JackSkylark:I know this is a little off topic, but I'm curious as to what to what you make of non WTC centric conspiracy theories. Such as the relationship between the Bin Ladin family to the US government - both as a contractor and as an asset against the Soviets. Or, even more off topic, what about Israeli spying and supposed knowledge of an attack? Pakistani involvement?
I have not found any evidence to support these claims. The Bin Laden family and Osama Bin Laden are two different subjects. If you are friends with a girl who you later find out has an estranged brother who commits mass murder, does that implicate you in the murders? It is illogical. But in regards to the US funding of Afghan freedom fighters vs the Soviets, the money and weapons we provided were given to middle eastern governments who distributed it.
Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash (CNN) Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth (FOX News)The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden (U.S. State Department)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech:The top of the south tower was still connected to the rest of the building, it is not a separate "cardboard box". Why would the likely path not be in the direction of gravity?
I assume you support the pancaking theory? Well regardless, the top is connected until the initiation of collapse in which case under the pancake theory it becomes the initiating mass. It was sledgehammer that started smashing floors and at that point is disconnected. Even if pancaking isn't what you think happened, the disconnected mass supports your theory not mine, being fully connected wouldn't lend as well to a straight down collapse.
Straight down is not the most likely path because the plane strike was off center and because below the plane strike is tons of steel making it the path of most resistance, the easiest way would be to topple.
Poptech,
I don't have much time to reply. I read what you linked, but what do you say about some of the leaked documents describing CIA operations within Afghanastan during the Soviet invasion? Or about 'inside' sources like Sibel Edmonds, who recently gave an interview with 'The American Conservative' stating that Osama Bin Laden as well as other members of the Bin Ladin family were assets for the CIA in central Asia and Bosnia?
twistedbydsign99:I assume you support the pancaking theory? Well regardless, the top is connected until the initiation of collapse in which case under the pancake theory it becomes the initiating mass. It was sledgehammer that started smashing floors and at that point is disconnected. Even if pancaking isn't what you think happened, the disconnected mass supports your theory not mine, being fully connected wouldn't lend as well to a straight down collapse.
I support the conclusions of the NIST report which is not the pancake theory.
NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs - Supplement (August 30, 2006) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
NIST:Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
It also did not collapse completely straight down, each tower collapse in the direction where they were weakened.
JackSkylark:I don't have much time to reply. I read what you linked, but what do you say about some of the leaked documents describing CIA operations within Afghanastan during the Soviet invasion? Or about 'inside' sources like Sibel Edmonds, who recently gave an interview with 'The American Conservative' stating that Osama Bin Laden as well as other members of the Bin Ladin family were assets for the CIA in central Asia and Bosnia?
What leaked documents?
Sibel Edmunds was a translator who revealed security breaches and corruption.
"The problems were systemic problems that existed within the FBI's translation units that involve security breaches and also incompetence. These were the problems I reported," - Sibel Edmunds
The Bin Laden claims I believe she is getting third party as her previous interviews and under oath testimony do not mention these and the poorly worded American Conservative Article has ridiculous statements like this.
"When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA."
Um, no those are two different bureaucracies, implying something when something else was clearly stated is propaganda. I would like to see her properly interviewed not by someone who freely substitutes words to create controversy.
Dr Reynolds and N.I.S.T.
On the subject of the N.I.S.T. and its " 911 investigation", [yet again!] - regarding the dreamt of impartiality of involved institutions funded by the government who unanimously parrot the official story, Mr Reynolds , an ex "high up" government insider himself , has this to say :
"Scientific Cover Up"
To anyone out there who has problems undersanding this, please read the praxeaology sections of "Human Action" or similar.
The bald fact is ALL government agencies routinely lie, as do all organizations that receive funding and/or protection from it.
Believing any governmental [eg FBI, CIA etc.] or quasi governmental {eg NIST, MIT etc.}agency about anything, including its version of 9/11 , merely because you want to believe it/them, is a major thinking error , especially for "libertarians", "Austrian " economists, and "anarcho-capitalists".
Please, get a grip people
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: To anyone out there who has problems undersanding this, please read the praxeaology sections of "Human Action" or similar. The bald fact is ALL government agencies routinely lie, as do all organizations that receive funding and/or protection from it. Believing any governmental or quasi governmental agency about anything, including its version of 9/11 , merely because you want to believe it/them, is a major thinking error , especially for "libertarians", "Austrian " economists, and "anarcho-capitalists". Please, get a grip people
Believing any governmental or quasi governmental agency about anything, including its version of 9/11 , merely because you want to believe it/them, is a major thinking error , especially for "libertarians", "Austrian " economists, and "anarcho-capitalists".
Please get a grip Dr. Reynolds.
Dr. Reynolds: Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.”
What is dishonest is misusing an MIT study to prove your case then calling them liars.
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. Economics vs. Hundreds of Structural Engineers and Professors in Physics and Engineering.
NIST:Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
That's a blatant appeal to authority Poptech. You'll have to do better in debate.
liberty student:That's a blatant appeal to authority Poptech. You'll have to do better in debate.
Outside of disproving every single one of his conspiracy theories?
So in the real world they hire economists to build and design buildings? They hire economists to analyze why a building would collapse? Really?
Maybe I should appeal to Mises or Austrian Economists in a debate about Physics and Engineering?
Perhaps we should just stick to the arguments put forth. Very few economists would argue "because Mises said so" likewise very few would say "2,000 Keynesians vs ...."
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Dr Reynolds and N.I.S.T. On the subject of the N.I.S.T. and its " 911 investigation", [yet again!] - regarding the dreamt of impartiality of involved institutions funded by the government who unanimously parrot the official story, Mr Reynolds , an ex "high up" government insider himself , has this to say : "Scientific Cover Up" "Why would scientists at FEMA, NIST, Purdue University and MIT lie? The answers are simple: • They are government employees, consultants or federally-funded scientists paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government. • Unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic and evidence, theories supported by evidence that point to explosives, demolition and non-Big-Boeing causation are neither discussed nor discredited. They are simply ignored. While every theory does not require careful analysis, ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest." [emphasis added]. source To anyone out there who has problems undersanding this, please read the praxeaology sections of "Human Action" or similar. The bald fact is ALL government agencies routinely lie, as do all organizations that receive funding and/or protection from it. Believing any governmental [eg FBI, CIA etc.] or quasi governmental {eg NIST, MIT etc.}agency about anything, including its version of 9/11 , merely because you want to believe it/them, is a major thinking error , especially for "libertarians", "Austrian " economists, and "anarcho-capitalists". Please, get a grip people
Speaking of which, from Lewrockwell.com, today Thursday, 09/24/ 09
"In John Farmer’s book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11?, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
"Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes."
[This of course is no surprise to myself, it is standard operating procedure for government agencies everywhere
Complete Lew Rockwell article here
9/11 is so completely untrue it happened on 9/12.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:"In John Farmer’s book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11?, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
That is interesting so why would he say this?
"Well, let me just say that I think the [9-11 Commission] report is, extremely accurate and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found."
- John Farmer
I am disappointed to see this posted at Lew Rockwell.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Dr Reynolds and N.I.S.T. On the subject of the N.I.S.T. and its " 911 investigation", [yet again!] - regarding the dreamt of impartiality of involved institutions funded by the government who unanimously parrot the official story, Mr Reynolds , an ex "high up" government insider himself , has this to say : "Scientific Cover Up" "Why would scientists at FEMA, NIST, Purdue University and MIT lie? The answers are simple: • They are government employees, consultants or federally-funded scientists paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government. • Unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic and evidence, theories supported by evidence that point to explosives, demolition and non-Big-Boeing causation are neither discussed nor discredited. They are simply ignored. While every theory does not require careful analysis, ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest." [emphasis added]. source To anyone out there who has problems undersanding this, please read the praxeaology sections of "Human Action" or similar. The bald fact is ALL government agencies routinely lie, as do all organizations that receive funding and/or protection from it. Believing any governmental [eg FBI, CIA etc.] or quasi governmental {eg NIST, MIT etc.}agency about anything, including its version of 9/11 , merely because you want to believe it/them, is a major thinking error , especially for "libertarians", "Austrian " economists, and "anarcho-capitalists". Please, get a grip people Speaking of which, from Lewrockwell.com, today Thursday, 09/24/ 09 The 9/11 Commission Rejects Own Report as Based on Government Lies "In John Farmer’s book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11?, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue... The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. "Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes." [This of course is no surprise to myself, it is standard operating procedure for government agencies everywhere Complete Lew Rockwell article here
Bump [sorry] . The only reason for this bump is because the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the recent post listings, since yesterday [09/24] .I searched the last 4 days, but had posted in the last day {24th Sept}] so this is an experiment to see if it reappears. Again, pardon
X-Rated Thread?
After test bump [previous post] to see if thread reappeared I signed out - checked the thread and it was there - for about 5 secs. Then gone!
So I signed back in, and the thread becomes fully visible again [in recent posts.]
Whats going on guys, an administrative conspiracy- or have you all deemed it x -rated and not for viewing by casual readers?
Who cares about bumping your debunked nonsense.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:an administrative conspiracy
The thread is now private, and placed in the graveyard. A mod moved it there on 9/24.
So, no conspiracy. Just someone who I think had either had enough of the topic, the discussion or your use of the forums as a promotional tool for your personal agenda.
out of curiosity, what's the rational behind locking up old threads? is this an etiquette thing?
It is an etiquette thing and it is also bad form when people use the forum to promote their views and not to engage in discussion. I don't have a problem with civil and intelligent 9/11 discussion.
yes. i noticed and admired your open-mindedness on this subject.
Why would anyone give a crap what an economist has to say about this?
Unless Dr. Reynolds has been trained in structural engineering, munitions, or some such he litterally has zero weight on this subject.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Student:Why would anyone give a crap what an economist has to say about this? Unless Dr. Reynolds has been trained in structural engineering, munitions, or some such he litterally has zero weight on this subject.
That's an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.
Liberty Student: Student:Why would anyone give a crap what an economist has to say about this? Unless Dr. Reynolds has been trained in structural engineering, munitions, or some such he litterally has zero weight on this subject. That's an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.
No, it's not.
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm#authority
Using Dr. Reynolds as a source for technical discussions pertaining to the events of 9/11 is a misuse of authority though since he is not an expert on any of the things Student mentioned. Please read the example below.
Compare these two paragraphs: I saw that my English professor has a yard sign for Nicholson for city council, so that's who I'm going to vote for. No, I'm not going to go see the theater production of "Twelfth Night." My English professor says that Shakespeare's comedies are worthless. The first is misuse of authority (the professor is no authority on local politics), the second is irrational appeal to authority (the authority that comes from being an English professor has to be considered in light of the professor's clear rejection of standard expert opinion on this topic).
The first is misuse of authority (the professor is no authority on local politics), the second is irrational appeal to authority (the authority that comes from being an English professor has to be considered in light of the professor's clear rejection of standard expert opinion on this topic).
justinx0r: Liberty Student: Student:Why would anyone give a crap what an economist has to say about this? Unless Dr. Reynolds has been trained in structural engineering, munitions, or some such he litterally has zero weight on this subject. That's an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy. No, it's not.
Uhm yes it is. Read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I love this bit
A related fallacy is appeal to accomplishment, in which Person A claims that Person B cannot criticize Person C, because Person B lacks the authority to criticize, as evidenced by an absence of accomplishments equivalent to those of Person C. It is a restated version of the second form of argument from authority, though adding the assumption that accomplishments bring about authority (thereby begging the question).
Either way, poor argumentation from Student, and frankly, he is very bright and should know better IMO.
Sometimes I can't figure out if you guys are playing dumb, playing smart, or just trollin'.
liberty student wrote the following post at Tue, Apr 12 2011 1:17 AM: justinx0r: Liberty Student: Student:Why would anyone give a crap what an economist has to say about this? Unless Dr. Reynolds has been trained in structural engineering, munitions, or some such he litterally has zero weight on this subject. That's an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy. No, it's not. Uhm yes it is. Read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority I love this bit A related fallacy is appeal to accomplishment, in which Person A claims that Person B cannot criticize Person C, because Person B lacks the authority to criticize, as evidenced by an absence of accomplishments equivalent to those of Person C. It is a restated version of the second form of argument from authority, though adding the assumption that accomplishments bring about authority (thereby begging the question). Either way, poor argumentation from Student, and frankly, he is very bright and should know better IMO. Sometimes I can't figure out if you guys are playing dumb, playing smart, or just trollin'. Well then we're using two different words for the same thing. Wittengenstein would not be pleased! | Post Points: 5
Well then we're using two different words for the same thing. Wittengenstein would not be pleased!
the no-plane argument merely requires that one examine the image and whether this is likely to be a digital artifact or a real plane crash.
i've not seen any characteristic wake-vortex in the resulting mushroom cloud to indicate the plane is real. this is a physical effect that can't be wished away.
i doubt most here have even bothered to read reynolds' archived material on 9/11. it includes interviews with pilots, aeronautical engineers and lawyers.
newson: the no-plane argument merely requires that one examine the image and whether this is likely to be a digital artifact or a real plane crash. i've not seen any characteristic wake-vortex in the resulting mushroom cloud to indicate the plane is real. this is a physical effect that can't be wished away. i doubt most here have even bothered to read reynolds' archived material on 9/11. it includes interviews with pilots, aeronautical engineers and lawyers.
Newson: "Merely requires"
Hah!. You assume too much! [your assumption could lead to unhappiness, depression etc.].
It is much harder than you assume, psychologically speaking, for most individuals , once they have made up their mind about something, for them to then throw out everything they think they "know", and examine either old, or new evidence or theory with a completely open mind.
Even persons who have successfully done this in one area of their lives [say, economic theory] , are seemingly unable , by and large, to start over and review the 911 photographic and video record with completely open minds, let alone a "legal", Bill of Rights type mindset that automatically disbelieves all of the government story as a matter of course right from the start, and routinely holds the government to a higher standard of truth. There is a bigger lesson to be learned here, perhaps. regards, onebornfree
i really only heard about the no-planes theory quite recently. i'd long been unhappy with the official conspiracy version, which i always regarded as risible. initially, the possibility that this could be a media/government psy-op seemed so totally outrageous that i almost didn't bother to acquaint myself properly with the argument. when i did, i found it the most compelling and logical of all scenarios, but the most ideologically challenging. things are much worse than i'd even imagined, and my worldview is not panglossian.
i devoured all of morgan reynolds' site, and also that of gerard holmgren, as well as the september clues series. i think holmgren makes good ponts as to the brilliance of this ploy. the few who espouse this view can easily be marginalized, and most people will overide their sense of logic to preserve some sense of emotional stability. the 911 truthers can be lead off in safer, more manageable directions by prostitutes with megaphones.
newson: i really only heard about the no-planes theory quite recently. i'd long been unhappy with the official conspiracy version, which i always regarded as risible. initially, the possibility that this could be a media/government psy-op seemed so totally outrageous that i almost didn't bother to acquaint myself properly with the argument. when i did, i found it the most compelling and logical of all scenarios, but the most ideologically challenging. things are much worse than i'd even imagined, and my worldview is not panglossian. i devoured all of morgan reynolds' site, and also that of gerard holmgren, as well as the september clues series. i think holmgren makes good ponts as to the brilliance of this ploy. the few who espouse this view can easily be marginalized, and most people will overide their sense of logic to preserve some sense of emotional stability. the 911 truthers can be lead off in safer, more manageable directions by prostitutes with megaphones.
You appear to have come a long way in a short time. You perhaps need to understand that your degree of intellectual curiosity , open-mindedness, and need to dispel your own ongoing dissatisfaction with the official story, instead of just ignoring that feeling, is highly unusual, as you might be able to gather from most of the replies here.
Most do not have the interest, the time, nor the curiosity to investigate what they already know, and appear to have little incentive to re-examine the issue, or they simply view it as "a threat" to "their" "movement" [or whatever], but not to worry, it's just human nature, that's all.
newson said: "things are much worse than i'd even imagined, " .
Yes. It can be an intense shock to the system, even for a devout anarchist, if and when they come to recognize that most, if not all of the "live" network footage shown that day was actually manufactured beforehand on computers. Most , of course, will never understand this, or even want to try. Perhaps it is better that way.
newson said: "i devoured all of morgan reynolds' site, and also that of gerard holmgren, as well as the september clues series. "
All are good sources. You may not yet have seen this analysis by Killtown, of the impossible physics of the purported second strike[its very short]: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html
It's the one that put me "over the edge" so to speak.
My only disagreement with Morgan Reynolds is that he seems to assume that the collapse sequence video footage [i.e. WTC 1,2, 7 etc.] is real, when in fact examination of it all [putting aside for the moment the sheer impossibility of 1300 ft, 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings collapsing to ground level in under 20 secs, even via controlled demolition], reveals even more inconsistencies and anomalies than are present in the "plane into building" videos such as the one linked to above.
The September Clues video covers most of those collapse sequence video impossibilities/inconsistencies very thoroughly, I believe.
My question for Dr. Reynolds is something like: " if you know that the plane into building videos are all fakes, why on earth would you assume otherwise regarding the building collapse sequences?" Does not make sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. Regards, onebornfree.
before being won over by the no-planes argument, i'd been sort of agnostic about the towers' collapse (discounting the idea that kerosene alone could have been responsible, pace popular mechanics).
having embraced the idea of active demolition, to date i've found the judy wood lectures most revealing. the questions raised by her seem entirely legitimate. that she's been treated as a pariah doesn't faze me.
wtc site rehabilitation has been extremely problematic (steel on fire at deutsche bank in 2007). i found the pictures of painted, steel girders rusting immediately and site-haze - years after the event - quite inexplicable and suspicious. subway rebuilt four times? that should have raised eyebrows.
sadly, i feel whatever the novel technology used that resulted in ground zero was meant as a message to the highest echelons of foreign nations. a not-so-subtle warning, much like the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs were signaling stalin, not the emperor.
LS,
And from the same Wikipedia article:
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises whefn it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
If I had said "clearly Dr. Reynolds is wrong because he has no experience" then you would have a point. But I didn't say that. I said that his opinion has holds no weight. Or to put it another way, there is nothing to suggest his opinion will be any more informed on this topic than the average joe schmoe.
I unfortunately dont have the time (or mental capacity) to evaluate the validity of every argument I come across. But often these arguments can have very important consequences for me and my life (if the govt lied to us about 9/11 that is a pretty big deal). So I have to find a way of comming to conclusions--like weighting people's opinion based on their relevant experience.
Not perfect, but the best i can do.
newson: before being won over by the no-planes argument, i'd been sort of agnostic about the towers' collapse (discounting the idea that kerosene alone could have been responsible, pace popular mechanics). having embraced the idea of active demolition, to date i've found the judy wood lectures most revealing. the questions raised by her seem entirely legitimate. that she's been treated as a pariah doesn't faze me. wtc site rehabilitation has been extremely problematic (steel on fire at deutsche bank in 2007). i found the pictures of painted, steel girders rusting immediately and site-haze - years after the event - quite inexplicable and suspicious. subway rebuilt four times? that should have raised eyebrows. sadly, i feel whatever the novel technology used that resulted in ground zero was meant as a message to the highest echelons of foreign nations. a not-so-subtle warning, much like the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs were signaling stalin, not the emperor.
As I said, you have come a long way in a very short time.
I understand the attraction of Prof. Wood's argument [I was an avid fan for a while], but try to keep in mind, before you paint yourself completely into a corner with this, that all of her claims are based on the dangerous assumption that the tower collapse videos are genuine [when a close analysis of them leads. to the conclusion that most likely they are fakes, just like all of the " plane into building" videos].
Besides which, in my opinion it is wrong [i.e.bad science], methodoligically speaking, for professional scientists [for example N.I.S.T., J. Wood or S.Jones] to automatically assume that the collapse sequences that most of their conclusions are drawn from are genuine, especially in light of the fact that , at least as far as Prof. Wood is concerned, she already knows that the "plane into building" videos are all obvious fakes. All of that collapse sequence footage should have been rigorously scrutinized, frame by frame by the scientists concerned _before_ any serious conclusions were allowed to be drawn from it. This was, of course, never done, even by Ms Wood.
P.S. the collapse videos being fake would not necessarily disprove Prof. Wood's theory [obviously the towers etc. were deliberately demolished _somehow_] - it would only mean that the video footage she routinely uses to "prove" her theory cannot be trusted to verify that claim [i.e. the use of secret energy weapons to demolish the towers. ], there are simply too many plainly visible problems with that collapse sequence footage that tend to point in the direction of "fake", to be ignored, in my opinion.
Besides , there are plenty of other problems with her theory other than the question of the authenticity of the footage she uses to reach her conclusions. Regards, onebornfree
i've been staggered by some of these shots of the damage - cars on fire, surrounded by unsinged paper, and molten engine blocks with intact upholstery. strange stuff, indeed.
http://is.gd/daUwfO
i'm not taking a stand on the visuals of the demolition itself (undecided), but the aftermath does show a notable lack of rubble. and the seismic footprint doesn't seem right.
i'm open to the proposition that some of the victims (though not all) are non-existent, and some witnesses actors. i found hani farid's site quite interesting. real-life or green-screen?
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/tampering.html
this morph is disquieting:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/cgorphoto.html
No one knows the initial conditions of the problem due to structural creep. Also show me any physics simulator that does PVT calculations simultaneously with deformation and statics... also throw in chemical changes just4kix cus stuff is burning. Oh wait. There is no simulator that does all these things because the most state of the art physical simulators I know of - reservoir simulators - don't even do all that.
Anyone who says they're sure about the physics is bsing.
Or to put it another way, there is nothing to suggest his opinion will be any more informed on this topic than the average joe schmoe.
Aye: This is assuming tht there hasn't been good reason given for an economist or Dr. Reynolds specifically (which there may have been, haven't seen all the links or read much past the 1st page) to be used.
I think a good example is something like this:
"My French Teacher says that all Sea Otter's are mammal's". Unless you are simply stating a fact of life about your French teacher this comes off as almost a form of a non sequiter I think. If you are trying to discuss in a broad universal format as to what is or is not a mammal, you are adding unnecessary (or maybe even gibberish) info to the language. It really is on the burden of the one presenting their case to state why the French Teacher is brought in, in the 1st place for us to understand where one is comming from.
Once again if what is trying to communicate is something like:
A) Austrians who believe 9/11 was an inside job
B) Facts about the life of Dr Murphy
than you are fine
Otherwise, you are better off to just dump the name and use the arguments he presented for yourself, otherwise you are giving confusing language signals. There is nothing wrong with getting your ideas from more esoteric ways or from "non experts" (we all probably do this frequently) they just can't be used in a more universal "language"
i've seen that killtown clip and it's point is well-made. on the fake planes, i've crossed the rubicon, and nothing i've seen has yet convinced me to turn back.
it goes without saying that my beliefs about 9/11 have nothing to do with austrian economics.