28th July 2011 23:44
Link to Post #1
The state of the 9/11 truth movement
With the 10 anniversary of 9/11 around the corner and with the expected ramp up of propaganda masquerading under the guise of honest and unbiased investigations, I thought I would put down where I stand regarding various aspects of 9/11.
First of all, the 9/11 truth movement has made some great progress in the first 5-7 years after 9/11. Unfortunately, for the last few years, the movement has slowly changed and it has become closed minded, stuck in a rut and is fast stagnating. The movement seems to be mostly concentrating their efforts on the fall of the 3 towers on 9/11. This is a foolish thing to do as they are putting all their eggs in one basket at the expense of other areas of investigation.
The so called 9/11 truth movement is quickly becoming the 9/11 Controlled Demolition movement.
But even within the area of how the towers collapsed any new evidence on this subject is met with apathy by many of the movement’s leaders. They are unwilling, or worse, too hostile to consider it.
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth whose organisation has over 1500 Architects and Engineers and is based around the idea that the towers fell because of a controlled demolition, has yet to address a recent new theory for the collapse.
The best and most scientific theory I have seen is called ROOSD which means "Runaway Open Office Space Destruction". Details HERE... http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=482:482
It's a difficult theory to fully explain with few words, but what it comes down to, is that the perimeter of the WTC buildings acted as a "funnel" containing a downward moving avalanche of rubble, which advanced faster inside the building than the perimeter failed on the outside. The perimeter "peeled off" in a banana like fashion after the crush front had passed. Thus, most of what happened was obscured from view.
The "puffs" that appear way ahead of the blast wave may not be explosions as Richard Gage and others claim but the result of debris/machinery falling through empty lift shafts ahead of the blast wave which displaces the air, forcing it out and giving the illusion of "puffs" ejecting from the building.
However, explosives were probably still used to initiate the demolition as the initiation has so far defied OBSERVABLE scientific explanation and it is highly unlikely the initiation was caused by the plane strikes or the ensuing fires unless terrorists had control of physics on 9/11.
Explosives need not be used all the way down the building sequentially as A&E for 9/11 truth suggest. Studying the OBSERVABLE data for this, it is revealed that the actions of the building collapse can be explained easily using this OBSERVABLE data without resorting to exotic theories.
THIS site is the best place to start when using OBSERVATIONAL data: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=384:384
ROOSD accounts for the symmetrical peeling of the building and the dustification of the building but does not account for the collapse initiation nor the core column destruction.
The problem with A&E for 9/11 Truth is that although they use logic to reach their conclusions, their conclusions are based on false data rather than OBSERVATIONS. This means that even though they have used a logical path to reach their conclusions, their conclusions may be wrong because their logic is a false logic being based on false arguments. They have ASSUMED that "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... then it is a duck."
Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition but is it really?
I think it is, but not in the way Gage describes.
I think Gage has not looked into ROOSD in any depth (its a fairly new theory) or is just not yet aware of it. I don't think Gage has ignored this on purpose but he really needs to address this new theory if he wants to remain relevant and keep up with the game. It would disappoint me if he did not do this as I consider him to be a brave man with a great deal of integrity.
ROOSD does not exclude an engineered kick off to the global destruction. Why the resistance by so many to the concept? ROOSD simply explains the part we CAN and DO see. It explains virtually all the observations of the towers coming down.
Gage needs to embrace and study ROOSD. He has the ear of the 9/11 movement. For a group like AE911T which represents 15,000 petition signers with 1,500 licensed professionals, its vital Gage is honest. If aspects of his ideas are wrong (as I think they are) he needs to admit this. There is no shame in this. He is just refining and revising his theory. Being wrong can be a great thing as it elevates one to a new level of understanding.
However, I beilve Gage IS correct about the collapse of World Trade Centre 7. He should be commended for this.
Much of the truth movement resists any attempts to remove the MASSIVE COMPLEX of a very high tech intervention which caused the total destruction of the towers. ROOSD is way too much like a natural phenomena (it is!) even though it does not rule out that the initiation is probably engineered.
Is the so called truth movement actually interested in the truth?
ROOSD is the best explanation regarding the collapse of the towers. Better than NIST. Better than Popular Mechanics. Better than any current “truth movement” theory.
The ROOSD idea and the A&E for 9/11 Truth theories need to be fused together. Then I think we will have the best explantion for the fall of the towers.
This brings me onto the related subject of the high tech explosive Nano-Thermite being found in paint chips from the dust. Steven Jones and Niles Harriet submitted their experiments and their results to be published in a specialist peer-reviewed journal.
Its getting on for 3 years now and nobody has scientifically debunked their findings. Instead debunkers attacked the journal itself claiming that it was a “vanity publication” and that anyone can publish papers for it. If its so easy to publish papers, then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?
Why have the most vocal debunkers not asked for Dust to test?
The bottom line is that the science still stands.
However, the results have yet to be reproduced or confirmed. There have been 3 other attempts to reproduce the original papers results. Two of the attempts did not even progress past the experimenters receiving the dust as their mail was tapered with and the dust had gone from the package.
The third attempt confirmed the chemical make up of the paint chips but they could not be ignited like the original paint chips. This could be because Nano-Thermite degrades over time. More experiments need to be done.
Interestingly, there was another request for experiments to be done on the dust. It transpired that the person wanting the dust (via a proxy) worked for NIST but was not forthcoming about it. He could have easily acquired his own samples from the NIST archive. Not only that, he also posed as an independent reporter at a NIST press conference and wasted time by asking pointless questions so other reports could not ask their own questions. Fascinating details of the detective work that went into uncovering all this can be found HERE: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-3...tc-dust?page=1
I think Nano-Thermite probably was present because not only do we have the peer-reviewed paper and explosive paint samples, we also have evidence of its destructive force that was left behind after the collapse.
FEMA reported a one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness and its edges, which were curled like a paper scroll, had been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes, some larger than a silver dollar, let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. Nano-Thermite would explain this. It would also explain the presence of molten steel found in the towers which was widely reported. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
Nano-Thermite would also explain the Iron Rich Micro-spheres found by the USGC. Only temperatures reached by an explosive like Nano-Thermite could explain these spheres and the molten steel. Not even fires powered by aircraft fuel gets anywhere near hot enough to cause this effect. It would also explain how the cores collapsed straight through themselves:
It would also explain the molten steel pouring from the building before its collapse that Gage and others highlight that may have something to do with the collapse initiation.
I don't want to go any deeper into the technical aspects of the collapses as the main thrust of this was to point out how I feel about the movement as a whole. What I will say is that if one does wish to concentrate on the buildings of 911, WTC7 is the smoking gun.
I wrote earlier that the 9/11 truth movement is NOT the controlled demolition movement.
There are hundreds of other problems with the official story. Here are 50 of them. None are to do with the buildings.
These all need to be followed up but unfortunately, the majority of the truth movement is letting itself down by ignoring these questions.
Nanothermite, natural collpase of the twin towers, misdirection at the highest levels and hijackers can coexist. Not only logically, but that is what the evidence demands. It's about what you see in the evidence, both in CD research and in "hijackers and the FBI/CIA" research.
I reject the rejection of one in favor of the other, because of the stubborn misconception that they are mutually exclusive. In order for this movement to make progress, this realization ought to find its way into the collective activist consciousness.
Its time to evolve as the great Bill Hicks once said.
With regards to the propaganda that is no doubt on the way, I would recommend reading this list below that points out the difference between a psudoskeptic and a true skeptics.
Characteristics of a Pseudoskeptic:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
Characteristics of a True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics:
A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Finally, I will say that if the 9/11 Commission themselves do not believe the official story, why do you?
Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 22nd November 2011 at 18:35.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to EYES WIDE OPEN For This Post:
Annacarl (29th July 2011), Darla Ken Jensen Pearce (28th July 2011), EnergyGardener (21st February 2012), gooty64 (29th February 2012), Marsila (29th July 2011), Omniverse (29th July 2011), Steven (29th July 2011), whenyournex2me (22nd February 2012)
29th July 2011 00:13
Link to Post #2