9/11 Truth Activists supporting Rosie O 'Donnell on her Birthday, NYCThe main problem is saying we need "experts." Rosie won't be able to choose who. She said on her blog she doesn't do booking.
Same thing happened, with same Network - ABC, in the 60's:
Producers had a debate all planned between the proponents and critics of the Warren Commission Report. ABC News higher ups scrubbed it and instead hosted a presentation by "experts" that was run as a mind control spin devise to "explain away" all the problems of the WCR and to put everyone's mind at ease.
The Powers-that-be made sure to brush it under the carpet at a time when there would still, arguably, perhaps be some repercussions if the truth became widely known. (If Americans are not truly vain and bigoted ignoramuses who allow themselves to be led by clowns and criminals).
If there are two physicists arguing two sides - you're f***ed, (And since when is Physics that squishy?) since one side will provide the Hannity style (bombast liar) and the other the Colmes ( watered down nit-wit sucker suck-up loser).
If they have one "expert", you'll know who that will be - careerist undercover psycho Micheal Shermer or clone thereof. Or Popular Mechanics.
The problem is that the "experts" have misled us. And can't be trusted. Even Steven Jones said, at the closing news conference in AZ, that "more evidence" is needed!
However, I think it's quite clear that what's right in front of us is more than plain.
You don't need an expert to tell you those Towers came down too fast and there isn't enough jet fuel in the universe to pulverize it in total. In ~12 seconds. Nor could simple falling have done it.
You don't need an expert to tell you there was no reason for the collapse of the Salomon Bros bldg (no. 7), likewise abnormally quick.
The only reason people didn't see it at the time was they were in an altered state from the trauma, on-the-ground spin, and larger-than-life drama. Plus folks are used to being fed their world view by their "friends," the talking heads on the Tube - and would never think to question them.
The interesting thing to me is how the ones who designed this could've know for sure how easily they'd get away with it. I contend that there have been practice runs, in getting the public to accept in-their-face absurdities, since at least 1963 when Kennedy died. The public is also used to accepting blatant absurdities in Hollywood movies - trained in suspension of disbelief, trained to put their critical mind in abeyance.
When the collapse of 7 was finally shown on TV, with Mike Berger as guest, if you look at the clip (on the Internet you can replay it and watch closely) you'll see that it was doctored so it wouldn't look as though it went straight down. That's because if you see the unaltered clip it's too likely you'd notice the Bld. comes down too fast. Strangely fast.
I "love" Rosie, (even though in reality I don't know her). I admire her good work and even feel personally grateful to her for speaking out the truth, since I love my country.
However, I think it's naive, and I said so all along, to believe the network Media are going to break this story. As if the only way people will believe it is if the TV tells them and announces to them, "We were in on it too."
But people are waiting for that, and have been, and believe the Mainstream Mass Media are our only hope.
Don't you get it? The mainstream Media are like the pedophile priests, you think they are taking you to heaven but they are buggering your little boy.
How much more obvious is that than from the BBC clip with Jane Standley?
False hope is our enemy. To get the real answer to our bleak situation we're going to have to stop being tricked by false hope. False hope leads us around by the nose, as does our TV.
3) neither plane undergoes significant deceleration upon impact [this was quoted from Humint's analysis]
Just one quibble so far:
Obviously the aircraft in the second video example (#2) above decelerates! The aircraft speed goes to zero. That is a huge deceleration. In fact that is 100% deceleration!
A force must be applied for any object to stop moving. Otherwise the tendency of the object is to continue at whatever speed it is traveling. That is inertia. And the energy (of the force) implied in that slow-down, the change (delta) between the speed of 500-whatever mph and zero mph, is what breaks up the real aircraft in the second example.
In contrast, we know in the first example, the "aircraft" is not real.
Why?
Because "it" hits an immovable (relatively) object and not only does it not stop, but it does not slow down.
What is implied in that fact?
That there is no force applied, which clearly insinuates a depicted situation which is not real, considering that what you are supposed to be looking at is an aircraft traveling at top speed hitting what was one of the most massive man-made object on planet Earth.
"Reasoning" along the lines of the unreal situation...if there is such a thing...("reasoning" rather than reasoning)......
If there is no force applied, there is no reason for the "aircraft" to break up.
There is also, similarly, no reason for "it" to slow down nor any reason for there to be a hole in the building......
unless that "building" were made of smoke, butter, cellophane or pixels.
Addendum:
I forgot: if it were made of butter or cellophane, there would be a hole of some kind made. Even with a smoke building, you might make a hole of some kind with a projectile. Unless the "plane" were a ghost.
Obviously the hole in the actual building (not the image of an hole) was made by something other than the image of a plane - and in any case the actual hole was not large enough for a 767.