nanoo-nanoo 9-11 Premiere Movie & Interview

[Ed Jewett]

9-11 Premiere Movie & Interview.mov


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPkg9Ys07...r_embedded


"I went to the world premiere of the new film created by Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth two nights ago in Portland. The 90-minute documentary is packed full of leading experts and scientists who categorically proved that the three buildings (including Building 7) were brought down on 9-11 by controlled demolition. They make an absolutely iron clad case that nano-thermite (which is only produced by and available to the military industrial complex) was used to sever the steel columns that had to be cut before the controlled demolition was possible. Scientists found traces of nano-thermite in the 9-11 ash debris.

Regis Tremblay filmed the event and has put some of the Q & A and an interview with architect Richard Gage along with the film trailer into this video above. It is time that we all support the call for a new independent investigation to 9-11.

Unlike some in the peace movement I've never been reluctant to speak about 9-11. I have witnessed the 9-11 inside job be used to justify two immoral and costly wars and to destroy our civil liberties. When I saw photos of George W. Bush reading "My pet goat" upside down on 9-11 I knew there was something rotten going on for sure."

posted by Bruce K. Gagnon | 7:11 AM
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2012/06/...perts.html

[Jeffrey Orling]

Unfortunately everyone has their own set of *leading experts*... and they reach different conclusions about the destruction of the WTC 3 towers. Which experts do you believe?

The truth movement points to the flaws in the NIST reports and they are correct. NIST made some pretty inexcusable errors and reached the wrong explanation in all three towers. Some of the data and evidence they collected was/is reliable.

The Truth experts have not done much better than NIST and in some cases even worse. But admittedly they are working with less hard evidence (gov is not very forthcoming with this).

However many of the so called truth experts are hardly what anyone would consider an expert on the topics they are *researching" or expounding upon. These are not unintelligent people and likely not unethical or working under some nefarious agenda. But who knows why they thrust themselves forth as technical experts.

Take one James Gourley. I don't know that he is among those featured in this film. But I do know that he:

an intellectual property rights attorney
affiliated with AE911T (somehow)
is a co author / researcher of the *nano thermite* paper referred to in the previous post
was on the steering committee of the *toronto hearings* which presented what was the best evidence of *the inside job*
wrote the report at the conclusion of the Toronto hearings

I don't question Mr. Gourley's intentions with respect to 9/11 assuming he is interested in getting to the actual truth about what happened. I question his being an expert and inserting himself as one into matters which appear to be well outside his training and technical expertise. I don't question his intelligence or his ethics.

He's not the only one who has made themselves into an expert by publishing about technical areas where the have no expertise (and i mean NO):

David Ray Griffin wrote about the collapse of Building 7
Graham MacQueen co authored a paper about the seismic data from Lamont Doherty on 9/11
David Chandler who is not a physicist (no college degree in Physics) but a high school physics teacher
Jim Fetzer no technical background in engineering or physics

And the list goes on.

But there are also *credentialed* people who stray into other disciplines such as of make bone headed claims:

Niels Harrit who goes on about the impossibility of the collapse, a structural/engineering issue and he's an organic chemist
Steven Jones who pushed a photo he claims was from thermate used to sever core columns and it was actually from the clean up.

We all are faced with listening to experts and trusting their integrity every day. Much of the truth movement case against the OCT and for a CD or MIHOP is basically an appeal to the authority of their chosen experts and citing them constantly as is done in this film.

However science demands repeatability and vetting and not endless repeating of unproven claims.

I'm not the least bit influenced any more by ANY of these self declared experts re 911 because it appears that all have made errors... and that is either intentional or unintentional. But it is not getting us closer to the truth about what happened.

But this sort of stuff fools most people. Bernays explained how.

The author Bruce sounds like a great guy and a perfect example of how people can be so easily influenced by effective PR.

[Ed Jewett]

Jeffrey, I fully subscribe to and endorse the right and luxury and requirement that we each keep and maintain our own minds, and the right to make them up and decide for ourselves, but the fact that you continue to try to "shoot the messengers" after all these years suggests that you need to acquire more modern rapid-fire assault weaponry or perhaps some other explosive means of covering a lot of territory with "one pull of the trigger". [Anyone who can dismiss, with a wave of his hand, the scientific or logical thought credentials of Lynn Margulis and David Ray Griffin (as well as others) in the same post suggests that you have an agenda or that you don't understand or comprehend the gravity of their work(s), their 'preparation', or the degree to which they are both highly-regarded and highly-lauded.]

[URL="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=swarm intelligence fo&cp=29&gs_id=3a&xhr=t&q=swarm+intelligence+for+drones&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=swarm+intelligence+for+drones&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=60561ac20d27d295&biw=1024&bih=1237"]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=swarm intelligence fo&cp=29&gs_id=3a&xhr=t&q=swarm+intelligence+for+drones&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=swarm+intelligence+for+drones&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=60561ac20d27d295&biw=1024&bih=1237
[/URL]
Perhaps you should look into the use of"swarm" intelligence software for UAV's or drones (see the Google search link above); RAND had a draft paper on it years ago that was shared with me by the author in a moment of confusion of thought, thinking that I was "one of them".

You could, given your architectural expertise, design that brainwork with memes and cognitive infiltration and engage in "hellfire"-like predatory aggression against a lot more messages and messengers.

[Magda Hassan]

RAND had a draft paper on it years ago that was shared with me by the author in a moment of confusion of thought, thinking that I was "one of them".

Love it :peace:

[Jeffrey Orling]

Ed,


Iam all for people reaching their own conclusions about the world around them. My point about Griffin and Magulis, is not that they are unintelligent, for certainly they are even brilliant. But the fact remains that the destruction of the WTC was a rather complex and technically challenging matter to understand and explain. One can take a cartoon like approach and declare that they were exploded, that even a child could see it... that Al Qaeda couldn't engineer such things ergo it was an inside job. Logical but not based on a technical understanding about the destruction.

Margulis know boo about physics and engineering and so what is the value of her professional opinion in this matter? No more than Jane Doe if they are both speaking about matters they are not experts in. The same applies to Griffin who wrote a book about Building 7. I don't think he know a thing about the structure or any of the engineering that went into that building. All DRG does is clip bits and pieces of people who HE assumes to be experts and to have had their own conclusions vetted and so forth. He's not equipped to even understand some engineering and physics and he's admitted so much to me when I asked him to comment on some technical issue about the WTC. DRG is the sort of research that assembles all nature of quotes from all sorts of sources and connects the dots as he sees them. Nothing inherently wrong with this, except he can't possibly know about some topics he is writing about. It boils down to an appeal to authority argument.

I've been saying this for several years whether it is Lemkin, Fetzer, Boldwyn, Griffin, Lindaur, Margulis, Gourley, MacQueen and many others... very quick to declare what happened without the requisite background to explain it, or falsify other explanations. It's follow the lemmings and parade of the parrots.

NIST is no better. They were tasked to drill into the physics, engineering and science and really produced a sub standard report... which to many amounts to a cover up... But of what? If you believe it was CD... NIST provided cover for the guys who did the CD. If you think there was a lot of incompetence all over the place from the design to the failure to defend, then the coverup was providing protection for that crowd.

I am interested in an accurate depiction of what actually happened to the structures... The truth movement has not provided it nor as NIST.

I'm not going to take one side or the other. And I have been able to do some *basic research* to inform my understanding. Most can't so all they can do is pick the experts that they want to *parrot*. None of the above are experts... and I will not be repeating what they say.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


I am not fooled. I'm a skeptic.

[Ed Jewett]

Yes, Jeffrey, and I was dealing with skeptics on this issue for years before I ever came here, some of them offering the precisely same arguments that Margulis is not versed in the comprehensive and complex issues that you understand well enough to dismiss her, and that Griffin is a theologist, for God's sake, and thus can't begin to fathom the intricacies of whatever it was that went down.

You are falling into the old traps (I'm surprised you haven't trotted out that maxim of a 14th century theologian, something about a razor cutting only if it is ulta-simple in its sharpness)(but what the hell would someone from the era in which Amsterdam was first declared a city, the English king had long shanks, the time of the Renaissance and which pre-dated Protestant Reformation know about back doors in software programs, overlapping circles of plausible deniability, or covert/black technologies known only in extremely limited military/intelligence circles?).

I am told that it is possible, if one meditates long enough and with enough intensity, to twist time itself.

Perhaps we can go hand-in-hand, sitting in some form of yoga position, and go back through those dust clouds to the time and dates prior to the event and consult the cosmic record. [I understand that the History Commons lacks funding enough to continue its own record keeping or at least put in in jeopardy. ]

I must admit to a fascination with the idea that you and others can remain "skeptic" after an event which has been the subject of more books, videos, panels, web sites, press conferences, testimony, obfuscation, disinformation, misinformation, record-keeping, governmental refusal to disclose, magazine articles, publications, Presidential declarations, and "cognitive infiltration" since the Presidential motorcade turned from Main onto Houston.

There's a lot of detail to review and consider. It requires more brains, apparently.

Or it's a failure to reach a conclusion other than to come to a conclusion that a conclusion cannot be reached.

Keep pondering ponderously.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Ed,
You can argue that the perponderance of books and so forth on the subject proves that the conclusion of theories presented is true. But this is not a winning argument. How about astroloogy or books about god., religion and so forth. There are billions of believers in the notion that Christ was the son of God including all the self appointed experts in theology and the bible.

You simply can't win an argument related to fact by voting or popularity or the number of books on a subject.

And let's not forget how many intelligent people also believe in the existence of God, the workings of astrology and so forth.

We all rely upon experts for technical facts and understanding... It's impossible to live in this world and not.

The destruction of the world trade center towers was a unique event. No structures of that mass have ever been CDed or collapsed from any cause. Many simply dismiss that there could be a *chain of events or a progressive series of failures leading to their collapse. Impossible they say. But this is clearly ignoring that complex systems CAN and DO experience cascading and progressive failures at times... the so called one thing leads to another... or the euphemism - *the straw that broke the camel's back*.

I am NOT going to go into theories about the possible mechanisms and cascading progressive failures of the towers. I am going to tell you that there seems to be an absence of acknowledgement that this is a real *phenomena*... and that the truth movement has simply not explored this concept and actually dismisses it when they simple reach for the black box called CD. POOF CD was complex... ergo the AQ couldn't do it and it had to be an inside job.

I am not alleging that the truth movement fathers are not using logic in the formulation of their thesis. I am saying there is almost a complete absence of data and releatable science in their approach. Even the so called *sceience* of the David Chandler claim of 2.25 seconds of free fall of tower 7 is very crude from a scientific point of view. A free fall motion would show as a completely SMOOTH line when the motion is plotted on a graph with distance and time on the two axes. The motion of buiilding 7 is NOT smooth and linear but shows slight variations. So the point traced by Chandler was speeding up and slowing down and this means that there were some other forces ASIDE from gravity which were in play. WHAT WERE THOSE FORCES? THEY NEED TO BE EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR. THe take away is that Chandler's findings are indeed interesting and remarkable, but do not necessasrily indicate CD and certainly were gross and crude. If you reduce the description to simple free fall motion you are not accurately describing what is going on.

I would imagine that MOST 911 truth advocates don't know about the details of Chandler's trace and data. And most wouldn't understand the implication if they did... and most simply don't care! It's good enough for them to reach the CD conclusion. FF = CD.

But could there be other explanations for the motion? Or more precisely what are some explanation for the almost linear acceleration at about free fall. Would there only be a unique explanation? If you see shattered glass on the floor by a window is there only a unique explanation as to what caused the glass to break?

I've argued on this site that we need to understand the structure and the engineering principles which hold buildings together... and the forces which break them apart. And most importantly we need ACURATE data about the observed phenomena - the collapse of the three buildings in order to then figure out what caused that motion (phenomena). THAT is how science works. And THAT is not how truth scientists (fathers) have worked on this problem.

David Griffin and Lynn Margulis have not used science and data to describe the motion of collapses and use that to inform their conclusion. At best there is some very sloppy (junk) science and even worse... using the mean, motive and opportunity to determine a technical explanation. That is NOT science although it may appeal to the armchair political scientists who want to describe the world simply interms of political forces in play. And again I am not dismissing the notion that the powerful (or even a single crazy person) can and do influence the course of history. For example the assassin of John Lenon... or Abe Lincoln (was he a lone assassin???)

I entered the fray from a political perspective because I believed the official story was on a word *rubbish* and I still hold that belief... and I know some of the technical reasons that are rubbish in the OCT. That falsifies it at least in part and maybe in whole. But falsification is not an explanation. It only rules out what has been falsified. Of course the truth movement makes another mistake when it concludes that *the offical lied* (correct) therefore they are covering up an inside job. Same sort of logical flaw... Someone lies does not mean that they are guilty of the act they lie about. We all know that witness will lie to cover for someone else.

The deception of the American people by the *state* about 911 is criminal in my viw, the obfuscation, the withholding of evidence, the stalling delay and classification of documents and the list goes on and on. This, however, is de riguer for the state and those in power... they do not want to be held to the standard that every one else is. It is NOT justice for all and there is NO accountability. Look at the bold face lies of Christy Whitman about the air quality post collapse in NYC... why the lies? And why not hold HER accountable for her lying to the public and putting tens of thousands of lives in jeopardy? The obvious answer may be that they wanted to avoid any liability down the road, any discovery in wrongful death lawsuits...
Discovery of what? No don't conclude that it was CD because Whitman lied.

We need to discover what happened. We know what *they* did as a result of what happened (illegal, immoral and not democratic). That is not proof that *they* did it. It may be to Ed Jewitt. It's not to me.

[Ed Jewett]

Jeffrey, I am not trying to win an argument. And your entire approach goes to hell in a handbasket when you consider the depth and breath of civil jurisprudence, trial by jury, the definition of "preponderance of evidence", the fact that a small body of commoners without any expertise in any of the sciences or fields routinely hear "expert" witnesses presented by both prosecution and defense but must rely, in the end, on their own ability to comprehend and a simple vote (or series of them). This held true, at least, until the system of justice and law itself was corrupted by the very same crowd considered likely culprits in the crime, proven to be true in countless SCAD's for decades. The fact that none of the events of that day have ever seen the inner side of a working legal case ought to tell you something. The number of people arrayed to prevent it, and their characteristics, ought to tell you more.

I am not trying to win an argument here, Jeffrey. I am merely observing those who are arguing and trying to win that argument by interesting rhetorical technique.

As an aside, I note that Saudi Arabia, as reported http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre85g0...udi-tanks/ by Reuters, wants to buy six to eight hundred Leopard battle tanks, an interesting event considering that I am currently on page 86 of the book by Lieutenant-Colonel (Retd) Roman Jarymowycz, OMM, CD, Ph.D. entitled "Cavalry: From Hoof to Track" (2008, Stackpole). He uses a well-known military term (fingerspitzengefuhl) which has variable translations or definitions but which he suggests means the ability to discern, by the seat of one's riding britches while that seat is in the saddle on the move in the middle of a campaign, the tempo, tenor and more of the moment, or a high act of discernment translated into action.

As a further aside, I was thinking out loud in an e-mail response to Ed Encho when I mentioned a private collaboration on a re-arrangement of an old blues standard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwVVI4B3oY.

The suggested new lyrics:

We're now at a crossroads
best you be on your knees;
cold thick mist in the air;
some kind of dis-ease.

We're now at the crossroads,
time for choosin' what you please;
it's dark, what's out there:
evil you can't appease;

Down at the crossroads,
which road should I know?
Fire of liberty and love;
That will be my show.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Ed,

I am perfectly aware of how a jury may determine guilt of innocence in a court of law in the USA.

I am not referring to a court of law but the presentation and determination of scientific evidence which is very different from the legal standard of evidence.

Scientific Evidence:

"In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence."


Law:
"The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy."

If you are satisfied with dog and pony shows and .. if it does not fit you must acquit approach to this matter... go for it. You can collect all sorts of people who don't even NEED to study the visual record and derive data from it and apply the laws of mechanics, physics and so forth and just opine from the standing as a theologist or a biologist or whatever. That won't work for me.

To me this is not about swaying minds and convincing people to believe something but the understanding of a complex technical event... and let's set aside the politics when we try to understand it. Science should be a no politics zone in my book.

If the conclusion is akin to *an inside job* and CD you better have some well authenticated and clear and convincing evidence to made such a claim. I don't see that evidence... yet.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Ed,

I have pointed out that there are many reasons for those who are proping up the OCT and stalling and blocking any further investigation - a proper one- than your conclusion that it was an inside job... that they placed devices to blow up the three buildings... or whatever you want to call it...

We need to know more than we do now.

Jeffrey