Suppose an arson occurs, in the following fashion. An arsonist touches a lit match to flammable- say paper and cardboard- inside a building.
The fire begins to grow and if not put out will certainly cause the whole building to burn to the ground.
The arsonist, however, goes into another room, and lights another fire, and then another, and then still another- any of which, alone, would be certain to destroy the whole building, if not extinguished.
Then the arsonist leaves and walks off down the street. He stops and gets something to eat at a food stand; he makes one or two cell phone calls unrelated to the arson; he sits on a park bench, and sees a partially full bag of peanuts on the ground, picks it up, and throws several peanuts in the direction of some nearby pigeons. An old woman walking a Pomeranian sits on the adjacent bench and speaks to the arsonist about the fine weather.
Sirens are heard as the firemen respond to the arson down the street, but it is too late to save the building; the firefighters watch it burn while making sure the fire doesn't jump to any other nearby structures. The firemen are wearing blue and gray and gold uniforms, bright green safety vests, and some have Scott air packs hanging from a strap in case of need.
==================================================
Okay. Ridiculous story. Too much detail. What's the point?
So let me jump ahead some weeks or months, to a courtroom.
The man we last saw feeding pigeons and discussing the weather with a Pomeranian-owning old woman is now the defendant in a criminal case.
Two witnesses testify to seeing the defendant clearly, for several minutes, from less than fifty feet away, with matches in his hand, entering the building in question and then lighting some old newspaper and cardboard along an interior wall.
The witnesses are sober, reliable, and trusted in the community. The act of arson could be seen very well through a window, with virtually no possibility of mistake or mistaken identity, and this fact is demonstrated to the Court.
The testimony is accepted, for it appears, to both judge and jury, to be unassailable. A conviction for arson is handed down, and the arsonist is sent to prison.
==================
Here comes the point:
It can be seen that no witnesses were produced, nor were any necessary, who had (for example) seen the man stop at the food stand, or make his phone calls, or pick up the bag of peanuts.
No witnesses showed up in court to state that the man had made any comment about the weather or anything else to the old woman on the other park bench.
No witness saw, and none testified, to observing the accused lighting the three or four other fires.
It is only necessary to prove ONE arson, and the proof of arson is complete.
It has nothing to do with anything else. It just needs to be proved that a single fire was set.
A fire burned the building; the man purposely set the fire; in court, corroborating the witnesses against him, he even confesses, agreeing point by point with witnesses and the claims of the prosecutor.
===============================================
The above is meant to be a parable (though an imperfect analogy) about the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
It can be proven, by any number of means, that the Twin Towers and WTC #7 were destroyed by the use of explosives and incendiaries. There is testimony from eyewitnesses, photographic evidence, video evidence, and other evidence proving that no other known mechanism could have destroyed the buildings in the way it actually happened, which can be confirmed by reviewing the various types of evidence. An inevitable conclusion (barring dishonesty, including cognitive dissonance "denial") is that the Towers and WTC #7 were loaded with demolition explosives and whatever incendiaries were used, days, weeks, or months before the September 11, 2001, date of the actual destruction.
From the scientifically established fact of
a. demolition, leading to
b. conclusion that preparation for destruction was prior to 9/11/01,
a question naturally follows.
Actually, many questions naturally follow, but one in particular would be this:
"What is the likelihood that this preparation was carried out by foreign nationals who had sufficient access to the World Trade Center Towers and WTC #7 to be able to prepare the structures for demolition, a noisy, time-consuming process that can take weeks to prepare- and to be able to carry out this preparatory process without being confronted by tenants, guards, police, building code officials, or anyone else?"
The next question would be the flip side of the first one:
"What is the likelihood that such a process was carried out by people with permission, access, keys, and a guarantee of immunity, who are not foreign nationals but American citizens?"
=====================
Which possibility seems more reasonable?
More than that, which scenario is possible, and which is IMpossible?
==============================
It is not necessary to know what was said about the weather by the man talking to the old woman walking a Pomeranian.
It's just necessary to prove one thing which, once proven, is sufficient to prove the whole case.
A murder might be committed in which the victim is riddled with bullets, after the first bullet to the head, clearly a premeditated homicide, causes death, in order to convict for murder.
The 9/11 Truth movement needs that one hook, that one thing which ALL Americans can accept, which cannot be disproved or denied, and which leads inevitably to the conclusion of explosive demolition.
The proof, as stated above, is already established.
The stumbling block is not that, but the unwillingness of the public to accept it.
That needed "hook", [or rather one possible example of such a hook- there are others]- might be the way that thousands of tons of reinforced concrete were violently and explosively turned to dust and sand and small bits in only a few seconds.
This is a fact that anyone can review by means of video and photographs available to all.
========================
Nearly everyone has considerable experience with both concrete and steel from daily life, and has a general sense of the strength, durability, safety, and behavior under normal stress, or the stress of normal use, of these materials.
No one- until Sept. 11, 2001- has ever seen concrete break itself into powder while falling in mid-air, or a reinforced concrete floor crushed to powder and violently thrown laterally and then cascading like a waterfall from the interior of a skyscraper, unless the effect has been the result of high explosive charges, whether demolition charges, rocket warheads, or bombs.
That is the only way it happens, and anyone with a grain of sense knows it, or we all would be terrified to walk under a ceiling with steel in the framing, or walk on a concrete pavement, or drive across a bridge with concrete under our car wheels, for if we believe the official story of 9/11, then any bridge, highway, house foundation, or sidewalk becomes an extremely dangerous thing, which any person with a working survival instinct people would definitely avoid.
But people continue to drive on concrete, and step on floors of it, and so forth.
Building codes have not been rewritten to deal with the "discovery" that reinforced concrete and structural steel can do what is claimed by the government that they did on 9/11/01.
People continue to drive in vehicles made of steel with no fear that the car could suddenly melt into droplets.
No one is afraid that the gasoline will melt the engine from the inside out, and destroy the car and burn everyone up.
Such ideas are absurd, as well they should be.
The official story of 9/11 is just as absurd, or more so, than the idea of a car spontaneously melting or a concrete road suddenly turning to powder and flying off into the fields alongside it.
People need to start thinking about this, because not enough people get it yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment