Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[ocpagu]

17. As I expected, you have no answers.

So let's take a look at your Wikipedia link. It states:

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives."

Two sources linked to this statement:

1 - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, by Zdenfk P. Bažant (well known professional) ,and Mathieu Verdure (who?). They claim that their description of the "failure scenario" is the one "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering", "though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". But they show no evidences to back this perception of "acceptance" by his peers is real. He also doesn't seem to have evidence that those contesting his explanation are in fact "a few outsiders". The fact that Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice in articles published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows he's perception does not reflect reality. In fact, his Bažant's work was already called by one of his peers ""the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history"".

2 - 9/11 Commission Report. Do I need to comment on this fraud? I guess no, right?

What they are doing here is a well-know Goebbelian technique that has been used for decades, in several contexts. Treat someone or some organization as a huge authority on an specific issue (when in fact, he's/they're just one opinion among so many others) and use his statements, reports, opinions to express the existence of a pseudo-consensus. Mainstream media repeats this version ad nauseum to create the false impression of a consensus. Government pressures academics and professionals who try to express their disagreement to said "consensus" and punishes some of them to serve as an example (there are known cases of Academics that lost their jobs or government scholarships for opposing the official account on 9-11).

See, it's very easy to claim that one specific position has the support of the "community" of professionals of that field. Proving it is quite different. It's like when the Department of State claims that the "international community" is worried about Iran doing this or that. It's easy to make such a claim, since the "international community" doesn't exist as a factual organization, and can not contradict the Department of State. The whole account on 9/11 is based in: 1 - a bunch of arrogant professionals and organizations that decided to portray themselves as "the voice of engineering community", 2 - Goebbelian repetition of the "consensus" arranged by these same professionals and organizations on the American media, which is historically subservient to the Department of State / the Pentagon and always willing to deceive its public for "security" reasons.