Reply #214: I Misspoke

[Moral Compass]

First I didn't forget Bldg. 7. It is one of the most glaring inconsistencies to the 9-11 explanation. But the obviously controlled demolition of the Tower I and II are sufficient enough to make the official explanation of the buildings destruction fail the Occam's razor test. Building #7 was something that just tells me that the people behind this had total confidence that they would never be discovered. It still all fits--#7 just shows some amazing human arrogance and a belief that the shock of tower I and II going down would manage to obscure the subsequent demolition of #7.

Unfortunately, there is no logical explanation for any of those buildings going down in the way they went down. Unless, they were brought down with controlled demolition. Once that is accepted then it has to be an inside job unless Al-Quaeda is far more dangerous than they've subsequently proved to be.

As for the pre-Copernican reference. That should have probably been edited out unless I was willing to explain the pre-Copernican development of celestial mechanics and how that theory bears similarities to the Rube Goldberg aspects of both Warren report and the 911 report.

What I meant is that with both the Warren report and the 911 report you had these increasingly complex explanations that had to explain things that already failed to pass any sort of logical scrutiny. And to make these reports hold up huge amounts of readily available evidence had to be suppressed, destroyed, ignored, and discarded.

This led to two reports that are widely regarded as complete bullshit.

So, in a sense the pre-Copernican reference was a complex analogy about excessively complex theories being logically untenable. The moment I posted I wanted to pull that back and take it out. Those lines are a bit a non-sequitir unless you knew what I was thinking. Which, of course, only I did.

My bad.