EMILE COLE writes:

I think what’s really surprising about the facts about World Trade Center Building 7 is all the continued speculation almost fifteen years later about other possible explanations for the observed period of gravitational acceleration involved in the building’s collapse. When it comes to WTC7 everyone intuitively knows why the official story must be wrong. Let’s not forget that it was David Chandler, a high school science teacher (featured in the video above), who actually forced the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to reverse itself on the issue of free fall. I think that’s why people who see the video experience a persistent, nagging sensation that something’s just not right. They remember…. and they’re correct.

I spent two full months discussing and hammering out what free fall is and what it is not with Dr. Alan Calverd, PhD, a Cambridge University educated, forty-five year veteran research physicist and regular contributor to the Cambridge University sponsored website The Naked Scientists who, though he ultimately ended up repeatedly degrading himself academically over the entire course of the exchange with an eighth-grade dropout by continuing to argue sophistically in open debate against the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body, was nevertheless instrumental in helping to guide the formatting of the animations. It’s been over ten months now since I posted a complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion at the end of the thread “What is Free Fall?” [See the animations on the last page of that thread, in which I write under the name “Aemilius.”]

To date, not one member, not one moderator, not one podcast or other staff member at The Naked Scientists or Cambridge University, particularly Dr. Calverd, has even managed to address it directly (Naked Silence?), let alone break it or point out one single analytical or logical error by simply copying and pasting one of the simple animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like, “This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect. The scenario would not play out as depicted/described in the analysis and here’s why….,” followed by some simple cogently-stated correction of, or objection to, some aspect of the analysis. This is also true of all the other forums I’ve brought this up in over the last two years or so regardless of what stage of completion it was in at the time of posting.

It’s not hard to see why. Proponents of the official narrative are in a tough spot. They can’t really confirm it or deny it without getting into trouble. In other words, anyone who confirms the veracity of the analysis instantly falls into the “conspiracy theorist” category. This they absolutely will not do, so they don’t confirm it, they just remain silent. And anyone who denies the veracity of the analysis must point out some error. This they absolutely can not do, so they don’t deny it either, again, they just remain silent. They literally can not address it one way or the other!

Anyway there’s no mystery now and there never was, WTC7 was brought down by explosives, and the empirically established fact (via my prima facie empirically verifiable analysis) that WTC7 was brought down by explosives immediately shines a bright light on literally the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of this magnitude, the only ones who had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly-secured building (WTC7), the only ones who were in complete control of the security system for the building, the only ones who had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required, and the only ones who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency could’ve done it.

Just as one needn’t be Isaac Newton to see there’s no other possible logical explanation for the behavior of WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported inside the building, one needn’t be Sherlock Holmes to see there’s no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down for many years as a highly secured government facility…. it’s elementary.

Laura Wood writes:

Thank you for your comments.

As I said before, I am interested in the facts that point to a controlled demolition at WTC7 and also I seek personally to understand better how the Twin Towers came down the way they did. As the organization says, we need to “rethink 911.”

However, I am not prepared yet to look seriously at any theories about who did it. And I caution others against this too. Let’s digest the fact that the official narrative is probably wrong on a basic physical level. It just doesn’t work. Without animus or suspicion toward the CIA or foreign governments who might conceivably have been involved, let’s digest the fact that at least one and possibly all of those buildings didn’t come down simply because of two hijacked planes.

— Comments —

William writes:

This controversy reminds me of a book I read about the controversy of Shakespeare’s authorship.  The book titled “The Mysterious William Shakespeare” by Charlton Ogburn is a narrative of Mr. Ogburn’s attempts to challenge the accepted belief that the man whose name was William Shakspere of Stratford, who by all known direct evidence was illiterate or nearly so, could not have been the author of the works.  Even though Mr. Ogburn’s arguments against the accepted view are compelling, the defenders of the status quo attacked him with such venom as to ruin him.  He was attacked by the establishment, including so-called scholars and academics, as a conspiracy theorist, a nut, as well as many other derogatory terms and they made his life very difficult.

J.D. writes:

It is unlikely that the state will openly investigate what amount to charges, which would be largely an inquiry into itself, such as proffered by the various truth seekers; if it is resolved that the seriousness of the speculations or conspiracies and inquiries, surpass the unrequited skepticism over the questioned evidence, elevates this to a higher state interest which demands and requires a second, wider ranging open inquiry, then we would have a state accepting a challenge to more that its generally thought of incompetence and lack of credibility, but to the possibility that within its executive branch, an element committed a treasonous, terror crime against its own people. It must then join its own people in an inquiry, effectively, into itself. The inquiry would seek to discover the mastermind and team who executed the most startling and deadly attack in and on the United States, in order to justify – it is argued – for our President, the launching of an unpopular, perhaps criminal war; or that for good top secret reasons, those three buildings were expertly demolished, and simply and opportunistically used to justify a sought war.
  
To me, that means that these speculations and theories will always remain just that.

 Laura writes:

Watergate is an example of a government investigating itself. When enough political pressure is brought to bear, it can happen.

Laura adds:

I await comments from readers who will say or suggest that Mr. Cole, the scientists in the video, the firemen and pilots seeking a re-investigation, the journalists who have done courageous work, I, and the millions of other people who question the 911 script are all psychologically unbalanced.

This is the way a quasi-totalitarian society imprisons those who support free inquiry.

It commits them to a wall-less, borderless mental institution.

Candace writes:

I’ve always doubted the official story of 9/11. I used to travel for a living. I was probably on the road a good 48 weeks per year when the attacks occurred.

I’ve always been bothered by the news reports of how many passengers were on the planes. I remember watching the news with my husband a few days after the attack when they started reporting that there were around 35 to 40 passengers on each plane. I looked straight at my husband and said, that’s not possible!

At that time the planes were always packed. It didn’t matter if you left early in the morning or took the last flight out at night, the planes were packed. It didn’t matter if you left out on a Monday or you left out on a Thursday, the planes were packed. If, by chance, there were a couple of empty seats, the standby passengers got on. There is absolutely no way that four planes going cross country should have so few passengers.

Then there are those “mini-documentaries” that they were doing in the first few weeks with families of the victims. The one that stood out to me had to do with the two women from Boston. They had been friends since childhood and one of them had a little girl. They were on their way to Disneyland and one was on the first plane that hit the towers and the other one with her child was on the second plane. They interviewed the father of the first girl. He said when his daughter left the house she promised to call him when they got to the airport and were checked in. Well, when she called him she said that everything was fine except that the flight was OVERBOOKED, so her friend and little girl had to be put on a flight with another airline.

Overbooked, really? Why, I thought the flights were practically empty.

Seriously, I’ve always suspected an inside job.

Please follow and like us: