Well, once again my esteemed opponent has laid out an articulate and thought provoking testimony for his case. As usual, it has really brought this
debate to a new level and has kept me on my toes. Whatukno has throughout this debate made a very compelling case for his argument, and has done so
with dignity and class.
Hopefully I have shown that the simple impact of the two aircraft into the building could not have possibly alone caused the collapse of the
WTC towers 1 & 2. And thus another reason must be to blame for the cause of the collapse on that day. Physics dictate that the amount of damage that
occurred to both towers was not enough to facilitate the complete collapse of both towers in the same exact manner.
Let no one say you have not built a very compelling case, but I must disagree with you. Not because I can personally explain why the buildings fell,
I cannot and have stated so many times and for me to offer up any explanation would be speculation at best. But more in the fact that while you are
not alone in making statements about the laws of physics etc, as many already know there are those within the physics, engineering, and architectural
fields that agree with you; they are in fact the minority. The overwhelming majority of people in those related fields, while not able to fully
explain the collapse, have NOT spoken out claiming the government is hiding anything. If those that find the government’s version to far fetched to
be believed were the majority, then the professional organizations as a whole would be publishing press releases to the effect. Has the ASME, ASCE,
or any of the other academic organizations published their dissent with the NIST findings? If they have, I am ignorant of this fact.
Now, some would argue that that is simply because the members of these organizations have either been threatened or paid off. But to make that claim
is actually fairly arrogant for anyone to do. Here’s why. Most of us, if asked “if you could prove the government had destroyed the twin towers
by controlled demolition, and were threatened or offered money, would you keep quiet? Or would you, despite the money or the risk take the news to the
people?” I think most of us; at least those of us here at ATS, would like to say that regardless of consequence, we would take our information
public. Money isn’t everything, jobs can be replaced, and we all die. So, we all sit here, safe behind our keyboards and think to ourselves “no
way could they keep me quiet”, and at the same time think that ALL these other people would. Vanity to say the least.
So to me at least, I find that all the things that so many find “obvious” are not necessarily that obvious. Most notably, where it comes to the
use of explosives.
But, I digress.
In your last rebuttal you talked about motive and opportunity. You then laid out a VERY good case concerning both.
I would like to take a few moments to touch on some of these ideas.
As to motive, I simply must ask, by show of hands if necessary, how many have read the al queda “handbook”? Some have claimed that this book is
nothing more than a work of fiction published by the CIA as more ‘evidence’ against al queda. Well, if that were true, why take the time to
author the chapters that were not released to the public and bury them on the back side of a DOJ computer server that you have to have special access
to get to? No, if one was to read the book, you are left with a very profound sense of the enemy’s motivations.
Now, as to opportunity, there could be speculation of all kinds in regards to the 30hr power down and whether or not the job “could” have been
completed during that time. And, ill admit, its possible; given enough men who all had very specific tasks laid out before hand. But each man you
bring into the job is one more potential leak later on. For a crew of 10 to have done the job in 30hrs is a flight of fancy at best IMO. Also
consider the fact that they would have plant a very large amount of explosives, run all the det cord or firing wires, at least in some cases cut into
the drywall, replace said drywall, paint over it, clean up, and do all this in the dark in under 30hrs? possible but….far fetched?
Now, as to some of the case being made for WTC7, rather than to beat a dead horse by restating all of my previous points, I’d like to talk about
For a moment, let’s just work on the assumption that the whole thing WAS a government black op. In doing so we must all admit that it would take
very, very careful planning and coordination to bring this off without a hitch, and if planned properly, would leave NO evidence of it being a black
op at all.
That said, why would you leave building 7 standing until many hours after the fall of the south tower when you had a perfect opportunity to disguise
the fall of the building as just an effect of the collapse of the south tower? The hallmark of a covert operation is one that leaves no evidence that
it was in fact a covert operation and yet we are expected to believe that the brilliant minds that had planned the rest of the day with nary a flaw
simply “forgot” to push the plunger on building 7? It just makes no sense when you think about it considering that all they had to do was wait
until the dust cloud was near that level and then simply destroy building 7 and no one would have noticed.
Also, there is the matter of silversteins comments about “pulling it”. He says in his quote that he was talking to the fire cheif and they
decided to pull it. Well, if he was in fact talking about the building and not the people or team inside the building, then we are left with two
A) The incident commander had decided that for safety it would be best to pull the building and ordered it destroyed.
B) The fire chief was in on it.
Now, I don’t know anyone willing to go so far as to say the fire chief was in on it, and if he did make the call, where’s the documentation?
There’s a saying in the emergency services that “if its not written down it didn’t happen”. Had he made the call, it would be documented.
Thing is, there’s no rational reason to pull the building…I mean since no one can believe it DID collapse on its own, why would anything think it
WOULD collapse on its own?
Also consider this in regards to silversteins comments…IF this was a black op, then the decision to drop building 7 had been made long before 911
anyway. So, what decision was there to make in regards to “pulling” anyway?
No, for me, I personally think that when silverstein was quoted as saying “pull it” that he did in fact mean the team (which most documents would
leave you believing that the teams had been pulled long before that anyway) and that in retelling this story on television silverstein was attempting
to make himself out to be the kind of guy that was more worried about lives than his buildings. In short, I think he was trying to take credit for a
decision he had nothing to do with in reality simply to boost his public image.
So, in closing this rebuttal I would like to again commend my opponent for a great presentation, however I am still left without anything at all that
to me at least proves that High Explosives were in FACT the cause of the ultimate demise of the WTC buildings.