Andrew1484 wrote:
It is also simply not true that buildings cannot be demolished from the top down in reality. I don't think that it is very honest of you to try to plant false suggestions in the minds of your readers like that, who might not bother to check their facts.
Andrew,
I would kindly ask you - for the sake of tranquil debate - not to question my honesty before providing solid and irrefutable argumentations to invalidate my own - something which you still haven't done - thank you very much. None of your video examples of 'top-down' demolitions, I'm afraid, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the collapse dynamics as featured in the 9/11 collapse imagery. Your examples all show very clear and defined explosives being ignited halfway up of (mostly) concrete-only buildings - or explosives charges setting off in quick succession on multiple floors. In stark contrast, the 110-story steel-frame towers seen crumbling in the 9/11 videos appear to 'fizzle' down from the very top - with no visible explosive blasts triggering their total collapse (and please, don't bring up the silly little 'squibs' promoted by the farcical "Loosechange" gatekeeping movie). Moreover - and since you mention Ockham's razor - we can very simply demonstrate that the available WTC collapse shots
do not even match up with each other. This is just ONE of the numerous examples to support this claim:
Both these shots are clearly meant to be shot from a similar, head-on-to-the-WTC-north-face perspective. Watch the antennas:
Andrew1484 wrote: The ONLY WTC building that was demolished in a "polite way" on 9/11, whilst trying to prevent damage to the surrounding buildings, was WTC7.
Well, Andrew - the problem is that the WTC7 collapse imagery shown on TV does not look physically possible - unless you can provide real world examples of what we can observe here: the entire left side of the building sliding/expanding sideways (
without breaking up into rubble and dust) as it dips down towards the ground...
Andrew1484 wrote:In my opinion buildings outside of the WTC buildings 1 to 7 were damaged or destroyed accidentally. The Marriot was simply too close and I don't think that Deutsche Bank was intentionally hit, for example.
Well - so you're basically saying that the perfect 'top-down' collapse we saw on TV somehow damaged the rather distant Deutsche Bank beyond repair. This does not add up if you look closely at the WTC collapses shown on TV.
Andrew1484 wrote:I am sorry you think my thinking strange, but WHY bother to fake the collapse process videos in advance UNLESS you are desperately hiding something EVEN WEIRDER than what they showed us? What they showed us on video was implausible enough!
What they showed us on video was implausible enough. Yes. I fully agree. So? Does that make those videos any less implausible?
Andrew1484 wrote:Also if we accept your theory, in this case the "deliberate errors" like the squibs were obviously deliberately inserted into the fake videos of this fake collapse process.
Yes. I call those things 'candies for conspiracy theorists' - and they appear to have worked out quite well, for the purpose of stirring up scores of endless circular debates among the 'truther community'. The same goes for the infamous "flashes-just-before-Flight175-impacts" as featured in some
post-2007 videos. As I demonstrated long ago, it was once again the "Loosechange" clowns who inserted that "sinister flash" -
which is ABSENT, for instance, in my original DVD-version of the Naudet brother's movie: 
Evidently, this flash was inserted to provide a "plausible explanation" (the phony flash was 'sold' as a possible missile-penetrator) as to why the entire airliner melded into the WTC effortlessly. I presume the perps were worried at the time that all-too-many folks would wake up to the absurd visuals of those airplanes disappearing into the WTC - as if into a cloud.
Andrew1484 wrote:I await with interest your theories WHY the 9/11 American Terrorists made such IMPERFECT videos that did not match the utter bollocks they said had caused these "collapses" shown in their videos. If they had weeks to plan the collapse videos they should have been perfect AND they should have matched the written and spoken propaganda story to accompany their pre-created video story.
This is probably the most frequently asked question i get nowadays. "Why did they do a such a sloppy job of it? Did they not have an almost unlimited budget to do perfect computer animations?" Well, I could think of a zillion reasons why they came out sloppy. The bottom line is: they ARE sloppy - and that's that. Were they made sloppily on purpose? Perhaps yes, perhaps no - but what does this all matter at the end of the day? Perhaps we should all be thankful that they (probably) didn't have George Lucas or Roland Emmerich directing the "9/11 Hollywood made-for-TV movie" - but relied instead on upstart amateurs such as Steven Rosenbaum of Camera Planet. In any case, never forget that...
"the best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry". Andrew1484 wrote:CDI were called in to help clean up the mess the US military had made and they said things about what they saw at "Ground Zero" that FUELED our suspicions that 9/11 was another false flag event right from the start! If CDI had been contracted to sabotage the buildings secretly before 9/11, why would they then shoot their mouths off afterwards about what they saw?
That is incredibly naive of you, Andrew. What better way for CDI to "play whistleblowers" if they were actually involved in the whole scam, making millions with it? Have you any notion of how psyops - and Big Business - are managed?
Andrew1484 wrote:When presented with two contradictory theories, the simpler theory is often correct. Occam's Razor.
I fully subscribe to that, Andrew.
Andrew1484 wrote: I have left some doubt and wiggle room for your much more complicated theory.
That's very encouraging to me, Andrew - although I cannot see what you find complicated about airing a phony movie on TV - once you control all the TV outlets.
Andrew1484 wrote:The 9/11 video record might indeed be bogus, clearly parts of it are bogus.
To be honest, as I put together September Clues over half a decade ago, I also thought
"only parts" of the 9/11 video record was bogus. Until I realized how absurd and senselessly complicated that would have been. We were simply shown on TV - during a 102-minute time window of an average Tuesday morning - a prefabricated "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie" which subtituted the real world events taking place in Lower Manhattan - i.e. the controlled demolition of the (entirely vacated and cordoned-off) WTC complex. All the rest we were offered on TV, eyewitness reports, testimonials and images of "jumpers falling to their death", was all part of the very same shock-and-awe movie production.
Andrew1484 wrote:If 9/11 was a palace coup, as it seems to have been, then we may need a quiet counter-coup by the LOYAL to America parts of the US Military. Nobody else can do it for them! Otherwise the USA (and all of her military, loyal and rogue) might be taken down economically, like the USSR was taken down.
I sincerely wish the best of luck to ALL loyal and honest citizens of the USA in regaining control of their country. I really do.
