Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who
said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the
motion."102 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have
come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the
steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have
otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and
the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a
second or two, a miracle meaning a violation of the laws of physics -
would have happened.
That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance.
But then in November, while still defending the fire theory
of collapse, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall
happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of
WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)."103
Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft, in which it had said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said three times that its analysis was "consistent with physical principles."104 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics.
Conclusion about WTC 7: The science of World Trade Center 7 is, therefore, settled. This fact is reflected in the agreement by many hundreds of professionals with various forms of expertise architects, engineers, firefighters, physicists, and chemists that this building was deliberately demolished.
This truth has also recently been recognized by a symposium
in one of our leading social science journals, which treats 9/11 as an
example of what its authors call State Crimes Against Democracy
(SCADs).105 Criticizing the majority of the academic world for its
"blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics" that is
violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses,
these authors also criticize the academy for its failure to protest when
"Professor Steven Jones found himself forced out of tenured position
for merely reminding the world that physical laws, about which there is
no dissent whatsoever, contradict the official theory."106
And now the world can see, if it will only look, that even NIST, in its final report, did not dissent: By admitting that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds, while simultaneously removing its previous claim that its report was consistent with physical principles, NIST implicitly admitted that the laws of physics rule out its non-demolition theory of this building's collapse. NIST thereby implicitly admitted that explosives were used.
H. Implications for the Al-Qaeda Theory of 9/11
And with that implicit admission, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapse of WTC 7 means that it was subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as "implosion," which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, "by far the trickiest type of explosive project," which "only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform."107 Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.
Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a
building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had WTC 7
and the Twin Towers which also came straight down, after initial
explosions at the top that ejected sections of steel outward several
hundred feet108 - instead toppled over sideways, they would have caused
massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other
buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe
that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the
buildings come straight down, they would have had the courtesy?
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant explosives. Only insiders could have done this.109
The science of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, accordingly, disproves the claim - which from the outset has been used to justify the war in Afghanistan that America was attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda Muslims. It suggests, instead, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation to provide a pretext to attack Muslim nations.
Conclusion
In any case, the official rationale for our presence in Afghanistan is a lie. We are there for other reasons. Critics have offered various suggestions as to the most important of those reasons.110 Whatever be the answer to that question, however, we have not been there to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Besides never being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been morally justified.
This war, moreover, is an abomination. In addition to the thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.111 But whatever the true number, the fact is that the United States has produced a great amount of death and misery sometimes even bombing funerals and wedding parties - in this country that had already suffered terribly and that, even if the official story were true, had not attacked America. The fact that the official story is a lie makes our war crimes even worse.112
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
3
2
