18-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Lauren Johnson Wrote:[quote=Jeffrey Orling] It will be a while before I can get to it. Has it given you any new major insights? Changed your mind on anything?
I learned a lot about history, how science actually works, psychology and a fair amount of the technical analysis applied to the event.
The basic concept is similar to what I have advocated in this Forum on the Judy Wood thread.."Where is the towers go?" which was:
In order to understand something we have to have accurate (honest) observations which are informed by technical knoweldge. We all can describe what we see because few to none of us will declare we can't make sense of something. We too frequently use the type of thinking and logic which is terribly flawed, such as saying it looks like X so it must be and example of X... or Y expert(s) say it was X so it must be X.
The Ronald Regan quote comes to mind... "trust by verify"... we are not verifying and doing a lot of trusting of *experts*.
You don't vote on what occurred... there is only one correct explanation in the end. *Experts* get it wrong for all sorts of reasons and motives.
This book is both a forensic analysis of the 3 collapses and of the two sides of the discussion - the OCT and the truth movement presentation... which the author claims are both substantially wrong and so the debate is not about the actual events... and therefore can never be resolved.
All understanding begins with accurate observations informed by technical understanding.
The meta issue of why we have this false debate and such entrenched positions in false narratives is interesting as well. One could argue that the positions taken support political agendas... the false narratives certainly would reflect on the ensuing policy decisions.
The author does not go into what planes hit the towers, if they were flown by hijackers or drones controlled by insiders... and of course there was no plane hitting B7. He does an excellent job explaining that the collapse of all three were not as described by NIST or the *Truther* positions. The later, claiming an *inside job* has gone passed the event to the identifying the perps as insiders, while NIST attributes the collapse in a false mechanism to the plane strikes and mostly fire... with the underlying assumption terrorists hijacked the planes. They don't even considered any of the fog of the hijacking story.
The book does not attempt to identify *an* or *the* initiating cause of the collapses but does demonstrate that the structures came apart in a predictable manner based on their structures... and surpassing of the conditions to break their Achilles heel(s). He claims that most of the understanding about the collapses was from study and analysis after 2009... well after the NIST and the *truther* positions had been stated and etched in stone.. which renders them PR "fluff" for public consumption.
The American public is so used to being lied to, marketed to, PR campaigns... that they either don't know how to see the truth, or don't care to. We are a *belief culture*. It's all about winning hearts and minds in service to an unstated agenda in most cases - greed and power (come to mind).