More Smoke, More Mirrors....
By Number Six
Friday, August 22, 2008 at 06:42 PM
And here we go again. Uh-huh. Seems our beloved gummint has conclusively proved that WT7, as in World Trade center #7, fell down and went boom due to an aggravated fire, and that "conspiracy nuts" should be all ashamed because we fail to get the joke.
Not the first time for me, of course.
Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.At which point, as some have said, I do point this out: To date, only three structures composed of these materials have collapsed due to "fire", all three within one statue mile of each other, and all on the same exact day.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
Yes, call me skeptical. Let's continue:
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.Whoa, Nellie! WTF! Oh, golly, didn't the fabled 911 Commission hand that freak of science to TWO OTHER BUILDINGS? Earlier? I seem to recall that little...ahem..."factoid" being bandied about, that the other two were also due to fire. How can WT7 be the first if the other two were the first???
Yes, "Wotts" playing second.
"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.Me, I'd prefer SWAG: Silly, Wild-Assed Guesswork. Three years and this conclusion comes out? Might we get our money back now?
The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.I dunno, but then, if it look like a duck, quack like a duck and fall to the ground at a Delta-Victor a lot like a controlled implosion.....
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.First of all, not a one of us denies that innocents were killed by these events, but it's a lovely strawman to shut anyone up who dares argue with Uncle Sciencefiction, ain't it? If we dare to argue, dare to study such with a skeptical eye, use math that really works, oh, yes, we're pooing on the dead.
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."
"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
But, I heard this same exact load of caca-doody years ago, sports fans, this is not the first time I've been lied to, and that past cascade of pseudo-science, oddball strangeness and a lovely written report....to this hour...convinces me to the core:
We get lied to, and we get lied to a lot.
Back in the day, it was a work of fiction entitled The Warren Commission report, a huge, long, and lengthy work of sci-fi up there with anything ElRon Hubbard penned. Oh, many bought into it, yet, the data just wasn't there.
Granted, then, as now, some are wont to leap out the window with fantastic tales, and personally, there does not exist "directed energy weapons", no holographic projectors, no phantom airplanes, nor UFO's. I've found so many "theories" begging, oh, yes, they are so sad and stupid.
But, then, as now, the analytical mind asks: "What the hell do you do when the data presented just does not add up to the claims of a theorem?" Einstein and Bohr got into that, Bohr winning with his "the theory is too weak for the evidence."
Evidence. Buildings unzipping at freefall velocity. Three buildings that, for the first time in engineering history, detonate to fires, and need we both mention all the other weird claims?
And, an addendum: The Kennedy shooting was re-enacted. It failed miserably. You cannot, using a shitty rifle like the Carcano, shoot that well, unless you are Superman. And within the Warren documents...also...reams of data that...do not...support the Warren claims.
Point? We get lied to. We get lied to all the time. And this latest lie is nothing more than yet another pallid attempt to dazzle, to seduce, to tame, to make us look the other way, yes. Who ordered all of this? Who was involved? Was 911 the PNAC "Pearl Harbor" event made to order?
No, I've no clue as to whodunnit. But, based on what I saw, same as you, I cannot swallow the claims presented to date: They sound so incredibly far-fetched as to suppose...a grand illusion tailor-made to shut us all up.
Either these were three of the crappiest structures ever assembled, or...we've been lied to.
My fear? This, the Kennedy shooting and many other incidents will fade into the annals of history; riddles and puzzles for which there are few clues, and mysterious events that defy mathematical rule, yet, for some odd reason, are presented as "factual".
I think historians yet to come will know one thing as do I: We've been lied to, and we've been lied to....a lot.
If a reputable scientist expressed a counter-theory based on sound science, engineering, and technology, I believe that it would make it into the mainstream media eventually.
Then again, I remember Sec. Rumsfeld referring to a plane that was "shot down" on 9/11 and then correcting himself to "crashing".
That one made me a bit gray. And I'm not even a a conspiracy nutjob.