15-06-2012, 12:02 PM
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:
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.
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
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.