Again, I'm not ruling out a demolition of the towers. But so far all I've seen is bad journalism and really bad science. So I think I'll stay skeptical until some real proof is brought forth.
Oh, come on. You're leaving yourself an opening just in case the crackpot conspiracy theorist is right? Just in case "Geronimo Jones" has brought us the most valuable information we've ever heard? (actually google search and you'll find that controlled demolition isn't an original idea by this guy)
Let me get this straight, now. The owner of the towers is motivated by a huge insurance payout to destroy the towers, so he rigs up explosives. It all works out perfectly, and nobody suspects a thing!
But then in a PBS interview he ADMITS that he "pulled" the building, where "pull" clearly must only mean he destroyed the building? Surely I'm not the only one who sees something wrong with this.
Further, the firefighters who provide their anecdote in the .mpg video about how it looked like there were demolition charges (let's assume they weren't just providing an analogy as to what it looked like) clearly show in the video using their hand movements that the charges were going off from the top floor to the bottom. Go ahead, watch the video and come back, I'll wait. So that means that the
entire building was wired with explosives, not just the basement! And nobody noticed the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of man hours necessary to wire every floor of a building of that size????? Gee, the firefighters just
couldn't have been providing an analogy to describe what the building collapsing in on itself looked like.
The Bill Biggart photograph showing a "clearly explosive event" must be conclusive evidence. Except that this explosion has not affected the side of the building that Biggart is looking at. So "they" must have wired up the building to collapse it, but only the explosives on one side of the building went off? Further, that's a horrible controlled explosion--look at that debris fly everywhere. Also, that photo is copyright. Did the author
really get permission to use it?
I could go on and on, but I can't sit here all day. The sad part is that if you search for scientific 911 analysis or something similar on Google, all the top hits are a bunch of conspiracy-theory sites. Probably the most rediculous thing about the site though is that the author appeals to common sense a lot. HOWEVER, unless you're some sort of scientist in a field related to the article or someone with massive experience in the field,
you can't use common sense because you have no scientific intuition on which common sense is formed. What the hell makes you think that your common sense about the tensile strength of steel at some temperature and the behavior of a collapsing building is correct? "Oh, because it's common sense!" WELL IT'S NOT COMMON SENSE. Yeesh.