Not an expert on this topic at all, but that article from the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" is suspect. A quick Google search about the journal (which I had never heard of) suggests that it's a predatory, "open access" journal, which I think means there is no peer review. It's just pay to play.

Furthermore, most of the authors aren't academics. One guy lists his affiliation as BYU Dept of Physics, but when you search the dept of Physics, there's no listing for him. You then find out he was a lab manager there. Most of the other guys have affiliations which seem to be made-up names.

Another analysis (by a PhD) presented at a mainstream science conference seems to debunk their claims. http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

I do not have the expertise to read this. I'd be curious if there is any similar published result by reputable, mainstream academic scientists. Or if the conspiracy theory is so deep that the deep state threatens all these academics with their lives so they can't publish the truth?

Expand full comment

I don’t doubt that there’s muddling of the information, like with anything else that directly affects thousands of people and indirectly affects millions (if not billions, at this point). I don’t doubt some thermite was found, but i also wouldn’t put it past some group to falsify their testing in some way for political gain.

I also don’t think anyone would want to take a public stance on the idea that thousands of people dying was the best-case scenario. It feels wrong, like there had to be a better option. I think that’s the tragedy in this. Whether the information wasn’t received or taken seriously enough, or whatever story people draw from it, the fact that there isn’t direct commentary to definitely say so leaves it open for discussion. I think that’s a failure of the US Gov’t, but it’s also a tactic. They never admit that something had to be done, so they never have to admit they did it.

Reminds me of a “a few good men”, and not in the clipped Hawk way.

Expand full comment

If we were to build a city, wouldn’t it be smart to require buildings of this size to have controlled demolitions as a safety precaution against their toppling onto other buildings? I’m not agreeing with the idea of having these controlled demolitions, but it’s worth considering this was done as a protective measure.

In the event that you have an entire city to be concerned with, the loss of a building is thousands of lives. If that building topples onto another, you’re now looking at thousands more. If we’re talking a tall enough building, you might even be looking at multiple buildings damaged by the fall of the first.

While I’m sure insurance companies would never cover something while having knowledge of this, zooming out to better understand how this could be beneficial is relatively sociopathic. It’s a conversation of human lives as resources, a conversation I’m sure is had only when tragedy is guaranteed and the minimization of said tragedy is the goal. Do we let thousands die and be directly impacted by an event? Or do we let tens of thousands die, and potentially hundreds of thousands be impacted?

Some person or group had to make that call, and that must weigh on them… or it doesn’t, and the right sort of person has the job.

Expand full comment

Not sure how that was not a controlled demolition. Your eyes do not lie but your brain does.

Expand full comment