Addendum
Here's another eyewitness talking about a big explosion in one of the Towers.
He mentions the plane hitting the building, then he mentioned a huge explosion "much, much lower", about an hour after the plane hit.
Hmm .. let's review.
1) Fires could not have caused the WTC 7 building to collapse as it did, leaving planned demolitions to do the trick, and a review of extreme fires in other steel-framed buildings and unplanned building collapses attest to this.
2) Audio evidence on 9-11 of explosions going off are a srtong testimony to the presence of bombs.
3) Firefighters telling news crews to get away because "there's a bomb in the building" takes that which used to be in the realm of possibility and promotes it to the level of probability.
4) And now, video testimony on 9-11 of an eyewitness who was at ground zero talking about an explosion in one of the towers (much, much lower) an hour after the first plane hit.
There's an old saying in the intelligence community, "Once is a coincidence, twice is statistically improbable, three times is enemy action."
3 buildings falling at the rate of freefall into their own footprint, proof of the existence of bombs in at least one building, and the government and the media tells us it is all a horrible coincidence?
But if we want to talk about coincidence, next post, I'll list all of the horribly unfortunate coincidences that we are expected to believe were coincidental on the day of 9-11. Oh Fortuna, how wonderful is thy terrible fate?
posted by Mike @ 8:30 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Idiotic.
All these conspiracies about 9/11 bombs is purely idiotic.
There are several possible explinations for the explosions heard, and these people (conspiracy nuts) go with BOMBS!! Definitely BOMBS!!!
Mike, as a rational person, I know you can see that BOMBS!! is not the ONLY possibility for explosions on 9/11.
I'm going to have to recuse myself from this because I refuse to believe that you buy the bomb theory as the only definite cause.
Let me remind you that the government's "theory" about what happened is also a "conspiracy".
I would also like to note that fires could NOT have brought down WTC 7. That is not just an improbability, it is an impossibility of physics.
It's just simple math.
Look, if you can follow algebra, and you understand physics, this analysis shows scientifically and rather conclusively that the resistance that should have been present in WTC 7 was not.
The conclusion of this simple analysis is,
"The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds.
That is only half a second longer than it would have taken
for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple
when air resistance is taken into account.
The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g (thereby fulfilling the EU requirements).
With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation.
The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
The above is a mathematical way of saying what I said in my earlier posts. Fire cannot do that. Since fire could not do what was needed to be done in order to cause WTC 7 to fall at near the rate of freefall in a vacuum, then the only alternative is that something caused all of the supports to fail simultaneously.
Reasonably, the only conclusion is controlled demolitions.
If controlled demolitions brought down WTC 7, then it stands to reason that the reports of bombs being in the buildings is accurate, and the explosions recorded on video were probably bombs.
There is nothing idiotic about what I have written, and in fact, I would dare say that so far it is well reasoned and without any appeals to emotion.
So far, I've made no implications as to who planted bombs in the buildings, but you have already jumped to the very logical conclusion that, "if bombs brought down WTC 7, which housed FBI, CIA, and NSA offices, then it was NOT done by a bunch of arabs with boxcutters."
A very wise individual said to me recently, "Mike, what you have written is reasonable to the point of being possible or even probable. The problem is that people will reject it because of the implications. They will say that it is easier to believe in the suspension of the laws of physics then that a conspiracy of such a magnitute could have been perpetrated by our own government."
So, there's the choice ... either physical laws were suspended on 9-11 (since the near-freefall collapse of WTC 7 could not have happened without the aid of demolitions), or this was an inside job.
OK, seriously, just can't stay away because, quite frankly, I'm intrigued by this subject.
Anyway, you said, "I would also like to note that fires could NOT have brought down WTC 7. That is not just an improbability, it is an impossibility of physics."
Mike! I know you are only specifically talking about WTC7, but you are referring to a steel structure that had undergone extreme circumstances. YOu say over and over, it's impossible. Physics would not allow the collapse of WTC7. But STILL, you have not presented any undenyable proof!!!! And yes, I have looked at EVERY link to vidoe and article that you have presented. And coming at these links with as open a mind as I can, given the source, I STILL do not see proof that it was demolished!
I hate to be redundant here, but I ask you this: Do you understand the confusion/fear/unknown of 9/11? And what I mean is, can't you see that people were saying and doing crazy shit on 9/11.
Now, as someone who was there for the far less crazy day back in February of 1993 when they first attempted to blow up the towers, I PERSONALLY heard and saw ALL sorts of conflicting things. When a crazy event like Feb 93 and 9/11 happens, people don't know what has happened. Remember, I told you that the initial reports in 1993 were that there was a fire in the train tunnel. Well, that was FAR from accurate! There WAS a bomb in 1993, and the purpose was to take down the the Twin Towers!
Mike, my Dad and I left work shortlt after the 93 bombing so we could get the hell out of the city in case more was coming. I didn't know what was going to happen. The only way we got out, was using New Yorker short cut tricks to circumvent the lines waiting for trains and cabs in the financial district. But my Dad was pretty damned determined to get out, and we did.
My point is, as someone who has been through a crazy day filled with uncertainty RIGHT in the heart of the financial district, I can tell you, Feb 93 was a little scarry. Magnify that by a thousand or more, and you get the hectic day of 9/11. People got stuff wrong in 93 with minimal (compared to 9/11) confusion. On 9/11, the world stood still. Take it from someone who knows my city and knows FIRST HAND how a terrorist event unfolds in the city. It's chaos. Can you at least appreciate my point of view from someone who know how these things actually go down?
(PS - sorry about all the typeos.)
I'd just like to point out quickly that by your own definition(that it is chaotic), you really CAN'T know how it would all go down, because chaos tends to lead to randomness. However, after reading through Mike's arguments, the whole event is looking less and less random.
Finally, in response to the
"But STILL, you have not presented any undenyable proof!!!!"
comment... I think if there was undenyable proof, this topic would be outside Mike's little blog. I don't even believe it was his original intent to PROVE anything, but rather to propose the idea, and despite the fact that the evidence he shows is not proof, it nevertheless, in my eyes at least, adds up.
Now then where is then next lesson
Post a Comment
<< Home