acts themselves. For that matter, even though he clearly blew off warnings about Osama that very summer, I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent the attacks.

However, I cannot understand people's willingness to accept what they've been told about the events of that day without question. They'll doubt Bush on absolutely everything else, but bring up 9/11 and all the sudden you're denying the virgin birth of Christ and the existence of Santa Claus all in one.

What if needed inspections and maintenance hadn't been done at the World Trade Center? What if there was some evidence in the wreckage at the Pentagon which suggested the involvement of another group in addition to Al Qaeda? There's a million different questions that we can have about the events of that day which have nothing to do with "Bush did it!" conspiracy theories.

And in spite of the apparently Nobel-and-Pulitzer-worthy contributions from the towering intellects at Popular Mechanics, the Bush Administration has kept information to itself, as per usual for them.

But, sure, let's believe them on this one. We might doubt everything they say about Iraq, Social Security, tax cuts, energy policy, environmental policy, torture, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habaeus corpus, the effectiveness of the TSA, but by God no one better have any questions over the defining event of this generation! That's craaaazzzzy!

The Independent link works properly now.

Weboy, I don't claim (or even believe) any of the craziness to which you're referring. I found Fisk's piece interesting and provocative--though admittedly, I did not realize the extent to which it would provoke the concerned readers now calling for my dismissal--chiefly because I, too, remain unsatisfied with some (not all) of the official explanations. Interestingly, I've had opportunity to learn a good bit about steel building construction, since that's exactly what we're doing right now: building a modernist house out of welded I-beams. The GC (my husband), the architect, and the engineer--all of whom are far more well-schooled in the art and science of metal building construction and destruction than I; none of whom is a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, nor are they even liberal--have questions about the WTC collapse (to put it mildly).

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening is that when someone brings up a question - any question at all - about the events of 9/11, they're set upon by a rabid band of shrieking harpies ranting about 9/11 conspiracy theories, whether anyone has actually claimed to believe one of them or not.

That's not what happened here. It was particular questions, really poorly founded ones, that were criticized. The reasons for the criticism are given above.

Your particular what-ifs don't have any basis.

The main problem with the theory is that it makes the planes kind of gratuitous. If you were going to rig the buildings for demolition then it would have been simpler to explain the whole thing as a more successful attack than the 1993 one was, then frame some Iraqis and off you go. Why waste four expensive airplanes.

Or if you were planning a plane attack why bother demolishing some perfectly good buildings? The crashes alone would have created enough death, why throw away a few hundred firemen?

The whole thing is just too elaborate, the story simply doesn't make sense. For one thing you are counting on half trained pilots hitting the precise portion of the building where the demolition was rigged. It would look kind of funny if the plane hit the top floor and failure happenend thirty floors below.

I can't respond to the science about the buildings because this is not my area of knowledge. I am less concerned with te particulars of whether the Saudis were spirited away or not than I am with the nature of our relaitonship with them and how thats been glossed over for the sake of the mythology. And certainly Iraq is as good an example of why no one should trust the myth at face value as any. My point, and my only point of agreement, with the conspiracy theorists is the point at which they start- don't trust the narrative being feed to me. I don't have a competing view other than I don't trust them.

And if there really was some question about design or maintenence, well that might be of interest to engineers, insurance companies or lawyers for the firemen, but I don't see why anyone else would care.

In any event any suggestion that something was suspicious about the WTC collapse coupled with questions about the debris at the Pentagon only make sense in the context of an organized conspiracy. There were witnesses to the plane at the Pentagon, it flew low over a highway and a driver saw it. Of course he might be another co-conspirator.

i agree with stephen's first comment, i.e. that it's crazy to think that bush planned the twin towers attack, and also crazy to think that we have been told the complete truth about all of the events surrounding 9/11.

i have no doubts about the official stories surrounding nyc and the pentagon. i think there is slightly more room for doubt vis a vis the pennsylvania crash, but the only secret that might be hidden there--that a u.s. jet did the final shoot-down--doesn't strike me as such an appalling thing even if it were true. (and on the whole i believe the official narrative there, too).

one place where i *do* think there is room for a lot more questions is the anthrax letters. if anyone wants to start paranoid stories about cheney's shop creating terrorist incidents in order to create a pretext for invading iraq, then surely those are the far more likely incidents to focus on. and they remain unsolved.

but, to be honest, i don't really have the heart for a grand conspiracy theory there, either. i think it was a lone nutter, most likely.

and even if i'm wrong on that, it wouldn't much change what i think of cheney in any case. the crimes we know that bush and cheney are guilty of are sufficiently grave that there's not much point in making up conspiracies about crimes they might have committed.

One could make the case that a site
became so energetic (fuel to flammables,
weight heat & blast) and chaotic that really
unexpected emergent phenomena took over.
The systems people could get to know
with enough computing muscle.

But even that wouldn't explain egregious inconsistencies at several disparate crash sites.

Personally always been suspicious of the CONVENIENCE
of the occasion for yet another weak Bush presidency and the proto-fascist underpinning
motoring the Republicans and their co-actors.
But then I was raised on all the ongoing dirt the Warren Commision left behind....
why they gotta wait 40 years for, like....truth?

For example.

Argh. It's like arguing with global warming deniers. But... buuuuuttt... there's questions! There's disagreement! You can't ever convince them because they've got these insane conspiracy theories in their heads and the evillberalmedia/MSM is part of the coverup.

It's like arguing with global warming deniers.

If the Bush Administration were your only source on global warming, would you have some questions about it? Or would you carry their water just as you are now?

I know it won't matter, because no one will pay attention, but I don't think that Bush planned 9/11 (or anyone in the American government). The problem in this comment thread is that people are insisting upon that being the only question, the only thing about which there might be doubt, or concern or confusion.

I can understand why people would want to ignore every single thing other people have written, including Fisk's article, because it makes the issues surrounding a very dark day very simple. It means that no matter what else we have learned about the Bush Administration in the ensuing 6 years, at least upon that day and those following they were open and honest with us, that the villians named right after the attacks are indeed the only ones responsible, that the chain of events as presented to us is completely described, and never you mind any questions you might have.

What surprises me is that so many of the regular commenters on this blog would need such a simplistic, either/or set of beliefs about 9/11. Next thing you know someone will lecture me about how Saddam was a bad man, a very bad man - don't I think that bad terrible not-nice dictators should be removed and their people set free?

this is not at all like arguing about the science involved global warming. for you to make the comparison indicates you understand neither subject.

The problem in this comment thread is that people are insisting upon that being the only question, the only thing about which there might be doubt, or concern or confusion.

I don't think anyone has done this.

I can understand why people would want to ignore every single thing other people have written, including Fisk's article, because it makes the issues surrounding a very dark day very simple.

And no one has done this. On the contrary, the basis for what Fisk said was refuted.

What surprises me is that so many of the regular commenters on this blog would need such a simplistic, either/or set of beliefs about 9/11.

No one has implied such a view.

It's apparently "arguments from authority" day here at Ezra's blog. To wit:

However, I cannot understand people's willingness to accept what they've been told about the events of that day without question. They'll doubt Bush on absolutely everything else, but bring up 9/11 and all the sudden you're denying the virgin birth of Christ and the existence of Santa Claus all in one.

Bush's comments are judged upon the evidence supporting them. The Iraq case was doubted because the evidence did not line up behind his claims. Similarly, one believes the "official story" because the evidence does support such a story. It doesn't matter who spouts it, all that matters is the evidence.

The GC (my husband), the architect, and the engineer--all of whom are far more well-schooled in the art and science of metal building construction and destruction than I; none of whom is a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, nor are they even liberal--have questions about the WTC collapse (to put it mildly).

They're obviously not as smart as you think they are, because they don't understand that a metal doesn't have to reach it's melting point to lose integrity.

I abhor this post so much because it's the worst type of drive-by CT argumentation. Litbrit links, without much comment, to some crackpot. When she's criticized for doing so, she falls back on the "I'm not a troofer, it's only some questions" canard, as if she's not arguing exactly like the fellas at PrisonPlanet. Like it or not, Litbrit, by raising questions about the events of 9/11 that have been repeatedly debunked, you make you're self a conspiracy theorist.

Fisk didn't write about American foreign policy or the Bushes' relationship with the House of Saud. He wrote about plane parts not being there, steel melting, and the "mysterious" collapse of WTC7. The science backs up the official story on all these questions, and if you deny that, you shouldn't be offended when someone calls you a loony crackpot, because that's exactly what you are.

The GC (my husband), the architect, and the engineer--all of whom are far more well-schooled in the art and science of metal building construction and destruction than I; none of whom is a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, nor are they even liberal--have questions about the WTC collapse (to put it mildly).

What are their questions? Are they questions about the precise conditions that led to collapse that cannot be answered because the building collapsed?

Or do they honestly believe that somehow thousands of explosive charges were placed in three (WTC 1, 2, & 7) massive office towers without anyone noticing and then detonated, as Bruce Webb pointed out, in such as way as to make it look as though the collapses in WTC 1 & 2 started at the points of the aircrafts' collisions? Do they honestly believe an enormous three-part demo job was planned and executed without a single participant coming forward to admit their involvement?

Look. Two aircraft collided with two buildings. In both buildings, when the aircraft hit, elevators dropped and exploding gas came pouring down utility shafts, causing diffused explosions throughout the buildings. At the sites of the collisions, a kerosene-started fire was allowed to burn uncontrolled for over an hour, reaching temperatures that can easily weaken steel, especially steel that is bearing more than its normal loads (due to the severing of some beams in the initial collision) has had some of its fireproofing knocked off.
The steel eventually buckled, and the entire weight of the upper floors fell onto the lower floors, causing the global collapse of each building.

WTC 7 was a building standing next to two of the tallest buildings in the world. They both fell right next to it, causing tons and tons of flaming debris to come cascading towards the base of the building in an enormous wave of kinetic energy, likely damaging structural steel and creating a major uncontrolled fire that was allowed to burn for hours. This fire eventually weakened the structure, and it fell.

What's so hard to believe about this? I understand there are many specific questions that engineers may have, especially about WTC 7, which we may never answer.

But Fisk's Independent column was a piece of crap.

He brings up a series of points that demonstrate ignorance about the facts of the collapse. Most laughable is his point:

If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers - whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C - would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.)

He's thoroughly mixed up. He's confused the question of whether the steel at the point of impact would be weakened enough by the fires to cause a collapse with the question of why the collapses happened at different speeds.

The conspiracy theorists routinely bandy about the melting point of steel while missing the point that the steel only had to be weakened and overburdened to cause a total structural collapse. Also, the official reports point out that long after the kerosene had burned off, the resulting fire fueled by office furnishings would easily remain hot enough to weaken steel.

Secondly, the speed of the collapses has nothing to do with the weakened steel, it has to do with WHERE the buildings were hit by planes. On WTC 2, where the plane hit faster and lower and damaged more floors, a larger section of upper floors dropped on lower floors with greater force, causing a faster collapse. WTC 1 was hit higher by a comparatively slower plane that did comparatively less damage. It took longer for the collapse to happen, and since a smaller number of floors were falling on the rest of the building from a greater height, and thus the second collapse took slightly longer. The time of the collapse has nothing to do with either the melting point of steel or the price of tea in China.

Litbrit, it's a shitty column with a poor understanding of the basic engineering problems behind the collapse. You shouldn't have linked to it.

this is not at all like arguing about the science involved global warming. for you to make the comparison indicates you understand neither subject.

Actually you're right. It's more like arguing with proponents of intelligent design.

I've had opportunity to learn a good bit about steel building construction, since that's exactly what we're doing right now: building a modernist house out of welded I-beams. The GC (my husband), the architect, and the engineer--all of whom are far more well-schooled in the art and science of metal building construction and destruction than I; none of whom is a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, nor are they even liberal--have questions about the WTC collapse (to put it mildly).

litbrit, I didn't and don't want to tag you as some broad-brush conspiracy theorist; however, as a number of us have pointed out, the Fisk piece has some big problems in it. If you - or the other folks you mention - have questions, it seems to me that the thing to do is to look for answers. The answers are not to be found in the Fisk piece, but a number of pieces, as we've mentioned, do provide insight into structural questions about WTC 1,2 and 7, and the questions Fisk mentions at the Pentagon. Myself, the one that amazes me is these questions about WTC 7 - nothing on the day surprised me less than its eventual collapse. And while I too wondered about 1 and 2 initially, there have been multiple pieces published (I only recommend Pop Mechanics because of its completeness), all of which have laid out what Drew summarizes above - there was a weakening of support beams at the point of impact causing floors above to fall, and their weight led to the whole collapse in each case. No one, as Sanpete suggests, would say that there aren't questions left to be answered from 9/11. It's just that the questions Fisk raises aren't those questions; it's questions like those akaison raises of not trusting the larger narrative of how and why this happened that I think ought to be explored further - and there's no reason to simply accept what little information the Bush Administration has made public as the whole of that story.

weboy, for the outer steel columns to have failed so completely (dramatically reduced in strength by the fire) and bow inward, initiating the collapse, there would need to have been near-complete dislodging of the fireproofing. Obviously the planes dislodged the fireproofing at the points of entry, but were all the columns stripped of their fireproofing? That's one question I had, courtesy of my architect, who also wonders why the steel debris was not tested for explosives, if only to rule out any planned demolition theories people might have.

It's why I found the article interesting and provocative; I would add that The Independent is respected newspaper, not a website founded by conspiracy theorists.

The WTC 7 collapse actually bothers me most, because they (the NIST) are still studying it today, and while they have working hypotheses, they continue to consider all possibilities, including (even) a controlled blast:

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Doubting government's official stories--questioning them, even--is a function of journalism. Something Fisk himself says: "Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11." And reasoned discussion that includes links to fact-based texts is important and necessary, I feel, even if it means an article is shown to be weak or outright wrong, and the person responsible (in this case, me) for calling attention to it is considered a weak arguer, or outright wrong, by association. What is not important, what is certainly not necessary, is the personal attack mode in which some unfortunate persons have their language skills permanently stuck.

again nope on intelligent design. if you can't argue your position with out false analogies which we both know would not stand scrutiny, my point is to question your way of thinkign rather than assume something is wrong with others. i dont believe the conspiracy theories, but i can understand how inconsistencies can lead to questioning, which is something that an intelligent design person, and apparently yourself is incapable of doing.

akaison writes:

"... disproving a narrative doesn't require proving another narrative. This is the mentality of someone looking for a myth to believe in. Disproval,only requires- well disproval."
---------------------------------------
Without getting into an abstract discussion of philosophy of science - as far as I'm concerned and in this particular type of debate, any conspiracy theorist who wants to be taken seriously should at least be able to come up with an alternative explanatory narrative that isn't transparently ludicrous.

Let's consider Fisk's reference to the supposed missing airplane debris at the Pentagon. That claim is false, and mainly demonstrates Fisk's own ignorance of the subject.

But even if it were apparently true - what sinister alternative explanation could possibly account for it? We'd have to believe that American Flight 77 was somehow disappeared without a trace soon after its takeoff, the cell phone calls from Flight 77 were faked, some other type of explosive was employed to destroy a big chunk of the Pentagon, and all the eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the building were either coerced, bribed, or hypnotized. All of this was pulled off without alerting any of the people who happened to be working at the Pentagon that morning. And, the mysterious forces behind the plot went through all this trouble to create a fake jetliner crash despite the fact that they were able to obtain actual jetliners to crash into the World Trade Center at the same time.

It's not worthy of even a moment's consideration. No matter how many apparently unlikely or hard to explain aspects of the standard story one might point to, it can't come close to making the conspiracy explanation seem reasonable by comparison. So, when someone implies that a supposed absence of airplane parts at the Pentagon hints at the possibility of a hidden conspiracy, the appropriate response is dismissal - of the claim, and of the person making it.

weboy, for the outer steel columns to have failed so completely (dramatically reduced in strength by the fire) and bow inward, initiating the collapse, there would need to have been near-complete dislodging of the fireproofing. Obviously the planes dislodged the fireproofing at the points of entry, but were all the columns stripped of their fireproofing?

Why would all the columns need to be stripped for the building to collapse? Your premise is faulty.

; I would add that The Independent is respected newspaper, not a website founded by conspiracy theorists.

Stop arguing from authority! Just to quibble with this, the Independent gets science stuff wrong all the time, no one's perfect.

The WTC 7 collapse actually bothers me most, because they (the NIST) are still studying it today, and while they have working hypotheses, they continue to consider all possibilities, including (even) a controlled blast:

You're abusing normal scientific hesitancy into somehow backing up your claims. There's plenty of reasons why a study might still be ongoing (including the fact that the WTC7 probe was put on hold until the WTC1&2 inquiries were completed). In fact, you ignore this part of your quote:

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event,

Why is the fact that the study is ongoing more salient a fact than there being no evidence for a controlled demolition hypothesis?

Doubting government's official stories--questioning them, even--is a function of journalism.

Yes, but so is following the evidence and not making statements that contradict objective reality.

What is not important, what is certainly not necessary, is the personal attack mode in which some unfortunate persons have their language skills permanently stuck.

You can play the martyr all you want, but it won't make you any less wrong.

Akaison, I believe Antid's point was that arguing with 9/11 CTers is like arguing with global warming denialists and intelligent design proponents because all those groups ignore overwhelming contradictory evidence to their pet theories. Thus, the analogy is quite apt.

To follow up on Cain's point - in a post I largely agree with - the design of WTC 1 and 2 is also a key point here: it's the lack of supporting interior columns that makes the outer columns so crucial, and why you don't need all the columns to fail, just enough to shift too much weight onto others, which is what is said to have occurred; moreover, the fireproofing, we have learned, was quite poor. I'm not doubting the veracity of The Independent, but Fisk is a columnist for them; does this make everything David Brooks says in The New York Times unquestionable truth? I'm thinking no. And again, just because the scientists haven't published a full report on WTC 7 doesn't mean its collapse is mysterious or that it can't be explained; and we do, already, have some fine pieces of an explanation to rely on - and, as well, what's the assertion here? That the government wanted it taken down late in the afternoon? Why one Earth would that building's collapse be somehow more significant than the others? As I said, watching it that afternoon on TV at my sister's in the East Village, the fact that it had been on fire pretty much all day, clearly affected by the collapse of everything around it, made its collapse pretty much the anticlimax (and I would add, when I visited the WTC site that year at Thanksgiving the site was still on fire and you could smell the smoke; I can't really see why the most obvious explanation doesn't suffice). I hope it doesn't seem I'm trying to be personal about this; it's really just the issues raised that concern me, not an indictment of you for raising them.

It took me only a couple of minutes looking on Google. I wonder why Robert Fisk couldn't be bothered to make a similar effort

One point of context here: Fisk has written often about not using the internet, because of his perception that it's a locus of crackpots. In that regard, he's an interesting test case of someone who hasn't been exposed to the obsessives online, but only through his dead-tree reading and public speaking.

I think the engineering stuff is weak, and I'm sure that someone will post him a print-out of the Pop. Mech. work. But the cultural stuff is more interesting.

A lot of the 'troofer' stuff, I think, is obsessive overinterpretation of the fog of war, built upon the understandable reporting problems of the day. But there's also a fog of the aftermath, due in part to the reluctance to revisit the minute-by-minute of what happened that day. And I can't help thinking that such reluctance also helped create the conditions, a year later, to roll out the Iraq War Product with massive helpings of insinuation. It made it easier for Cheney to bullshit about Atta-in-Prague, and to this day it keeps Stephen Hayes in a job.

It's apparently "arguments from authority" day here at Ezra's blog.

Yup, it is. Notice how the invocation of Popular Mechanics was supposed to silence the rabble. But that's not what you were talking about, was it?

At any rate, I'm fairly intolerant of people who've memorized the Wikipedia page on internet arguments and then throw the terms around indiscriminately, thinking that being able to apply labels to everyone's comments somehow makes for an intelligent debate.

The "appeal to authority" is particularly pointless, since in the real world it's a common practice to cite expert sources to bolster one's arguments. The point of talking about the Independent's reputation was in direct response to people denigrating it, not so you could get up on your Wiki high horse again.

Why would all the columns need to be stripped for the building to collapse?

Because a fucking architect for a steel-beam building said so. Oh, I'm sorry, is that an appeal to authority?

I'm loving this comment thread, because it shows just how sacred a spot the events of 9/11 occupy for people. There's a lot of ideas that get bandied about on this blog, and nothing else has ever hit such a sensitive spot for so many people.

And really, no one has advocated any 9/11 conspiracy theories. All that's been suggested is that there are some unanswered questions - and there are. But to even acknowledge the existence of the questions, as I've pointed out, is to apparently drive a bunch of otherwise quite reasonable people nuts.

It's interesting that Antid Oto keeps on bringing up silly examples in order to insult litbrit and me into submission. This comment thread reminds me of nothing so much as a conversation I had a few years ago with a coworker who was an extremely fundamentalist Christian. We had been talking a while about matters of religion, politics and science, and I asked her what would change in her beliefs about God if evolution accurately described the history of life on this planet - not that God didn't do anything, but that he used evolution. What if that were the case?

It's not that she disagreed. It's that she took what had been an interesting and very civil conversation and turned it into a rather lengthy rant against me personally. After that she didn't speak to me unless it was necessary.

Sometimes people have sacred cows, I guess, and you just can't touch them.

But to even acknowledge the existence of the questions, as I've pointed out, is to apparently drive a bunch of otherwise quite reasonable people nuts.

Not really what's happening, as several have pointed out.

The people who you think are exceptionally upset are like this much more often than you've noticed. You probably haven't noticed partly because they're usually agreeing with you, and it doesn't register the same way as when they're upset at you.

Yup, it is. Notice how the invocation of Popular Mechanics was supposed to silence the rabble. But that's not what you were talking about, was it?

Wow, that's totally not the same thing at all. You were pointed to Popular Mechanics to look at the arguments and evidence therein in support of arguments we were already making; no one simply said "Popular Mechanics disagrees" and left it at that. Litbrit basically said "well, it's in the Independent, so it must be credible". If you can't see the difference between those two positions, well, it says a lot more about you than it does about us.

And really, no one has advocated any 9/11 conspiracy theories. All that's been suggested is that there are some unanswered questions - and there are. But to even acknowledge the existence of the questions, as I've pointed out, is to apparently drive a bunch of otherwise quite reasonable people nuts.

Opinions aren't equally legitimate, nor are all questions equally valid. We're pointing out that your questions are factually incorrect and logically faulty. But apparently such critical reasoning counts as going nuts in your eyes.

At any rate, I'm fairly intolerant of people who've memorized the Wikipedia page on internet arguments and then throw the terms around indiscriminately, thinking that being able to apply labels to everyone's comments somehow makes for an intelligent debate.

The "appeal to authority" is particularly pointless, since in the real world it's a common practice to cite expert sources to bolster one's arguments. The point of talking about the Independent's reputation was in direct response to people denigrating it, not so you could get up on your Wiki high horse again.

So I shouldn't bring up that your questions are copied almost verbatim from Loose Change, Prison Planet, 9/11 Truth, and every other denialist website? (see, I can play this game too!) Additionally, citing sources isn't the same thing as saying something is true because this source says so. I even mentioned that my criticism of the Independent's reputation was pointless, as the only thing that matters is evidence.

And really, this is what it all comes back to: evidence. You don't have any, and you ignore such to the contrary. When this is brought up, you claim everyone's attacking you personally and bask in your persecution. It's like you're reading directly out of the Crank HOWTO and it's the lamest trick in the book.

Because a fucking architect for a steel-beam building said so. Oh, I'm sorry, is that an appeal to authority?

Who was that again? One of the people working on Litbrit's house?

Just for humor's sake, here's what Ezra's favorite webcomic has to say on the subject.

So much anger! Can't we all just get along and agree Bush & Co. are evil regardless of their 9/11 culpability?

Anyway, I feel that there's been some talking past each other with regards to steel "snapping" vs. "melting." i try to address this here.

Not that anyone's still reading this, but if they are, I would just like to offer an explanation for why this issue makes the anti-conspiracy folks so adamant.

I know that NO ONE on this thread is a true tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist. But when reader of a sharp, intelligent wonky blog says: "I've got some questions about the 9/11 collapse," and then continue to ask them when other readers answer them or point them to places where the answers are found, it become maddening.

To believe that anything other than the planes caused the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon is to deny an overwhelming mountain of evidence. To be quite honest, if you've done some research into this and still doubt that planes alone caused the carnage of 9/11, you're being willfully ignorant. You're denying the laws of physics and the rules of logic. When I say this, I'm not being a swinging-dick uber-rational male, I'm defending the very means by which we evaluate truth claims.

And, yes, that is a sacred cow, Stephen. And yes, you're willfully ignorant. For example, if you actually read the PM article, you'd know that NO, not every last column had to be stripped of fireproofing for it to fail. But instead, you think that litbrit's second-hand parroting of her architect (who may never have made such a claim in the first place; if you read her post carefully, she never claims he said all beams need to be stripped) is superior truth claim.

Also, of course the fact that we're talking about 9/11 adds to the intensity of the debate. How could it not? But I also would add that most people here have not gotten "personal." I've enjoyed litbrit's posts. Like all of Ezra's wonky associates, she's sharp and thoughtful, and I hope to see more from her again. I do, however, believe she was careless in giving Fisk's lousy column the imprimatur of Ezra's fine blog. She's implying that Fisk's half-baked speculation belongs in blog that values evidence and research. It's offensive to the sensibilities of many of the people who read this blog. And, when you get down to it, Fisk's line of reasoning is troublesome, because to take any of it seriously, you end up rather rapidly in the magical land where phantom demo crews roam and all the people wear shiny, wonderful hats made of the finest pressed aluminum.

I like how people tell me my arguments are "exactly like" all these conspiracy websites, when I've never been to one of them, never heard of them. All I know about 9/11 conspiracies comes from hearsay - well, I did read the Popular Mechanics article when it came out.

Speaking of which, it was absolutely presented as "here's the final word, the authority, because PM is full of really smart guys." Don't blame me if your over-reliance upon a silly Wiki page ends up making you uncomfortable.

Thanks, Quixote, for being the only person who actually read my comments and responded. I guess everyone else was too busy with "Aack! Thpt! Conspiracy!" to pay attention.

Speaking of which, it was absolutely presented as "here's the final word, the authority, because PM is full of really smart guys." Don't blame me if your over-reliance upon a silly Wiki page ends up making you uncomfortable.

No, it wasn't, and all the arguments here against you certainly haven't been continued linking to PM. I've never seen the Wiki page you site, but I guess it's easier to go to that than to actually address any of the arguments against you.

I guess everyone else was too busy with "Aack! Thpt! Conspiracy!" to pay attention.

Sigh. As Sanpete says, no one has said this, it's just a useful strawman for you to invoke to avoid addressing evidence contradictory to your position. Again, do you have any evidence or are you just talking out your ass?

"Doubting government's official stories--questioning them, even--is a function of journalism. Something Fisk himself says: "Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11." And reasoned discussion that includes links to fact-based texts is important and necessary, I feel, even if it means an article is shown to be weak or outright wrong, and the person responsible (in this case, me) for calling attention to it is considered a weak arguer, or outright wrong, by association. What is not important, what is certainly not necessary, is the personal attack mode in which some unfortunate persons have their language skills permanently stuck."

Oh, really, spare us. 'Doubting government's official stories' is not the purpose of journalism. The purpose of journalism is to find the truth. You are like any conspiracy theorist in that you do indeed remain willfully ignorant, as the poster above correctly said. You linked to a silly article asking silly "questions" that have long since been answered. The columns did not have to melt. Airplane parts (and even engine parts) were found at the Pentagon. For that matter, in what way have Flight 93 officials been "muzzled"? Typical vague "ooh, scary" fuzzy-minded conspiracy thinking.

What else shall you argue in your stated mission of doubting government's official stories? Will we next get a litbrit post about all the "unanswered questions" about the Apollo program, complete with links to half-baked articles about silly conspiracy theories? Can't wait for that, because it seems the mission of a journalist is to doubt government's official theories, instead of what it used to be, which is weighing the evidence and determining the truth.

This blog entry was by far the worst thing I have ever read on Ezra Klein's blog. I do hope that he takes the keys away from Tornello if she continues to muck up his website with entries like this.

Excellent point, Vidor.

Vidor + Assorted Others:

Settle down. You go over the top when you advocate in multiple comments that LitBrit should be exiled from this blog for quoting one article that may have some problems. I know we're the uncouth internet hoards, but it's still pretty excessive to advocate dismissing someone over a link. I mean, do you have a sense of proportion?

Moreover, you should know that the proper way to make this kind of suggestion is to email Ezra. Or do you think he's incapable of choosing associates? As it is, you're just making a rhetorical point: "I think what you said is so stupid that you shouldn't be allowed to talk anymore."

Thanks, we get it. Please stop.

"I guess everyone else was too busy with "Aack! Thpt! Conspiracy!" to pay attention."

Wait - Bill the Cat's on this thread?

Settle down. You go over the top when you advocate in multiple comments that LitBrit should be exiled from this blog for quoting one article that may have some problems. I know we're the uncouth internet hoards, but it's still pretty excessive to advocate dismissing someone over a link. I mean, do you have a sense of proportion?

Kos follows the exact same policy, does he not have a sense of proportion? And "might have some problems" is a little mild, she's advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Moreover, you should know that the proper way to make this kind of suggestion is to email Ezra. Or do you think he's incapable of choosing associates? As it is, you're just making a rhetorical point: "I think what you said is so stupid that you shouldn't be allowed to talk anymore."

Oh please. Why does Litbrit get a pass on being criticized for her views when no other person who puts their opinions out on the internet gets the same? I know she's a guest blogger here but she still posted idiocy, and she deserves all the flak she's getting for it.

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘