Uncategorized
BBC The Third Tower
Buy Scott's Stickers
Highest Rated
- Philip Giraldi: Beware of Israeli False Flag Attacks in Iraq
(2 out of 5) - who’s next? (0 out of 5)
- Vincent Bugliosi at the ‘imperial presidency hearing’ (0 out of 5)
- Randy Pausch, 1960-2008 (0 out of 5)
- A Year at the Wheel (0 out of 5)
- Zionist Christians Target Iran (0 out of 5)
- Pat Buchanan on Antiwar Radio/you-tube (0 out of 5)
- Fox News commentators “white house tools”. (0 out of 5)
- The Show: Philip Giraldi (0 out of 5)
- Kid Falls from bridge and breaks his back, what do the police do ? …. Taser him 19 times of course. (0 out of 5)
Social Bookmarks
© 2008 Stress. 
This was advertised as the last 9/11 mystery “solved.” This implies that other “mysteries” were “solved” beforehand. So even if people do not see the show, they can easily conclude that some resolution has come about and that nobody is in an uproar about new revelations from this show. Therefore, there must be nothing to look at.If they do watch the show, however, they are treated to a lot of information, not properly focused on by weight of the evidence.Most of the pieces of our case are there, but, as with an unsolved puzzle, you do not get the picture unless you put together the puzzle properly. Opinion plays no role in determining how to put together pieces of a puzzle. Objective detective work that seeks out objective fact does. This is what is wrong with this BBC piece–it relies heavily on opinion and does not focus much on those aspects that can be looked at objectively.This show did not solve anything.They touch upon most aspects of the “WTC7 debate.” However, they totally omitted the John Gross comments–which helps clearly state the “debate” about whether or not molten metal existed. They mention molten metal but not with the importance it deserves in these discussions. They totally understate the FACT that iron melted and is found everywhere in the dust. This has been verified on the USGS site. This has been verified by RJ Lee Group. These are temperatures that are not explained by NIST, and NIST apologists can only cite unsubstantiated hypotheses or say things like “What if? What if? What if?”By ignoring the science behind this, we are just entertaining ourselves with a debate. Mike Rudin stated that this is what he was doing–having a debate. I advised him that he should look at the physics involved–SIMPLE stuff like iron-melting temperatures that existed before or during the destruction of these buildings–which are evidenced by the iron-rich spheres and other items in the WTC dust.Then on top of that they end the interview with minute upon minute of opinions–most of which are from just one side. The last 5-10 minutes were mostly opinion statements by people on one side! They give a lot of editorializing (biased opinion-airing) time to Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck.The “evidence” discussed was often the inconsequential stuff–testimony.Re: “I was here, you weren’t.”> We could easily find people on the other side to say that. How do we know the man saying that wasn’t simply a conspirator? What about kevin McPadden?They allow someone from WPI to give his opinion on the metal from the FEMA BPAT. Did they verify that he was correct?Certainly this does nothing to discredit the evidence that a number of independent groups have collected–iron-rich spheres in the dust. The man-made, very high-tech nanothermite being found in the dust needs to be dealt with, too. Let’s study these things. Simply letting NIST say they tested for explosives–which they later stated they did not do–is not enough. Actually modelling the fall of the building–which NIST idd not do (or at least said they did not do)–is important. ACTUALLY studying these things is important.Nothing was “solved” in this documentary or in the forthcoming NIST report.If you want truth, you will not stand for opinion presented as fact–especially from people who are suspects. You will drill down to the information you can verify, as would any good detective.
Thanks for posting this (thanks to BBC for sharing).
I won’t abuse Scott’s blog by commenting though.
(Let me make that more readible.)<P>This was advertised as the last 9/11 mystery “solved.” This implies that other “mysteries” were “solved” beforehand. So even if people do not see the show, they can easily conclude that some resolution has come about and that nobody is in an uproar about new revelations from this show. Therefore, there must be nothing to look at.<P>If they do watch the show, however, they are treated to a lot of information, not properly focused on by weight of the evidence.<P>Most of the pieces of our case are there, but, as with an unsolved puzzle, you do not get the picture unless you put together the puzzle properly. Opinion plays no role in determining how to put together pieces of a puzzle. Objective detective work that seeks out objective fact does. This is what is wrong with this BBC piece–it relies heavily on opinion and does not focus much on those aspects that can be looked at objectively.<P>This show did not solve anything.<P>They touch upon most aspects of the “WTC7 debate.” However, they totally omitted the John Gross comments–which helps clearly state the “debate” about whether or not molten metal existed. They mention molten metal but not with the importance it deserves in these discussions. They totally understate the FACT that iron melted and is found everywhere in the dust. This has been verified on the USGS site. This has been verified by RJ Lee Group. These are temperatures that are not explained by NIST, and NIST apologists can only cite unsubstantiated hypotheses or say things like “What if? What if? What if?”<P>By ignoring the science behind this, we are just entertaining ourselves with a debate. Mike Rudin stated that this is what he was doing–having a debate. I advised him that he should look at the physics involved–SIMPLE stuff like iron-melting temperatures that existed before or during the destruction of these buildings–which are evidenced by the iron-rich spheres and other items in the WTC dust.<P>Then on top of that they end the interview with minute upon minute of opinions–most of which are from just one side. The last 5-10 minutes were mostly opinion statements by people on one side! They give a lot of editorializing (biased opinion-airing) time to Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck.<P>The “evidence” discussed was often the inconsequential stuff–testimony.<P>Re: “I was here, you weren’t.”> We could easily find people on the other side to say that. How do we know the man saying that wasn’t simply a conspirator? What about kevin McPadden?<P>They allow someone from WPI to give his opinion on the metal from the FEMA BPAT. Did they verify that he was correct?<P>Certainly this does nothing to discredit the evidence that a number of independent groups have collected–iron-rich spheres in the dust. The man-made, very high-tech nanothermite being found in the dust needs to be dealt with, too. Let’s study these things. Simply letting NIST say they tested for explosives–which they later stated they did not do–is not enough. Actually modelling the fall of the building–which NIST idd not do (or at least said they did not do)–is important. ACTUALLY studying these things is important.<P>Nothing was “solved” in this documentary or in the forthcoming NIST report.<P>If you want truth, you will not stand for opinion presented as fact–especially from people who are suspects. You will drill down to the information you can verify, as would any good detective.
OMG 9/11 was an inside job!!!!
Seriously, though…I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if 9/11 was an inside job or not. It doesn’t matter if Dick Cheney and the Illuminati were at the Council on Foreign Relations Chicago HQ piloting unmanned aerial drones/missiles disguised with holograms to look like planes into the WTC buildings and then snuck through the sewers in NYC to push a cartoon style plunger and blow up WTC7. The shit they admit to on the Sunday morning network handjob/talk show circuit is damning enough.
Let’s see… a war of aggression that’s killed 1 million plus people, torture gulags and secret prisons, all kinds of violations of the Bill of Rights whether it’s warrantless spying or whatever else, and probably a dozen other things. In the plain light of day. “Well, sure we did that and so what?” is their comment on it basically. And people instead are worried about some sinister conspiracy that you need a doctorate in physics, engineering, and architecture to begin ot understand? What in the flying fuck is the matter with people?
/rant off
Why study this when “they” have already done ten impeachable offenses?
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. If you don’t know what happened on 9/11, you don’t know history. Therefore, that is a very dangerous thing. You should make sure you know.
The problem is, if you don’t know what happened, you do not know for certain who “they” is. You see, you probably think this is some sort of a Bush/Cheney event.
Do not blindly accept something as fact just because many people believe it.
Many people blindly use Occam’s razor, thinking that the “simplest explanation is usually the best one.” That’s not even Occam’s razor. “The simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the best one.” The word “usually” in that definition should be a tip off: Occam’s razor is just a way of GUESSING. (That doesn’t inspire very much confidence. This is a really important matter. Guessing shouldn’t be our approach.)
People, you are so ridiculous, too, in how you define simplicity. It is not such a simple matter to define what is simple. Do you have no knowledge of what emergence is? Google for “emergence.” Think for a second about what a fractal is–it is something complex that emerges from simple rules. So which is a fractal–is it something simple or something complex? The formula for it is simple.
Evolution is type of emergence. Conspiracies may evolve over time to get more and more complex. However, they may be quite simple in a way. Which is it? Is a huge conspiracy a simple thing or a complex one? Weighing in at 12,000 lbs., the African elephant is the largest land-walking animal today. The whale was once a land-walking mammal with hooves, but it became an aquatic creature and evolved to be so large that the blue whale’s tongue weighs as much as an African elephant and eats 8,000 lbs. of krill a day.
The weight of the elephant probably keeps it from getting much larger. The largeness of the Enron conspiracy–which involved at least roughly 50 large companies (mostly banks that were given kick-backs for continually putting out “BUY” recommendations on Enron stock despite not having knowing how Enron made money). The weight that most pulled down Enron was the media, with the collapse starting with an innocently-titled article in Fortune Magazine: “Is Enron Overpriced?”
The whale does not have to deal with weight so much because it is buoyed by its environment. It also has plenty of food to feed on. If these environmental factors didn’t help the whale to survive, it never would have gotten so large.
If the mainstream media and the corruption culture in Washington allow a huge conspiracy to occur (or even feed it), the conspiracies will grow larger and larger.
If we are waiting for the mainstream media to bless 9/11 as a conspiracy, we will be waiting some time. Look into it for yourself and realize that the media does not have to tell the truth and even ignores very important issues sometimes.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Why does it matter to know what happened on 9/11? If you do not ever know the true history, then you do not know history. So you claim it does not matter whether we remain ignorant to history in general?WHY STUDY 9/11?A reason it is so important to study 9/11 is that it sheds light on so many things. Please understand this in detail, as it a way to understand so many things in the political realm. Simply replacing Bush is nothing close to the panacea we have been thinking it would be. (The Democrats are not our saviors.) The media, the role of myth and propaganda in our society, the culture of corruption in Washington, the true power structure and the structuring of power–understanding such is not only a fun intellectual exercise but also a necessary one for making wise choices as a citizen and as a human being.Being context aware is the way of wisdom. If you do not have the context of history, you are unwise.It is very important to know what happened, and it is unwise to ignore this simply due to controversy.One of the seven wise men of ancient Greece and the Socrates of his time according to Wikipedia, Solon declared: “It is a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.”If controversy was enough to get people not to look at something, then all you would have to do is manufacture false evidence and/or the air of controversy to keep people from looking at it.Can you imagine never being able to put someone like Jeffrey Skilling of Enron in prison just because he denies any wrongdoing whatsoever?Incidentally, I never said anything about holograms. You use a straw man argument to oppose me. Do you know what this says about your reverence for the truth?
Not much point in debating it really, unless someone has some new iron clad, stone cold evidence that the Bush administration/new world order/illuminati/shape shifting lizards etc were behind the attacks, .. nothing has been shown which proves they did it so far, all we’ve seen is speculation/coincidences/odd occurrences, that when put together can be quite persuasive, but still nothing near concrete proof.
On the other hand the evidence that the Bush admin hijacked the atrocities to push a certain agenda is abundant, the lies that were told before the Iraq war are out there for all to see.
Anders, from a logic standpoint, it seems you are right: There seems to be no point debating 9/11. Dishonest people will never yield to the logical truth, so debate can go round and round forever.
However, to get people familiar with the hard evidence, it is important to bring up the topic. Rather than look at the iron-clad, stone-cold evidence, people simply want to debate or spout uninformed opinions–even in the face of hard facts which must be dealt with.
For instance, there is physical evidence of iron-melting temperatures before the Twin Towers were piles of rubble–you can even see it on a government Web site ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04-IMAGE.jpg ). Doing actual experiments on this evidence can yield important clues about how it was created. Instead, some people want to create speculative answers for this and disregard any inconvenient evidence. When confronted by me via email, famed “9/11 debater” Mark Roberts simply used the “because they said so” defense over and over when I brought up this topic. Why don’t you try to out-do him and give me a real answer. There is only speculation and no real experimental evidence supporting the “fly ash” or other official story-compatible theories about how this metal melted. On the contrary, strong scientific evidence is coming out for the thermite hypothesis.
I see no point in debating when instead we can use science and hard evidence to determine what happened.
At this point, it is not so easy to show who did this, as there has never been an investigation with subpoena power. NORAD was shown to have lied under oath to the 9/11 Commission. However, many of the suspects have never been put under oath. You are asking for iron-clad evidence that certain suspects did this when there was never an investigation with real power that was independent of the suspects. You are asking for the nearly impossible. Essentially the same suspects are on the suspect list no matter which independent line of inquiry you follow in trying to figure out what happened on 9/11.
Concerning the suspect lists: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, has the DNA of a duck…then what are the chances that it is not a duck. Slim to none. How is it possible, then, that you have significantly overlapping suspect lists from all the various independent aspects of 9/11?
I think it is important to realize that the very high-tech, man-made nanothermite being found in the WTC dust is made by very few groups–and one of them is affiliated with the group doing the government investigation of the WTC disaster, NIST.
What about the anthrax attacks traced back to the US military? What about the put options that were traced back to a CIA-managed brokerage house? What about the hijackers who were training at US Naval bases?
I see little point in debating whether or not the official story is correct. Only very dishonest people know this story well and insist it is correct.
There is no point in debating whether or not you or I would stand by idly if a crime is committed against you and your loved ones and the suspects running the investigation. To say it should be any different if the crime is committed against your country is ludicrous. Should we have an independent investigation–independent of the suspects? What kind of scoundrels disagree with me? Do they not love their country? Are they unwittingly (or wittingly) aiding the terrorists? Are they just going along with the crowd and not thinking? We could pause the war in Iraq for 35 minutes to pay for a $40 million dollar investigation. If this would help bring about the end of the expensive never-ending so-called War on Terror, then that would be money well spent.
Dude…the Bush people, the Congress, etc, have all been party to crimes that they publicly admit to that they should be tried and if found guilty experience some “Texas justice” for.
Maybe they stuck thermite all over WTC7 and control demolitioned it. I don’t know. And it’s not because “I’m afraid to admit the truth” or would want them to get away with it had they in fact done it.
I do know that they murdered 1 million+ Iraqis in cold blood though. That’s plenty to hang them for. I’m curious as to whether you dispute that or not, and maybe think that only 9,000 Iraqis died like some poll showed most Americans apparently believe? Because I hate to be the one to point this out, but 1,000,000 is a lot bigger a number than 3,500 (or whatever the exact count murdered on 9/11 was) and that those million plus group of individuals’ killers have publically confessed and will never be brought to justice. How the hell is it worth spending time trying to figure out exactly how and why all the 9/11 buildings collapsed and if it was some shadowy conspiracy when that is even less likely to ever matter? You really believe if 9/11 was an “inside job” anyone would be brought to justice for it? If your answer to that is “yes”, then wait for the PCP to start to wear off and think about it again. Because that’s far crazier than any conspiracy theory about 9/11 could ever be.
Some of this stuff is interesting, but the things the government admits to matter more. They have caused far more destruction. The cost of a building like this is maybe a day of the Iraq War.