Sometimes I get so frustrated with the skeptic community. They could do the same type of demonstrations/experiments that they do for claims of psychic ability or communications with the dead. They'll participate in debates on evolution, or the existence of God... but 9/11? Generally, crickets.
:-----:
David Chandler writes:
"By the way, does this sound like conspiracy theory to you? Notice that I have not theorized, or even hypothesized anything. I am observing and analyzing public information regarding an extremely significant public event, holding it up to the light of day. This is normal curious behavior for a scientist, not political or weird or fringe. Rather, choosing not to observe or not to analyze or not to try to understand such an event for fear of where the evidence might lead, or to insist that only officially sanctioned explanations are to be permitted, or to smear with derogatory labels those who use their own eyes and powers of reason, … that is a political act, and not the kind of politics worthy of citizens of a democratic society."
(and yes, Metabunk tackles a lot of it, but I want to see head to head encounters. Leave no stone unturned).
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
"According to a recent announcement from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, The New York Fire Commission recently voted to open up a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001.
Last month, on July 24, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Districts unanimously voted to open a new investigation into the attacks, in response to “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.”
The resolution was drafted by Commissioner Christopher Gioia, and was supported by the families of numerous victims who showed up at the meeting to give their blessing on the matter."
Free Fall — Part 2
by David Chandler
"In the case of WTC 7 it is clear that there was enough destruction due to an external source of energy to clear the way for eight stories of free fall. The free falling building did not destroy those eight stories. It was the clearing away of those eight stories by other means that allowed the free fall to occur."
Free Fall — Part 3
by David Chandler
"At this point it is easy to see why many scientists, engineers, and architects see pre-planted explosives as the only plausible explanation of the forensic evidence, acknowledging that there is a very deep rabbit hole of logical consequences that follow. The official story is all about avoiding that rabbit hole, but any honest investigation would need to do justice to the forensic evidence. So let’s see how the official investigation handled the free fall question."
Free Fall — Part 4
by David Chandler
"If the interior columns had buckled they would have pulled the floors down with them, This would have pulled inward on the exterior walls and we would see visible deformations on the surface. The girders could not pull away from the exterior walls, as the NIST Q&A piece claims, because there is no mechanism for the interior to decouple from the exterior walls. The girders directly tie the interior columns to the exterior walls. Note that NIST’s own computer models of the collapse all involved major deformations of the exterior walls, but no such large deformations were seen in the videos of the actual building even as the building was falling."