A story that says the dust allegedly proving a means of destroying buildings never done before that came from the apartment of an active member of the "truth" movement is not forensic evidence that can be replicated by anyone else.
There was lots of aluminum in the tower cladding, but that couldn't be part of the dust in New York?
I look forward to reading a demolition claim that analyzes the impacts of the 500 plus mph plane hitting the towers and the damage to the structure that this impact caused. Any actual scientific investigation would include this information, along with documentation from the firefighters who claimed that all three buildings were observed to be leaning before they gave way.
It's not a coincidence that everyone from Democracy Now to Fox News is delighted to keep 9/11 "truth" focused on demolition claims and not warnings, wargames, the FBI agents who tried to stop the attacks, etc.
Meanwhile, there's a real controlled demolition of Wall street underway -- the global financial crash.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/cons...
Jeff said...
I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.
I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-kuwait...
Rice Farmer said...
The physical-evidence approach is a double-edged sword. It is admittedly a good tool to get people interested in considering possibilities other than the government's explanation. But from there on it's perilous. If independent investigators and observers had been allowed to examine the physical evidence, it might be a different story. But access was restricted and everything was cleaned up in record time. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the fact is that we have very little to work with. So arguing from the physical evidence is a very weak position that debunkers find easy to counter. We are reduced to "dueling simulations" and other such absurdities.
On the other hand, Rubicon amasses known and verifiable facts, makes connections, and builds a solid case without setting foot in the quicksand of the physical-evidence argument.
Debates with debunkers have taught me that they love to argue about what brought the towers down. But they avoid arguing about the evidence presented in Rubicon. They don't want to talk about the money trail or the war games, for instance. I got into a debate with Alexander Cockburn once. I did my best to engage him in debate about the evidence presented in Rubicon, but he dismissed it out of hand and talked only about the physical evidence. Debunkers know that Rubicon's approach spells the end of their argument, and that's why they consistently drag their opponents into the quicksand of the physical evidence.
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com/2006/10/logical-fal...
A Logical Fallacy of 9/11 Argumentation
Just as with the latest debunking article in the CounterPunch newsletter, debunkers apparently believe that by demonstrating that the WTC towers collapsed without help from demolition charges, they have won the whole 9/11 debate. This is a logical fallacy.
I make no claims to knowing what really made the towers collapse. IÂ’m not a physicist or structural engineer, and honestly donÂ’t understand the intricacies of the argument. But understanding it isnÂ’t necessary to see the real purpose behind the debunkersÂ’ efforts.
LetÂ’s say for the sake of argument that the debunkers are right, and the towers crumbled due to the impact of the jets and the heat of their fuel burning. What does this prove? It proves only one thing: that the towers did not collapse due to controlled demolition. ThatÂ’s all. It does not disprove complicity in 9/11 by US elites. This is the sophomoric fallacy peddled by Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Popular Mechanics, and the rest of the debunkers and left gatekeepers who concentrate public discourse on 9/11 into the narrow area of the physical evidence.
How can people of supposedly high intellectual caliber make such simple mistakes in reasoning? The answer is that they aren't -- it is planned this way. Their physical-evidence argument is calculated to gut the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on this one weak area, and they believe it will work because the TV generation is weak on logic.
Once again, letÂ’s say for the sake of argument that they debunkers are right about the towers, and even about WTC7, which they donÂ’t talk about much. Many in the 9/11 truth movement would experience great consternation at this because they believe the supposed demolition of the towers, along with the photographs of the Pentagon, are our best evidence.
In reality, this is no great loss. First of all, as noted above, the assumption that the WTC buildings collapsed due to causes cited by NIST and debunkers does not at all disprove US complicity in 9/11. Second, due to the almost complete lack of physical evidence, this is actually our weak area. We shouldn't be concentrating our efforts here in the first place.
Our best evidence is the huge body of excellent circumstantial evidence which points at US elites. Debunkers know this, which is why they shy away from discussing the war games, the money trail, oil and drug connections, gross contradictions in the official story, Middle Eastern connections, and the relationship between jihadists and the CIA.