The visual evidence alone of the Tower explosions and disintegrations, dissolving in seconds to dust and smoke against a clear sky;
Nice poetic imagery, but that simply isn't what I saw and heard. There weren't any explosions as the collapse began, because there wasn't an incredibly loud bang. The
audible evidence of the collapses alone, then.
WTC7's perfect Las Vegas-hotel demolition symmetry;
is an invention of conspiracy theorists. Actually
study the collapse videos, rather than looking at them with the aim of reinforcing preconceptions, and you may notice that the building fell over to the south.
such behemoths of steel-rebar and concrete disappearing in mere seconds:
Unusual, yes, but it was an unusual day. So how long would you expect the collapses to have taken? Do you believe that it's impossible for a building, however damaged by fire and impact, to collapse? And if so,
what is so special about the damage done by explosives, that it can cause a building to collapse when nothing else can?
To me the essential "controlled demolition" of the Towers and WTC7 re-image the subsequent "controlled demolition" of global financial markets by likely these same gangsters and scam artists.
This is a purely subjective comment, and virtually meaningless. Are you trying to suggest that the 2008/9 financial collapse is evidence for 9/11 being an inside job? If so, do you have anything other than the fallacy of equivocation to back it up?
I'm not allowed to post links yet, but I would highly recommend the "amateur" videos taken from across the river in Hoboken, available on the DVDs "9/11 Eyewitness" and "9/11 Raw".
You can just turn down the sparse audio commentary and observe the visuals for pure objective impact.
Yes, watching these videos without the soundtrack is very popular with conspiracy theorists. It stops people from asking the obvious question, "If that was done by explosives, what happened to the incredibly loud bang just before it fell?" Looking at all the evidence, rather than rejecting the bits that contradict the view you want to propagandise, is a far more honest approach. Keep the sound on, and ask yourself what's missing.
It is stunningly self-evident that these structures did not simply "collapse".
No. Quite simply, this is not true. Stellafane expressed this better than I ever could, so I'll just quote that post.
Because here it is: the government's guilt in 9/11 is not obvious. That's a fact, not an opinion. I don't see it, and neither do most people. You may think you detect it in magnified pixels or ambiguous words spoken by people in extremis. Perhaps you see evidence in a connection of random dots. Maybe you've gone to the wrong sources for your information, believing things provided by the utterly incompetent or those who wish to make a buck off the gullible. Or maybe you just started with some preconceived notions, and rather than give them up you built a conspiracy with a structure so illogical and fragile that it makes a house of cards look like the Pyramids. But nothing about it is obvious, because by definition the obvious is there for all to see.
The use of that word is more than disingenuous, misleading or deceptive; it is downright memetic laundering ... "brainwashing" if you will... of what we are actually seeing when those Towers literally erupt and dissolve.
Erupt. Dissolve. Explosions. Disintegrations. You're careful yourself to use loaded terms of your own. But what of it? The buildings collapsed, whatever language is used to describe the process; at one point they were standing, shortly afterwards they were not. "Collapse" is a good enough word. You object to it, not because it presents the case
against you, but because it doesn't present the case
for you. I think you're the one who is trying to brainwash.
Irrespective of whether one considers evidence of nano-thermite, calibrated mini-nukes, DEW, or any other kind of "exotic" ordnance; there is little doubt that the Towers and WTC7 were taken down in perfectly engineered fashion. Visually, hence intuitively, self evident.
Little doubt, of something the overwhelming majority of the world, and the overwhelming majority of those with any relevant technical or professional understanding, know to be wrong?
There was very little about the 9/11 collapses that was intuitively self-evident. A brain evolved to deal with the concerns of arboreal apes is ill-equipped to analyse, intuitively, the collapse of quarter-megaton steel structures a quarter of a mile high. We need assistance - science, engineering and mathematics - to help us interpret these events.
The "physics" and "materials science" is merely after-the-fact analysis.
There's nothing
mere about after-the-fact analysis. It's the foundation of science, which is the foundation of the civilisation that allowed you to make your views known. And it's how we understand events that our minds are not evolved to comprehend directly. It's how we rise above the ape, which is why I find it offensive that so many members of the truth movement want to discard whatever parts of it are inconvenient to their preset political agenda.
Dave
