01-10-2013, 05:39 PM
Peter,
I have not read Ryan's book, but have listened to several Guns and Butter interviews. There is much that is wrong with the official story. I certainly have never signed on to the official technical explanations of the destruction of the WTC. My sense is that Ryan is making the case the the old boys were positioned to pull off AND cover up the attack. I don't think that one can argue against it, but I don't think that means, motive and opportunity is evidence of actual action. it may make someone suspect and worthy of investigation. I have no problem with that.
Magda's point about everyone having some bias is accepted.
I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.
I understand that the this site is inspired PD Scott's work... and that most if not all the members accept this as the correct approach to analysis of world events, including 9/11. I do accept that there are forces and agencies acting *behind the scenes* responsible for world events which are attributed to what is effectively a cover story. Things are often not what they appear to be. Certainly we can admit that the powerful and the elite rarely if ever openly admit their agenda or their tactics. At best they present themselves in disingenuous manner which makes it appear to some that they are doing precisely the reverse of what they truly are about. Capitalists talk about policies which will create more and better jobs, for example, when their real motive is more profit and effective means to exploit labor.'
I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks. There remains hardly agreement about what actually happened on 9/11. For example was there a jumbo that struck the pentagon? Was the Shanksville plane shot down or did it crash as the OCT tells us. Were the planes that struck the towers hijacked or drones or some variation of the later?
Ryan's thesis seems to suggest that the powers that be had the means, motive and opportunity to pull off 9/11 and suggests the old boy connections were in play to advance their usual agenda. That agenda was advanced even if the attacks were carried out by the Islamic radicals. Isn't that true?
Is it not possible that the attacks were planned and executed by radical Islamists... AND the USG lied about aspects of the day?
Why the simply dichotomy we are asked to accept... CD/inside job/false flag v OCT?
My position is both are wrong!
My position of fires and impact is and always was:
No single factor is responsible for the destruction we saw. it was a cascading series of runaway progressive (factors/failures/causes) which in the aggregate facilitated the collapse... among those factors was a key one - the designs themselves. Plane strike mechanical damage alone wouldn't do it, fires alone would take lots of time to do it (as in 7), loss of fire protection would not do it, burning fuel alone would not do it, loss of sprinklers alone would not do it. All of them together could and did do it. Could the kick off be accomplished by some devices in lieu of heat weakening? Why not if they technology exists to engineer and *detonate* them. But there is no evidence in support of such devices. Ryan and others offers the idea that it was possible and who may have made it possible. Food for thought... speculation but not evidence.
I have not read Ryan's book, but have listened to several Guns and Butter interviews. There is much that is wrong with the official story. I certainly have never signed on to the official technical explanations of the destruction of the WTC. My sense is that Ryan is making the case the the old boys were positioned to pull off AND cover up the attack. I don't think that one can argue against it, but I don't think that means, motive and opportunity is evidence of actual action. it may make someone suspect and worthy of investigation. I have no problem with that.
Magda's point about everyone having some bias is accepted.
I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.
I understand that the this site is inspired PD Scott's work... and that most if not all the members accept this as the correct approach to analysis of world events, including 9/11. I do accept that there are forces and agencies acting *behind the scenes* responsible for world events which are attributed to what is effectively a cover story. Things are often not what they appear to be. Certainly we can admit that the powerful and the elite rarely if ever openly admit their agenda or their tactics. At best they present themselves in disingenuous manner which makes it appear to some that they are doing precisely the reverse of what they truly are about. Capitalists talk about policies which will create more and better jobs, for example, when their real motive is more profit and effective means to exploit labor.'
I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks. There remains hardly agreement about what actually happened on 9/11. For example was there a jumbo that struck the pentagon? Was the Shanksville plane shot down or did it crash as the OCT tells us. Were the planes that struck the towers hijacked or drones or some variation of the later?
Ryan's thesis seems to suggest that the powers that be had the means, motive and opportunity to pull off 9/11 and suggests the old boy connections were in play to advance their usual agenda. That agenda was advanced even if the attacks were carried out by the Islamic radicals. Isn't that true?
Is it not possible that the attacks were planned and executed by radical Islamists... AND the USG lied about aspects of the day?
Why the simply dichotomy we are asked to accept... CD/inside job/false flag v OCT?
My position is both are wrong!
My position of fires and impact is and always was:
No single factor is responsible for the destruction we saw. it was a cascading series of runaway progressive (factors/failures/causes) which in the aggregate facilitated the collapse... among those factors was a key one - the designs themselves. Plane strike mechanical damage alone wouldn't do it, fires alone would take lots of time to do it (as in 7), loss of fire protection would not do it, burning fuel alone would not do it, loss of sprinklers alone would not do it. All of them together could and did do it. Could the kick off be accomplished by some devices in lieu of heat weakening? Why not if they technology exists to engineer and *detonate* them. But there is no evidence in support of such devices. Ryan and others offers the idea that it was possible and who may have made it possible. Food for thought... speculation but not evidence.