Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence

[Jester_11218]

I have been reading many posts on this forum. Let me tell you...speaking as a person who has been researching 9/11 & media deception for 3 years I can pretty much tell you that the official story is a load of crap. It is so easily debunked that it is almost funny.

Americans have problems believing things that people on TV do not affirm. This is a big problem with 9/11. The disconnect between what we are told by the media and the actual evidence and testimony is so large that it is hard to sound sane while describing it.

I have interviewed many of the witnesses, researchers, documentary makers, authors. None of this information has been discussed in the media (mainstream corporate).

As many people have asked...what would take for you to realize that the official story is bogus?

Sure...there are still many questions as to what happened. Instead of arguing about what happened lets start by agreeing that the official story is bogus.

Keep in mind...the Kean Commission was not an an investigation. It was put together, under pressure, comprised of people with conflicts of interest, for the purpose of taking the official story and making recommendations as to how to improve security based on that story. THEY WERE NOT TASKED WITH FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED!!! THEY STARTED WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY AND THEY HAD TO END WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY!

Bottom line...even the most superficial examination of the evidence that has been uncovered should be enough to raise suspicion. My question to you is why you are not suspicious?

I am not going to rewrite all of the things I have written on the subject. You can see all of that on my site. In the meantime you may want to peruse these articles. (See below)

Call me what you want...but I live every moment of every day knowing that people within our current administration played a part in the events of 9/11. I base this on the information base that seems to grow each day.

You can see all the updated 9/11 news on my news page. It's free.
Peace,
Jesse

News Page 9/11 Section: http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#911
WHY AMERICANS REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE 9/11 EVIDENCE!!! http://tvnewslies.org/html/refusing_the_9_11_evidence.html
9/11 - ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED! - http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_all_the_proof_you_need.html
9/11-PNAC, 9/11-PNAC - SHOULD BE THE #1 TOPIC OF DISCUSSION - A WAKE-UP CALL THE ALTERNATIVE AND LIBERAL MEDIA: TO STOP IGNORING 9/11 AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - http://tvnewslies.org/html/stop_ignoring_9_11___pnac.html

[Slit Skirt]

1. it is too ugly of a reality

I am working on my sister right now....i can only talk with her a little bit at a time...it is a huge pill to swallow and has to be given in little doses...

[bronco2121]

134. age is important

i think age is important. how old is your sister?

[MellowOne]

2. BushCo did an excellent marketing of the war

And making us believe a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. His speeches were loaded with references to the connection without actually saying it. There are still those who think Iraq did 9/11. First, people need to understand Iraq did not attack us and they were not in any way connect. After that, we might have a chance of proving 9/11 as an inside job.

[undeterred]

3. its not something that anyone wants to believe

I agree that anyone who takes even half a day to look into it and see what kind of challenges to the offcial story exist, soon will become skeptical. But how to make people look? Its not like this information is in the path of the average person.

I think realizing that the elected leaders of this country participated in this crime has the same emotional force of realizing that one of your parents murdered the other. You don't want to know that kind of thing so you will avoid the truth as long as possible. I know many people who could easily believe incompetence but would never suspect complicity. Its too painful, because it means we've handed the country over to the most evil kind of criminals.

[Bushwick Bill]

4. Keep up the great work, Jesse

I loved the recent interview with Mike Ruppert.

[Jester_11218]

11. Thanks

Just trying to find reality!

[veracity]

5. America's official bird: the ostrich

Heads in the sand, that's the official stance of most Americans. Don't bug me with facts... it's easier to be told what to believe.

Never in history has any administration been allowed to get away with so much. Ya gotta give them credit. They know their victims... Seems the US has been infected with the Patty Hearst syndrome.

[hack89]

6. If no believes,,,

where is the proof besides a handful of conspiracy sites with a tiny audience? Show me a single MSM story that questions 9/11. Show me a single 9/11 CT USA best seller. It strikes me as a purely internet phenomena and even then a very small portion of that (even on DU the 9/11 stuff is hidden away).

[drdtroit]

9. The MSM? Surely you jest!

The official apologists???
:tinfoilhat:

[Jester_11218]

14. Are you kidding?

Have you seen Cynthia McKinny's hearings? I defy you to watch them and then walk away beliveing in the official story.

You can also watch the citizen's inquiry hearings...
http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html

[hack89]

20. I saw and still don't believe...

Same old superficial clap trap with absolutely no hard evidence. You realize the 9/11 CT community is doing the same thing as the Intelligent Design community - find holes in the opposing argument and using that as "proof" that they are right. ID fills gaps in scientific knowledge with God and says it proves ID while 9/11 CTrs fills the holes in the official story with conspiracy.

Proving the official story wrong does not automatically prove that you are right.

If it is so obvious, why has the 9/11 community failed to come to any consensus on what happened? Where are the timelines, physical evidence, names of participants? Why after four years can't they answer the simple question "tell me what really happened?". I am tired of endless questions and breathless announcements of "smoking guns" - why don't you lay out for me exactly what happened?

[StrafingMoose]

75. As I've said before..

"Proving the official story wrong does not automatically prove that you are right."

If you prove the official story wrong, the obvious point is that the governement lied when laying out their narrative? Or perhaps "failed", like these intelligence "failures" about Iraq ?

[petgoat]

130. "Demand Imposible Proofs" is disinfo strategy #19

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm

19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.)....

[Beam Me Up]

148. Yours has to qualify as the stupidest post I have ever read.

You may be a very intelligent person but you are asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, why is our government and media perpetrating a total fantasy about what happened on 9/11? In the real world steel frame buildings don't collapse into 'manageable sized' lengths of steel and pulverized dust as a consequence of fires. Never have, never will. Physical impossibility--WITHOUT the added heat and energy that would come from explosives.

Explosives have no place in the official 9/11 story.

THEREFORE: We know that official story to be a lie. We don't have to know all the details of how or even why, all we have to know is that it is impossible--and we DO know that. If YOU don't, then all I gotta say is, if you live in a world where steel frame buildings that were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of large aircraft; were DESIGNED to withstand the seasonal forces of nature day in and day out (and did for decades); were DESIGNED to keep fire from spreading from floor to floor; were DESIGNED and OVER BUILT to INSURE that they would NEVER do precisely what they DID--if you believe that, then you are not only stupid, you are not living in the real world.

Given that fact, what possible difference could it make HOW or WHY it was done? The fact is, it WAS done and we are being lied to about it by our government and by our media. This catastrophic crime has been used by our government to terrorize every man woman and child in this country--and around the world. This catastrophic crime has been used to fundamentally alter the very fabric of our society in such a way that we are supposed to accept the breaking of the law of our highest government officials as "necessary" for purposes of national security. This catastrophic crime has been used to launch not one but TWO invasions of sovereign nations without provocation. (Less evidence has been presented that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the events of 9/11--which must now include the demolishing of THREE skyscrapers in Manhattan by use of explosives--than has been offered proving Saddam Husein had WMD and was implicated in 9/11--both assertions being demonstrably false.)

So. You tell me. What is YOUR explanation. You really believe steel frame buildings collapse and turn to manageable size beams of metal and fine powder dust WITHOUT the added heat and energy from explosives? You honestly believe that the weight of the falling debris and gravity did that--and created a 1300 degree fire in the sub-basement level that burned for weeks, months? I suppose you can believe that if you want, just like people can believe the earth is flat if they want or that their particular god is the only 'god' that exists, if they want. People really can believe anything they want. But are you really going to let your government and corporations LIE to you in such a bald faced way--literally let them get away with what is, at the very least, accessory to mass murder, and war crimes? You really believe allowing them to do this to you is going to make you SAFER??!!

Edit: html

[LARED]

7. Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence ?

I think they do. The evidence that the "official Story" is largely correct is pretty compelling.

[drdtroit]

10. "The evidence that the "official Story" is largely correct ..."

:tinfoilhat:

[Jester_11218]

12. What evidence are you talking about?

Keep in mind the official story is backed up mostly by a story. There is very little evidence put forth by the administration and the evidence they shared was not backed up.

Sure...they found a passport among the rubble at the WTC...So you believe that is evidence? What was it made of? Titanium?

[LARED]

15. How about evidence put forth by serious minded investigators?

Here

Here too

and

[dailykoff]

16. Funded by whom?

That's an elementary consideration.

[LARED]

18. Taxpayers

Who else?

Of course you're implying that because NIST and FEMA are government institutions they are somehow going to overlook the so obvious evidence found by 9/11 "researchers" because Bush happens to be president. To which my reply is show me some evidence that is true. Something other than dark weaved imagining of the the 9/11 CT'er.

What would Bush do anyway? Stop funding the NIST or FEMA? That wouldn't be too obvious now would it. Perhaps the Bush junta will have all scientists and engineers that worked on those reports blackballed so the best the every could mange is flipping burgers in the future. Maybe the 100 year old NIST organization is under the control of the illuminate and all weights and measures are part of a secret cabal to make only a few rich and this is just the latest scheme to bring the new world order to fruition.

Tell me dailykoff, why is their funding an elementary consideration? Aren't you just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks.

[dailykoff]

22. You are absolutely correct.

And as taxpayers we have a right to demand a thorough accounting of pre-9/11 intelligence and scientifically credible investigations, which we have not begun to receive.

[hack89]

23. Where are the scientist and engineers

questioning the credibility of the the investigations? Their silence on the matter is pretty convincing to me.

[dailykoff]

49. As another poster wrote, stick with the professors

who are doing just that (see links at end of post):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=64339&mesg_id=64415

[hack89]

56. You are not serious, are you?

Can you show me a technical analysis that they have written or any original research and experimentation that any have done? They do no more than parrot the multitude of 9/11 CT web sites.

Jones and Griffin rehash tired old argument with no original contribution while Fetzer is a Dr of Philosophy who writes about conspiracies in general and does not venture an opinion on what happened on 9/11(his field of CT is the JFK assignation)

You have simply proved my point for me.

[dailykoff]

59. I answered your question seriously, yes.

You may not like the answer but there it is.

[LARED]

25. I found the NIST reports to scientifically credible

You do not? Why

[dailykoff]

50. Please see the answer just above, thanks. n/t

[petgoat]

27. NIST is going to overlook the obvious because of the way

their charge was framed. Their mandate was to study the collapses and
make proposals to improve building safety. Thus testing for explosive
residue was not something they were going to do.

The 9/11 Commission's mandate was similarly limited. They were to analyze the
intelligence failures and propose ways of improving intelligence.

By framing the investigation dishonestly from the start, the authorities make
sure that finding the truth is nobody's damn business.

[LARED]

28. You are correct

The mandate of the NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission did not include looking to alternate speculations about the events of 9/11. (why should they?) Although you do yourself no favor by characterizing it as dishonest.

If the so called 9/11 truth movements feels no legitimate investigation has taken place why have no serious investigations be undertaken? I'm sure funding could be obtained. There are many with the means that would love to see LIHOP or MIHOP proved, or at least questioned by serious people.

Why no testing for explosives, Why no reputable engineering analysis into the so called evidence for controlled demolition?

I'm not talking about the pervasive numbers of Goggle engineers out there, I'm talking about real engineers that truly have a mastery of the subjects.

[petgoat]

29. So you agree that the official investigations were stunted.

But then rather than regarding this fact as a red flag of suspicion, you regard it as
proof that there was nothing outside of the limited official scope worthy of investigation.

This mode of denial always reminds me of the movie cuckold whose response to reports of
his/her spouse's infidelity is invariably not substantive but "Why are you telling me this?"

[LARED]

30. What makes you think I agree the investigation

was stunted?

I wonder why the so called 9/11 truth seekers, have not had any real investigations performed.

Like a simple test for explosive residue at the ground zero area?

[AlienSpaceBat]

31. Wasn't the ground zero site

A secured area whilst the demolished materials were being removed ? My understanding is that it was declared a crime scene and so no evidence could have been removed by 3rd parties.

Even if it could have been, on September 12th 2001 there was no 911 movement to attempt to organise such a thing - and I don't imagine that there's much point trying to do such a test today ...

This is one of the huge problems in all this - the physical evidence either no longer exists, or access to it was and is being prevented. Why can we not see all the plane parts laid out in a hangar, for example, as is normally the case in aircraft destruction investigations ?

The simple fact that all this evidence which could answer so many questions is still being held behind closed doors is one of the indicators that there is something to hide. IMHO.

[LARED]

33. Testing for explosives

could still be performed today. If explosives were used there would still be trace evidence all over lower Manhattan. There is no way every bit of dust and debris have been removed from every roof top or nook and cranny. Even if it was I would be willing to bet there are thousands of people that collected debris as a token or memento.

Why do you think no one has attempted this, or better yet, why has no one published the results if it was done?

[petgoat]

32. You said the official investigations did not consider the full

range of hypotheses.

That to me is a stunted investigation. "Okay guys, I want you
to investigate Colonel Mustard, and let's look at the candlestick
and the rope, and let's keep all this on the second floor okay?
And there's no need to bother with any of this other stuff."

That's not science.

Why no test for explosive residue? They won't even give up the
blueprints! Do you think steel samples are available for anyone
who wants them? They made it illegal just to take photos of the
site. They wouldn't even let FEMA on the site except in a guided
tour.

Have you read Jim Hoffman's investigation? Don't you consider that serious?
Have you read Dr. Jones's paper? Have you seen that Jones's conclusion
calls for NIST to release the 7000 photos and 300 hours of video evidence
that it has?

[LARED]

34. Full range of hypotheses?

Why not review every conceivable hypotheses?

Let's see, they did not review for truck bombs, atomic weapons, Tesla devices, laser beams, fairies and trolls; nor dragons or unicorns.

Why do you think any serious minded investigator would even entertain the notion of controlled demolition, when there is zero evidence for it.

Why no test for explosive residue? They won't even give up the
blueprints!

One has nothing to do with the other

Do you think steel samples are available for anyone
who wants them?

There is ample dust samples to be found. You don't need steel to test for explosives.

They made it illegal just to take photos of the site. They wouldn't even let FEMA on the site except in a guided tour.

Evidence please?

Have you read Jim Hoffman's investigation? Don't you consider that serious?

Yes, I've read them and they are not to be taken seriously at ALL unless you enjoy reading half truths and information taken out of context.

Have you read Dr. Jones's paper?

Yes, it's regurgitated CT nonsense. There is no analysis worthy of his credentials.

Have you seen that Jones's conclusion calls for NIST to release the 7000 photos and 300 hours of video evidence that it has?

Yes, I'd like to see them released.

[petgoat]

38. Why not review every conceivable hypotheses?

Because some of them are a waste of time. Nobody is propounding unicorns or trolls. By lumping
CD in with them you are throwing the baby out with the chamber pot.

Truck bombs seems worth investigating, since it had been tried before, it nearly worked, and
there were reports of basement and ground-level explosions. Unconventional weapons seem worth
investigating. Reports of missiles fired from the Woolworth Building have been irrationally
conflated with no-planes hologram theory and should be investigated.

They made it illegal to take photographs at the site. http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa091602c.htm

They wouldn't even let FEMA on the site except in a guided tour. This document refers obliquely to
FEMA's difficulties in gaining WTC site access. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1059

This one refers vaguely to them:
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1058

I can't remember where I read the statement that FEMA got only guided tours of the site. I believe
it was attributed to Rep. Boehlert of the House Science Committee, but I can't remember. Since
stuff gets scrubbed on the internet it can be frustrating to try to track down stuff you know you
read somewhere.

[hack89]

43. Why investigate for truck bombs and demolition..

when there is no forensic evidence of explosives? If there was explosives, they would have been easily detected by any half ass lab testing dust that was spread over a huge area. That fact that no 9/11 "researcher" bothered to go to NY with a garbage sack and collect dust for testing is quite telling don't you think? If this simple measure had been done we wouldn't be having this conversation four years later. And the investigative and scientific credentials of the 9/11 "research" community would be held in higher esteem.

[petgoat]

45. You and LARED keep flogging this line that explosive

residue should have been available in the dust.

What is your authority for this assertion?

The FEMA Appendix C report showing the mysterious high-temperature
sulfidative (or oxidative?) erosion of I-beams down to scrolls of
foil is regarded by some as evidence of explosives.

Your claim there is no forensic evidence is unimpressive given the
fact that the steel was recycled lickety split and proper samples
never were taken.

As to the claim that there is no evidence of explosives, the numerous
accounts of witnesses describing explosions, including many in the
basement and in the lower levels, is evidence. The mushroom cloud of
energetically-ejected concrete and steel from the building is also
evidence supporting the explosive hypothesis, as is the fact that the
core was destroyed all the way down.

[StrafingMoose]

76. You're fixated on the WTC collapse...

He/she was talking about the passports... I beleive.

[HamdenRice]

17. Even the 9/11 Commission no longer believes the 9/11 Commission Rept

Because of Able Danger revelations, the 9/11 Commission has had to acknowledge that some of their most important conclusions were wrong.


So, if most Americans accept the official story, then they accept a story that is now definitively known to be wrong.

Looks like people who simply don't read the newspapers are the people who think the official story is still "pretty compelling".

[LARED]

19. So the commission report is not factual at all?

Yes, of course Able Danger was something the commission missed. (on purpose or typical SNAFU is unknown at the point), but much the the report is still factual.

And as I indicated the report was design to CYA, that doesn't not mean it is all a lie or a coverup.

[HamdenRice]

24. Your rhetorical technique never ceases to amaze me

When did I say the 9/11 report is not "factual at all"? If it mentions for example the time of day that the first plane flew into the north tower, I would say that is at least one factually correct statement; it can't be "not factual at all" can it?

But what is now nearly incontrovertable for anyone who reads is that the central thrust of the report -- that 9/11 was the result of "intelligence failure", the pure incompetence and coincidence conspiracy theory -- is no longer seriously sustainable.

It has now been proven, and members of the commission ackowledge, that elements of the government were tracking the hijackers. Of course, we already knew that the intelligence services knew about the plot even from the heavily redacted August 2001 PDB.

The question now for any sentient person is why did the administration ignore "warnings" (more like exact and detailed specifications) about the attacks. Existing public documents and reporting pretty much makes it clear that at a minimum LIHOP has been proven. When you add the funding that Pakistani intelligence was providing to the hijackers -- and Pakistani ISI being a creature of US covert ops against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- a pretty good case of MIHOP is virtually proven by circumstantial evidence.

[LARED]

26. Most sentient people might wonder why

anyone could make the leap in faith that an obvious intelligence failure has been turned into a murder of 3000 American citizens. No less by a guy with the brain power of an idiot in eight months. And that somehow the poor intelligence data has become exact and detailed specifications that were ignored. Sorry but life and the queer things that happen are not that simple.

One might also wonder how anyone believes the ISI that worked with the CIA is covert operations twenty years ago is still under the control of their so called masters at the CIA who knew they were funding the hijackers. Or are you naive enough to believe the ISI does not have it own agenda that may cross purposes with ours.

I know you mean well, but the simplification of facts surrounding the events leading up to and after 9/11 is not being bought by all those sentient people out in the world. After all, being sentient does not imply that critical thought processes are fully functional. Something all too obvious

[HamdenRice]

37. Congratulations Lared! You no longer believe in the 9/11 Comm theory!

It's good to see you come over to the alternative theories, even if you don't realize it.

You wrote:

One might also wonder how anyone believes the ISI that worked with the CIA is covert operations twenty years ago is still under the control of their so called masters at the CIA who knew they were funding the hijackers. Or are you naive enough to believe the ISI does not have it own agenda that may cross purposes with ours.

The premise of your post then is that the ISI was "funding the hijackers". But the 9/11 Commission Report does not assert that the ISI funded the hijackers. Therefore, you accept that a central premise of the 9/11 Commission is false. The premise of the 9/11 Commission is that this was a crime solely of an al Queda cell, with no governmental support other than that of Taliban Afghanistan.

Congratulations Lared, you are finally beginning to allow facts to contradict your carefully constructed theology.

Now that you accept that the ISI was connected to the plotters, perhaps we can wedge some more reason into the cracks in your theology.

ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad was in Washington from 9/6/01 through the attacks, conferring with his counterparts in US defense and intelligence agencies. As GlobalResearch reports, based on Indian intelligence leaked to the Times of India:

<quote>

The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The Indian intelligence report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.

The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohamed Atta in the US "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a so-called "regular visit of consultations" with US officials.

In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans

The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".

The Bush Administration's links with Pakistan's ISI --including its "consultations" with General Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-- raise the issue of "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, ISI officials were allegedly also in contact with the September 11 terrorists.

<endquote>

This was all available to the 9/11 Commission. For example, the Wall St. Journal, the Indian government intelligence services and senior US officials all asserted in the wake of 9/11 that elements within the ISI had financed Mohamed Atta. The ISI financers were ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad and operative Mohammed Sheikh Saeed. From Wikipedia:

<quote>
On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. <2>

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. Indian news outlets reported the FBI was investigating the possiblity that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta, while most Western media outlets only reported his connections to the Taliban as the reason for his departure. <3>

<unquote>

Despite the many mainstream sources that reported this and were available to the 9/11 Commission, the Report misidentifies him and his role, by splitting his identity, in one instance identifying him as "Sheikh Saeed al Masri" an "Egyptian" on AQ's finance committe, and using his pseudonym and "Mustafa al Hawsawi" the person who engaged in the financial transactions.

The 9/11 Commission refused to acknowledge the widely reported links between ISI and the 9/11 attackers.

[LARED]

44. You need to re-read what I wrote

You have misinterpreted my comment

[HamdenRice]

53. I re-read your post and Congratulations! again!

Here is what you wrote:

One might also wonder how anyone believes the ISI that worked with the CIA is covert operations twenty years ago is still under the control of their so called masters at the CIA who knew they were funding the hijackers.

You accept that the ISI "were funding the hijackers". That is well known and was widely reported in the mainstream media, so you agree with the reality based community.

But the 9/11 Commission refused to state that the ISI funded the hijackers and said that the only state sponsor of the hijackers was Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

Therefore, you disagree with the central explanatory premise of the 9/11 Commission.

In what way can you reconcile your view and the 9/11 Commission view?

Now, once you accept that you disagree with a central contention of the 9/11 Commission -- namely that 9/11 was the work solely of an al Queda cell with no major state sponsorship -- you can begin to understand that much of the work of the 9/11 Commission was a coverup. They not only refused to acknowledge the ISI's role in "funding the hijackers," but they positively misidentified key actors in that funding (eg as Egyptian).

[StrafingMoose]

77. Re...

"Or are you naive enough to believe the ISI does not have it own agenda that may cross purposes with ours."

Are you suggesting that Pakistan is at war with the USA ?

[petgoat]

86. suggesting that Pakistan is at war with the USA ?

Given that Osama was in a Pakistani military hospital on 9/11, one might
wonder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

Given that Pakistan was supplying Taliban at a time when we were at war
with Taliban one might wonder. (I had the link once)

Given that one of the demands of the Daniel Pearl kidnappers was that
the US provide the Pakistani gov't with F-16s (a demand which was
subsequently met) one might wonder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4462107,00.html

[MrSammo1]

8. Hi Jesse..........

90% of the population believes in god.

83% in miracles.

It's an impossible battle from the start!

[Jester_11218]

13. Good point.

n/t

[Old and In the Way]

21. Maybe in 2006, when the Democrats take back Congress, we can

get a real 9/11 investigation that is not controlled by those that have so much invested in the official story. Thing is, no one has been brought to justice, no one has been held accountable for allowing 9/11 to occur. Even if it is simply incompetence, it is criminal negligence. Personally, I think they knew someting was going to happen...and they wanted to get hit first to justify their PNAC plan. The 9/11 Commission was a joke. It's premise was to focus on ways to prevent another 9/11 type attack in the future....and avoid a serious look at the actors who were involved with the events of that day. Bush's actions after 9/11 in avoiding an independent investigation tells me all I need to know about his complicity. By not uncovering the root cause of 9/11, I won't be surprised when another event occurs, just in time to disrupt the 2006 mid-terms. I think August/September will be when the chatter starts.

[hack89]

35. But surely the conspiracy extends back to the Clinton administration..

1. It must been in the planning for years - it is a very complex plot requiring the complicity of many government organizations.

2. There were still many Clinton appointments still in place on 9/11.

Have you considered that a true investigation would not be in the best interest of some high ranking Democrats who have all the incentive in the world to block a ne investigation.

[LARED]

36. Not possible

All Democratic officials are as pure and clean as the driven snow and all Republicans will step over granny on the curb to get what they want. (if only life was that simple)

The bottom line is few in Congress or the Senate are interested in finding out why 9/11 happened. It's too risky because some of the blame will spill over to areas that they are responsible for.

Note to all. This comment does not mean I think 9/11 was an inside job, LIHOP, or MIHOP, but simply means the folks that were supposed to protect America from attack will never be held accountable.

[petgoat]

40. pure and clean as the driven snow

That's an over-the-top straw man, even for you.

few in Congress or the Senate are interested in finding out why 9/11 happened.

You got that right. The intelligence community wanted covered up all kinds of
pre-Bush stuff--why did the FBI take Emad Salem off the Blind Sheikh case when
he was so close to the '93 bomb plot he was in a position to substitute harmless
powder for the explosives?

Why were the Project Bojinka warnings from the Philippines (of an al Qaeda plot to
fly hijacked airliners into landmarked buildings such as WTC and Sears Tower) ignored?

Why was the Able Danger project not able to investigate Mohammed Atta?

Was Terry Nichols's possible connection to al Qaeda bomber Ramzi Yousef in the
Philippines ever seriously investigated? Was John Doe #2? Was credible reports
of other bombs planted in the building?

Why was Ali Mohamed, who trained the Blind Sheikh's al Qaeda cell and was convicted
of involvement in the African embassy bombings, never sentenced? And where is he now?

Obviously the 9CR was a game of Mah Jong where each embarassment covered up under
one administration was matched to embarassments covered up for the other. Trading
this way, they took down and suppressed a heap of facts. What was left was the
9/11 Commission Report.

[adolfo]

133. delete

sdd

[AlienSpaceBat]

39. Since you say that there was no plot ...

And the attack succeeded anyway, it follows that no govt complicity was *required* for the official story to succeed.

Why then if the actors were not 19 assorted arabs and a guy in a cave, but 19 pentagon officers and a guy in the white house basement, does it suddenly need thousands of people and years of planning ?

You can't have it both ways.

[hack89]

42. There is a lot to investigate the government for,,,

and I for one would love to see those responsible for incompetence and negligence receive Justice. I am just realistic to see that putting Democrats in power would make one iota of difference.

As for not taking a lot of people and a long time, I would comment if only the 9/11 "research" community would settle on a single story. Remote control / Global Hawk / switching planes and hiding bodies / holographs / wiring the WTC for explosives alone or in any combination would take a lot of time and people. And what about the cover up - how many people(police, fireman, and eye witnesses) were at the various incident sites? Could 19 officers cover up all that? How many conspirators were required to keep NIST and FEMA in line to ensure the reports were the proper whitewash?

Remember - Ben Laden didn't have to worry about a cover up. If you believe that the only reason the scientific and engineering communities are silent on 9/11 is because of government intimidation and not because they think you r ideas are wacko, then you have to believe in a massive government cover up with thousands of participants.

[petgoat]

46. a lot of time and people.

Wiring the WTC would not take a lot of time if you used radio controlled detonators
and planted the charges in the elevator shafts, using the elevator cars as movable
staging. Charges could be planted at mechanical floors too. Other floors they could
be hidden in the ceiling at the perimeter. There was a high vacancy rate, wasn't there?

how many people(police, fireman, and eye witnesses) were at the various incident sites?
Could 19 officers cover up all that?

The police reports of secondar explosions were reported on national TV. So what? Who cared
what they said? The media censored themselves.

How many conspirators were required to keep NIST and FEMA in line

One. The guy who told them the scope of their investigation. Maybe you don't understand--
for technocrats who bill by the hour to go off investigating stuff that is "off topic"
is so extremely unprofessional it's nearly fraud.

massive government cover up

Who's going to dispute NIST's findings when they can't even get the blueprints?
Nobody! That's why the only person coming forward is a physicist, Dr. Jones. He can
evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics, and he has something that no
other category of professional has--tenure.

[LARED]

47. Yes, he can

He can evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics,

But has failed to even attempt it. Why, because he has only regurgitated CT theories and has added not a single new thing to the argument.

[petgoat]

48. There was nothing new to add. He looked at the same

evidence everybody else looked at and came to the same conclusions
as anybody with any common sense. And saw the glaring shortcomings
in the official stories. What was he supposed to add?

[LARED]

51. What could he add?

He could evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics for starters. He is a PhD Physicist after all.

[petgoat]

57. If you had read Dr. Jones's paper, you would not make that statement. nm

[LARED]

58. I read it and stand by my statement

He has offered nothing other than rehashed CT theories based on the same misinformation, distractions and sophistry.

[petgoat]

61. stand by my statement

Then don't weasel out of it by changing it. Your statement was:

"He could evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics for starters,"
and not "He has offered nothing other than rehashed CT theories" as you claim.

If you read the paper you will see that he does evaluate the collapse according
to the laws of physics.

He cites conservation of momentum and the Second Law of Thermodynamics overtly. He
refers to the First Law of Thermodynamics and the law of conservation of angular
momentum implicitly.

To you the laws of physics are CT dogma. It's a sad state of affairs when physical reality becomes issues of political correctness.

[LARED]

62. I believe you need to get a better understanding of what

evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics means.

He did nothing of the sort.

[petgoat]

63. evaluate the collapse according to the laws of physics

That's exactly what he did. He evaluated it as mysterious according
to the laws of physics, he evaluated the official explanations as
unsatisfactory according to the laws of physics, and he evaluated
the evidence for other theories as compelling and well worth
investigating according to the laws of physics.

Do you get paid by the post or what?

It's frustrating to me when I put time into my posts to see somebody
smear the thread over with "prove that night is dark!" nonsense and
provoking "did so!" "did not!" "did so!" exchanges so the thread
becomes a hundred posts nobody wants to read.

[hack89]

64. Why is he incapable of..

writing a simple technical analysis to counter the NIST report? Where are the calculations, modeling and other experiments that go beyond the superficial analysis common to 9/11 researchers?

[dailykoff]

66. Could you please be more specific?

Exactly which points of the report require calculations?

[hack89]

68. Well,

how can the good doctor tell us the official NIST report is incorrect if he is unable to produce some calculations that counter the NIST report? The entire WTC collapse is all a matter of forces, energy, heat, loading, resistance and a host of other physical variables. These variables can be quantified and calculated - why can't he do this? Even if it is your view that highly complex and technical theories can be understood in all their subtleties without the use of calculations, why doesn't he take the extra step of producing a true technical defense of his views? It would help shift other engineers off the fence and it would also raise the visibility of 9/11 in engineering and scientific communities.

[dailykoff]

69. By "specific," I mean references to particular statements

in the paper. Can you please specify which statements require calculations?

[petgoat]

70. Calculations are not needed. It's not a pissing contest to show who's

a smarter mathematician. Dr. Jones challenges NIST's assumptions that the fires
brought the building down, disputing (by reference to a UK paper (1)) NIST's
asserrtion that differential heat responses of the external column set and the
core columns warped the building and subjected it to structural strain.

He chides them for tweaking their computer model after its initial failure to
produce a collapse.

In addition, most of Jones's paper adresses issues--such as the disintegration
of the core, the molten metal, the energetic expulsion of debris and the squibs
--for which NIST never raised a mathematical argument to refute.

There's no need for a complicated mathematical response at this stage. Suppose a
ballistics expert gives us a long and very complicated analysis linking a certain
bullet to a certain gun, and then a pathologist informs us that the supposed gunshot
victim was in fact knifed instead. Under those circumstances you investigate the
assertions of the pathologist. You don't say "well, since the pathologist has not
refuted the ballistic evidence we're not even going to investigate the knife issue.
We've got our story and we're sticking to it, by god!"

1. http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

[hack89]

73. I am not talking about complex models

I am talking about a demonstration that he understands fundamental facts of buildings and their collapses.

[petgoat]

79. He understands fundamental facts of physics. If you would read the

paper you would see that he consulted "numerous engineers and scientists"
asking about molten metal in the basement, and none of them had ever heard
of such a thing before.

He also quotes fire engineering experts from the UK in disputing NIST's assertions
about differential heat reactions, and quotes the President of Controlled Demolition,
Inc: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to
get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

He comments as a scientist expert in freshman physics (which is all this is).
No independent engineer is going to comment without seeing the blueprints,
and the blueprints to this publically-built structure are a secret.

Besides, the experts already had their shot with MIT's ridiculous zipper theory.
If nobody would step forward to shoot that bunkum down, why would they start now?

[hack89]

80. So he is right and the entire academic and engineering communities

are wrong? Is that what you want me to believe?

[petgoat]

83. the entire academic and engineering communities

do not have enough information to have an opinion. You cannot
invoke people's apathy, ignorance, and despair as evidence of
endorsement.

You don't understand. Even among those few engineers and
academicians who have ever heard of Dr. Griffin's books and
Dr. Jones's papers, the fear of having their internet browsing
tracked by big brother prevents their becoming informed on
certain issues.

Dr. Griffin's books have not even been reviewed in the usual
places. You only find out about them through the internet or
world of mouth.

[hack89]

84. Ok - if you say so. n/t

[we can do it]

112. So, Now the Entire Academic and Engineering Communities Concur

with the "Official Story"?

[hack89]

115. The "silent majority" line didn't work for Nixon...

and it doesn't work for the 9/11 CT community. The fact of the matter is the scientific and engineering communities have accepted the NIST report and it's methodology without question. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

[dailykoff]

116. Nor for you.

Where is your evidence that "the scientific and engineering communities have accepted the NIST report"?

Do you have a link to a list of names of these thousands of endorsers you keep referring to?

Or are you simply assuming that the report is endorsed by the silent majority that happens not to be writing articles, books, and papers exposing its foolishness?

Incidentally, the latest NIST report was criticized by a Republican congressman for not proposing new construction standards.

[petgoat]

67. Where are the calculations, modeling and other experiments

The NIST report cost $20 million. The 9/11 research community is volunteers
relying on donations and sales of DVDs and books to survive.

Dr. Jones's analysis DOES counter the NIST report by pointing out several major
shortcomings. He calls for a new investigation. He doesn't himself have the
resources to produce a $20 million dollar study overnight. He doesn't have
NIST's 7000 images or 300 hours of video tape that they haven't released. He
doesn't have the blueprints that remain a secret. Also, he has a full-time
job as a physics professor.

A superficial analysis is sufficient to show the need for a new investigation.
How much are you willing to contribute toward funding of a serious independent
investigation?

[AlienSpaceBat]

71. How would that be possible...

Where is the original data to base that on ? Oh that's right, it's secret.

We have no information on the building specs, and no information on the remains.

NIST analysed the steel themselves, and their samples didn't fail according to thermal stress. It follows then, according to NIST, that the buildings still fell through thermal failure even though they have specifically disproved this themselves. Are samples to be provided to 3rd parties ? - I don't think so.

The model that NIST developed... When parameters for building materials and stresses were input (all values they should exactly know), their model shows that the buildings don't collapse. What do we do then, throw away the model and do it properly ? No, just keep inventing larger and larger parameters until the model does show a collapse.

I have experience in building and managing software modelling and simulation systems. If the NIST model had been presented as finished work to me, I would be tempted to invite the producers to look for new employment in a field more suitable to their talents.

Is this the kind of analysis that should have been provided ? ;)

[petgoat]

72. No, there aren't enough numbers in it. ;>) Welcome to DU! nm

[AlienSpaceBat]

104. Cheers !

:toast:

[hack89]

74. I guess that explains the entire engineering

community up in arms about the shoddy science contained in the NIST report! Considering that the report was used to determine new building standards for high rise buildings and would impact any engineer and architect in the world who would want to build high rise buildings in the USA, you would imagine that there would be an ethical person somewhere that would say something. I wonder why not?

Why should I take Dr Jone's word over the word of thousands of other engineers and scientists?

[dailykoff]

82. What "thousands of other engineers and scientists"?

Could you please provide a link to a list of the names of these thousands of scientists and engineers you are referring to?

[AlienSpaceBat]

102. Haven't they got other jobs to be getting on with ?

I'm not taking issue with what NIST says about how to build new buildings. Since they can't properly explain how the failures happened, it doesn't really matter much.

Building steel frame skyscrapers is well understood anyway, and I don't see why an engineer or an architect would feel the need to question the report unless they thought the recommendations were dangerous. Just because the building regs are acceptable doesn't validate the collapse analysis or modelling. For example: if NIST said that building gremlins like to start fires when offices are unattended, so smoke detectors and sprinklers must be fitted, its easy to accept that sprinklers and smoke detectors are a good idea, whether you believe in building gremlins or not.

I'm not aware of these thousands of engineers that have validated the collapse analysis. Where may I find some of these, so I could think about taking their word like you do ?

Prof Jones is not really asking anyone to take his word for anything is he (?) The paper is saying that there are unanswered questions, that the offical story and analyses do not look right, and that relevant (and currently withheld) data and materials should be provided to allow re-examination by any part of the scientific community that would be interested in doing so ...

If the official story and analysis is correct, and he is just a crank, then it would surely be best to allow him *and others* to proceed, to publish, and to be peer reviewed, no ?

[SittingBull]

85. This was a strong scientific method

wasn't it? Fixing the explanation around to what obviously happened.

[AlienSpaceBat]

103. Absolutely.

The methodology of their modelling, which is something I am qualified to speak of, certainly appears to be bogus.

The worst kind of analysis, assuming what you are setting out to prove, then adjusting the parameters over and over to produce the original result.

If their model was at all accurate and meaningful, the conclusion that should have been drawn is that collapse could *not* happen in the way that had been postulated. If that conclusion was not reached, it should have been concluded that the model had just been shown to be erroneous and it should have been ditched.

[hack89]

105. So it is obviously wrong because it doesn't support your CT?

isn't that somewhat circular logic? Haven't you already presupposed what the results must be?

[SittingBull]

106. You must be some kind

of employmment therapy for 911 truth seekers, like LARED and some other people on this forum, whose only existance here was to create fog and muddy waters.

Now, if someone want to feed you, he should do it. I prefer to ignore people like you, who seems to produce platitudes or unlogical statements or even blatant lies in nonstop ways.

[hack89]

109. I can certainly can come here for a good laugh if nothing else..

Sorry for disturbing your karma!

[AlienSpaceBat]

107. No, not at all ....

A software model or simulation is built and is valuable for its predictive abilities.

For example: I can build a model of traffic on a highway. I build rules to describe the behaviour of cars and drivers, how fast they go, accelerate and brake. How far apart drivers tend to be at different speeds, how much space they take on the highway, the amount of variation there is in these figures etc etc. I can then input into the model 5000 cars per hour, and observe whether gridlock happens or other emergent behaviour is seen. I can see what impact a breakdown in the outside lane would have, or closure of two lanes for maintenance at rush hour, and in the middle of the night.

Suppose I know that 6000 cars/hr on this highway causes gridlock. This is observed in the real world, often.

I then run my model, and set volume to be 6000 cars/hr. The model shows everything is fine. So I increase my volume to 8000 cars/hr and still no gridlock is predicted.

My model is looking pretty poor now. I should look at the rules that go to make it up, it looks like one or likely several are wrong. If I can't refine the model, I should conclude its broken and faulty - either don't use it, or go back to square one and design a new one.

If I was NIST, acting like they did with the WTC model, what I would do instead is: change the parameters until it corresponds with the real world - lets assume that drivers leave a gap of 500 feet between them and the car in front, and that 75% of drivers don't go over 45mph.

All of a sudden my model is now predicting gridlock with 6000 cars/hr, so everything is all right now! :sarcasm:

The failure they have is that if a model doesn't fit the real world, the way to fix it is to change the rules so they correspond to reality. Not to change the values input into the model until you happen to fall across a set that gives you the result you were originally looking for.

The circular reasoning belongs to NIST, not to me, and it is like this:

1. We know the WTC collapsed
2. We have built a model that incorporates the physical qualities and behaviours of the WTC towers
3. We know that the towers collapsed as a result of the fire
4. We input the most accurate values we know for all of the variables that the model is exploring

5. The towers do not collapse in the model !!

6. Since we know that the towers really did collapse, our model must show a collapse
7. We change all our input parameters to a case more severe than we think was real

9. The towers still do not collapse in the model

10. We increase the parameter values further, until
11. The model shows the towers collapsing
12. Case closed - modelling predicts WTC towers will collapse as a result of fire

What has happened here is that we have just basically made up numbers and pushed them through a model that doesn't tally with reality, until we get a result spat out that does tally with what we know happened. Because they knew that the towers did collapse in reality, they had to make the model give that result, even though it did not do so with the values that best represented reality.

What should have happened here was one of two things:

5. The towers do not collapse in the model
6. We stand by our model, we are confident in it
7. Fire was not the cause of the collapse. QED

- or -

5. The towers do not collapse in the model
6. Our model is wrong, it does not have predictive value in this case

[hack89]

108. So why was the study accepted by the engineering and scientific

communities? Am I supposed to take the word of a anonymous internet layman over theirs? Could it be that you have not correctly analyzed the situation - your opinion certainly is a minority opinion you must agree.

[SittingBull]

117. You diffuce illogicalness agian

My opinion about reign is only in common with less than 1 percent of the world people. Does that necessarily mean that I'm wrong?



You have to admit it- It's BS again to point to how many people believe this or that.

[AlienSpaceBat]

118. Here's a criticism by one of your community ...

This is from Arup, who you might have heard of.

(September 6th 2005)

NIST report on the World Trade Center Collapse – Arup View

(...)
NIST has carried out a huge undertaking in modelling the collapse which should not be underestimated, and the key responses described by NIST of events that led to the collapse are all plausible when considered qualitatively. However, having read in detail Report 6, which deals with collapse, Arup believes that NIST have not demonstrated satisfactorily their main conclusion – that had impact induced fire proofing loss not occurred, the towers would not have collapsed.
(...)

Barbara Lane Ph.D. ...Associate Director within the Arup Fire group in London, with several years experience in the New York office...leader of the Structural Fire Engineering group in Arup and is responsible for a developing a group of specialist engineers, which provide structural fire design solutions, as well as complex analysis of structural systems for fire.

Also, it's only fair to say that I am critiqueing the methodology of the NIST modelling process. I say that when a model's predictions do not fit known real world outcomes, the model itself should be iteratively refined, and that the inputs to the model should not be iterated through until the desired prediction finally results. This is a general point, and does not rely on anything specific to the NIST model. If this is not general good practice feel free to show me something to the contrary.

I don't think my opinion is a minority opinion. The main consumers of the NIST report are engineers, not software developers, so I'm not surprised they don't tend to express an opinion about this aspect. Conversely, as I am not an engineer, I wouldn't have read the report if I wasn't interested in the WTC collapse in the context of 9/11, so most professionals in the area of software simulations won't read it and so won't comment. I think if opinions were canvassed as to whether their modelling process was well carried out I think that they would support what I'm saying.

[hack89]

119. ARUP does concur that fire led to the WTC collapse..

when you read their presentation is clear that their disagreement with NIST is a purely technical one on probable collapse mechanism - ARUP feels that thermal expansion was not properly emphasized in the NIST study.

This ARUP study can't be good for the 9/11 demo community - it does not question that fires caused the WTC collapse. I can't see how this can be spun as a smoking gun that the NIST report was a whitewash.

On edit: it also counters the notion that the global engineering community is not paying attention to the NIST report. Surely if any of the ARUP engineers thought that it was demolition we would have heard by now.

[AlienSpaceBat]

120. It speaks to the specific point I was making

NISTs conclusion was challenged as their methodology was faulty.

I use the Arup report to point out not Arup's view on the collapse, but their challenge to the way NIST came to a conclusion.

You have been saying over and over that 1000s of engineers, and the 'engineering community' agree with NIST.

Here is one of the world's largest structural engineers disagreeing with a NIST conclusion, and how they arrived at it.

I am sure you can give many examples of your engineers specifically congratulating NIST on a job well done, and an itemised agreement with all of their conclusions. (or perhaps not ...)

The 1000s of other engineers that currently aren't saying anything about this don't count as agreeing with NIST, their conclusions, or their methods ...

[hack89]

121. Isn't this how science works, though?

someone produces a study and puts it out for review. Other scientist contribute comments and conduct their own studies. When differences are found than they are reconciled and a new hypothesis is formed. And the process continues until the vast majority involved feel they have the final answer.

At the end of the day there will be two and not one study that states that the WTC collapses were caused by fires. You can quibble whether arcane technical disagreements over precisely how they collapsed reflects poorly on NIST (I don't) but I see this as another affirmation that NIST's initial assumption that it was fire was correct.

Did you also noticed all the praise Arup heaped on NIST and their study - it clearly left me with the opinion that they felt it was good science.

[AlienSpaceBat]

131. Yes that is how science works

Precisely my point. NIST have lots to say about lots of things that they investigated in lots of detail.

Interested parties can review this and agree or disagree or comment, to further the discussion. As an aside, if this was truly *science* there would be an opportunity for repeatability of the whole process. Notwithstanding that the funds for this could only come from public sources (ie unlikely to be forthcoming again), the withholding of evidence by NIST prevents anyone from repeating or re-examining parts of their investigation.

The overwhelming majority of the report is agreed with. Thats what I'd expect. It *is* a huge and impressive marshalling of data, for the most part.

BUT Arup don't agree with the way NIST have come to some of their conclusions, and that is the point I was making. They have overreached and made jumps in the dark to arrive at some of their conclusions. Not all of their conclusions and methods are as good as each other.

And some of parts of their reasoning are faulty. The example I gave is one.

Here is another:

NIST simulated the evacuation of the north tower on 9/11. The simulation said it should take 52-55 minutes. In reality the evacuation took almost all the 102 minutes the tower stayed standing.

So they then went on to predict how long it would take to evacuate the tower if full. 2+ hours the system said. NIST already know the results from this model are not correct, so they simply multiply its results by 2 and say it would take 4+ hours ...!!!

Prof Galea, University of Greenwich, who designed some of the models used by NIST to create their EXODUS model said "That's quite a bizarre thing to do, I think".

This virtually guessed result of theirs was then used to combine with other estimates for floor occupancy, occupant's decision making, people distribution, stairwell capacities etc to come up the number that would have died if the tower was full (14,000). Rather than arriving at this number in the way they did, it would have been more honest to just say 'if the tower was full a much larger number would have died, but it is impossible to accurately calculate how many', rather than giving a spuriously precise number that most readers will just accept in the context of the whole report.

Here is another:

From an article in Civil Engineering (proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers).

World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the twin towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.

University of Manchester professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey:
"...NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost"

University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank:
"visualisations of the collapses would be a very powerful tool ..."

A leading US structural engineer said
"NIST has obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated. The software has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls."

[hack89]

135. As long as the Arup study confirms that fires alone ...

caused the collapse of the WTC then I am satisfied. You can nitpick all you want but I don't understand the point - so NIST had the 80 percent solution on the first attempt and now other groups will refine the solution. The point still remains that no one is suggesting anything else but fire as the reason for the WTC collapse. Arup goes one step further and suggest that an airliner impact was not even necessary and fire alone would have created the collapse.

At the end of the process the engineering and scientific communities will come to agreement on what happened and they will all acknowledge the important role NIST had in laying down a foundation.

[AlienSpaceBat]

136. The Arup study does *not* say that ...

What they say is that NIST have proposed a collapse mechanism. That proposal can't be right because NIST have overlooked an effect (thermal expansion) which is far greater than the mechanisms that NIST did incorporate.

Arup also say that this requires more quantitative data, and better modelling.

The draft NIST report appears to rely on dislodged fire protection.

Our main concern with this conclusion is that thermal expansion can swamp all other behaviours and this is not discussed in the NIST report yet. We believe it should be included in a thermo-mechanical analysis to predict the response of any structure to fire, particularly when determining a probable collapse mechanism.

Surely the fact that NIST have forgotten or overlooked this causes you to question how valid their analysis really is, in this particular case ?

Also

This could explain the time gap between the column inward bowing shown in the NIST presentation on 5 April at approx 18mins and the structural survival in that state to collapse several minutes later. However this requires some detailed forensic examination and quantification before a formal statement could be made. (emphasis mine)

And quantification is a key here. The main criticisms of the NIST mechanism, analysis and modelling are that the variables needed have been either withheld, guessed, or arrived at by iterating through possible values until they found one that fitted with their original theory.

All this goes to my point which is that the NIST report has lots of good stuff and data in it, but that the collapse conclusions are based on inadequate data and modelling pushed beyond its limitations.

I have given you my informed criticism of the way that NIST pushed their modelling to produce their collapse result.

I have given you a criticism by Arup that the NIST collapse model *can't* be right.

I have given you a criticism by a professor, one of the NIST subcontractors, that they way they pushed another of their models was 'bizarre'.

I have given you criticism on data withholding by 2 more academics and an engineer in a reputable engineering publication.

You have claimed 1000s of engineers and scientists in agreement with NISTs collapse method and analysis. Where are they ?

[hack89]

137. But isn't the bottom line still the same - NO DEMO!

I am willing to accept imperfection in the NIST report because I don't believe perfection is possible with the present state of the art. You are mistaking the normal give and take in the scientific process as somehow undermining the entire NIST report and that is simply not true. And there is also the point that we won't know who is right until all the experiments are completed - it might take years to come to a final answer as each experiment builds on another and as technology improve.


Did you look at the public comments page for the NIST report? There are comments from many professional organizations representing hundreds if not thousands of professionals. Many point out deficiencies or possible improvements in the NIST report but not a single one questions the basic premise that fires caused the WTC collapse. Can you produce a similiar list supporting demolition?

I will concede that the NIST report is not perfect in every detail - I have never said it was. But the Arup report only confirms in my mind that NIST got the important things right, namely that fires caused the collapsed of the WTC. What do you intend to do when there are two reports that show no demolition was required? Will your conspiracy theories stretch far enough to encompass an independent report from a foreign country?

[AlienSpaceBat]

138. I don't think it is ...

I am also willing to give and take re the NIST report. As I said above, it's huge and the great majority of it is unobjectionable.

I have tried to look at the comments. What I get is

Service Unavailable - DNS failure

The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later.

Reference #11.cbc14752.1136060413.6bb88bc

Looks like big brother is monitoring my IP address ! :) :yoiks:

The point is, though, that on this one germane issue, NIST didn't prove their case.

They produced no evidence of the collapse mechanism, but showed what they deduced happened by means of their software model. I've gone on at length about how they pushed this beyond its reasonable limits in order to show a collapse.

Remember - their systems showed the towers would not collapse when they put in the best estimates of relevant data.

What Arup say on this is that the model can't be right - If the circumstances were as NIST say, their calculations would have been dwarfed by a factor that NIST didn't even consider ...! This is not an endorsement of the NIST collapse hypothesis ! Its a statement that if NISTs model was anywhere near reality a collapse would have happened for a different reason.

The data to recalculate this, and the vital details of the model, are not being disclosed by NIST. Neither have they produced visualisations of the process, or allowed anyone else to have a go at doing so ...

These are the reasons why this element of the report is not in any way conclusive of the collapse mechanism. That, of course, doesn't mean in itself that the towers were demolished.

It does mean though, that the NIST collapse analysis is not anywhere near to an authoritative case.

[hack89]

139. OK - I'll accept the Arup hypothesis then!

It gets me to the same place.

[AlienSpaceBat]

143. OK I'll leave you over in your place

I think I'm banging my head on a wall with this one.

Arup's hypothesis isn't that the building necessarily collapsed by fire. It's that NISTs hypothesis can't be right, because if NIST had the right theory another factor would have intervened, collapsing the buildings through a different mechanism.

This seems plain enough to me.

One last try, by analogy.

A boat sinks on a lake. NIST investigate and say 'a hole in the bottom of the boat one foot square let water inside. It made the sides of the boat soggy and they collapsed'. I then say 'if there was a hole like that, the boat would have filled with water and sunk before the sides were affected'. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that NIST overlooked something. We all know the boat sank. Just because I make the argument given doesn't mean I agree that there was a hole, or that the boat actually filled with water.

[hack89]

144. This is the Arup theory that I could support...

Wouldn't one assume that if they are investigating specific collapse mechanism then they have moved beyond the initial question of fire vs demo?

In ambient design the column has a particular buckling mode
based on an effective length between each floor.
In a multiple floor fire scenario that buckling mode can
be changed.

The columns are initially pushed out as the floors expand in
response to the fires. As the floors increase in length and
buckle as a result of expansion they provide less support to
the columns.

In addition the floor stiffness decreases as a result of material
degradation. There is then potential for the external columns to
buckle over their increased length.

As the fire floors buckle and provide less support to the
columns, the columns look for this support from the cold floors
immediately above and below the fire floors.

The cold floors in turn become over loaded and buckle,
resulting in a mechanism that could propagate and could lead
to collapse of the whole structure.

I am willing to move beyond NIST if it would save your head - however yours is a weak arguement considering Arups comments on the NIST report:

It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically important document for tall building design worldwide.

It is hard to see this as a smoking gun concerning the NIST report but I do understand how desperately important it is to your cause to discredit NIST.

[AlienSpaceBat]

145. Ohhh my head hurts ... !

1. I don't think Arup would have been considering demolition vs fire in the first place.

2. The mechanism they give is as counterpoint to the NIST scenario that they specifically disagree with, not as a conclusion of theirs that 'this is how it happened'.

3. I don't argue that the NIST report isn't an important document. From the point of view of a firm like Arup it will be all the more important - it raises up the agenda new building regs and procedures that are the bread and butter of an international engineer like Arup, so it will affect their work and potentially increase their fees and consultancy for years to come.

4. I don't think the NIST report is so much a smoking gun. In this specific aspect its more a case of a convenient conclusion put forward on weak and non-existent evidence, in the main assuming what it sets out to prove.

5. I don't have a cause as such. I simply would like to understand the truth of what happened, as I think it affects us all, particularly if government malfeasance was involved. If I can see evidence that supports the conclusion that OBL and 19 guys did this all on their own, I will happily subscribe to that viewpoint, but as things stand I see the evidence as being contradictory or for the most part being withheld, which makes me suspicious ...

[petgoat]

140. "no one is suggesting anything else but fire"

Lots of people suggest lots of things besides fire.

You really can't get off disinfo technique #19, can you?

"19. Ignore facts presented...."

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm#Ignore%20facts%20presented

[hack89]

142. Thanks for the laugh!

have a happy and safe new year!

:party: :party:

[LARED]

122. The thing I found interesting

is the ARUP reviewed the NIST's work. Something that shows the NIST is acting above board. It is quite common and desirable to have a design validation of engineering work.

Note the article here http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6263555.html?industryid=23442 states

Arup commended the work of NIST to model the WTC collapse—a vast undertaking. However, Arup's review of NIST's findings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse.

....

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse.

Basically they are saying they think the NIST's work was not detailed enough and did not take one important parameter into consideration (in the view of the ARUP). It's a bit of a stretch to say they are calling it faulty, as if it completely missed the mark. I would categorize their criticism as simply stating the model could be more accurate and useful to future design codes.

[hack89]

123. "a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse."

is also an interesting comment.

[LARED]

128. I agree it is interesting

If it turns out to be true, it will impact building codes in a significant way.

[petgoat]

141. "a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse."

Wouldn't it be nice if they hadn't recycled the steel that showed a severe fire?

Have you got any proof of a severe fire?

The Firemen on WTC2 78 didn't report any severe fire.

This picture doesn't show any severe fire.

[AZCat]

126. Here is a link to the public comments on the report...

http://wtc.nist.gov/wtc_public_comments.htm

This link has comments from many organizations (including Arup ATG) about the NIST WTC report and is interesting reading (IMHO). I have begun to read them but am only part way through the list - it has been a busy holiday for me. Several of the ones I have already read do indeed congratulate the NIST on completing a difficult task.

[LARED]

127. I was just about to post that link myself after reading a few

The NIST also posted a number of comments from 9/11 "researchers".

I can only imagine the fun they had at the office with those.

[AZCat]

129. If their office is anything like my office...

then the "best" ones are posted on the office corkboard.

Although if the NIST received a high volume of these type of responses then I'm sure their sense of humor wore thin. There's nothing like a thousand letters rehashing the same arguments for penetrating the thickest skin.

[SittingBull]

111. Every word was totally right

and pure logic- but wasted- that means nothing nor to the deception tellers neither the CoIntelpro-front, neither the cognitive dissonance'lers.

[we can do it]

113. You Accused Someone of Using Circular Logic

:rofl:

[hack89]

114. What circular logic have I used? nt

[LARED]

78. Professor Jones' case is for the foolish

Let take his views on WTC 2 collapse

From his paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?


Well for starter he might have asked some of his more experience peers for advice. Stating the blocked turned mostly to powder is plan nonsense. Stating in order to explain the collapse we need explosives is nonsense. The foolishness posted by others that the angular momentum dictates the top should have slide off is nonsense. What do you expect the top section to do when its foundation is destroyed. He's a clue. It collapses like a house of cards. Gravity wins every time. No foundation no structural integrity. Anyone willing to look at how the towers were constructed would understand this. Professor Jones should have figured this out in about ten seconds.

If he was really interesting in finding out where all the powder came from. it is a pretty simple exercise using goggle to find out all the perimeter columns were filled with powdered vermiculite. 8 million tons in total if I recall. Not to mention the drywll, ceiling tiles, insulation, glass, etc, etc ,etc. But no, why bother to do that when you can just simply chalk it up to explosives for all the 9/11 'researchers' to salivate over.

see here http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.very.close.mpg

If you look closely you can see the collapse starts prior to dust being generated.

Look here and you can see the upper part of the building collapsing into the lower part

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.north.very.close.slow.wmv

Also, how does this constitute an evaluation based on physics by professor Jones? He brings the second law of thermodynamics into his tale as if it is something to be in awe of. That is not an evaluation. It is not even material to his opinion.

The guy should be censured for posting such unscholarly work. But if you have hitched your wagon to this fraud, don't let me sway you.

[dailykoff]

81. "It collapses like a house of cards"? The WTC?

I'm afraid that statement reveals an absence of familiarity with the most elementary principles of structural engineering.

[LARED]

87. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion

But, I'll stick with my 20+ years as a mechanical engineer to form mine.

[dailykoff]

88. They're a little different.

For one thing, structures are built to resist lateral as well as gravity loads, which is one reason the house of cards analogy is absurd.

[LARED]

89. So let me ask

Yes they are a little different. Have you ever heard of storey (or storey) drift?

Are you of the opinion that the top section of WTC 2 should have continued to side off the top in one piece? Or something else?

[dailykoff]

90. Yes, and it doesn't mean what you think it does.

It's a measure of lateral movement under loading.

The top sections should have stayed intact whether they rotated off the structure or simply settled, which is the most they would have done in response to fire and/or crash damage only.

Try to get the house of cards picure out of your mind because that's not how steel frame buildings behave.

[LARED]

91. So what holds the top section together while it slides off the top?

The small connections between the floor joists and the columns? Thats all there is holding it together as it rotates. They are designed for gravity loading.

There is nothing to hold the structure together once the bottom fails. Plus read up on storey drift, if you are interesting in understanding what happened. I'm not being condescending, but you just plain do not understand the dynamics of the collapse if you think the top section should have stayed intact.

Also if you happen to watch any of the videos I linked, it is plainly seen that the top does not slide off. That the collapse starts prior to dust being generated, so the claims of CD are bogus. In fact the top section acts just like I would expect to.

[dailykoff]

92. The same structural elements that resisted wind loads for 30 years.

For example, beams in the floor assemblies, crossbracing in the structural cores, trusses in the mechanical floors, and hat trusses in the roofs.

Story drift is simply a term, like live load.

And "slide" is your word, not mine.

[LARED]

93. Actually you are quite incorrect

The wind loads were mostly taken up by the perimeter column structure. Of course all parts of the building act in unison, but the perimeter column and spandrel design was designed to carry most of the wind loading.

The floor joists are not designed to take up lateral loads. In fact they are designed to rotate slightly around their connection to the columns as the building leans from wind loads.

Story drift information is found here http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-33%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=Story+drift&btnG=Search


So if you don't like the word slide what do you like?

[petgoat]

94. The sides took the lateral loads. That's what they were designed for.

And you'd better look at the design of the hat truss.



It was massive.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

[LARED]

95. So we agree

The sides (perimeter column struture) took up the lateral (wind) loads???

The hat truss picture is nice. It connects the core structure to the external struture.

Why are you showing it to me?

Are you getting to the part where you explain how the top section stays in one piece?

[dailykoff]

96. Sure, add the perimeter columns to the list

of elements that resisted lateral loads, and you start to see what I'm getting at -- the structural system worked like a tree trunk, not like a deck of cards.

[LARED]

97. Are you getting to the part where

you explain how the top section stays in one piece?

[dailykoff]

98. We already covered it,

but in case you were absent, here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=64313&mesg_id=64556

[LARED]

99. I think that's called an evasion of the question

To be specific let me pose the question this way.

The core columns are connected to the perimeter columns via floor joists at each floor. The floor joist connections are simply a few small bolts holding the joist in place on a steel support connected to the column. These connection are designed in a way to allow movement for expansion and story drift as the wind moves the building. The floor system does stiffen the whole structure, but it is not designed to withstand dynamic tension or compression like you would see in a collapse.

So, the question is what is wrong with my theory and perhaps you can explain why you think your tree truck analogy wholes water, and why you think the top section should have stayed intact.

[petgoat]

125. The spandrels connecting the perimeter columns made the external steel

a unified stressed skin. And once again you forgot the hat truss that connected
the core and perimeter columns both.

The only mechanisms for destroying the floors in the top block would have
acted only on the lower floors, not all of them. The top block turned to dust
when it should have dropped as a unit.

[AlienSpaceBat]

100. What is strange is how the top section was able to rotate at all

The WTC structure was, as we all know, a massive central core with the floors attached.

To allow the top 30 floors to rotate as a block, like they did, implies a massive and localised failure of the central core at the rotation point.

We are supposed to believe the fires in one way or another weakened the clips or trusses attaching the floor(s) to the central core, leading to their failure. What should then have happened is that the floor should have slumped downwards, and if it could initiate a collapse the floors should have slid down the core, like records sliding down a spindle.

The majority, or all, of the core beams must have fractured at the collapse point to allow the rotation to take place. How did the core sustain such fractures ? If one was to look at these videos and this evidence in isolation, surely the most straightforward explanation that would come to mind is that the core appears to have been quickly and massively compromised, and explosives would be the most obvious way for that to happen ?

[dailykoff]

101. Absolutely.

In the elapsed time and circumstances (operating fire sprinklers, for one) there is no other plausible explanation.

[hack89]

55. He could have used math

and all that other stuff that scientist use.

[petgoat]

60. He doesn't need to use math. He's not trying to prove what happened.

He's pointing out that the official story does not add up, and he's
calling for a new investigation.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

About two fifths of the paper deals with the molten metal (and the
sulfidative erosion discussed by the PhD metallurgist, the PhD materials
scientist, and the PhD fire engineer from Worcester Polytech). That
this question has not been addressed by official studies is a point that
needs no math.

None of these points need math:

Observations of squibs
observations of powdered concrete and energetically-ejected debris
reports of explosions
the fact of the symmetrical collapse
violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum in the straightening of the south tower
violation of the law of conservation of momentum in the speed of the collapses

If you want math, an simple kinetics analysis of the debris trajectory is portrayed graphically in the video under discussion here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x64075 )

NIST had a $20 million study. Dr. Jones does not have those resources. His point
is that the official accounts are not credible even on a freshman physics level, and
a new and honest investigation is necessary.

[dailykoff]

65. Excellent observations. Thank you. n/t

[adolfo]

110. There will never be a new independent investigation..

..Since it would require a thorough investigation into the WTC security company (Stratesec).
Mere scrutiny of a possible WTC demolition would implicate Stratesec.


Who else would have the capability? A demolition would involve a crew of engineers, blueprints, a massive amount of explosives, and access to the area.







Interestingly, Marvin P. Bush, brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company between 1993 and 2000.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html

[petgoat]

124. Blueprints: According to Peter Lance, an FDNY employee who was an al Qaeda

associate, Ahmed Amin Refai, fished the WTC blueprints out of
the trash in 1990.

http://www.peterlance.com/terror_link_nydn_090403.htm

Explosives could have been smuggled in on the freight elevators.
Some of the tenants used their space to warehouse product.

Even if al Qaeda managed to plant explosives, the officials would
cover that fact up because it's embarassing to Marvin Bush's company.

[we can do it]

52. Here We Go - It Was Clinton's Fault

I was wondering when we would get back to that one.

[hack89]

54. I think you missed my point ...

I don't believe that Clinton was involved at all - I was merely pointing out that a conspiracy of the size they imagine would involve members of the Clinton administration course since no one can tell exactly what the conspiracy involved I guess we will never learn.

Do you honestly believe that there is some fundamental moral difference between Republican and Democratic politicians? They are all addicted to power and have sold their souls for money.

[rumpel]

41. The majority of people do not have the time or have the motive to

question or investigate the "official" reports repeated by the MSM. The priority, and increasingly so, is how am I going to pay the bills and feed my family. This is why it is such a crime to let defense contractors and investors with an interest in such profits own TV stations.
Last I heard was the network airwaves belong to the people licensed to the companies, however these companies are being controlled by shareholders, who have an interest in numerous other corporations, divisions and or affiliates. Conflict of interest is now the norm.
It will take an enormous effort to undo the current situation, money rules and money rules congress.
Kudos to all, who are making an effort, and we will effect a change.

[CJCRANE]

132. Freepers don't even know the "official" story

they think it was all done by Iraqis and Saddam Hussein.

The neoocons knew it didn't matter who did it, all they needed was a made-to-order "catastrophic event" to change the political atmosphere.

[SittingBull]

146. Best article yet

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2547.topic

[Beam Me Up]

147. You are asking an important question with radical implications.

I think it is time those of us who have come to this conclusion accepted the responsibility we have. We see reality and the reality we are looking at is both monumental and terrifying--farm more terrifying than the prospect of fundamentalist terrorists. In a sense, those of us the rest would call "conspiracy theorists," have broken through to another level of consciousness altogether about our world. We see that we live in a world where most people around us are living in a delusional state of denial. And, as with many people who are in denial, they have developed a lot of defence mechanisms to prevent themselves from having to know or accept the truth. One is the pigeon holing of those of us who have 'snapped out of it' with the dismissive "conspiracy theorist" label. We're not to be taken seriously.

But how can we take people who believe steel frame buildings collapse as a result of fire (building 7). You can say whatever you want, but anyone who lives in a world where that is physically possible is living in a dream world. The physical world we live in obeys certain laws, many of which we understand through our physics, and the collapse of building 7--and many other details of the day of 9/11--DEFY the laws of physics. To accept them as fact when they can not possibly be fact is to place ourselves in a kind of 'trance' where we accept the impossible as possible.

I agree with you. At this point, anyone who still believes the bull shit the government and corporate media has been feeding us must not WANT to know the truth. It is not a matter of a smoking gun--we have them galore. True, there is plenty of disinformation out there--ignorant claims of one sort and another--but there is also a lot of rational, critical observation which shows that the official story is not only not credible, it is imposible. Any one who doesn't know this simply is not looking at the evidence and following it to its rational conclusion: We may not know precisely what happened on 9/11 but what we are TOLD we must BELIEVE happened is simply impossible.

So, here we are. We are living in a world where the biggest lie ever perpetrated--not only upon the American people but the world--is coming unraveled. The EVIDENCE is there for anyone with the courage to look at it and see it for what it is. The ENTIRE EDIVICE of social reality as we normally experience it--especially in the form of government and its corporate owned media augmentation--is becoming exposed for precisely what it is: ONE GIGANTIC SHELL GAME AND PONSY SCAM. The entire infrastructure is riddled with crime and corruption and the 9/11 lie is simply its most vile and festering sore.

In the book of Revelations it is said that the world shall be consumed in fire.

A wise man pointed out: "Lies burn up when Men cease to behold them."

I say: Lies burn up when people see them for what they are.

[petgoat]

149. It's Red Pill/Blue Pill. The Apple or Soma. nm

[Beam Me Up]

150. "Red Pill/Blue Pill" makes sense, but "Apple or Soma" juxtaposition

does not. In Mythology the "Apple" doesn't represent truth or revelation but, on the contrary, the fall INTO a lower state of being characterized as 'sin' and deception. In the Hindu Upanishad it is written, "This Soma IS God" (not 'is LIKE God'). And, given the use of the Kykeon in the sacred ceremonies of ancient Greece (the founding fathers of Western civilization), there is ever reason to assume that 'Soma' was an actual--probably psychedelic--eucharist used shamanisticaly by the Braman class in their time.

Will the Truth finally set us free?

[petgoat]

151. I'm taking the apple not as the agent of The Fall from Grace but

as the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm not familiar with the Hindu view of Soma, but only the
bastardized version in "Brave New World" which seems to be
nothing (as I recall) but a drug of oblivion.

Thanks for providing some studied insight to my crude cosmology.

[Beam Me Up]

152. "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"

Is the vertical axis mundi around which the whole cosmos spins.

coo-coo-ca-choo.