911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
jay howard's blog
This is an entry from my personal blog: murderformoney.wordpress.com. (Do not be alarmed, it is not entirely dedicated to 9/11, however, that was my impetus). After reading Phil Mole's article in http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ , I felt compelled to fill in the gaps of Mole's piece.
Skeptics and Conspiracies
There is no consensus among skeptics, except by accident. And typically for different reasons. Skeptics are my people. I understand them. A real skeptic is not afraid to question authority, nor does a skeptic oppose an idea because it originates from an authority. Skeptics are professional doubters–not inclined to a supposition until reasons can substantiate it. It is the analysis of these reasons that sets critical thinkers apart from the advertising-prone masses.
Which is why it pains me to see skeptics defending the official narrative of the WTC collapses without turning a critical eye on the details at its core. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of “truther” theories concerning the various aspects, and let me be clear: several non-official theories are far more outlandish than the official story. For instance:
This isn't my field, however, it seems a fairly straight-forward way to produce yet another body of evidence that could be easily verified independently. Although I have no access to the equipment necessary for this type of analysis, I am certain that the particles of crushed concrete will look categorically different from particles that have been in close proximity to highly energetic bursts. Those which have been exposed to explosions will have characteristic fractures that simple compression cannot produce.
Also, crushed concrete of a known variety will produce known amounts of particles of particular sizes--even when dropped 1400 feet. Particles smaller than this are automatically indicative of more energetic reactions. Thermodynamics cannot be fooled by propaganda.
Am I late to the game? Has this already been done?
EDIT: I've been corrected about that "certainty" thing.
Being pointed in a few directions…
With the accumulated body of scientifically vetted evidence pointing squarely at the reality of incendiary and explosive devices in the WTC complex, apologists for the official theory have forcefully resorted to the absence of (acceptable) whistle-blowers as a reason to dismiss the calls for a new investigation. And it must at least give one pause. Why haven't more people come forward with explicit details?
We may find insight into that question by taking a closer look at the intricate web of deals that allowed the most massive defrauding of the public in recorded history. The specifics are complicated, but a synopsis is useful:
Mortgage companies like Countrywide and Freddie & Fannie, with financing from a handful of household names of the banking world, sold adjustable rate (subprime) mortgages to millions of Americans who previously didn't even come close to qualifying for a home loan.