My critique of "the videos"

[Reformed Idealist]

I finished watching the videos and thought I would give some feedback.

First of all, I am willing to admit that I no longer will totally buy everything that is told me about 9-11. This has mainly to do with WTC 7 and a lot of the circumstantial evidence about the insurance policies, put options and buried gold.

The one thing I do NOT like about the videos and I think is a huge detriment is they rely a lot on "anecdotal" evidence in showing clips of people describing explosions and various other events. This, in my book, doesn't prove anything, and kind of makes me feel like the directors are trying to sell something with a slick Michael Moore/Oliver Stone presentation.

The other thing that is making me have a hard time with this explanation is summed up with the "Law of Unintended Consequences". Even if some nefarious plot if behind this and had 4 drone aircraft and controlled demo's, there is really no way to predict what might happen next. What if crucial evidence had been left behind? What if world events reacted differently? I can on and on, but this documentary is assuming that what happens next is already known.

The reliance on voice software to make fake phonecalls? Really, this is the best idea they have? Where are all the passengers and the families of the passengers? This is a gaping whole in the theory, not to mention that I haven't seen one hijacker alive since 9-23-01, when their photos became available.

I have plans tonight and can't review this thread I've started for awhile, but I will be back.

See, RI can reason and discuss in a civil fashion!

[Halophyte]

You'll notice that all the "squibs" show up AFTER the buildings begin to collaspe. This is very suspicious conjucture. Compare this to actual demo project files ...


.

[gpond]

I thought the flash of light from the helicopter was pretty funny. Also I looked into it and didn't find any there there regarding the pods shooting missiles into the buildings. BWTFDIK?

There is enough evidence out there without necessarily buying into the most esoteric theories to understand that there was something very fishy going on that day. Events that are unable to be explained simply by 19 guys with boxcutters and a guy with a beard sitting in a cave with a laptop.

[Large Sarge]

Originally Posted by gpond

I thought the flash of light from the helicopter was pretty funny. Also I looked into it and didn't find any there there regarding the pods shooting missiles into the buildings. BWTFDIK?

There is enough evidence out there without necessarily buying into the most esoteric theories to understand that there was something very fishy going on that day. Events that are unable to be explained simply by 19 guys with boxcutters and a guy with a beard sitting in a cave with a laptop.

Like the free fall aspect of the collapse, or all that melted steel....

No one can answer those questions without adding explosives to the equation...

[Infidel]

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/c...&type=1&page=2

[PatColo]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

You'll notice that all the "squibs" show up AFTER the buildings begin to collaspe. This is very suspicious conjucture. Compare this to actual demo project files ...


.

www.WTC7.net

@Halo,

Could you please remind the lurking masses why you don't put your Big League Engineering Skills (BS for short) to work in collecting your

MILLION BUCKS???


www.WTC7.net

Let's imagine that your concern with channeling your valuable engineering time towards more industrious use as outlined above, is due to your concern that Walters/reopen911.org may welch on their proposal (a scenario we have some experience with around here!).

Let's imagine you're fixated on defending the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory purely out of academic pride.

In this case, why don't you devote your labors to publicly critiquing such peer reviewed academic works as :

- Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.

- The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

- Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.


www.WTC7.net

And lastly Halo,

I've noticed that your thorough & exhaustive assessment of the reason(s) for the abrupt, symetrical, free-fall-speed collapse of the 47 story steel-framed HOUSE OF SPOOKS, AKA WTC-7, on 9/11 afternoon, perfectly agrees with the similarly thorough & exhaustive assessment of WTC-7's collapse by the Zelikow 9/11 Whitewash Commission Report.

As we're all aware, the Zelilkow 9/11 Report duly gives taxpayers the fullest possible accounting of the events of 9/11. So the fact that your assessment of the strange collapse of the House Of Spooks (WTC-7) agrees so perfectly with the assessment of same by this utterly thorough, landmark/definitive gummit report on 9/11... is cause for kudos to you.


www.WTC7.net

But I must ask:

Did YOU get YOUR WTC-7 assessment directly from the Zelikow Commission Report, or did THEY get THEIR WTC-7 assessment directly from YOU??


www.WTC7.net

[Reformed Idealist]

OK, I agreed that I was going to reconsider 9-11. Take that for what it is worth, but I am being sincere.

If 9-11 was a governmental plot to promote an aggressive neocon foreign policy and rally the masses in support, shouldn't have some things taken place that haven't?

For instance, this plot is kind of assuming the Muslims in the Middle East had nothing to do with this, i.e., they are a peace-loving bunch with no ill-will towards the U.S., but they got framed, isn't this the correct idea? Well, how does this theory explain their continued violence and threats and overall non-peace-loving ways? It isn't as if we made up the fact that there are suicide bombers -there have literally been hundreds of suicide bombers and terror attacks apart from 9-11. You can't be saying that besides 9-11, that all other terror attacks and plotted attacks are also frame-ups, are you? Madrid, London, Bali, the daily Iraqi ones, the beheadings, etc. All of this makes the suspect (i.e. Arab Muslims) seem very guilty by association. That is, it isn't like the alleged behavior of airplane hijacking and suicide is out of character.

In another take on this idea. Where exactly are the Muslims that had nothing to do with this expressing their absolute outrage at this type of behavior and their condemnation of this behavior, which is so out of character for their religion of peace? It seems like they generally approve of the WTC attacks and kind of wish it was their son that was involved so they could be proud of him. This is not the type of behavior of someone that was just framed for something that he didn't commit. Usually the try to proclaim their innocence and try to distance themselves from the act as quickly as possible. (Please, don't link the "Mossad" 9-11 Palestinians protesters or anything to do with the Iraq war, let's stay on topic, thanks)

So apart from the trouble I can have watching the videos and digesting the disturbing implications, which in isolation seem to pretty convincing, taken in the total global context, world events have always played out in a way that supports the standard explanation - i.e. terrorists did it. That is, terrorists are still attacking, still plotting, and seem to strive to jihad as a way of being a good Muslim. They even attacked the WTC in 1993, so there is precedent. (Yes, yes, I am sure there is a CT here, too, but run with me)

These are the issues I am dealing with as I try to think this through, so be nice.

Also, no one seemed to interested in dealing with the Law of Unintended consequences. As I said, even if all the conspiracy is true, that still doesn't necessarily lead to the results the plotters were trying to obtain. From 9-12 on there could have been so many undesired events in the Middle East or here in the U.S. which would have thwarted the planners. Not to mention the extraordinary risk of literally dozens of ways their plot could unravel. It seems the risk would be too huge to undertake when there could have been easier ways of creating a "Reichstag fire" or a new Pearl Harbor.

TIA.

[bigjon]

I believe some of the suicide bomber were innocent desperate for work people hired to deliver a package, that just happened to have a radio controlled bomb in it.

All of your evidence about Arabs could be false flag Mossad operations because Israel is the prime benefactor.

There is a BIG hole in the nasty Arab 93 WTC story the FBI had an agent provocature who literally led the Arab patsies down the garden path by supplying them with the bomb. He was smart enough to tape his meetings with the FBI which is a part of the court record and was reported by the NY times.

Originally Posted by Reformed Idealist

OK, I agreed that I was going to reconsider 9-11. Take that for what it is worth, but I am being sincere.

If 9-11 was a governmental plot to promote an aggressive neocon foreign policy and rally the masses in support, shouldn't have some things taken place that haven't?

For instance, this plot is kind of assuming the Muslims in the Middle East had nothing to do with this, i.e., they are a peace-loving bunch with no ill-will towards the U.S., but they got framed, isn't this the correct idea? Well, how does this theory explain their continued violence and threats and overall non-peace-loving ways? It isn't as if we made up the fact that there are suicide bombers -there have literally been hundreds of suicide bombers and terror attacks apart from 9-11. You can't be saying that besides 9-11, that all other terror attacks and plotted attacks are also frame-ups, are you? Madrid, London, Bali, the daily Iraqi ones, the beheadings, etc. All of this makes the suspect (i.e. Arab Muslims) seem very guilty by association. That is, it isn't like the alleged behavior of airplane hijacking and suicide is out of character.

In another take on this idea. Where exactly are the Muslims that had nothing to do with this expressing their absolute outrage at this type of behavior and their condemnation of this behavior, which is so out of character for their religion of peace? It seems like they generally approve of the WTC attacks and kind of wish it was their son that was involved so they could be proud of him. This is not the type of behavior of someone that was just framed for something that he didn't commit. Usually the try to proclaim their innocence and try to distance themselves from the act as quickly as possible. (Please, don't link the "Mossad" 9-11 Palestinians protesters or anything to do with the Iraq war, let's stay on topic, thanks)

So apart from the trouble I can have watching the videos and digesting the disturbing implications, which in isolation seem to pretty convincing, taken in the total global context, world events have always played out in a way that supports the standard explanation - i.e. terrorists did it. That is, terrorists are still attacking, still plotting, and seem to strive to jihad as a way of being a good Muslim. They even attacked the WTC in 1993, so there is precedent. (Yes, yes, I am sure there is a CT here, too, but run with me)

These are the issues I am dealing with as I try to think this through, so be nice.

Also, no one seemed to interested in dealing with the Law of Unintended consequences. As I said, even if all the conspiracy is true, that still doesn't necessarily lead to the results the plotters were trying to obtain. From 9-12 on there could have been so many undesired events in the Middle East or here in the U.S. which would have thwarted the planners. Not to mention the extraordinary risk of literally dozens of ways their plot could unravel. It seems the risk would be too huge to undertake when there could have been easier ways of creating a "Reichstag fire" or a new Pearl Harbor.

TIA.

Reformed, you strike me as a sincere and intelligent man trying to make sense of what you see around you. I could spend some time and present many articles which demolish the narrative that the London and Bali bombings, the "beheadings", and most other acts of "terruh" are the work of Islamic extremists. But I don't believe such articles would be helpfull in changing your mind. I am not as smart as many of the posters on this forum, but what little I have learned from my observations of how government and the powerfull operate, I can reduce to this maxim of my own making, that the truth is most often found not in what a government is proposing but in the exact opposite. So when governments say that they must protect us from from "terrists", I know that there are no terrorists. When the government says we are bringing democracy to the Middle East, I know that they are bringing occupation and repression. When they say that the economy is strong and getting stronger, I know that it is on the brink of recession or depression. So you see, my methodology is simple and safe. To arrive at the truth of a matter, you need only believe the opposite of what your government is telling you. Try it with any government statement and you will discover for yourself how well the "little-O" maxim works. It has yet to fail me.

"Whatever a government says, believe the exact opposite, and you will arrive closer to the truth"

[Halophyte]

For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.

Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/


.

[Large Sarge]

Originally Posted by little-O

Reformed, you strike me as a sincere and intelligent man trying to make sense of what you see around you. I could spend some time and present many articles which demolish the narrative that the London and Bali bombings, the "beheadings", and most other acts of "terruh" are the work of Islamic extremists. But I don't believe such articles would be helpfull in changing your mind. I am not as smart as many of the posters on this forum, but what little I have learned from my observations of how government and the powerfull operate, I can reduce to this maxim of my own making, that the truth is most often found not in what a government is proposing but in the exact opposite. So when governments say that they must protect us from from "terrists", I know that there are no terrorists. When the government says we are bringing democracy to the Middle East, I know that they are bringing occupation and repression. When they say that the economy is strong and getting stronger, I know that it is on the brink of recession or depression. So you see, my methodology is simple and safe. To arrive at the truth of a matter, you need only believe the opposite of what your government is telling you. Try it with any government statement and you will discover for yourself how well the "little-O" maxim works. It has yet to fail me.

"Whatever a government says, believe the exact opposite, and you will arrive closer to the truth"

This is simply brilliant...
We can even use this on other areas, lets try
Govt Education (kids get more and more stupid)
Govt Energy programs (we get more expensive and scarcer energy)
Govt Healthcare Programs Cause more death and disease
etc
etc

Reformed, you strike me as a sincere and intelligent man trying to make sense of what you see around you. I could spend some time and present many articles which demolish the narrative that the London and Bali bombings, the "beheadings", and most other acts of "terruh" are the work of Islamic extremists. But I don't believe such articles would be helpfull in changing your mind. I am not as smart as many of the posters on this forum, but what little I have learned from my observations of how government and the powerfull operate, I can reduce to this maxim of my own making, that the truth is most often found not in what a government is proposing but in the exact opposite. So when governments say that they must protect us from from "terrists", I know that there are no terrorists. When the government says we are bringing democracy to the Middle East, I know that they are bringing occupation and repression. When they say that the economy is strong and getting stronger, I know that it is on the brink of recession or depression. So you see, my methodology is simple and safe. To arrive at the truth of a matter, you need only believe the opposite of what your government is telling you. Try it with any government statement and you will discover for yourself how well the "little-O" maxim works. It has yet to fail me.

"Whatever a government says, believe the exact opposite, and you will arrive closer to the truth"

yes I do the same, never fails.

[J.D.Rockinfeller]

Originally Posted by Reformed Idealist

OK, I agreed that I was going to reconsider 9-11. Take that for what it is worth, but I am being sincere.

If 9-11 was a governmental plot to promote an aggressive neocon foreign policy and rally the masses in support, shouldn't have some things taken place that haven't?
,

TIA.

RI,it is my opinion that those at the top, think in terms of decades.. to S L O W L Y advance their plans....
JD.