- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The icecaps are melting away Dave.
The test of science is whether it makes accurate predictions; Hansen testified to congress in 1988. The thirty year lead science gave us has been squandered; for a decade it has been a matter of simple observation. Each year emissions rise, so each year the problem gets harder to fix; it would have been easy if we’d started in 1988.
It’s not my fault you can’t tell fact from your own beliefs. All UAF can say is “we tried and failed to replicate NIST’s results, but if we did these things to our simulation, we got these results”. That’s obvious, and it’s a long way from proving explosives.
– ‘FFS, you won’t even concede that firemen “have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”’
You didn’t even bother to check; Franklin Square and Munson Fire District is a volunteer department, and commissioners are administrators. Are commissioners awarded honorary membership of an engine company? Really Node, you’re trying to invest massive authority in these obscure bureaucrats, just because they say what you already believe, even though scientific matters are not decided by authority, and I linked to contradictory statements by far senior fire-fighters who demonstrated their superior knowledge of structures, and Gioia even stated that he got his ideas not from events of the day, not from fire-fighter colleagues, but years later when he browsed into A&E9/11″Truth”, just like most other Truthers. He even said he was trying to get other fire departments on board, contradicting your assertion that other fire-fighters he knows already share his position.
Grief, Node, your folly is staring you in the face, yet you seem utterly blind to it.
The thing is, the groups that blessed us with 9/11 are the same groups that brought us non-existent WMDs in Iraq, global warming, and global warming denial. If you can’t see the alliance between the various neoconservative bodies – the petrochemical interests and the pro-arms, pro-war interests, between the Right in the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UK – then you can’t be looking properly.
MODS
I wonder if someone could have a quiet word with Clark. He is killing this thread. Attempts at debate drown in his verbiage. Most of his posts contain personal insults, contrary to blog rules. Some rather big hitters in the 9/11 scene joined the debate but Clark drove them off with his persistent bickering. He is damaging Craig’s blog in this respect. Of course Clark is entitled to his point of view but not at the expense of everyone else. He doesn’t respond to appeals for restraint. Please do something.[ Mod: Thanks for your assessment, Node. However, persistently posting counterarguments doesn’t break any existing rules for commenters. How is this “at the expense of everyone else”? There’s currently no provision for any kind of numerical quota for commenters, nor any scheme for introducing mandatory balance. ]
Whatever comment or argument you may have had, about the UAF report or the related topics on this thread, I apologise for averting you from posting them.
Interesting to note that William Binney spoke at an event hosted by The Lawyers committee for a 9/11 Enquiry. Craig admires him greatly and has shared the stage with him at several events, including being a guest speaker when Binney was presented with the Sam Adams Award.
Binney was for many years Technical Director of The National Security Agency (a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defence) so presumably knows a thing or two about 9/11 not generally available to the public. He’s certainly not someone who can be portrayed as a weak-willed individual conned by the likes of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing.
But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. The Lawyers Committee seems to have been taken in by the popular over-interpretation of Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”; many people have, and it is not a lawyer’s field.
It is a shame in so many ways. It confounds critical thinking, it discredits the call for better investigation, it undermines people’s understanding of science and technical discussion, it encourages wild conspiracism which encourages people to distrust a large proportion of everyone they interact with including friends and neighbours, it is divisive, it crowds out political analysis, it takes people’s eyes off the ongoing criminality, and it seems to make most of its adherents extraordinarily blinkered.
Twin Tower demolition theory is a major liability.
I hope the Lawyers’ Committee get their new investigation. But if it rejects Twin Tower demolition theory, people like you have already made it clear that you will denounce it as a stitch-up, whereas if it finds for Twin Tower demolition theory in the form promoted by Truthers, a travesty of justice and science will have been committed – the collapses did NOT break Newton’s laws.
You have replied to my post but only 2 sentences are relevant to it, so I’ll ignore the rest.
<i>There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing. But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. </i>
Nobody agrees 100% with anybody, so your point is trivial. The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised. My secondary point is that he cannot be dismissed as naive.
So Bill Binney has publicly shown his support for The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization. What is this committee trying to achieve? It has filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York demanding that the U.S. Attorney, pursuant to its duty under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 3332, present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life.
The US Attorney has agreed to do so.
The petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.
That is what Bill Binney has thrown his weight behind!!
There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pear Harbour. In other words it was a political decision not a legal one (as with proroguing of Parliament and declaring war) and in a democracy you can’t punish leaders for war crimes, because democracy requires a peaceful transfer of power to work, and leaders facing prosecution wont surrender power. Only leaders of vanquished nations get prosecuted.
However eventually truth works its way into the political mainstream and those elected by a knowing electorate change policy accordingly, hence why you got Trump, Brexit and Corbyn.
MODS
If you can’t see what Clark is doing to this thread you shouldn’t be a MOD. You wouldn’t let him behave like this on the main thread. So it’s your call. You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking, or you can moderate this thread and allow it to be a valuable resource. It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this.BTW, I made no effort to hide my IP address because I wanted to give you more options on how to deal with this.
There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pearl Harbour.
I agree. However they are running out of little boys to stick fingers in holes in dykes. Now that the U.S. Attorney has agreed to “present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life,” a course of action has begun which will require some very heavy-handed hushing up. I don’t see how they can stop the evidence going before the jury, so damage control will need to be along the lines of limiting the publicity it receives (ineffective) or throwing some low-level scapegoats to the lions (dangerous tactic, giving us a taste of blood).
I agree which is why the truth has become a “hate crime”.
– “The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event…”
You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory (though you seem to be making the usual Truther effort to make it look that way); Binney may have spoken to try to guide them towards more realistic issues, of which there are many, as you would see if you were to overcome your self-advertised tunnel vision.
– ” …in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised.”
OK, help us scrutinise it then. Got a link for a video of Binney’s speech?
Dave, you seem to have a very odd idea of what “government policy” is. Please show me the debates and votes that led to the 9/11 attacks being adopted as US government policy.
“valuable resource” = place where everyone promotes Twin Tower demolition theory, and no one ever questions anyone else.
“It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this” = Twin Tower demolition theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore scrutiny must be suppressed.
If Gerry is your “big hitter”, well, he misconstrued every point I made, and then apparently ran off when he saw that I would counter such devious tactics. And much to my disappointment Chandler never turned up; I expect that Gerry changed his mind about contacting him, because scrutiny is to be avoided in Twin Tower demolition circles.
I seem to remember looking at the Lawyers’ Committee website, probably when it was mentioned on the 9/11 Post, so probably about a couple of years ago. I seem to remember that it was far more broad, raising dozens of issues, rather than banging on exclusively about demolition – though I may be confusing it with “9/11 Consensus”.
I expect Binney is more concerned about Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley and Michael Springmann than he is about demolition theory.
Of course, most Truthers dismiss the three whistleblowers above as mere “controlled opposition” promoting a “limited hangout”.
A rather naïve question as it wasn’t official government policy, but as the esteemed Christopher Bollyn said the villains are identified by the cover-up, such as a belated 9/11 Commission investigation “set-up to fail”.
– “You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking”
Look through the thread Node; I countered abuse, from Dave. I did not initiate it. I expect you not to complain about Dave’s abuse, because he supports demolition theory; it really does seem as simple as that.
I apologise for your feeling that your description of the “official story” displayed “stunning ignorance”. I’m not really responsible for your emotional reactions, but I apologise anyway; I suppose I could have worded it more gently.
Well I don’t know what “unofficial” government policy is. Maybe they have secret sessions of the House of Representatives, but I haven’t seen a load of corpses of the ones that voted against the attacks.
I think that Bollyn has little to offer. He does point out some Mossad/Israeli cooperation with and even infiltration of Islamist groups, but that’s from the 1970s / 1980s I think; nothing contemporaneous with 9/11. I’m not saying that didn’t happen regarding 9/11; I’m saying that Bollyn presents no evidence of it relevant to 9/11. He also points out a lot of wealthy US Zionists favouring each other, but that’s hardly news. He seems fond of slow, dramatic zooms onto an oversized still of Larry Silverstein’s face, but that isn’t evidence either.
Well for example government policy could be for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour to provide a pretext for America to enter WWII against Germany, but as you say there wasn’t an official vote in Congress asking them to attack.
However the American oil embargo imposed on Japan with an ultimatum to leave Manchuria would raise the prospect of this happening, but the Pearl Harbour commanders weren’t informed of the worsening diplomatic situation.
If they had been they could have prepared defensively, but this would have forestalled the Japanese attack which was a dependent on surprise. Roosevelt declared a day of infamy, for which he was responsible, by omission.
The evidence became the cover-up as the commanders weren’t court martialled to avoid the truth being told, but job done, as America marched into war.
But Node, you have looked ahead along only your pre-decided path, so what happens if you’re wrong? What if the Twin Towers weren’t pre-rigged on every floor with explosives? What if the Lawyers’ Committee are risking all their eggs on a basket that doesn’t exist? Their efforts will be worse than wasted; they’ll have helped to discredit the cause itself – see my second paragraph in my comment above.
For all you try to have me silenced I’m actually trying to help. Rule out Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” because it is wrong. Then reassess your case.
To me that looks less like government policy, and more like manipulation of government by the Administration and possibly the State Department. The same would apply to 9/11. Another parallel, not quite so close, would be 2003, Blair’s administration and the devastation of Iraq.
You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory
No, because I didn’t say he supported Twin Tower demolition theory. I said that he supported an event which supported Twin Tower demolition theory. And that is significant for the reasons I explained. So how about addressing what I DID say rather than what I didn’t?
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.