Once a year, I put the pretty pictures aside and write about something important. A friend of mine died on Flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, maybe that explains my interest in 9/11.
On September 11th, 2001, we all watched television. We were shown video footage of the Twin Towers falling to the ground level of the World Trade Center, and we were told that terrorists had hijacked planes and flown them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, with one airliner crashing in Pennsylvania. We were also told the airliner fires in the Twin Towers had weakened them and initiated their collapse. We believed it all. But what if a crucial part of this story is wrong? Let's take a closer look.
..
What have we got here? You're looking at a steel skyscraper that's being
blown apart, blasted to kingdom come from the top down. Those dots on
the outside of the clouds are not desks or chairs, they're huge pieces
of construction materials being thrown sideways by the force of the
detonations. If you understand what you are looking at right now, if you have a feel for the horrible explosive forces required to rip a building apart from its core, you have crossed a threshold of comprehension. Meanwhile, millions of television viewers are lost in a hypnotic trance seven years old. Time to grow out of it.
This World Trade Center tower is blowing apart at the seams. Is this the way things fall down? As somebody observed, imagine
a logger bringing a tree down. He saws through the tree and shouts "Timber!",
but the tree turns into sawdust on the way down. That isn't
the way things fall down, not unless there's a new form of gravity which can throw steel girders and other materials hundreds of feet sideways into other skyscrapers.
But wait, you might be thinking. Didn't an airliner hit this tower?
Didn't fuel burn and ignite other fires? Didn't the steel weaken to the
point that parts of tower sagged and then broke up? Let's yield to the
defenders of the official story on all those points for the sake of
argument. All of that could not have produced the outcome you see here.
This is not a collapse, it isn't something falling down from steel
failure. This is annihilation.
Accepting the official story of the World Trade Center means you
believe an airliner can hit a massive steel tower and make it
self-destruct -not just fall- and then a second airliner can hit a massive steel tower
next to it and also make it self-destruct. Twice! Who knew about this
safety defect in skyscraper design? Anyway, back to the picture of the day.
..
What is in the clouds? To start with, you're
looking at microscopic bits of concrete. Each floor had something like
four inches of concrete, and there were 110 floors. Gone, transformed into thick clouds. There are people in those clouds, too.
They've been blasted apart so badly, a thousand were never found in the
rubble. Do you really believe a falling building can pulverize a thousand human bodies into the dust survivors must breathe as they escape the destruction and chaos at ground level? When has that ever happened in history?
Somebody is blowing a modern skyscraper apart with the force
of a small atomic bomb. That's why the computers and staplers and
chairs and filing cabinets in this building disappeared. They ceased
to exist before they could hit the ground. They weren't just crushed by the fall, they ceased to exist. That's why the rubble pile was so small. There are some photos of the rubble pile at the World Trade Center which were shot the afternoon of 9/11, but they make you think they were shot after weeks of clearing and cleaning. Stuff that should have ended up on the ground was vaporized.
Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center collapsed at about
free-fall speeds, a dozen seconds, maybe fifteen. Because of the
way modern steel towers are constructed, this is impossible. Also, the structural failure of a building isn't
self-correcting. It falls with the failure, which is already unbalanced. If it falls to one side, it falls toward that side even
more, and then you have a building tipping over. If by some
extraordinary failure an entire floor falls straight down, the
resistance of the floor below will slow the fall, and eventually the
undamaged floors below them will hinder the pancaking.
That said, how did this tower in the photo violate those principles of physics
and engineering? How did the floors on top fall straight down as if
the floors below weren't in the way? Because the floors below weren't there
anymore. This tower came straight down at free-fall speed because
simultaneous explosive charges were racing ahead to destroy the floors
below. This isn't pancaking at work, one floor dropping into the next,
and then the next. This is pancake obliteration.
A third tower fell straight down on 9/11, World Trade Center
7, did you know that? Most people saw the first two towers fall on television, but Building 7 came down late in the afternoon. By then, people were in shock. The British Broadcasting Corporation announced the fall of Building 7 around 5 or 5:30 in the afternoon. They announced it something like 20 minutes before it fell. That's a neat trick, how did they do that?
No plane ever hit Building 7, and the fires were never a genuine threat.
It was more than 40 stories tall, but it came straight down in about 7 seconds. How is this possible? It isn't. Modern skyscrapers have been consumed in fire for hours with no structural damage, with no collapse of the steel inner structure. Modern skyscrapers are ridiculously overbuilt because they are surrounded by other office buildings and thousands of people. When steel load-bearing members of the inner structure fail, redundancy lets other parts of the skyscraper assume the load. People who tell you skyscrapers can self-destruct and fall straight down in seven seconds should not be trusted.
The destruction of the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, which led Dan Rather of CBS News to observe it was just like a controlled demolition.
I think Peter Jennings of ABC News said the same about the destruction of Building 7. They got it right the first time, and then you never saw them mention
it again. Did somebody get to these guys and tell them it was a
controlled demolition, so don't say it was controlled demolition?
Nobody had to, these guys were professionals.
When you understand that three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center were destroyed by prepositioned explosives, the implications are quite serious. Somebody had to know these attacks were going to take place, and load the buildings up with explosives, and then manage the operation. Who could have done that? That's why there's a substantial 9/11 truth movement. For example, there's an organization called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( www.ae911truth.org), which has hundreds of members. Their expertise reveals the lies in the government's story. It's the same government that told us Iraq had to be invaded again so we could find those weapons of mass destruction, and you know how honest that story was.
It's significant that two candidates for President have called for 9/11 Truth and for new, honest investigations, but they aren't the ones you're thinking about. US Representative Dennis Kucinich has a longstanding interest in this, and Ralph Nader announced for 9/11 Truth a day or two ago. And what about Obama and McCain? They won't go near the issue, I'm sure of that. Presidents aren't supposed to search for truth, they're supposed to know the truth, and both of these guys really want to be President. Once we have a new President, he'll have his own problems, and the last thing he'll want to do is revisit something like this. He'll be pursuing his own agenda, 9/11 was that other President's agenda.
My source for this photo is www.ae911truth.org.
Pretty pictures later.
.
It's fun to see a dog having a good time. Here's one now, running across some old boards.
And here's a squirrel sitting atop a post. Had to zoom in a lot for the image. I wonder what it's looking at.
And here's the running dog again, it just loves to sprint, but maybe it's chasing something.
The squirrel is looking down at the dog. That's why it's staying put on the post, and that's why the dog won't stop hitting the old boards.
Actually, the dog is jumping. I was walking through deserted Emeryville today. A couple had been working on their basketball skills at the park, and they were walking their basketball home, and their dog. The dog was lagging behind, it had to peer into every hole in the walls, had to investigate doorways of businesses, had to wander around the empty parking lots. And then it stopped. Meanwhile, the owners and the basketball were at the end of the block.
It spotted a squirrel and began to jump for it. What springing soles this dog had. I walked over and started taking photos after it had tried three times to get the squirrel. Finally, the wife walked back and scooped the dog into her arms. It would have stayed there a considerable time otherwise. Meanwhile, the dog was telling her, "I was just warming up, every jump was higher than the last! Have you no patience?"
"I tried jumping once, but when I landed on my feet I bit my tongue."
"To be frank, I don't need to jump. I hunt and point toward a target, and men with shotguns usually don't miss squirrels. One might miss, but the other four shotguns will turn that squirrel into swiss cheese."
"I jumped over the moon once."
"I tried jumping from here once, but the golf cart was still moving. I rolled into a sand trap."
