|
What happened to the towers -- especially their lower floors? Why is most of the building material
scattered for hundreds of feet around in a fine powder?
Why is almost all the office furniture and equipment, and even the
human remains, shredded beyond recognition?
The plane crashes and fires could not have done that, and building collapses,
while they crush and mangle people, have never before ripped them into unrecognizable shreds.
20,000 body parts were recovered from Ground Zero -- seven times the number of people who died there.
It is true that the Twin Towers, because of their sheer size, involved larger amounts of material falling further
and faster than in any previous building collapse. But that just causes worse crushing, smashing, and mangling.
It does not blow everything to smithereens. Do you think a concrete block would turn completely into powder
if you dropped it 1350 feet? If it wouldn't, why did the top floor from each Tower powderize
despite not being hit from above? If it would, prove it...let's see someone do this as an experiment
and put it out on a web video. I'd really love to see this.
Just make sure to yell "Heads up" before you drop it. ;)
Even if all the concrete COULD be powderized by the fall, it still wouldn't explain the huge dust clouds
that were already forming well before any of the debris reached the ground.
What energy source powderized building materials in mid-air and shot them outwards?
And how did the gravitational collapse continue down the building
when much of the material in the upper part of the building, instead of crushing the lower floors,
was flying away from the building's footprint at high speed?
Is there any remotely plausible physical explanation for this?
Or did the sheer intensity of some Muslims' hate for us, and the sheer enormity of their crime, bend the laws of
physics? That's the Hollywood logic you've been asked to believe.
From Day One, the fundamental framing of the event, the TAGLINE if you will,
has always been:
This is just like a movie...except it's real.
What you're about to see looks like the latest in spectacular special effects.
The story has all the drama, all the clearcut lines of good and evil,
all the mixture of sentimentality, self-righteousness, and violence we've come to expect from a Hollywood blockbuster.
But the people who die are REAL, the destruction of property is REAL,
and that somehow proves that the storyline isn't phony
and the presentation isn't tendentious after all. Instead of being chilled and thrilled for two hours...wake
up, America. Put down your relativisms and your cynical excuses and rally behind your country and its cry for war
from the safety of your two-bedroom home, with all the fervor with which you would cheer your cinematic heroes
while munching popcorn in a dark, safe room -- except that like the real attackers you are responding to,
you, too, will be in deadly earnest. And remember, always, the basic premise
of violent epics: there are some lives we care about deeply -- some who deserve to die --
and others who just don't figure very highly in our emotional drama,
the thousands of "too bad" collateral damage deaths that briefly litter the screen.
All the dismissive sneers about "conspiracy theories" miss, not only the fact that the official story
is equally a conspiracy theory, but the fraudulent, emotionally manipulative, Spielberg-esque framework
the official story imposes. Before you even get to the admittedly tangled issues of fact and detailed scenarios,
there is a question of basic framing.
On that level, it is the official story that requires of its believers
an unrealistic worldview -- whereas the frame for 9/11 skepticism requires only belief
that we have an evil government capable of great boldness --
something for which there is plenty of other evidence.
There are, it is true, some people who accept the physical aspects
of the official story while rejecting its emotional/political punchline.
These people do not expose the truth about 9/11, and may even unwittingly cover it up,
but on the other hand, the story and psy-op of 9/11 did not really work on them.
That is why, unlike some other 9/11 skeptics,
I will not denounce Amy Goodman. Criticize her, hell yes
-- she's certainly done a poor job covering the events on that day -- but not denounce her.
Why? Because she consistently says,
"the so-called war on terror." She never bought into the premise of the psy-op this criminal gang of a government
perpetrated upon us. She bought into the physical series of events, but she didn't accept the framing.
She attacked the rush to war in Afghanistan right from the start. She never, from the day itself,
bought into any of the nationalist PAYOFF the 9/11 story
was meant to evoke.
That's because her political instincts are basically good, even though she has DRASTICALLY
misunderstood what's going on. If everyone had her responses, the perpetrators of 9/11 wouldn't have bothered,
because it wouldn't have worked. It is not merely most Americans' willingness to believe
the story that was exploited, but their nationalism and jingoism
and willingness to sacrifice other nations' lives to satisfy a vengeful bloodlust.
I'd much rather be allied with someone like Amy Goodman than with a 9/11-truther
who WOULD accept the "war on terror" if the events of that day were what we've been told. Such people scare me.
|
