18-06-2012, 11:38 AM
Ed,
You can argue that the perponderance of books and so forth on the subject proves that the conclusion of theories presented is true. But this is not a winning argument. How about astroloogy or books about god., religion and so forth. There are billions of believers in the notion that Christ was the son of God including all the self appointed experts in theology and the bible.
You simply can't win an argument related to fact by voting or popularity or the number of books on a subject.
And let's not forget how many intelligent people also believe in the existence of God, the workings of astrology and so forth.
We all rely upon experts for technical facts and understanding... It's impossible to live in this world and not.
The destruction of the world trade center towers was a unique event. No structures of that mass have ever been CDed or collapsed from any cause. Many simply dismiss that there could be a *chain of events or a progressive series of failures leading to their collapse. Impossible they say. But this is clearly ignoring that complex systems CAN and DO experience cascading and progressive failures at times... the so called one thing leads to another... or the euphemism - *the straw that broke the camel's back*.
I am NOT going to go into theories about the possible mechanisms and cascading progressive failures of the towers. I am going to tell you that there seems to be an absence of acknowledgement that this is a real *phenomena*... and that the truth movement has simply not explored this concept and actually dismisses it when they simple reach for the black box called CD. POOF CD was complex... ergo the AQ couldn't do it and it had to be an inside job.
I am not alleging that the truth movement fathers are not using logic in the formulation of their thesis. I am saying there is almost a complete absence of data and releatable science in their approach. Even the so called *sceience* of the David Chandler claim of 2.25 seconds of free fall of tower 7 is very crude from a scientific point of view. A free fall motion would show as a completely SMOOTH line when the motion is plotted on a graph with distance and time on the two axes. The motion of buiilding 7 is NOT smooth and linear but shows slight variations. So the point traced by Chandler was speeding up and slowing down and this means that there were some other forces ASIDE from gravity which were in play. WHAT WERE THOSE FORCES? THEY NEED TO BE EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR. THe take away is that Chandler's findings are indeed interesting and remarkable, but do not necessasrily indicate CD and certainly were gross and crude. If you reduce the description to simple free fall motion you are not accurately describing what is going on.
I would imagine that MOST 911 truth advocates don't know about the details of Chandler's trace and data. And most wouldn't understand the implication if they did... and most simply don't care! It's good enough for them to reach the CD conclusion. FF = CD.
But could there be other explanations for the motion? Or more precisely what are some explanation for the almost linear acceleration at about free fall. Would there only be a unique explanation? If you see shattered glass on the floor by a window is there only a unique explanation as to what caused the glass to break?
I've argued on this site that we need to understand the structure and the engineering principles which hold buildings together... and the forces which break them apart. And most importantly we need ACURATE data about the observed phenomena - the collapse of the three buildings in order to then figure out what caused that motion (phenomena). THAT is how science works. And THAT is not how truth scientists (fathers) have worked on this problem.
David Griffin and Lynn Margulis have not used science and data to describe the motion of collapses and use that to inform their conclusion. At best there is some very sloppy (junk) science and even worse... using the mean, motive and opportunity to determine a technical explanation. That is NOT science although it may appeal to the armchair political scientists who want to describe the world simply interms of political forces in play. And again I am not dismissing the notion that the powerful (or even a single crazy person) can and do influence the course of history. For example the assassin of John Lenon... or Abe Lincoln (was he a lone assassin???)
I entered the fray from a political perspective because I believed the official story was on a word *rubbish* and I still hold that belief... and I know some of the technical reasons that are rubbish in the OCT. That falsifies it at least in part and maybe in whole. But falsification is not an explanation. It only rules out what has been falsified. Of course the truth movement makes another mistake when it concludes that *the offical lied* (correct) therefore they are covering up an inside job. Same sort of logical flaw... Someone lies does not mean that they are guilty of the act they lie about. We all know that witness will lie to cover for someone else.
The deception of the American people by the *state* about 911 is criminal in my viw, the obfuscation, the withholding of evidence, the stalling delay and classification of documents and the list goes on and on. This, however, is de riguer for the state and those in power... they do not want to be held to the standard that every one else is. It is NOT justice for all and there is NO accountability. Look at the bold face lies of Christy Whitman about the air quality post collapse in NYC... why the lies? And why not hold HER accountable for her lying to the public and putting tens of thousands of lives in jeopardy? The obvious answer may be that they wanted to avoid any liability down the road, any discovery in wrongful death lawsuits...
Discovery of what? No don't conclude that it was CD because Whitman lied.
We need to discover what happened. We know what *they* did as a result of what happened (illegal, immoral and not democratic). That is not proof that *they* did it. It may be to Ed Jewitt. It's not to me.
You can argue that the perponderance of books and so forth on the subject proves that the conclusion of theories presented is true. But this is not a winning argument. How about astroloogy or books about god., religion and so forth. There are billions of believers in the notion that Christ was the son of God including all the self appointed experts in theology and the bible.
You simply can't win an argument related to fact by voting or popularity or the number of books on a subject.
And let's not forget how many intelligent people also believe in the existence of God, the workings of astrology and so forth.
We all rely upon experts for technical facts and understanding... It's impossible to live in this world and not.
The destruction of the world trade center towers was a unique event. No structures of that mass have ever been CDed or collapsed from any cause. Many simply dismiss that there could be a *chain of events or a progressive series of failures leading to their collapse. Impossible they say. But this is clearly ignoring that complex systems CAN and DO experience cascading and progressive failures at times... the so called one thing leads to another... or the euphemism - *the straw that broke the camel's back*.
I am NOT going to go into theories about the possible mechanisms and cascading progressive failures of the towers. I am going to tell you that there seems to be an absence of acknowledgement that this is a real *phenomena*... and that the truth movement has simply not explored this concept and actually dismisses it when they simple reach for the black box called CD. POOF CD was complex... ergo the AQ couldn't do it and it had to be an inside job.
I am not alleging that the truth movement fathers are not using logic in the formulation of their thesis. I am saying there is almost a complete absence of data and releatable science in their approach. Even the so called *sceience* of the David Chandler claim of 2.25 seconds of free fall of tower 7 is very crude from a scientific point of view. A free fall motion would show as a completely SMOOTH line when the motion is plotted on a graph with distance and time on the two axes. The motion of buiilding 7 is NOT smooth and linear but shows slight variations. So the point traced by Chandler was speeding up and slowing down and this means that there were some other forces ASIDE from gravity which were in play. WHAT WERE THOSE FORCES? THEY NEED TO BE EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR. THe take away is that Chandler's findings are indeed interesting and remarkable, but do not necessasrily indicate CD and certainly were gross and crude. If you reduce the description to simple free fall motion you are not accurately describing what is going on.
I would imagine that MOST 911 truth advocates don't know about the details of Chandler's trace and data. And most wouldn't understand the implication if they did... and most simply don't care! It's good enough for them to reach the CD conclusion. FF = CD.
But could there be other explanations for the motion? Or more precisely what are some explanation for the almost linear acceleration at about free fall. Would there only be a unique explanation? If you see shattered glass on the floor by a window is there only a unique explanation as to what caused the glass to break?
I've argued on this site that we need to understand the structure and the engineering principles which hold buildings together... and the forces which break them apart. And most importantly we need ACURATE data about the observed phenomena - the collapse of the three buildings in order to then figure out what caused that motion (phenomena). THAT is how science works. And THAT is not how truth scientists (fathers) have worked on this problem.
David Griffin and Lynn Margulis have not used science and data to describe the motion of collapses and use that to inform their conclusion. At best there is some very sloppy (junk) science and even worse... using the mean, motive and opportunity to determine a technical explanation. That is NOT science although it may appeal to the armchair political scientists who want to describe the world simply interms of political forces in play. And again I am not dismissing the notion that the powerful (or even a single crazy person) can and do influence the course of history. For example the assassin of John Lenon... or Abe Lincoln (was he a lone assassin???)
I entered the fray from a political perspective because I believed the official story was on a word *rubbish* and I still hold that belief... and I know some of the technical reasons that are rubbish in the OCT. That falsifies it at least in part and maybe in whole. But falsification is not an explanation. It only rules out what has been falsified. Of course the truth movement makes another mistake when it concludes that *the offical lied* (correct) therefore they are covering up an inside job. Same sort of logical flaw... Someone lies does not mean that they are guilty of the act they lie about. We all know that witness will lie to cover for someone else.
The deception of the American people by the *state* about 911 is criminal in my viw, the obfuscation, the withholding of evidence, the stalling delay and classification of documents and the list goes on and on. This, however, is de riguer for the state and those in power... they do not want to be held to the standard that every one else is. It is NOT justice for all and there is NO accountability. Look at the bold face lies of Christy Whitman about the air quality post collapse in NYC... why the lies? And why not hold HER accountable for her lying to the public and putting tens of thousands of lives in jeopardy? The obvious answer may be that they wanted to avoid any liability down the road, any discovery in wrongful death lawsuits...
Discovery of what? No don't conclude that it was CD because Whitman lied.
We need to discover what happened. We know what *they* did as a result of what happened (illegal, immoral and not democratic). That is not proof that *they* did it. It may be to Ed Jewitt. It's not to me.