On the Screw Loose Change blog, Pat seems to like my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please in which I object to some flawed arguments for the idea of demolition – although I do indeed believe it’s likely that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by more than just plane impacts plus subsequent fires. But he then says:
(she apparently does not know about the photos of WTC 7 which clearly show the building collapsed slightly to the south, not symmetrically by any means).
Not only am I already aware of the argument that WTC 7 “collapsed slightly to the south,” I already responded to it a long time ago in my post Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 – what do “debunkers” say?, which I referred to in yesterday’s post.
The key word there is “slightly.” Even though it was not 100% symmetrical, the way that WTC 7 fell is still a work of art compared even to many known controlled demolitions, most of which don’t go down 100% perfectly symmetrically either, although that’s the aim. Occasionally, even some known controlled demolitions have missed the mark by quite a bit.
I know I’ve seen photos of known controlled demolitions that went down far less symmetically than WTC 7, but I can’t easily find them offhand. Perhaps someone on the Truth Action board might have such photos handy. Today I asked about this in the thread Photos of controlled demolitions not as symmetric as WTC 7? on the Truth Action board.
Anyhow, as I said in that Truth Action forum post, to me the likelihood of WTC 7 going down as straight as it did, due to a purely “natural” collapse, is similar to the likelihood of a total baseball novice hitting a home run, having never even swung a bat before. It might not be 100% impossible, but if it happened I’d be very suspicious, to say the least – especially if also (a) there were evidence of a coverup of the alleged baseball novice’s background and (b) someone had won a billion dollars betting that the alleged baseball novice was going to hit a home run.
I’ve looked around at many different “debunking” sites to see what they had to say about the (almost perfectly) symmetical, straight-down vertical nature of the collapse of WTC 7. Most of those “debunking” sites totally ignored that issue. The best that any of the “debunkers” I’ve looked at so far could do, by way of a counterargument on this particular point, was to say that the collapse wasn’t perfectly symmetrical.
Anyhow, I’m glad that Pat has noted my commitment to seeking the truth. Alas, there are folks in every political movement that I’m aware of who seem to believe that blind dogmatism is a virtue. But I’m by no means the the only person in the 9/11 Truth movement who believes in careful examination of the evidence and weeding out bad arguments.