05-01-2012, 12:26 PM
I don't accept the official account. It is so full of holes it is a laughable. At the very least it was a cover up and the events of 9/11 were used to launch illegal wars and a series of repressive measures in domestic policies. 9/11 appears to be a false flag and a further march toward a fascist state with hegemonic goals.
I don't consider AQ as the likely planners of 9/11. But my research has shown that the destruction of the WTC was not the complex conspiracy that many think it had to have been. This does not mean that it could have been done by 19 disgruntled radicals with box cutters and likely means it wasn't. So who was behind it, what actually happened and how was it carried out?
I think at least one aspect of the cover up was to shield the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers, developers, NYC DOB, contractors from liability claims since the destruction revealed that there were design flaws almost like a ticking time bomb... regardless of the cause. it really didn't take that much to bring them down. I do not think jet fuel melted steel nor the fires ALONE weakened enough steel for the twins to collapse. I have not ruled out in my thinking that whatever planes struck the towers contained some devices which did weaken the steel... or there may have been a few devices preplaced which would be set off by the plane strikes. I don't subscribe to the theories of elaborately timed and extensively placed explosives and so forth up and down the towers. I've argued in these threads that the collapses themselves were *natural* and explainable with engineering and physics, but we don't know what caused the... in both the twins and bldg 7. I have advocated for years that researchers must focus on the initiating events... the factors... multiple ones I believe which let to the core column failures in all three buildings which caused them to then collapse... the twin from the crash zones down... bldg 7 from a region around the transfer trusses above the Con Ed substation. NIST explanations were full of flaws and appear only to bolster the offical 19 hijacker caused destruction.
It sure seems like the SOBs in the MIC took advantage of the event after the fact. There may have been *rogue* elements in the MIC who planned it as well... which is the 9/11 truth position - MIHOP. Yes a logical case can be made that they were the planners, but logical cases have been made that it was a zionist conceived plot, or even a *wall street* conceived operation. All those interests seemed to benefit from the events.
My approach has been to investigate the event itself believing that this would help identify who the likely mechanics and planners were. If such investigation shows that the destruction could have only been achieved with some military type explosive or device... DEWs or mini nukes that would lead the further investigation in a very specific direction. Ruling out DEWs and mini nukes opens up the possibilities but does not rule of the same suspects... it just means that they were smart enough to not leave the finger prints leading to them... with enough ambiguity to have researchers arguing about that happened. And this is precisely the state we are in for 10 years... trying to figure out what actually happened. Many have already leap frogged right to a SCAD and false flag. And this may be the case. I do not rule that out. But I believe the case needs to a technical forensic one... not a logic based one. And it is a logic based one which Margulis uses and in opinion she makes some factual mistakes as well. But she is not the only one who seems to not be concerned with the details. Most 9/11 truthers seem to rely on appeal to authority arguments...their chosen authorities... such as Margulis who clearly has not done any of her own independent research beyond reading the 9/11 truth based materials. Fetzer is another example of this... Even Charles Boldwyn's work is nothing but a physics lesson, but misapplied to the actual observations and the actual structure of the towers. He's correct about Newtonian physics, but he doesn't use the actual building structure or the observations in his analysis. Fail.
As in the JFK matter there was a state coverup... But even in that matter forensic scientists have dismantled the state's case. And that is what is needed with 9/11... competent forensics. Dr. Margulis was not engaged in this. It is my belief that the fact that the gov destroyed or is withholding evidence suggests they are involved... but it's *proof* only of their involvement of the cover up... not the crime. It may be... but that case has yet to be made... and it will be from the forensics and we may be able to do that with the evidence we have access to. No need to not try, nor fudge the science and make hollow claims.
Reseach continues.
I don't consider AQ as the likely planners of 9/11. But my research has shown that the destruction of the WTC was not the complex conspiracy that many think it had to have been. This does not mean that it could have been done by 19 disgruntled radicals with box cutters and likely means it wasn't. So who was behind it, what actually happened and how was it carried out?
I think at least one aspect of the cover up was to shield the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers, developers, NYC DOB, contractors from liability claims since the destruction revealed that there were design flaws almost like a ticking time bomb... regardless of the cause. it really didn't take that much to bring them down. I do not think jet fuel melted steel nor the fires ALONE weakened enough steel for the twins to collapse. I have not ruled out in my thinking that whatever planes struck the towers contained some devices which did weaken the steel... or there may have been a few devices preplaced which would be set off by the plane strikes. I don't subscribe to the theories of elaborately timed and extensively placed explosives and so forth up and down the towers. I've argued in these threads that the collapses themselves were *natural* and explainable with engineering and physics, but we don't know what caused the... in both the twins and bldg 7. I have advocated for years that researchers must focus on the initiating events... the factors... multiple ones I believe which let to the core column failures in all three buildings which caused them to then collapse... the twin from the crash zones down... bldg 7 from a region around the transfer trusses above the Con Ed substation. NIST explanations were full of flaws and appear only to bolster the offical 19 hijacker caused destruction.
It sure seems like the SOBs in the MIC took advantage of the event after the fact. There may have been *rogue* elements in the MIC who planned it as well... which is the 9/11 truth position - MIHOP. Yes a logical case can be made that they were the planners, but logical cases have been made that it was a zionist conceived plot, or even a *wall street* conceived operation. All those interests seemed to benefit from the events.
My approach has been to investigate the event itself believing that this would help identify who the likely mechanics and planners were. If such investigation shows that the destruction could have only been achieved with some military type explosive or device... DEWs or mini nukes that would lead the further investigation in a very specific direction. Ruling out DEWs and mini nukes opens up the possibilities but does not rule of the same suspects... it just means that they were smart enough to not leave the finger prints leading to them... with enough ambiguity to have researchers arguing about that happened. And this is precisely the state we are in for 10 years... trying to figure out what actually happened. Many have already leap frogged right to a SCAD and false flag. And this may be the case. I do not rule that out. But I believe the case needs to a technical forensic one... not a logic based one. And it is a logic based one which Margulis uses and in opinion she makes some factual mistakes as well. But she is not the only one who seems to not be concerned with the details. Most 9/11 truthers seem to rely on appeal to authority arguments...their chosen authorities... such as Margulis who clearly has not done any of her own independent research beyond reading the 9/11 truth based materials. Fetzer is another example of this... Even Charles Boldwyn's work is nothing but a physics lesson, but misapplied to the actual observations and the actual structure of the towers. He's correct about Newtonian physics, but he doesn't use the actual building structure or the observations in his analysis. Fail.
As in the JFK matter there was a state coverup... But even in that matter forensic scientists have dismantled the state's case. And that is what is needed with 9/11... competent forensics. Dr. Margulis was not engaged in this. It is my belief that the fact that the gov destroyed or is withholding evidence suggests they are involved... but it's *proof* only of their involvement of the cover up... not the crime. It may be... but that case has yet to be made... and it will be from the forensics and we may be able to do that with the evidence we have access to. No need to not try, nor fudge the science and make hollow claims.
Reseach continues.