Gatekeepers Explained
The 9-11 conspiracy theorists always complain about "Lefty Gatekeepers" like Noam Chomsky, Democracy Now, etc., who are keeping their 9-11 Denial theories from entering the Left mainstream.
As it happens, there are Righty Gatekeepers as well, who are preventing crackpot right-wing conspiracies from entering the mainstream as well. Over at Brainster's Blog, I've been recently debunking a conspiracy theory pushed by Jerome Corsi, among others, that posits that President Bush is about to erase the borders with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Union.
Now one of those Righty Gatekeepers has admitted exactly why he doesn't allow conservative crackpots (as he considers Corsi) on his show (scroll down to Michael Medved's comment of Friday, January, 05, 2007 12:16 AM):
Kooks and Wackos on the Medved Show?
As Escovado accurately points out, I've had plenty of "kooks and wackos" on my show but you'll notice they're all ON THE LEFT -- or at least far outside the Republican Party. To feature lunatics and demagogues who also claim to be Republicans (despite their association with Third Party losers like Gilchrist and Howard Phillips and so on) only serves to discredit the Republican Party. People like Corsi are already doing that dirty work (discrediting the GOP) without my promoting the process any further. When lefties and Dems discredit themselves on the air, that helps the overall conservative cause. When moon bats who identify as GOP'ers embarrass themselves with their ravings about "treason" amd "the end of sovereignty" and "premeditated merger," that hurts the conservative cause. I want to help, not hurt, the party and principles to which I've committed my life.
And that is exactly why Lefty Gatekeepers do not support 9-11 Denial; because they don't want their side associated with nutbars like Uncle Fetzer, Kevin Barrett and Dylan Avery. And this is precisely why Bill O'Reilly is happy to have these kooks appear on his show.
posted by Pat @ 8:38 AM
65 comments
65 Comments:
Pat does this mean you believe there are press Gatekeepers on both sides of the political spectrum?
Isn't that a bit...conspiratorial?
Isn't that a bit...conspiratorial?
See, that's the thing. It's not a conspiracy. Medved and Amy Goodman and Chomsky and whoever don't all go away to some retreat and agree that they'll keep the wingnuts from their respective "sides" from gaining publicity. Individually, on each wingnut, each of them decides not to have someone on because, well, because the wingnuts are nucking futz. Democracy Now regularly reports on every stupid government scandal as if it was proof that the Republic has failed. Do you seriously believe that they'd exclude the 9-11 deniers if they thought for a second that their charges had even a scintilla of merit?
I think "gatekeeper" is truther parlance for "has standards".
No offense but that was addressed to Pat.
Hey Manny, Chomsky was in Hustler too!
Him and Louder Than Words do have something in common!
Dylan, thanks for not calling me a Douchebag. Turning over a new leaf? ;P
By the way, how is that a bait? It is a simple question, is it not?
CHF, again the same tactic. Please repost where you have proven me wrong or where I have purposefuly lied to the readers of the blog?
Or please post the fraudlent information I have posted.
If you can do so and explain your statement that I am a 'fraud', I will issue an apology on this blog for posting fraudlent information.
Until then, I await for that which you can not do.
And yes, CHF, I'm very familiar with Noam's works.
Have I cracked the case as you would like to present dishonestly to your readers? Of course not.
My activities on here are to be intellectualy entertained by the likes of yourself and others. Some items and people I agree with at times and some times I disagree. I do feel the need to correct the many of the illogical statements and thinking folks like yourself and the OS present regarding many of the issues of 9/11. It is your mental capacity to see, accept, and continue the same line of thinking or to change your thinking.
Does that make me fraud? Of course not. What does that say about you for calling me a fraud?
1. You have a very skewed point of view about people who don't agree with you and your ilk on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.
2. You can't argue with me or my points due to a lack of intellect, or ability, or facts, or knowlege or or desire or any combination above.
This of course leads to personal attacks, which everyone knows is the response to those who are have those characteristics listed in point 2.
And one other item, take that million dollar challenge and prove explosives weren't used in WTC 1,2, and 7.
And as you all accept and support FEMA and the NIST reports, do you also accept the EPA's report about the air qualitity of New York City after the attacks?
Would you have defended that report as well had it not been shown to be one huge lie from the Bush Administration?
Doesn't that not prove to you that at least this Administration and the folks that work for it are capabale of lying and will do so for nefarious purposes or simply to follow orders and to protect one's career?
And if so, you can understand now why people question the FEMA and NIST reports and its integrity?
If the truthers think they have irrefutable evidence that the administration was behind it, then why haven't they filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of the victims? They claim most of the family members support them.
Out for the evening!
Peace!
And one other item, take that million dollar challenge and prove explosives weren't used in WTC 1,2, and 7.
You ever hear the term "proving a negative"?
I offer you a million dollars to prove that the WTC was not brought down by millions of Keebler elves with nail files.
What I find interesting is, if this conspiricy is as vast as the freaks say and would of had to involve so many people who would be willing to kill all those people. It could have been 25000 people. How long would it take to find enough people willing to do this? How many agencys would be involved? can we really believe that all these people could keep a secret like this? Is all of DC involved? All of the senators and congressman?
It would have taken years to plan something this large not the 6-8 months W was in office. Just go gather and screen enough people who were willing to do it would take a very long time let alone all the planing it would take.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-
9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=4&catID=4
The best for last, Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated. … only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "
And you've got these floor trusses, made of fairly thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the impact. And you have all this open space-clear span from perimeter to core-with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid right through that space to the core, which doesn't have any reinforced concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working-the sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are likely cut. So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below-bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall."
Loizeaux said that when he demolishes buildings he sometimes tries to make the top twist and fall sideways, which can generate enough "reverse thrust" to push the rest of the building the other way. "The top part of the south tower almost did fall off, which is what would happen in most buildings. Did you see how, when that top part started to fall, it began to rotate? If that piece had kept going out, it probably would have pushed the rest of the building the other way as it fell. But those long trusses saved the day-they gave way, guided that top downward just like a bullet through the barrel of a gun, and mitigated the damage." He added, "Let me tell you something. Far more people would have died if those buildings had been built differently. A conventional frame building would have fallen immediately-no question. Only a tube structure could have taken that hit and survived."
SD, of course there are press gatekeepers. But they are not conspiring; they are making individual decisions as to what they will allow on their show. Some hosts (e.g., Mike Malloy and Alan Colmes) will debate folks who make their own side look nutty, perhaps because they are a little nutty themselves.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SO Swing, just so we are clear, our bet is as follows:
1. If Canada/USA/Mexico MERGE to form one union/country within 10 years I owe you $100.
BUT;
2. If by 2017, Canada is still it's own, independent nation, than I win $100 from you...
Correct?
TAM
Chf
People who have to brag about how intelliget they are, usually are very insecure and not nearly as smart as they would like us to believe
When Noam Chomsky or Democracy Now think your ideas are stupid, then those ideas are actually really fucking stupid
Chf
I have been an E/M engineer for some 40+ years so I have a fair grasp of how this happened after looking at as much info as I can from both sides. SD is truly a master at word play and makeing things sound good on the surface but every time you get down to the real nuts and bolts, the whaks totally fall apart.
Anyone could ask questions after looking at any pik of an aircraft crash, just because people can ask questions does not mean a thing. Most of the questions asked by the toofers have been answered in great detail but because the answers do not fit what the toofers believe, they are wrong. All have been debunked by experts over and over. Repeating them over and over and never looking at the real evidence does not make them true.
How many real experts have they put forth with hard data to support their theories, NADA.
For example heve you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl
SolidWorks, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. There are things called Addins that allow these programs to input the actual flight profile into the animation so that the model will follow it exactly
By superimposing the actual piks over the animation clearly shows the animation to be acurate but samasshole simply does not have the knowledge to understand
What he does not realize is that Mike used a satillite shot of the pent to show the posotion of everything so the lite pole position is 100%.
Another good reason is because it's nuts.
Yes SteveW, and with those programs that the NIST used, you can tweak the data to match the desired output. I can see it now in the deep dark labs of NIST-
"Well boys that criteria doesn't give us the result. Change this variable here."
*click click on the computer*
"Get it yet guys?"
"Nope."
"Hell still no global collapse?"
"Here, try this."
*click click on the computer*
"Hey we got something here!"
"Did it collapse?"
"Yeah it finally did!"
"Great, then this is what happened, now got tell the world."
"Uhh sir, we inputed extra energy from explosive devices."
"Oh shit, scrap that one. Hey better yet, lets not examine the collapse behavior and just the mechanism for collapse."
"Ok sir. Planes and fire started the collapse."
"Good goood. Go with it. Now delete that explosive data you inputed."
CHF So we are back to labeling people child molesters eh? I thought you were mature enough to move past that but apparently not.
Again, CHF, back to the name calling? Do I dare waste the time pointing out the maturity level and reasons to make such comments? Of course not. Calling an opponent a child molestor is something a fraud would say, not an expert in nothing such as yourself. You really are pathetic at debating.
Again, post the claim that I made about having the truth? I said I believe explosives were used in the WTC 1 and 2, and I believe that WTC 7 was a classic CD. STOP LYING! I never once claimed I knew more than experts. You lie again. Now in all fairness early on I did argue for CD of 1 and 2, but it appears more and more it wasn't that, but the explosion of buildings. See I'm open minded!
Research the largest buidling ever to be CD'ed, and think for a momement if the same strategy woudl be used for the WTC towers, if they were indeed CDed.
Hey CHF did the NIST consider explosives in the equations? Nope.
Did the NIST examine the numerous eyewitness and statements, seismic spikes, and videoography, as well as the behavior of the collapse? Why did 3 notable experts in their field orginally believe that explosives were involved?
It doesn't appear to m that the NIST considered any of the evidence for explosives, or they would have tested a hypothesis for explosives used at the WTC.
What is wrong with testing that hypothesis in the first place considering it is the crime of the century? NOTHING!
Hey by the way, what did cause that fucking mushroom cloud at the top of those towers? I've never seen that before from a building that has collapsed due to gravity alone.
Again, CHF, back to the name calling? Do I dare waste the time pointing out the maturity level and reasons to make such comments? Of course not. Calling an opponent a child molestor is something a fraud would say, not an expert in nothing such as yourself.
I'm also awaiting your proof showing to the loyal readers that I am a fraud. Either repost it, or accept your label as a liar.
Hey PAT, will you be deleting CHF's comments accusing me of being a Child Molester after your numerous requests in the past to halt such comments? For some reason I don't think you will.
Again, if you believe the OS, make a million dollars and travel to
www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm
CHF, nice dodge on the challenge. Questioning the intention of payout is certainly a reason to avoid the challenge, correct? That is comical to the hilt!
The money will be paid if you can prove explosives weren't used in the WTC complex. Now why haven't any experts taken up that challenge, and simply collected the money? I mean as solid as a case that the OS presents, that is like a free winning lottery ticket, is it not?
JamesB Not caught up on your philosophy classes eh?
Proving Negatives:There are several famous negative "proofs" that are accepted by the entire scientific community:
If I prove that I am at point A, that proves I am not at point B.
If one claims that there is an elephant in a room and we enter the room to find that it is empty, that proves there is not an elephant in the room.
More examples: . Mathematics, there does not exist any real number x s.t. xx = -1.
Proof: x can be either positive, negative or zero.
if x = 0, xx = 0. x cannot be zero.
if x>0, xx > 0. x cannot be positive.
if x<0, let y = -x, then x = (-1)y. Hence xx = (-1)y(-1)y = (-1)(-1)yy = yy. y > 0, hence yy > 0. x cannot be negative.
Therefore there exists no real number x s.t. xx = -1.
Look! We just proved a negative!
2. Water is not fatal to humans.
Proof:
A. I am human.
B. I have, and indeed are, drinking water.
C. I am alive.
Therefore water is not fatal to humans.
Source:http://forums.philosophyforums.com
/comments.php?post=250094
Now go out there and get that easy million folks! It shouldn't be that hard if the OS is true and 100% factual. What expert wouldn't want to collect a cool million?
Pat And what do you suppose is the criteria that these Gatekeepers use to decide what is presented to the public and what is not?
Lying Dylan aside from the physical threats you wish upon me, what meaningful contribution to the discussion do you bring? Nevermind, the answer is zero. Oh and I've never spit on anyones grave.
I also see that all of you avoided the questions regarding the various reports as well. Kudos!
SteveW You have become a master at saying nothing. Please provdide specific examples of that which you accuse me of. Am I bragging about intellect? Well I don't think so. I use the basis of my posts and the OSers response to make that statement. I think the proof is in the responses to my questions or to some of the comments on the blog.
SteveW Lets read what our good friend Mark had to say before your trusted source:
A big question for implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Phoenix, Md., is why the twin towers appeared to have collapsed in such different ways.
Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.
Source:http://www.contruction.com/NewsCenter/
Headlines/ENR/20010913e.asp
Yet a few days later, he claims he knows exactly what happen. Did he time warp back and figure it out? Two, why do we both have conflicting sources for his comments?
First Thoughts of Top Experts:
Top Structural Engineers to Do Autopsy
On Twin Towers to Assess Why They Fell
By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN, THOMAS M. BURTON and JONATHAN EIG
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Ronald Hamburger turned on his television on the day of the attack just in time
to watch the collapse of the second World Trade Center tower.
"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger.Upon learning that no
bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings
"certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."
Appearently he missed all of the evidence of explosives as well. And besides, who confirmed that no explosives were used?
Point being, this guy thought there were explosives.
And another:
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
(C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal
Remember that was his opinion!
10 days later he makes this comment:
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
But under careful reading, explosives is exactly what Romero thought was used at least in his opinion. But on 9/21 prior to any official report or study, it is fire and planes. What would cause some one to have a professional expert opinion on WTC 1 and 2 and then change their mind before any studies are released 10 days later? http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/
retractions/romero.html
Finally, Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer (where would this be located in relation to the impact) or other source of combustion within the building.
What other source of combustion has the energy to trigger a collapse?
I await your further personal attacks!
Which theory do you endorse?
Collapse Theories
Theories Purport to Explain the Unexplainable
All theories to be taken seriously must explain the collapses of the Twin Towers as the result of some chain of events triggered by the jet collisions. To this end a variety of "theories" have been advanced. They range from vague notions of forces too immense to imagine, to partial explanations with huge gaps filled in by hand-waving, but are nevertheless dignified by publication.
* Core meltdown is more a notion than a theory. It is invoked through comparing the heat of the building fires to that of nuclear power plants, and supposes that the fires melted the structural steel. This theory can be used in conjunction with a pancake theory, but usually the idea of core meltdown is so compelling by itself that the pancake scenario isn't required. Since the core meltdown theory isn't endorsed by any official government report, it is frequently used in straw-man attacks against challenges to the official story, as in articles in Scientific American and Popular Mechanics .
* The progressive collapse theory is the root of all the official building collapse theories. The mass of the overhanging part of the building simply crushes the part underneath, accelerating as it falls. The two major variants of the progressive collapse theory are the and the truss failure theory, endorsed by FEMA, column failure theory, endorsed by NIST.
o The column failure theory holds that the fires weakened the columns on at least one floor sufficiently to cause the columns to buckle, and the upper section of the building to come falling down. To explain how all the columns on one level could suddenly collapse, column failure theories sometimes feature collapse initiation theories.
+ The creep buckling theory explains how the weakening of some columns due to heat could cause them to buckle, starting the spread of a kind of buckle contagion through the remaining columns.
+ The progressing column instability theory is apparently very similar to the creep buckling theory, but allows the columns to spread failure contagion without buckling. This theory is a key ingredient in NIST's Global Analysis .
Once the columns fail in unison, it is still necessary to crush the rest of the tower from top to bottom.
+ The pile-driver theory supposes that the top of each tower acted like a giant battering ram, crushing the intact portion of the tower from top to bottom.
o The truss failure theory blames trusses under the floors, which are more easily heated than columns, and/or their connections to the columns. The failure of the floor trusses precipitates a chain reaction of floors falling on one another, which in turn leads to total building collapse. The truss failure theory is better known as the pancake theory. To explain how a whole floor could fall, despite uneven fire stress, requires a truss failure contagion theory.
+ The zipper theory explains how all of the trusses on a floor could fall in rapid succession because of a domino-effect failure of their column connections. The zipper theory is much easier to understand if one erases the perpendicular cross-trusses and floor pans and imagines the floor as a series of parallel trusses resting on weak angle brackets.
Once the first floor falls on the second, it must somehow exceed the design loads of the one below, which should have been able to easily absorb the impact of the first floor falling about nine feet, especially if it didn't fall all at once. Theories that explain this generally blame some aspect of building design and/or materials.
+ The angle bracket theory explains the cascade of floor collapses below the fire zone by suggesting that engineers forgot to apply normal overdesign rules when designing the column connections of the floor trusses. Describing the welded steel shelves that supported the truss ends as angle brackets helps us imagine this.
Once the floor diaphragms have started to pancake down between the core and outer wall, it is still necessary to dispose of the dense steel grid constituting the outer wall, and the steel lattice of the core structure. This requires some form of sudden column failure theory. Such theories are usually only implied in tellings of the truss failure theory. Sections of the outer wall and core structure are supposed to immediately collapse from lack of lateral support once the floor diaphragms fall away. Since the perimeter wall and core structure were easily self-supporting except possibly in high winds, sudden column failure theories usually take some liberties in describing the architecture of the perimeter wall and core structures.
+ The column splice failure theory has the outer wall breaking up along column splice connections between the three-story-high by three-column-wide prefabricated sections. This theory is easier to accept if one forgets that every set of three column splice connections was surrounded on both sides by six continuous column spans, bound to the spliced columns above and below by horizontal spandrel plates four feet high.
+ The freestanding core column theory has the core columns suddenly buckling catastrophically due to lack of lateral support from the floor diaphragms. This theory depends at least on the core columns being freestanding, in contrast to construction photos that show them to be cross-braced by horizontal beams and diagonal trussing.
* The shockwave theory postulates some unspecified "shockwave" which travels ahead of the crushing mass, breaking up the building. Shockwave theories tend to be found in amateur attempts at accounting for the building collapse.
I've never inapproriately touched a child or been accused of touching a child. Therefore, I am not a child molester.
See the other examples regarding proving a negative, big guy.
Swing, the elephant analogy does not work with truthers, because they have an infinite amount of hypotheses to work from and no standard for evidence. You can prove 99 of their hypotheses wrong, and they will come up with another one.
In their logic it will be.
Prove there is no elephant in this room.
Look, there is no elephant in this room
But did you look for an African elephant, you were just looking for an Asian elephant?
There is no African elephant in this room!
But what about toy elephant, you didn't look for them?
There is no elephant in this freaking room!!
But what about pictures of elephants, you didn't look for that?
How can I make this clearer, there is no $@#$#$ elephant?
But if you squint really hard that looks like and elephant...
That's it, I give up!!!
See, I win, you didn't prove there was no elephant.
You lie again. Show me where I claimed to have the truth? Please repost this or accept the label as being a liar.
Second, not being able to prove a negative is a myth. I just provided a link and several examples. Are you too ignorant to see that? Or did you not read my entire post? And I don't believe your motive at all considering your past character attacks. And I proved in the earlier post your point is wrong.
Ah yes - first thoughs. NOT DETAILED ANALYSIS! Just the first thoughts off the top of people's heads. Not just people but, professional experts. And the detainled analysis (FEMA/NIST)came years later, correct? And remember what they didn't choose to study?
What is the old saying, If it looks like, acts like, sounds like...? Weak retort, I know, but you won't address the issues I posted. You hobknob around the items I discuss and continue with personal attacks.
And why would they? All of the evidence that points to such explosives.
Again...
Finally, Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer (where would this be located in relation to the impact) or other source of combustion within the building.
What other source of combustion has the energy to trigger a collapse?
Back to the child molestor comment. On top of what I already stated,
1. I have no official police record of child molesting.
2. I have never been accused of molesting a child by an adult or a child.
3. No one has ever witnessed me molesting a child.
4. Therefore, I am not a child molestor.
See how simple it is to prove a negative, to prove you wrong, and to prove it was a blatant character attack?
Now go get that OS million!
Or can you and for that matter the experts of the world considering FEMA and the NIST have different theory's on the collapse? I mean if it is that cut and dried why the FUCK IS IT A THEORY?
As far as the mini-nuker theory you are trying to pin on me...that isn't going to work. I don't know what caused the mushroom cloud. I've seen other collapses and topples of a building and have yet to see a mushroom cloud at the top. I saw a partial collapse of Madrid with no cloud, I've seen earth quakes topple buildings in Pakistan with no clouds. I watched WTC 7 collapse with no mushroom cloud (according to the OS for the same reason as WTC 1and 2 structural damage and fire) But for some reason we have a gravity produced collapse creating very peculiar cloud formations in the shape of a mushroom. We have molten meltal at the site, firefighter's boots melting, numerous MSM accounts of huge explosions, firefighters, first responders, victims, reporters, videoographers, all reporting hearing explosions, in many cases huge explosions. AT GROUND LEVEL not at the IMPACT ZONE, in some cases prior to impact!
Video: Explosions everywhere..
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/
Explosions%20everywhere.WMV
Just the first minute or two highlighting the MSM reports.
Note, not body fallings, or transformers popping, or paint cans exploding etc.
The Seismic Records as Evidence of Controlled Demolition
Although the seismic records from the Doherty Earth Observatory and other recording stations don't support the the theory of controlled demolition put forth by Christopher Bollyn and other proponents of basement bomb scenarios, they nonetheless do support the case for controlled demolition, albeit in an indirect sense.
The term controlled demolition has a broader meaning than many people appreciate. It does not require that a building be destroyed from the ground up, as NIST's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions or Protec's Critical Analysis imply. It simply means the destruction of a building in a controlled, or engineered, manner. In the case of the Twin Towers' top-down destruction, it is the only alternative to the premise of the official story that the Towers collapsed due to impact and fire damage. Hence a disproof of this premise would constitute a proof of controlled demolition. A disproof of a particular theory satisfying that premise would not prove controlled demolition since another theory, perhaps yet undiscovered, might explain the collapses. However, it is clear that a substantial number of experts have put a great deal of effort in coming up with the the most plausible collapse mechanism that money can buy. To disprove the explanation endorsed by NIST -- the agency that has put more than $20 million into researching the issue -- would be strong evidence for controlled demolition.
A number of different theories of the Towers' collapse have been advanced by proponents of the official story, with the two most extensive government reports endorsing mutually contradictory theories. NIST's theory of "column instability" leading to "global collapse" has replaced FEMA's theory of floor pancaking leading to buckling "unsupported columns" as the explanation favored by most informed supporters of the official story. NIST's theory is essentially a pile-driver theory, in which the top of the Tower smashes the intact portion of the building to oblivion, from the crash zones downward. NIST hides the fact that it depends on this theory by failing to acknowledge the progressive nature of the event.
Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.
-- Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
The pile-driver, AKA sledgehammer, theory explains the destruction of the intact portion of the Tower by the smashing action of the falling block. NIST hasn't described the scenario, but Professor Bazant did in a paper published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE:
At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity.
...
The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis,
It seems intuitively obvious that a smashing action sufficient to destroy the building would generate intense shaking. Figure 4 shows that the large signal is about 24 times the magnitude of the small signal that precedes it for about 12 seconds. Assuming that displacement magnitude is proportional to power, it follows that there was about 24 times as much energy being released at the peak of rubble hitting the ground than was being released at any one time in the 12 seconds before the rubble started to reach the ground. Since the Tower was mostly destroyed by the time the large signal started, the small signal has to account for the vibrational energy transferred through the columns to the ground from all of the smashing and crushing that was required to destroy the 95 floors of intact steel and concrete below the impact zone. Yet that energy was dwarfed by the energy released by the rubble hitting the ground.
Most expositions of collapse theories invoke the "tremendous energy" of falling mass impacting the floors below to explain the thorough destruction of the Towers. Yet the seismic records clearly show that the vast majority of this mass did not participate in the destruction of the Towers since it evidently did not encounter substantial resistance to its descent until it reached the ground.
Source:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/
demolition/seismic.html
n their logic it will be.
Prove there is no elephant in this room.
Look, there is no elephant in this room
But did you look for an African elephant, you were just looking for an Asian elephant?
You just added additional criteria to the premise, making the premise invalid. African versus Asian versus elephant.
There is no African elephant in this room!
But what about toy elephant, you didn't look for them?
That is not an elephant, that is a toy.
There is no elephant in this freaking room!!
But what about pictures of elephants, you didn't look for that?
That is not an elephant, that is a picture.
If your stating that troofers will change the criteria to meet their intended premise, then yes I can understand that line of logic. I don't believe I fall into that category.
However, your example doesn't refute the myth of not being able to prove a negative.
What should be able to happen is qualified experts should travel to that website, organize their data, and easily prove no explosives were used at WTC1 and 2 and then collect their million dollar reward. Or sue for not being paid the money, according to CHF's logic.
Explosion of a building? Explosive devices used to blow the building up. Or some may want to call it a controlled demolition, although a controlled demolition does not have to happen from the ground up of course. The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition -- perhaps two orders of magnitude more.
The characteristics of the collapse lead me to believe the building was blown up with tremendous energy, creating the flows of dust clouds, mushroom clouds, debris behavior,etc.
Abused kids-
In order to cover up the abuse, the abuse has to be proven to have taken place, or else there is nothing to cover up. Since there was no abuse, it follows there can be no cover up. Next question?
Experts Say: fire and structural damage started the collapse. I can't dispute that. I believe there were explosives used as well.
Have experts proven explosives weren't used? Nope.
So therefore, my theory that explosives were used in the explosion, demolition, destruction of the towers remains valid until it is proven explosives were not used.
Remember seeing no evidence does not prove explosives weren't used. (NIST).
Talk is cheap, CHF. Go get that million dollars!
Although realistically, I won't be launching a legal movement per se, I continue to post on this blog, point out errors in your logic and others on here as well as in the OS. You and those like you who attack my character only do so because you can't refute what I state, post, or believe.
And CHF, I could understand your stance and all of your bullshit if I were just making shit up. I've read the govt. reports preliminary and otherwise, I've read the firefighter testimonys, eyewitness accounts, press reports, video footage, blah blah. And I have reached my own conclusions. Some sort of explosive device/s were used at the WTC complex on 1 and 2 as well as the apparent CD of WTC 7.
You choose to ignore fast amounts of information that I use to form my own position. That is simply the difference. I've shown where the EPA has lied apparently under order, and posed a question to the bloggers here, who remain silent. If the Bush Admin. can request the EPA to lie about air qualitiy with total disregard for human life, it follows they could do the same to FEMA and the NIST in regards to their study. Does that mean they did? Of course not. But the possiblity exists that this administration will lie to the American public at the expense of American lives. From Iraq to the EPA, the reasons for my beliefs are very much grounded in hard evidence, facts, and historical precedents.
That sir you really can't argue against.
Now if I were latching onto beam weapons, and no planes, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on and all of your BS directed at me would hold much weight.
Back to your example: I used logic facts to prove you wrong. You used accusations with no proof whatsoever to counter the claim. What you are doing, and I'm assuming here is trying to show how many CT'ers argue their points. I don't believe I have used hypothetical examples to make my points regarding the 9/11 issue.
1. I have no official police record of child molesting.
2. I have never been accused of molesting a child by an adult or a child.
3. No one has ever witnessed me molesting a child.
4. Therefore, I am not a child molestor.
See how simple it is to prove a negative, to prove you wrong, and to prove it was a blatant character attack
1. Nobody has ever been witnessed implanting explosives in the World Trade Center
2. Nobody has ever been accused in a court of law of implanting explosives in the World Trade Center
3. Nobody has ever been convicted of implanting explosives in the World Trade Center.
Therefore explosives were not used to blow up the WTC. I want my million dollars.
1. Nobody has ever been witnessed implanting explosives in the World Trade Center
2. Nobody has ever been accused in a court of law of implanting explosives in the World Trade Center
3. Nobody has ever been convicted of implanting explosives in the World Trade Center.
Therefore explosives were not used to blow up the WTC.
This premise requires that a person was seen planting the explosives in order to prove explosives were used.
Of course that is one huge error. A person doesn't have to be seen committing the planting of devices to prove the device was there.
Your failure to do anything constructive with your "findings" can only mean 1 of 2 things.
False Dilema falacy, CHF.
A limited number of options usually two is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the “or” operator. You just committed one with your line of thinking.
Please rephrase the logic in an attempt to subtly attack my character yet again. Pathetic.
JamesB You once stated you had questions regarding NORADD and FAA.
1. Troofers and denires are labeled as such because they ask questions regarding the events of 9/11.
2. James has questions regarding the behavior of NORADD and FAA.
3. James, because he has questions about NORADD and the FAA is a troffer.
What questions do you have, James?
You said that an absence of witnesses and court convictions proves something. Please explain to me how you can blow up a building with explosives without them first having been there.
Just to amuse you, I could widen it.
1. Nobody has been convicted of blowing up the World Trade Center with explosives
2. Nobody has been accused in a court of law of having blown up the World Trade Center
3. No credible authority/expert has shown explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center.
4. There is no forensic evidence showing that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center.
I still want my million bucks.
Oh and to compare the child molesting arguement with the explosives at the WTC 1 and 2 is yet another fallacy you are approaching.
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not.
Try not to go that direction with me, as I've already pointed out the fallacy to you.
Dam CHF, do you have adult ADHD OR WHAT?
Swing, there are numerous missing kids out there.
Now your linking missing children with abused children to prove your line of logic. See the fallacy above to prove your error. Again all in atempt to prove to the readers that you were not really attacking my character by labeling me as a child molestor. Pathetic.
JamesB
1. Nobody has been convicted of blowing up the World Trade Center with explosives.
True
2. Nobody has been accused in a court of law of having blown up the World Trade Center
True
3. No credible authority/expert has shown explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center.
True
All three of the above statements require the validity of number 4. Lets examine 4.
4. There is no forensic evidence showing that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center.
For number 4 to be valid,
there must be forensic evidence. Is there forensic evidence to be tested? Yes
Has foresenic evidence been tested for explosive residue? No
Was a sufficient samples saved for testing, both present and future saved? No 146 peieces doesn't constitute a large sample.
Were authoritites allowed to visit ground zero for testing?
FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:
Your entire line of logic proving no explosives were used rests on Number 4 holding true.
I have proven that number 4 is not valid because no testing for explosives took place on foresenic evidence in the first place. Simply, you have to test the stuff to prove there wasn't any. The testing didnt' occur which doesn't prove explosives were not used.
Thanks, but no million dollars for you.
Next!
Lying Dylan Step out, brother, this is way above your capabilities.
Your Favorite Douche Bag!
FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:
Not true, I cover this in a paper I wrote, on page 7.
http://www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf
I am not going to waste my time since you have no clue about Solidworks. I have been a SW user for years and I know Mike and his sym is accurate.
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911
http://www.triaxialdesign.com/
Qualifications
Advanced knowledge of CAD and solid modeling software selection, implementation, training, supervision, and customization in real world environments.
Efficient and economical designs due to a practical understanding of machining, fabrication, and manufacturing process.
20 years of experience in the engineering, design, analysis, optimization, drafting, and documentation of mechanical components combined with an extensively applied engineering education.
Our team includes Certified SolidWorks Instructors, Certified SolidWorks Support Technicians, and Certified SolidWorks Professionals (CSWP)
TriAxial Design and Analysis have been in business since 1996. We have completed over 400 projects for over 90 different customers.
SolidWorks, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. There are things called Addins that allow these programs to input the actual flight profile into the animation so that the model will follow it exactly. I suggest you call Mike or Email him so you don't sound so dumb
All you do is speculate, C&P, give someone elses opinion and conjecture. I can C&P as much or more info that say you are full of crap as you can.
Why don't you explain in detail how the buildings could be wired and no body notice
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf
You truley a master at how to say nothing in 5000 words. You should write fiction
Analysts defend NORAD’s 9/ 11 role
By Pam Zubeck
The international command that monitors incoming airstrikes shouldn’t be blamed for being unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks because no one could have foreseen the strikes, defense policy analysts said Wednesday. Their comments came in response to a New York Times report that the independent government panel investigating the attacks is expected to harshly criticize the Colorado Springsbased North American Aerospace Defense Command. The analysts said the inability of the Air Force to launch fighter jets in time to shoot down the hijacked planes was more a result of the Cold War’s end than neglect. "If bin Laden had attacked us when Ike was president, it would have been a different response. We were locked and loaded back then, and we were twitchy," said John Pike, executive director of the defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. "Under the circumstances I think it would have been difficult for them (fighter jets) to have made a difference," he said. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States is expected to accuse NORAD, a joint United States and Canadian command, of being slow and confused on that day. "On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen," the report will say, according to a Wednesday New York Times account. "What ensued was a hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
The report also will suggest that a more organized response by NORAD might have allowed fighter pilots to reach one jetliner and shoot it down before it flew into the Pentagon, nearly an hour after the first of the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, the Times reported. Instead, the commission reportedly has concluded, an emergency order from Vice President Dick Cheney authorizing the hijacked planes to be shot down did not reach pilots until the last of the four commandeered jetliners had crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania. NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhart and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify today at the commission’s last hearing before it reports its findings late next month. NORAD officials did not address the commission’s reported findings Wednesday, saying in a statement they did not want to "pre-empt Gen. Eberhart’s testimony before the commission."
While some criticize the Air Force for not having fighters on alert close to likely targets such as Washington, D.C., and New York, defense analysts aren’t surprised. After the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, continental air defense was turned over to the Air National Guard, Pike said, noting that the days of planes being fueled, armed and ready on the tarmac ended long ago. "Given the prevailing attitudes at the time, it would have been an uphill struggle" to have fighters on alert for a homeland attack, Pike said. As it was, fighters that responded to Washington, D.C., came from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, and those sent to New York City flew from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass. The Air Force has closer bases where fighters could have been placed but weren’t, said Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Washington, D.C., think tank Lexington Institute. "Nobody took the continental air defense mission seriously before 9/11," Thompson said. "It was the bottom of the list for the Air Force. Neither NORAD or the Air force assigned a high priority to the mission. Most of the aircraft that were on alert weren’t even armed."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911panel_statement17.pdf
No one had attacked the continental United States from the air since the Japanese tried to drop incendiary weapons on the West Coast from balloons in World War II. Even if fighters had been based in the right place and ready for deployment, however, it’s sheer guesswork whether they could have shot down the airliners in time, said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C. "The more important factor is no one anticipated this," Carpenter said. "The danger is much more evident in retrospect than it was at the time." Carpenter said NORAD’s mission was to monitor threats from outside the borders, not from within. "To me, this illustrates one of the problems with the 9/11 commission trying to assess blame for a situation that would have been very difficult to anticipate," Carpenter said. Pike said the commission’s findings are of interest only in terms of identifying changes. After Sept. 11, the Air Force launched Operation Noble Eagle, which sent fighters patrolling over select targets. It continues today. NORAD has expanded its mission to monitor threats from within the United States and has taken steps to enhance communication with other agencies. In addition, the military has been given authority to shoot down aircraft under certain circumstances without seeking presidential approval.
CHF, I'm sorry but I've already shown why your post was a fallacy trying to link molesting children and explosive devices as bunk. Two TOTALLY UNRELATED points to prove your point doesn't work. I've already shown that to be invalid. Try again
Juvenille logic? Your opinion of course but you can't refute, only fallaciouly try to prove otherwise, which I pointed out. Next?
JAMESB Will you be addressing my other comments regarding your own questions of the events and agencies of that day?
I will examine your writing disproving the Appendix D of the study.
That doesn't disprove the rest of my comment if your analysis holds true.
SteveW What programs did NIST use to construct their theory?
Two, stop spamming off topic shit. I was having a decent conversation and then you have to cut-n-paste away.
So SteveW, your saying because CDI does it that way and takes those resources and time, it had to have happened that way this time? RIIIGHT
This question, like the previous one, assumes that the demolition of the Twin Towers would have to look like a conventional one, with fuses and large numbers of cutting charges, etc. First, understand that the demolitions could have been engineered using wireless operations. Second, the demolitions may have been achieved without accessing the perimeter columns. The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition -- perhaps two orders of magnitude more. That gave the planners much more leeway in the placement of charges required to totally destroy the buildings. The core structures contained the building services such as elevators, and plumbing and cabling shafts. It would have been easy for people who controlled building security to surreptitiously install devices in hidden portions of the cores.
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/
demolition.html#access
I know it is his response, but it sums it up pretty well.
EMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:
Not true, I cover this in a paper I wrote, on page 7.
I didn't read the rebuttal to Appendix D in the study, James. I just read your paper. Nice job on the PNAC statements. Bad job attacking the source (yet another fallacy) of an interview regarding black boxes. Does that make the person being interviewed a neo-nazi or did you use that tactic to discredit the interview?
You complain about C&P but that is all you do LOL
I addressed what I posted and you tapdanced right around it, as far as the NIST goes it would be very easy for you to look it up. You asked a question about NORAD and I gave you a very good source. Global security is would renound and Mr Pike and his staff are recognized experts. As usual you never directly address anything with anything other than tour usual BS.
LOL Your explanations make me laugh. there has never been a CD like you try and explain. For a CD to be sucessfull on the towers more precision would be required than the record that CDI did. The way they do it is the way it is done, check out some of the failiers and you will see why. It is also amazing that the planes hit the exact spot where the so called explosives were planted LOL different places on each tower, strange
I mean, keep in mind, I don't know how big of a job that would be (no one has ever demolished a building that size before) but a building just half the size of one WTC tower took 4,000 separate charges to bring down
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807>. Four thousand.
That job took seven months of prep work... and they had the run of an abandoned building, without having to hide their work from 100,000 people every day. Our demolition crew, on the other hand, can work only at night and has to spend the last bit of every shift carefully repairing the wall and hiding any evidence of charges or detonators as not to be discovered during the day.
Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full of innocent New Yorkers to explode, hired in secret, worked every night for what had to be a year (and that's only if they had a big enough crew) placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7 (the smaller WTC tower that also collapsed, later in the day on 9/11).
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html
And nobody notices.
Truckloads of bombs, dozens of mysterious workers, going in and out of the building, night after night. Security at the building doesn't catch them, Port Authority Police don't catch them, random eyewitnesses who stumble across the operation and call the cops don't catch them, maintenance workers who stumble across wet paint and repaired walls and bits of strange wire don't catch them, security cameras don't catch them.
The bomb-sniffing dogs who were brought in from time to time (remember, these buildings were bombed by terrorists in 1993) who are trained to find even one bomb, fail to notice the 10,000 bombs lining their building.
For number 4 to be valid,
there must be forensic evidence. Is there forensic evidence to be tested? Yes
Has foresenic evidence been tested for explosive residue? No
BTW, I should also point out that you are shifting your standards of evidence. You did not claim that the children in your neighborhood would need to be tested for your DNA in order for you to claim your innocence. You stated that the simple lack of evidence showing you had done anything was proof in and of itself.
Chf this is too funny
"SD said(I don't say I know more than experts - I just think they have no idea how to judge collapses or read seismographic data. I, Swing, am able to judge this stuff, however, even though I have no qualifications whatsoever!)"
LOLOLOLOL talk about blind arrogance
No wonder he just posts garbage
I C
I thought if they were experts they would reach conclusions based on evidence and experience
The idea that it's impossible to prove a negative depends on how you define the word "prove". Certainly, it can be argued that you can never conclusively prove any statement. Even something as simple as 2+2=4 has not really been proven, since there is always the possibility that under some circumstances 2+2 could equal something else entirely (and, if I remember my quick dalliance with quantum physics correctly, near black holes standard mathematics break down and simple equations produce totally different values). The idea of "proving something" therefore depends entirely on what your criteria for proof IS.
For instance, in criminal cases, the lack of evidence against an individual is taken as proof of their innocence. That is an EXTREMELY lax standard for proving something, but we do it that way because to assume guilt in the absence of evidence would make it extremely difficult for any individual to defend themselves. Taken another way: A person accused of a crime can only be one of two things - innocent, or guilty. Therefore, if we lack evidence to make a logical conclusion, we must assume them to be one of those two things. The reason we assume innocence is because we understand that proving a negative is a lot harder than proving the positive.
Now, I did say "harder" and not "impossible", because it's NOT impossible. Once again, the whole thing hinges on how you define "prove". Once again, in the legal system, all you would have to do in order to prove a negative is show absence of evidence for the opposite. In other words, you could prove that you are not a child molester by saying "your honour, it is clear that the prosecution has no evidence of the crimes of which I've been accused". That in itself would be proof.
The problem starts when you are expected to prove a negative TO A HIGHER CERTAINTY. In other words, when you are expected to provide evidence to prove that you are innocent. Now, some of that can be done as well. For instance, if you are accused of a specific crime, you could provide evidence that you were elsewhere at the time when it occurred.
The problem is further compounded when your accusers start questioning your integrity, and the reliability of your evidence. For instance, saying things like "he's lied before, so we can't believe his alibi".
This is the point where the "truth movement" is today. They not only expect the government to prove a negative, but also question the integrity of the government as well as civilian investigators, AND the reliability of the evidence. Under such circumstances it really IS impossible to prove innocence - even if every piece of evidence were carefully screened for explosives, and the results showed no residue, the accusers would simply call it a lie. So their problem isn't that they're asking that a negative be proven, but that their standard for "proof" is impossibly high.
From a legal standpoint, it has already been proven that no explosives were used in the WTC. If that 1 million dollar challenge had been made in the form of a contract, the person offering the award would have had to pay out already because courts realize what deniers do not - that lack of evidence for an event is acceptable proof of the event not having occurred, ESPECIALLY when an alternative theory has been offered, and backed by thousands of experts. However, as long as the judgement of whether or not the event is proven rests on an individual who doesn't understand basic logic, the question under discussion will never be "proven". If your standards are impossibly high, then nothing can ever be proven. Including whether 2+2 really equals 4.
It's funny that conspiracy liars continue to pretend that NIST didn't consider the possibility that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers. NIST consulted with several demolition firms and concluded that the collapses looked nothing like controlled demolitions, a view shared by tinfoil-hat icons Jorg Schneider, Hugo Bachmann, and Danny Jowenko.
So, in the curious language of the loons, ruling something out means not considering it at all.
Nah, none of us noticed your attempted deception, Swing Dumpster.
CHF- You just can't get past the character attacks, can you?? Fraud? For christ sakes your a joke. You continue to bring that up and label me because you can't further dispute the points I'm making.
1. The biggest assumption you make is that I have done nothing to bring to light the possiblity of explosives used at the WTC complex.
What would be the appropriate course of action as an American citizen be?
Writing my elected officials of course. What response did I get? 9/11 Commission, case closed. We all know how that report has been picked apart by CT'ers and OS'ers. Hell even James has questions regarding the NORAAD/FAA that apparently the Commission can't figure out. We still have two theories from the Feds regarding the collapse as well.
What else would you suggest I do as an American citizen to be proactive in this issue?
2.Why would I need to do such things considering all of the evidence is in the public domain anyway?
3. I pressume that 'experts' did not view all of the video, read the eyewitness testimonies, viewed all of the press accounts and compared all of that data to the historical precedent of building collapses. Which makes it very easy to say none were used.
And if they did, how then can they explain how explosives could not be considered as a viable hypothesis to test for?
First expert reactions: explosives
First press reports: explosives
Frist eyewitness accounts: explosives.
On air broadcasters: explosives
Multiple Media Outlets: explosives
Radio broadcasts: explosives
First respondes and firefighters on the scene: explosives
Victims: explosives
Independent video: explosives
Now explain how all of that data was examined and the conclusion is reached that explosives were not a viable hypothesis to test for?
And again, still no explanation for the molten metal...
Sound: As for the sound, do you not recall many of the above describing a "Huge explosion!" on live television? What part of that sound did you miss?
Did any of you record all of the media broadcasts at that particular of that particular day or review those broadcasts since that time? If not check it out on the numerous Youtube videos.
Do you ignore all of that or what? And no we aren't talking about hearing 'gunshots' or bodies falling or transformers, or paint cans.
Do you completely ignore the number of people that wanted to appear before the 9/11 Commission and testify about explosions in the basement of the complex?
We are talking victims of the attacks and you totally ignore or deny what they have to say. Although it shouldn't, it really shocks me.
I will admit I set myself up by the looks like, comment. But then I was just repeating what the experts first thought and followed that line of reasoning which of course is silly upon further reflection. Besides that was a small aspect of the arguement that was based upon expert reactions of course.
Second, I have no idea if the experts have been exposed to the data listed above. If so, have they issued a response to all of the sources describing explosions at ground level?
Because it doesn't look like a CD, it isn't. Does a CD mean it has to collapse from the bottom first?
By definition, no. It is exactly what it is called, a controlled demolition. Lets assume for the time being it was a CD. Would the terrorists use the same type of CD on the towers as in other historical examples? Do the towers compare to other CD's buildings in height and width, and internal structure? Of course not. If you were to CD the building in a traditioal manner and start at the bottom, wouldn't that give away the ruse that structural damage and a fuel fire caused the collapse? Of course!! Which is why the collapse wouldn't begin at ground level.
BTW, I should also point out that you are shifting your standards of evidence. You did not claim that the children in your neighborhood would need to be tested for your DNA in order for you to claim your innocence. You stated that the simple lack of evidence showing you had done anything was proof in and of itself.
I didn't shift the standard, James, you did. You shifted it by placing an exact definition of the evidence. I stated evidence as a whole which includes whatever definitions you want to place on the term evidence and I also pointed out that trying to link the child abuse and explosives is a fallacy so you can drop that line of reasoning trying to link the two. Stick with one or the other, not both.
Alex You sound like Clinton now. It depends on what the definition of prove is?
Go back and read the entire thread where the myth of proving a negative is put to rest.
1.From a legal standpoint, it has already been proven that no explosives were used in the WTC
Are you serious? Can you point me to the FEMA/NIST foresenic tests that were carried out proving no explosives were used?
Or as the truth holds, their were no forsenic tests done to disprove explosives weren't used?
They not only expect the government to prove a negative, but also question the integrity of the government as well as civilian investigators, AND the reliability of the evidence. Under such circumstances it really IS impossible to prove innocence - even if every piece of evidence were carefully screened for explosives, and the results showed no residue, the accusers would simply call it a lie
Perhaps that holds true for some, Alex. But lets take the first step to be sure and TEST for explosives. That is the issue I have at least. Lets test it first before we remove, dispose, sell, send to facilities the foresenic evidence. Lets test it first before the CT'ers offer their explanation. Do you not understand this simple line of logic?
WHY NOT TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES based upon the above mentioned data??
You can't argue anything until you can answer that question. And I will do that for you: tests for explosives SHOULD HAVE occured. It was a crime scene which means we shouldn't have theories explaining it to us, we should have facts.
Lets get to the next point:
Now, I did say "harder" and not "impossible", because it's NOT impossible. Once again, the whole thing hinges on how you define "prove". Once again, in the legal system, all you would have to do in order to prove a negative is show absence of evidence for the opposite. In other words, you could prove that you are not a child molester by saying "your honour, it is clear that the prosecution has no evidence of the crimes of which I've been accused". That in itself would be proof.
If you reexamine the first issue this is regarding. In my premise there was not even an accusation leveled to place the accused in front of a judge in the first place. Which negates your point of course.
that lack of evidence for an event is acceptable proof of the event not having occurred, ESPECIALLY when an alternative theory has been offered, and backed by thousands of experts.
Lack of evidence? First don't you have to test for such evidence? Don't you have to take into consideration all of the info I referred to above? I would call that ignoring the evidence. The reader can guess as to why.
I have yet to see a Federal Agency address all of the above items. Some how I'm not sure 1000's of experts worked on the FEMA and NIST reports.
The Million Dollar Challenge is open to all, not just the government.
So their problem isn't that they're asking that a negative be proven, but that their standard for "proof" is impossibly high.
I'm not sure if you can place a label as impossibly high on the standard for evidence. To be fair, I would place that question to the victims families to judge the impossibly high standard of evidence. IMHO, if I were a vicitim, not only would I expect as much debris to be tested as possible, I would demand it. Another question to be addressed was there a large enough sample to prove one way or another? Yes. Is there now? No Unless testing is carried out at the various sites where the debris came to rest. If explosive residue is found, let the FBI determine who placed it there. Let the NIST determine how the explosive impacted the collapse. But that can't happen because NOTHING was tested and the hypothesis not considered. Sloppy science at its best.
Finally, Alex, thanks for being civil in your post. Hopefully a new leaf being turned!
POMEROO Could you point me to the relevant information where the NIST consulted with demo firms? Did those firms believe a CD must start at the bottom?
Second, can tell me without error, if those firms and for that matter the NIST examined all of the data that I listed above that lead many, including myself, to believe explosives were used at the WTC?
Three, can you provide proof that I knowingly lied to the readers? Or do you accept the label as liar yourself? Or do you attack my character because you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation or can not argue the points I make? I await your next character attack, Pom.
Ok, CHF. Let me know your thoughts on this issue. I will highlight the most relevant points.
From the Seattle Times
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993
Eric Nalder
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, (head Structural Engineer of the WTC based in Seattle), is among the world's top structural engineers.
Ok, lets see what one of the best in the world have to offer.
He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Apparently a person in the know! After all he was the head honcho in the design of the building.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
Remember, the date of the interview is 1993. To remove the size matters arguement. The planes although different in size are marginalized based upon the difference in length: 6 feet and the width of 10 feet. And actually the building was designed to withstand the 707's greater crusing speed of 607 mph versus the 767's 530mph. (data from FEMA's report)
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. This ends all debates wether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of fire on the structures.
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
Well I guess an structural engineer expert who isn't a nut bar agrees with old Swing about what could bring down the towers. Is there any evidence of explosives at the WTC complex? See my above posts of course. Was any testing done for explosives? Of course not. See the above posts.
He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Apparently if not him, somebody or some people. And again, he doesn't state bring them down in a CD scenario, but using the explosives.
Well I guess is what is left is to get the top experts in the world, round them up, interrorgate them by whatever means and determine who was in around the WTC complex in the months and weeks following the event or who they trained?
I guess that is the best I have so far CHF. Enjoy debunking the designer of the building.
And again, still no explanation for the molten metal...
Well at least you're smart enough not to call it steel! It was alluminum, dumbass.
Do you care to post your source for the alluminum comment, dumbass?
EVERYONE IN NYC WOULD HAVE HEARD THE BOMBS! For fuck's sake, Swing - watch a REAL CD a compare it to 9/11. There is no comparison!
Uhhh so now your the expert on bombs and the associated sound waves when they dentonate in basements and inside of structures? Rather pompus assertion. Besides, stop changing explosives to bombs.
You still did not disprove the explosive devices with all of your name calling. I have laid out ample reason why there could be and even used the comments of the Skilling on the table.
Let me sum that up again for you according to Skilling.
A. A plane impact would not bring a building down.
B. A plane and fuel would not bring the buildigs down.
C.Explosives would bring the building down.
To put it in your words, debunk the goddam designer of the building dumbass!
A long but excellent article
He also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens—it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
On September 11th, each building took the impact of a 767 (which is nearly twenty per cent heavier than a 707) and stood long enough to allow most of the people below the crash sites—the ninety-fourth floor to the ninety-ninth floor in the north tower, and the seventy-eighth floor to the eighty-fourth floor in the south tower—to escape. Had the buildings toppled immediately, nearly all those survivors would have died, and there would have been huge losses as well in the buildings and streets around the towers. The fact that the terrorists chose to hit the buildings on opposite faces suggests to some that they intended to knock the buildings over—which would have increased the destruction and loss of life. "Ninety-nine per cent of all buildings would collapse immediately when hit by a 767," Jon Magnusson said.
But did the special structural characteristics of these buildings, qualities that made them so resistant to attack from without, also make them vulnerable to collapse from within, once the fires started? If one of the airplanes had hit an older skyscraper, like the Empire State Building, which has a frame structure instead of a tube structure, would the total disaster have been greater (the building falls over immediately) or lesser (the concrete in the building lasts longer in a fire, and the frame structure protects the building from complete collapse)? Of all the difficult questions that the FEMA investigators need to ask about the disaster, this is one of the hardest.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
The Port Authority envisioned a project with a total of 10 million square feet of office space. To achieve this, Yamasaki considered more than a hundred different building configurations before settling on the concept of twin towers and three lower-rise structures. Designed to be very tall to maximize the area of the plaza, the towers were initially to rise to only 80-90 stories. Only later was it decided to construct them as the world's tallest buildings, following a suggestion said to have originated with the Port Authority's public relations staff.
Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure was clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
Uh huh. So what? The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. So therefor does that mean it didn't sink? Or that there was some sort of CIA/Mossad plot to blow it up and blame an iceberg?
Again you are trying link to seperate events that have absolutely nothing in common to disprove the structural engineer who designed the building. And the same arguement fallacy applies.
You of course try to redirect the readers to accept or your complex question fallacy by historical impossiblities.
A fallacy is a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, a misleading or unsound argument, deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousnes; any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
A lie.
Now to dismantle your logic and end the use of this tired comparison that I've read over and over. The designer of the WTC did not design the buildings to be indestructable.
In fact, he told the public exactly how those buildings could be brought down. He also told the public exactly what would not bring those buildings down.
YOUR NEXT LIE No where on this blog did I state that Skilling said there were explosives used in the World Trade Center.
LET IT BE KNOWN, THE FRAUD CHF HAS BEEN EXPOSED.
You have purposely LIED. You have LIED to spread disinformation to the readers. It has been enjoyable destroying your position and revealing the true nature and your motives. You sir are a pathetic waste of human life.
The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it.
I will take the direct statements of the Head Structural Engineer over failed memory any time.
I also find it interesting that after the attack in 1993 the Head Structural Engineer, who probably reviewed the plans over and over, has no problem at all explaining what would not bring the building down, fire and damage from a jet, versus what would bring the building down, EXPLOSIVES.
However, when asked today after the event, one of the few people that should know, cannot remember. And finally, by not remembering ir, reinforces the official theory.
Priceless!
Thanks for the read!
So according to swinger, we're supposed to believe his interpretations of the words of a guy who died 3 years before the towers were hit....over the engineer who actually came up with the idea of designing the building for an aircraft strike, and is still alive today to answer the questions. Well gee, that's great logic. Why don't we start quoting nuclear scientists from the early 40's about how safe radioactive fallout is supposed to be. Surely they must be more reliable than today's nuclear physicists.
As for this nonsense:
Lack of evidence? First don't you have to test for such evidence?
No, you don't. You don't perform tests for explosives when there's no sign of explosives. And that brings me to another lie of yours:
First expert reactions: explosives
First press reports: explosives
Frist eyewitness accounts: explosives.
On air broadcasters: explosives
Multiple Media Outlets: explosives
Radio broadcasts: explosives
First respondes and firefighters on the scene: explosives
Victims: explosives
Independent video: explosives
Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. These people reported EXPLOSIONS, not explosives. There is a massive difference between the two. Watch the impact of the aircraft. See that big fire-cloud? That's an explosion, but it's not caused by explosives. Gasoline when mixed with air at the right ratio will create explosions as powerful as TNT. Compressed gas canisters explode when exposed to heat. Flammable gasses create explosions when mixed with air and ignited. Hell, if you want a REALLY extreme example, flour-mills hundreds of years ago were at high risk of explosions because the flour dust in the air was flammable, and the right ratio of dust-to-air would cause all of it to ignite simultaneously, thereby causing an explosion. There are literaly hundreds if not thousands of different ways for explosions to occur, without the use of explosives. Only an utter ignoramus would insist that people hearing explosions in a fire is indicative of the use of explosives. Hell, if you come up to Toronto some time, I'll take you with me to the local fire-hall so you can tell the firefighters about how explosions in fires are caused by explosives. Then we can all laugh at you together. If you refrain from flying into a psychotic tirade, you'll even get a juice-box and a cookie.
Again you are trying link to seperate events that have absolutely nothing in common to disprove the structural engineer who designed the building.
No, idiot, he's showing you that even after all sorts of designs and testing, SHIT HAPPENS. Kevlar is designed to stop bullets, but it doesn't always. Airliners are designed not to fall apart, but it sometimes happens. Shuttles are designed not to explode on re-entry, yet that's happened too. Your computer hard-drive is designed for a 7 year life-span, yet they sometimes crap out after 1. The moral of the lesson? DESIGNS DON'T GUARANTEE SUCCESS. You can design and plan and test and redesign to your hearts content, but there is always the possibility of failure, and there is ALWAYS going to be something that you didn't plan for. Life is not an equation, and it's not digital, life is analog and by it's very nature is unpredictable. The fact that you managed to survive past childhood without understanding such a simple concept is only another example of this.
At the moment I'm staying with family in Etobicoke, near centennial park. I'm waiting for my component transfer to go through, after which I should be living up in CFB Borden for the next year or so. Not sure where to after that, but that's pretty much status-quo for me; I haven't lived in any one place for more than a year since I was 15.
I wasn't even aware that there were any Torontonians on here, let alone that you're so close. Ossington's a half hour by bus/subway from here. Or 15 minutes driving.
"A car backfiring on my street sounds like a gun shot." you obviously haven't heard a gun shot.
If you try a bit of logic on the WTC's only the top 20 to 30 floors collapsed the structure beneath should have held up with just the top coming down...you will say "are what about kinetic energy" sure perhaps but at some point in at least 1 of the WTC's there should have been a halt or pause in the collapse, WTC 1 being the best candidate for this as it started to collapse at the very top...but...not in either building did this happen, they both came straight down at free fall (or faster) speed it just doesn't add up for me as a layman.
The structure did not melt or weaken for 70 to 80 floors up to the crash site (if they did weaken below the impact zone, what weakened them they where designed to take the impact of several large aircraft), what I would have expected the WTC's to be standing with much debris on top.
CHF I enjoyed your post and it certainly has merit.
I don't know what happened there(WTC's) but there hasn't been a deep enough investigation to answer all the questions.
The 911 commission report was an obvious gloss over, re-open the investigation with neutral investigators and put the whole thing to bed. What it has cost your country and mine is enormous, the bill for the whole thing is in the mail when it comes there won't be enough moral servitude to pay for it.
you will say "are what about kinetic energy" sure perhaps but at some point in at least 1 of the WTC's there should have been a halt or pause in the collapse
Show me the math Einstein. Your conjecture and guesswork means shit all to me. Let's see the math.
they both came straight down at free fall (or faster) speed it just doesn't add up for me as a layman.
"Free fall or faster"? Well. I see your problem. You're not just a layman, you're a friggin' idiot. Here's a freebie from a non-layman: things don't accelerate at faster than free-fall rate unless they are powered. I didn't see any rocket engines on top of the buildings, did you?
The 911 commission report was an obvious gloss over
As obvious as "faster than free fall speeds" huh? :) You're a riot.
Alex
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Yes like in a vacuum where there is absolutely no resistance.
I don't know you post an innocent comment and it it gets the crazies like you Alex going.
View the footage (there is plenty of it) and get yourself a stop watch and time it.
Even a layman can do that.
You don't work for US mail by any chance, do you.?
Lying Dylan said "HEY FUCKSTICK THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH MASS MURDER!"
LD What do you think is going on in Iraq?
Our brave soldiers were sent there to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!! and they are not to blame.
James B Said
"If the truthers think they have irrefutable evidence that the administration was behind it, then why haven't they filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of the victims? They claim most of the family members support them."
In fact there has been a law suit brought against the current administration, by Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole the (R) and has personally known
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades.
The Law suit failed not because of lack of evidence the judge's ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity". In other words, the suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason.
So much for Democracy and a Government for the people by the people.
There is an appeals process in place.
It was interesting when Bush spoke of the late Gerald Ford he listed his main achievement as giving Nixon amnesty for his crimes.
Is he pre-empting something?
If you want to check out an interview Alex Jones did with Shilton (yes Alex Jones for you non believers he is a bit in your face but the interview is good) James here is a link.
http://justpaolo.blogspot.com/
So according to swinger, we're supposed to believe his interpretations of the words of a guy who died 3 years before the towers were hit.
Again, stop lying. There are no interpetations, fraud, only his direct statements. I posted the article. To state otherwise, proves again how you lie to counter facts that crush the OS. Lie and deny...that is all you have when it comes to Skilling.
Again, stop lying. There are no interpetations, fraud, only his direct statements.
If you truly believe that, it explains a lot about why you're so messed up. Every time you read someones statement, you are making an interpretation - some just happen to be more accurate than others. I'm not going to argue basic semantics with you though. It'd take me years to fix all the things that are wrong with you, and I'm not interested in even trying.
Every time you read someones statement, you are making an interpretation
ROFLMAO! You have got to be kidding me? If I were reading the Bible, I might agree with you. I was reading the direct statements of the Head Structural Engineer of the WTC and the paper his firm created.
Please explain to me how you can 'interpet' that?
From the article:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Tell me what 'interpetation' do you place upon that statement?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
Tell me what 'interpetation' do you place upon this statement?
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
And can you please provide an interpetation of this statement?
Warning to readers: The quotes were taken out of the article in the above post. The entire article can be read in my above post just in case I get accused of 'taking quotes out of context' to support my position.
Herbert Spencer
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Is it not true that in theory a debate is supposed to be a battle of wits between opposing sides trying to prove their case as well discredit their competition? Is it not also true that those with greater intellect and factual evidence will be the victors the majority of the time? In theory when only these factors are examined in isolation this would hold true. However, when influenced by the subversive forces of those controlling vastly superior resources, those previously mentioned factors are rendered almost irrelevant. This is often exemplified in the discussion of political, social and environmental issues where the larger body of more persuasive factual evidence is overwhelmed by the lesser argument that receives much greater coverage from the main stream media. This inherent bias towards the version of the argument supported by those with money and power makes perfect sense when considering they are the ones who own every major media outlet and use them in ways to further their own agendas. For this reason it is naive and irresponsible to accept information from these sources at face value without considering possible alternative explanations. An educated person who is willing to examine what he or she is told beyond the surface level can gain a better understanding of what factors are truly driving an issue (99% of the time this can be achieved by following the money trail). On that same note, an uninformed, uneducated person who chooses to completely ignore or believe at face value whatever he or she is told about the world around them is yielding any power they once had to stand up for what is in their own best interest.
I do not believe that political preferences should have any bearing on how factual evidence about 9/11 is interpreted. The report put forth by the 9/11 commission and popular media has gaps in it large enough to fit a 757. After listening to the arguments made in Popular Mechanic's Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 cover story, I am further convinced that their position is tenuous at best. While there's false information on both sides of this debate, I've found that the majority of scientific evidence does not support the official version. It's easier to discredit all who dispute the government's account by singling out the theories that are not based in fact rather than considering each individual piece of evidence based on its own merit.
Point is If you sit down and look at the puzzle pieces you can create a portrait that Michelangelo would have been proud of. In fact after arming yourself with some facts surrounding 9/11 ,( for example 9/11 press for truth ) You cant help but start to wonder what is really going on and why is nothing being done about it. Who's wanted for the 9/11 attacks? Who Bin laden? Well hes on the ten most wanted list but not for connection with 9/11? So Manny questions. Who's Behind 9/11 you keep asking? How should we know. We keep telling you So Manny questions need to be answered like who is to blame? Of course we make accusations so you can just disregard what we are telling you. So I am just encouraging you to look into it 9/11 push for truth is a good spot to start. No conspiracy theories.
"James B.!
I read the crap that comes out of your head, and I have to to conclude, that if you are not a child....You are an idiot
Post a Comment
<< Home