25-08-2013, 12:55 PM
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Speaking of running or walking away. You haven't answered what attracted you to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth; had you active in it for a while and get close to the head, then left, or were sort of pushed out. Why could you not convince even one person there of your theory? They are all professionals in the field and interested in 9-11. Why are you here, trying to counter any post speaking of alternatives to the official version, to try to steer things back to doubt, smoke, and mirrors that the 'official' version might just be the correct answer....if only one uses your unzip theory - to whom no on but you [correct me if I'm wrong] buys. Your agenda is showing, IMO.
Answered in post #520
I didn't have any theories about what happened until months after I left AE and began to look for aswers to the question of how DID the towers come down.
I was on board with the AE story / conception / Pillars of Truth before and during my tenure with AE. Once I left I decided to trust but verify. When I left that I began to see that the AE explanation was speculative and based on inaccurate obervations, poor or little data and others were making more sense of what happened... such as the 911FF.
I formed my own *speculative* theory and there are others at the 911FF and elsewhere who have similar conceptions... which are NOT the official explanation. My hypothesis put me atr odds with both the truth guys and those who stomped for the OCT such as at JREF. I didn't care. About 1 year ago I turned my attention from the twins to wtc 7 and came up with the TTF hypothesis... again not in line with AE or NIST.
People I have encountered online who are truthers believe I am a decoy and really a NIST proponent. They are wrong. I do not agree with NIST's reports findings.
Like others who believe they have something POSITIVE to add to the discussion... In attempted to share ROOSD and TTF with others online. Lots of resistance from Truthers and constant ad homs. Pilots for 911 truth eventually seemed to agree with TTF but that it had to be done by placed devices.
People can choose what and how they wish to inform their own thinking and understanding. I tried to show something different. If they reject it... for whatever reason... it is functionally no different that someone rejecting any analysis... be it global warming, evolution, creationism, abiotic oil, or deep politics etc.
I have stated that more research needs to be done to rule in or out the ideas I have expressed. If you want very technical discussions look at 911FF to find them. I try to communicate my understanding with basic concepts easily accessible.
A black box is not an acceptable explanation and neither is one that ignores evidence which contradicts one's beliefs.