In the years since the collapses, I have viewed at least 70 - 100 videos of various controlled demolitions, and not once did I see any event which compared to the footage of the destruction of the twin towers. Their demise was, I believe, unlike anything anyone had ever seen, or, really, imagined. The main point of the OP in the "9/11, photos, reality" thread, that we are likely to perceive evidence as supporting our viewpoint, (whether that is called confirmation bias, selective memory, or personal prejudice) is, doubtless, a valid one. One can only view the world through the filters of one's own reality, upbringing, beliefs, and (most importantly) one's own language. These filters fundamentally shape and channel how we access the information of our senses. Sensory input is shaped by these lenses; this shaping is what allows us to walk down the street. There is no "objectivity". The commission studies of the tower collapses are no more objective than the point of view which argues that a missile is shooting from the nose of the aircraft. Each perspective begins with assumptions, and those assumptions are individualized to the particular, or, particular to the individual.
Watching the first strike in slow, frame by frame progression in various analyses of the Fireman's video, and prompted by the suggestions of the author I was struck by the idea that I could see a smoke puff preceding the plane impact. (I am sure you have all seen this page.)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11_missileframes.html
I have come to believe now that this is utterly inconclusive. I was seeing what I wanted to see. The "spark" of the second plane fascinated me for some time as well. What could it be? I wondered, gazing at photographic enlargements, frame grabs, slo-mo's. Was it a phenomena of static electricity in some way? The sheer force of impact resolving into visible heat? There was certainly
something there to be seen and understood in those pictures of that horrifying moment, but what? The conjecture that it might be an "igniter" or missile left me blasé. What a roundabout plan that must have been - we'll disguise a plane to look like the original "highjacked" plane, only modified with a projectile explosive to actually fire on impact... faugh, its too complicated! Then after looking, and looking, I realized that I had been gazing into a Rorschach of my own desires. I wanted more than anything to be able to look at some piece of proof and say to myself, "well, there it is, those killers, there is the smoking gun, you can't dispute that," but I had to admit I did not have that. No one did.
The courtroom rules for photographic evidence are labyrinthine for a reason. The scientific basis for believing photgraphs to be an accurate, unbiased depiction of the world is, and has always been, highly suspect. The lenses used in photography were designed by optical researchers with a point of view which was, in itself, distorted by the politics of
seeing, as well as the milieu of so-called enlightenment which continues to this day to be hopelessly hegemonic.
http://www.abanet.org/labor/e-notes/winter05/photos.html
Yes, the NIST report is, in my admittedly cursory reading and comprehending of it, compromised. The writers have buried their admission within it, that they will only examine the events preceding and leading up to the collapse; no further will they venture. Their simulations seem reverse engineered. In this they lived up to my expectations, and by doing so, gratified me once again - THIS would be the proof, again, finally: but not really. Not satisfying. How about the squibs! They look just like the ones in the demolition videos; but no. Not
just like them at all. Looking, again, is not knowing.
I read the Steven Jones report referenced by Brentos, above (Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction). It is well researched. And yet once again the conclusion reached is highly unsatisfying:
The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15]. Proposed new building codes based on the WTC disaster must address all available evidence for what caused the complete and rapid destruction of these skyscrapers. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others. Thus, a thorough investigation which considers these data, showing extremely high temperatures and severe fragmentation in the formation of small metal-rich spheres during the WTC Towers destruction, is highly motivated. In particular, the repeatedly-delayed report on the destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 [21] should address these striking facts.
I would hardly say that this cuts through the rhetoric toward any final proof whatsoever; rather, it is an appeal for further investigation. I am old enough to remember first hand the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970's. The findings of the committee, two years in the making, at a cost of millions, largely based upon
physical evidence of course were:
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy.
And we know what kind of justice that gave us. None.
Knowing came for me from due diligence, fueled largely from this website and the writings of Mr. Wells. Sorry, I can't think of anyone I consider
less likely to be a gatekeeper or advocate of the mainstream conspiracy tale. He's got his own take on it - its not the same as mine these days, but it is his take, and is a good one. I don't think I have heard Jeff offer any much of an opinion on what the single truth of the matter is, except that it is a dark and ugly truth, woven from as many strands as there are players in the tragedy that has become my country.
The truth of this thing is like so many truths in the world now, a moiré of intersecting lines of inquiry allowing of no one single possible viewpoint the advantage of complete encapsulation. 911 can only be understood once it is "successfully solipsized," as Humbert says of his obsession. Its meaning and horrible proof are simultaneously terrifyingly public and devastatingly personal. Much of the devastation of these issues is plain to see in this thread, whereupon a group of fundamentally like-minded persons exhibit utter contempt for each others points of view as bitterly as if they were sworn enemies, and needlessly so.
It is truly criminal that the perpertrators of this monstrous crime are largely unrecognized by the public at large. Yet we here on this board see cracks in the facade of the wall built in front of their dealings. Little is to be gained through such complete acrimony. It only gives comfort to our
real enemy in this true time of war.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
