9/11 Truth: a Simple Matter of Epistemology

Is 9/11 Truth unknown to you? Do you perhaps fear the paradigm shift it could lead you through? What if it offered you a radically fresh, bold and optimistic perspective on the whole world? Welcome to what is arguably the best point of entry into 9/11!

Do you know that on the day of 9/11, in the World Trade Center, apart from the twin towers, a third skyscraper disintegrated? If you do, would you care to recall when you learned about it? If you do not remember it from the day of 9/11 itself, don't worry, for very few people do. Indeed, the first oddity of this episode of 9/11 is that memory works in reverse: as time goes by, people don't forget it, but instead become aware of it. Anyway, welcome to Building 7 before 9/11:

For Building 7 looks like a midget compared to the twin towers, you may find it natural that the twin towers' explosions would destroy it as some kind of collateral damage. Yet it was a very large skyscraper in its own right. With 47 floors, it would have been a landmark in most metropolitan areas:

Besides, the twin towers’ structural failures caused little damage to Building 7. Behold its picture, engulfed by the powder generated by the North tower’s destruction:

However, the U.S. government’s relevant technical report asserts that the North tower’s disintegration planted the seeds of Building 7’s structural failure. You may recall that many members of the North tower's frame were expelled away with high momentum. Some hit Building 7 and—according to the official report—ignited fires, which eventually brought down the whole skyscraper seven hours later, essentially breaking its steel frame into linear segments and dropping them into its own footprint. Behold the resulting pile of debris:

The destruction itself took only a few seconds, as shown by CBS later that evening:

Dan Rather’s odd comparison with some "old building deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" calls for a reality check. Behold a side-by-side video comparison of Building 7's failure with a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition is a process in which a team of experts—engineers and support personnel—studies the construction and condition of a steel-framed building, designs the demolition, places a multitude of explosive charges at key spots, and detonates them in a pre-calculated sequence. First the basement columns are blown up, bringing the building down in free fall. Before the next floor hits the foundation, another round of charges cuts its support columns, and so on. The whole building seems to fall straight down as if the Earth suddenly gave way underneath it:

The video match between Building 7 and this controlled demolition is striking. However, the above-mentioned official report affirms that Building 7 was not demolished. Instead, it explains that the internal fires suddenly initiated a chain of ruptures inside the skyscraper while hardly affecting its envelope, hence the misleading impression the unaware observer gathers from the video evidence. The U.S. experts produced a video illustration of their simulation:

Discrepancies between the model and the reality are obvious even without the benefit of a side-by-side comparison:

• the roof deforms and folds inward before falling, especially the—least visible—top left back corner

• once the model's façade starts to move down, it accelerates much slower than in reality

• the envelope tilts to the right as it goes down

• the simulation offers less than 2 seconds of the roofline’s fall, whereas the actual videos show over 6 seconds

• should the simulation last longer, the deformation and the tilt would likely get worse, stressing the mismatch with the video evidence

Let us recap your introduction to 9/11 Truth:

• on 9/11, in the World Trade Center, a 3rd skyscraper, apart from the twin towers, experienced a sudden and disintegrative structural failure

• this event was—as explained in the ad hoc official technical report—the unfortunate consequence of fires stemming from the violent projection of large steel pieces from the North tower into this building

• this report came up with a video reconstruction of the event

• this simulation matches the actual evidence poorly, whereas a controlled demolition matches it very well

• little effort was made to bring the above to the public's attention

This leads us to your first 9/11 action item:

• one important element in the official 9/11 narrative does not make sense

• even though the official 9/11 account is—as far as you know at this point—true, this discrepancy legitimizes its questioning

• consequently, from now on, when some VIP or outfit summarily ridicules or demonizes 9/11 truth-seekers, kindly and firmly let her/him/it know that this is very unfair because 9/11 truth-seekers have a point

You will reasonably agree that the exercise you just went through raises a highly intriguing epistemological conundrum:

• the above information is available, straightforward and important

• any TV network could easily assemble it into a 5 to 10 minute segment that would be highly educational, very simple, and well received

• yet not a single one, anywhere in the world, has done that

• this raises the puzzling question as to how all these many TV producers could somehow overlook such a straightforward, valuable and inexpensive documentary

• the interest of solving this enigma cannot be overestimated, for it could be the symptom of a bigger lapse in the information "we the people of the world" get

There are many ways to tackle this problem, the most effective being to get to the bottom of Building 7's structural failure.