Wednesday, November 24, 2010

9/11 Special Pleading

Well done. This serves as a very representative example, of which would be proud Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission and author of their report.


While at Harvard Phillip Zelikow actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/rape-story-phillip-d-zelikow-911-myth-maker/


Monday, November 22, 2010

Banned from 9/11 Blogger

Anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement who has mustered their anonymous alias’s courage — fortified by superhero underwear, Toy Story pajamas, Cheetos, and beer in their mother’s basement — to step up onto their cyber soap boxes to enlighten their online world to the conspiracy truth has experienced not only the direct ridicule regarding these very aforementioned (real or imagined) issues but also the indirect after-the-fact embarrassment from having been led around by their noses and been mistaken on an issue or two.

“Pods on planes” comes to mind for me. A clever limited hangout I was once enamoured with. Today, I don’t think that. I think “planes on pods”, or rather, pixels representing planes covering over small military planes or cruise missiles on the video footage. Another good one is space based weapons & DEW. I don’t discount their existence, only their operational deployment on 9/11.

A propaganda trick I’m observing relates to spearheading the exploration into a theory, establish the legend base on a pile of substantiated truth, becoming the go-to expert, and then doing something that undermines credibility that serves to take both the theory and the underlying truths/evidence out of play in a guilt by association ploy. When all else fails, poor online behavior on either side of the debate can help it implode.

The taboo subjects are a knee-jerk reaction not just to the topics deemed collectively crazy upon some review. No, it is also kickback to the religious (or football) fanaticism to the subject, much of which was less than sincere, because its purpose wasn’t to shed light or enlighten or to demonstrate an open-mind that could be convinced it was wrong. Its purpose was to co-opt and divide the movement.

So having gone through those wringers, those who administer sites like 9/11 blogger are jaded. Imagine the “go-to” website on 9/11 infiltrated with a team of close-minded, misinformed, and often purposely obtuse (even in cases paid-to-post) fanatics. I’ve been there, done that. The first round is fun, but when you get dragged through the 2nd or n-th round covering the exact same dubious arguments, it gets old. Disinformation warriors never tire of such circles; it is their job, and they’ll gladly re-use entries from their database.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Fell Into Its Own Footprint

You point out 9 valid items that were anomalous in the demolition of one of the WTC towers. And then you come up with the following conclusion:

“Can all of this rule out explosives? I would say so. … I am utterly satisfied that the rest of the collapse is pure physics and requires no further help.”

Your comments about the tilted section falling back demonstrates an error in your understanding of about Newtonian physics. One of Newton’s laws says that once an object is in motion, it will stay in motion until some outside force acts upon it. Those upper floors tilting due to asymmetric failing support underneath and gaining angular momentum is believable. According to Newton’s laws, they should have continued to tip over and as a multi-story mass fallen outside the path of greatest resistance and creamed neighboring buildings.

You imply that the top section stops its angular momentum and falls back into line to continue the destruction through the path of greatest resistance. Where did the energy come from to stop that momentum and achieve this?

You talk about “immense pressure behind [the outer shell bursting outwards]“, yet can’t seem to rectify that if strictly Newtonian physics were at play, the energy needed for this observation combined with the energy used to arrest the angular momentum means that the collapse could not proceed at near gravitational acceleration.

Moreover, it is known that the structure at any arbitrary height h will be stronger than the structure at any height greater than h. For the sake of discussion, if height h had n floors above it and given more Newton laws about equal and opposite forces, those top n floors could destroy themselves into n floors below height h. Not only should the collapse have stopped at 2n floors (if not before), but also the destruction of each floor should have slow the collapse of 2n floors as something that even lay-people, the 9/11 Commission, or NIST could not use the phrase “at free-fall speed” to describe.

Additionally, when energy is consumed in pulverizing the mass of 2n floors and those crumbles of mass fall (or are ejected) outside the tower’s structure, that mass is no longer available to be used as a cohesive unit to destroy even more of the remaining tower.

All bets are off if additional energy sources are added.