23-05-2012, 03:45 AM
Not utter nonsense because you disagree. But utter nonsense to you of course.
I don't find the explanation of sagging trusses leading to the pulling in of the facade of the twin towers credible... with the cause being heat from office fires. Nor do I think the shear studs and had anything to do with the walk off the girder on the beam seat of column 79 leading to collapse. The NIST animation of the collapse is laughable. There many false and misleading statements in the NIST, FEMA and even a Con Edison after report and 911 Commission reports. I don't understand why plans and specs are withheld from the public and videos at the pentagon not released. The Shanksville incident does not look to me like a plane created and disappeared into that whole. I could go on an on about the bizarre aspects of the official story. However we can't tell who or what they were actually covering for because they produced a non credible narrative. We can see who benefited from this narrative... but nothing new here as Naomi Klein and others have shown... the usual guys make out whenever there is a disaster.
Charles Drago Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Sorry, you need to take off your DP glasses at times...
Utter nonsense. "DP glasses" must be worn constantly -- even when they reveal that an event being scrutinized is not deep political in nature. How else could such a determination be made?
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:And I don't care what Drago has to teach about this.
Nor does Drago care if you choose to remain ignorant on matters highly relevant to the investigation of 9-11. Your analyses of that deep political event will be valued accordingly.
You don't have to care or consider my comments. I try to confine them to analysis of technical issues of the mechanical destruction of the towers. The mechanics don't have a political consideration. Sorry.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:However when it comes to technical matters, mechanics, physics, engineering, optics and so forth deep politics has not standing.
Utter nonsense. We are about the application of the deep political scientific method shaped by deep political scientific rigor. Or at least we should be.
DP may/can be about the application of whatever political analysis you wish... This however is a filter through which you see things.
Utter nonsense. "Science" is nothing but a tool. Those wielding it, regardless of their perspectives and levels of expertise, do the "approaching." Those doing the approaching are human beings. The objective, non-political human being has yet to be born.
Science is a means and method to describe the physical world. It attempts to discover and demonstrate laws which mechanics conform to. We, of course don't know why... that is a philosophical question. But we can discover the laws and use them to analyze mechanics.
'
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:It explains the world in the most objective manner, repeatable, testable and reliable. Not subject to interpretation of opinion. Not left, right or center.
Utter nonsense. "Science" explains nothing. Scientists -- including deep political scientists -- utilizing the scientific method offer hypotheses.
Obviously we are referring to humans mapping the world and in so doing using language and scientific *laws*. In the case of complex mechanical events there are many laws and interactions... sometimes the complexity exceeds a human minds ability to precisely map all the interactions. The collapse of the towers is a good example of a very complex mechanical event which involves interactions of materials on many levels /scale from the gross mechanical of beams and columns... to the molecular and at the atomic level.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Means motive and opportunity are all political and not technical. They are not evidence about the technical event.
Utter nonsense. Deep political science-informed investigations of "means motive and opportunity" [sic] related to events that likely are deep political in nature are critical components of the searches for truth.
Further, does scientist Jane Goodall analyze means, motive, and opportunity when observing, quantifying, qualifying, and hypothesizing about primate behavior?
Means, motive and opportunity are about *intent*. Science is not concerned with the intent of matter which has no mind. A brain is a complex structure which has information processing capabilites as part of a neural network with assorted transducers. I don't know what Jane Goodal analyzes but I thought it was chimp behavior which is a brain/mind artifcat.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:You guys can't figure out the technical issues because of your ideological blinders.
Utter nonsense. "You guys"?
Lighten up Charles
So I ask Brother Orling again -- and yes, the question is loaded: Tell us what you know DID NOT happen on 9-11.
Rather odd question to ask what did not happen... We can falsify explanations which are unsupported by observations (incorrect observations)... or misapplication of science. There are many *things* unknowable with certainty because the observation may be cause by several causes... together or independently and it may be impossible to know without sufficent data to make the determination.
All bombs explode
all explosions are not bombs.
And don't give us guys any rhetorical bullshit answer along the lines of "I know the Three Stooges didn't bring down those buildings."
No comment
Do you assess the events of 9-11 as being deep political in nature?
I asses that the MIC, the trans national corporations opportunistically exploited 9/11 to serve their imperial agenda which is more control or resources, people, money etc. - Disaster Capitalism. This exploitation MAY have and likely included fore knowledge of an attack, may have even through double agents and such facilitated aspects of the attack... and even facilitated some of it on that day... I don't see evidence that the MIC et al intended the level of destruction or loss of life.. ie intended to completely destroy the WTC. This evidence may exist. I don't see it. At this date I concur that the official story was a cover and served their agenda and covered up incompetence and even greed in all sorts of places from the siting of B7 over a main sub station... the placement of the OEM center with 20,000 of fuel next to the sub station, the long span floor system and cheap construction and down spec'ing of the buildings to save money for PANY... the waiver from the NYC building codes to save PANY money, the failure of the $1T defense to defend against planes... which hit the towers... regardless of who flew them... the air defense was AWOL on 911... and so forth. None of this was revealed in the official cover story or even by the 911 truth movement.
Do you concur with the official U.S. government 9-11 conspiracy theory?
I do not concur with the 911 conspiracy theory... but I do believe that some of the official story is accurate... lots of it is not. All of it in total is not credible.
If you do, please defend it.
Nothing for me to defend... I don't support it
I you don't, in whole or in part, please explain.
I don't find the explanation of sagging trusses leading to the pulling in of the facade of the twin towers credible... with the cause being heat from office fires. Nor do I think the shear studs and had anything to do with the walk off the girder on the beam seat of column 79 leading to collapse. The NIST animation of the collapse is laughable. There many false and misleading statements in the NIST, FEMA and even a Con Edison after report and 911 Commission reports. I don't understand why plans and specs are withheld from the public and videos at the pentagon not released. The Shanksville incident does not look to me like a plane created and disappeared into that whole. I could go on an on about the bizarre aspects of the official story. However we can't tell who or what they were actually covering for because they produced a non credible narrative. We can see who benefited from this narrative... but nothing new here as Naomi Klein and others have shown... the usual guys make out whenever there is a disaster.