- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
~ Arthur Conan Doyle
-
- As a testimony to a couple of legendary but fictional
detectives, I once wrote a pair of Internet essays called "Detective Columbo Asks:
Was 911 An Inside Job?" and another entitled, "Sherlock
Holmes & 911...The ULTIMATE Unsolved Mystery." Just imagine
the conversation detective Columbo might have had with Watson and Holmes,
as that trio stared at the pile of wreckage in the weeks after 911.
-
- As one of the more iconoclastic writers on the Internet,
I get a lot of intelligent emails contesting my viewpoints. Recently a
man named Jay emailed me in reference to 911 and said I didn't know the
laws of physics. He said I didn't know what I was talking about, didn't
know metallurgy, didn't know mathematics.
-
- I have to admit Jay was more than a little correct. I
scarcely know the difference between Newton's
Three Laws of Motion and Murphy's Law. So I decided to do a little
snooping around and see if I couldn't learn a lot more about laws. Helps
to know what you,re talking about.
-
- In a recent Rense essay, the one that bothered Jay, I
took MIT to task for implying that the Twin Towers collapsed due to sudden
weakening of the steel caused by fire. I suggested MIT engineers should
just build a scale model and prove their unscientific theory. Because 911
heretics like myself just don't buy it.
-
- Jay, a machinist, claimed you couldn't build a forty
or fifty foot scale model of the Twin Towers (1/25 scale) and replicate
the collapse using a scale model of a Boeing 757. Mentioned something about
the differences between the mass of the real structures and the mass of
the models, plus a whole bunch of other technical data.
-
- He quoted the rule of Occam's
Razor "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate""or
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. Detectives often
use Occam's razor to shave in the morning before locating the culprits
in most crimes.
-
- Curiously, the name Occam, or Ockham, wasn't applied
to the razor until several hundred years later. Sometimes, when you cut
away the simplest explanation, you realize it isn't always correct.
-
- Jay adhered to the official, government explanation for
the collapse of the two taller towers, that they pancaked down due to truss
failure, rather than imploded. He did admit that WTC-7 was "deliberately
demolished with the permission of the owner."
-
- According to Murphy's Law (one of many), "Any object
when dropped will roll into the least accessible corner." Curiously,
the three collapsed building, instead of falling all over the place, ALL
fell exactly into their own footprints. Convenient. Perhaps the best Murphy's
Law that applies to 911 is: "If you can't understand it, it is intuitively
obvious."
-
- Thus, if you can't understand it was controlled, than
perhaps you are controlled, we 911 skeptics suggest.
-
- I remarked that a stout 47 story skyscraper with a few
fires raging in the lower floors (and just HOW did they start?) had collapsed
suspiciously. Never happened before or since.
-
- WTC-7 dropped"fell doesn't describe the rapidity--almost
as fast as one of Newton's free-falling objects obeying his gravitational
Law. Eye-witnesses to the collapse--firemen, policemen, news reporters"concurred,
stating repeatedly the collapse resembled a "controlled demolition."
-
- Recently, a BYU physics professor arrived at the exact
same conclusion. A controlled demolition, he said, but for ALL three buildings.
Now professor Steven Jones may, or may not, have applied Occam's Razor
to the puzzle, or he may have reverted to Doyle's Dictum: "When you
have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must
be the truth."
-
- Sir Isaac Newton, not to mention detectives Columbo &
Holmes, (sounds like a TV show) may also wish to know why a man who just
purchased a 47 story building which contained acres of US government records,
Secret Service offices and Mayor Giuliani's emergency command post, would
choose to destroy it? And most importantly, How?
-
- Now if we apply Occam's Razor (that the simplest explanation
is usually the most likely), recent owner Larry Silverstein is simply guilty
of massive insurance fraud. And destruction of government property. And
conspiracy. And perjury. And reckless endangerment.
-
- Because any man who buys a piece of property, purchases
massive amounts of insurance, and purposely destroys it weeks later, only
to claim many times the amount of what that property is worth, is almost
always a criminal suspect.
-
- And Silverstein admitted doing it. His words to that
effect were taped.
-
- But how could Silverstein have arranged to "pull
it" (his remarks) in the few hectic hours before the collapse? Normally,
a controlled demolition requires days or weeks, not hours, of careful preparation.
Jay claimed it could be done, but by whom?
-
- Recall the streets around the collapsed Trade Towers
were inaccessible, clogged with dust, piles of debris, wrecked fire trucks
and police cars that morning. And thousands of fleeing New Yorkers.
-
- Unless, of course, Silverstein had arranged the demolition
days or weeks earlier. Because the laws of probability, weigh heavily
against a professional demolition team arriving on the scene, unpacking
their gear unnoticed, and rigging high explosives while several fires rage
around and above them.
-
- Since scientific people love Occam's Razor, I devised
an even simpler rule. I call mine, "Doug's Denouement." According
to the definition, a denouement (day-new-ma) is, "1:The outcome of
a complex sequence of events. 2: the final resolution of the main complication
of a literary or dramatic work. The unraveling or discovery of a plot,
especially of a drama. 4: The solution of a mystery; issue; outcome."
-
- Doug's Denouement: "If something looks like a conspiracy,
sounds like a conspiracy, acts like a conspiracy, feels like a conspiracy,
and smells rotten like a conspiracy, it probably is a conspiracy."
My denouement follows the classic description of a duck that we know so
well.
-
- But wait, let me clarify things. It's not a conspiracy
if it's a fact. And any fact found in the street weighs exponentially many
times more than any official government version. At least in the last fifty
years or so.
-
- Wisely, BYU physics professor James avoided the question
of Why the buildings were imploded (He didn't even mention that miraculous
passport). Physics cannot be confused with philosophy or ethics, or even
Forensics 101.
-
- After September 11th, the forensic crime scene invetigators
at the WTC site, and later at the ironically named Fresh Kills, sorted
through dust looking for human remains while the bigger pieces of the puzzle
(steel beams and girders) were hastily shipped to China. Why they did so
may require a greater law than Murphy's or Newton's or Occam's Razor to
discover.
-
- Perhaps one day we'll call it Fitzgerald's Law.
-
- Douglas Herman contributes to Rense and is the author
of the provocative detective novel: The
Guns of Dallas
-
-
|
