9/11

Read these six short paragraphs please: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051 Please read the article before you continue. I haven't watched the video yet. I tried to watch it, but it was only offered free until Sept 4th so it looks like I was a few days late. But I will try more in a little bit to find it and watch it. I hope everyone else can do the same. Just a few points I would like to make concerning the article linked to above. Please indulge me. 1.) "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds. Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory. The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure." My point --- no kidding no data, who would have thunk it? Scientific procedure --- whats that? I can't be bothered with such trivial details. 2.) "According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public." My point --- Not surprising in the least that it has taken a very long time. It has been suppressed and for obvious reasons. The public still hasn't got the message regarding JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc right on down the line and how many years has it been since all those fun memories were made??? 3.) "While most people have probably heard that a scientific investigation has been conducted and that the building collapses were explained, few have probably looked at the NIST reports themselves. Links to the NIST reports can be found in the above mentioned Digital Journal article. NIST provides no data whatsoever on the actual collapse sequence itself." My point --- Few people have looked at the NIST reports? Again, not surprising. That takes effort and I clearly have more important things to do. LIke make some tweets about my new haircut. No data on the collapse sequence eh? Minor details I suppose. Easy to overlook. 4.) "The new attention to the issue could be significant for the U.S. presidential election." My point --- While I agree wholeheartedly with the content and message of this article this one line I tend to disagree with. Reality knocking........if (and this is a mighty big if) it does bring new attention to the issue then the public's attention will be quickly diverted back to Mitt Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate. Gotta focus on the important things right? Now if you have read this far you might have noticed that I quoted a large portion of the original article in my attempt to make my ideas known. Soooooo......if you read the entire six paragraph article like I requested before you read over my points/comments and then read all my soapbox rantings then you almost read the article twice. Hopefully you did and hopefully reading it twice allowed the message to sink in. But if perhaps it did not do the trick then I ask one last thing of you. Please watch this short youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiQmtVGgcQ Yours Truly