::::::::
Tom Murphy’s article yesterday critiquing the style of 9/11 truth seeker Richard Gage drew 30 comments the last time I looked.
Murphy seems to think it counterproductive of Gage to have “mandated” the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to perform the correct science necessary to test the possibilities of anything and everything that might conceivably have brought down World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11/01.
Of course, it is unlikely they will ever do that, given that NIST answers to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is directed by a Bush appointee...
But if NIST ever should to do what Richard Gage demands, there is no “Law of Parsimony” that would determine which of the competing physically possible mechanisms (if more than one) is the winner. Perhaps Mr. Murphy was thinking of Occam’s Razor. If so, that piece of folk wisdom has never ever been “the decider” of a theory in physics.
Indeed, Dr. Manuel Garcia has touted Occam’s Razor in one of his faulty “primers” on “The Physics of 9/11.”
http://rmf.net/physic11282006.html
I’ve debunked Garcia here:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html
Returning to the subject raised by Mr. Murphy, that is, how to best advance 9/11 truth, I advocate toleration of a wide spectrum of approaches. It is a waste of energy, and poor public relations, for truth seekers to attack one another because of their different approaches or styles ...unless someone is advocating something that either violates the laws of physics or is beyond the reach of present-day technology.
I myself have a different approach than most others. My idea is this: Once enough people are willing to consider that 9/11 might have been an inside job, they will begin demanding how is it possible that those insiders could have relied on a bunch of bumbling Arabs to pull off feats of piloting that Top Gun pilots in our own military say they couldn’t have done themselves.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html#Kolstad
So how could insiders have done it all by themselves, without 19 Arab patsies at the controls? Well, given the complexity of the operation, you should not be surprised when I tell you that any comprehensive insider-false-flag-attack hypothesis must necessarily take up a lot more space than the typical OpEdNew article. Therefore, anyone interested will have to download my work (in its current state of progress) here:
http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720199/03889269.aspx
If you do venture to this link, be advised that the first pdf file (at the left) is pure text and deals principally with Flights 11 and 175. I hope you will want to read this. However, this essay refers to a set of figures which I’ve created as an animated PowerPoint (at the extreme right). The other PowerPoint is devoted exclusively to the Pentagon attack. The other pdfs are (reduced quality) copies of those two PowerPoints for readers without PowerPoint. However, I recommend that PC users without Microsoft Office instead download PowerPoint Viewer 2003 free from Microsoft and use it to play my PowerPoints.
...And while on the subject of false-flag attacks, are you aware how close we came to surreptitiously nuking Iran back in September? If not, check here:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/manage.php?submit=view&storyid=47950
