Looking at 9/11 with actual science

[jblomenberg16]

The WTC Conspiracy theories remind me of the Hoax Moon Landing Theories; they sound all sciency and stuff until you actually try to verify the underlying "science". Then they just sound dumb.

The Mythbusters did a pretty good job debunking the moon landings...wonder if they'll tackle the 9/11 stuff? My guess is no since there is a lot more emotion tied to the 9/11 due to the loss of life.

Conspiracy or not, a lot of innocent people died, and their families were forever affected by that day.


I'm a mechanical engineer, and was reading everything I could in the days, months and years after the collapses. I also watched the video in the OP and read many of the links, and the links those links pointed to. Many pieces of evidence used to support many different claims.


My own conclusions are that there is more to the story then we know. I don't think towers 1 and 2 were imploded due to the shear complexity to pull that off. I do think tower 7 was a controlled demolition. Too perfect a fall, and just too coincidental for it to A) house the agencies it did, and B) that most of the other non WTC buildings around it didn't fall.

Some open questions in my mind about the failure of towers one and two, from an engineering standpoint:

• Molten metal running out of one of the towers just below the impact point of the plane. This is visible in several of the eyewitness videos. The color of the flowing metal indicated it was > 2000F based on the yellow color and how easily it flowed. It was literally like metal being poured at a foundry. For those that have seen and actual foundry pour, you will agree that it looks similar.

• If the heat came from the blast furnace effect of the draft coming up the elevator shafts in the core of the building, it picked a coincidental point to run out of the building near where the plane hit. Could be that the damage to the floors created a channel or slope and it ran down from the floors above or from inside. But it seems to be coming from just one specific spot / window very near the corner of the building. Perhaps there was something unique in the corner fueling things to that temperature, or we may not have any other video showing metal running out from other places. Obviously we can't see any running through the inside of the building from the outside videos.

• Molten and still red-hot metal pulled from the rubble days and weeks later. To glow Cherry Red steel needs to be in the 1000F ballpark, which is phenomenal for what seemed to only be a smoldering fire. It takes a lot of energy to heat up steel, so there had to be some significant fuel source feeding a pretty significant exothermic reaction under the rubble pile. Could be from diesel fuel tanks for the generators, busted gas lines, the secrent copy paper stash in the basement, etc. But something was fueling a significant exothermic event under the rubble for a significant amount of time.

• Assisted or not, there is no denying that heat in a few areas of the building was suffcient to create molten steel. If there was heat to do that, there was enough heat to weaken steel. Because of that, it isn't a big mystery that there was a structure failure. If there were literally rivers of the stuff running around and through the building, it could significantly erode and damage other structural components thus weakening the rest of the building. The only way these buildings could have fallen was if the remainig structure was so compromised that it had absolutely no strength left to support anything more than the dead weight of the floor above it.

• I am surprised that at some point the fall didn't slow, especially as it hit lower floors that shouldn't have had any significant fire or heat damage (unless there was molten metal flowing all through the buildings). Before the towers fell, some of my engineering co-workers and I were discussing what we thought would happen. We expected that the top of one of the towers that was hit at the the corner might actually topple off much like a tree that is cut down with an axe or chain saw. We thought the other tower that took a more central hit would propably buckle or begin to crumble. But like so many of us out there, were utterly SHOCKED when the first fell, and could not believe our eyes when the second one followed.

So, my statements really aren't meant to support one theory or another. They are meant to provide a few points for the engineering minded folks to think about and provide insight to. I'm not a structure engineer by degree, so I will say upfront that I do not have the credentials to speak with absolute certainty, but do have enough education in metallurgy to know to ask some of the right questions.

So, anyone have some good data to support the molten metal that was pouring out? Links to sources are appreciated when possible.

 

[Expat]

jblombenberg16- just curious, had you read the Popular Mechanics article? It has been quite a long time since I read it (back when it was first in the print magazine, whenever that was). But I thought it touched on some of the issues you raised.

 

[jblomenberg16]

jblombenberg16- just curious, had you read the Popular Mechanics article? It has been quite a long time since I read it (back when it was first in the print magazine, whenever that was). But I thought it touched on some of the issues you raised.

I have not, but I'll see if I can find it. I actually just read the PM review of the Deepwater Horizon Rig disaster, and thought they did a good job piecing that one together.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Expat]

The link is in my post.

 

[Expat]

I see they have added a separate article just on debunking building 7
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

 

[jblomenberg16]

I see they have added a separate article just on debunking building 7
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

Thanks for both links...a good read. Think I'll spend a bit of time tomorrow looking more into the fires.

Both the articles and the NIST report comment that the fires burned at temperatures lower than what would melt steel, but also above what would significantly weaken it.

 

[SavageEagle]

Interesting stuff guys. Glad to see some real discussion instead of mocking.

 

[Eddie]

The Mythbusters did a pretty good job debunking the moon landings...wonder if they'll tackle the 9/11 stuff? My guess is no since there is a lot more emotion tied to the 9/11 due to the loss of life.

Conspiracy or not, a lot of innocent people died, and their families were forever affected by that day.


I'm a mechanical engineer, and was reading everything I could in the days, months and years after the collapses. I also watched the video in the OP and read many of the links, and the links those links pointed to. Many pieces of evidence used to support many different claims.


My own conclusions are that there is more to the story then we know. I don't think towers 1 and 2 were imploded due to the shear complexity to pull that off. I do think tower 7 was a controlled demolition. Too perfect a fall, and just too coincidental for it to A) house the agencies it did, and B) that most of the other non WTC buildings around it didn't fall.

Some open questions in my mind about the failure of towers one and two, from an engineering standpoint:

• Molten metal running out of one of the towers just below the impact point of the plane. This is visible in several of the eyewitness videos. The color of the flowing metal indicated it was > 2000F based on the yellow color and how easily it flowed. It was literally like metal being poured at a foundry. For those that have seen and actual foundry pour, you will agree that it looks similar.

• If the heat came from the blast furnace effect of the draft coming up the elevator shafts in the core of the building, it picked a coincidental point to run out of the building near where the plane hit. Could be that the damage to the floors created a channel or slope and it ran down from the floors above or from inside. But it seems to be coming from just one specific spot / window very near the corner of the building. Perhaps there was something unique in the corner fueling things to that temperature, or we may not have any other video showing metal running out from other places. Obviously we can't see any running through the inside of the building from the outside videos.

• Molten and still red-hot metal pulled from the rubble days and weeks later. To glow Cherry Red steel needs to be in the 1000F ballpark, which is phenomenal for what seemed to only be a smoldering fire. It takes a lot of energy to heat up steel, so there had to be some significant fuel source feeding a pretty significant exothermic reaction under the rubble pile. Could be from diesel fuel tanks for the generators, busted gas lines, the secrent copy paper stash in the basement, etc. But something was fueling a significant exothermic event under the rubble for a significant amount of time.

• Assisted or not, there is no denying that heat in a few areas of the building was suffcient to create molten steel. If there was heat to do that, there was enough heat to weaken steel. Because of that, it isn't a big mystery that there was a structure failure. If there were literally rivers of the stuff running around and through the building, it could significantly erode and damage other structural components thus weakening the rest of the building. The only way these buildings could have fallen was if the remainig structure was so compromised that it had absolutely no strength left to support anything more than the dead weight of the floor above it.

• I am surprised that at some point the fall didn't slow, especially as it hit lower floors that shouldn't have had any significant fire or heat damage (unless there was molten metal flowing all through the buildings). Before the towers fell, some of my engineering co-workers and I were discussing what we thought would happen. We expected that the top of one of the towers that was hit at the the corner might actually topple off much like a tree that is cut down with an axe or chain saw. We thought the other tower that took a more central hit would propably buckle or begin to crumble. But like so many of us out there, were utterly SHOCKED when the first fell, and could not believe our eyes when the second one followed.

So, my statements really aren't meant to support one theory or another. They are meant to provide a few points for the engineering minded folks to think about and provide insight to. I'm not a structure engineer by degree, so I will say upfront that I do not have the credentials to speak with absolute certainty, but do have enough education in metallurgy to know to ask some of the right questions.

So, anyone have some good data to support the molten metal that was pouring out? Links to sources are appreciated when possible.

I'm not even close to any type of engineer. I do think that there are some things that we don't fully understand about what happens when a jumbo jet hits a skyscraper. I think that it is too much to leap from "I don't understand why that happened" to "It must be a conspiracy" without some more supporting evidence.

 

[Expat]

Interesting stuff guys. Glad to see some real discussion instead of mocking.

Don't worry, I am not ready to return to the mocking

 

[Hoosier8]

The Mythbusters did a pretty good job debunking the moon landings...wonder if they'll tackle the 9/11 stuff? My guess is no since there is a lot more emotion tied to the 9/11 due to the loss of life.

Conspiracy or not, a lot of innocent people died, and their families were forever affected by that day.


I'm a mechanical engineer, and was reading everything I could in the days, months and years after the collapses. I also watched the video in the OP and read many of the links, and the links those links pointed to. Many pieces of evidence used to support many different claims.


My own conclusions are that there is more to the story then we know. I don't think towers 1 and 2 were imploded due to the shear complexity to pull that off. I do think tower 7 was a controlled demolition. Too perfect a fall, and just too coincidental for it to A) house the agencies it did, and B) that most of the other non WTC buildings around it didn't fall.

Some open questions in my mind about the failure of towers one and two, from an engineering standpoint:

• Molten metal running out of one of the towers just below the impact point of the plane. This is visible in several of the eyewitness videos. The color of the flowing metal indicated it was > 2000F based on the yellow color and how easily it flowed. It was literally like metal being poured at a foundry. For those that have seen and actual foundry pour, you will agree that it looks similar.

• If the heat came from the blast furnace effect of the draft coming up the elevator shafts in the core of the building, it picked a coincidental point to run out of the building near where the plane hit. Could be that the damage to the floors created a channel or slope and it ran down from the floors above or from inside. But it seems to be coming from just one specific spot / window very near the corner of the building. Perhaps there was something unique in the corner fueling things to that temperature, or we may not have any other video showing metal running out from other places. Obviously we can't see any running through the inside of the building from the outside videos.

• Molten and still red-hot metal pulled from the rubble days and weeks later. To glow Cherry Red steel needs to be in the 1000F ballpark, which is phenomenal for what seemed to only be a smoldering fire. It takes a lot of energy to heat up steel, so there had to be some significant fuel source feeding a pretty significant exothermic reaction under the rubble pile. Could be from diesel fuel tanks for the generators, busted gas lines, the secrent copy paper stash in the basement, etc. But something was fueling a significant exothermic event under the rubble for a significant amount of time.

• Assisted or not, there is no denying that heat in a few areas of the building was suffcient to create molten steel. If there was heat to do that, there was enough heat to weaken steel. Because of that, it isn't a big mystery that there was a structure failure. If there were literally rivers of the stuff running around and through the building, it could significantly erode and damage other structural components thus weakening the rest of the building. The only way these buildings could have fallen was if the remainig structure was so compromised that it had absolutely no strength left to support anything more than the dead weight of the floor above it.

• I am surprised that at some point the fall didn't slow, especially as it hit lower floors that shouldn't have had any significant fire or heat damage (unless there was molten metal flowing all through the buildings). Before the towers fell, some of my engineering co-workers and I were discussing what we thought would happen. We expected that the top of one of the towers that was hit at the the corner might actually topple off much like a tree that is cut down with an axe or chain saw. We thought the other tower that took a more central hit would propably buckle or begin to crumble. But like so many of us out there, were utterly SHOCKED when the first fell, and could not believe our eyes when the second one followed.

So, my statements really aren't meant to support one theory or another. They are meant to provide a few points for the engineering minded folks to think about and provide insight to. I'm not a structure engineer by degree, so I will say upfront that I do not have the credentials to speak with absolute certainty, but do have enough education in metallurgy to know to ask some of the right questions.

So, anyone have some good data to support the molten metal that was pouring out? Links to sources are appreciated when possible.

I read one review of the metal pouring out of the windows. It basically pointed out that it poured out just below the point of impact and that it was not steel but aluminum and poured out where the floor above started sagging to the level of the floor below. Remember, there was about 300 thousand pounds of aluminum which melts at a much lower point.

As far as the high heat after the collapse, if you look at some of the conspiracy pictures it has people standing over it looking in. If it were as hot as they say, they would not be able to do that. One of the contributing factors to the heat at collapse is compression. There was a lot of debris that came down with the building and was virtually pulverized by the collapse and compression which would add fuel to the fire.

There is no reason to believe the fall would slow. Once the tremendous mass above started down, nothing below it was stressed to handle any kind of weight coming down. Think in terms of tens of multiples of the weight they were designed to hold, and hold in a controlled fashion.

WTC7 did not come down in a controlled fashion but at an angle that left debris on the next building. It too was designed similar to the towers with a shell and tube with full span flooring which is nothing like normal steel frame buildings. It was heavily damaged and on fire most of the day. If the firemen were kept out due to the danger, what makes anyone think a demo crew would go in and set it up for a controlled fall. Would you do that?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

I read one review of the metal pouring out of the windows. It basically pointed out that it poured out just below the point of impact and that it was not steel but aluminum and poured out where the floor above started sagging to the level of the floor below. Remember, there was about 300 thousand pounds of aluminum which melts at a much lower point.

As far as the high heat after the collapse, if you look at some of the conspiracy pictures it has people standing over it looking in. If it were as hot as they say, they would not be able to do that. One of the contributing factors to the heat at collapse is compression. There was a lot of debris that came down with the building and was virtually pulverized by the collapse and compression which would add fuel to the fire.

There is no reason to believe the fall would slow. Once the tremendous mass above started down, nothing below it was stressed to handle any kind of weight coming down. Think in terms of tens of multiples of the weight they were designed to hold, and hold in a controlled fashion.

WTC7 did not come down in a controlled fashion but at an angle that left debris on the next building. It too was designed similar to the towers with a shell and tube with full span flooring which is nothing like normal steel frame buildings. It was heavily damaged and on fire most of the day. If the firemen were kept out due to the danger, what makes anyone think a demo crew would go in and set it up for a controlled fall. Would you do that?

I have read some reports claiming it was aluminum, but the only problem with that is when you melt aluminum it looks well just like aluminum, shiney and not orange.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I read one review of the metal pouring out of the windows. It basically pointed out that it poured out just below the point of impact and that it was not steel but aluminum and poured out where the floor above started sagging to the level of the floor below. Remember, there was about 300 thousand pounds of aluminum which melts at a much lower point.

As far as the high heat after the collapse, if you look at some of the conspiracy pictures it has people standing over it looking in. If it were as hot as they say, they would not be able to do that. One of the contributing factors to the heat at collapse is compression. There was a lot of debris that came down with the building and was virtually pulverized by the collapse and compression which would add fuel to the fire.

There is no reason to believe the fall would slow. Once the tremendous mass above started down, nothing below it was stressed to handle any kind of weight coming down. Think in terms of tens of multiples of the weight they were designed to hold, and hold in a controlled fashion.

WTC7 did not come down in a controlled fashion but at an angle that left debris on the next building. It too was designed similar to the towers with a shell and tube with full span flooring which is nothing like normal steel frame buildings. It was heavily damaged and on fire most of the day. If the firemen were kept out due to the danger, what makes anyone think a demo crew would go in and set it up for a controlled fall. Would you do that?

I stayed up late last night and read chapter 9 of the NIST report, which was specifically analyzing the fires in WTC 2. Section 9.5 makes mention of the molten metal, which it claimed to be aluminum as well.

I do agree that there was a significant amount of aluminum in the building (both from the aircraft and form the building itself) but also agree with WWIIDefender in that pure aluminum isn't going to pour in a bright yellow stream.

Now, perhaps it wasn't a river of pure aluminum, and did have some other metals in it, giving it an appearance of of molten steel. What I'm still not completely for sure of is how that much heat was created there.

Now, to be clear, it was in fact hot enough to melt the aluminum and other metails (clear video and photo evidence), so something had to fuel the fires to that temperature. I don't think there was a way for any human intervention to creat a fuel source because to do so would be nearly impossible. To get temperatures that high in a foundry, they have to use furnaces force fed with oxygen.

I'm wondering if there weren't perhaps some of the plane's oxygen tanks that were part of the debris pile near the corner on the 81st floor that eventually either exploded (which could explain some of the rapid puffs of smoke witnessed), or had enough damage that they were leaking jets of compressed oyxgen into the fire literally creating a blow torch. That is of course assuming the tanks survived the crash intact and also remained in that part of the building and weren't expelled or in a different debris pile.

Does anyone with high-rise experience know if there would have been any oxygen or compressed air lines running through the building? These would be something that could be used to operate valves and other mechanical equiment in the various floors. If there were in fact these types of lines, they could also provide a supply of excess oxygen to inject into the flame and help generate the necessary heat.



Switching gears a bit, the explanation of WTC7's seems to still be one of "convenience." A few things from the report stood out to me. First was that the floors that were on fire were near the bottom of the building, not closer to the top where it would seem that buring debris from the collapse of the other towers would have hit (unless the burning debris was expelled out from the very bottom floors of the towers). I will note that there were some small fires on the upper floors that were determined to have only burned for a short time after ignition. Also, coincidentally enough, the fires seemed to be most severe on floors 7-9, and 11-13.

The occupants of those floors were, according to the NIST Report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) Table 1-1 on page 9 (pg51 in the PDF):

7-8: American Express
9-10: US Secret Service
11-13: US Securities & Exchange Commission (13 was split with other companies as well)

In my mind I can't help but wonder if there was reasons for a few of those floors to be "Scuttled." Not to fan the flames as to any motives for a conspiracy, but there could be reason for the offices on floors 9 and 10, and maybe even 11-13 to have the proverbial "Self Destruct" feature.

By that I mean it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that the Secret Service, for reasons of protecting the President and others they protect, may have had a way to destroy sensitive documents, hard drives, etc. in a SHTF scenario. This would be something that would only be done if physically removing them was not possible. So, to me it seems that it could have been plausible that upon evacuation of the building once it was already on fire from the collapse of the twin towers, that orders were given to scuttle the place in order to destroy those documents.

Conspiracy or not, and whether there was anything related to the tragedy that they wanted to "hide," to me it seems possible that the fires on those floors may have either been intentionally set, or were fueled by the efforts to destroy sensitive documents and equipment.

And, while it may be really stretching things, due to the sensitive nature of many of the agencies there, perhaps the whole building was in fact pre-rigged with a self destruct feature as part of a SHTF situation. Maybe that was why Silverstien did refer to "pulling it" using the industry term. I'm sure that disaster plans for many government facilities include plans to destroy sensitive data in true "Worst Case Scenario" conditions, and perhaps that option was excercised on 9/11, when things were clearly FUBAR.

 

[Expat]

Were the stairwells open from top to bottom. You would get a chimney effect with air coming in a the lower levels and being quickly moved up as the superheated air and fire at the top drafts the air upward.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Were the stairwells open from top to bottom. You would get a chimney effect with air coming in a the lower levels and being quickly moved up as the superheated air and fire at the top drafts the air upward.

I think they were, as were the elevator shafts. That would help feed and sustain the fire, and even help make it hotter. But I don't think would give it the massive influx of oxygen needed to get to the temperatures that were reached. I beleive that is why a foundry uses a blast furnace vs. a standard flue type.

 

[Hoosier8]

I think they were, as were the elevator shafts. That would help feed and sustain the fire, and even help make it hotter. But I don't think would give it the massive influx of oxygen needed to get to the temperatures that were reached. I beleive that is why a foundry uses a blast furnace vs. a standard flue type.

The fact of the matter is that both the official story and the conspiracy theorists have to rely on assumptions and you know what that means.

As far as I am concerned, planes hit the buildings, the buildings started collapsing at the point where the planes hit after 90 minutes of fire. Jet fuel would not have been hot enough to soften the steel but would have been a great fire starter for everything else in the building, which burned the entire time giving the steel enough time to heat soak. Who knows what expansion combined with the damage did to the structure? The steel trusses had sprayed on insulation which could have been easily blown off on impact. The central core fire retardant was 5 layers of drywall, which one victim that did not escape one of the buildings said was blown off the walls in the stairwells. Some victims said the stairs were gone.

There were other things on the floors that could contribute to the fires, such as backup power supplies and batteries for computer systems. Desks, paper, plastic, etc. The fire lasted a lot longer than the jet fuel would have burned.

All-in-all, this had never happened before on unique tube and core buildings. The builder got special variances to be able to build such a light weight structure so tall using light weight steel. The buildings were 95% air. Some theorist say the way the building was constructed must be wrong and light weight trusses were not used, in complete opposition to the designer and plans.

So who are you going to believe? If you think that this was an attack that went better than expected, then you are a radical Muslim. If you think that this was a dastardly attack on US soil then you are a typical American. If you think the government was behind it, then you are a conspiracy theorist.

If loss of life was not a concern and the theorists are correct, then why go to the complication of all of the explanations of radio controlled airplanes, demolition crews in advance, etc., when a suitcase nuke in the center of town would have sufficed, been a lot easier to implement, and have the same intended outcome? Remember, this had been tried unsuccessfully before in a different manner, a truck bomb. Where are the conspiracy theorists for that?

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm not concerned about the how. I leave that to those much smarter than I.

No, I'm more concerned in the WHY. I know the towers fell because of the planes. 7 was brought down, not fell. The government failed to protect this Country and the 9/11 Commission did a **** poor job. I want to know why the government delayed. I want to know why they didn't stop those terrorists when they had the chance. I want to know why they didn't take bin Laden when they had the chance.

I want to know why. Not how.

 

[sloughfoot]

Fuggers flew airplanes into buildings. Buildings fell down. Massive loss of life

Fuggers bombed ships in Pearl Harbor. Ships were sunk. Massive loss of life.

Why does it have to be more complicated than this except for folks with too much time on their hands.

Now lets just go get the fuggers.......Or get them when they try other things. i am ready, are you?

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm not concerned about the how. I leave that to those much smarter than I.

No, I'm more concerned in the WHY. I know the towers fell because of the planes. 7 was brought down, not fell. The government failed to protect this Country and the 9/11 Commission did a **** poor job. I want to know why the government delayed. I want to know why they didn't stop those terrorists when they had the chance. I want to know why they didn't take bin Laden when they had the chance.

I want to know why. Not how.

Ah c'mon, let those engineering geeks like me at least have some fun debating the how!

You are right though, the WHY is the important question to which we all should expect to recieve a straight answer. But until two things happen, we never will.

1) The government has to trust the people enough to tell them the truth
2) The people have to trust the government enough to believe what they are being told is the truth.

Unfortunately, this is a both statement and not an and/or. At at the present, I think that neither conditions are met.

 

[SavageEagle]

Fuggers flew airplanes into buildings. Buildings fell down. Massive loss of life

Fuggers bombed ships in Pearl Harbor. Ships were sunk. Massive loss of life.

Why does it have to be more complicated than this except for folks with too much time on their hands.

Now lets just go get the fuggers.......Or get them when they try other things. i am ready, are you?

We already got the little bastards. They killed themselves and we killed or captured 95% of planners. There's only one way you are going to kill them all. Kill only those that ATTACK us and not go after them on their turf. For every day we're on their territory and every innocent person gets injured or killed in trying to get "the bad guy", we're creating a whole new generation that WILL come after us. They don't want our technology, our politics, our government.

They see this as "Crusade 2.0". Without getting into a religious discussion, what's your plan on stopping that short of nuking the entire middle east?

It's never going to stop.

Ah c'mon, let those engineering geeks like me at least have some fun debating the how!

You are right though, the WHY is the important question to which we all should expect to recieve a straight answer. But until two things happen, we never will.

1) The government has to trust the people enough to tell them the truth
2) The people have to trust the government enough to believe what they are being told is the truth.

Unfortunately, this is a both statement and not an and/or. At at the present, I think that neither conditions are met.

Very very true. Sad, but true. I want to know that our government either made a mistake and that they will do everything in their power to make up for it (shrink government, put the power back in the hands of The People).... Or that the government let this happen for the cause of greed and selfishness and that they were wrong and are willing to go on trial for such.

Until that happens, substantial proof given for either scenario, it's going to be "Us" against "Them". IMHO of course.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There was much made of the fact that the FBI had information indicating that radicals were taking flying lessons, but as with much intelligence information, the bits and pieces are more easily understood with the benefit of hindsight.

I think it's fair to say the federal government didn't do a good job of anticipating the threat; that this failure was born out of federal malice, greed, or corruption is unlikely. Stupidity doesn't even fit into the explanation. We were attacked by a small group which carried out intelligence-gathering operations over time; planned an unorthodox attack methodolgy and direction; and worked within our system of personal freedoms to exploit its weaknesses. That similar attacks have been undertaken and consistently foiled since indicates that our intelligence community can be effective when they know what they are looking for and have the tools to do the job. The problem with this sort of thing is that, unless we can find a way to get at the roots of the problem, they will keep trying. And they only have to get lucky once, while we have to stop them every time.