After 8 years of fence-sitting, I have decided to move to the dark side. I have actively avoided the 9/11 truth materials as a rule because I did not want to reach my conclusion on the basis of assisted self-delusion.
But I have finally reached a conclusion. I believe that a new, independent investigation into 9/11 should be called - a kind of citizen's inquiry. The acknowledged leaders in the 9/11 truth movement - I'm thinking of the folks with PhD and MS after their names, not the kooks and not our political leaders - should be permitted to organize the selection process for the independent investigatory committee. Perhaps they could put it to a popular vote or use some other decision-making process to set up the panel of investigatory experts who would then be given the same powers as any politically-appointed independent investigator. Yes, it's pure fantasy but it's still what I think ought to be done.
The 9/11 topic is sufficiently sensitive that LvMI and even LRC have been all but mum on the issue. Not that I blame them. The "conspiracy theorist" moniker is as powerful as "heretic" was a few centuries back in the vicinity of the European continent. Any suggestion that our political leadership could be anything other than perfect saints caught completely by surprise by an unthinkable terror attack planned deep in the caves of Tora Bora is instant suicide for one's credibility in the realm of public, respectable discourse. Sure, there were several bureaucratic mistakes that aligned like the planets to create a cascading breakdown in air security on the morning of 9/11 but that's a long shot from 9/11 being some sinister "inside job."
Before I go further, I would like to say a word about science and forensic investigation. (Those familiar with epistemological issues may feel free to skip this and the next few paragraphs.) Science and forensic investigation have a great deal of similarity. Namely, both are primarily concerned with explaining phenomena by constructing hypotheses about the series of past events which created them. A forensic investigator looks at the blood spatters or the locations of fingerprints or exit wounds to build a "story" of events that created the state of affairs at the crime scene as it was left by the criminal and which the forensic investigator is now examining. An astronomer looks at the electro-magnetic signature of an exploding star to classify what sort of nova it is. The events which the astronomer is interested in explaining occurred far into the past but the astronomer is really trying to choose the most plausible or the least improbable explanation for the sequence of events which resulted in the phenomena he is presently observing. The same goes for particle physics or any other field of scientific inquiry. This is the process of induction.
Science or forensic investigation is rarely characterized by certitude. Most explanations fit the data to a degree and are more or less plausible than other explanations. It is this constant process of selecting the best available hypothesis that makes scientific inquiry dynamic. Once, flood geology and geocentrism were mainstream. I think it's a bit smug to describe these positions as "unscientific" or "premodern". They were just the best available hypotheses that anybody at the time had. The evidence were fitted to those hypotheses until they broken down and were superseded by better explanations. Sometimes, there are several, pretty good hypotheses and nobody knows for sure which one - if any - will turn out to be the correct one. The present state of quantum physics is a great example of this. No one knows for sure whether string theory will turn out to have been a colossal waste of time or if it's actually a good description of physical reality. There are several competing theories, one or none of which may win out as new evidence is uncovered by the Large Hadron Collider.
A significant difference between basic science (like physics) and forensic investigation is that nature does not actively conceal evidence or make active attempts to frustrate the inductive process. By contrast, the subject of the forensic investigator's inquiry can be expected to have made every attempt to cover his tracks and to conceal and destroy evidence. The murderer will burn down the house or set the accelerator and drive the car off a cliff into a lake or whatever to destroy the evidence that the forensic investigator needs. Scott Peterson tied his wife's body to a cinder block and then took her body "fishing" and sent it to the bottom. It eventually turned back up, to his demise.
There are several possible ways to criticize a hypothesis. The most obvious way is to present an alternative hypothesis that you believe is better then test it. If your hypothesis is simpler or better fits the available evidence or both, then it may be a better explanation for the evidence. Another way to criticize is to find internal contradictions within the hypothesis that make it impossible. Or, you can look for major inconsistencies between the hypothesis and the available evidence, making the hypothesis too implausible to be entertained. Bear in mind that it is sometimes the case that the best hypothesis is no hypothesis at all. Sometimes, the answer to the question is "I don't know."
The distinction between science and forensic investigation becomes all important on this point. The criticism often leveled at skeptics of official explanations of conspiracies and government misdeeds is that they are just poking holes but not offering any better explanation of their own. The data might not fit perfectly but, barring a better explanation, so what? The data never fit perfectly to any explanation. In the realm of natural science, this is a valid criticism. Proponents of creationism and other obsolete hypotheses usually do nothing more than poke holes in modern scientific theories. They do not offer an alternative hypothesis because they do not have one. Since scientists are in the business of explaining things, just pointing out difficulties in the explanations offered by other scientists doesn't make those scientists wrong, it just highlights areas for improvement. But when it comes to forensic investigation, poking holes is important because the perpetrator likely has actively concealed the evidence which would allow reconstruction of the events that occurred in the crime or even actively frame someone else to distract attention away from himself. A bad explanation might be worse than just saying "I/We don't know" because you might end up convicting an innocent person.
To bring this back to 9/11, the central question put forward by any "truther" is whether to believe the accepted version of events. By "accepted", I mean the mainstream view, the official, NIST, Popular Mechanics, and majority-of-everybody-else view. I think that the accepted view is sufficiently inconsistent with the evidenced that it is not a viable hypothesis. If the accepted view is not to be believed, then it follows that a new investigation should be performed to find a more satisfactory hypothesis.
Note that even if the accepted explanation of the events leading up to and occurring on 9/11 is false, it does not automatically follow that "9/11 was an inside job." It is perfectly possible that the accepted explanation could be false and some other explanation of 9/11 not involving a government conspiracy is true. Perhaps 9/11 was actually orchestrated by a foreign government - Russia, Israel, China, etc. - and to save face the US leadership decided to cover it up and pursue their retaliation through more covert means than open warfare, accounting for the apparent cover-up of what really happened on 9/11.
What are the reasons for doubting the official explanation? For me, WTC 7 was the steel beam that broke the camel's back. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, there is a prima facie plausible reason for why they collapsed... they were hit by a multi-ton plane hurtling at hundreds of miles per hour through the air, laden with jet fuel. All prior history of steel buildings cannot tell us what "should have" happened since the events of 9/11 were unprecedented. No building had ever been struck by an aircraft in the way that the twin towers were that day. But there was no plane that struck WTC 7. Its fires were intense but still well within the realm of historical experience. Its damage due to debris did not affect the core columns. The foundation was secure and unaffected by the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Explaining its collapse ought to have been a major priority for the government agencies that normally do this sort of thing (NIST). The measures normally taken for investigation of a building collapse were not taken in the case of WTC 7. Its collapse was implicitly lumped together with the "well, they were hit by passenger jets, what do you think took them down?" explanation put forward for WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The explanation which NIST eventually did put forward for the collapse is a classic example of deus ex machina (I think the AE911 folks call it this). The mechanism posited for the structural failure is thermal expansion. Namely, the beams expanded from the intense, protracted fires to the point that they began to shear the connecting bolts. Then, the failure became progressive and the failure in one section caused the failure of the other sections. The result is the smooth, symmetrical collapse which you see in the videos. This explanation is not impossible. It could be true. It does not entail a violation of any of the laws of physics. What is remarkable about this explanation, however, is how utterly improbable it is that this series of events could occur. The core columns failed in exactly the order and at exactly the timings that they would have failed had a controlled demolition been performed on the building. The only difference is that the mechanism was shearing of the connecting bolts due to thermal expansion and subsequent progressive collapse, rather than explosive charges. We can't know exactly how improbable NIST's hypothesis is, either, since NIST has not released the computer models of its simulations. I suspect that this is probably because the release would show that the model had obviously been fine-tuned. In fact, I am sufficiently confident of this to draw a line in the sand and say that if NIST were to release its models and if it turned out that they were not fine-tuned, I would simply renounce my conversion to the dark side, that is, I would again accept the accepted version of events.
This is why the discovery of nano-thermite and spherical iron particles at the WTC site is important (I do have some questions regarding chain of custody of the dust samples). NIST's reasons for rejecting a demolition hypothesis are that the explosion would have been heard from a great distance in every direction and it would have been impossible to have installed the explosives without detection. But they only took into consideration conventional, loud and powerful explosive used in demolitions. If a covert operation did indeed occur on 9/11, it seems to me entirely possible that the perpetrators would have used exotic munitions to bring the building down in a manner which could be explained as an accident of some sort. In other words, NIST used a strawman. And installing and concealing the explosives without detection would have been no sweat if the head of WTC 7 security was on the payroll of the hypothesized conspirators.
It should also be noted that the government faces a much lower threshold for explaining what happened on 9/11 than a scientist or forensic investigator faces. The reason is perfectly illustrated by the NIST report... the government only need show that it is possible that it's story could be true. That is, the accepted explanation need only have a non-zero probability of being true. So long as it is free of any inescapable contradictions, the public will accept it. Why? Because an evil government is unthinkable... or "unspeakable" to borrow a word from the title of a recently published book.
There is a tremendous amount of "noise", that is, wild conspiracy theories of the Roswell variety, in the area of alternative hypotheses to the accepted explanation of 9/11. I have no patience for nonsensical fairy tales paraded about as "skepticism" of the government's explanation of 9/11. The words "disinformation" and "dupes" come to mind.
If you are already skeptical of the accepted explanation of 9/11, you will likely be non-plussed by my milquetoast presentation of why I have converted to that position. Oh well. If you still hold to the accepted explanation, you might wonder why I'm posting this here. Let me assure you that I am no evangelist. I'm not interested in posting links or changing your mind. It wouldn't make any difference, anyway. What I am interested in is the truth at any cost. If you can poke any holes in my line of reasoning regarding WTC 7, please do so. I don't to be anybody's dupe, whether CIA's or Michael Ruppert's - which may be the very same thing.
Clayton -
Me
I have independently investigated the supposed events of 9/11 since that day, and did not really start to see any sort of overall picture develop until mid 2008.
Here are some observations/conclusions that I have made.
Your Assumptions
If truth is your agenda, and not politics, I have found that one major key to investigating 911 events is ones initial assumptions- or rather one's lack of them.
In other words, in your investigations, what are you assuming to be true and to have actually happened that day, and is therefor beyond the need for further proof, in your own mind? Your starting assumptions are critical to the outcome of your investigations.
Investigative Method(s) and Mindsets
A second essential key is investigative method.
You mention the scientific/forensic method and appear to understand the necessity for an attempt at complete neutrality for the scientific observer when considering the various purported 911 phenomena, until all the facts are in and proved or disproved.
I consider the neutral, scientific "mindset" to be an essential in all 911 investigations
However there is one other extremely useful "mindset" that you do not address and which you might find useful in your independent investigation/considerations.
This is based on the evidentiary procedures [rules of evidence] used in US criminal trials.
Those methods/mindsets are [or should be!] based on the established discovery and chain of custody procedures derived from the Bill of Rights.
I believe that in order to establish some sort of 911 truth, [after first establishing ones core assumptions, or preferably ones almost complete lack of them ], it is best to rely not just on the scientific method, but to first frame that method within the overall evidentiary rules "mindset" required by the Bill of Rights in US criminal court proceedings.
In other words , to also attempt to employ/duplicate the mindset of a competent defense attorney in a criminal trial, when using the scientific method- thereby ensuring a higher burden of proof when reviewing all government and media "evidence".
Private Discussions?
As you can see from the moderator quote in my signature below - as with the Rockwell site, there is somewhat of a bias against the subject of 911 here, I have had 3 or 4 threads disappeared at the whim of various moderators.
I suspect that the main reason is that moderators and others see the subject as a threat to their movement.
This happens with all movements- which is why I want no part of them, I am only interested in a search for truth.
So do not expect this thread to last- if it becomes popular it will be locked/trashed/ disappeared at some point, more than likely
So assuming you would like some serious discussion about 911 events and non-events, I think I can safely say that you are unlikely to get much of it within the context of this forum , regardless of how polite you attempt to remain.
If you would like to discuss any the main points I have raised :
[1] Your starting assumptions ....
and [2] Your intended methodology,
you can private message me here or reach me through my blogsite.
If not, good luck with your investigations.
onebornfree
P.S. Correction! I'm sorry I now see that you did at least allude to a "burden of proof", but I'm still not clear as to how important you think it may or may not be when conducting your own investigations.
******************************************************************************************Austrian Economics Professor Morgan Reynolds Says 911 Plane Attacks Video Faked! :http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt.htmOn the other hand: LVMI moderator on the official 911 story:"Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth."
******************************************************************************************
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Me I have independently investigated the supposed events of 9/11 since that day, and did not really start to see any sort of overall picture develop until mid 2008. Here are some observations/conclusions that I have made. Your Assumptions If truth is your agenda, and not politics, I have found that one major key to investigating 911 events is ones initial assumptions- or rather one's lack of them. In other words, in your investigations, what are you assuming to be true and to have actually happened that day, and is therefor beyond the need for further proof, in your own mind? Your starting assumptions are critical to the outcome of your investigations.
Yes, the accepted explanation crucially relies on the assumption that the leadership of the American government are basically irreproachable and the idea that the government could have allowed or caused the events of 9/11 is impossible. The given reason is that the required conspiracy would be too large. But the real reason is that the public - even its most intelligent members - irrationally believes that there are moral limits beyond which the political leadership could not possibly go. Of course, when you understand the true nature of the State - nothing more than a group of rapacious thugs - there is no reason to doubt that the State could orchestrate the murder of thousands - or even millions or billions.
Investigative Method(s) and Mindsets A second essential key is investigative method. You mention the scientific/forensic method and appear to understand the necessity for an attempt at complete neutrality for the scientific observer when considering the various purported 911 phenomena, until all the facts are in and proved or disproved. I consider the neutral, scientific "mindset" to be an essential in all 911 investigations However there is one other extremely useful "mindset" that you do not address and which you might find useful in your independent investigation/considerations. This is based on the evidentiary procedures [rules of evidence] used in US criminal trials. Those methods/mindsets are [or should be!] based on the established discovery and chain of custody procedures derived from the Bill of Rights. I believe that in order to establish some sort of 911 truth, [after first establishing ones core assumptions, or preferably ones almost complete lack of them ], it is best to rely not just on the scientific method, but to first frame that method within the overall evidentiary rules "mindset" required by the Bill of Rights in US criminal court proceedings. In other words , to also attempt to employ/duplicate the mindset of a competent defense attorney in a criminal trial, when using the scientific method- thereby ensuring a higher burden of proof when reviewing all government and media "evidence". Private Discussions? As you can see from the moderator quote in my signature below - as with the Rockwell site, there is somewhat of a bias against the subject of 911 here, I have had 3 or 4 threads disappeared at the whim of various moderators. I suspect that the main reason is that moderators and others see the subject as a threat to their movement. This happens with all movements- which is why I want no part of them, I am only interested in a search for truth. So do not expect this thread to last- if it becomes popular it will be locked/trashed/ disappeared at some point, more than likely So assuming you would like some serious discussion about 911 events and non-events, I think I can safely say that you are unlikely to get much of it within the context of this forum , regardless of how polite you attempt to remain. If you would like to discuss any the main points I have raised : [1] Your starting assumptions .... and [2] Your intended methodology, you can private message me here or reach me through my blogsite. If not, good luck with your investigations. onebornfree P.S. Correction! I'm sorry I now see that you did at least allude to a "burden of proof", but I'm still not clear as to how important you think it may or may not be when conducting your own investigations.
Well, I don't blame LvMI or LRC for staying clear of this subject. It's not their primary purpose and they have more important things to do than crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion on the topic of 9/11.
Unfortunately, regarding the legal aspects of a 9/11 investigation, I doubt that anything could ever come of such an endeavor. One positive note is that the popular resistance to the accepted narrative is much greater than it was with the equivalent cover-up surrounding JFK's assassination. This could be a sign that the public is becoming more wary of their political leaders. That, of course, is a good thing.
I'm counting down the seconds until someone 'debunks' you by linking to a Popular Mechanics or BBC article...
Seph: I'm counting down the seconds until someone 'debunks' you by linking to a Popular Mechanics or BBC article...
It's already happened.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Here's some back of the envelope calculations for expansion of the tower's beams due to heatHeight of towers: 1300ft. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Steel: ~0.0004 per degree (check wiki on coefficient of thermal expansion)Burning temp of jet fuel in open air: ~300 celciusAmbient Temp: ~25 celcius
Expansion of tower beams: 1300*.0004*(300-25) = 143 ft143 feet is significant! BUT this is assuming the entire tower was heated to this temperature. Not true! Lets take the same numbers for just a few floors (30ft)
Expansion of tower beams over just a few floors: 30*.0004*(300-25) = 3.3 ft
Now is 3.3 ft significant... I think over the whole of the tower it isn't but it may have been enough to weaken just those floors and collapse everything above them.Though these are just rough calculations. I'm sure that alpha = alpha(T) so... but I don't think that their theory is completely implausible. I am however of the belief that there is something very, very fishy about 9/11, mostly on the administration's actions before and after 9/11.
Snowflake: Here's some back of the envelope calculations for expansion of the tower's beams due to heatHeight of towers: 1300ft. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Steel: ~0.0004 per degree (check wiki on coefficient of thermal expansion)Burning temp of jet fuel in open air: ~300 celciusAmbient Temp: ~25 celcius Expansion of tower beams: 1300*.0004*(300-25) = 143 ft143 feet is significant! BUT this is assuming the entire tower was heated to this temperature. Not true! Lets take the same numbers for just a few floors (30ft) Expansion of tower beams over just a few floors: 30*.0004*(300-25) = 3.3 ft Now is 3.3 ft significant... I think over the whole of the tower it isn't but it may have been enough to weaken just those floors and collapse everything above them.Though these are just rough calculations. I'm sure that alpha = alpha(T) so... but I don't think that their theory is completely implausible. I am however of the belief that there is something very, very fishy about 9/11, mostly on the administration's actions before and after 9/11.
Austrian Economist and LVMI adjunct scholar Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the "collapse due to burning jet fuel" hypothesis:
"..... ..Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:
..............." quotes excerpted from "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse"
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Snowflake: Here's some back of the envelope calculations for expansion of the tower's beams due to heatHeight of towers: 1300ft. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Steel: ~0.0004 per degree (check wiki on coefficient of thermal expansion)Burning temp of jet fuel in open air: ~300 celciusAmbient Temp: ~25 celcius Expansion of tower beams: 1300*.0004*(300-25) = 143 ft143 feet is significant! BUT this is assuming the entire tower was heated to this temperature. Not true! Lets take the same numbers for just a few floors (30ft) Expansion of tower beams over just a few floors: 30*.0004*(300-25) = 3.3 ft Now is 3.3 ft significant... I think over the whole of the tower it isn't but it may have been enough to weaken just those floors and collapse everything above them.Though these are just rough calculations. I'm sure that alpha = alpha(T) so... but I don't think that their theory is completely implausible. I am however of the belief that there is something very, very fishy about 9/11, mostly on the administration's actions before and after 9/11. Austrian Economist and LVMI adjunct scholar Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the "collapse due to burning jet fuel" hypothesis: "..... ..Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it: •Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor). •By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes. •The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires. •FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order. •Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk. Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts: 1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. 2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small. 3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. 4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9). 5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. 6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence." 7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. ..............." quotes excerpted from "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse"
I looked at Reynold's website and I have to say that I find the "no planes" hypothesis to be of the absurd variety. There were many eyewitnesses of the planes impacting the towers and I've seen amateur footage of the second strike showing the plane coming in from all sorts of angles. There are only two ways I can think of that Reynolds's "no planes" hypothesis could be true - the conspirators edited every piece of footage that could have shown the second airplane coming in or some sort of "Project Blue Beam" sci-fi technology was utilized to create a mass delusion that a plane struck the tower when, in fact, it did not. In the first case, I find the lack of evidence of no plane to be overwhelming... nobody caught footage of the empty sky that slipped through the fingers of the conspirators?? The conspirators somehow ensured that everyone who was in a position to have seen the plane lied and said they saw the plane when, in fact, they did not?? I find that far more difficult to believe than the hypothesis that the conspirators flew a real, flesh and blood plane into the building. Assuming some sort of Project Blue Beam technology exists (a big, huge elephant-sized assumption), why would the conspirators go through all the effort and take all the risks of a system failure when they could just fly a plane into the building and get the same effect? It's a lot cheaper and simpler. In other words, both possibilities under which the "no planes" hypothesis could be true are more complex and add no additional explanatory power over the straightforward "someone flew a plane into the building".
Well, I don't doubt that thermal expansion could shear bolts and even, in extremum, bring down a large steel building. The trouble is in the manner of the collapse. Let's grant that thermal expansion sheared the connections and brought the building down... that answers the question "how did the building come down?" but it doesn't answer the new question it raises, which is, why did the connections give out in exactly the timing required to bring the building down in a controlled-demolition-like manner? And it really is very hard (translation: "improbable") to get a building to come down in that manner. So, NISTs explanation is consistent with the data but has the drawback of being incredibly unlikely. "Someone penetrated security, planted explosives and brought the building down", however improbable, is still far more probable than NISTs theory.
Whether 9/11 is true or not true is really besides the point. The state in and of itself is already an organization built apon fraud. If the 9/11 conspirators are true we should not be surprised. If not, oh well.
Since I know very little about the physics of the argument and I know that all opinions in this matter are bias I have very little interest in deciphering the rhetoric from truthers or debunker's. We have a big pink elephant in the room, the state, why focus on the elephants crap when we can get rid of the elephant?
Math >> speculative nonsense
ClaytonB: Well, I don't doubt that thermal expansion could shear bolts and even, in extremum, bring down a large steel building. The trouble is in the manner of the collapse. Let's grant that thermal expansion sheared the connections and brought the building down... that answers the question "how did the building come down?" but it doesn't answer the new question it raises, which is, why did the connections give out in exactly the timing required to bring the building down in a controlled-demolition-like manner? And it really is very hard (translation: "improbable") to get a building to come down in that manner. So, NISTs explanation is consistent with the data but has the drawback of being incredibly unlikely. "Someone penetrated security, planted explosives and brought the building down", however improbable, is still far more probable than NISTs theory.
Which, in my opinion, is an excellent reason to render the "no plane" theory completely absurd. It would have been much simpler to just blow them up and blame terrorists (as it had even been attempted before) than blow them up, fake video footage, audio recordings, bribe/hire eyewitnesses, etc...
Snowflake: Math >> speculative nonsense
Which is why I do not subscribe to the government's conspiracy theory...
ClaytonB:I looked at Reynold's website and I have to say that I find the "no planes" hypothesis to be of the absurd variety.
Because it is. It's disinfo. Ignore it.
ClaytonB: "I looked at Reynold's website and I have to say that I find the "no planes" hypothesis to be of the absurd variety.
That is because you, like most here and elsewhere, are, in my opinion, inconsistent in your applications of both the scientific and legal methodologies, in your review of purported facts about 911.
In fact ,your applications of those methodologies are being unconsciously bent in order to make them conform to your pre-existing assumptions, thus allowing you to safely conclude ""the no planes" hypothesis to be of the absurd variety."
As I previously said, I am happy to discuss/explore these matters in more detail in private messaging- but not here [too much "white noise"].
Meanwhile- back at the ranch.............
9/11- "Deconstructing The Grand Deception"
[Even a Ron Paul Supporter Gets It? ]
You all might want to take a look at Ron Pauls own "Daily Paul" e-letter 's December 31st 2009 review of the absolute best analysis of the massive amount of video fakery by the media on 9/11, [called "September Clues"] , here : http://www.dailypaul.com/node/120138
and "get up to speed"
Given the almost complete negativity I have seen at this site by members and moderators alike regarding the massive amounts of 9/11 video fakery by the media that become obvious with close analysis of available archived footage, I was pleasantly surprised to see that at least one person within the Ron Paul community appears to be starting to see the light on this very important issue, and to not have his/hers "eyes wide shut" in order to further some imagined political goal/agenda, unlike most "libertarians", "anarcho-capitalists", "austrians" etc. I run into here and elsewhere
The jaw-dropping 911 TV video fakery movie "September Clues" parts 1 & 2 by 911 researcher Simon Shack is available for viewing in its entirety here.
filc: Whether 9/11 is true or not true is really besides the point. The state in and of itself is already an organization built apon fraud. If the 9/11 conspirators are true we should not be surprised. If not, oh well. Since I know very little about the physics of the argument and I know that all opinions in this matter are bias I have very little interest in deciphering the rhetoric from truthers or debunker's. We have a big pink elephant in the room, the state, why focus on the elephants crap when we can get rid of the elephant?
I agree with your sentiment. Fixation on 9/11 - even for the sake of assigning blame to the state - still plays into the hands of the statists by ascribing awe (even if evil awe) to the state apparatus and its chicanery. That said, it is a worthy endeavor to document the state's crimes and dissect its lies in order to expose the true Anatomy of the State to those who have been blinded by statist myths.
I subscribe to the theory that government is too dumb to pull off such a vast complicated lie but they sure the hell benefit from it. Call it propsprincy. I am guessing that the the government inadvertily created Al Queda through their secret war funding of rebel afghan fighters in Afghanistan.
Anyway, situations like this are probably bounded to happens, whether or not the government intended so. Government people merely act in their percevied self interest by seizing power. That make them look very suspicious.
I wouldn't be surprised for people to seize on the idea of a secret conspricy to explain the disconnect.
Maybe in reality, the undercurrent, attitudes, and assumptions of individuals create a situation in which this kind of things can happen. After all, it would be a simple matter of civilians shooting hijacking terrorists.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Setting all other factors of the issue aside, I would be interested to hear someone who holds to the "no planes" theory explain how they would go about prepping a multi-staged demolition which requires the isolation of particular high-explosive elements from earlier detonated low-explosive/pyrotechnic elements, in a complex, uncontrolled structure(s). In particular, how would you go about shielding blasting caps and/or switches from thermal damage, which should lead to a lack of, or premature detonation? I personally have no idea how this could be accomplished, nor have I ever met someone who did. And this would be a necessary element of a controlled-demo scenario.
God blessed me
I'm a free man
With no place free to go
FNU-LNU: Setting all other factors of the issue aside, I would be interested to hear someone who holds to the "no planes" theory explain how they would go about prepping a multi-staged demolition ..............
Setting all other factors of the issue aside, I would be interested to hear someone who holds to the "no planes" theory explain how they would go about prepping a multi-staged demolition ..............
If , for the sake of argument, we assume that planes did actually fly into those buildings, are you implying that you believe that the official "planes /fires/melting steel girders" collapse theory is more credible for yourself than a controlled demolition theory is?
Or do you find it less credible?
In other words, if the planes did fly into the buildings , do you find it reasonable to assume that they would produce the end result- the entire destruction of those buildings?
ClaytonB: ....That said, it is a worthy endeavor to document the state's crimes and dissect its lies in order to expose the true Anatomy of the State to those who have been blinded by statist myths. Clayton -
....That said, it is a worthy endeavor to document the state's crimes and dissect its lies in order to expose the true Anatomy of the State to those who have been blinded by statist myths.
Yes. To get where you want to go, you first have to understand where you are.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:an LVMI forum moderator on the official 911 story:"Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth."
Well moderators can certainly have varying views. We are volunteers for the Mises institute, and what we say or do is only a reflection of our views.
I believe the number and complexity of contributing factors certainly allow for the end result, on the assumption that planes hit the towers. As I had two friends whom I grew up with see the second plane hit, as well as a close friend who responded as a firefighter that day, I don't consider it an assumption on my part. I believe that same complexity negates the possibility of staging a controlled demolition under the circumstances. The splash damage, over-pressure, and radiant heat/fire should have caused a malfunction in any supposedly pre-prepared demo materials, resulting in an immediate, partial and asymmetrical detonation.
Laughing Man: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:an LVMI forum moderator on the official 911 story:"Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth." Well moderators can certainly have varying views. We are volunteers for the Mises institute, and what we say or do is only a reflection of our views.
I understand. However, the example I quote is still, I believe, a particularly good example of what is usually called "circular logic".
FNU-LNU: I believe the number and complexity of contributing factors certainly allow for the end result, on the assumption that planes hit the towers. As I had two friends whom I grew up with see the second plane hit, as well as a close friend who responded as a firefighter that day, I don't consider it an assumption on my part. I believe that same complexity negates the possibility of staging a controlled demolition under the circumstances. The splash damage, over-pressure, and radiant heat/fire should have caused a malfunction in any supposedly pre-prepared demo materials, resulting in an immediate, partial and asymmetrical detonation.
OK , so , as a delusional "no-planer" myself , why would I try to convince you otherwise? You believe the official story, you believe what your friends say they saw etc. etc.
You are happy with the government explanation - there is obviously nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, so move on- nothing to see here!
{Why not get back to me if at some future date if you then decide that there is some aspect of the official story that you think is not true?]
Why would you try to convince me otherwise? Why would you try to convince anyone otherwise? I assume because you have a belief, or at least a strongly suspected theory. I have not accused you of being delusional, nor do I really care what the "official" story is. I can only speak from my experience, from what I've been exposed to. I am bringing up an issue that has not been addressed satisfactorily (or at least to my satisfaction) by anyone who has brought up the controlled demo theory. If you can, have at it. If not, don't take it personally.
FNU-LNU: Why would you try to convince me otherwise? Why would you try to convince anyone otherwise? I assume because you have a belief, or at least a strongly suspected theory. I have not accused you of being delusional, nor do I really care what the "official" story is. I can only speak from my experience, from what I've been exposed to. I am bringing up an issue that has not been addressed satisfactorily (or at least to my satisfaction) by anyone who has brought up the controlled demo theory. If you can, have at it. If not, don't take it personally.
It is not personal at all. Merely a matter of not wanting to waste time and resources in fruitless discussions.
Obviously [or it should be], right now you are giving me nothing to "work with" . We share ZERO common ground on this subject.
You believe every part of the official explanation. I have no problem with that. However, common sense dictates that I would be wasting my time attempting to discuss the issues with you.
As I said before ,why not get back to me if at some future date if you then decide that there is some aspect of the official story that you think is not true, so we have something to talk about?
P.S. In the meantime, asuming you are genuinely curious about the whole 9/11"no planes into buildings" issue and why myself and others have reached such conclusions , you might wish take a very close look at "September Clues " and give the issues it raises some serious consideration, then perhaps get back to me. At least then we would have something to discuss!
Regards, onebornfree.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I understand. However, the example I quote is still, I believe, a particularly good example of what is usually called "circular logic"
Actually it would be called an inconsistency, not circular logic. I'm guessing you are trying to point out that someone who is a LvMi member believes the government isn't lying to them, the LvMi obviously an organization in which the general sentiment is that the government are liars. Again, the moderators here have varying sentiments, some are in fact minarchists so not all fully believe that government is always telling a tale.
Why assume only the planes were involved?
I suspect the combination of a determined adversary versus an incompetent state.
Fact: The WTC was the target of extremist groups for most of the 1990s. There was an actual bombing attempt made that was unsuccessful at bringing the targeted building down.
I don't think it's too far off the beaten path to assume that the state was incompetent or even negligent in assuring the structural damage of the first bombing did not make future attacks more catastrophic. Point of comparison are the levies in New Orleans. Perhaps the structure of the WTC was compromised and the costs to repair the damage was deemed greater than the likelihood of another attack. That could explain any buildings involved in the first bombing.
There is another plausible theory that over time an adversary could have utilized explosive paint on the buildings. Plausible because tests of the substance on steel created sufficient temperatures to create conditions for catastrophic failure. The paint itself is undetectible, and could be applied by anyone willing enough to do so. Certainly the folks who planned the WTC attacks on 9/11 would have had the motivation and patience. The evidence of painting and maintenance of the facility were most likely stored on site and lost during the incident, making proof related to this theory difficult.
It is quite possible that the attack was coordinated based on the experience gained from the first attack. Ramming a jetliner into one of the buildings wouldn't appear to be any more effective than the first bombing - possibly even less effective given the history of fires in skyscrapers. Of course it may have just been an act to terrify rather than destroy the buildings, and everything just happened to line up to cause catastrophic failure.
Some have claimed this as a false flag incident, intended to provide political support for action overseas or even against U.S. citizens. Such claims are extremely difficult to prove, but based on the actions the government has taken since the incident it cannot be easily discounted as a possibility.
9/11 will go down as one of those things we will never know the complete story. It's difficult to track down all of the evidence, and even more difficult to sort through what's actually evidence and what's bogus or extraneous information inserted by people who are either hiding something or are pushing their own agenda. Where we should be concerned the most is in the way people and the state have reacted to the incident. The state will find any excuse to push for more control, whether they were involved in the incident or not. In otherwords, I don't need a 9/11 reason to distrust the state. Some people will utilized the incident for their own gain - via the state.
Explosive paint...really?
Laughing Man: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I understand. However, the example I quote is still, I believe, a particularly good example of what is usually called "circular logic" Actually it would be called an inconsistency, not circular logic. I'm guessing you are trying to point out that someone who is a LvMi member believes the government isn't lying to them, the LvMi obviously an organization in which the general sentiment is that the government are liars. Again, the moderators here have varying sentiments, some are in fact minarchists so not all fully believe that government is always telling a tale.
" Actually it would be called an inconsistency, not circular logic."
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that.
If you start by assuming someone is telling the truth, [instead of assuming that one does not know one way or another], and then conclude that that person in fact told the truth, ' seems pretty circular to me [But what do I know?]
I think I'll continue to call that process "circular" regardless.
It's called super thermite. One obvious question to raise concerning this theory is how this material would have been acquired given that it was difficult to manufacture prior to 2002.
OneBornFree,
Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories?
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:If you start by assuming someone is telling the truth, [instead of assuming that one does not know one way or another], and then conclude that that person in fact told the truth, ' seems pretty circular to me [But what do I know?]
So wait, if I assume that you are telling the truth...then find evidence that you are telling the truth...then that is circular logic? I don't think you are working with a solid definition of what circular logic is.
corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories?
Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"?
Laughing Man: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:If you start by assuming someone is telling the truth, [instead of assuming that one does not know one way or another], and then conclude that that person in fact told the truth, ' seems pretty circular to me [But what do I know?] So wait, if I assume that you are telling the truth...then find evidence that you are telling the truth...then that is circular logic? I don't think you are working with a solid definition of what circular logic is.
Unfortunately, yes.
For a useful result, it is vital that you should make no assumptions one way or another at the outset of your investigation as to truth or falsity of any of the information or "evidence" supplied by myself [or whomever] and then reviewed by yourself - and make no assumptions/ conclusions as to truth or falsity until all [or at least the vast majority] of evidence is in and has been closely analyzed.
In my own mind [at least!] that would be a methodologically correct procedure to undertake when reviewing any/all purported "facts" and "evidence" about 911. [At least for someone interested in scientific investigation and procedure]
You cannot assume that I, or anyone else is telling the truth- you must remain neutral throughout and only draw conclusions once all the evidence is in and has been closely looked at , weighed against other evidence , then accepted or rejected accordingly.
And even then, one must be prepared to go back and revise ones conclusions if new evidence seems to contradict what one believes they already know.
If you do not remain neutral throughout as described, your results will be biased in favor of your pre-existing assumptions.
The scientific method does not work in a vacuum . It ultimately depends on methodically correct and consistent analytical procedures for it to be of any use as a tool.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Unfortunately, yes. For a useful result, it is vital that you should make no assumptions one way or another at the outset of your investigation as to truth or falsity of any of the information or "evidence" supplied by myself [or whomever] and then reviewed by yourself - and make no assumptions/ conclusions as to truth or falsity until all [or at least the vast majority] of evidence is in and has been closely analyzed. In my own mind [at least!] that would be a methodologically correct procedure to undertake when reviewing any/all purported "facts" and "evidence" about 911. [At least for someone interested in scientific investigation and procedure] You cannot assume that I, or anyone else is telling the truth- you must remain neutral throughout and only draw conclusions once all the evidence is in and has been closely looked at , weighed against other evidence , then accepted or rejected accordingly.
I don't think you are understanding the definition of circular logic.
Snowflake:Math >> speculative nonsense
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories? Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"?
Anyone claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e. not masterminded by Bin Laden.
corleonebrother:Anyone claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e. not masterminded by Bin Laden.