Saturday, 17 July 2010

The 9/11 Building "Collapses" In Perspective

[According to the 911 truth debunkers] Making comparisons between the three World Trade Center towers and other high rise buildings that burned much hotter for much longer and didn't collapse is ludicrous because of their different constructions. But comparing the towers to a low-rise 13 story building in Holland or a toy factory is perfectly acceptable.



Even ignoring all the forensic evidence, that proves explosive thermite was used on the Twin Towers and Building 7, it's obvious from the historical record that there are SERIOUS problems with the collapses of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 911. The official explanation, that fires caused the collapses, doesn't make any sense. Moreover, the "reasoning" put out by the debunkers, to account for the building implosions, is obviously nonsensical.

The very fact that WTC7 collapsed at all- a building that was designed to be resistant to hurricanes, earthquakes and fires- was the key evidence that rang alarm bells for myself and led to a second look at the official story.

(thanks to Debunking the Debunkers for the You Tube clip and intro !)


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 17th, 2010.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I found this article in "Alternet."

http://www.alternet.org/news/147578/exploring_the_crazy_conspiracy_theories_bubbling_up_around_the_bp_disaster/

It's intent, I believe, is to muddy all the water in which "conspiracy theories" are discussed. The author mentions 9-11 and how it is an example of what's bad about "conspiracy thinking."

The comment section was pretty good, too.

s.

SpookyPunkos said...

I see it !

Interesting. I noted the troll there who claimed he was trained as a chemist. Ha !

I would've entered the debate by claiming I was trained as a monkey and then proceed to discuss the science with him in minute detail. I'm not interested in his claims to authority, only what the science tells me.

I liked the reference to AE911truth.org in one of the comments !

What I didn't like was the general agreement that the evidence for the 911 inside job was a matter of opinion and not a fact.

I would say that if you can deny the laws of physics and 5 unchallenged peer reviewed papers then you can disbelieve the core group of 911 truthers.

I also didn't like the argument about us having to solve the crime, to explain why and how everything was carried out. We already have the forensic evidence that proves the case. It is not logical to expect a full understanding of the crime at this point.

It was not a bad discussion. It could have done with more input from a hardcore 911 truth expert familiar with the WTC crime scene evidence.

Thanks for the heads up !

Spook