Sunday_Live Radio Broadcast_Univ. Colo. Boulder Debate: 9/11 WTC Destruction
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE or to the archive after the broadcast.
Live Radio Broadcast_Univ. Colo. Boulder Debate:
9/11 WTC Destruction - Richard Gage AIA Vs. Chris Mohr
Collapse by Fire or Controlled Demolition?
BOULDER—The intense and controversial debate is set between the proponents of the “natural collapse” theory and the “controlled demolition” theory. Internationally acclaimed 9/11 speaker and architect Richard Gage, AIA, will present the evidence of the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11. The event will be held in Boulder at the University of Colorado on Sunday, March 6 at 5:00 p.m. Gage will be representing more than 1,400 architects and engineers who question the official story of the collapse of these buildings on 9/11/2001 and are calling for a new independent investigation into the catastrophic events. Chris Mohr, an independent journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, will present evidence supporting the official account of collapse by fire.
Gage, a 23-year architect, is a member of the American Institute for Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The organization cites evidence that the official FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) reports provide incomplete and contradictory accounts of the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third skyscraper, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in pure free-fall acceleration for at least 100 feet according to the official government engineering investigation (NIST), and in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition. The implications are startling. The group bases its conclusions solely on forensic evidence and does not speculate as to who may have planted the explosives. See their website here.
This is a No Lies Radio News Live Broadcast from Boulder, Colorado.
- noliesradio's blog
- Login to post comments
This Debate is now Archived at No Lies Radio
This debate was broadcast live by No Lies Radio and is now archived on the No Lies Radio website at the following link.
http://noliesradio.org/archives/30994
Debates Perhaps Not A Best Use Of Activist Time At This Stage
Although it is tempting to be lured too deeply into participating in debates with adversaries about what happened on 9/11, one should realize that the best chance for beginning wider investigations into 9/11 rests with the NYCCAN effort to compel New York City's City Council to begin their own investigation, which could lead to larger investigations.
Debates at this stage may not be the best use of an activist's time. Getting "in the face" of NYC government and staying in their face is the best option for producing positive results. Let's stop being polite and patient with these officials. They have a duty to investigate the evidence of foul play that appears to have caused nearly 3,000 murders.
They have been informed about the evidence and have not acted. We must make them act!
Phone, fax, e-mail and - for people local to NYC - pay a personal visit to the City Council and District Attorney's offices and demand that they explain why they have not acted.
It's up!
I spent six hours just trying to get internet access in the building!
Please listen and let us know what you think.
The truth shall set us free.
Love is the only way forward.
Mr. Gage's Opponent's Misleading Statements
Mr. Gage's opponent suggested early on that people did not report the activity that would be associated with preparation for building demolition. However, this does not eliminate the possibility that known renovations occurring within the WTC towers upon the steel columns were used as an opportunity to covertly tamper with these structures.
The observed pre-collapse bowing may very well be associated with the pre-collapse ignition of an extreme incendiary like nano-thermite used to quickly overheat the supportive columns within the towers to the point of failure. After all, the observation of molten matarial suggests some possibly present nano-thermite was not tuned to be explosive.
And contrary to Mr. Gage's opponent's assertion, nano-thermitic explosives reportedly can survive the enormous concussive force associated with an aircraft impact without igniting or detonating.
Here's a good topic for
Here's a good topic for debate... should there be real justice for what happened on 9/11, and have we been denied that? Yes. I win.
"A really big dot"
I agree with Ray, the evidence for controlled demolition in NYC on 9/1101 is a "really big dot," and we need a new investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Excerpt from Ray McGovern's opening remarks at the 2007 Boston Tea Party Conference entitled, "The Destruction of World Trade Center Towers One, Two and Seven: A Case for Controlled Demolition."
Ray...
May be a hero of mine, but that doesn't mean I automatically have to agree with everything he says. Over the years, he has made a few "predictions" about military action that never panned out. No one is perfect. But I still respect him tremendously. My point still stands that the debate for 9/11 Justice shouldn't be as complicated as the one that took place last night, nor should it be portrayed as the sole reason for it.
common ground
I sorta agree with you. Last night''s debate was a bit of a clusterfuck. The only useful purpose for these "debates" is for Gage to get practice honing his arguments and as entertainment for us. I also agree with Aidan that debates, if they are gonna take place at all, need to be between professional peers so that they an hold each other to account within their professions. There was no inherent accountability last night except for a gentleman's agreement, and the option to "opt out" at key moments because of a lack of professional expertise still remained.
It seems where you and Ray really disagree is on the notion that 911 Justice is extremely complicated. which I tend to agree, and I think the obvious lack of justice shows that to be demonstrably true. Even Lori Van Auken describes how complex 911 justice is in her comments from "In Their Own Words," when she talks about the extremely convoluted nature of the govt's story. Ray's point is that because 9/11 is such a complex issue, we need to "delimit" or isolate major components and investigate them separately and professionally. And IMHO the evidence of CD is extremely important and deserves special attention.
What a lot of us would prefer is for you to interject constructive opinions of ways to make the investigation into CD more effective, rather than comment on the relative importance of CD over other aspects of 9/11 problems, which are, after all, relative.
All Richard needs to do
Is to debate Ryan Mackey.
Then he's got a real challenge. Our opponents, at least those who are worthy, reside at JREF. This is about familiarity with the extremely broad and specialized subject matter surrounding 9/11, the three towers and the scientific reports.
Mind you, the overwhelming majority of JREFers are merely there to shout people down and bask in their own little tub of self-styled "skepticism", which is little more than a smokescreen for the biggest and most embarrassing echo chamber of nitwit conformist imitators.
Plus, I can tell you, there are people there who were actual pilots on 9/11 who either personally failed to intercept hijacked planes or whose unit/squadron/department/whatever failed to do so... they are completely wrecked with feelings of guilt and failure as well as hatred for the 9/11 Truth Movement. Some serve in the military, others in intelligence... hard to tell who is deliberately trying to muddy the waters or who is one of those redneck patriot zealots with a constricted bloodflow to the brain. ("Support the troops or go live in North Korea")
JREF, Ryan Mackey et al...
Tony Szamboti already debated Ryan Mackey on Ron Wieck's show Hardfire. Ryan never had a good answer as to why there was no jolt or measurable deceleration when the upper block supposedly crashed into the lower block. This piece of empirical data falsifies the crush-down crush-up hypothesis of Zdenek Bazant. NIST never went beyond the point of collapse initiation because once it started they deemed it to be inevitable based on Bazant's theory. Since this theory has no empirical evidence there is no reason to debate a JREFer until they can provide some. Why is there no one similar to Jon Cole among the debunker crowd? JREFer's traffic solely in ad hominem attacks, lame appeals to government propaganda, and intellectually dishonest debate.
To say that those at JREF are worthy, is like saying Croatia was a worthy competitor to the 1992 Dream Team. I believe it is more important to focus on the falsity of the official account and the unsubstantiated claims made by the NIST reports.
p.s. I have debated Ryan Mackey at JREF. Ryan Mackey's version of the crush-down crush-up: "After a few floors collapse, the upper block is riding on a cushion of debris, and relatively smooth behavior is guaranteed...It will quickly become larger than the upper block, and it is responsible for most of the crushing."
tanabear: "Your theory is based on the idea that there is an upper block and a lower block separated by a cushion of debris, and after a couple of floors, this cushion of debris is responsible for most of the crushing. The upper block is riding this cushion of debris down as the building is being destroyed. You stated that as the tower is being destroyed, this cushion of debris is getting larger. So point to the upper block and tell me where this cushion of debris is located. Or state the size of this cushion compared to the size of the dust clouds we see in the above pictures. If the upper block is riding on top of this cushion, shouldn't we be able to see it?
If you were going to argue your theory in a court of law what actual empirical evidence could you advance in it's favor? If the video record of the actual collapse doesn't match your theory then it is of limited use to your explanation. Maybe that is why Bazant stated that the video tape is only useful for the first couple of seconds(i.e. it is only useful for his theory)."
We shouldn't take anyone seriously who is promoting that kind of nonsense.
I'm a big supporter of Tony
and Tony has been kind enough to answer some of my questions at various times.
I do have two criticisms about the jolt paper:
(1) It assumes column on column impact
(2) Mini-jolts have been found by using improved measurement resolution (See The 9/11 Forum)
I would have preferred it if Tony had done jolt calculations on column-on-floor impacts as well, and if he and Graeme would improve the measurement resolution.
The so called mini-jolts are most likely noise
Snowcrash,
The measurement frequency used to determine the fall rate of the North Tower upper section, which served as the basis for the Missing Jolt paper, was every fifth frame in a 30 frames per second video, or every 0.167 seconds. That was as high a frequency and resolution as we could get per Graeme, who did the measurements. He did try to go finer and it wasn't possible to get accurate measurements. There is no way to "enhance" the resolution and anyone who tells you that is either being dishonest or doesn't know what they are talking about.
What you are actually seeing is most likely inaccuracy in the measurements by those who tried to use much higher frequency and this is probably the reason they claim to see mini-jolts. Another reason these so called mini-jolts, only bantied about by anonymous posters, are very likely to be noise and inaccuracies in their measurements, is that they don't occur at a time when the upper section would be impacting a story below. In addition, they are so small that they would not have any significant effect and cannot provide a basis for a natural collapse scenario.
Dr. Bazant himself has recently had to admit that the descent of WTC 1 was smooth as evidenced by his attempt to explain it away, as still being possible in a natural collapse scenario, in his most recent paper on the issue, entitled "Why the Observed Motion History of WTC Towers Is Smooth". The length of time it took for Bazant to actually respond to our criticisms of his hypothesis tells me that he probably had the descent measured in an attempt to find jolts, but was stymied when he was unable to find any, and so had to take the time to think of another way to try and mitigate the criticism while admitting the reality of the smooth descent.
David Chandler's measurements of both the North Tower and WTC 7 are done every sixth frame, or every 0.200 seconds. He did a video comparing the North Tower upper section's descent to that of the Balzac-Vitry Verinage demolition and it is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
I am not sure if you are aware that the Verinage demolitions use natural forces after removing the columns of a couple of stories with hydraulic rams and that every single Verinage demolition which has been measured shows a definitive significant deceleration, which is easily picked up using the every 0.200 second measurement frequency. In these cases the decelerations all actually occur at the time expected for floor impacts based on the velocity and height of the stories.
As for the column on column issue, it has been well documented that the tilt in the North Tower was no more than one degree, if any at all, for at least the first story of the fall. Given this there is no way the columns could be out of alignment during a first impact in a natural collapse for both geometric and inertial reasons. However, let's suppose 75% of them did miss and say just 25% of the columns impacted each other. Even in this situation we find that there would have at least been a deceleration of about 1.5g if it were a natural collapse. Instead we see a constant acceleration of 0.65 to 0.7g.
The reality is that the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 for 8 thirteen foot tall stories and the lack of deceleration in the measurement of the descent through the first 9 twelve foot tall stories of WTC 1 are incontrovertible proof that there had to be demolition devices of some sort in those buildings. These behaviors of the structures simply can't happen in natural collapses.
It should also be noted
It should also be noted that the verinage technique is only used on masonry buildings, correct? It doesn't work on steel framed buildings. If there is any technical documentation out there discussing why this technique is not used on steel framed buildings may be helpful Of course the reason why seems self explanatory, however a whitepaper on the technique would be another stone on the mountain of evidence against the OCT.
dan
========================================================
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
NIST's New "Answers?"
Chris Mohr supposedly got a response via phone calls and emails from NIST re: 4 or 5 contentious issues that they didn't bother to address before. The answer to nanothermite seems to be that is was somehow 'planted' by scientists who knew how to make and/or access the stuff.
What will their new answer be explaining WTC 7's freefall? (It's break time)
Mohr cannot account for the missing jolt that any gravitational collapse would experience. And he cannot account for the missing pile driver. Laws of physics dictate an equal and opposite reaction, meaning that a pistion crushing down would itself be destroyed. Even worse is the fact that there was no intact piston crushing down at all! True, the mass is still there, but it has been pulverized outside the frame of the building. Like dropping an open bag of flour on top of other intact bags of flour with the falling bag having blown its contents everywhere and not even making contact with the stack.
http://www.historycommons.org
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1200engineerpredicts#a12...
WTC7 Predictions
Many many more:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzn7k9a
I think that is one of the points...
Made by Chris Mohr that he won. That the predictions made by several people that day could have made their way to some of the news outlets, and that's why they prematurely reported on the collapse of WTC7. That there was nothing "nefarious" about it.
There's a problem with that POV
And the problem is:
If it was so easy to predict, why was it so difficult to explain? NIST cites completely different reasons for WTC 7's demise than FDNY. The building creaking, 'leaning', etc? Irrelevant, according to NIST, because later in the afternoon, a girder simply became unseated due to thermal expansion, floors collapsed, leaving column 79 unsupported, causing it to buckle, after which the entire building collapsed internally. This is what I call the "Hollow Shell Hypothesis".
This unforeseen situation, admitted by NIST to be unique in the history of construction failures... was not observable or detectable at the time the predictions were made. No such predictions or news reports, moreover, were made with regards to other buildings which suffered far worse structural damage and fire conditions than WTC 7.
So who is the anonymous engineer? Have you read the NIST report?
No...
I have not read all of or most of NIST's report. I've never needed Controlled Demolition for this cause. The predictions about collapse and the news reports of its collapse are one aspect, and NIST's investigations are another. Do you admit that the news stations may have gotten some of those predictions, and reported on them?
Absolutely
I admit that... it is the source of these predictions I question; the anonymous engineer... You can't blame news stations for reporting the 'street buzz'.
Are you familiar with FDNY lieutenant David Restuccio?
[1:01] Restuccio: "We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that eventually it would either come down on its own, or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on its own"
There's the account of EMT Indira Singh:
http://www.nowpublic.com/indira_singh_interview_april_2005_part_one
And of course, first responder Kevin McPadden claims he heard a countdown... this was also claimed by reporter Gretel Kovach, when she spoke to ROBinDALLAS, but later she told Rob she didn't want to talk about it anymore, after a somewhat untactful approach by Rob for confirmation.
Kevin McPadden also claimed he heard an explosion before WTC7's collapse. We never had any audio or video evidence to support this claim. However, today we do, thanks to James Gourley.
(NIST has always vociferously denied the existence of pre-collapse explosions, even used this as an argument to stifle discussion, this is known as NIST's 'big boom, big sound'-argument.)
For a good, objective summary of the various problems with NIST's official explanation, I suggest you read "Discussion / Second modification, pg 12." from this report I wrote. It contains copious references to the NIST report, and it contains critical questions directed at the Truth Movement as well.
I'm fine with you not being too keen on WTC research, in fact, I strongly support your repeated reminders that 9/11 Truth does not equal "controlled demolition". There is a very broad range of topics which all deserve equal attention.
Waiting for Seven
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Prof. Graeme MacQueen
^^^
Essential reading. For a debunker take, there's 911myths and Mark Roberts.
Two Cover-Ups
There are two 9/11 cover-ups: the Kean Report and the NIST Report. One involves things like missed warnings and the other involves the actual murders of more than 2,000 people who were killed in the demolition of the towers. A crime which also killed scores of first responders who breathed this toxic dust. 9/11 justice requires ending both cover-ups. There should be no CD vs. Cover-up divide, jon.
The Jersey Girls endorsed AE911Truth and Bob McIlvaine is part of BuildingWhat.
Make that three
cover-ups. I would include the joint Congressional inquiry.
One more point
In April 2010, an article was posted on Fox News written by Jeffrey Scott-Shapiro, a curious character, and staunch Bush loyalist. The article is written in response to Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory"; in it, Shapiro makes several shocking claims.
First, there is this claim:
The notion that Shapiro could be both in the "danger zone", yet, see a building crash to the ground "silently" is absolutely ludicrous. Several first responders relate harrowing accounts of running for their lives while hearing the thundering roar of a building crashing down. Some of them heard an explosion rip through the building before collapse (Mike the EMT, first responder Kevin McPadden) and this is now supported by video evidence. Even if the building came down naturally, a 47-story skyscraper does not fall to the ground in "silence". Shapiro is unequivocally lying either about being in the "danger zone" or about the level of noise. The entire collapse took seven seconds. Plenty of time to hear something.
Shapiro continues with a jaw-dropper:
So Shapiro confirms/corroborates what FDNY lieutenant David Restuccio and Indira Singh were saying: rumors were afoot that WTC 7 might be "brought down" in a controlled demolition, Silverstein was even on the phone with his insurance carrier about it.
All these years, and not a peep about this in the NIST report. Shapiro goes on to reiterate how normal and expected this is, and how we shouldn't worry about it. Shapiro was apparently unaware of just how inexplicable the collapse was physically, by far the weirdest failure in construction history, with a NIST report that can only be described as a complete fraud... No, this 'extra information' does not put me at ease, because it does further confound Larry's "pull it" comment.
I have railed against Shapiro in the past, who I find to be a nauseating Bush apologist and sycophant of the worst kind. I don't trust his "journalism". Shapiro has been a political operative. For who...? For John Kerry!
I expected Fox News to quickly remove this article because Shapiro's revelation about Silverstein's "controlled demolition" conversation with his insurer backfired.
Shapiro failed to deceive the Truth Movement with his disinformation because of his apparent inability to grasp how well and widely understood the various scientific and epistemological issues with WTC 7 were.
So I cached this piece in anticipation of its removal and sure enough... soon it vanished. Here it is:
http://www.webcitation.org/5pBSDqMPd
(No, you cannot look this up in The Wayback Machine, if it weren't for this cache link, this article would be gone forever)
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
Is this the article from Fox News that you are referencing?
Shame On Jesse Ventura!
One of my pet peeves in regards to 9/11 is how difficult it is to obtain information from the media and the government bodies supposedly investigating 9/11 without jumping through hurdles. I remind myself that without the internet, 9/11 Truth would have never advanced beyond its fragile embryonic stage where it was circa 2003, 2004.
Good call
The link has changed.. one digit:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/
So it's still up, and still available... I apologize for missing that.. I really thought it had vanished forever.
That's a good thing though, I believe the article is very important, and so I cached it because I believe it should be read and considered by as many people as possible.
spot on
This anonymous engineer is annoying to me, too. He hasn't shown his face, he hasn't been named, and there is no official report (that I know of) available about "his" findings that has surfaced. Why?
WHO IS HE?
He doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned until he shows his face. I wish someone with the time and proper connections would hunt down an answer to who "the fuck" he is.
This is a HUGE cover up and red flag with no justification what so ever.
Agree Wholeheartedly
This is an argument that I frequently made with debunkers prior to the release of NIST's report on WTC7. In fact, I still make it today. How was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening but not have any clue as to why it happened after? As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, '“But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
A previous argument I had with a debunker:
tanabear: "So how is it possible to have foreknowledge of a building collapse hours before the event occurs, but after the event occurs they have no idea why the building collapsed? Having foreknowledge of the building totally collapsing due to fire(an unprecedented event) is evidence of demolition. When buildings are demolished people are aware of what is going to happen beforehand."
spook: "It’s called he looked at it, used his experience, and determined it would collapse. He was right. It’s called an assesment. It would be like a doctor looking at video of your clogged arteries, and saying you were going to have a heart attack. Then you have one. Uh-HELLO! Would you then be asking “how did he gain such foreknowledge? LOL! You’re a total ignorant loon."
tanabear: "Spook, you don’t to be aware of the point that I’m making. Let’s assume the firefighters did know that the building was going to collapse beforehand, then they must have had some reason for this belief. However, after the building did collapse everyone is unsure as to why it collapsed. So how does someone know the cause beforehand, but not afterwards? If a doctor notices that you have clogged arteries and then you have a heart attack, he knew this because he observed the clogged arteries, so after the heart attack occurs he still knows what caused it, clogged arteries. In the case of building 7 they are still uncertain as to what caused the collapse."
Spook: "The firefighters know what caused it and your quotes have no references."
tanabear: "If the fire fighters know what caused the collapse then how come no one else does? Why is NIST still working on their report over six years after the event happened? Why don’t they just ask the firefighters and mystery solved?"
Of course, when buildings are brought down via a controlled demolition people are normally made aware beforehand. Pre-knowledge of the buildings collapse is therefore strong evidence for demolition.
I love the vote downs...
I'm getting... :) In this thread, someone voted down my comment about how Jenna's video is what inspired me to do everything I've done for the responders. Who in this movement would be opposed to recognizing something like that? I think it's time for me to retire and write my book. I can't deal with this "movement" anymore. Not the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement anyway.
DO IT
I'll buy a copy and read it.........twice.
I like down votes, too, I just wish those voting me down had the balls to explain why.
Surely you're not
going to retire because of some downvotes on 911blogger? Well I guess that you may experience it like the last straw in the huge bucket of frustration that has accumulated with you over the years.
Having said that, overcoming frustration is a key point, I think personal frustration is our adversary's great hope that will make us go away at some point in time. But being you, I don't think you'll retire. Or maybe you will, to save yourself. Maybe it won't be a bad thing, you've surely done enough for the cause, a lot to be proud of. I'll buy your book for sure.
What boggles my mind is how the scientific community is somehow oblivious and still, still silent about the ludicrous fraudulent anything but scientific explanations given by NIST. The financial interests must be overwhelmingly great for it to still not publicly demolish and humiliate the abysmal work done by NIST. Surely anyone with a scientific background listening to Richard Gage must realize that he's being very reasonable, logical in his arguments and conclusions, applying logic, odds and basic laws of physics in a proper way. Which cannot be said from his (past) opponents.
It's all a mindgame this, we must find new ways of protecting ourselves from desillusion and hopelessness, it's still not too late, we can still win this, but we gotta have a detailed plan first on what to do, how to act, who does what etc.
Jon, Dont get too frustrated
Jon,
Dont get too frustrated with us for getting frustrated with you for getting frustrated with us.
You are obviously sarcastic about the Demolitions of the Towers and it's rise to media attention.
Unfortunately it almost looks like an argument for ignorance.
How can we not talk about the obvious fallacy of the official accounts on how those 3 buildings collapsed?:
It is what "shocked and awed" us. It is what killed over 2,200 people in a matter of moments on live TV. It is obvious that explosive force is at work. Why be deaf, dumb and blind to this?
Keep up the other good work you do is my 2 cents to you. Your posts are a great addition to the movement.
Well said, Nor Cal Truth,
and thank you.
I often wonder if this is some strange form of sarcasm, one that I am just not attuned to?
In light of this debate I have resolved to do more to teach basic physics to the general public, hopefully in a way that will be both entertaining and educational.
Clearly, not everyone had the benefit of taking science with Mrs. Harnsberger in junior high, as I did.
The truth shall set us free, but one has to recognize certain basic truths before the more complex ones can be known.
Love is the only forward and we must love our adversaries to help them find their way forward with all of us (sociopaths need not apply).
Just got back from the debate
and while I admire Chris Mohr for stating his case in a room full of people vehemently opposed to it, I doubt the benefit of Richard Gage debating someone so untrained scientifically.
The good part (if "good" is the right word) is that Chris articulated what many of our friends, co-workers, and relatives think: NIST says Richard's arguments have zero merit, and are therefore unworthy of serious discussion. Case closed.
How convenient, to take NIST's word . . . and that is exactly what most people are doing. The psy-op and cover-up are all going swimmingly. My overall impression of this debate is . . . uggg: we have a long, long row to hoe, amigos.
Does anyone else smell a rat?
Maybe I am too much of a conspiracy theorist, but one of my first impressions was: "could Mohr be one of the agents Sunstein was referring to regarding cognitive infiltration?"
a few points ...
1. Who would vote down 911peacenik for smelling a rat? There's no doubt we should all have our sniffers attuned for that. Perhaps it was meant to be a vote up and got fat-fingered?
2. I respect Jon Gold's activism but I question his strategy for the masses. Firstly, I would never have bothered to look into 9/11 if it wasn't for WTC CD ... and particularly WTC7. Secondly, If WTC CD did not exist and I happened to look into it anyway, I would never bother with any sort of activism - right or wrong - as I don't believe the avg Joe would be motivated or convinced without it. Jon is a rare exception. His strategy may be best for some but not the majority IMHO.
3. Ditto with Aidan Monaghan's comment regarding a waste of activists time. Gage's efforts (including this one) builds activists morale, advertises 9T and legitimizes it. As in the N.T.s body of Christ passage, 'the hand does not say to the foot ... I don't need you. Are all the the parts hands?' (sic)
I'm glad that both Aidan and Gold are respectful in their (well-meaning) criticism.
Appealilng to people's...
Sense of right and wrong, to people's morality, with good, non-crazy sounding information reaches the masses moreso than anything.
depends on
whether you use an exoteric interpretation or an esoteric interpretation
the key is in Sunstein's reference to work critical of ultra nationalism in government similar in form to the behaviour of the neocons
therefore digging deeper we may see that when Sunstein refers to "The 9/11 Conspiracy" he may mean the Bush Cheney conspiracy theory
When he refers to this conspiracy theory leading to violence he may mean that the Bush Cheney conspiracy was used to justify war
When he refers to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory being received by people due to their crippled epstemology he may be referring to the fact that the mass media is co-opted so the american people believe lies
When he refers to cognitively infiltrating the disseminators of the 9/11CT and working with those who will cooperate he may mean steering the media to the truth about 9/11
For the full analysis read Cognitive Infiltration by DRG but dont mention the phone calls !!
I think Chief Daniel Nigro
has a lot to answer for in my view. If I'm not mistaking, he was the firedepartment commander that Larry Silverstein spoke to on the phone. Of course, as we know, Chief Nigro has a lot of confidence in the official story. It's all about the mysterious engineer indeed, who somehow claimed that WTC7 would come down. Maybe Chief Nigro knows what this engineer look like, maybe know his name. What a shame that he wasn't asked this crucial question. But suppose we eventually find out who this mysterious engineer is/was, is he still alive? If so, can we get him tot testify? Or do we get the same "I have nothing further to add", like Douglas Cochrane did?
Maybe we should ask NIST.
This has been discussed a few times
2007-04-09 : http://911blogger.com/news/2007-04-08/what-was-name-fire-commander-larry...
2008-06-04 : http://911blogger.com/news/2008-06-04/feels-setup#comment-188714
2009-09-26 : http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-25/former-debunking-director-jref-sch...
2010-10-24 : http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-23/does-pull-it-controlled-demolition...
It wasn't Nigro who spoke to Silverstein.
Some more reading for me to do
in my scarce spare time these days, thanks.
NP
You might also want to see Nigro in the BBC hit piece "The Third Tower".
This is what I suggested to Richard...
... to bring up in the debate. I still haven't had the time to listen to it, so I don't know if he did.
* * *
I think it would be important to really emphasize that unprecedented
highrise disasters are not investigated the way the three WTC
skyscrapers were (for example, NIST could claim that "no steel was
recovered from WTC 7") - if one wishes to find out the reasons for the
destruction. The debris of WTC 7 would have been especially easy to
examine as required by law.
The lack of proper investigation is often bypassed in debates, but it
should NOT be. It is obvious evidence of a cover-up.
Other suggestions:
- FEMA analyzed one steel sample, showing intergranular melting, from
WTC 7 and said that further analysis would be important. NIST did not
do that; it pretended that that one steel sample did not even exist.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
- WTC 7's freefall for over 2 seconds or over the span of ~8 stories
can only be explained by explosive removal of the resistance of the
~80 support columns across several (perhaps exactly 8) stories of this
football field sized building.
Molten metal as proven by USGS and RJ Lee Group:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the
WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/348-previously-molten-iron-sph...
The eyewitness testimony is complementary and important to mention,
but not equally powerful.
The debates do have some utility
in showing that there are a number of legitimate people with real faces and real names who have serious problems with the current official explanations we have been given for the three unprecedented high-rise collapses that occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
The freefall acceleration of WTC 7 for 8 stories and the fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7 and less than 0.5% from the towers should raise a red flag in any mature person's mind and I agree with you Vesa that these things should be pointed out vigorously in any debate on the controversy surrounding the events in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
Debate impressions.
Mr.Mohr appeared disingenuous, suspiciously schooled and no friend of investigative journalism OR 911 truth activism. His beginning and end mantra was "ATTITUDE POLARIZATION' which felt like an indoctrination sub-heading by Sunstein or at least by Sunder. But he had rhythm. He pleaded with us. Cajoled us, offered us LOVE. Charged us with the responsibility of listening with open minds, using emotional response mechanisms when engineering got too hard - referred to his own lack of science knowledge or claiming science his best friend whenever it suited him to do so.
Richard Gage stayed on the program as far as I can tell. Salutations for that, because this was some kind of ambush. Richard, stumbling as he does - not being the worlds greatest orator/debater - maintained throughout the long excruciating exchanges total concentration on the SCIENCE. Even when told that NISTs grandiose genius scientists, willing to 'tell the truth' to Mr.Mohr, wouldn't lower themselves to discussing "Science" with the frogs of the 'truth movement", Richard still didn't go at him !
Particularly the exchanges on building seven and the manipulations of NISTs computer model honed down to the ridiculous fabrication of column 79, axial expansion and shear-stud computer LIES, showed us Mr.Mohr's limitation.
The Barry Jennings reference was offensive, claiming respect for Barry and his family in the same breath as discussing vapid HESS testimony: Hess now able to change his story whenever he needs, because Barry is gone and won't out him as a liar, and Barry NEVER changed his testimony whereas Hess., well. Hess still lives.
Mr.Mohr also managed to touch many aspects of 911truth in a casual 'over view' manner without reference to the questions at the time. As if his brief had scoured all 911 truth activity, found the anomalies most in need of NIST fairy dust, and given notes to cover them. Most obvious was the constant repetition of the 'hammer down' theory, 'powered by gravity' [its GRAVITY stupid] destructive scenario for tower destruction, a rote-like description of the upper "hammer ' SOLID' 15 stories, :weighting so many millions of pounds", " descending at '100 miles per hour' onto the UN-SOLID 'flimsy rest of the superstructure' - describing immensely powerful lower steel structure as "95%" air. Jesus wept. Ninety five percent AIR!! That the 15 storied upper block hammered its way by gravity through the other 90 stories of the structure "that was '95%" air., at a hundred miles an hour.! What fluff! If the lower area is 'flimsy and 95% air' then so too is the upper 'hammer' rest of it because its all the same fkn building.
This was METHOD. A redefining in every manner possible the NARRATIVE. Staying 'In charge' with a little bit of help from the time keepers clock and AMWAY.
And that's another thing. Yielding time to a professional at these moments is NOT such a good idea. Any minute given, is going to be FILLED, and at the opponents cost. being a decent bloke and friend is awful gee shucks nice, but, I'd say in the world of 911, If this man is your Friend,
I'd be re-reading my Ides of March.
95 percent air
If one says that the building was 95 percent air, OF COURSE that also applies to the upper block.
Does saying "the building was 95 percent air" sound less inane to someone who is "not in the know"? Perhaps it does, because using that phrase must be premeditated.
Be that as it may, but whenever someone says that, one must counter the way remo did. Did Richard do so?