Placing WTC 7 Video In Context

I can understand why people would doubt that a conspiracy could plan and execute 9/11 without someone spilling the beans. But they typically make some unfortunate assumptions along the way: (1) probably most involved knew the plan -- after all, they were conspirators; (2) people who knew would have a hard time keeping quiet; (3) such a complicated plan could hardly help but be discovered. Probably others, but that's a good start.

(1) It really wasn't necessary for most of the people involved to know what was going on. Very many could just be following orders. Others could be doing exactly what the plan predicted they would. Others might learn too late what they were doing and realize they'd be painted as traitors if word got out. And, not insignificantly, those who wake up may be SERIOUSLY intimidated by the power of the forces that used them as useful idiots. Will they die? Will their loved ones die? Neither is remotely beyond a cabal that has already murdered thousands.

(2) Think about it. What you are doing will earn not only the death penalty, but will ruin your name for all time. You're gonna blab? Think about ordinary murderers. Some who are dumber than socks will brag or otherwise spill the beans, but ordinary people will be hyper-sensitive to making any false step.

(3) But it WAS discovered in many ways. Able Danger. Sybil Edmonds. Barry Jennings. William Rodriguez. ALL the eyewitnesses who experienced things absolutely incompatible with the official explanation du jour. Intelligence reports on the incongruously religiously fanatic AND totally decadent "suspects," along with the very suspicious ties they had to the intelligence community. And most importantly, the absolutely overwhelming mass of evidence showing beyond any doubt that elements of our own (and likely foreign) intelligence services, along with key White House personnel (especially Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice) were almost unquestionably intimately involved (see, for example, the testimony of former Cabinet member Norman Maneta, recounting how Cheney refused many times to intercept whatever was coming at the Pentagon).

Think about the Manhattan Project, which remained secret until long after secrecy was required for security reasons. And ... ask yourself how you would know about what conspiracies exist that no one knows exist. ;-)

Now, there's another argument that goes "I don't see how...." But it's very different in character. Instead of having doubts about something comporting with human psychology, it involves doubts about how something comports with the physical laws of Nature. Be honest: Isn't that sort of doubt much more compelling? Isn't it much more accessible to falsification? You can provide evidence that absolutely contradicts a hypothesis abased on physical laws, but a hypothesis based on psychology is too "squishy." You can't pin it down in any definite way.

Of course, the primary focus of the "truther" has been to answer questions of the latter sort -- those upon which hard evidence will bear. Yes, the other variety is present there, too -- but only as supporting arguments based on circumstantial evidence. And yes, there have been LOTS of those.

The old saying attributed to Sherlock Holmes applies (despite a minor flaw) here: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains is the truth."

Those of you who have based your opposition to "truther" arguments on worries about consistencies with human psychology aren't dealing at all with what is impossible; only with what is IMPROBABLE. And, with respect to the items enumerated above, the improbable may not be all that hard to explain.

...yet you are here spending time on this subject posting numerous comments here.

Oh the irony.

What is getting old is the willingness of a large contingent of people to sweep 9/11 under the rug and asserting that we must get on with the business of selling the idea of liberty. My answer to that is: until the truth of that fateful days is brought to the light of day, the idea of liberty is but a pipe dream.

How many of you are aware that more than 1,750 LICENSED architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a grand jury (which should have been done on 9/12/01) to be empaneled for the purpose of reopening the investigation of the events of 9/11?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

How many of you are aware of the findings of a Senior MIlitary Affairs analyst who discovered and has made public, that NO plane hit the pentagon on 9/11; that all the damage was caused by explosives?

http://vimeo.com/28718716#at=0

So go ahead people. Bury your heads in the sand. But before you do, recognize this: The vast majority of liberties that we have lost ... have been lost due to the events of 9/11/01.

It would require key people in the right positions and they had that. Besides, those people let it happen and didn't need to get intimate about the details; there's intelligence agencies (that don't tend to leak at all) for that.
But I agree with you, we should all accept the official story and move on. It's not like anything actually came of it.

Here is a two part series "Debunking Chandler."

Please explain how these videos are wrong and chandler is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ

That's my whole point with this. We will never get a new investigation based on CD. It will not happen.
Chandler omits vital evidence, and continues to imply the whole building fell at free fall when we can plainly see the interior collapsing well ahead of the perimeter walls. That is either sloppy or deceptive, and a grand jury would dismiss him right there.
Here's a short list of his omissions:
1. The rotation or twist of the visible outer shell at onset.
2. The fact the building split at the crimp, with the west portion falling south and the east portion falling north.
3. The east portion fell at a slower rate than the west portion.
4. The fact his measuring point was actually falling away from the camera as well as down.
5. The fact the outer walls ended up in large slabs on top of other debris.
6. The fact some of those slabs landed inside up, while others landed outside up (major clue!).
7. The fact floor trusses were not attached to the walls in the debris pile.
And we haven't even begun to tell the jury about all the FDNY predictions the building was going to fall. You'd be lucky if the jury even calls you after submitting whatever paper Chandler submits.