Reflecting on the Verinage demolition method

I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse” . This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.

Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?

Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.

Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.

To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.

Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.

Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples . Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.

So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here.

Kurt Haskell's Awakening

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBF2F6AA5408C443F

Evidence Based "Conspiracy Theories" Beat Authoritive "Facts"

Considering the documentation of corruption in political, corporate and military (intelligence) circles it is irrational to exclude the consideration of high level conspiracy when evaluating the causes of recent conflicts. To a priori exclude a conspiracy hypothesis is naive and illogical.

Indeed, staged attacks, or the hyping of a danger posed by a potential, if not fictitious, enemy is a common method to motivate a population into accepting what would otherwise be an unpopular policy. Such methods allow for pre-emptive bombing, endless conflict (often designed to consolidate the power of a military industrial state at home) or territorial conquest.

For example, at the start of the Second World War the German Government faked an attack by Poland on their territory in order to justify the invasion of that country. In late 1941, after goading the Japanese into launching hostilities on the US, the Roosevelt Administration allowed itself to be "surprise attacked" at Pearl Harbour in order to sway public opinion. Underhanded policy making, in which thousands of peoples lives are put in jeopardy, is not uncommon - even from those nations considered to be the "good guys" (ie. democratic Republics).

So today, when we are faced with claims of "conspiracy theory", we must take into consideration the specific evidence being presented rather than blindly accepting any generalised (often wrong) statements put out by those in authority. Ultimately our beliefs regarding the validity of what may be happening should be built from the bottom up - via evidence- not from the top down. Working hypotheses are fine but they must be discarded or swapped according to the underlying data upon which they should be constructed.

In the case of government corruption and cover-ups, if the officially sanctioned account is unverifiable or shown to be outright false, then it MUST be rejected and seen for what it is. There should be no psychological need to cling onto the idea that "trusted" people in power wouldn't lie about matters involving the deaths of many thousands of people - or that they could not have a hand in such crimes (or in covering up such crimes).

Figures in authority can and must be held to account and questioned. The words, or reports, put out by figures in Government, whether by academics or esteemed professionals, do not constitute a Holy Grail. In fact, it DOES NOT MATTER WHO is putting out the information, ONLY that it is verifiable, logical and explainable. If you can't show how a conclusion was reached then it is not verified. It's unsubstantiated. It's as simple as that.

In the case of the 911 attacks we KNOW the official NIST Reports on the World Trade Centre building collapses cannot be readily accepted as true simply from the fact that their computer modelling data has NOT been released to the public. The NIST models are not backed up by anything we can verify.

More importantly we know that sections of the NIST reports contain key elements that consist of outright falsehoods, falsehoods that completely undermine their fire collapse explanations. Independent analysis of the WTC collapse investigations prove the official statements concerning these events can only be false:





So, regardless of what time in history you are living, beware the words and reports of those in authority -especially when it comes to highly "controversial" matters.

Never outright assume what the truth may be. Do your own research. If a "conspiracy theory" has been touted as an alternative narrative, then it is best to check the evidence.

Always remember Galileo when it comes to authority (and also public opinion) because; "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

What Does a Building "Engulfed" in Fire Look Like?

Here is a building engulfed in fire.



And here is a building covered in dust and smoke due to negative air pressure.



Now, which one looks more like WTC7 on 9/11?



Related Info: Jim Corr Omits Info about Roaring Fires in WTC 7

Strange Meeting at Don't Attack Iran Campaign Launch - by Roger Lloyd Pack

Video description:

At the launch of the UK Don't Attack Iran Campaign on 28 January 2012, held at a rally outside the US Embassy in London, actor Roger Lloyd Pack gave a powerful reading of Strange Meeting by First World War poet Wilfred Owen, one of the most famous anti-war poems ever written.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strange Meeting (poem) is a poem by Wilfred Owen. It deals with the atrocities of World War I. The poem was written sometime in 1918 and it was published in 1919 after Owen's death. The poem is narrated by a soldier who goes to the underworld to escape the hell of the battlefield and there he meets the enemy soldier he killed the day before.

This poem has been called as one of Owen's "most haunting and complex war poems".



It seemed that out of the battle I escaped
Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which Titanic wars had groined.
Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned,
Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred.
Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared
With piteous recognition in fixed eyes,
Lifting distressful hands as if to bless.
And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall;
By his dead smile, I knew we stood in Hell.
With a thousand fears that vision's face was grained;
Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground,
And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan.
"Strange, friend," I said, "Here is no cause to mourn."
"None," said the other, "Save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something has been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled.
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.
They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress,
None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress.
Courage was mine, and I had mystery;
Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery;
To miss the march of this retreating world
Into vain citadels that are not walled.
Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were.
I am the enemy you killed, my friend.
I knew you in this dark; for so you frowned
Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.
I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.
Let us sleep now . . ."

Related:

More details about the Don't Attack Iran Campaign and a Petition to Prevent War with Iran