It is perfectly plain to all in my audience at this very late date of February 2009 that those buildings were collapsed by way of demolitions charges. So why did you ever believe that it was Terriss who did it? A few factors:
- Trauma-based mind control. Sleight of hand. It's a stage trick. It's Psych 101 stuff. When you traumatize someone and then immediately provide a plausible narrative to explain the event, the human brain incorporates this narrative into its conceptual model of reality. The repeated showings of the collapse on TV --aside from their genuine value as good TV-- provided for the trauma. The immediate trotting out of dossiers on the Terriss --most of whom later turned up alive somewhere overseas, working as checkout clerks at grocery stores, who were surprised to learn that they were dead-- provided the narrative. If I recall the timeline correctly --and if I do not, don't let that prejudice anything else on the matter I might say; I can't know everything-- Condoleezza Rice, when questioned about how they magically identified the guilty parties so soon, said that the dossiers came from Able Danger. But the guys over at Able Danger said that they had never heard of these terrorists. So we have magically appearing dossiers on guys who later turned up alive and well. This trauma-based mind control never affected me because, for whatever reason, my brain is not susceptible to the technique. The narrative was always stupid to me. My Big Button calculator told me that it was a controlled demolition, plain and simple.
- Cognitive Dissonance. Psych 101 stuff. The human brain has a tendency to ignore data that threaten its conceptual model of reality. The brain will seek to eliminate any data that will cause emotional distress. People will ignore data that point to a controlled demolition because deductive reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it was murder and that the government was in on the murder. This is too emotionally disturbing for most people's brains to contemplate, so they will unconsciously ignore the data.
- "Narrative Reinforcement." I'm not sure what the proper term is, but it's Psych 101 stuff. Do you remember that YouTube video I showed you of a psychology experiment? It had a dozen people in a room, all but one of whom were in on the experiment. On a screen in front of them all was projected a picture of three lines, one of which was obviously longer than the other two. The test subjects then voiced in turn which one was the longest. Since they were all "in" on the experiment, they chose the wrong line as the longest. When it came for the one, true test subject to state which was the longest, he hesitated, then gave the incorrect answer, the answer that all the rest gave. This is either because the human is a social animal and does not want to be an outsider, or because the human brain has built-in error-correction where it may discount its own perception of reality in favor of the perceptions of the rest of the herd. Those who commissioned 9-11 employ people in the "news" media to reinforce this narrative, by calling 9-11 Truthers "kookie dookie weirdo men." No one wants to be a kookie dookie weirdo man, so they will subordinate their own perceptions to the "perceptions" of the herd, as voiced by the paid agents in the "news" media.
The entire operation was like pulling a quarter out of your ear.
So the next time you feel tempted to laugh at me for stating something that seems kookie dookie weirdo man stuff, just remember who's the one up on stage squawking and acting like a chicken at the hypnotist show.
...'cause from over here you sure look funny.
-------------------
And incorporate this information into the criminal case for Larry Silverstein. I suspect that the security company for the complex is the same entity that wired them up for demolition. If I'm not mistaken, the company was Securacom.
