More thoughts about 9-11


I wonder what would have happened if the World Trade Center towers had never been demolished, and the day came when it was time to bring the buldings down to make room for an even more sensational structure. You can imagine the conversation of that day. There would have been a board meeting, and engineers would have discussed how to bring the buildings down. Of course part of that conversation would have been about a controlled demolition. That would have been the standard and most satisfactory way of accomplishing the task. Can you imagine, though, if to everybody's surprise, one of the engineers stepped forward and said, "Hey I have an easier way. Why not just fly a jet liner into the building. That will bring it down quick enough!" What kind of reaction do you think the rest of the engineers, knowing nothing about the events of 9-11, would have to such a suggestion? They would not necessarily denounce such a suggestion as absurd, but might explain why it would not do the job. Let's say a lot of money was riding on bringing those buildings down. I'm sure they would scrutinize such a proposal to make sure it could or could not do the job. What if the board took the engineer's suggestion, and on the day of the demolition, the plane went into the building, but the building did not collapse? Naturally they would want to do all their calculations ahead of time. But since the buildings had already been designed to withstand the impact of an airliner, it is not likely that they would take their precious time to entertain such a suggestion.

Another way of viewing this whole question is, how would one design a building which, if a plane were to collide with it, would collapse into a pile of rubble just like a  controlled demolition? When we assemble the characteristics of such a building, we should then compare it with the World Trade Center towers, so that we could see if there were any difference between the two.

As I have written before in previous posts, the ideal structure for duplicating the World Trade Center collapses would be a tower composed of wooden blocks without any binding force between the blocks, something like the proverbial "house of cards." It would be understandable if such a structure collapsed after being hit on one side. Of course, even this model does not explain how the towers stood for an hour or so before suddenly turning into such a structure and collapsing.

Wooden blocks have some stability, which is why a structure built of them can stand at all. It is the lateral pressure that intitiates collapse. The differences between our wood block model and that of the World Trade Center collapses can help us to further refine our model of the latter. Eventually we should arrive at the type of structure that will sustain an impact of an airliner, and then allow an hour or so before completely collapsing and disintegrating into a pile of rubble.

What does the debate on evolution vs. creation have to do with the debate on whether or not the government played a roll in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9-11? Well, here is the connection. The public has been treated to innumerable ad hominem attacks by the supporters of evolutionon, against intelligent design theorists and creationists . The problem with evolution is much the same as the government case that planes brought down the two towers. Both causes cannot be matched up to the effects. For example, in the theory of evolution, the complexities of nature, or even of the human body, or of one organ in the human body, is thought to have been caused by a random process of natural selection and mutation. In the case of the World Trade Center collapse, the towers are said to have been damaged sufficiently to cause a massive disintegration of each of the buildings in a matter of seconds. In both cases, the causes do in no wise match the effects. But what is of interest is that the same methods that are used to attack intelligent design are also used to attack proponents of the theory that the collapse of the towers was the result of a controlled demolition. The collision of the planes with the towers is deemed insuffient to have brought the towers down. The public has, however, become accustomed to the rhetoric used to denounce intelligent design theorists. Thus they are now more likely to listen to the same hollow arguments against the demolition theorists.

It is interesting to note, however, that intelligent design theories have been a staple of the scientific community. Nobel prize winner Svente Arrhenius was the first to suggest the theory of pan spermia - that life on earth actually originates from the spread of organic material throughout the universe. Pan spermia theories were taken up by Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and co-unraveler of the molecular structure of DNA, as well as famed astrophysicist Dr. Fred Hoyle. It is too bad that the opponents of evolution fail to recognize these important scientific researchers. A recent New York Times article about Frick mentioned his interesting theories about the origin of life, but it failed to include the derisive remarks that ususally accomapny stories about intelligent design. One shoud, I suppose, just chalk that one up to journalistic schizophrenia.