13-08-2013, 03:12 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.
Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.
A quote from Tom from this morning:
"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.
Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."
and
"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.
But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.
Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."
I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.
The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.
The reason there is no consensus is that there was/is a cover-up. That is why the steel wasn't examined.
The points about people like Dulles and Cheney is that they were/are part of a deep political apparatus which will commit atrocities to get their way. To know they lied us into Iraq and yet not be suspicious that they were involved in the destruction of the buildings and that the collapses could have somehow been natural with all of the talk of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, no deceleration in WTC 1, free fall in WTC 7, and iron microspheres and active thermitic material found in the dust, is the height of stupidity. Yes, Jeffrey if you actually believe those buildings came down naturally then you are........in a word........dumb.