When you live in the problem, you only know the problem. When you live in the solution, you start to free yourself from the problem.
911Truthers have the problem being lied to by a government that committed murder most foul. And they know this problem intimately - 9/11 Google Search . But what they seem to avoid most earnestly is the solution, which results in their continued entrapment in the 9/11 problem and inability to free themselves.
I believe many Truthers would claim they know what "is" the solution. In fact, Mr. Gage recently challenged NIST to produce a portion of that solution. In his recent comments to the NIST Committee, Mr. Gage requests the following of its members:
"How much longer must we endure NIST's cover-up of how Building 7 was actually destroyed? Millions of Americans, including the 230+ architects and engineers and 600 others of AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully resourced and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7," - http://www.ae911truth.org/info/24 .
If Mr. Gage is being honest to himself and the Movement, then he must surely realize that this is not a solution but a mandate. By his wording alone, Mr. Gage has abandoned any notion of appealing to the scientific method in arriving at a solution. Instead, he's formed the solution and requires that the NIST Committee warp the available evidence and data to match his solution.
Ironically, these are the same acts Mr. Gage accuses the members of doing with respect to the "Official Conspiracy Theory". Mr. Gage postulates in regard to the alleged presence of molten steel at the bottom of the WTC debris piles, "NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory." To further admonish but "instruct" (a/k/a mandate) the NIST Committee, he chides, "Because NIST seems to have forgotten or neglected to apply key features of the scientific method, I am including as an attachment to this submission Steven E. Jones, 'Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method'..."
Truly, Mr. Gage is a magnanimous architect. And this is an honest appraisal of him on my part. I have no doubt of the sincerity of Mr. Gage's convictions. And yet, "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies," - Friedrich Nietzsche .
Here's how it appears, though, that Truthers avoid the solution and are far more comfortable living in the problem. By applying the mandate that the WTC 7 collapse was due solely to a controlled demolition, Mr. Gage establishes a wholly unrealistic expectation that NIST (in all likelihood) will not be able to meet. Therefore, regardless of whatever the NIST Committee publishes on WTC 7, it's almost certain that it will be unacceptable to the Truthers and only serve as further "proof" that the problem of being lied to continues to exist unabated.
The true solution that would permit the Truthers to free themselves of the problem is to ensure that NIST does follow the scientific method and that its conclusions incorporate the same approach. If competing theories remain between NIST and the Truthers, then an honest approach by both parties that adheres to the Law of Parsimony should be agreed upon for resolution. Prior to the approach, both parties must also agree to honor the outcome of the comparison. Once committed, the problem may be left behind and work on the solution commence.
Until this occurs and Truthers begin to focus more on probabilities rather than mandates, the Movement will remain in the problem that seems, now-a-days anyway, to only result in divisions and in-fighting - click here.
Note: For the record, I believe the NIST NCSTAR 1 on WTC 1 and 2 was well-thought and organized. With this in mind, I may be construted as someone who supports the "Official Conspiracy Theory".
Just a person that knows he matters and placing more on acceptance than expectation... And while this explanation is viewed apparently by some as limited, here's some more personal information that those same some believe I "need" to testify that I can post here at OpEdNews.com:
I have an undergraduate degree (BA even - not a foppish BS) in biology/environmental science with an emphasis on environmental/ecological systems (they are, like, um, so complex), a master's degree in public health (MPH), 20+ years experience in the emergency planning and environmental, health & safety fields for a global electric/gas utility, and 22 years experience within the U.S. Army Medical Department as both enlisted and officer in the Army Reserves (no ARNG for me, but you folks are swell too).
I also like playing with balloons and fuzzy kittens, collecting belly-button lint, and listening to Metallica underwater. Well, I'm joking on these likes, but they do sound like they'd produce an interesting if not disturbed person!
Tom, I admire your approach to this issue. I happen to be one of the disturbed people who doubt the 'Official Conspiracy Theeory', but really wish both sides could come to some sort of agreement as to how to finally put this to bed. As someone with backround in Psychology/Addictive Disorders, I am acutely aware of the lack of progress living in the problem produces. I hope your article gets read by people on both sides of this debate, so that a completely open minded, ego free, fact-based investigation can be the result. The first step towards solving a problem is obviously admitting there is one. NIST has taken that step. In a letter to victims of 9/11 families last December, they stated that after further investigation, which the families requested, they could not completely explain how the collapses of the towers occured. The letter went on to say that controlled demolition is the only scientifically acceptable explaination. This was NIST's admittance of a problem, now it's time to take this opportunity to end it. Thanks for your post.
by
Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 9:00:43 AM
I agree with the point you make about the pre conclusion by the author. I think however the energy you expended on the subject could at this point been better applied to finding a way to get a truly independent (non Government) re- investigation started as soon as possible. Anyone who spends even a small amount of time investigating the attacks of 911 sees that there is something very wrong with the conclusions of the 911 Commission.
by
Kevin Gallagher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 9:17:23 AM
I think what has put most truthers on that edge is what had to occure to just get the commission. It is because of the lack of willingness to investigate for more than 1 year, the way in which the material was skirted away to china to be melted down, and just the handling of the entire crime scene.
Lets sum up N.I.S.T.'s findings. First it was, the planes and fires weakened the entire structure, then a pancake collapes, now I am not even sure what there hyposis is anymore. All I know is they got it wrong the first 2 times.
This is the same institution that certifies all of my metrology equipment, and master standards. Needless to say I do not have much faith anymore when I see that N.I.S.T. on all of my certifications for my measuring instruments.
I think one thing that keeps most people on that edge is "Building 7". It has been more than 7 years and N.I.S.T. still cannot or will not address that building. Deadlines have come and gone... because it It cannot be address in any other way than Demolition...and if that is the case for 1 building, all the others are then suspect.
I could say what I personally believe happened, but that would just be conjecture. Let me say, this issue is and will continue to be an ugly stepchild until we have transparency through a new independent investigation.
That is if anything is left, it could have been stored with those emails, torture tapes, domestic spy program documents or litany of other documents that always seem to vanish.
For those that need it, here is a refresher in simple, high-school physics .
by
Ignacio Fresas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 4 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 9:38:42 AM
6 Second Freefall of Tower 7 !!!! after police are saying "there going to blow the building".... Everyone get Loose Change - Final Cut. Watch this video several times and then maybe the author of this ariticle would get it because, for this author to ask people to compromise the truth is nuts; a waste of time and will not sway me and milions of other Americans until we get a NEW Proper Investigation of 9/11.
by
James Repooc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 11:46:15 PM
on your very first Article here. I hope the editor handling the acceptance didn't give you too much of a run around. From what I gather from the article, you're right for the most part. The terminologies used to refer to those who can't bring themselves to accept the official deviations from the truth leave a slightly bitter taste in my mouth but I like Jever and that's a bitter one too.
Gut gemacht ! Hut ab.
I may be construted as someone who supports the "Official Conspiracy Theory".
The key word there is "may". I don't think so. I don't think of you that way, Tom.
Respect,
curt
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 10 quicklinks, 117 diaries, 1052 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM
A new 9-11 investigation is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. 9-11 Truth, without massive external intervention of the type no one can predict or even imagine, is going to wallow in conspiracy purgatory indefinitely.
If you want an idea of how forbidden thruths are sucessfully suppressed, to the point where it doesn't matter how many people are aware of them, do an in-depth historical review of the UFO Disclosure movement over the past 60 years, and you will beging to see what 9-11 truth activists are up against.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 11:22:07 AM
The goverment authorities of every major country in the word understand UFO reality, and most of them in the last 7 years now hate our guts. Don't you think that if they were really pissed off enough they would end this US-based truth embargo on UFO information and try to bring this country down? They don't because they are being controlled by the same corporate operatives that control the government in this country, which control all the mainstream media.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 9:45:07 AM
That those steel samples were pulled from the rubble many WEEKS after 9/11, don't you?
A better question is what happened to the diesel fuel located in the USTs under the building? Only a fraction of it was recovered and there was no evidence that is spilled into the sugbrade soils.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 345 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 10:46:37 AM
If Mr. Gage is being honest to himself and the Movement, then he must surely realize that this is not a solution but a mandate. By his wording alone, Mr. Gage has abandoned any notion of appealing to the scientific method in arriving at a solution. Instead, he's formed the solution and requires that the NIST Committee warp the available evidence and data to match his solution.
Mr. Gage's statement merely reflects the frustration that millions of us justifiably feel.
What Mr. Gage knows that you apparently don't, is that buildings just don't fall down for no good reason, and that there are not an infinite number of plausible reasons. If there were any rational explanation for the collapse, other than a controlled demolition, that is, it would have been proffered by now. It hasn't. And six years is more than enough time.
Moreover, the U.S. government has used 9/11 as the pretext to undermine what's left of the Constitution, and to launch a series of aggressive wars, which may yet lead to WW3.
Mr Gage's tone is appropriate to the situation. As usual, you're the one being unreasonable.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 373 comments)
on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 1:40:54 PM
What Mr. Gage knows that you apparently don't, is that buildings just don't fall down for no good reason, and that there are not an infinite number of plausible reasons. If there were any rational explanation for the collapse, other than a controlled demolition, that is, it would have been proffered by now. It hasn't. And six years is more than enough time.
So strucutral damage and uncontrolled fires are not good reasons any more?
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 345 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM
So strucutral damage and uncontrolled fires are not good reasons any more?
Let's see, "uncontrolled" fire and structural damage weren't good enough to bring down building 6, were they? And they weren't good enough for building 5, either, right, chumpy? And it's clear that both of these buildings got it far worse than WTC7.
And it wasn't good enough for that part of the Murrah bldg. left standing after Tim McVeigh blew half of it away, was it?
And when the 11th floor of WTC1 burnt for 3 hours or so, back in 1975, and all the windows on the east side blew out, indicating a hot fire with lots of air available (at a time when office buildings generally had far more paper fuel laying around than they would have in 2001), well that wasn't even good for any structural damage, was it?
And if Chief Palmer were still around, based on his last few statements before he was murdered, he'd undoubtedly tell you it wasn't good enough to bring down WTC2, either.
So, to answer your question, sh!t-for-brains, it seems that scattered, smothered fires and light to moderate structural damage are only able to bring down buildings, when you and Faith Movement need them to.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 373 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM
Let's see, "uncontrolled" fire and structural damage weren't good enough to bring down building 6, were they? And they weren't good enough for building 5, either, right, chumpy? And it's clear that both of these buildings got it far worse than WTC7.
Hmm, so by your logic, when a building that is totally destroyed did not in fact collapse because a couple of walls remained, then I guess that the WTC towers did not collapse either because a couple of walls were still standing on September 12.Is that your argument?
And it wasn't good enough for that part of the Murrah bldg. left standing after Tim McVeigh blew half of it away, was it?
So you are comparing a concrete structure that didn’t burn to the WTC buildings.Is that your argument?Ferraris to dump trucks again.
And when the 11th floor of WTC1 burnt for 3 hours or so, back in 1975, and all the windows on the east side blew out, indicating a hot fire with lots of air available (at a time when office buildings generally had far more paper fuel laying around than they would have in 2001), well that wasn't even good for any structural damage, was it?
Are you serious?Offices had more paper in them in 1975?Do you honestly believe that?Obviously you have never worked in a financial office setting.Besides, computers are made with a great fuel source . . . plastic.
In any event there was extensive fire damage to the floor trusses that had to be repaired.Furthermore, the actual period that the 11 th floor was on fire wasn’t that long.It took several hours for them to put out the burning plastic on the electrical insulation in the riser shaft.
And if Chief Palmer were still around, based on his last few statements before he was murdered, he'd undoubtedly tell you it wasn't good enough to bring down WTC2, either.
Palmer only made it to the lowest fire floors, below the area of the greatest fire and impact damage.
Furthermore, his initial assessment was only that, an initial assessment.Since the stairs were wiped out and blocked by the impact, it is doubtful that he had an accurate view of the extent of the structural damage.
So, to answer your question, sh!t-for-brains, it seems that scattered, smothered fires and light to moderate structural damage are only able to bring down buildings, when you and Faith Movement need them to.
I love it when truthers pull out the name calling and insults.It means thatthey are losing the argument and they know it.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 345 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 3:45:20 PM
Well to the extent you can actually "think", you seem to have a lot of stupid "thoughts".
Let's see, "uncontrolled" fire and structural damage weren't good enough to bring down building 6, were they? And they weren't good enough for building 5, either, right, chumpy? And it's clear that both of these buildings got it far worse than WTC7.
Hmm, so by your logic, when a building that is totally destroyed did not in fact collapse because a couple of walls remained, then I guess that the WTC towers did not collapse either because a couple of walls were still standing on September 12.Is that your argument?
LOL! What a ridiculous argument; but what else should anyone expect from a consummate moron like you? Ok, knucklehead, look at the pictures here for example and tell me why buildings 5 and 6, didn't come down; why didn't they collapse at any time during the "process" of being "destroyed"?
And it wasn't good enough for that part of the Murrah bldg. left standing after Tim McVeigh blew half of it away, was it?
So you are comparing a concrete structure that didn’t burn to the WTC buildings.Is that your argument?Ferraris to dump trucks again.
Thanks for pointing that out. The concrete Murrah building, unable to redistribure stresses like a steel-framed bldg., probably should have come down immediately, if modern buildings were the fragile structures you pretend they are, no?
And when the 11th floor of WTC1 burnt for 3 hours or so, back in 1975, and all the windows on the east side blew out, indicating a hot fire with lots of air available (at a time when office buildings generally had far more paper fuel laying around than they would have in 2001), well that wasn't even good for any structural damage, was it?
Are you serious?Offices had more paper in them in 1975 than today?Do you honestly believe that?
LOL! So the computer revolution actually led to more paper in the office than ever before? Is that what you're trying to claim?
Obviously you have never worked in a financial office setting.
Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Of course I've worked in office buildings. And the average office worker handles less paper today than 30 years ago.
Besides, computers are made with a great fuel source . . . plastic.
Oh yeah, that 10 lbs. of plastic, that's far worse than the ton of paper the computer did away with, right? LOL!
In any event there was extensive fire damage to the floor trusses that had to be repaired.
Bullshit. There was no "extensive" damage to the trusses; otherwise, they would have needed replacement.
Furthermore, the actual period that the 11 th floor was on fire wasn’t that long.
Liar. It burnt longer that either fire in the towers on 9/11; about 3 times longer than that of WTC2.
It took several hours for them to put out the burning plastic on the electrical insulation in the riser shaft.
The fire covered about 65% of the 11th floor. It burnt for about 3 hours, and from the damage to window frames and glass, it likely hit 600 to 700 degrees C, and that was over an extended area. That no trusses had to be replaced gives the lie to the fairy tale that the 56 minute fire in WTC2 could have weakened the steel so much as to contribute meaningfully to the collapse.
And if Chief Palmer were still around, based on his last few statements before he was murdered, he'd undoubtedly tell you it wasn't good enough to bring down WTC2, either.
Palmer only made it to the lowest fire floors, below the area of the greatest fire and impact damage.
So what? How the hell do you know where the fires were or weren't? And I say the fire wasn't that bad anywhere in the impact area. You've got a diffent view, prove it.
Furthermore, his initial assessment was only that, an initial assessment.
Sorry, but it beats the hell out of your assessment, chumpy.
Since the stairs were wiped out and blocked by the impact, it is doubtful that he had an accurate view of the extent of the structural damage.
I'm sure your view sitting on your ass behind your computer is much better, right goofball?
So, to answer your question, sh!t-for-brains, it seems that scattered, smothered fires and light to moderate structural damage are only able to bring down buildings, when you and Faith Movement need them to.
I love it when truthers pull out the name calling and insults.
So do I.
It means thatthey are losing the argument and they know it.
What "argument" would that be, chumpy? Sorry, but your childishly ignorant drivel hardly rises to the level of an "argument".
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 373 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 7:40:09 PM
That's right it's not yours...you're incapable of "argument"
In this, as in most of these 9/11 related "discussions", you're just being contrary; your aim is to obfuscate and distract, not to add anything of substance.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 373 comments)
on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM
