Occam's Razor and a 9-11 Conspiracy

In an recent post I invoked the principle of Occam's razor -- that when confronted with two competing explanations, we should choose that which embodies fewer apriori assumptions.  My focus was on the difficulty of reconciling three factors: i) the  easily observed characteristics the three catastrophic building collapses of 9-11,  ii) the official explanations of same, and iii) the known laws of physics.  My conclusions --  were that the official explanations were untenable,  and that the collapses could be explained only by the use of explosives, strategically placed and detonated.

Following Occam, however, I explicitly rejected any discussion of conspiracy theories.  Nonetheless, a report in the New York Times  now raises again the conspiracy question.  A pair of credible individuals, both former United States Senators, one of whom served on the 9-11 Commission, both with access to secret information, have publicly stated their belief that the Saudi government was linked the attacks of 9-11.

I refer the reader to the Times article; I will not pursue the discussion other than to note that most so-called progressive or left-wing commentators have refused to touch the 9-11 question as regards the credibility of the official narrative.  Hopefully, this will begin to change.

Requiescat in Pacem

Steve Jobs, a man who saw that digital technology could be beautiful, and made it so, has died.

Occam's Razor and the Attacks of September 11.

On the tenth anniversary of the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, upon the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, many reflections occur: mostly somber and troubling, with perhaps a few faint rays of hope.

My starting point is Occam's razor: a principle in logic used to guide the choice between competing explanations of a given phenomenon: namely, the admonition to choose the explanation which requires apriori the fewest hypothetical assumptions.  Even in applying this principle to an examination of the World Trade Center attacks, one is forced upon a bifurcation: we have on the one hand the physical question -- based upon the  available evidence and the known laws of physics, of what caused the collapses of three buildings i.e. the Twin Towers and 'Building Seven;' and on the other hand, we have the (essentially) political  question: who engineered and carried out the attack, and for what purpose?

Of the two, the laws of physics are far simpler to approach, and yield (in my view) a far simpler answer.  The simplest explanation for the collapse of the buildings is (as I will later explain) that they were blown up, imploded, by explosive charges placed by demolition experts.  That is, Occam rejects the official explanation, as promulgated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of Standards.

However, the official account of who planned and executed the attacks -- a group of fundamentalist terrorists supported by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden -- is clearly simpler, and more favorable to Occam, than any of the elaborate conspiracy theories which  must be constructed to justify the conclusion that the buildings were in fact demolished with explosives.

Reasonable people may disagree in weighing the merits and demerits of the alternate conclusions; since my training and professional experience lie in the physical sciences, I much prefer to establish the principle in which physics guides.  In the words of the late Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynmann, "You can't fool Mother Nature."  Beyond that, I believe that history shows that the human race is eminently prone to being fooled, so I will by and large avoid the political question of who and why.  What is important is simply to establish what physics does and does not allow.

I will state at the outset the three simple facts caused me to arrive at my current viewpoint.    First, that all of Southern Manhattan was enveloped in enormous cloud of dense dust and smoke, consisting of pulverized debris.   Second, that Building Seven, which, on the afternoon of Sept. 11 2001,  collapsed as if demolished, had not been struck by an airplane. Third, that three buildings all collapsed, according to eyewitnesses and reporters on the scene, as if they were controlled demolitions.

My ordering must seem eccentric, but it was the dust cloud that first alerted me: there could simply not be enough potential energy liberated in the collapse to pulverize the wreckage, and re-launch it sky-ward.  A straightforward calculation using the bond energy of Portland Cement, and comparing the energy required to convert a kilogram of same into particles of 20 micron diameter, shows that with perfect conversion, a free fall of 300 meters has four times the required energy.  However, the entire mass of concrete did not fall 300 meters, and much energy must be lost in collisions during the fall with structural elements in the path of any falling fragment; furthermore, a comparable amount of energy is required to re-launch the dust into the enormous cloud.  Furthermore, and most damningly, much of the pulverization appears to have occurred in mid-air.

Next we have the case of Building Seven, which was not struck by an airplane, but which nonetheless suffered collateral damage, including the outbreak of several fires.  The anomalies abound here, but I will focus on the official explanation, that office fires weakened a specific structural column, whose failure triggered the collapse of the entire structure.  This defies credulity.  The collapse is quite symmetrical; the failure of one column cannot lead to the simultaneous and symmetric collapse of structural elements remote from the failure.  There would be a torque, and a listing, and the building would have to fall towards the weakened side.

Finally we have the fact that three buildings suffered asymmetrical damage, but all collapsed in largely symmetrical fashion -- that is, straight down into their own footprints, on a single day.

I have marshalled but a tiny fragment of the available evidence. The most complete, and to my mind, reputable effort to make the case for controlled demolition has been put forth by the architect Richard Gage, through his organization Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.  I leave it to the interested reader to look up their website, if he so desires.  I can only caution the reader that the web contains a vast amount of crack-pot posting on these subjects, but pro and contra the opinions I have expressed.

                                                                    ********

As for who perpetrated this crime and why, I will not venture my opinions.  I will only state that readers of this weblog are well aware of my belief that the resultant Global War on Terror has been essentially an exercise in promoting a police state at home, and military adventurism abroad.

I do not think it extreme to say that America has in effect suffered a coup d'etat.  The so-called progressive left in this country, as exemplified by my blog-roll has absolutely proscribed any discussion of 9-11 truth or conspiracy -- largely, I believe, to protect themselves from the jeers of the political right wing.  This is a grave error in my view.

America will never be healed until the truth of is known of September 11, 2001.

It's All Over but the Crying, or Why I will not Vote Again for Barack Obama

For starters, after a brief flirtation with the John Edwards candidacy, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries.  I had many reasons, but they may be summed up anecdotally in terms of a telling contrast.  On the one hand, long before her White House tenure, Hillary had been a staffer on the Senate Watergate Committee, and had seen and known Republican skullduggery at close range;  then during her husband's presidency, she was also served a walloping great helping of the same, which led to her correct diagnosis and identification of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' at work.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, praised the cheerful optimism of Ronald Reagan, and mixed up (so to speak) a large pitcher of Kool-Aid, labelled 'comity' and bi-partisanship.'

To any objective observer of American politics, who had been awake since, say, 1978, the contrast between Hillary and Obama was rendered stark by comparing these motifs: Watergate versus Bi-partisanship.

I had a sackful of other reasons for dis-liking Obama in the primaries, but let this simple metaphorical take stand in for the rest.  When he won the nomination, I considered withholding my vote in the general election; but in the end, the spectre of Sarah Palin as vice-president was frightening enough to compel my vote -- the latest in a continuous string for Democratic Presidential Candidates, since McGovern in 1972.

But no more.  The debt ceiling comedy, and its horrific denouement, has torn it for me.  This has been from the start a manufactured crisis, in which Obama's principle goal was to attack the great Social Insurance policies of the New Deal and Great Society: Social Security, and Medicare. He has succeeded, beyond the dreams of any Republican president.  I will not provide hyperlinks, but the curious reader who has been asleep may, if he so desires, consult the writings of Nobel laureate and progressive gadfly and truth-teller Paul Krugman, who, from his perch on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, has analyzed with deadly accuracy the follies and mis-steps of the Obama administration in the run-up to this disastrous piece of legislation.

I will only state in conclusion what should be obvious to all.  Barack Obama is no Democrat.  He is not even a moderate Republican.  He is a mainstream Republican masquerading as a Democrat.  I will not vote for him again.  A Republican in name and deed both could do no more harm.  I weep for the future of our once-great nation.

Is Boenhner Trying to Save Obama from Himself? or Just Chicken? or Both?

The recent big news on the debt ceiling death spiral is that Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has walked away from the talks with President Obama.  The usual take on this is that it reflects the usual Republican intransigence in all dealings with Democrats, and particularly, with the current occupant of the White House.

My somewhat contrarian view is that Speaker Boehner is in fact appalled at the cuts in social programs being offered by the President, and wants no part of any deal which includes them.

In this sense, he is saving the Republican party from Armageddon -- since the proffered cuts are in Social Security and Medicare, both of which are extremely popular with Republican voters.   Also, by inadvertance (or unwelcome necessity) he is saving the President from his own misguided attempt to cut those programs.

Call it a failure of Republican nerve, or call it a political calculation which mixes a good dose of self preservation with the knowledge that those programs are more useful to Republicans as propaganda targets on the hoof, then they would be if extinguished.  Either way -- I think Boehner's withdrawal from the talks might signal, in an odd way, the best good sense we've seen from Washington in several months.

Default by Design?

As the kabuki dance of fiscal death spirals towards its uncertain conclusion, amidst conflicting reports of deals made (or not made) to raise the ceiling of the US national debt -- thereby staving off a default on same --it becomes permissible to ask whether or not certain powerful parties view fiscal default as a positive outcome, and if so, why.

There is off course the Tea Party caucus in the US House of Representatives, who are the most visible agitators for default, and in my view, the least interesting.  Their gestalt is best summarized in a quotation from the great Sam Rayburn, who (reportedly) said, "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one."  The comparison to the Tea Party caucus is of course insulting to jackasses, but my point is simply that the Teahadists are puppets, incapable of much independent thought, essentially cannon fodder in a larger Class War now being fought in our once-great nation.

Of greater interest to me is the anti-tax oracle and agitator Grover Norquist, who famously declared his desire to shrink the US federal government to a size small enough to permit its being drowned in a bathtub. Although he perhaps does not pointedly attack the great social contract programs of the New Deal and Great Society -- most notably Social Security and Medicare -- both are surely in his gunsights, because of their size and scope.

So how does default work towards his benefit?  Through the medium of Bond Vigilantes.  These mythical beasts -- financial unicorns I call 'em -- are supposed to magically appear in these troubled times of bloated government spending, and magically enforce fiscal discipline by driving up the interest on US government debt.  The only problem is, they haven't.  US government debt remains cheap by historical standards, and would easily permit (were policy makers in Washington but to will it) expansion of the national debt, to finance entitlements, but also anti-recessionary stimulus measures.

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, a brain surgeon, or a Nobel laureate in economics to see that a default on the US national debt -- or even the threat of default -- could drive up interest rates over the long term, thus effectively conjuring into existence the heretofore imaginary bond vigilantes.  Therefore from Norquist's viewpoint (and that of like-minded individuals) a default is desirable; and I have little doubt that he is stirring the  congressional pot to this end, through every resource of undercover private lobbying.

Another curious fact has recently been noticed: big banks are not actively lobbying against default.  This is odd on the face of it, since banks have much to lose should default occur.  Have the banks gone over to the Norquist camp, despite the obvious dangers to them of a further financial crisis?

Another point.  Why has not President Obama strongly asserted his right to  unilaterally raise the debt ceiling under the 14 Amendment of the US Constitution?  To the cynics, the answer is of course obvious.  It has been clear, ever since he convened the infamous catfood commission, that the President's much vaunted notion of 'bi-partisanship' means simply helping the GOP accomplish its long-held goal of destroying the Social Contract in America -- or any functional equivalent.  This means Social Security and Medicare must be cut, hopefully with such severity that they will bleed to death.

He has therefore, instead of insisting on a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling, pursued the chimera of a 'grand bargain' with congressional Republicans, to reduce the deficit, and cut social entitlements.  To call this a fools' game is to be unkind to fools.

Obama's Liberal Nominations: Failure by Design

Nobel Laureate economist Peter Diamond announces, in a NY Times Op Ed piece, that he is withdrawing his name from candidacy for the Federal Reserve Board of Governers.  He was nominated by the President in April of 2010, but the Democratic Leadership -- Senate and Whitehouse -- were unable to push through his confirmation, even when they held a strong majority in the Senate.  Apparently an recess appointment was never considered; certainly never acted upon.

James Fallows has some thoughts on the broken confirmation process, and the idiocy of Senator Shelby -- sure a candidate for an "Ow the stupid! It Burns!" award.  Hat tip to Brad Delong here, who also has some worthwhile observations on what it means for the nation and the economy.

My personal view is that this is failure by design, an elaborate Kabuki  Obama nominated a strong progressive to shore up support from his progressive base -- then let the nominee twist slowly in the wind -- and never intended to push ardently for confirmation.