New 911 Book - What happened and why we don't know what happend!

[Lauren Johnson]

You don't think there are terrorists and they are all run by corporate interests? That the hegomony and imperialism does not bread resentment and liberation struggles?

Sure terrorists get themselves some deep pockets to buy them weapons. And likely those supplying the weapons are using these angry people to their advantage.

Sorry, you need to take off your DP glasses at times... And I don't care what Drago has to teach about this. He's not the sole arbiter of how things work, as I am not, nore Naomi Klein.

However when it comes to technical matters, mechanics, physics, engineering, optics and so forth deep politics has not standing.

And that is precisely my criticsm. Science approaches events without a political view. It explains the world in the most objective manner, repeatable, testable and reliable. Not subject to interpretation of opinion. Not left, right or center.

Means motive and opportunity are all political and not technical. They are not evidence about the technical event.

You guys can't figure out the technical issues because of your ideological blinders.

Sounds like we're done, then.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Precisely... as soon as you have to actually deal with science, engineering... physics... you take off... or like you use the ... I have my experts to tell me what happened... such as non physics grad who teaches high school physics... David Chandler... or someone like Steven Jones who has been caught lying a number of times or gravely mistaken and slinks away and doesn't have the character to fess up...

You don't need a credential if you have the smarts. And your credentials mean nothing if you act like a idiot and if you don't think they exist... you are hopelessly naive.

You don't vote for truth and it isn't decided by your chosen experts.

Bye bye!

[Charles Drago]

Sorry, you need to take off your DP glasses at times...

Utter nonsense. "DP glasses" must be worn constantly -- even when they reveal that an event being scrutinized is not deep political in nature. How else could such a determination be made?

And I don't care what Drago has to teach about this.

Nor does Drago care if you choose to remain ignorant on matters highly relevant to the investigation of 9-11. Your analyses of that deep political event will be valued accordingly.

However when it comes to technical matters, mechanics, physics, engineering, optics and so forth deep politics has not standing.

Utter nonsense. We are about the application of the deep political scientific method shaped by deep political scientific rigor. Or at least we should be.

Science approaches events without a political view.

Utter nonsense. "Science" is nothing but a tool. Those wielding it, regardless of their perspectives and levels of expertise, do the "approaching." Those doing the approaching are human beings. The objective, non-political human being has yet to be born.

It explains the world in the most objective manner, repeatable, testable and reliable. Not subject to interpretation of opinion. Not left, right or center.

Utter nonsense. "Science" explains nothing. Scientists -- including deep political scientists -- utilizing the scientific method offer hypotheses.

Means motive and opportunity are all political and not technical. They are not evidence about the technical event.

Utter nonsense. Deep political science-informed investigations of "means motive and opportunity" [sic] related to events that likely are deep political in nature are critical components of the searches for truth.

Further, does scientist Jane Goodall analyze means, motive, and opportunity when observing, quantifying, qualifying, and hypothesizing about primate behavior?

You guys can't figure out the technical issues because of your ideological blinders.

Utter nonsense. "You guys"?


So I ask Brother Orling again -- and yes, the question is loaded: Tell us what you know DID NOT happen on 9-11.

And don't give us guys any rhetorical bullshit answer along the lines of "I know the Three Stooges didn't bring down those buildings."

Do you assess the events of 9-11 as being deep political in nature?

Do you concur with the official U.S. government 9-11 conspiracy theory?

If you do, please defend it.

I you don't, in whole or in part, please explain.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Not utter nonsense because you disagree. But utter nonsense to you of course.

Sorry, you need to take off your DP glasses at times...

Utter nonsense. "DP glasses" must be worn constantly -- even when they reveal that an event being scrutinized is not deep political in nature. How else could such a determination be made?

And I don't care what Drago has to teach about this.

Nor does Drago care if you choose to remain ignorant on matters highly relevant to the investigation of 9-11. Your analyses of that deep political event will be valued accordingly.

You don't have to care or consider my comments. I try to confine them to analysis of technical issues of the mechanical destruction of the towers. The mechanics don't have a political consideration. Sorry.

However when it comes to technical matters, mechanics, physics, engineering, optics and so forth deep politics has not standing.

Utter nonsense. We are about the application of the deep political scientific method shaped by deep political scientific rigor. Or at least we should be.

DP may/can be about the application of whatever political analysis you wish... This however is a filter through which you see things.


Utter nonsense. "Science" is nothing but a tool. Those wielding it, regardless of their perspectives and levels of expertise, do the "approaching." Those doing the approaching are human beings. The objective, non-political human being has yet to be born.

Science is a means and method to describe the physical world. It attempts to discover and demonstrate laws which mechanics conform to. We, of course don't know why... that is a philosophical question. But we can discover the laws and use them to analyze mechanics.

'

It explains the world in the most objective manner, repeatable, testable and reliable. Not subject to interpretation of opinion. Not left, right or center.

Utter nonsense. "Science" explains nothing. Scientists -- including deep political scientists -- utilizing the scientific method offer hypotheses.

Obviously we are referring to humans mapping the world and in so doing using language and scientific *laws*. In the case of complex mechanical events there are many laws and interactions... sometimes the complexity exceeds a human minds ability to precisely map all the interactions. The collapse of the towers is a good example of a very complex mechanical event which involves interactions of materials on many levels /scale from the gross mechanical of beams and columns... to the molecular and at the atomic level.

Means motive and opportunity are all political and not technical. They are not evidence about the technical event.

Utter nonsense. Deep political science-informed investigations of "means motive and opportunity" [sic] related to events that likely are deep political in nature are critical components of the searches for truth.

Further, does scientist Jane Goodall analyze means, motive, and opportunity when observing, quantifying, qualifying, and hypothesizing about primate behavior?

Means, motive and opportunity are about *intent*. Science is not concerned with the intent of matter which has no mind. A brain is a complex structure which has information processing capabilites as part of a neural network with assorted transducers. I don't know what Jane Goodal analyzes but I thought it was chimp behavior which is a brain/mind artifcat.

You guys can't figure out the technical issues because of your ideological blinders.

Utter nonsense. "You guys"?

Lighten up Charles

So I ask Brother Orling again -- and yes, the question is loaded: Tell us what you know DID NOT happen on 9-11.

Rather odd question to ask what did not happen... We can falsify explanations which are unsupported by observations (incorrect observations)... or misapplication of science. There are many *things* unknowable with certainty because the observation may be cause by several causes... together or independently and it may be impossible to know without sufficent data to make the determination.

All bombs explode
all explosions are not bombs.

And don't give us guys any rhetorical bullshit answer along the lines of "I know the Three Stooges didn't bring down those buildings."

No comment

Do you assess the events of 9-11 as being deep political in nature?

I asses that the MIC, the trans national corporations opportunistically exploited 9/11 to serve their imperial agenda which is more control or resources, people, money etc. - Disaster Capitalism. This exploitation MAY have and likely included fore knowledge of an attack, may have even through double agents and such facilitated aspects of the attack... and even facilitated some of it on that day... I don't see evidence that the MIC et al intended the level of destruction or loss of life.. ie intended to completely destroy the WTC. This evidence may exist. I don't see it. At this date I concur that the official story was a cover and served their agenda and covered up incompetence and even greed in all sorts of places from the siting of B7 over a main sub station... the placement of the OEM center with 20,000 of fuel next to the sub station, the long span floor system and cheap construction and down spec'ing of the buildings to save money for PANY... the waiver from the NYC building codes to save PANY money, the failure of the $1T defense to defend against planes... which hit the towers... regardless of who flew them... the air defense was AWOL on 911... and so forth. None of this was revealed in the official cover story or even by the 911 truth movement.

Do you concur with the official U.S. government 9-11 conspiracy theory?

I do not concur with the 911 conspiracy theory... but I do believe that some of the official story is accurate... lots of it is not. All of it in total is not credible.

If you do, please defend it.

Nothing for me to defend... I don't support it

I you don't, in whole or in part, please explain.

I don't find the explanation of sagging trusses leading to the pulling in of the facade of the twin towers credible... with the cause being heat from office fires. Nor do I think the shear studs and had anything to do with the walk off the girder on the beam seat of column 79 leading to collapse. The NIST animation of the collapse is laughable. There many false and misleading statements in the NIST, FEMA and even a Con Edison after report and 911 Commission reports. I don't understand why plans and specs are withheld from the public and videos at the pentagon not released. The Shanksville incident does not look to me like a plane created and disappeared into that whole. I could go on an on about the bizarre aspects of the official story. However we can't tell who or what they were actually covering for because they produced a non credible narrative. We can see who benefited from this narrative... but nothing new here as Naomi Klein and others have shown... the usual guys make out whenever there is a disaster.

[Charles Drago]

To avoid confusion: My original comments are in unadorned typeface. Orling's responses to them are in BOLD ITALICS. My counter-responses are in RED.

Not utter nonsense because you disagree. But utter nonsense to you of course.

Care to try that again in English?

Sorry, you need to take off your DP glasses at times...

Utter nonsense. "DP glasses" must be worn constantly -- even when they reveal that an event being scrutinized is not deep political in nature. How else could such a determination be made?

And I don't care what Drago has to teach about this.

Nor does Drago care if you choose to remain ignorant on matters highly relevant to the investigation of 9-11. Your analyses of that deep political event will be valued accordingly.

You don't have to care or consider my comments. I try to confine them to analysis of technical issues of the mechanical destruction of the towers. The mechanics don't have a political consideration. Sorry.


"Sorry," indeed. The destruction of the towers took place within a deep political context. This realization can and must inform your analyses of the results of your application of the scientific method to this issue.



Utter nonsense. We are about the application of the deep political scientific method shaped by deep political scientific rigor. Or at least we should be.

DP may/can be about the application of whatever political analysis you wish... This however is a filter through which you see things.

[COLOR="#FF0000"][COLOR="#FF0000"]The deep politics "filter" is as valuable -- and as vulnerable to misapplication -- a scientific tool as any you may wish to name and utilize.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]


Utter nonsense. "Science" is nothing but a tool. Those wielding it, regardless of their perspectives and levels of expertise, do the "approaching." Those doing the approaching are human beings. The objective, non-political human being has yet to be born.

Science is a means and method to describe the physical world. It attempts to discover and demonstrate laws which mechanics conform to. We, of course don't know why... that is a philosophical question. But we can discover the laws and use them to analyze mechanics.

Scientific inquiries are conducted by human beings -- none of whom are capable of pure objectivity. You stipulate that we know very little of what happened to the towers. You should also stipulate that much of the physical evidence critical to understanding what happened has been disappeared. Thus even the most stringently applied scientific methods must make room for informed guesswork. And absent deep political scientific methods and perspectives, such guesswork in this case and by definition will be fatally ill-informed.


Utter nonsense. "Science" explains nothing. Scientists -- including deep political scientists -- utilizing the scientific method offer hypotheses.

Obviously we are referring to humans mapping the world and in so doing using language and scientific *laws*. In the case of complex mechanical events there are many laws and interactions... sometimes the complexity exceeds a human minds ability to precisely map all the interactions. The collapse of the towers is a good example of a very complex mechanical event which involves interactions of materials on many levels /scale from the gross mechanical of beams and columns... to the molecular and at the atomic level.

Analyses of the "very complex mechanical event" which you describe suffer from lack of access to primary evidence -- evidence which, thanks to the application of the deep political scientific method, we can now state with an impressive degree of certainty was purloined in order to prevent those thorough analyses you so rightly champion.

Means motive and opportunity are all political and not technical. They are not evidence about the technical event.

Utter nonsense. Deep political science-informed investigations of "means motive and opportunity" [sic] related to events that likely are deep political in nature are critical components of the searches for truth.

Further, does scientist Jane Goodall analyze means, motive, and opportunity when observing, quantifying, qualifying, and hypothesizing about primate behavior?

Means, motive and opportunity are about *intent*. Science is not concerned with the intent of matter which has no mind. A brain is a complex structure which has information processing capabilites as part of a neural network with assorted transducers. I don't know what Jane Goodal analyzes but I thought it was chimp behavior which is a brain/mind artifcat.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Correct. You don't know.
[/COLOR]

You guys can't figure out the technical issues because of your ideological blinders.

Utter nonsense. "You guys"?

Lighten up Charles

[COLOR="#FF0000"]First I'd have to take off my deep politics glasses. And you know how I feel about that.
[/COLOR]


So I ask Brother Orling again -- and yes, the question is loaded: Tell us what you know DID NOT happen on 9-11.

Rather odd question to ask what did not happen... We can falsify explanations which are unsupported by observations (incorrect observations)... or misapplication of science. There are many *things* unknowable with certainty because the observation may be cause by several causes... together or independently and it may be impossible to know without sufficent data to make the determination.

All bombs explode
all explosions are not bombs.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]The process of elimination -- of suspects in the JFK assassination, for instance -- remains a critical element within the deep political scientific method. Who could not have done the deed as it was done?

In terms of 9-11: If you do not subscribe to the "Osama bin Laden is the Luckiest Man in the World" theory to explain how "his" attacks just happened to take place on a day when massive air defense exercises significantly facilitated those attacks, then you must ask, "Who could have coordinated the exercises and the attacks to take place simultaneously?" Then you must either attribute to OBL the ability to coordinate and schedule U.S. air defense exercises, or you must eliminate OBL from the list of suspects who have that ability.[/COLOR]



And don't give us guys any rhetorical bullshit answer along the lines of "I know the Three Stooges didn't bring down those buildings."

No comment

NOW we're [not] talking!

Do you assess the events of 9-11 as being deep political in nature?


I asses that the MIC, the trans national corporations opportunistically exploited 9/11 to serve their imperial agenda which is more control or resources, people, money etc. - Disaster Capitalism. This exploitation MAY have and likely included fore knowledge of an attack, may have even through double agents and such facilitated aspects of the attack... and even facilitated some of it on that day... I don't see evidence that the MIC et al intended the level of destruction or loss of life.. ie intended to completely destroy the WTC. This evidence may exist. I don't see it. At this date I concur that the official story was a cover and served their agenda and covered up incompetence and even greed in all sorts of places from the siting of B7 over a main sub station... the placement of the OEM center with 20,000 of fuel next to the sub station, the long span floor system and cheap construction and down spec'ing of the buildings to save money for PANY... the waiver from the NYC building codes to save PANY money, the failure of the $1T defense to defend against planes... which hit the towers... regardless of who flew them... the air defense was AWOL on 911... and so forth. None of this was revealed in the official cover story or even by the 911 truth movement.

Non-responsive.


Do you concur with the official U.S. government 9-11 conspiracy theory?

I do not concur with the 911 conspiracy theory... but I do believe that some of the official story is accurate... lots of it is not. All of it in total is not credible.

If you do, please defend it.

Nothing for me to defend... I don't support it

Responsive.


I you don't, in whole or in part, please explain.

I don't find the explanation of sagging trusses leading to the pulling in of the facade of the twin towers credible... with the cause being heat from office fires. Nor do I think the shear studs and had anything to do with the walk off the girder on the beam seat of column 79 leading to collapse. The NIST animation of the collapse is laughable. There many false and misleading statements in the NIST, FEMA and even a Con Edison after report and 911 Commission reports. I don't understand why plans and specs are withheld from the public and videos at the pentagon not released. The Shanksville incident does not look to me like a plane created and disappeared into that whole. I could go on an on about the bizarre aspects of the official story. However we can't tell who or what they were actually covering for because they produced a non credible narrative. We can see who benefited from this narrative... but nothing new here as Naomi Klein and others have shown... the usual guys make out whenever there is a disaster.

Circular reasoning. Ms. Klein's theory may explain why "the usual guys" rushed to take advantage of what happened on 9-11. It does not, however, explain why blatantly false cartoon explanations of the event and "false and misleading statements in the NIST, FEMA, and even a Con Edison after report and 9-11 Commission reports" were offered, or why "the Shanksville incident does not look to me like a plane created and disappeared into that whole [sic]." Among other troubling actions.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Applications of the deep political scientific method, however, do suggest explanations.
[/COLOR]

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles... If you don't mind I am not going to go into a quote snipe type of response, but in a narrative.

All human endeavor has some sort of political/sociological/psychological context including science which attempts *objectively* model the physical and even the inner world of mental mappings of that physical world. We're human, with minds and we map the world and suffer the limits of our minds and nervous system. Science is performed by scientists and scientists are human. What's the option here?

We don't have all the evidence to work with. We have some evidence to work with. We have the knowledge of the structures which were destroyed. We have the body of *settled science* and settled engineering which models how structures resist forces such as gravity, winds, earth quakes, bombs and plane strikes. When we design such structures we use those very principles, derived from empirical study and fitting mathematical formulas to the empirical data of how materials behave mechanically, chemically etc. Engineering is predictive based on this knowledge. The same knowledge would be applied to destroy or de- construct something. As it takes energy to assemble a structure., it takes energy to take it apart or destroy it. In creating a structure gravitational and chemical energy is stored in it and in the material of the structure and the contents or in the case of the twin towers the planes that impacted them and perhaps devices placed within them to provide or at least unlock the various forms of stored energy. A match setting a carpet on fire releases the energy stored in the carpet in the form of heat, chemically destroying the carpet by combustion into new compounds. Collapses use the PE of gravity and this is ALWAYS exploited in ALL controlled demolitions. Structures are not blown to kingdom com as in dropping a nuke on them... the stored PE is freed by "breaking" the integrity of the gravity resisting frame. In my mind there is nothing deep politics about this sort of understanding or modeling or science... regardless of whether the model was created by humans. Newton's laws of thermodynamics work for right and left wingers in precisely the same manner.

One must realize that a destruction of something large and complex as a tall building involves perhaps on the order of multi millions of *interactions*... materials colliding, crushing, abrading, burning and so forth. I don't think there exists a computer in the world to precisely model such multi-million step or interaction event. This doesn't mean we can understand the event at a *grosser* scale... and such a model would render it inaccurate. In something such as a car collision there are tens of thousands (guess) of interactions of the various parts of the cars. Even modeling that is probably beyond the power of computers to do precise finite element analysis. But it doesn't actually matter. There is blending and averaging and so forth which can hide details (interesting perhaps) but lost in the bigger picture.

So I would say that the absence of ALL the evidence does not mean that the evidence that we do have can't tell a story... and a likely accurate one. We can rule out some things which simply are mis reading of the evidence we DO have. And we can identify items which have ambiguous or uncertain explanations. But the finer the scale of the data... the more accurate the model will be... and must be. So use of a gross energy input called *CD* MUST match all the observables and explain precisely what that CD mechanism was, and how it produced said observation. That has clearly not been done.

From a *political perspective* I accept the notion that *intel/DOD/MIC* engages not only in information gathering to form strategies to advance their (hideous) agenda, but in pro-active or black ops, assassinations, sting operations, false flags, double agents and all sorts of things they don't discuss or will admit to. I suspect...that these agencies were involved to the extent that they knew of coming attacks... and may have some helped in some aspects of the planning. This would be akin to setting up the patsies... whether they actually pulled the trigger or not... they were pulled into the plot on some level.

When I use the word *agencies* I am referring to a select few at the top who can drive command and control of these agencies where those lower down on the chain of command are neither in on the *executive* decisions nor able to change the momentum of them once the process is unfolding. The general comes up with his strategy, the foot soldiers simply do what they are told and trained to do.

Whether 911 was a planned *inside job* or a *let it happen job* by insiders with fore knowledge or even a piggy back on top of a plot insiders knew about (more speculation of that later)... it would be covered up... and the terrorist are our new enemy outcome would be the official position - the *disaster capitalism* outcome.

After studying the structures of the twin towers for 3 years and B7 for a few months now I am of the mind that there were many aspects to the design of these three buildings and the associated decisions by PANY etc... that allowed them to collapse rather easily... a sort of discovery of the Achilles heels... that was missed and created by haste and greed when they were designed and built. This is a sort of mother of all product liability cases... In the Ford Pinto example, while the person who rear ended a Pinto might clearly have caused the accident... the exploding gas tank placed their by Ford engineers was the cause of death. So we might consider that the plane strikes were the driver and the WTC designers, engineers planners etc. were analogous to the Ford engineers. We know how defendants of such product liability cases behave... deny, lie, cover, wiggle, and weasel and try to blame the drivers.

This sort of covering up of the product liability doesn't explain whether they were involved in the planning and execution of the plane strikes.

But fore knowledge can explain some of the unusual things... such as warnings not to use commercial airlines on 911. Why? because the *insiders* were going to fog the ATC system to allow no defense response and let planes hit the towers which included scheduling their exercises on the day they knew the attacks were coming (more on that later). Insider trading which allowed the SOBs to even make money off the event (disaster capitalism par excellence - short selling related to a future event)... the entire pentagon event which appears to be staged as sure means to rally support for war... as simply holes in the two towers might not have done the deed. And of course the Shanksville story of heroism that seems easily manufactured PR on par with Jessica Lynch, incubator babies and Pat Tillman. I'm nut sure what hit the pentagon or even if something did. It does appear that something flew towards and likely over it and set off a bomb which could distract and conceal it flying away.

I don't know what to make of all the plane information. None of makes much sense to me except there does seem to have been planes which hit the towers... and it is not hard for novices to steer a plane into huge line of sight targets. All the telephone calls seem odd... but I simply can't conclude anything.

If any investigation found that MIC insiders had fore knowledge and or provided ANY assistance to a terrorist attack this would have to be suppressed in an official investigation. The republic could not survive that revelation. It may reveal that these geniuses had no idea the building would collapse killing 3000 and thought that the loss of a few hundred could be *justified* by the results - a new enemy and a never ending war and a lot of cash rolling into the MIC forever. Could these insiders with advance knowledge have then decided to use CDs to take down the three towers and let their patsies fly the planes into them? Sure. But why did they need to totally destroy the WTC and kill 3000 when having 2 behemoths which giant holes in them and unrentable forever after would have cause enough to obtain the outcome they sought... wars, money and a more controlled and controllable public who demanded vengeance and security... and smart phones, flat screen TVs, and 3D movies... and petro lifestyles.

Did officials know the B7 was going to collapse? Yes, because they were advised by the FDNY and the city and building engineers that its design could lead to collapse from continuous heat weakening. Would they release that information to the public? Yes it's their duty to do that. Would the idiot networks quickly do stand ups announcing what they were told was a certain to be future event to release as live TV to beat the competition to the punch... yes they do such things. Would insiders warn their friends that flying on 911 with a downed ATC was a real danger to anyone in the air. Yes they would. Would some people short airline stocks with the fore knowledge of the attacks.. They sure would. Would the insiders use their influence and technology (enterprise software) to both plan military exercises on the day of the attack and fiddle with all sorts of computers.. they sure would. Would they release all sorts of screwy information, withhold evidence to fog any clear picture that could emerge showing the extent of their fore knowledge and even assistance as in some of the above. Would these insiders cover up the flawed designs and their botched planning of a failed sting operation/false flag gone out of control. Could you imagine the value of the wrongful death lawsuits aimed at intel/DOD/*insiders* for the above... for their Dr. Strangelove insanity?

We can speculate until the cows come home... but I am concerned with using the physical evidence we do have and the engineering and so forth to describe what happened.

In closing, I point out... that... if someone WAS going to CD those towers... they would have had to initiate the destruction... that is to say... they didn't wait for a natural collapse to begin and THEN let their devices finish the job. That makes no sense at all. So you have to look at the initiation for the CD devices... what follows - the actual collapse matters not... as it does in a standard CD... BLOW the columns.. gravity collapses The buildings are not blowing up as they come down... that view is poor observation and or *wishful* thinking. It is violent as such a collapse would be... but not explosive.

The truth movement seems to want everyone to see the COLLAPSE as explosive and not deal with the initiation or the notion of progressive collapse.

break more to follow...

[Peter Lemkin]

The only 'progressive collapse' and 'unzipping' is of our Constitution, Freedoms, Bill of Rights, financial and real national security, Peace, Justice, rule of Law, etc. et al. Science [and I AM a scientist!!!!] is very political....even if in theory [only] it likes to think of itself as not. I could site so many examples of it being used [by others; funders; universities; research organizations; governments; intelligence agencies; militarily and MICs; politicians; religions and others for political and 'political' purposes - often DEEP Political purposes. Get real! Science neutral....rarely - maybe even the exception. Off the top of my head, quickly, just a few examples: Montsanto's eveything from DDT to Agent Orange to Frankenfoods and seeds; the Manhattan Project and what it gave birth to; MK/Ultra and all of its sister projects; Syphilis for unknowing poor and dark folks; Bioweapons from nerve gas to Anthrax; the Big Tobacco Lobby Big Lies; Computers, software, nanotechnology and telecommunications used to spy on all of us all the time;The misuse of 'science' and 'scientists' in the indefensible lies of 11/22/63 and 9/11/01 - with a host of other incidents and dates; The Big Oil Big Lies; 'Science' used against the facts of human-induced global climate change; Scientists singing the tune of this that and the other project or subject for the funder who pays the labs/scientists; and it goes on and on and on....to NIST in 911 and beyond. Forget science being very often without the involvement of politics. Would be nice....especially without the involvement of Deep Political ****! Right now the best evidence is that nanothermite brought down the three WTC towers - they didn't unzip. You and apparently you alone believe this unzip theory either to promote your ego or for Deep Political confusion - let each decide for themselves. I personally can't get the feeling that science is involved in your theory - as the evidence doesn't match the theory; the 'theory' it seems hides behind the skirts of 'science'...and architecture. Why is it that few to no other architects or building engineers have joined up with you on this 'theory'?! Nothing personal, but you make it 'personal' when you have a magic bullet theory proposed and promoted by one person [as far as I can see]. How about and explosive zipper theory....

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lemkin,

Just because science is used by nasty corporations doesn't mean that science can't be and isn't used in a non political sort of objective analytical manner.

I suppose astronomers are into deep politics when they describe stars, galaxies, black holes, quasars and so forth?

That comment was silly.

Scientists are political just as barbers and bakers are. Science itself is not... and Charles pointed out that it is a tool in a sense to describe the world. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses those tools... or any time science is used to map/describe a phenomena that it is political. That is pure rubbish. It could be, but it needn't be.

There is no doubt that science AND scientist are being used in very nasty ways... nuke bombs., nuke power, gm food, many many things. But it's the USER's agenda not the tool that is political. And some scientists such as Salk or Goodall are doing good work for mankind. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I have for a year here on DP simply asked for a scientific approach to the observations/evidence and not an anecdotal political analysis driven explanation backed into based on the outcome and policies... which we agree were a crime in themselves!

The Lauren and Charles and now you claim everything has a deep political analysis. While many things might and many things might have some aspects of deep pol... it's just plain silly to insist that everything does.

If you can't leave your bias behind... or try to... and refuse to... your analysis is tainted and in my opinion useless.

[Phil Dragoo]

Jeffrey

I just devoted a couple of hours to completing the section 3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories finishing at 11:11 local.

In the authors' analysis by observation and measurement is seen the inaccurate modeling and descriptors of the official query. Shocking.

This might track with Dan Rather's breathless insistence Zapruder showed the president slumping forward from a shot from the rear.

The overall takeaway at this point is similar to the stark clarification of Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why. The extant site indicates the history of all hitherto analyses is erroneous simplification.

That in itself is riveting: the CIA animation purporting to illustrate the TWA 800 center fuel tank explosion flew in the face of scores of witnesses observing a missilewhich, no doubt, arced up from a fast boat appearing on a radar plot subsequently fleeing as others raced to the rescue.

The pattern of government misdirection has thereby been exposed, and I'm only half through.

We will arrive at confirmation that the War on Terror is as Orwellian a phrase as the War on Drugs.

They have the means to measureHumes had his ruleryet they choose to obscure.

As Angleton stopped the FLASH on Oswald, so, too, some apparatchik allowed no-flies to flymust have all the dramatis personaeplus, whatever stage management can be discovered.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil,

I agree that the gov... and corporations tell the story they choose to and it is often not the truth. The question we need to ask is why? I think we can discard the idea that their lies were simply an innocent errors.

So what was their intent?

BP was "lying" about the oil spill to lessen the appearance of the environmental impact, and of course the magnitude of their liability. Fukishima likely was the same... But what were the plant owners trying to do with their post tsunami behavior? Perhaps the same as BP and trying to down play the dangers of nuclear power and their plant design, its siting and so forth. The entire nuclear power industry and their *deceptions* over the years was being exposed as an insane gamble... with enormous costs in blood and treasure which hardly seems worth it and it can render the environment toxic for generations as did Chernobyl. Spinning and winning from disaster!

The deception of 911 may be part of a pre planned campaign... false flag... or a shock doctrine type event where the usual suspects tailor the story to fit some agenda.. such as war and war profits... control of ME oil and the governments in the region.... and the people of the USA and limit their freedoms. (YIKES wasn't that the reason W told us why they attacked us?)

So we can establish we were lied to about the evidence... but can we know why? And of course the same sort of deception about the evidence is coming from most of the so called anti establishment re 9/11 - the truth movement. What would be the motive(s) for their errors or deception?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...lRC24a44tY

John Pilger

"Audience Question: "I would like to ask your views or theory that the US government was complicit in or even perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 to gain support for criminal [inaudible] Afghanistan and Iraq?"

John Pilger: "I think there is a lot of evidence that certain elements in the Bush administration, whether by intent or by or by their own arrogant incompetence, I don't know, let things happen. I think there is enough evidence to…

We know the senior FBI people who gave warnings right throughout 2001. We know about the extraordinary inactivity by the NORAD aircraft on the day of September 11th. We know that Cheney was in charge of the White House on that day.

I think the most plausible is the "let it happen", now at what stage it was let happen, I don't know, I don't know. But certainly that seems to me, the most plausible.

There is no doubt that 9/11 became the opportunity for a new "Cold War" basically, only called the "War on Terror". But beyond that I wouldn't want to…""

emphasis mine