Wednesday, 14 May 2008

C.S.I. - Thinking clearly about the 911 Evidence: Unfounded Hypotheses vs the Hard Facts.


The physical evidence proving that the 911 attacks involved inside help is overwhelming.

Material recovered from the World Trade Centre site and observations made about the building collapses PROVE that these buildings HAD to have been demolished using explosives. There is simply NO other explanation that adequately accounts for the all 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 is 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 best debunkers, apart from audaciously ridiculing the evidence, will 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.

Recently on Air America radio a debunker, an ex-military man familiar with explosives, claimed that it would be impossible to get explosive devices past bomb sniffing dogs and 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, what the debunker is talking about here is nothing but a hypothetical.

There is a gulf of difference between a hypothetical, in terms of what is or is not possible, and what was ACTUALLY found. When the physical evidence tells you that, yes indeed, it MUST have been possible to rig the World Trade centre buildings with explosives- because we found hard evidence for explosives - then you must proceed from that basis in fact.

The debunker's logic here dooms any inquiry to almost certain failure because his criminal investigation starts off working backwards, ignoring the hard evidence in favour of a premise- that it was too difficult to carry out such a "false flag" operation in the first place. ANY explanation, other than the obvious one- that explosives were used- is then used to defend the official version of events. Not a very scientific way of proceeding.

In other debates dealing with the hard evidence certain expert debunkers, ones that often have scientific backgrounds, will tend to focus on hypothetical ways in which the buildings might be able to collapse at freefall speeds (impossible without explosives). Although demonstrably false, these sorts of speculative arguments tend to steer the discussion away from the "smoking gun" points of evidence that CONCLUSIVELY prove there HAD been explosives at work at the World Trade Centre site. When you have melted Steel beams and identifiable products of THERMATE incendiary-type explosives in the rubble, then to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to fires (the official explanation) is lunacy.

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

The 911 debate is over. The remaining debunkers are either misinformed, deluded or are deliberately lying. It is time that we see a proper, independent criminal investigation into the September 11 attacks based on the evidence at hand.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, May 14th, 2008.]

No comments: