A little while back, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted the following:
Insightful
That's my vote with regard to this headline: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory–Insane or Insightful?
The writer is Greg Hunter, a former reporter for the ABC and CNN news networks and founder of the self-described non-partisan site USAWatchdog.com; described on a 911blogger.com post as "a man of integity, credibility and intelligence."
Hunter follows the headline at his site:
I keep coming back to one question in the 9/11 conspiracy story: How did two jets knock down three New York City skyscrapers?
Answer: They didn't. They caused a fire which the official report from the government investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology states "likely would not have collapsed the buildings "if the thermal insulation [fire-proofing] had not been widely dislodged." However, the assertion about the fire-proofing is greatly flawed, lending even more credence to what has thus far proved to be undebunkable physical evidence they were demolished.
The explosiveness of the Towers destruction damaged many surrounding buildings, including building 7, but the government investigators say "this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." They also inform us that the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7." They conclude that WTC 7's fires was "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings," but lead to "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
In sum, a negligibly damaged building (not uncommon from fire itself) with normal office fires did something unprecedented since the first steel-framed skyscraper was built in 1885, and ever since 9/11 the former precedent that skyscrapers undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes has held true to her longstanding ways. In other words, it was most likely a controlled demolition too; more details:
Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC
It seems that Pat Curley at least sees the counter-intuitive nature of the conclusion derived from the official story as told by the government investigators. Hence, his raising moot points about damage and in other posts exaggerating the fire severity in WTC 7, by grossly misrepresenting firefighter testimony and contradicting the official story in an attempt to defend it. The fact of the matter is, he wouldn't have to do these things if it wasn't an unsupported conclusion.
Insane
That's my vote with regard to this headline: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory–Insane or Insightful?
The writer, who apparently worked for CNN at one point, goes on to talk about one of the silliest tropes:
I keep coming back to one question in the 9/11 conspiracy story: How did two jets knock down three New York City skyscrapers?
Answer: They didn't. They caused a fire which knocked down the first two buildings, which damaged many surrounding buildings, including the third skyscraper, which burned uncontrollably for about 7 hours and finally collapsed.Here is my reply wih a different vote, same answer, but with a better explanantion that debunks Pat.
Insightful
That's my vote with regard to this headline: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory–Insane or Insightful?
The writer is Greg Hunter, a former reporter for the ABC and CNN news networks and founder of the self-described non-partisan site USAWatchdog.com; described on a 911blogger.com post as "a man of integity, credibility and intelligence."
Hunter follows the headline at his site:
I keep coming back to one question in the 9/11 conspiracy story: How did two jets knock down three New York City skyscrapers?
Answer: They didn't. They caused a fire which the official report from the government investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology states "likely would not have collapsed the buildings "if the thermal insulation [fire-proofing] had not been widely dislodged." However, the assertion about the fire-proofing is greatly flawed, lending even more credence to what has thus far proved to be undebunkable physical evidence they were demolished.
The explosiveness of the Towers destruction damaged many surrounding buildings, including building 7, but the government investigators say "this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." They also inform us that the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7." They conclude that WTC 7's fires was "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings," but lead to "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
In sum, a negligibly damaged building (not uncommon from fire itself) with normal office fires did something unprecedented since the first steel-framed skyscraper was built in 1885, and ever since 9/11 the former precedent that skyscrapers undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes has held true to her longstanding ways. In other words, it was most likely a controlled demolition too; more details:
Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC
It seems that Pat Curley at least sees the counter-intuitive nature of the conclusion derived from the official story as told by the government investigators. Hence, his raising moot points about damage and in other posts exaggerating the fire severity in WTC 7, by grossly misrepresenting firefighter testimony and contradicting the official story in an attempt to defend it. The fact of the matter is, he wouldn't have to do these things if it wasn't an unsupported conclusion.
