I've been waiting a long time for the US media to give a decent sounding explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Towers. Up until now the only convincing story that I had seen was the controlled demolition hypothesis as described by "conspiracies". The other day, I found this BBC (mental note: not US media) documentary that has given some plausibility to the idea that the planes brought the Towers down.
Now, at least, there's more than one horse in the race but I'm still wondering when someone will try reasonably explain WTC 7.
1 comment:
Long comment but here goes. Video 1: This analysis actually took into account the structural design of the towers, and looked to the impact of events; unlike the loose change video, which reached their conclusions through what I refer to as backdoor evidence. Rather than look to the design of the towers loose change simply used non-comparable buildings to establish their points. Video 2 brings about 2 interesting issues. First, as the end of the video points out, those who don't believe in the conspiracy cannot scientifically rule out the controlled demolition theory. But doesnt that same logic apply to those who support the controlled demolition theory? The fact that a controlled demolition is possible, plus the fact that the FBI/CIA had offices in that building does not categorically equal a controlled demolition. As to your point about the US media suppressing a "conspiracy theory" , as someone who watches CNN/FN/MSN and CSPAN everyday I don't see much support for that position. The media economy is almost completely driven by the concept of a scandal. If CNN would take the time to give a min by min account of the Dick Cheney duck hunting incident, why would they not at least investigate what would be the biggest scandal in US history? There is little to no actual evidence other than speculation that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, people had the image of the WTC collapse branded in their mind with months of coverage. Why would the US media not give a min/min account? Because we have already seen it
Post a Comment