Friday, September 22, 2006

Another 911 anomaly?

Just over 5 years since the terrible attacks, I have seen many many videos of the attacks on the WTC, aswell as many many videos showing the collapses of the three buildings. The more I see WTC 7, from every angle, The more I see a building with very minor damage. Evry angle shows a complete building. The only images of WTC 7 showing major damage have not been made public and we have to rely on the nice people at popular mechanics for saying such a picture exists. We, the tax paying public are not allowed to see it!

We have to trust them, Even though much of the evidence they rely on to justify their opinion that 'the official conspiracy theory' is indeed correct, is still classified and we, the public, that are suffering under and paying with our taxes for the war on terror, are not allowed to see it. WHY?

The WTC 7 is clearly destroyed by a controlled implosion. No question. It falls from the middle bottom up, in perfect free-fall and into it's own footprint. It falls beautifully, it was a very highly skilled demolition job.

The 2 towers, however, fell very differently. From the top down, with the fallen debris spilling outwards.

What the anomaly I have noticed is, these building where built to be massively over engineered, to be much stronger than they needed to be. Now, if what we are told is true, and the aircraft alone, with its explosion and fires, heating and weakening the trusses holding the top floors causing a pancaking effect, was an accurate reason for what happened, and there was no explosives in the building, at all. Then why, when the lower floors had no fire, no damage and where underneath the strengthened sections, why did the bottom part of the towers collapse?

As the upper floors collapsed, much of those floors fell outwards, some downwards, but as these masses fell, the weight carried by the lower floors was reducing all the time. By the time half the towers had collapsed, the bottom third of the towers should have easily carried the weight of what was falling.

Whatever had happened above, without explosions in the lower sections, the bottom thirds of the two towers should have remained standing.

Don't forget that the two towers where built in three sections each. these sections where separated by a strengthened safety cell, designed as a place that people could take refuge in the event of a catastrophic fire.

How did the fires, (hot enough to weaken, but not liquify steel) create the 'molten steel pools' that where located by the salvage teams? That is not answered by those clever people at Popular Mechanics. In fact there are many elements of the case that are not answered by popular mechanics magazine, they merely ask us to trust them, they (for some reason) have been shown evidence that the rest of us are not allowed to see, and they have NOT independently examined and they have taken this evidence purely on face value, as it appears to support the official version and so, must not be questioned at all.

A brilliant example of this is the DNA evidence of the hijackers on the aircraft. Despite the fact that none of the flight lists as released at the time had any hijackers listed, and the fact that there has been no reliable, or untampered video evidence of them boarding the planes, and the fact that several of those thought to be hijackers had been discovered alive and well after the attacks, mistaken ID or not, this casts some doubt on who the hijackers where, or even IF there where any hijackers at all?

So the guy at Popular Mechanics says, they have recovered the DNA of the hijackers from the crash sites.

OK, let's go out on a very implausable limb here and accept for the time being that the DNA would survive the explosions and intense fires (hot enough to melt steel and so hot that it caused the only collapse of steel framed tower blocks in history) and massive pressures, that pulverised thousands of tonnes of concrete into a fine powder, but, let's offer the conjecture that the hijackers DNA survived. (after all the paper pasport survived) What did the FBI compare the recovered DNA with to conclude that the Hijackers where on the planes?

If you recover DNA, to make a succesful ID, you need some DNA of the person you are trying to ID first. to compare it against. Where did the FBI get the DNA of people it had not arrested? If we are to believe the official version, the hijackers stuck the US as a total surprise. the hijackers where people who we are supposed to believe where not under heavy survielence.

Popular mechanics could NOT answer that simple question, and worse still, claimed it was a stupid question, it shouldn't be asked. Yet we are suuposed to take THEIR word that this supposed DNA exists.

Popular Mechanics did NOT do a thorough or independent analysis and took a position of supporting the official version as a matter of fact from the outset of there so called investigation., then they looked for any evidence that would support that position, accept that evidence as infallible. Any other contrary evidence was ignored, or rubbished out of hand as being unreliable, purely because it casts doubt on the official version and therefore could not possibly be reliable. (because the people at popular mechanics had already decided what the truth was before they started their investigation).

They had no interest in establishing truth, merely on lending credibility to the official cover up.