Sunday Morning Grab Bag
Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"
While I covered this article on Friday, it was brought to my attention that I had not read this article in the right context. The author of this article, Kristen Breitweiser, is not just any contributor to The Huffington Post, but a founding member of the Jersey Girls, and one of the only reasons a 9/11 Commission was ever founded. She was a Bush supporter in 2000 and as is apparent in this article now has a disgust for his administration and their use of 9/11. With that new context in mind I suggest you read, or re-read, this article with that in mind.
But, most of all, I appeal to readers to investigate the state of our "post-9/11 world" with an open mind, free of fear of being accused of being "conspiracy theorists" by the many fanatical coincidence theorists who believe that Osama bin Laden hatched this plot in a cave in Afghanistan and miraculously pulled it off, with air defenses happening to not work, black boxes happening to be destroyed (but not a "hijacker" passport), security cameras at airports happening not to work, floors collapsing evenly all around, etc.
whatreallyhappened.com has posted a thread on the cores of WTC1 and WTC2 specifically focused on the 'truss theory'. I am not positive this is a new topic, but felt it should be linked to either way.
The buildings were indeed solidly constructed, proof of this lies in the fact they stood for thirty years in winds which sometimes reached hurricane force. Would Ã‚Â¼ mile high buildings which relied solely on the integrity of weak trusses and 5/8" bolts have stood for thirty years?
When Flight 11 flew into WTC 1, one of two things should have happened:
- If the building was constructed with non-composite steel trusses bolted to the inner core it should have immediately collapsed.
- If the building was solidly constructed it should have remained standing.
Neither of the above occurred.
The "truss theory" is implausible. It is a fantasy concocted to conceal a demolition.