Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Hint to everyone: when you’re proposing any theory, but especially if you’re proposing a radical theory, it helps ones thinking to explore both paths – the path of your theory being right, and the path of your theory being wrong – for each assertion you plan to base upon that theory.
Youtube: Trump: “You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center”. Might have been the Saudis, he says. Talks about secret papers the government has. Sounds as if he might reveal the truth about 9/11 if he becomes president.
That’s utterly shameless of Trump. If he had any decency he’d leak, blow the whistle. But no. He uses it as a political bargaining chip. I assume he’s overwhelmed by his own ambition. He deserves to lose, hard.
The “secret papers” Trump is referring to are almost certainly the 28 or so redacted pages of the 9/11 Congressional Report, I believe – not the 9/11 Commission Report; I think I’ve misnamed that a few times, but it’s easy enough to check. They’re on Daniel Elsberg’s “Ten Most Wanted Leaks” wish-list.
Various people have read them but they’re not allowed to say what’s in them, but yes, highly-placed Saudis. These are the papers that need to be declassified before various 9/11 survivors’ and relatives’ civil court cases can be heard, in various countries’ legal systems including those of the US and the UK.
See? Nothing for over two days. You’ve all got bored because I’m not validating your conspiracy theories. You WANT to believe.
You find the infinite diversity of reality less interesting than your own imaginations. Sad. And a load of you want to plaster your daydreams all over the front thread; without that limelight you lose interest. So self-centred.
In fairness, Clark, unless one of us is capable of producing a post worthy of writing up as a paper and publishing, it doesn’t pass muster as far as you’re concerned. Unless such a feat is performed, we’re deemed inadequate and must therefore submit to your authority on whatever matter is at hand. Perhaps you’ve scared off anyone interested in discussing at less that the pace of the schedule you’re setting.
I don’t know why we’re not allowed to mull things over for a bit, and come back when we’re really ready to spend time on this subject.
I do not recall many Saudi false flag attacks, but then there is Israel and its not too colourful past (The USS Liberty to name but one) on attacking its supposed allies and blaming someone else to take advantage of a situation.
IMHO the Saudi thing is a smoke screen to divert attention away from the real culprits and it will be used when it is convenient to use it, i.e. if and when the Saudis stop selling oil in the petro dollar!
Trump would just be the new boss same as the old boss!
I thought records showed that Israeli intelligence sent two warnings to the US authorities, including one that named five of the alleged hijackers, but they were among the large number of warnings and investigations ignored, suppressed or obstructed?
It does seem that Israel sent a small crew “to document the event”. Chutzpah? And anyone who knew it was coming could have used it to get away with all sorts of stuff…
Glenn, it doesn’t have to be original research; just pick the stuff you find most convincing so I can see what I think. But fair enough; no hurry, it’s only been fourteen years.
And I’ve no authority. I don’t know what really happened; I’ve only got a load of snippets. That’s why I want a proper investigation, you know, like one where they actually publish what they found out.
Tell you what, we could have some fun making lists of what is actually known, what is claimed to be known, and serious questions; the sources of those and what is actually admitted in the official reports.
It’s quite funny really, like a load of footballers in the wall against a free kick at goal, each looking shifty and hoping he can cover his vulnerability.
Myself, 12:29 am:
Above I’m referring to the various US authorities, not the conspiracy theorists, many of whom seem to like parading around in the most public venue they can find that will let them, a few of their number repeatedly dangling their considerably smaller vulnerabilities for public abuse and displaying the resulting injuries as if that proved their point.
For a pretty convincing case that the pictures we all saw of ‘Boeings’ flying into the Twin Towers were faked, see:
‘9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera’:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80
There are eight videos; I believe no. 6 has the relevant info.
Something many of you will be unaware of; just days after 9/11, OBL gave an interview to Al Jazeera (at that time not government-run), and shortly after to two Pakistani newspapers, categorically denying any part in the 9/11 attacks:
‘September 2001 Interview with Osama bin Laden. Categorically Denies his Involvement in 9/11’:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697
The well-respected Washington reporter, Helen Thomas (now deceased), says in one of her books that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell personally phoned around the news agencies, asking them not to report OBL’s denial in case it included a secret message to his agents. Laughable though that claim was, the MSM presstitutes didn’t report it.
To those who say ‘What about the ‘confession’ video? all I would say is, look at it again; even a child could see the ‘confessor’ is not OBL, never mind the FBI and other agencies with their face-recognition technology.
Re collapses, see videos from A&E For 9/11 Truth,
including ‘9/11: Blueprint For Truth’ and ‘9/11: Experts Speak Out’. It seems to me that most of the comments here are based on a layman’s suppositions or repeating MSM baloney, rather than being expert opinions.
And for another excellent resource, check out ‘Patriots Question 9/11’.
Regarding the Pentagon, I suggest Barbara Honegger’s ‘ Behind the Smoke Curtain’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
Paul Barbara, Osama bin Laden was never charged in connection with 9/11. Of course he was wanted on other charges including the embassy bombings, but I know of no evidence connecting Osama with 9/11.
I’ll watch videos later. Grief, I hope they’re not too long; I’ve wasted inordinate amounts of time on videos, which most people don’t subject to enough critical thinking.
I’m not going to search through sites to prove your points for you. I have NOT been “repeating MSM baloney”, thanks. People have presented arguments which I have subjected to scrutiny through applying MY understanding of physics.
So far as I’m concerned the Twin Towers collapsed from damage and fire; Building 7 MIGHT have been interfered with but in any case I think it was weak to begin with. I’ve watched the collapses over and over again, looked into the buildings’ structure, tried to think how explosives or thermite could have been applied, and those are my conclusions so far. Sorry, but I’m pretty insulted that you think I’ve accepted a story on faith. I have no need to do so since I think that the collapse investigations were bodged to cover up construction offences; I’m CALLING for proper, open investigations, but I still don’t think the Twin Towers were pre-rigged for destruction.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”
I’m advancing the most obvious theory, the null hypothesis if you like – damage and fire, which is exactly what it looked like. It’s YOU that has a case to make. You mention “expert opinion” but you’re referring to MINORITY expert opinion – the vast majority of experts accept damage and fire. So the burden of proof is on you, not on me to search through umpteen dodgy arguments to see if I can find one good one – I’ve already put in more effort than all the other commenters put together. Present me with the PHYSICS arguments you find convincing (not a load of rhetoric from a video) and I’ll subject the PHYSICS to scrutiny. I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-27FGbpBk4
I’m not surprised that the Neocon US administration falsely stressed Osama bin Laden and that the Neocon media amplified it for them. The Neocons already wanted to attack and invade Afghanistan for geopolitical motives, and Afghanistan is where Osama bin Laden’s training camps and support network were located.
The attacks were apparently planned in Hamburg, carried out by Saudis and probably funded by Saudi Arabia. The Neocons didn’t want to attack Hamburg, and they actively support Saudi Arabia, so they made a song-and-dance about Osama bin Laden instead.
Paul Barbera, am I “just repeating MSM baloney” here? If not, please retract 🙂
Maxter, thank you so much; I’ve just spent an irreplaceable four minutes seventeen seconds of my lifetime listening to a mediocre song.
Actually, not entirely wasted; there are two shots of the collapse where you can see straight through the outer skin of the building, showing that the interior had already fallen.
Free fall does not equal controlled demolition.
Chandler’s graph is shown in that video, showing that the acceleration exceeded free-fall for brief periods; how do explosives achieve that?. I addressed all this nearly two weeks ago:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-25/#comment-578241
I wish you’d address my arguments instead of just repeating stuff – which, ironically, is what I get accused of. It’s as if you’ve been ignoring everything I’ve written.
Paul Barbara, 4:26 pm: I’ve watched the sixth video from ‘9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera’. It took me a while as I was treating it as evidence rather than entertainment, so I ran parts back and reviewed them. I don’t have time to write about it just now.
While you’re waiting, please tell me to what extent you’ve checked on the claims it makes.
Scrutinising something as evidence takes a whole lot more than just watching a video and finding it either convincing or otherwise. Just watching is no different from just watching the TV news, except that the message is a different one.
Commenters here don’t present argument or analysis. They just say “here; watch this video”. But then they hypocritically say that I’m just accepting “the official story”, and some even insinuate that I must be part of the conspiracy.
Ho hum.
OK, “9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Past 6”
Basically it presents a few arguments and a pop video. The pop video was the best bit.
At 500 miles per hour, I really don’t find it surprising that the aircraft disappeared into the towers. The volume of the buildings are said to have been about 95% empty space but for air. I haven’t read the figure for aircraft but if anything I’d expect aircraft to be even less dense than buildings. Of course the two basically start passing through each other at that sort of relative impact velocity.
You can’t regard either the aircraft or the building as Newtonian “objects” at that sort of impact speed; more as two sets of smaller objects, objects within each set having a common velocity. The cohesion within each set is tiny compared with the force of impact.
Aircraft are relatively fragile but remember that the leading edges are the hardest parts of the fuselage. They have to be able to withstand multi-hundred MPH impacts with hailstones, birds including their skeletons and any small stones in their crops, whatever might be in an aircraft’s path as it flies. Remember, too, that an aircraft is shaped somewhat like a blade for cutting air; OK, a relatively blunt blade, but the the cutting edges are the leading edges.
Now consider the “tube within a tube” buildings. Their greatest strength is in vertical support. They are weakest horizontally. The outer tube is just a single skin; a mesh of steel covered in fairly brittle concrete, about half the area is just glass. Within, there are only horizontal floors between the outer tube and the core; there is no more resistance to horizontal movement until the core is reached some twenty metres in.
So now consider the impact. The hardest surfaces of the aircraft, the leading edges, hit the outer tube in the direction in which it is weakest – roughly horizontally. Of course the leading edges slice straight through the outer tube (which is a mesh), leaving the path to the core virtually unobstructed. The rest of the structure of the aircraft is following right behind – with its own momentum but that barely matters – it mostly passes straight through the gash that the leading edges have created for it.
I’ll return to other points shortly; my dinner’s ready.
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 2.
“Real aircraft crashes” are considered and large pieces of crashed aircraft are shown. However I strongly suspect that these aircraft “bellied down”, moving faster horizontally than vertically and in a roughly horizontal orientation. I’m pretty sure that none of them flew at 500 MPH or more straight down nose first into the ground. And the ground isn’t 95% air, so it won’t permit the debris to penetrate.
Morgan Reynolds PhD speaks; they don’t say which field his doctorate is in. He says that from the NYPD and other records of eye-witness testimony, only one witness says that they saw a plane, AND heard a plane, AND saw a crash. However, he does not say how many EITHER heard, OR saw, OR saw a crash, or combinations of any two…
…I’d have to go to the records and check, but it isn’t ME that believes there were no aircraft; the burden of proof is on the no-planes theorists. I’m already writing and researching more than everyone else put together. If I DID suspect there were no aircraft I’d be so flabbergasted I’d really want to check things like that, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that there were no aircraft.
NOTICE – Are any of the no-planes theorists prepared to find these records, link to them and publish the numbers I mention above? I don’t think it should be just me doing all the work while you lot just watch and post links to YouTube vids.
More coming (sigh – the tips of my fingers are going to get callouses)…
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 3.
A long section is devoted to interviewing a student and, I think, a professor about a mechanical simulation they made. The narrator’s first objection is that one simulated piece of aluminium gets broken by a column of the building and then appears to go back into one piece. Big deal; who knows? Maybe it was still in two pieces in the simulation but overlapping made it look like one. I’ve no idea, but it seems a huge fuss about a minor detail.
The next objection is put to the professor; the debris doesn’t emerge from the same part of the building as debris from the actual aircraft did. Grief; it’s only a simulation! We can’t predict the weather on this day next week though we get a lot more practice.
But the claimed point of the simulation was to show that the aircraft could be subsumed within the buildings without bits bouncing back, and it DID show that; the matters above were never claimed to be part of the remit.
And all through this section, the narrator is taking the piss out of the academics – ie. smearing them. Why? Is he REALLY claiming that they’re part of the cover-up, members of the conspiracy?
Apparently so, because the narrator then goes on to say that he e-mailed for their data but never got a reply. Maybe they got pissed off with him; he didn’t seem to take them seriously. Most of the interview with the student is played back speeded up with the sound of frantic typing overdubbed. Maybe the e-mails got lost in the spam filter; who knows? NONE of this even SUGGESTS that there were no aircraft.
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 4.
Grief, there are so many misrepresentation in the section about the Gelitin (not “Gelatin”) performance art project The B-Thing… This is just plain dishonest. I looked up the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html?pagewanted=all
The article doesn’t say that they “rented an entire floor”; it says they shared some studio space gratis:
“Exact positions of core and perimeter columns” are NOT shown on their sketch. They did NOT depict something entering the building; the supposedly suspicious arrow is labelled “Breakfast 07:04am”. The “balcony” they put up was tiny, just the width of the single window they (illegally) removed; no way they could have rigged explosives across the wingspan of a passenger aircraft on the outside to blow the vertical columns in instead of out, as explosives in the building would have done. The balcony was only in place for nineteen minutes, and it wasn’t even on the same face of the building as the aircraft impact.
Gelitin look like fun; they have a website:
http://www.gelitin.net/projects
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 5.
I’ve tried listening to the professor again; he says something about him not being able to replicate [something], but I can’t make out the end of his sentence because canned laughter has been overdubbed. He does say that the data are “sensitive”. I think he’s saying that he can’t give out a copy of the data. Then he says “sure, they’re available…” and the editors have played that bit over and over again, but we never hear the end of the professor’s sentence.
I think his meaning is that the video makers are going to have to apply elsewhere for the sensitive data, but it’s been chopped about to give the impression that he’s promising the data when really he’s saying he can’t give it out.
That would explain why the video makers didn’t receive a reply.
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 6.
I suspect that the argument about wake vortices is inappropriate. On the various demonstrations, notice that such vortices only become visible some time after the aircraft has passed; ie. they effectively follow the aircraft. But will they follow right up to a building that the aircraft has just flown into? In less time than vortices take to become visible in the demonstrations, the fireball blows back out of the building, possibly disrupting their formation. I don’t know enough fluid dynamics to be sure one way or another, but I doubt that the behaviour would be the same as in continuous air.
The one thing I haven’t done is examine the tracking of the aircraft within the video, but without the original footage I wouldn’t be able to attempt replication anyway.
1 + 1 = 3
…for large values of 1
My feeling is that the Psy-Opera Part 6 film was made to promote a position; the makers never intended to be fair with the facts.
@ Clark 24 Feb, 2016 – 2:57 pm
‘Paul Barbera, am I “just repeating MSM baloney” here? If not, please retract’:
If you re-read my post, you’ll see I have nothing to retract. If you are an expert, please give your qualifications. I am not an expert, but I find the arguments put forward by the A&E for 9/11 Truth architects and engineers (who do give their qualifications in videos and the website)
In my post I gave two options: ‘a layman’s suppositions OR repeating MSM baloney, rather than being expert opinions.’
‘Re collapses, see videos from A&E For 9/11 Truth, including ‘9/11: Blueprint For Truth’ and ‘9/11: Experts Speak Out’. It seems to me that most of the comments here are based on a layman’s suppositions or repeating MSM baloney, rather than being expert opinions.’
Yes, there are ‘experts’ who follow the ‘Official Narrative’, but of course the same is true in many fields: the MSM, University staff, Military, you name it.
Some people would call it ‘selling their souls’; that’s how to ‘get on’ in this sorry world.
Re ‘Gelitin’ (ever heard of ‘gelatin dynamite’?), one of the four’s surname is ‘Urban’; another strange ‘coincidence’ seeing as the 5 ‘Dancing Israelis’ also ‘worked’ for the Urban Removal firm ‘front’; it was an Urban’ truck that had a picture of a plane hitting one of the Twin Towers painted on it, which was stopped on 9/11 by police. The head of ‘Urban’, a known Mossad agent, did a runner to Israel, leaving all his removal customers in the lurch.
Rather a strange waste of time, if as the NY Times article claims, Gelatin/Gelitin seemed to have spent most of their time building a clubhouse out of cardboard boxes (gee, that must have taken them a long while! By the way, the cardboard boxes weren’t just any old boxes; the numbers on them show they had originally contained special fuses of the kind used in controlled demolition – just another ‘odd’ coincidence?).
And (NY Times again) they did ‘doodles of tarantulas with human heads’; in case you are unaware, that is the picture of the Freemason ‘God’ in many Masonic books.
If you check my comment, you will see I did not say ‘no planes hit the Twin Towers; I wrote ‘For a pretty convincing case that the pictures we all saw of ‘Boeings’ flying into the Twin Towers were faked, see:
‘9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera’:For a pretty convincing case that the pictures we all saw of ‘Boeings’ flying into the Twin Towers were faked,
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80
There are eight videos; I believe no. 6 has the relevant info.’
Quite a difference, no?
I don’t know what Morgan’s PhD is for, but here’s a little about him: ‘Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush’s first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an “inside job,” and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth…’ http://911review.org/Media/Reynolds_9_11_truth_Video.html
The video maker/s go to see Voicu Popescu, computer science professor at Perdue University, asking about the ‘plane part’ that apparently cuts through a floor, then the floor magically comes back together. He is perplexed, and cannot give an explanation. It is, however, highly significant that that part of the animation is missing from Popescu’s presentation video.
It also doesn’t have the ‘plane entry and exit holes’ on WTC 1 part; understandable, perhaps, seeing as the ‘official video evidence’ shows ‘entry hole’ on north face, and ‘exit hole’ on east face of the tower, yet the ‘video simulation’ shows ‘exit hole’, replete with ‘plane parts’, ‘exiting’ the south face.
Re your ‘Reply part 5’: ‘Professor’ Mete Sozen is laughingly explaining something about not being able to replicate something; then why the heck do they call it an accurate simulation, an explanation for all the damage inside the building which supposedly caused it to collapse?
And the ‘laughter’ is not hiding Sozen’s reply, but is added to his available reply, which is replayed a number of times.
Why is the head of Structural Engineering department at Perdue University and leader of the Civil Engineering team who made the animation, so jocular and dismissive?
I suggest because he knows damn well the animation was faked from start to finish, and CANNOT answer the video makers questions.
When the video makers ask for the ‘simulation data’, so that they can reproduce (or not!) the results, Sozen says it’s sensitive (wiggling his hands about, and with the same silly smile on his mush) and that even he can’t get it.
It’s worth noting data for simulations for the Twin Towers collapse has also been refused to investigators.
As my major point was ‘video fakery’, apart from the above ‘simulations’ it seems you are ignoring the evidence for video fakery of the footage we were all fed about the ‘planes’.
So in any further ‘replies’, please be a bit more careful, and don’t ignore or brush off things which you find don’t fit with your dismissal of my ‘evidence’, or arguments.
By the way, do a bit more research yourself; I’m not paid to spend so much time spelling stuff out which I have provided links for.
If, as I would guess, you have no expertise in the field, watch A&E videos and read their articles, because they do have expertise.
@ Clark 25 Feb, 2016 – 12:30 am
‘“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera – Part 6” – Reply part 6.
..I suspect that the argument about wake vortices is inappropriate. On the various demonstrations, notice that such vortices only become visible some time after the aircraft has passed; ie. they effectively follow the aircraft. But will they follow right up to a building that the aircraft has just flown into? In less time than vortices take to become visible in the demonstrations, the fireball blows back out of the building, possibly disrupting their formation. I don’t know enough fluid dynamics to be sure one way or another, but I doubt that the behaviour would be the same as in continuous air…’
You ‘suspect’ and you ‘doubt’, because you seem to want to believe the ‘official narrative’ footage we were all fed.
@Clark 25 Feb, 2016 – 12:54 am
‘….My feeling is that the Psy-Opera Part 6 film was made to promote a position; the makers never intended to be fair with the facts….’; what baloney! They show very clearly they want to ascertain the facts, but the Perdue people won’t provide them.
But read my long post first: ‘Paul Barbara 25 Feb, 2016 3:39 am
I spent a lot of time on it, methinks to little avail.
Paul Barbara, I feel that until we sort out a more fundamental problem in our communication, there would be little point in attempting to discuss matters of 9/11. I’m willing to try and address this if you wish.
Appeal to readers – is anyone else still reading this? If you are, please consider posting a comment, even if just to say hello. Essentially, I’m just sorta feeling a bit lonely on this thread, and it’s sorta spooky thinking that there might be an audience but having very little actual evidence for it. Thanks.
I’m keeping an eye on this thread, but for reasons previously explained, I’m not going to contribute to the discussion.
An observation : You appeal for people to join in but simultaneously drive them away. IMHO you owe exexpat a BIG apology. He was bending over backwards to be friendly and defuse your confrontational remarks, but then you just took the piss out of him till he fucked off. I now see warning signs that you are going to alienate Paul Barbara as well – you want to discuss how he writes rather than what he writes.
You are keen on giving other people advice on how to conduct their arguments. Perhaps you should reflect upon your own style.