20-06-2012, 03:15 AM
Ed,
That was quite a treatise. Thank you for that. I certainly agree that we are all entitled to have and express and opinion(s). I don't criticize Lynn for that or for others trying to use her standing in biology/science as some sort of imprimatur adding gravitas to her opinion that does not grace the opinion(s) of Joe Average. Got it. I get how this game is played... line of the people with alphabets after their name and it sways public opinion.
Logic can only go so far and DRG is a collecting reports and snippets from others and connecting dots... dots that he sees. He is not doing any *fundamental science*... certainly about the destruction of the WTC. He's good at what he does. But he's only as good as his sources and the dots he chooses to connect.
I've tried to argue that even if there were plans for the need for a new Pearl Harbor type event to catalyze the public to support some aggressive foreign policy it doesn't mean that someone actually conspired to create that Pearl Harbor event as apparently Griffin concludes and you agree.
As despicable as the DOD is I believe they have all sorts of war games and what if scenarios they study and prepare for. In fact on 911 they were engaged in a plane hijacking one almost identical to the real event. While many can conclude therefore that the real deal WAS an inside job... it remains a possibility that it was an exercise because to the DOD it represented a likely possibility.
Sailors who go offshore practice all sorts of what if disasters to prepare themselves on how to react if such an event occurs. Preparedness exercises does not mean that the DOD did the deed.
But TPTB sure knew how they were going to respond politically if the event happened... and to me it's conceivable that they let it happen (some advance knowledge) because they could then implement the political response that they wanted anyway... more money for the MIC... a new enemy... hands off by congress on their tactics in fighting and so on.
The fact is this is all POLITICAL speculation because there is no hard evidence of the plot, who carried it out, how they did it and so forth.
I come from the place of what actually took place at the WTC on 9/11 and my own independent research and that of several others shown that the collapses did not need explosives. Explosives could have initiated the collapse... but there is no solid evidence of that... it's just speculation.
The high heat post collapse DOES need a proper explanation. I believe that the energy from friction released by the mechanical destruction could account for the high heat. I can't calculate this, but perhaps someone can. I believe that there could have been bizarre exothermic anaerobic reactions from the the ground material and high heat created by the collapse. I am not a chemist but it seems like something to investigate.
If the heat was from a device, that needs to be explained in some detail...not simply *high tech secret military technology*. That's like the dog ate the homework rationale for the absence of evidence of CD in recovered steel.
My research indicates that the collapses COULD be made to happen with actually very little intervention BECAUSE of the design (flaws- attributes). This means that they wouldn't require massive high tech explosives or lots of mechanics to place them. But this is speculative and again there is no proof of this.
First solve the collapse mystery and then the who dunnit.
That was quite a treatise. Thank you for that. I certainly agree that we are all entitled to have and express and opinion(s). I don't criticize Lynn for that or for others trying to use her standing in biology/science as some sort of imprimatur adding gravitas to her opinion that does not grace the opinion(s) of Joe Average. Got it. I get how this game is played... line of the people with alphabets after their name and it sways public opinion.
Logic can only go so far and DRG is a collecting reports and snippets from others and connecting dots... dots that he sees. He is not doing any *fundamental science*... certainly about the destruction of the WTC. He's good at what he does. But he's only as good as his sources and the dots he chooses to connect.
I've tried to argue that even if there were plans for the need for a new Pearl Harbor type event to catalyze the public to support some aggressive foreign policy it doesn't mean that someone actually conspired to create that Pearl Harbor event as apparently Griffin concludes and you agree.
As despicable as the DOD is I believe they have all sorts of war games and what if scenarios they study and prepare for. In fact on 911 they were engaged in a plane hijacking one almost identical to the real event. While many can conclude therefore that the real deal WAS an inside job... it remains a possibility that it was an exercise because to the DOD it represented a likely possibility.
Sailors who go offshore practice all sorts of what if disasters to prepare themselves on how to react if such an event occurs. Preparedness exercises does not mean that the DOD did the deed.
But TPTB sure knew how they were going to respond politically if the event happened... and to me it's conceivable that they let it happen (some advance knowledge) because they could then implement the political response that they wanted anyway... more money for the MIC... a new enemy... hands off by congress on their tactics in fighting and so on.
The fact is this is all POLITICAL speculation because there is no hard evidence of the plot, who carried it out, how they did it and so forth.
I come from the place of what actually took place at the WTC on 9/11 and my own independent research and that of several others shown that the collapses did not need explosives. Explosives could have initiated the collapse... but there is no solid evidence of that... it's just speculation.
The high heat post collapse DOES need a proper explanation. I believe that the energy from friction released by the mechanical destruction could account for the high heat. I can't calculate this, but perhaps someone can. I believe that there could have been bizarre exothermic anaerobic reactions from the the ground material and high heat created by the collapse. I am not a chemist but it seems like something to investigate.
If the heat was from a device, that needs to be explained in some detail...not simply *high tech secret military technology*. That's like the dog ate the homework rationale for the absence of evidence of CD in recovered steel.
My research indicates that the collapses COULD be made to happen with actually very little intervention BECAUSE of the design (flaws- attributes). This means that they wouldn't require massive high tech explosives or lots of mechanics to place them. But this is speculative and again there is no proof of this.
First solve the collapse mystery and then the who dunnit.