You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
Yusef

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #16 
Hi George,

Thanks for your comment. You raise some interesting points and requested a few comments and links. Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm sure we agree on almost all points related to 9/11 and feel that I probably haven't expressed myself as clearly as I would have liked to.

I agree that the strongest argument is the one you first stated. My reason for pointing out Chomsky's statement (about JFK information being released periodically to cause a distraction from other activist actions) was not supposed to apply to 9/11 (though it's not an impossibilty), only to point out that energy being used to discuss 9/11 could be better spent elsewhere.

Chomsky expresses it a billion times better than me. He makes lots of good points (obviously) here.



In the last minute he addresses the "energy".

And here, a quote from "What We Say Goes" (found on wikipedia), mentioning the periodical release of information.

"People always ask, 'What can I do?' And then they say, here’s something I can do. I can become a qualified civil engineer in an hour, and prove that Bush blew up the World Trade Center. I'm pretty sure that in Washington they must be clapping. A couple of years ago, I came across a Pentagon document that was about declassification procedures. Among other things, it proposed that the government should periodically declassify information about the Kennedy assassination. Let people trace whether Kennedy was killed by the mafia, so activists will go off on a wild goose chase instead of pursuing real problems or getting organized. It wouldn't shock me if thirty years from now we discover in the declassified record that the 9/11 [conspiracy] industry was also being fed by the [Bush] administration."


I perhaps misused the expression "wisdom of the crowds", but I feel it is true that most people seem to reject the conspiracy. It would seem that most people are right about this, and according to the "wisdom of the crowds" everyone taken together give the most accurate answer or prediction. However, having reflecting on this, I agree that it is not a particularly strong argument as Medialens has pointed out on countless occassions that there are massive propoganda systems which pump out perception altering content.

I also agree that we must take these so called "experts" (on both sides) at their word, but I have generally been more convinced by the debunks. As you say, "These qualified experts are outnumbered by the qualified experts who take the opposite view."

The link to the youtube user should have been

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

Check out the 9/11 Debunked videos. I don't find them to be as ridiculous as Margo does.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B

If you prefer a different presentation of the "facts", check out this website

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This last site has some interesting testimony from firefighters and is very complete. After watching and reading these sources, it seems entirely plausible that building 7 came down as a result of the falling debris from the previous collapse. Even if the details are not 100% correct, it describes plausible descriptions of how buildings can collapse after such events. Hopefully you won't find it too technical (i don't think it is).

I hope these sources help clear up some of the doubts you have, and thanks for asking me to clarify.

In (hopefully quick) response to the other comments, I am quite surprised by the negativity in the responses. I'm sorry you didn't like the music, margo, but is that really the content of the video? If you don't address the content, it's irrelevant. You state that the NIST report scored own goals, but then quote it to demonstrate that it's not the planes that brought down the buildings. Furthermore, it would seem you are guilty of copying previously written text from other places (many of your links don't work) which leads me to think you are responding rather reflexively and not truly communicating with me. The links that do work do not seem very convincing to me and have other sites debunking those stories. As I said, at the end of the day it's a judgment call and we all have different criteria.

The '"unknowable" trope' is actually a profound insight (not mine, obviously) into perception and the nature of reality and applies to everyone. Of course I don't know what happened. I don't even know anyone who died there.

And most of the whistle blowers are not convincing either.

Doing simple searches with the names and "debunked" quickly finds quite convincing debunk articles. e.g.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/andreas_von_blo.php
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/questioning-9-11-the-politician-turned-conspiracy-theorist-a-784673.html#ref=nlint

According to its publisher, Bülow's book "Die CIA und der 11. September" ("The CIA and September 11") has sold 200,000 copies since it was first released in 2003

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com.es/2008/01/sibel-edmonds-tells-all.html

Richard Andrew Grove's story sounds a bit outlandish.

http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/1074

I've spent quite a while looking through these websites, doing searches, checking other articles and blogposts, doing a (fairly superficial) "quality check" (for want of a better expression), and I have to say that I find the debunk-site content to be more convincing. Most of the "whistleblowers" are unconvincing. Admittedly, the Francesco Cossiga (not CossigE, as you had written) character is seemingly well placed to know what was going on. I think it depends how much you trust a politician's word. Because, in the end the "whistle blowers" seem to sometimes have quite different stories, and are nearly always related to seeing documents or overhearing conversations or being privy to the knowledge, not actually being involved in the setting up or planning. And there would have to be a lot of physical actors, not just a few planners.

As Chomsky says in the video I pasted above, the world is not a controlled experiment and there will be a lot of noise, a lot of unexplainable things ("the unknowable trope"?). People who are convinced by the conspiracy ultimately have different criteria.

I will now take Chomsky's advice and stop wasting time on this issue.

Cheers all, and I look forward to reading all your comments on the message board. Glad to have interacted.[smile]
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #17 
Hi George and Yusuf

'Wisdom of the crowds' isn't a good scientific basis for discussion: it's a logical fallacy. Chomsky suggests here that because 'a majority' of (unidentified) experts haven't addressed a given issue, those who have done so should be discounted. With the greatest respect, Chomsky is a linguist not a physicist, so he has picked one group of physicists and engineers to believe over another. Many would like him to at least support the call for wider, public media debate between these two groups, because this exercise would soon expose unscientific arguments.

Quote:
"...consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method. It should be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history [because the media has so thoroughly blanked out the facts and smeared civil peer-review  - the silence is the story]. - ae911


Derek - you queried the '13%' figure - It refers to the amount of compromised structure in the top (green) zone.  The yellow section A was fire-and-damage-free and therefore consisted of cold, hard steel.

NIST claimed that the Green C section acted like a hammer and knocked Yellow A section all the way to ground level, shredding steel along the way. Note that the towers featured progressively thicker steel in lower levels.  The topmost green sections of Towers 1 and 2 first exploded, so there was actually no cohesive structure left to impact on the sturdy Yellow A section below:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1ABC.jpg[WTC1ABC] 

[Bazantcrazy]


Ref: Engineer Anders Bjorkman's paper and illustrations...

Quote:
"There is too little potential energy in the 'mass above' of the WTCs to overcome the strain energy of the structure below to cause any collapse of any kind as suggested by NIST."
"This is basic structural damage analysis!" - Bjorkman statement, AE911 signatory 

North and South Tower top sections both suddenly exploded in identical fashion, more than an hour after buildings had stabilised, fires cooled, etc.

Top sections shredded at the *start* of event. We see this with our own eyes, no physics degree required.

[wtc2explodes]wtc
[nt_col6527] 


With upper-level steel and concrete shredded and ejected laterally, there was no solid block left to (supposedly) one-way crush the lower four-fifths of steel structure downwards in 11 seconds.


[BjorkmansAxiom] 


- How, then, were the towers rapidly leveled through the path of greatest resistance, along the vertical axis? Why did the Tower that was hit second (thus burned for less time) explode first? 

(ref
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc2.html )

Notes / Common Sense:


"NIST Piles It Higher and Deeper" -  Anders Bjorkman S.E., France
http://theswillbucket.com/?p=248

"Twin Towers and Common Sense" - Dr Frank Legge, Australia
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/CraneAndCommonSenseByFrankLegge.pdf

"WTC Chief Engineer John Skilling Talks (1993)":
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Media Censorship
http://www.911censorship.com/twin%20towers%27%20censorship.htm

"The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST Hypothesis"
http://nearing.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/15/2316917-911-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis
spike

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #18 
Thanks for this Margo. I agree and don't think, as Chomsky suggests, that you need a Phd in engineering to comprehend the implausibility of the smaller top sections completely destroying the much larger bottom sections in the explosive manner witnessed; as anyone who's built a sandcastle will know - matter falls along the path of least resistance. This is entry level stuff because it means that the towers were not destroyed in the manner claimed by the official story; from this insight all further questions as to how, why and by whom elaborate themselves.
George Brennan

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #19 

Hi, Yusef

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.



margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #20 
"Somebody would have talked"

"The phrase "someone would have talked" is meaningless because, (a) very few insiders DO talk, and (b) those who do are attacked or marginalized, creating a situation where even more people play it safe by staying in category (a)."

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.)

Quote:

"...  the details of the skilled 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. They would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational. [...]  In any case, the assumption that 'someone would have talked,' being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence."
(From, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, by David R.Griffin (Olive Branch Press) 2007.)



 
Quote:
"Someone would have talked"

"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.

 

fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #21 
Anyone, but a child, would agree that the towers were subject to pre-set demolition!

Other than the minutia of HOW that was achieved we could second-guess all day/month/year whilst the perps cover their tracks, gain immunity, disappear etc. - as to WHO it was, can be garnered here...

George Brennan

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #22 

Hi Yusef,

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:

 

fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #23 
Well - I've got to admit George - you've got us perplexed - how can it be, with so much common sense railed against us, that we could not possibly see the light?

Nope George - you've got me stumped - what drug are you on?
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #24 
Hi George

The Reverend Chris Mohr of Foothills Chapel to whom you refer us in your last post - http://www.foothillschapel.com/funerals/military-funerals.htm - produced an 'independent' scientist (Millette) to bolster the official narrative. His man turned out to be a government-employed scientist whose theories didn't quite hold together.

In any event, thermite is not needed to bolster evidence in plain sight: three high-rises came down too fast, too symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance. This is easily seen and grasped, no physics degree required.  Corporate journalists are conspicuous by their absence around this subject.

The government conducted no forensic tests. This is akin to murder trial defense claiming the stuff on the knife is only red wine whilst refusing to test their hypothesis.

Responses:
(1)
When Mohr Is Less - Kevin Ryan, chemist

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/

(2) Addressing Mohr - Jeremy Hammond, editor of Foreign Policy Journal
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/

(3) Physicist David Chandler (member of American Association of Physics Teachers) Responds to Mohr



"Attorney's letter puts NIST between a rock and a hard place"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Embarrassing-NIST-They-Le-by-Andrew-Mills-Attack_Engineer_Misconduct_WTC7-140117-254.html?show=votes#allcomments

http://www.911babystep.com .
http://www.911censorship.com/twin%20towers%27%20censorship.htm
mack

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #25 
Hi all

Except George, ofcourse, who stated in his first post he's not reading replies other than Yusuf's; and then only those which directly address his own points. I wouldn't waste your time and effort responding Margo - George is a faither. Such platitudes as the startling evidence that 'official reports are often a shambles' (I paraphrase), and 'respected orgs such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) were involved' (thus obviating any possibility of internal skullduggery, apparently). On that one point, it's worth saying that in 1993, when the WTC had a bomb blow up in it, four 'volunteers' from the ASCE showed up to help out with the investigation. Their names were Corley, Thornton, Mlaker and Sozen. In 1995, OK City, The Murrah Building also had a bomb go off. The volunteers from the ASCE were named Corley, Thornton, Mlaker and Sozen. After 911, four volunteers from the ASCE named Corley, Thornton, Mlaker and Sozen arrived to help FEMA out with their initial Building Performance Study. Messrs. Corley, Thornton, Mlaker and Sozen are clearly public spirited souls, eager to help their country in times of crisis.

That's by and by. My main point is regarding Nist's Building 7 report (the final one) released in Nov 2008. Anyone properly following the story and the disputes surrounding Nist's report will already know that central to Nist's report were the finite element analysis (FEA) animation and the claim that the collapse of 7 was 'no longer a mystery' as they had determined that the initiating event of the collapse was the failure of one column (C79) which itself was caused by the thermal expansion due to office furnishing fires of a girder spanning C79-C44 (call it G44/79) and attached beams at floor level 12/13, which caused G44/79 to walk off its bearing plate at C79, in turn causing a cascade of floors down to the reinforced floor 5, thus leaving C79 without lateral restraint over several floors causing it to buckle and in turn the building collapsed in 6.6 seconds, as seen.

The trouble with these two findings was that they couldn't be falsified or repeated because, in the case of the FEA, Nist refused to release the input data they used to make the animation, meaning that no other scientist could replicate their finding. The reason Nist have given for refusing to enable peer review is that releasing the input data for the FEA 'might jeopardise public safety'. The opposite is ofcourse true - not releasing the input parameters on the performance of commonly used building materials would indeed jeopardise public safety - if Nist's hypothesis is correct. The situation is the same to this day; the data is not available, therefore the work is unfalsifiable and unscientific and must be discounted as evidence until such a time as the information is released.
On the matter of C79 failure being the initiating event of the collapse, some progress has been made. A couple of years back Nist finally gave up (to a foia) the structural drawings for wtc7. Independent researchers got to look at engineer's call out sheets, shop drawings and specs. This has proved to be very revealing. To paraphrase: Nist claimed thermal expansion of floor beams around C79 at level 12/13 pushed a girder (G44/79) of its seat and initiated the collapse. But study of their figures and engineering practises show several 'mistakes'. 1) the omission of shear studs to the floor beams (a restraining device in just such an event; they make the concrete floor composite with the steel work); 2) the incorrect sizing of the bearing plate upon which girder G44/79 was fixed - Nist called it at 11 inches when the drawings show the plate as 12 inches; 3) Nist used the optimum (maximum) temperature of 600 celcius to achieve the maximum possible expansion and thus walk off distance for G44 which they called at 5.5 inches - just enough to have the web of the girder half way across the incorrectly sized 11 inch bearing plate (after 600C steel begins to sag and loses its ability to expand or push). When this was pointed out to them, Nist were forced to issue an erratum sheet on the 5.5 inch walk off and the 12 inch plate - they claim it was a typo and have now corrected the plate size and increased their walk off distance to 6.25 inches, which is an engineering impossibility; 4) Nist omitted stiffener plates at the G44/79-C79 connection. Stiffener plates are a device used to prevent walk off. Nist have also been informed of this but have not responded to requests for correction.
In short, Nist's claim that the initiating event of the collapse of 7 was the failure of C79 has been falsified beyond recall. These are engineering facts; the only questions that remain are ones of the nature and extent of Nist's co-option into a deliberate cover up of the facts. Any claim of incompetence is untenable given the basic nature of the #errors#.

Here is a series of four (short) videos which explain the engineering issues in reasonably simple terms.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl[/video]

Cheers




























margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #26 
High-Rise Safety Initiative
http://highrisesafetynyc.org/

Are Tall Buildings Safer As A Result of the NIST reports?
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/are-tall-buildings-safer-as-a-result-of-the-nist-wtc-reports/

A Warning to Office Workers (YouTube)



margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #27 
You have to wonder why so many journalists, editors and politicians are true believers in the official narrative, when even the officials appointed to pen the narrative didn't swallow it ...

#t=321

But then one of Snowden's first leaks affirmed the official narrative, so what to think?
http://rt.com/usa/snowden-leak-obl-dna-219/

Aly

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #28 
Hey margo

just saw your links discussing Mohr's rebuttals. I have to say that they are completely convincing to me. Mohr has no idea what he's talking about...

Cheers

Aly
Derek

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #29 
Hi Margo,

You said the oscillation was examined and noted to stabilise before the collapse. But I was watching the whole event (as many did) and saw no slowing in the oscillation of the buildings prior to collapse of at least the first building (hard to see on the second because of lots of debris in the air).

If the oscillation (not of the building but of the steelcore structure itself, at its weak places, rivets and welds - particularly rusty welds) continued for an hour, the question is it possibly that it could weaken and undermine core structural aspects of the buildings? Nevermind if that would result in the kind of toppling we saw - one step at a time - but is it possible? What we saw from the outside (slow movement of the buildings back and forth) may well have been amplified within each steel core as fast vibrations (you see it on small steel structures when you strike them hard - they ring and vibrate super fast). As you know, bending steel back and forth eventually snaps it (not bends, snaps). So I wonder if this effect is possible in large steel structures. It may not be enough to snap large pieces of steel, but maybe enough to compromise the weak points (the joins).

Has that been addressed? Or dismissed as nonsense? I don't know. I do remember however the buildings swaying right up to collapse.

cheers

Yusef

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #30 
Hi everybody. It is quite amazing how we are all part of the statistic that Mohr quotes, saying something like When we hear two sides of an argument, we tend to come away strengened in our initial beliefs. Mohr is very convincing to me, but he also seems very honest and open and has some interesting wider observations about discussion and respect for opposing views.

http://chrismohr911.com/

Thank you George for putting me on to Mr Mohr. I truly found his analysis fascinating. His series of videos is excellent. Maybe you know that despite Mr Gage not wanting to release the video of the debate, there is an mp3 available of the event. I am in the process of listening to it and Gage clearly demonstrates that his analysis of the events is not as complete as Mr Mohr's. There is a curious moment where the presenter loses a question, Mohr reads it out, and Gage asks the presenter to repeat it "for the DVD" which Gage is obviously planning to make and... give away for free. [thumb] Intriguingly, it would appear that Mr Gage felt that he did not come across as well as he would have liked and decided against releasing the DVD. Gage often fumbles around quite a lot, evades questions and repeats his set phrases again and again (How many times does he say "through the path of most resistance"? Which, by the way, Mohr convincingly explains.) Gage's ideas are confused (explosions big enough to send girders flying over the street, but also slow burning to "cut like a knife through butter"), innacurate (squibs cannot be due to air pressure because all the windows would explode together, obviously wrong), overly reliant on the unexplainable ("Unless you can explain... , the debate is over!" he repeats), and I just don't find him as convincing. I urge people to listen to the debate.

http://themindrenewed.com/episodes/56-ep013

Aside from the content, another interesting point mentioned on the recording by the presenter is that Gage is a "self-described Reagan conservative" and Mohr a "peace activist", but the Reaganite is criticising the official govenment story and the activist is defending it. Not that a Reagan supporter can't be right about some things, I just don't find this one very convincing. But as I have said before, it is a judgement call, and I find Mr Mohr and Chomsky and others (and my own sight) more convincing than analyses I've seen both here and elsewhere.

(I also want to thank you, George, for posting the interview of Chomsky on the message board recently. He is so inspiring in so many ways.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

leftAll photos courtesy of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools..

Like, Tweet and Share...