RoR: Forum

For those who haven't seen this video:

"A New Standard for Deception" by Kevin Ryan

"Ryan explains details of the investigation by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) not acknowledged by the Institute, such as its failure to experimentally verify the floor pancake theory, forcing it to invent a new theory about the Towers' collapse. Ryan notes commonalities in the WTC investigations by NIST and FEMA, and the investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City Building, such as a high degree of overlap in the leaders of the respective investigations."

"Having been promoted to the top manager of Underwriter's Laboratories water testing division, Ryan was dismissed on November of 2004 after an e-mail from him to Dr Frank Gayle of NIST questioning the collapse of the twin towers became public."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

Post 61

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 11:07am

To the reasonable people on the board:

Stop arguing with the pigs like Baker, Humphrey et. al. They demonstrate a sycophantic hatred for all things government, and if I had my way about it, their rank and thorough dishonesty, their troll-like evasion and their lack of civility would've had them thrown off of this prestigious site long ago. Our unwillingness to throw trolls from our property only reflects poorly on us; we now have three old righty kook-loons who are willing to believe anything and everything about the government, including a massive conspiracy that would've involved the collusion of thousands.

Where did the Flight 91 people go, then, kookaloons?

Don't wrestle with Rockwellian pigs; you'll get dirty and they like it.

Post 62

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 5:21pm

After consuming too much time on the web, I wasn't able to learn much that was specific about the peer review of Steven Jones' paper, to which I provided a link in my first post. Steven Jones' apparently has said his paper has been peer reviewed three times, most recently when published in "The Journal of 911 Truth". I have read that in one peer review, two of the reviewers were physicists; in another review, one was a physicist and another an engineer (structural?). Other critics say that the third review was stacked in Jones' favor, since he was said to have selected the peers. So I don;t know how reliable or unreliable aspects of Jones' research are. In his defense, the fact that he was apparently pressured to leave BYU should not be surprising, given intense controversy and the need for BYU to go with (whatever happens to be) the flow to maintain its standing as a tax payer subsidized university. Of course, the fact that Jones' became officially unpopular at BYU after publishing his paper neither confirms nor refutes his contentions.

I still think the towers were probably detonated with some kinds of explosives.

Post 63

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 6:01pm

I still think the towers were probably detonated with some kinds of explosives

Well, then I still think you're a troll and a nut.

Seriously, you're so hellbent on believing some vast government conspiracy that you admit your own source can't be found to be credible and you still think the above.

You're so damn set on your conclusion that you believe something so fantastic despite the evidence. That makes you an evil troll, and the only comfort I can take is that I can now officially discount everything you say. You throw science and logic to the wind to make your insipid and filthy argument...tell me, why do you belong here?

Post 64

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 6:06pm

John, if you reread the quote from me that you highlighted, you should realize that I referred to "wrongful and unfair accusations" of (my alleged) lying by you. I didn't accuse you of lying. I don't think you're a liar.

I was obviously speculating in writing about worldviews and the clashes they inspire. That's why I concluded with my tossaway comment "But maybe not..."

I'm glad you've read some or all of the material in the links I provided. I read everything you posted. Some of it, such as the technical discussion of molten metals, I don't understand well. I spent time today on the website that hosts much of the material you posted. I'm going to spend more time there, to familiarize myself with information I might not otherwise be privy to. If I'm wrong about all this, I'd much rather be embarrassed and corrected, then smug and deluded.

But at this point, I think the offical explanation is hard to swallow.

However, you've made some good points. The security standdown might be routine. The sprinklers in WTC 7 wouldn't spray water if the mains had been damaged. There might be causes other than explosvies to account for molten metal--but I don't understand the alternatives.

Part of the reason for my skepticism about the official explanation is the power of political pull and "public opinion" in stifling dissent. For example, I think the pan cake theory is deficient, and the NIST 2005 report chose not to endorse it. Yet public officials act as though it were established fact, and so the public shrugs and believes it is established fact. We see this phenomenon in all fields of science where the state holds great sway--in global warming research, for example. That's the politics of pull at work.

The bigger part of my skepticism derives from contradictions plaguing the official story--including the chronolgy of events on 911 and the failure of military jets to intercept. But I like physical evidence, because--correctly understood--science can't lie. But I'm deficient in science.

Post 65

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 6:17pm

*Some of it, such as the technical discussion of molten metals, I don't understand well.

So you're qualified how again to dispute them?

*If I'm wrong about all this, I'd much rather be embarrassed and corrected, then smug and deluded.

In other words, I'd much rather sling about lies and backhandedly call those who understand what the hell they're talking about "smug and deluded"

*There might be causes other than explosvies [sic] to account for molten metal--but I don't understand the alternatives.

Again, then, if you don't understand the alternatives, how are you arguing about them?

*But I like physical evidence, because--correctly understood--science can't lie. But I'm deficient in science.

Deficient in logic and common sense as well, I reckon.

So...basically you're trying to hold on to your anti-government conspiracy dogma by claiming ignorance about the proof that you're wrong. What's worse than that gross evasion ("Ohh...that might be true, but uhhh, I don't understand any of it") is the fact you came on here slinging wild accusations under your gross ignorance. That's not just accidental, that's irresponsible thought, M. Humphrey. You don't get a pass by claiming "My sources can't be verified and I don't understand the science behind what's proving me wrong, so I am going to cling to my ill-founded theories". That's just despicable.

And yes, I will hound you on this; it's people like you who give honest miniarchists a bad name...maybe it's time you departed for Tin-Foil Hat Land where everybody cherry-picks their data and evades the truth on a regular basis.

Post 66

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 7:00pm

From the Principles of an Objectivist Forum:

But when someone shows up making wild assertions, and is unwilling to discuss them intelligently, then they provide no benefit to the forum. For those people committed to an opposing worldview and unwilling to learn, they provide value only to the extent that people can and want to use them as a debating foil or sounding board.

Do the 9-11 deniers and whackaloons see anyone they recognize? Anyone?

Post 67

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 9:40pm

My father worked on the 77th floor of the South Tower, and I visited him there.

Had he not already moved out of the building prior to the attacks, and not evacuated, he would have been killed by the second impact as I watched. As it is, my 30-year neighbor's brother most likely lept to his death from Windows on the World. Two people who lived in my apartment building and six employees of my company were killed. I witnessed well over 100 funeral processions pass through my neighborhood that year, for long stretches once or twice daily. The building in which I currently work was pierced by the falling antenna. I walk past the pit some 500 or more times a year. I did not report to work the morning of the attacks, I work the 10-6 shift. I awoke to see that the first plane had hit. It was being called an accident. I cursed the announcers, and yelled at the TV saying that it was an attack, only to watch the second plane hit. I also worked in the area at the time of the first bombing under Clinton, and by luck was not in the building that day myself. My cousin was at the Pentagon when it was struck. My friend Cheryl is freezing in the Afghan winter now, where she is serving a voluntary tour of duty. This is her third tour since 9-11, she was only required to serve the first. When she has not been overseas, she has been working with me in sight of the pit. I watch daily as tourists stop and smile and have their pictures taken before this still open grave.

My father is an engineer who has built nuclear power plants, worked on battleships, and built luxury hotels and other high rises around the world. Although he had expressed to me his suspicion that LBJ may have had something to do with JFK's death, (long before Stone and the History Channel popularized this - he lived and worked for some time in Dallas) he is a sober individual not given to gossip or other lunacies. As a devout Catholic he believes as he was taught by Jesuits that it is a sin to spread gossip and a sin to speak on matters where one has no expertise or reason, especially where the accused cannot prove a negative.

So-called Objectivists should learn from this student of Aquinas.

At the time of the attack, he told me that it had been a secret, but that I should watch the news because it would come out that government investigators had moved into the building at the time he had left. It had been an honor bound secret. His statement was confirmed within two weeks of the attack. My father knew the design of the Towers and their structural limits, and the impossibility of there having been any conspiracy to rig the buildings without it being known. I would stake the life of every person I know on this matter.

In response to a private email from John Armaos I conceded that my last response to him above was impolite and that I should not have brought up the North Korea thread which I had already dropped. I apologize to him for my curtness, he has been polite to me in disagreement in the past.

I find the arguments being made on this thread in favor of conspiracy theories not only preposterous and disgusting but also personally offensive.

Ted Keer, 25 November, 2006, USA

Post 68

Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 11:30am

Ted,

I most sincerely agree with your closing sentence.

I was in New York in September of 2002 at the WTC site, "the pit" as you aptly named it. I was stunned at the vastness of the huge hole in the ground where two of the most magnificent buildings ever made had been. I most certainly did not smile. I continue to feel a deep rage at the perpetrators of this act and their cheerleaders and apologists wherever they may be.

I do not consider them a serious threat to the march of human progress. The wanton destruction of the WTC was a pointless act by insanely jealous and impotent people at a cultural dead end. To hell with them all.

Post 69

Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 5:38pm

I understand the subject matter has been officially beaten to death by now, but just one false statement that Monart Pon quoted from David Ray Griffin (again, the professor of Religion who thinks he's a structural engineer) that I can't let go:

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.

I have heard this several times by the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists in this thread. While no steel frame high rises have collapsed from fire, (notice the high bar for historical analysis they establish, steel frame high rises from fire alone) steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire alone. First off, the stupidity in this statement should be easily recognizable as there never has been a steel building that suffered a 757 slamming into it at 500 mph which weakened the building's structure, and with regards to WTC 7, no steel building had fires raging on for several hours and a huge 20 story gapping hole in the side of it as a result of two 110 story buildings collapsing right next to it. This tragic day was simply a matter of firsts. But, it wasn't the first time a steel building collapsed from fire alone.

But here are examples of steel frame building that most definitely have collapsed from fire alone:

The McCormick Center in Chicago

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:r2HwzYMjrFwJ:www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf+sight+sound+theater+fire+steel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The Kader Toy Factory

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

You can find a list of partial collapses of steel frame buildings from fire at the bottom of this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

So if you ever hear conspiracy theorists tell you no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire alone, tell them it's a bald faced lie.

(Edited by John Armaos
on 11/26, 5:43pm)

Post 70

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 12:21pm

John is correct that we have no parallel case to go on here.

One of the architects of the WTC has cited the fact that New York had banned asbestos as a factor in the collapse as well. Asbestos was not used above the 64th floor.

Post 71

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 1:39pm

You can find a list of partial collapses of steel frame buildings from fire at the bottom of this page:

The key word here is partial. In the case of the McCormick Center, it was just the roof.

The main problem with this entire debate is that there are two sides who both hold their beliefs as some type of sacred cow.

One side wants (myself included) to use a theory as proof that the government has acted negligently and viciously. Of course, there is already enough proof for that anyway.

The other side doesn't want to believe that the government can do anything wrong or incompetently. More importantly, the other side advocates war, imperialism, and dictatorship (in some cases). For them, blaming it on al-Qaida is the basis for this war and imperialism.

In this sense, it does not matter who did it. Bad ideas are the principles of a corrupt empire and regime. Those ideas need to be replaced.

Post 72

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 2:10pm

The other side doesn't want to believe that the government can do anything wrong or incompetently. More importantly, the other side advocates war, imperialism, and dictatorship (in some cases). For them, blaming it on al-Qaida is the basis for this war and imperialism.

The implication here is that anyone who denies there was a conspiracy by the government to bring down the WTC must also be in favor of dictatorial powers for the President, a war in Iraq, or a refusal the government can act incompetently. Yet this is a total non-sequiter. Consider that no civil or structural engineering journal gives any credence to the idea controlled demolitions were used to bring down the WTC, so somehow according to Chris Baker's logic, all of the thousands and thousands of engineers and technicians that have combed through the data are people simply in favor of war, imperialism, and dictatorship, and not necessarily because they are engineers, and they ought to know what they're talking about.

I'm glad you point out the asbestos issue. This is a clear example of government's incompetence. By banning asbestos, we have doomed many future victims to fire needlessly when their lives could've been saved from the best known fire retardant out there. But we can't put the blame squarely on government for banning asbestos, the powerful lobbies such as Environmental interest groups that get millions of dollars from American donations, the juries that award mult-million dollar lawsuits on unproven assertions asbestos leads to any significant increase in the risk of getting cancer, would have to lead you to blame ordinary Americans as well for allowing this to happen.

Post 73

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 7:47pm

The Pearl Harbor deception may be irrelevant ancient history for some, but among other US "false-flags" pretexts for war that were planned or executed, here is an actual declassified document revealing the US Government's plan in 1962 (which was reportedly rejected by Kennedy) to create a pretext for invading Cuba:

"a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage."

Be sure to click on the link to the PDF's of the "Northwoods" document.

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/news/20010430/

Post 74

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 2:21pm

Who is the enemy?

----------

17 February 2006

"The Enemy"

They called it "Cyber Storm," and it was a war-game exercise run last week by the Department of Homeland Security. The war game had nothing to do with testing the security of our shipping ports, borders, infrastructure or airports. "Cyber Storm" was testing the government's ability to withstand an onslaught of information and protest from bloggers and online activists.

"Participants confirmed," wrote the Associated Press, that "parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events."

Say what? Online expressions of political opinion are so dangerous that the Department of Homeland Security must war-game scenarios to deal with them? Bloggers are potential terrorists now? Bloggers are the enemy? Last week, as far as DHS was concerned, they were.

We hear a great deal about enemies these days. Don't criticize the war, or you'll embolden the enemy. The enemy is clever and cruel. Stick with the White House and we'll defeat the enemy. Since the Bush administration no longer likes to mention the name Osama bin "Stayin' Alive" Laden in public, lest everyone remember a dramatic promise long broken, any specific definition of an enemy changes with the moment.

[..]

We hear a great deal about enemies, both real and contrived. Let us ponder, for a moment, the existence of another enemy so insidious that it operates fully in daylight but beyond control. This enemy seeks to destroy the rule of constitutional law in the United States. This enemy seeks to destroy the seed-corn defense against tyranny in this nation, the separation of powers. This enemy gathers more and more power to itself to achieve these goals, and uses fear and division to do so. This enemy will lie with impunity, stonewall endlessly and ruin anyone who might disrupt its plans.

[...]

We hear a great deal about enemies these days, and many of them are quite real and quite perilous. It is difficult to imagine a more perilous enemy, however, than the one operating out of Washington today. This enemy would set itself on high, beyond control or censure, and create of itself that permanent faction James Madison so earnestly warned us of. This enemy deletes or hides evidence of its calumny, or simply alters existing laws that would otherwise derail its plans. This enemy destroys lives out of hand, lives by the tens of thousands, and reaps a pretty profit in the process.

The difference between the enemies we hear about and the one in Washington is simple and deadly: only the enemy in Washington can annihilate the constitutional government we have enjoyed for more than two centuries. The idea that is America cannot be terminated by terrorists or rogue states. Were the nation entire to be somehow obliterated, the idea that is America would endure. Only its keepers can kill it completely. They are well on their way.

"As nightfall does not come at once," wrote Justice William O. Douglas, "neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness."

We must deal with the enemy within the halls of our government, the enemy whose power to destroy far outstrips any enemy beyond our borders. In doing so, we save that which is unique in the world. In doing so, we deal a death blow to all other enemies. In doing so, we save ourselves from that darkness.

---------

Full article by William Pitt at Truthout.com:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021706A.shtml

Post 75

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 9:56pm

Get bent, Pon; you quoted a website that always features Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd and has Cindy Sheehan as a guest columnist...it's rank anti-American leftism, and you should be ashamed for intellectual dishonesty. It's about as credible as a "young earth/creationism" site or Neo-Nazis "news" programs.

Shame.

Post 76

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 8:51pm

Response to post #75

What bearing on the judgment of truth or falsity has the location of where the article is posted. What if that article was posted on ARI. What if the following was posted on Truthout.com?

------
"A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another's expense by an act of government—i.e., by force."
[...]
"one basic interest held in common by all the players: the desire to have a strong government—a government of unlimited power, strong enough to let the winners and would-be winners get away with whatever they're seeking; a government uncommitted to any policy, unrestrained by any ideology, a government that hoards an ever-growing power, power for power's sake—which means: for the sake and use of any "major" gang who might seize it momentarily to ram their particular piece of legislation down the country's throat."
[...]
Cynicism, uncertainty, and fear are the insignia of the culture which they are still dominating by default. And the only thing that has not rusted in their ideological equipment, but has grown savagely brighter and dearer through the years, is their lust for power—-for an autocratic, statist, totalitarian government power."
--------

I'll leave you to determine where this was originally published, who wrote it, and its truth or falsity. Don't bother with your ineffective and worthless intimidation.

Post 77

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 7:38am

It makes a difference because it does matter who tells you something. If someone lies to you every day you are a lot less likely to believe it than say your mother, who has never lied to you, no?

Also, it is clearly pure, unadulterated fear-mongering demagoguery, there is no objective truth to be gleaned from statements like this. Come on! It is ideas like this that make Objectivists and Libertarians look like the lunatik fringe. If you side with people like this, I have no respect for you.

Post 78

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 8:03am

Some recently declassified papers indicate that the Gulf of Tonkin report was full of misinformation. Of course, this was used to escalate Vietnam.

South Park slammed the 9-11 investigators last night, by the way. The "Hardly Boys" uncovered the mystery. When South Park slams you, it means you have arrived.

Post 79

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:24pm