Wednesday, 16 July 2008

Thinking clearly about the 911 Evidence: Unfounded Hypotheses vs the Hard Facts.

Coming to grips with the 911 evidence is primarily a psychological challenge. It has everything to do with overcoming one's ingrained assumptions (and ego) and very little to do with one's level of intelligence:


The simple fact of the matter is we have observational evidence and material recovered from the World Trade Centre rubble pile that PROVE that these structures HAD to have been demolished using explosives. There is absolutely NO other explanation that adequately accounts for all the "unresolved phenomena" witnessed. These phenomena include:

1. the presence of Molten Steel in three locations under each collapsed skyscraper,
2. the melted concrete that encased various artifacts recovered from the site,
3. the Thermate Explosive products found in dust and steel samples,
4. the pulverisation of concrete and steel to microscopic size,
5. the free fall collapse rates of the Towers and,
6. the rapid and symmetrical collapse of World Trade Centre Building#7.

These 6 points of evidence are not hypotheticals but are hard facts- forensic evidence that cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand. The critical point about this material is that the ONLY explanation for their existence at the World Trade Centre location would be from the presence of explosive devices. There is no other credible way of accounting for them.

In many debates about whether 911 involved inside help I have found that the hardcore critics, apart from outright denying the evidence, tend to draw the debates into areas dealing with unfounded supposition- focusing on impossible to prove hypotheses whereby this HARD EVIDENCE for the inside job is downplayed.

Most critics will claim that it would have been "impossible" to get explosive devices past bomb sniffing dogs - that it would be too difficult to "wire" the buildings without anyone noticing. Apart from the fact that the security in the buildings appears to have been compromised and that there had been work (upgrades) carried out on the electrical systems in the twin towers in the MONTHS leading up to the attacks, the critics position here rests on nothing but an unproven hypothetical.

In terms of what is or is not possible, there is a gulf of difference between a purely hypothetical model and a model based on what was ACTUALLY found. When damning physical evidence tells you that, yes indeed, evidence was found indicating explosives were used, then it MUST have been possible to rig the World Trade centre buildings. All lines of reasoning must proceed from that basis in FACT.

Any critic who bases their logic on false premises doom subsequent investigation to almost certain failure. One must avoid the bias that it was, seemingly, too difficult to carry out such a "false flag" operation in the first place and stick to the forensics. Those who stick to such presumptive biases will tend to ignore important evidence, or irrationally downplay it, seeking out ANY explanation, other than the obvious one- that explosives were used- in defence of the official version of events. It is not a very reasonable or scientific way of proceeding.

Ultimately what is important to understand is the FACT that there exists ABSOLUTE PROOF that the World Trade Centre buildings experienced the effects of explosive demolition.
Whether you believe it was possible or impossible to rig the World Trade Centre buildings is irrelevant.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 16th, 2008.]

No comments: