23-05-2012, 04:19 PM
Charles... If you don't mind I am not going to go into a quote snipe type of response, but in a narrative.
All human endeavor has some sort of political/sociological/psychological context including science which attempts *objectively* model the physical and even the inner world of mental mappings of that physical world. We're human, with minds and we map the world and suffer the limits of our minds and nervous system. Science is performed by scientists and scientists are human. What's the option here?
We don't have all the evidence to work with. We have some evidence to work with. We have the knowledge of the structures which were destroyed. We have the body of *settled science* and settled engineering which models how structures resist forces such as gravity, winds, earth quakes, bombs and plane strikes. When we design such structures we use those very principles, derived from empirical study and fitting mathematical formulas to the empirical data of how materials behave mechanically, chemically etc. Engineering is predictive based on this knowledge. The same knowledge would be applied to destroy or de- construct something. As it takes energy to assemble a structure., it takes energy to take it apart or destroy it. In creating a structure gravitational and chemical energy is stored in it and in the material of the structure and the contents or in the case of the twin towers the planes that impacted them and perhaps devices placed within them to provide or at least unlock the various forms of stored energy. A match setting a carpet on fire releases the energy stored in the carpet in the form of heat, chemically destroying the carpet by combustion into new compounds. Collapses use the PE of gravity and this is ALWAYS exploited in ALL controlled demolitions. Structures are not blown to kingdom com as in dropping a nuke on them... the stored PE is freed by "breaking" the integrity of the gravity resisting frame. In my mind there is nothing deep politics about this sort of understanding or modeling or science... regardless of whether the model was created by humans. Newton's laws of thermodynamics work for right and left wingers in precisely the same manner.
One must realize that a destruction of something large and complex as a tall building involves perhaps on the order of multi millions of *interactions*... materials colliding, crushing, abrading, burning and so forth. I don't think there exists a computer in the world to precisely model such multi-million step or interaction event. This doesn't mean we can understand the event at a *grosser* scale... and such a model would render it inaccurate. In something such as a car collision there are tens of thousands (guess) of interactions of the various parts of the cars. Even modeling that is probably beyond the power of computers to do precise finite element analysis. But it doesn't actually matter. There is blending and averaging and so forth which can hide details (interesting perhaps) but lost in the bigger picture.
So I would say that the absence of ALL the evidence does not mean that the evidence that we do have can't tell a story... and a likely accurate one. We can rule out some things which simply are mis reading of the evidence we DO have. And we can identify items which have ambiguous or uncertain explanations. But the finer the scale of the data... the more accurate the model will be... and must be. So use of a gross energy input called *CD* MUST match all the observables and explain precisely what that CD mechanism was, and how it produced said observation. That has clearly not been done.
From a *political perspective* I accept the notion that *intel/DOD/MIC* engages not only in information gathering to form strategies to advance their (hideous) agenda, but in pro-active or black ops, assassinations, sting operations, false flags, double agents and all sorts of things they don't discuss or will admit to. I suspect...that these agencies were involved to the extent that they knew of coming attacks... and may have some helped in some aspects of the planning. This would be akin to setting up the patsies... whether they actually pulled the trigger or not... they were pulled into the plot on some level.
When I use the word *agencies* I am referring to a select few at the top who can drive command and control of these agencies where those lower down on the chain of command are neither in on the *executive* decisions nor able to change the momentum of them once the process is unfolding. The general comes up with his strategy, the foot soldiers simply do what they are told and trained to do.
Whether 911 was a planned *inside job* or a *let it happen job* by insiders with fore knowledge or even a piggy back on top of a plot insiders knew about (more speculation of that later)... it would be covered up... and the terrorist are our new enemy outcome would be the official position - the *disaster capitalism* outcome.
After studying the structures of the twin towers for 3 years and B7 for a few months now I am of the mind that there were many aspects to the design of these three buildings and the associated decisions by PANY etc... that allowed them to collapse rather easily... a sort of discovery of the Achilles heels... that was missed and created by haste and greed when they were designed and built. This is a sort of mother of all product liability cases... In the Ford Pinto example, while the person who rear ended a Pinto might clearly have caused the accident... the exploding gas tank placed their by Ford engineers was the cause of death. So we might consider that the plane strikes were the driver and the WTC designers, engineers planners etc. were analogous to the Ford engineers. We know how defendants of such product liability cases behave... deny, lie, cover, wiggle, and weasel and try to blame the drivers.
This sort of covering up of the product liability doesn't explain whether they were involved in the planning and execution of the plane strikes.
But fore knowledge can explain some of the unusual things... such as warnings not to use commercial airlines on 911. Why? because the *insiders* were going to fog the ATC system to allow no defense response and let planes hit the towers which included scheduling their exercises on the day they knew the attacks were coming (more on that later). Insider trading which allowed the SOBs to even make money off the event (disaster capitalism par excellence - short selling related to a future event)... the entire pentagon event which appears to be staged as sure means to rally support for war... as simply holes in the two towers might not have done the deed. And of course the Shanksville story of heroism that seems easily manufactured PR on par with Jessica Lynch, incubator babies and Pat Tillman. I'm nut sure what hit the pentagon or even if something did. It does appear that something flew towards and likely over it and set off a bomb which could distract and conceal it flying away.
I don't know what to make of all the plane information. None of makes much sense to me except there does seem to have been planes which hit the towers... and it is not hard for novices to steer a plane into huge line of sight targets. All the telephone calls seem odd... but I simply can't conclude anything.
If any investigation found that MIC insiders had fore knowledge and or provided ANY assistance to a terrorist attack this would have to be suppressed in an official investigation. The republic could not survive that revelation. It may reveal that these geniuses had no idea the building would collapse killing 3000 and thought that the loss of a few hundred could be *justified* by the results - a new enemy and a never ending war and a lot of cash rolling into the MIC forever. Could these insiders with advance knowledge have then decided to use CDs to take down the three towers and let their patsies fly the planes into them? Sure. But why did they need to totally destroy the WTC and kill 3000 when having 2 behemoths which giant holes in them and unrentable forever after would have cause enough to obtain the outcome they sought... wars, money and a more controlled and controllable public who demanded vengeance and security... and smart phones, flat screen TVs, and 3D movies... and petro lifestyles.
Did officials know the B7 was going to collapse? Yes, because they were advised by the FDNY and the city and building engineers that its design could lead to collapse from continuous heat weakening. Would they release that information to the public? Yes it's their duty to do that. Would the idiot networks quickly do stand ups announcing what they were told was a certain to be future event to release as live TV to beat the competition to the punch... yes they do such things. Would insiders warn their friends that flying on 911 with a downed ATC was a real danger to anyone in the air. Yes they would. Would some people short airline stocks with the fore knowledge of the attacks.. They sure would. Would the insiders use their influence and technology (enterprise software) to both plan military exercises on the day of the attack and fiddle with all sorts of computers.. they sure would. Would they release all sorts of screwy information, withhold evidence to fog any clear picture that could emerge showing the extent of their fore knowledge and even assistance as in some of the above. Would these insiders cover up the flawed designs and their botched planning of a failed sting operation/false flag gone out of control. Could you imagine the value of the wrongful death lawsuits aimed at intel/DOD/*insiders* for the above... for their Dr. Strangelove insanity?
We can speculate until the cows come home... but I am concerned with using the physical evidence we do have and the engineering and so forth to describe what happened.
In closing, I point out... that... if someone WAS going to CD those towers... they would have had to initiate the destruction... that is to say... they didn't wait for a natural collapse to begin and THEN let their devices finish the job. That makes no sense at all. So you have to look at the initiation for the CD devices... what follows - the actual collapse matters not... as it does in a standard CD... BLOW the columns.. gravity collapses The buildings are not blowing up as they come down... that view is poor observation and or *wishful* thinking. It is violent as such a collapse would be... but not explosive.
The truth movement seems to want everyone to see the COLLAPSE as explosive and not deal with the initiation or the notion of progressive collapse.
break more to follow...
All human endeavor has some sort of political/sociological/psychological context including science which attempts *objectively* model the physical and even the inner world of mental mappings of that physical world. We're human, with minds and we map the world and suffer the limits of our minds and nervous system. Science is performed by scientists and scientists are human. What's the option here?
We don't have all the evidence to work with. We have some evidence to work with. We have the knowledge of the structures which were destroyed. We have the body of *settled science* and settled engineering which models how structures resist forces such as gravity, winds, earth quakes, bombs and plane strikes. When we design such structures we use those very principles, derived from empirical study and fitting mathematical formulas to the empirical data of how materials behave mechanically, chemically etc. Engineering is predictive based on this knowledge. The same knowledge would be applied to destroy or de- construct something. As it takes energy to assemble a structure., it takes energy to take it apart or destroy it. In creating a structure gravitational and chemical energy is stored in it and in the material of the structure and the contents or in the case of the twin towers the planes that impacted them and perhaps devices placed within them to provide or at least unlock the various forms of stored energy. A match setting a carpet on fire releases the energy stored in the carpet in the form of heat, chemically destroying the carpet by combustion into new compounds. Collapses use the PE of gravity and this is ALWAYS exploited in ALL controlled demolitions. Structures are not blown to kingdom com as in dropping a nuke on them... the stored PE is freed by "breaking" the integrity of the gravity resisting frame. In my mind there is nothing deep politics about this sort of understanding or modeling or science... regardless of whether the model was created by humans. Newton's laws of thermodynamics work for right and left wingers in precisely the same manner.
One must realize that a destruction of something large and complex as a tall building involves perhaps on the order of multi millions of *interactions*... materials colliding, crushing, abrading, burning and so forth. I don't think there exists a computer in the world to precisely model such multi-million step or interaction event. This doesn't mean we can understand the event at a *grosser* scale... and such a model would render it inaccurate. In something such as a car collision there are tens of thousands (guess) of interactions of the various parts of the cars. Even modeling that is probably beyond the power of computers to do precise finite element analysis. But it doesn't actually matter. There is blending and averaging and so forth which can hide details (interesting perhaps) but lost in the bigger picture.
So I would say that the absence of ALL the evidence does not mean that the evidence that we do have can't tell a story... and a likely accurate one. We can rule out some things which simply are mis reading of the evidence we DO have. And we can identify items which have ambiguous or uncertain explanations. But the finer the scale of the data... the more accurate the model will be... and must be. So use of a gross energy input called *CD* MUST match all the observables and explain precisely what that CD mechanism was, and how it produced said observation. That has clearly not been done.
From a *political perspective* I accept the notion that *intel/DOD/MIC* engages not only in information gathering to form strategies to advance their (hideous) agenda, but in pro-active or black ops, assassinations, sting operations, false flags, double agents and all sorts of things they don't discuss or will admit to. I suspect...that these agencies were involved to the extent that they knew of coming attacks... and may have some helped in some aspects of the planning. This would be akin to setting up the patsies... whether they actually pulled the trigger or not... they were pulled into the plot on some level.
When I use the word *agencies* I am referring to a select few at the top who can drive command and control of these agencies where those lower down on the chain of command are neither in on the *executive* decisions nor able to change the momentum of them once the process is unfolding. The general comes up with his strategy, the foot soldiers simply do what they are told and trained to do.
Whether 911 was a planned *inside job* or a *let it happen job* by insiders with fore knowledge or even a piggy back on top of a plot insiders knew about (more speculation of that later)... it would be covered up... and the terrorist are our new enemy outcome would be the official position - the *disaster capitalism* outcome.
After studying the structures of the twin towers for 3 years and B7 for a few months now I am of the mind that there were many aspects to the design of these three buildings and the associated decisions by PANY etc... that allowed them to collapse rather easily... a sort of discovery of the Achilles heels... that was missed and created by haste and greed when they were designed and built. This is a sort of mother of all product liability cases... In the Ford Pinto example, while the person who rear ended a Pinto might clearly have caused the accident... the exploding gas tank placed their by Ford engineers was the cause of death. So we might consider that the plane strikes were the driver and the WTC designers, engineers planners etc. were analogous to the Ford engineers. We know how defendants of such product liability cases behave... deny, lie, cover, wiggle, and weasel and try to blame the drivers.
This sort of covering up of the product liability doesn't explain whether they were involved in the planning and execution of the plane strikes.
But fore knowledge can explain some of the unusual things... such as warnings not to use commercial airlines on 911. Why? because the *insiders* were going to fog the ATC system to allow no defense response and let planes hit the towers which included scheduling their exercises on the day they knew the attacks were coming (more on that later). Insider trading which allowed the SOBs to even make money off the event (disaster capitalism par excellence - short selling related to a future event)... the entire pentagon event which appears to be staged as sure means to rally support for war... as simply holes in the two towers might not have done the deed. And of course the Shanksville story of heroism that seems easily manufactured PR on par with Jessica Lynch, incubator babies and Pat Tillman. I'm nut sure what hit the pentagon or even if something did. It does appear that something flew towards and likely over it and set off a bomb which could distract and conceal it flying away.
I don't know what to make of all the plane information. None of makes much sense to me except there does seem to have been planes which hit the towers... and it is not hard for novices to steer a plane into huge line of sight targets. All the telephone calls seem odd... but I simply can't conclude anything.
If any investigation found that MIC insiders had fore knowledge and or provided ANY assistance to a terrorist attack this would have to be suppressed in an official investigation. The republic could not survive that revelation. It may reveal that these geniuses had no idea the building would collapse killing 3000 and thought that the loss of a few hundred could be *justified* by the results - a new enemy and a never ending war and a lot of cash rolling into the MIC forever. Could these insiders with advance knowledge have then decided to use CDs to take down the three towers and let their patsies fly the planes into them? Sure. But why did they need to totally destroy the WTC and kill 3000 when having 2 behemoths which giant holes in them and unrentable forever after would have cause enough to obtain the outcome they sought... wars, money and a more controlled and controllable public who demanded vengeance and security... and smart phones, flat screen TVs, and 3D movies... and petro lifestyles.
Did officials know the B7 was going to collapse? Yes, because they were advised by the FDNY and the city and building engineers that its design could lead to collapse from continuous heat weakening. Would they release that information to the public? Yes it's their duty to do that. Would the idiot networks quickly do stand ups announcing what they were told was a certain to be future event to release as live TV to beat the competition to the punch... yes they do such things. Would insiders warn their friends that flying on 911 with a downed ATC was a real danger to anyone in the air. Yes they would. Would some people short airline stocks with the fore knowledge of the attacks.. They sure would. Would the insiders use their influence and technology (enterprise software) to both plan military exercises on the day of the attack and fiddle with all sorts of computers.. they sure would. Would they release all sorts of screwy information, withhold evidence to fog any clear picture that could emerge showing the extent of their fore knowledge and even assistance as in some of the above. Would these insiders cover up the flawed designs and their botched planning of a failed sting operation/false flag gone out of control. Could you imagine the value of the wrongful death lawsuits aimed at intel/DOD/*insiders* for the above... for their Dr. Strangelove insanity?
We can speculate until the cows come home... but I am concerned with using the physical evidence we do have and the engineering and so forth to describe what happened.
In closing, I point out... that... if someone WAS going to CD those towers... they would have had to initiate the destruction... that is to say... they didn't wait for a natural collapse to begin and THEN let their devices finish the job. That makes no sense at all. So you have to look at the initiation for the CD devices... what follows - the actual collapse matters not... as it does in a standard CD... BLOW the columns.. gravity collapses The buildings are not blowing up as they come down... that view is poor observation and or *wishful* thinking. It is violent as such a collapse would be... but not explosive.
The truth movement seems to want everyone to see the COLLAPSE as explosive and not deal with the initiation or the notion of progressive collapse.
break more to follow...