Theory

The battle to save Pentagon on 9/11 by Enver Masud

Note: as many of you here know, I no longer believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon; i'm posting this here for the record because it's "alternative" 9/11 info, and if anyone cares to analyze this article

I have significantly updated my Pentagon Hole Psyop article, thanks to constructive criticism received at TruthAction.org and TruthMove.org
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8161

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/07/18/news0953.htm

The battle to save Pentagon on 9/11 by Enver Masud

Firefight is primarily about the heroic efforts of the firefighters at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. What is of interest to us is the authors ' description of the attack on the Pentagon. The authors, Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, write:

The plane crossed Washington Boulevard , . . . traveling more than 500 miles per hour and was less than 30 feet off the ground.

the planes wings knocked over several light poles that line the road.

Was the Destruction of the Top of the South Tower a Bottom-Up Demolition?

Prefatory note: this essay presents a theory, and I am not saying this is what happened. The scientific method is to raise theories, and then test them with the evidence to see if they are correct or incorrect.

I will leave it to the scientists, engineers and demolition experts to say whether this hypothesis is correct or incorrect. In fact, I am emailing this essay to some of the hundreds of highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of 9/11. If the theory does not stand up in their minds, I will retract it.

Defenders of the official story about 9/11 have argued that controlled demolitions are always bottom-up, whereas the Twin Towers collapsed in a top-down fashion.

Initially, controlled demolitions are sometimes top-down. So the argument is not very persuasive.

Moreover, the destruction of the South Tower was, arguably, a conventional bottom-up demolition . . . with a twist.

Initially, the top 30 stories tip over as a unit:

The Skeptinazi Credo: "Conspiracies Don't Exist"

This is one of what I call a "Skeptinazi / skeptifascist" fallacy. This is a sort of get out of jail free card that the fascist demeanored self-described "Skeptics" (note the capitol S) typically pull out when it's time to actually think (about the unthinkable). Usually they'll resort to pulling this card out after all else fails, but sometimes they even go the extra mile to actually pull this out from the onset of the debate or discussion to frame you as being a 'nutjob' pick-your-word to go for total victory by destroying you.

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

This argument destroys that claim / mindset, and can effectively make them wish they never tried framing you as being the "fantasy world" (this is Popular Mechanics terminology for anyone who's skeptical of the official 911 narrative) tinfoil hat wearing pick your word.

a 3rd Camp, CiOP Controlled it on Purpose

After much thought and many conversations with people who believe in the official story, I have concluded that a 3rd option may be possible when discussing 9/11. We often think about things in the MiHOP or the LIHOP world view,
but I think these explanations are too simplistic for the average citizen who can't imagine such a devious and violent plot starting with our own government, they then dismiss the wider theory in response, despite the real evidence that supports the need for a New Investigation, and of course the LIHOP crowd, gives way to much credit to the "terrorist&q. uot; and avoids the real history of our covert foreign policies over the years and the influence of the Neo-Con Think tanks and the Philosophical teachings of Strauss and others. Empire , greed and dillusions of grandeur are what may be the primary motives to a select few, but it is hard to explain how the military, FBI, elected officials, can all look the other way if this "soft reasoning" is the only reasoning that launches the Black Op Military Aparatus, which was obviously present that day.