Collapse of WTC 7: NIST's Final Report Unscientific & Fa

[Byrne]

The distinction between "CDers" and "Non-CDers" has long since become arbitrary, artificial and deeply counter-productive.

Similarly, between "Planers" & No-Planers".

I mean, the shear effrontery of such suggestions begets the lack of discussion.... even here.

[Jeff]

Here is an interesting fact - a search of the 911mths.com wiki for

Indira Singh
Sibel Edmonds

produced zero entries.

Wally Hilliard? Wolfgang Bohringer? Let me guess.

I think I'll leave demolition to be debated by the young, for whom another 10 years is no big thing.

[MacCruiskeen]

Here is an interesting fact - a search of the 911mths.com wiki for

Indira Singh
Sibel Edmonds

produced zero entries.

Wally Hilliard? Wolfgang Bohringer? Let me guess.

I think I'll leave demolition to be debated by the young, for whom another 10 years is no big thing.

1. Did you actually read Griffin's article, Jeff? He doesn't "debate demolition". He documents deceit.

2. In the last eight years, how far have those names (Indira Singh, Sibel Edmonds, Wally Hilliard and Wolfgang Bohringer) actually brought us? How far do you think they will have brought us in another 10 years?

3. No one is preventing anyone, least of all you, from publicising those names (or others) and investigating whatever they want to investigate for as long as they want to investigate it.

4. But I'd say it's worth at least considering the possibility that such investigations are likely to be much less productive -- because so easily frustrated by crooks in power (see Hopsicker, for instance) -- than the careful analysis of already-published, freely-accessible government and government-media documents such as the NIST report and the BBC's "Conspiracy Files".

Good luck to Hopsicker or to anyone who can a) find Wolfgang Bohringer (or Wally Hilliard); b) interview him; c) get him to make statements on the record; d) demonstrate that those statements are true; e) institute a court case against the powers-that-be on the basis of those statements; f) keep him alive long enough for him to attend the trial.

Seriously: good luck. I'd love to see it happen, even if it takes ten years or more.

In the meantime, David Ray Griffin's article is valuable because it does precisely what Ruppert recommended so strongly in Crossing the Rubicon years ago: closely examining unretractable "official" statements and then patiently demonstrating that they are untenable and often mendacious. And he doesn't have to be a jet-setting Miss Marple to do it.

The burden of proof is and always has been on the US government, and Griffin demonstrates that they (yet again) have dismally failed to discharge it. That strikes me as a more than worthwhile achievement, and I don't understand your show of weary contempt for it. He's essentially doing the very same thing you did in your own Coincidence Theorists' Guide.

[Searcher08]

Here is an interesting fact - a search of the 911mths.com wiki for

Indira Singh
Sibel Edmonds

produced zero entries.

Wally Hilliard? Wolfgang Bohringer? Let me guess.
...

You are a regular Nostradamus, aint cha ?
Zero entries

[MacCruiskeen]

Here is an interesting fact - a search of the 911mths.com wiki for

Indira Singh
Sibel Edmonds

produced zero entries.

Wally Hilliard? Wolfgang Bohringer? Let me guess.
...

You are a regular Nostradamus, aint cha ?
Zero entries

Barry Jennings? Michael Hess? Mike Rudin?

David Chandler??

(I'm guessing: zero entries.)

On Edit: It turns out I'm Nostradamus too:

There is no page titled "Mike Rudin".

There is no page titled "Barry Jennings".

There is no page titled "Michael Hess".

There is no page titled "David Chandler".

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title ... Hess&ns0=1

Surprise, surprise. It seems they also pick-and-choose which "CD stuff" they're going to "debunk". Who woulda thunk it?

[Searcher08]

1. Did you actually read Griffin's article, Jeff? He doesn't "debate demolition". He documents deceit.

I agree. I was surprised that there was as much media analysis as fact finding. It is well worth reading.

2. In the last eight years, how far have those names (Indira Singh, Sibel Edmonds, Wally Hilliard and Wolfgang Bohringer) actually brought us? How far do you think they will have brought us in another 10 years?

Well, Indira's research partner Michael Corbin was almost certainly offed. She says she is probably still alive because she has very clear documented proof of a deep criminal connection between 9/11 and Enron.

Sibel Edmonds has given an explosive video deposition - which the mainstream media has utterly buried.

As for Bohringer, I believe he is back at Fanning Island, building a runway, but if you have anything to ask him, try him via Facebook, similarly with Ousamma Ziade, former CEO of ptech.

I know enough about the rate of change of society at present to say that any of us who predicts ten years ahead based on historical results will almost certainly be wrong

3. No one is preventing anyone, least of all you, from publicising those names (or others) and investigating whatever they want to investigate for as long as they want to investigate it.

This isnt true though. Deep state / drug / financial investigators have been slammed, ignored, accused of being source of disinformation etc etc. This is slowly changing, but there hasnt been an attitude of peaceful co-existence from the (vastly more numerous) CD-ers. BTW I suggested looking into thermobarics and fuel-air technology as far back as 2003 on the original LC forum but was buried by people who said 'but watch the videos, its a CD!!!' I watched dozens of CD videos and WTC 1 and 2 just dont look like one. WTC 7 does. It is vital not to replace one set of orthodoxy (Cheney dynamited the Towers!) with another (It's the Nanothermite way or the highway)

4. But I'd say it's worth at least considering the possibility that such investigations are likely to be much less productive -- because so easily frustrated by crooks in power (see Hopsicker, for instance) -- than the careful analysis of already-published, freely-accessible government and government-media documents such as the NIST report and the BBC's "Conspiracy Files".

Your focus is on physical evidence (more on the the What and When) and pointing out lies. My focus is on connections (more on the Who and Why)

The current social climate shows that people are much less trusting of authority - as a result, the BBC is seen by most people very differently from how it was ten years ago, it is trusted much less. It is the post David Kelly BBC.

It is worth considering that you may be winning an argument against people and organisations that the general public are caring about less and less.

Good luck to Hopsicker or to anyone who can a) find Wolfgang Bohringer (or Wally Hilliard); b) interview him; c) get him to make statements on the record; d) demonstrate that those statements are true; e) institute a court case against the powers-that-be on the basis of those statements; f) keep him alive long enough for him to attend the trial.

Seriously: good luck. I'd love to see it happen, even if it takes ten years or more.

I think from what she says, Indira Singh has the information needed to crack 9/11, however is using it as life insurance. I think that the line of "follow the threats / violence / bodies" is the most useful meta-principal in 9/11 investigation.
Investigating WTC 7 fits in that category too and I encourage and applaud and support all efforts in that direction.

In the meantime, David Ray Griffin's article is valuable because it does precisely what Ruppert recommended so strongly in Crossing the Rubicon years ago: closely examining unretractable "official" statements and then patiently demonstrating that they are untenable and often mendacious. And he doesn't have to be a jet-setting Miss Marple to do it.

The burden of proof is and always has been on the US government, and Griffin demonstrates that they (yet again) have dismally failed to discharge it. That strikes me as a more than worthwhile achievement, and I don't understand your show of weary contempt for it. He's essentially doing the very same thing you did in your own Coincidence Theorists' Guide.

I thought DRG's book with Peter Dale Scott was very important. I think there is a huge education / meme war in the West's collective unconscious over basic ideas such as 'our Government would not lie to us about such an important thing as this' and 'transnational drug cartels are now in charge' .

We are finding out more and more about how the realities of power work in the world, maybe we should be grateful we have come this far - it is a very hard road to walk.

"These are they who are conscious of the much falsehood in the world; they grow in the house of Truth, they are the strong and invincible sons of Infinity"

Rig Veda

[MacCruiskeen]

Good post, Sounder. There's just one thing I'd really take issue with:

Your focus is on physical evidence (more on the the What and When) and pointing out lies. My focus is on connections (more on the Who and Why)

Just to clarify: my own focus has never been on the physical evidence. My only actual involvement in any real-world 9/11 event was helping to prepare and organise a conference back in 2003, where (I think) 16 speakers from four different countries addressed a plethora of "unanswered questions" - not one of which had anything to do with "controlled demolition", collapsing buildings, or any aspect of the "physical evidence".

It simply wasn't a topic in those days; or if it was, it was marginal, and I certainly argued against paying much attention to it, not least because Michael Ruppert had already convincingly predicted where it would be likely to end, i.e. nowhere. (Incidentally, this didn't prevent the German corporate media from coming down on that conference like Der Stürmer, or from placing Mathias Bröckers and Michael Ruppert in the company of Holocaust deniers, or from pouring vicious scorn on the whole enterprise. Even the soundest and safest arguments are still only a very weak defense against unscrupulous powerworshippers and careerists.)

Still, things are the way they are and not the way we might want them to be. And the plain fact is that, in the last six years, some very good and serious work has been done on the "physical evidence", especially as regards the most embarrassing anomaly of all, WTC7. And I don't see any sense in ignoring that work, or in pretending that the fruitful efforts of (say) Chandler, Gage and Griffin are as worthless as loose talk of holograms.

It's precisely because "the physical evidence" has never been my own focus that I feel increasingly compelled to defend people who do choose to focus on it, and who manage to do so seriously, honestly and convincingly. Because, as I said: ultimately, the distinction between "CDers" and "Non-CDers" is arbitrary, artificial, and counterproductive.

The whole "official account" is riddled with demonstrable lies; every aspect of it, large or small, technical or non-technical. And no one can address any aspect of 9/11 without getting into areas in which he or she is not a specialist: law, military procedure, secret intelligence, journalism, whatever. The technocrats and bureaucrats who run Britain, Germany and the USA would be happy to see all of us frightened into submission, too cowed to contradict or even question any designated expert, whether that expert be Jason Burke, John Ashcroft, Mike Rudin, Thomas Kean or Shyman Sunder. (The list is almost infinitely extendable, because there's no shortage of unscrupulous powerworshippers and careerists in any field.)

[RocketMan]

This is a very interesting discussion about a semi-verboten (certainly frowned-upon) subject on this board. I was primarily interested in the physical aspects of 9/11 in the beginning, too... Even though Mike Ruppert's riff about Cheney and the weirdly absent air defences probably was my very first dose of the old 9/11 skepticism.

I was first taken aback by RigInt's (and Jeff's) almost violent rejection of all discussions of the physical aspects of the catastrophe, but then I eased into it and all but renounced my earlier heresies. Which was mostly good, as I hauled my Tarpley and Hufschmid books discreetly to the attic.

But now I'm finding the balance. I think it's a bit counterproductive to actively dismiss the research into physics as well as the hundreds of engineers, architects and physicists who are not comfortable with the official exlanation for the "collapses" of the buildings. The fact that the kookiest fringe most passionately clings to this aspect in fact demands that it be the most rigorously argued, I'd say.

As for the "let it go" sentiments, let's just say I don't agree and we all need to find our inner Bill Hicks sometimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

[Jeff]

A couple of comments and then I hope to butt out of here again.

This is a very interesting discussion about a semi-verboten (certainly frowned-upon) subject on this board.

It is interesting, thanks in large part to it being civil, and I appreciate everyone's help with that. But no, I wouldn't characterize the subject in those terms. It is contentious here, which is probably atypical of a board such as this, but I'm fairly certain it remains the majority opinion.

I was first taken aback by RigInt's (and Jeff's) almost violent rejection of all discussions of the physical aspects of the catastrophe

No problem with discussion. My problem is with the lack of discussion: that a hypothesis of assisted collapse has become, for too many, a certainty, and the beginning and end of 9/11 truth. And since 2004 it's been starving every other issue of oxygen, including those I believe to be more promising of an answer to the whodunnit.

[RocketMan]

Fair enough, I tend to favour a bit hyperbolic expression. "Violent rejection" may have been a smidge on the Joan Crawford side of things.

The entire subject of 9/11 is so chock full of cognitive dissonance that it's pretty inevitable that one simply becomes over-sensitive to some aspects of it.

a hypothesis of assisted collapse has become, for too many, a certainty, and the beginning and end of 9/11 truth. And since 2004 it's been starving every other issue of oxygen, including those I believe to be more promising of an answer to the whodunnit

Again, fair enough, but would you really like to have Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley trampling all over the finer points of P-tech, the narco-economic-political complex and the interpenetration of various intelligence agencies, thus poisoning that well, too? Come now, be honest.

And besides, I say there's room for serious, good-faith research into all subjects.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
My problem is with the lack of discussion: that a hypothesis of assisted collapse has become, for too many, a certainty, and the beginning and end of 9/11 truth. And since 2004 it's been starving every other issue of oxygen, including those I believe to be more promising of an answer to the whodunnit.

My emphasis added.

There's so much that's wrong with those two sentences, I just had to spotlight them.

Certainty follows stunning levels of evidence exposing a faked second Pearl Harbor that didn't even need enemy pilots dropping bombs.

Certainty confirms and continues to expose the history of psyops-fueled economic war going non-stop since WWI.

[orz]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/articl ... Reveal.php

[Searcher08]

Actually, Hugh there is nothing wrong with those two sentences. It happens to be Jeff's point of view.

Your incredibly arrogant style of dissing it isnt going to change that perception, I would suggest.

[MacCruiskeen]

It has to be said that there is a real danger, among the intellectual class, of making a fetish of uncertainty.

That's not a personal attack on Jeff but a note about the Zeitgeist.

[Searcher08]

It has to be said that there is a real danger, among the intellectual class, of making a fetish of uncertainty.

That's not a personal attack on Jeff but a note about the Zeitgeist.

Very true, and uncertainty can be used to avoid action. The flip side is also true.

There is a navigation to be steered between the 'rock' of action-reducing uncertainty and 'hard place' of an action-oriented "I am right, those of a different perception must be corrected"

I wanted to mention in passing, I had not read Jim Hoffmann's piece before. I thought it was really excellent and used a type of thinking (scenario building) that has been very (sadly) absent from 9/11 discourse. scenarios like this can be turned into stories - and stories are actually what change perception, not logic.