"This is basic structural damage analysis!" - Bjorkman statement, AE911 signatory
Thanks for those links. I am still seeking an unpolemical and expert point-by-point rebuttal of Experts Speak Out (ESO), one that is addressed to the general public, not to other embattled techno-geeks.
I surmise that whatever Chomsky read was just a playful remark made by some official who assumed and hoped that grassy knoll theory would lead nowhere - as indeed it eventually did, after a brief endorsement from a House committee. “Who cares who killed Kennedy?” asked Chomsky, but he is a dedicated political activist who lives on a higher intellectual plane than the rest of us. Myself, I like a good murder, and I love a real-life mystery. Ladies’ fictional puzzles (the plague of RadioFourExtra) don’t do it for me. “Who cares who murdered Roger Ackroyd?” as someone said. But the study of real life mysteries can enrich one’s sense of the complexity and unexpectedness of life as it is lived. That is probably all it can do. It should not be mistaken for serious political activity. It should be a hobby not a hobby horse, I often say, prodding people with an imaginary pipe. Talented activists such as Paul Hoch have wasted the best years of their mental life thinking about that day in Dallas, hoping to pull down the imperialist temple with a single heave.
Grassy knoll theory had more going for it than 9/11 theory. The Warren Report was immediately denounced for its internal flaws by men of calibre such as Bertrand Russell and Trevor Roper, and thereafter was thoroughly discredited in detail by a postgraduate named Epstein who had full access to Warren’s deliberations. Epstein himself continued to believe in Oswald Alone, and was therefore all the more persuasive in demonstrating that this highly political Committee wilfully and systematically ignored any serious evidence that pointed the wrong way. I have not yet heard of an equivalent post mortem on the Enquiry conducted by the respected scientific body NIST. NIST was endorsed by The American Society of Civil Engineers and the report they prepared in conjunction with the Structural Engineers Association of NY (SEAoNY), other engineering associations and FEMA concluded that the twin towers collapsed due to the plane impacts and resulting fires. I calculate there are around 700,000 certified due-paying members of the engineering associations, and the AIA has 82,000.
Still, it is not a entirely negligible to have recruited from these some hundreds from these willing to sign a petition saying there are unanswered questions; and the ordinary beholder must be astonished by speed and symmetry of the collapse of Building 7, which unaccountably took 8 years to explain and which resembles all the controlled implosion movies one has seen. Professor Eagar says he will disdain to answer this stuff unless and until it gains a foothold in a mainstream journal. I think that is wrong. The public is interested, and it may have some questions, even knowing that the debris from the bigger tower ripped out a section of Building 7 and caused a fire which lasted 8 hours before the Fire Service decided to retreat. FEMA is a government organisation and therefore a proper object of suspicion. Why was the site cleared of evidence so quickly? Is it true that one section of one building fell at gravity speed? If so how can that be? Have you come upon an intelliigible reply to these points? If the arguments for controlled implosion can be popularised by Steven Jones, a expert in cold fusion, it should not be too hard for relevant experts such as Eagar or Bazant or Verdure to popularise their presumably superior counter arguments. The heterodox expert has first of all to convince other experts. But these other experts should not be above talking to the public.
The “wisdom of crowds”, which I have defined precisely, is only obliquely connected with that wisdom of common sense shown by ordinary people following ordinary pursuits and relying exclusively on their own experience and observation, uncontaminated by indoctrination or prejudice. When a jury of common folk is divided, our best bet is to accept a majority verdict, unless we happen to know more about the case than the jury do. Unless we know more science than a scientific jury, our best bet for us common folk is to go with that majority, and we should accept odds commensurate with the size of that majority. We should put our trust in institutes rather than in the maverick who just might just turn out to be right. A million forgotten mavericks have turned out to be wrong.
The bimbo therapists speaking at the end of ESO seem confident they understand the hard science. One breathless proselyte tells how a single article by the theologian Griffin converted her from unquestioning belief in Bush the Heavenly Father to an understanding that truly diabolical plots are hatched in Washington. In the name of hard science, another ESO convert scorns the popular objection “somebody would have talked”. That objection reflects a commonsense axiom which i reiterate: the more complicated and elaborate the conspiracy is, the more likely it is to be discovered and hence the less likely to be undertaken. There have been plenty of conspiracies, and there may even have been some entirely successful cover-ups, whereof by definition we cannot speak. But I would not engage with anyone who did not accept that axiom as a self evident statement of probability. The Irangate conspiracy was not impossibly elaborate, and it did not succeed. Somebody talked.
The people who carried out the sophisticated casus-belli-creating 9/11 attack did so for ideological reasons: "ends justify the means". These people would not need to be quieted. They have no desire or motivation to speak out. (To give but one example of a *possible* ideological reason at play: Literally overnight, the shocking Manhattan event facilitated the rapid insertion of American forces into the heart of the Middle East, positioned against Israel's enemies and butting up against Russia and China. Manhattan shock-and-horror ("We are all victims of evil Muslim terrirists now!") lubricated a stunning political and military transition which would otherwise have involved a long, uphill battle, considering the growing anti-globalisation, anti-war and anti-Israel sentiment of late '90s eg Durban I : 2001.)
"It is quite remarkable how little those of us who were stationed in Germany during the Nazi time, journalists and diplomats, really knew of what was going on behind the façade of the Third Reich. "A totalitarian dictatorship, by its very nature, works in great secrecy and knows how to preserve that secrecy from the prying eyes of outsiders. "It was easy enough to record and describe the bare, exciting and often revolting events in the Third Reich: Hitler’s accession to power, the Reichstag fire, the Roehm Blood Purge, the Anschluss with Austria, the surrender of Chamberlain at Munich, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the attacks on Poland, Scandinavia, the West, the Balkans and Russia, the horrors of the Nazi occupation and of the concentration camps and the liquidation of the Jews. "But the fateful decisions secretly made, the intrigues, the treachery, the motives and the aberrations which led up to them, the parts played by the principal actors behind the scenes, the extent of the terror they exercised and their technique of organizing it—all this and much more remained largely hidden from us until the secret German papers turned up." - from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.
I never trust anyone who claims he has “debunked” anything. You might like to look at Chris Mohr. On March 6 20011 He publicly debated with Richard Gage on the content of Gages Blueprint for Truth. Unfortunately Gage refused to release a video of that debate. Mohr has issued a 20 part rebuttal. He assumes the good faith of his opponents and does not deny that the Truthers main experts are real experts. His tone is grown-up. There will be a million counter-rebuttals out there but I find that his 20 part lecture answers all the questions I had, and I shall not pursue this matter further
Mohr versus Gage:
On Free Fall:
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!