The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[Symmetry]

And what?

[_sabotage_]

Someone has been convicted of ...not the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks for that insight.

[thegreekdog]

Sym,

And?

TGD,

Are you saying the government is not holding Osama and the 19 all edged hijackers accountable for 9/11 through unofficial channels?

Ah, I see now. Carry on.

[_sabotage_]

In order for the official conspiracy theory to be esteemed, it must compensate for all the facts better than other theories.

Later in the afternoon of 9/11, WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint under free fall speed for at least 2.25 seconds according to NIST. This is impossible according to...NIST.

After initially refusing to acknowledge that WTC 7 had experienced free fall speed, a university professor measured it and published his findings. NIST then admitted it, but failed to explain how the collapse had overcome what they had described as impossible.

WTC 7 was not made of scrap material. It housed the CIA, Guiliani's emergency bunker, the SEC. It had 81 steel columns, each capable of hold 3-5 times their point load. Another way of saying this is that it only needed 27, which would still be erring on the safe side. The steel used for these columns melts at 2,750 F.

Here's a debunking article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... r-comments

In it notice the window frames. The article points to these as evidence of steel being melted. Of course, they are made of aluminum and in the most oxygen fed part of the fire.

If you knew for a fact that no building in the world prior to 9/11 made of such steel has collapsed ever, would you be more interested in why this one did?

Put another way: if this collapse had happened anywhere else on any other day, it would be a tragedy of engineering and be the main case study for several forms of engineers. It would change textbooks.

It's also quite amazing that firefighters actually know their job. They know that such buildings don't collapse from small fires. So it's quite extraordinary that they would pull everyone way back off and give up on a fire which was as fierce as can be seen in many videos. But they magically back off it, after the owner says to "pull it" and it collapses symmetrically into its own footprint under free fall speed. Which is impossible. To just have a building blocked off from a nice distance, say "pull it" and it just collapses.

Utterly amazing.

This is the key component that has professors, engineers, scientists, demolish experts all scratching their heads. And the answers have a problem with...everything they know.

When something like this happen, they send a forensic team to piece it back together. The government hauled the material off immediately to be scrapped in China. I'm pretty sure there's some space somewhere, where we could have seen how this one of a kind collapse happened, as is required by law.

But they couldn't make all the evidence disappear. There was a lot of dust. In the dust is a military grade nano thermite. It cuts steel. It makes it possible for a building with 81 columns to come down symmetrically at free fall. This is no accident. The nano thermite particles have been per reviewed, unchallenged and impossible to have magically appeared.

Whoever conducted these attacks had access to a lot of high grade military technology. As was seen by the military grade anthrax that had to come from a US laboratory and were used in conjunction with 9/11.

No one has ever been brought to trial for either of these acts. I mean wtf. The targets of the anthrax were those opposing the patriot act and the media.

Maybe Osama was planning on attacking the US, but he had shitty pilots vs USA. There is no way he could arrange to bring down WTC 7. And he didn't. There is no way he could get military grade anthrax. But in conjunction, they were used to alter America's perception forever. They had the patriot act signed in 45 days. They had the war with Afghan and pushing hard for Iraq. Bush goes from being poorly liked after a weird election to being given dictatorial powers. Cheney gets rich, Rumsfeld gets rich, all friends get rich. $700 bn a year for the foreseeable future for the boys. Private everything.

[Metsfanmax]

Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it for some people.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... s_wtc7.cfm

This is from the official investigators FAQs on WTC 7:

28. NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

34. For the WTC 7 16-story model for structural response to fire effects, why did NIST model the girders without shear studs, given that articles published in the open literature showed drawings of typical floor framing plans of WTC 7 with shear studs on the girders?

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

24. How hot did WTC 7's steel columns and floor beams get?

16. For its study of WTC 7, why didn’t NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?

15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST’s answer to those assertions?

But my favorite and I'll include their answer as a sample:

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). (If you go to question 9, it says there were no differences basically.)

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings(they had no evidence of this. They are saying this happened different to all known calculations with zero evidence and the only reasoning is that if it didn't, their theory is wrong. Really. That's like me accusing you of sleeping with my wife and you show yourself in a video getting an award in Norway, so I then have to claim you can manipulate time and space to maintain my theory.); significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building(again, nonsense); connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads(because you took out the studs for your model); and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

They begin with, no building in history has ever experienced such a collapse and end with this building wasn't designed to prevent such a collapse. Since no building in history has had such a collapse, why would they need it's design to prevent such a collapse?

Their collapse theory in summary:

As can be seen by the FAQs, they had no actual evidence. So they dreamed up a story. They took the shear studs away in their model. They then claim that thermal expansion basically caused all these now stud less steel supports to jiggle themselves apart and collapse the building at:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Those are their numbers. One thing they don't say, is if they actually checked for explosives. They say they looked into, but they didn't actual check for any, as the admitted when directly asked about it.

[Symmetry]

Out of interest, when did you go batshit insane? Was it a sudden moment, or a gradual thing?

[_sabotage_]

For those who like to call themselves scientifically minded, I hope you can see a few problems with how they went about reaching their conclusions:

1. They ignored evidence,
2. They altered well known data of steels thermal expansion properties to meet their theory,
3. They removed at least 22 studs that tied down the single column as shown in the construction drawings and instead said it had none,
4. They ignored all evidence of bombs including recordings, witness statements and they didn't actually test any physical debris. When they do bring it up others tests, their arguments are pure strawmen, that only someone completely uniformed could buy.
5. They made wild claims completely unsubstantiated by anything but a preconceived result.

And this is your investigation leading to the spending of $2 trillion, being viewed as torturers and warmongers, and losing a lot of your rights. These are MuyThaiguy's "respected" scientists, who support his conspiracy theory that 19 alleged hijackers mysteriously made the thermal properties of steel and gravity change so they could bring down building 7.

[mrswdk]

Maybe the conspiracy theories are created by the government and spread by government agents in order to discredit other conspiracy theories. The conspiracies are actually conspiracies about conspiracies. Inception.

[GabonX]

Because it's a proposition. They propose it to explain the events of 9/11. If they prove it, it is no longer a proposition.

We have a burden of proof requirement.

If the official story is wrong the Jews probably did it, right sabby?

[_sabotage_]

Mrs

This is the official conspiracy theory.

In the matter of JFK, disinformation theories were launched by government agents, while the government maintained it's unproven lone nut theory. But this leads to the point I'm trying to get to: it doesn't matter what happened, it matters what perceptions are held of what happened.

I've been called nuts multiple times by people because I'm a conspiracy theorist. The government has controlled the perception of a certain amount of people to be beyond questioning of events and to be able to actively ignore anything contrary because: it's nuts.

You can hammer such people with indisputable fact after fact and it means nothing to them. If the government says a bullet can do a u-turn, then it can for them. This is especially true when the outcome might force a change in their worldview.

Another set of people will never get more than a passing knowledge of events. They only know the bullet points as seen in headlines and not ever want to look into it because they have important stuff to do, like shopping for clothes or playing playstation.

You have another group who think that they are being taken care of by the government and it may involve some dirty business, but it's done for their own good, or it isn't but no use making waves.

Then you have those with indisputable facts that won't shut up. With this group, there is no point in fighting and like you said, it's better to mislead, disinform, cause rifts.

The best thing is to provide them with a channel, but block it off. Make it a fringe movement with no cohesion or means of communicating a cohesive message. It will be trapped in a box and destroying itself from within.

People somehow have the capacity to understand that Hitler's thirst for power lead him to kill millions of his own people intentionally, and yet assume that Cheney cannot have this same capacity. We know that Hitler used false flag operations to catalyst his ideology, but Cheney is immune from such thoughts.

Which makes sense. Cheney has a long history of being such an upstanding human as well as a pillar of industry providing humanitarian services. His refusal to testify under oath, while being recorded or in public suggests to such people that Cheney has nothing to hide. That even for trillions of dollars for his friends and himself, he couldn't lapse into a brief Hitler mindset and shouldn't be asked about it. But a homeless guy will kill you for a crack rock.

I wonder which of those groups, there are others, are still expecting to see the "White paper" proving guilt of...anyone. In some disinfo bureau, they have a pretty good idea I'm sure. I wonder which of the promised proofs at the time has the highest expectations of still being seen. The proof Assad used chemical weapons, the proof Russia brought down the plane, the proof of Osamas connection to 9/11 and his plans being capable of creating all the events of the day. I'm sure they have a figure and that figure can be fiddled and dabbled and measured and improved upon.

So yes, it is inception. The media says Islamic fundamentalists before they realize that there were 70+ cameras on the Pentagon showing no plane, before WTC 7 has collapsed, before any evidence has been gathered, and eventually it just becomes "truth" in a lot of their minds, put to bed, and never questioned. Those who do question can be fiddled with and kept from the attention of other groups, made to look insane, and the false perception lives on.

[_sabotage_]

Because it's a proposition. They propose it to explain the events of 9/11. If they prove it, it is no longer a proposition.

We have a burden of proof requirement.

If the official story is wrong the Jews probably did it, right sabby?

No. The government knew of a plan to target the US. They looked at the terrorist and said oh shit they ain't going to do crap. A major theme of FBI agents, and would be the case for many security firms, was that the bombing of the WTC in 1996(?) wasn't dramatic enough. People didn't "get it". Get what? That we needed them and they are our knights in shining army fending off evil in their dreams.

So this time we made sure it had the desired impact. They couldn't trust the terrorist, so they took them out of the equation. They sent up planes controlled remotely, which they have the technology for, and which can be seen on the underbelly of the plane as it hit the WTC 2.

They rebuilt a section of the Pentagon to allow it to contain the explosion and moved the auditors of their dirty laundry there. This was not "the Jews" (though the guy in charge of the auditors and who had completed a contract involving the exact same remote technology on the same kinds of planes used on 9/11 was a Zionist and accused of losing a trillion dollars, more. And helping a Israel get amazing weapons deals that can be considered fraud).

But many branches of the government were involved. Not all of them had to know what they were doing. In fact, most of them specifically didn't know what they were doing. War games, up to four different ones, were being run on that morning, including games involving hijacking airplanes. Protocols had been changed, Rumsfeld was the only one with authority to make certain calls and he was MIA. Had the protocols not been changed, him being MIA wouldn't have mattered and the planes would have been intercepted.

FEMA shipping off the evidence, against the law. The black boxes never being released. NIST complicity. The refusal to investigate. The list goes on. This was a US operation in conjunction with the intelligence communities maximizing the opportunity posed by a minor threat instead of squashing it.

[mrswdk]

I dunno dude. You talk about how the government can't prove their version of events, then peddle an equally unprovable theory. What makes yours more true?

[_sabotage_]

It takes into account the images seen in the films of the planes, witness accounts, the lack of planes seen at the Pentagon, but the hole in it. It takes into account the symmetrically free fall speed of WTC 7 and the nano thermite contained in the debris. It takes into account the anthrax directed at people opposing the patriot act.

It takes into account the poor piloting skills of the alleged hijackers, and the extreme skill level required in the pentagon crash. It takes into account little slips of the tongue by the owner of the WTCs, of Kerry, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

Bush once claimed to have seen the first crash live before entering the classroom. This was impossible as video of it didn't reach the media until much later. He also didn't see the second plane since he was in the classroom at the time.

It takes into account on scene reports by reporters, firemen, police officers of bombs in the buildings. It takes into account the witness testimony of the last guy who got out of the building, family members of victims, on site witnesses.

It takes into account images of molten steel flowing out of the buildings, of molten steel in pools at the base of the building described as like a foundry for several weeks following, by firefighters. The fires were not supposed to be hot enough to melt steel. It takes into account the near nano iron spheres found in all samples tested of the debris, the nano thermite found in the debris, the reason the buildings which had been designed to withstand multiple hits by the largest aircraft of their time completely collapsed.

Bush's brothers company ran the WTCs security. The list goes on. If you were interested in getting the scientific view:




And yes mine is just a theory, but is it one that can be refuted by evidence? Theirs can be.

[Metsfanmax]

But my favorite and I'll include their answer as a sample:

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). (If you go to question 9, it says there were no differences basically.)

I don't have time to think about this too hard, but I decided to at least investigate this one. Question 9 says explicitly that the difference in the fires was not what explained the fact that WTC 7 collapsed and the others didn't, which confirms that it has to have been something about the difference in structure that caused it.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings(they had no evidence of this. They are saying this happened different to all known calculations with zero evidence and the only reasoning is that if it didn't, their theory is wrong. Really. That's like me accusing you of sleeping with my wife and you show yourself in a video getting an award in Norway, so I then have to claim you can manipulate time and space to maintain my theory.);

Question 24 indicates that the reason for this is that the steel had been sprayed with a fire-resistant material. That counts as evidence to me, it is not just computer modelling. (Though computer modelling is a very useful tool, stop criticizing it uniformly.)

significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building(again, nonsense);

Why is this nonsense?

connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads(because you took out the studs for your model);

They claim in Question 34 that based on the available blueprints, it was simply not the case that there were shear studs on the floors where the fire broke out. That is very different from taking something out of a model to achieve the results you want to get.

They begin with, no building in history has ever experienced such a collapse and end with this building wasn't designed to prevent such a collapse. Since no building in history has had such a collapse, why would they need it's design to prevent such a collapse?

They wouldn't have, that was the point. The collapse had never happened before, so structural engineers weren't aware of this failure mode. Now they are, and NIST is recommending that the engineers revisit the models.

As can be seen by the FAQs, they had no actual evidence.

Sure they did. The question in the FAQ is "why didn't you have any evidence?" The answer is "we did have evidence, here is the evidence."

Those are their numbers. One thing they don't say, is if they actually checked for explosives. They say they looked into, but they didn't actual check for any, as the admitted when directly asked about it.

They indicate in one of the responses that they couldn't have meaningfully checked directly for the material, because thermite is basically just aluminum, iron/copper/etc., and oxygen. These are elements that you would already find in a large steel building.

I have no interest in continuing the discussion past this post. I just want to observe that you are starting from the conclusion you want to reach (that the US government had something to do with this), and then interpreting the evidence in the most biased possible way so that you can support this conclusion. A better approach would be to read the evidence from a neutral frame of mind before having decided what was responsible.

[_sabotage_]

But my favorite and I'll include their answer as a sample:

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). (If you go to question 9, it says there were no differences basically.)

I don't have time to think about this too hard, but I decided to at least investigate this one. Question 9 says explicitly that the difference in the fires was not what explained the fact that WTC 7 collapsed and the others didn't, which confirms that it has to have been something about the difference in structure that caused it.
No Mets. It just confirms they were deadset on it being based on a fire. The fact that no other building has ever collapsed due to fire, doesn't confirm it collapsed due to fire. It makes collapsing due to highly implausible.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings(they had no evidence of this. They are saying this happened different to all known calculations with zero evidence and the only reasoning is that if it didn't, their theory is wrong. Really. That's like me accusing you of sleeping with my wife and you show yourself in a video getting an award in Norway, so I then have to claim you can manipulate time and space to maintain my theory.);

Question 24 indicates that the reason for this is that the steel had been sprayed with a fire-resistant material. That counts as evidence to me, it is not just computer modelling. (Though computer modelling is a very useful tool, stop criticizing it uniformly.)

It was fireproofed and therefore more susceptible to fire? They used a temperature several hundred degrees below what the fireproofing would require for thermal expansion to be of any significance to give it significance. That's like saying an atom is square because we put it in a square box and measured it with a speed rafter. I'm not complaining about computer models, I'm complaining about falsifying parameters to meet a preconceived hypothesis.

significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building(again, nonsense);

Why is this nonsense? Because there were breaks, just like in other buildings.

connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads(because you took out the studs for your model);

They claim in Question 34 that based on the available blueprints, it was simply not the case that there were shear studs on the floors where the fire broke out. That is very different from taking something out of a model to achieve the results you want to get. They actually originally said that most girders and columns were studded. The blueprints show that all the non core columns were shear studded, which the column they claimed failed didn't have. It's on the blueprints, showing 22 studs for that column. Again, changing parameters to meet a preconceived notion.

They begin with, no building in history has ever experienced such a collapse and end with this building wasn't designed to prevent such a collapse. Since no building in history has had such a collapse, why would they need it's design to prevent such a collapse?

They wouldn't have, that was the point. The collapse had never happened before, so structural engineers weren't aware of this failure mode. Now they are, and NIST is recommending that the engineers revisit the models.And engineers are calling bullshit. This is circular reasoning.

As can be seen by the FAQs, they had no actual evidence.

Sure they did. The question in the FAQ is "why didn't you have any evidence?" The answer is "we did have evidence, here is the evidence." Here it is. Ok, still don't see it. What I do see is them going against national standards for a fire investigation, not examining the actual debris themselves after not examining the steel. This is not evidence.

Those are their numbers. One thing they don't say, is if they actually checked for explosives. They say they looked into, but they didn't actual check for any, as the admitted when directly asked about it.

They indicate in one of the responses that they couldn't have meaningfully checked directly for the material, because thermite is basically just aluminum, iron/copper/etc., and oxygen. These are elements that you would already find in a large steel building. Sure and carbon is commonly found everywhere and carbon nanotubes aren't. A peer reviewed paper remains undisputed that nano thermite was present in all the steel which NIST refused to examine. Nano thermite cannot occur naturally no matter how many of the right components are available.

I have no interest in continuing the discussion past this post. I just want to observe that you are starting from the conclusion you want to reach (that the US government had something to do with this), and then interpreting the evidence in the most biased possible way so that you can support this conclusion. A better approach would be to read the evidence from a neutral frame of mind before having decided what was responsible.

Quite clearly NIST and you are starting from the conclusion that it was due to fire and are willing to change all known parameters so that this hypothesis can be remotely plausible. Of course you don't want to post more, you are throwing wild assumptions out that can't be substantiated.

[thegreekdog]

It takes into account little slips of the tongue by the owner of the WTCs, of Kerry, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

I know right? It's not like Bush, Kerry, and Rumsfeld never had slips of the tongue before.

[_sabotage_]

Where were you when you saw the crash? Just about everyone I know remembers where they were, but Bush doesn't.

When someone says a missile struck the Pentagon, and there are no videos of a plane hitting it and the pilot was incapable of flying a small plane, and the site shows evidence in line with a missile, such a slip is quite telling.

When a building falls as if it had been demolished, and the scientific community states it must have been demolished and the owner claims he had it "pulled" a term for demolishing a building, it's not just a slip of the tongue.

If investigators are questioning a murder suspect and the suspect says, I didn't stab her and the investigators ask, how do you know she was stabbed? and the suspect replies, it was a slip of the tongue...indeed it was a slip of the tongue, a very telling one.

Edit:



Lucky for George he never had to testify under oath.

[AndyDufresne]

I actually found some information in leaked diplomatic cables that indicated then President Bush was actually on a 5th plane -- one of Amelia Earhart's airplanes, a Lockheed Vega -- which is easily accessible in a museum in Washington DC. He was planning on crashing the plane into the steps of Philadelphia Museum of Art, since he was feeling a bit out of shape and all those damned "rocky-runners" that flock to the steps were getting on his nerves.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

He was planning on crashing the plane into the steps of Philadelphia Museum of Art

That mother fucker.

If investigators are questioning a murder suspect and the suspect says, I didn't stab her and the investigators ask, how do you know she was stabbed? and the suspect replies, it was a slip of the tongue...indeed it was a slip of the tongue, a very telling one.

There was a video in one of the threads dealing with Ferguson about how police use these types of things against defendants who are otherwise innocent. I hardly find it convincing that the government engaged in a vast conspiracy based upon the slip of the tongue of a president notorious for slips of the tongue, forgetfulness, and the general proposition that he was, at best, of average intelligence.

[_sabotage_]

Scientific hypothesis:



BBC reporting the first of its kind collapse prior to it happening:



This is the first collapse ever due to fire. And yet the BBC was able to predict it. The whole segment shows it smoking in the background.

The firefighters were also able to predict it, starting to clear out the building three hours prior and seal off the area.


And then as it happens, video records explosion, followed at the 14 second mark by a firefighter saying, "We got to get back, 7's exploding."



NIST claims they never looked into explosives, because there was no evidence of explosives, there was no evidence of explosives because they didn't look into explosives.

[thegreekdog]

I'm trying to figure out why I don't care about this. Is it because it happened more than a decade ago?

[_sabotage_]

Regardless if police use these types of tactics, he is either lying or had a private feed to private images.

Since the official theory is so flimsy, since no one has been charged, saying that it was an innocuous slip is still not a possibility.

If the official theory doesn't account for the collapse of WTC 7, then the official theory is wrong. Can you at least accept that so there in a potential of making headway?

As for not caring, it has cost trillions, led to trillions more being spent, allowed for the TSA, unwarranted wiretapping, torture, several wars, indefinite detention in black site prisons, drone strikes, privatization of war, prisons, security using public funds.

It calls into question democracy, the morality of our leadership, the legitimacy of government, the legitimacy in taxation, the value of capitalism, of freedom, of our ability to have justice.

If the government let this happen to enrich and empower themselves and their friends, we must then question how the government rewards itself and sponsors in other events such as the financial crisis. The banks caused it and are rewarded. In healthcare: they caused the problems and are rewarded for them.

It actually begs the question of the purpose of government in reality vs propaganda. I can't see how you could not care except that you wish to protect a worldview that isn't true. You cling to a false reality in fear of being called insane, in fear of change, in fear of people like Andy who won't respond to any of the clear scientific data, but merely creates a strawman and splits.

The world's the same place whether or not you perceive it to be different than it is. In the long run, clinging to a false reality because it's easy is not going to benefit you or anyone.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm trying to figure out why I don't care about this. Is it because it happened more than a decade ago?

It's because it didn't happen in Philadelphia.


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Now over 2300 experts state support the controlled demolition hypothesis.