Tom McLaughlin

A former history teacher, Tom is a columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. His column is published in Maine and New Hampshire newspapers and on numerous web sites. Email: tomthemick@gmail.com

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Objective Truth

“What do you know for sure?” the old man would always ask me after letting me in and giving me a cup of coffee.

“Not much,” I’d answer.

“Neither do I.”

I was a twenty-year-old field supervisor for a private security company and Ernie was a guard. We worked the third shift and had many late night conversations. Ernie was in his sixties and spoke with a Tennessee drawl. He had been raised down south but left home early and wandered around early 20th century America. He always carving something between rounds and he’d push out little chips of pine while telling me stories. He’d worked with stone for a while helping Gutzon Borglum carve Mount Rushmore but pine was easier, he said. He went to Europe afterward and fought in the Spanish Civil War. Not knowing much then about what that war was about, I didn’t even think to ask what side he took, but I suspect now he fought with the Republicans. That was the side of anarchists, socialists, and communists.

Ernie was a young man then. As Winston Churchill is reputed to have said: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.” That old man had a brain when I knew him.

During WWII he served as a crew member on an American bomber that was shot down over the North Sea. Rescued by Germans, he was a POW until the end of the war. Ernie was ethnic German and spoke the language and his captors treated him fairly well, but they did a lot of tests on him because they wanted to learn how he survived in frigid water longer than their own airmen were able to. Later, he took home a German war bride.
At the time, I was moving leftward in my own politics while Nixon was finishing his first term. Ernie was patient with me and listened to my utopian ideas about how the how the world should be run. He would ask questions, which now I realize were efforts to help me examine my ideas more deeply. He’d say sometimes that the more he learned, the less he knew and that’s why he asked so many questions. His was an interesting history and it left him with at least two things I found attractive: a sense of humor, and humility.
Of all the history I’ve learned, there’s not a lot I can be sure of because it’s written by human beings. Primary sources like Ernie are best, but imperfect. Things we see with our own eyes can be subjectively interpreted based on our preconceived ideas about how the world works. While I do believe objective truth exists, we humans never perceive it flawlessly. We should strive to, but be constantly aware that we always fall short.

Still, it’s helpful to read as many imperfect history books as we can. Biography is good because it’s one human writing about another, which produces a more objective account than autobiography. Others see our qualities and faults more realistically than we do.
Last week President Obama met with Pope Francis in Rome. I’m not sure who else was in the room while they talked, but at least two vastly different versions emerged about what they discussed. The Vatican issued a statement saying they focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States] such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life, and conscientious objection,” a clear reference to the schism between the US Catholics and the Obamacare mandate that employers provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception. A lawsuit against the Obama Administration being argued before the US Supreme Court as the two men met.

When asked at a press conference after their meeting, however, President Obama said: “We didn’t actually talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” and Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the mandate.

Interpretations of historical events by third parties are even more subjective. One of those accounts has much more credibility to me than the other, for example. Let’s just say I tend to agree with the Tweeter who described it as a meeting between “the pope and the dope.”

How will history record their meeting? Several historians will write it up, and each account will vary according to the individual historian’s imperfect understanding of how the world works.

What is the truth about what happened in that room? Only God knows for sure.

Labels: , , , , ,

72 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Winston Churchill is reputed to have said: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”

So instead of saying Churchill was "reputed" to say that, why not just do a little basic research and find out for yourself that he indeed did NOT say it? Oh, "Objective" truth. You are too much.


4/1/14, 12:52 PM  
Blogger Tom McLaughlin said...

Because it's another one of those things nobody knows for sure.

I researched it years ago and discovered that most believe it was Churchill, but others insist it was Georges Clemenceau. They were contemporaries.

4/1/14, 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which attests to your shoddy research. It becomes quite obvious when you look into it.

https://www.winstonchurchill.org

"There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

4/1/14, 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Mark said...

I love this new pope. It was wonderful how he spoke about the absurdity of "trickle-down" economics.

He called it "...a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."


4/1/14, 2:41 PM  
OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

Objective truth?
Objectivism?
Are you kidding me?
There are "truths" that was taught a 10, still honestly believed at 20, and ultimately discovered "It ain't necessarily so" by 25. I'll avoid discussing what it's taken 50 years to "get".
Apparently, distance from accredited institutions of higher education makes one "smarter", open minded, and well rounded.
Imagine my dismay when I figured out you can't judge (ie.)a book solely by it's contents either.

CaptDMO

4/1/14, 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More from the Pope:

"My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost."


Bingo! The self-centered mindset so set on profit at any cost that they will lie about killing people (Tobacco), and lie about destroying the Earth (Big Oil).

4/1/14, 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re·pute
riˈpyo͞ot/Submit
verb
past participle: reputed
1.
be generally said or believed to do something or to have particular characteristics.
"he was reputed to have a fabulous house"
synonyms: thought, said, reported, rumored, believed, held, considered, regarded, deemed, alleged More

4/1/14, 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


re·pute
riˈpyo͞ot/Submit
verb
past participle: reputed
1.
be generally said or believed to do something or to have particular characteristics.
"he was reputed to have a fabulous house"
synonyms: thought, said, reported, rumored, believed, held, considered, regarded, deemed, alleged More

4/1/14, 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see how outspokenly direct Pope Francis will get about Global Warming.

"Nature, in a word, is at our disposition and we are called to exercise a responsible stewardship over it. Yet so often we are driven by greed and by the arrogance of dominion, possession, manipulation and exploitation; we do not preserve nature; nor do we respect it or consider it a gracious gift which we must care for and set at the service of our brothers and sisters, including future generations."

4/1/14, 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another sign of a great pope -

Unlike some unevolved minds that judge gays as pariahs doing something wrong, Francis says:

"Who am I to judge them"

Along with wanting to protect the earth, and his cynicism towards corporations, and his understanding of the failures of "trickle down" economics, this pope is sounding kind of like a crunchy ol' hippie.

4/2/14, 7:00 AM  
OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

Another sign of a great Pope...

But always think the last opinion right.
A Muse by these is like a mistress us'd,
This hour she's idoliz'd, the next abus'd;
While their weak heads, like towns unfortified,
Twixt sense and nonsense daily change their side.
Ask them the cause; they're wiser still, they say;
And still tomorrow's wiser than today.
We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow;
Our wiser sons, no doubt, will think us so.

- - An Essay on Criticism: Alexander Pope

CaptDMO

4/2/14, 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the unmedicated Captain:


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.




"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"


General WTF

4/2/14, 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Truth, huh?

9/11, sandy hook, boston bombing, etc..

The truth? the truth is you can't handle the truth...

Any shred of investigative and critical thinking will prove to anyone who truly seeks truth to see the stories regarding the aforementioned events are full of lies and misinformation. 9/11 being the most obvious.

Yet apparently you know the truth because CNN or Fox told you so. Or some other network publication said so.

Want to investigate truth? Use your Internet connection and start researching how we were lied to about 9/11 and sandy hook. The official stories are absurd and full of lies and gigantic holes. Or, ignore it all together and make a joke about tin foil hats. Because that's real brave!!

Don't speak of truth when you are afraid of it. Only those brave enough to question the official narratives seek real truth. The rest hide behind corporate media talking points and the false sense of security the corproate banker two party system employs.

The truth? Please......

4/2/14, 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Eric, I saw Elvis at the gast station the other day. He admitted being behind both 9/11 and Sandy Hook. He also said he has been dressing up like bigfoot and wandering around. Oh yeah, he also had some papers with him that proved man never went to the moon.

4/2/14, 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Eric blair said...

Anonymous,

I heard a similar outrageous story. A bunch of cave dwelling "terrorists" who could barely fly cessnas managed to thwart the most heavily guarded airspace in the world with multiple hijacked planes for over a half hour. Not only that! but they managed to topple steel structures into their own footprints with jet fuel! First time in our history on this planet a steel structure was collapsed, quite neatly, by fire! And they managed to knock down building 7 with out even touching it!!
Hahaha..the things you hear these days...huh?

On a similar note I heard of a school shooting with no bodies, and no emergency services called on in the immediate aftermath. Where a spindly kid with aspergers managed to gain entrance to a school with state of the art security and also managed to not have been recorded on myriad CCTVs. What's more, he was weighed down with an impossible load of guns and ammo and gear for a kid his size, and managed to execute a " mass shooting" that a navy seal would find a challenge.... In fact not only was the school (evidence) razed but the FBI sealed the files--- an unprecedented move in such a case. Unprecedented!
( research Wolfgang Halbig and what he has to say. He is a former high schol principal, state trooper, and investigated school shootings for a livng . Including columbine. Read what he has to say, and get back to us all.)

Whatever you do don't question anything....

4/2/14, 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Captain MOOD said...

I like this new Pope guy. Remember when Tom was worried that the Pope would be "progressive?" Well, it seems he forgot a central tenet of his faith, Papal Infallibility. Someone posted that last time, but I doubt Tom read it. Here are some great quotes proving Tom and his bigoted ilk wrong in the eyes of the Mouth of God:

"Who am I to judge a gay person?"
"The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you."
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time"
"A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person."
"How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor"
"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

4/2/14, 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't humor Eric, it only encourages him. He reads any ridiculous website he can find and questions none of it.

4/2/14, 3:21 PM  
Anonymous The truth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/2/14, 7:21 PM  
Anonymous The truth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/2/14, 7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^Who let this nutjob in?

4/2/14, 7:30 PM  
Blogger Tom McLaughlin said...

I seldom delete comments, but those were in the realm of Bigfoot, UFO and Elvis sightings.

Some of the 9/11 truther type tempt me too.

4/3/14, 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Tom,

Please explain what a 9/11 "truther" is.
Someone who can't accept the 9/11 commission report?
Someone who demands an explanation for how building seven collapsed?

Feel free to debate any of the facts I mentioned. Building seven, NORAD's apparent and sudden incompetence ( NORAD successfully scrabbled interceptor jets within fifteen minutes 129 times in 2000. 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.yet they failed to accomplish this practiced task four times in one day??) the BBC reported building sevens collapse and yet it was still standing in the background of the reporter stating it was gone!! Larry Silverstein is on camera saying they "pulled it". Funny, he also made billions from insurance that day. Billions...Myriad fireman and cops explain hearing detonations while in the twin towers ground floors. Successive detonations.
Never in history has fire collapsed a steel building. Never. Let alone two!! And into their own footprint?? How is that possible Tom? Molten steel flowed for weeks under the debris. Jet fuel does that? Hmmm...Uhm....really? Documented fact that the aerial maneuver used to hit the pentagon was nearly impossible even for an experienced pilot. Yet a coke snorting drunken "Muslim" who failed out of flight school pulled it off? ( he was at strip clubs more than flight school).

So, sit back and exercise your right to chastise those brave enough to question the official narrative. I don't claim to know the who what and why. But I do sense BS when I see it. We simply demand a real answer. Some truth..that makes us "kooky"? Or does it threaten? Or both?

And the official narrative we are supposed to swallow is absurd and offensive to the thinking man. The commission omits building sevens collapse. Not even mentioned. How is that possible? Many many engineers know that supped up kerosene, jet fuel, could not have accomplished the task of collapsing buildings into their own footprints. Heck, most grade school kids wouldn't buy that. Even former 9/11 commission members know they failed, and lied!

Please. Feel free to actually engage anything I mention. Maybe watch some of the documentaries on the net. Read what the scientists and engineers who demand an explanation have to say. Because, again, if you want "conspiracy theory" the biggest one is the official narrative. Bar none. And you subscribe to that theory, so.....

Just crying out "truther" or conspiracy theory is intellectually lazy. It doesn't take much investigating to realize we were lied to. It IS that simple.

4/3/14, 9:14 AM  
Anonymous The Truth said...

Thanksfor deleting my comments! Let freedom ring!!
The big difference from big foot and Elvis signtings and what I posted is the FACT tht the trial I mentioned is very REAL. Meaning---- it actually is happening!

Stick that head back in the sand! Like a good wage slave!

4/3/14, 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, please go investigate the following link, it will give you explanations for all your questions.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

4/3/14, 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Sorry to burst your bubble anonymous but I have read through that non sense a long time ago.
And no, they don't provide explanations. And NORAD's incompetence??

Re: ten popular mechanics article:
..."The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Thus it purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims, without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story."
http://911research.com/essays/gopm/index.html

Like I said, I read it. How about reading the retort from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth regarding the popular mechanics article.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/676-debunking-popular-mechanics.html

And I don't need a Hearst owned publication to tell me what common sense and an iota of scientific thinking proves--- buildings don't collapse into their own footprint, especially twice, without controlled demo. Period. And kerosene (jet fuel) can't either.
And how about building seven? Hmmm?

Do you have any original thoughts on the subject? Care to address all the issues I raised, point by point, with your own analysis? Or, more likely, you'll ignore and deflect...seems you may be scared of something?

4/3/14, 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

.."Like Nazi Germany of 1933, American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government's truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.

The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11..."

4/3/14, 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly, susceptibility to conspiracy theories isn’t a matter of objectively evaluating evidence. It’s more about alienation. People who fall for such theories don’t trust the government or the media. They aim their scrutiny at the official narrative, not at the alternative explanations. In this respect, they’re not so different from the rest of us. Psychologists and political scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that “when processing pro and con information on an issue, people actively denigrate the information with which they disagree while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Scholars call this pervasive tendency “motivated skepticism.”

Conspiracy believers are the ultimate motivated skeptics. Their curse is that they apply this selective scrutiny not to the left or right, but to the mainstream. They tell themselves that they’re the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are sheep. But believing that everybody’s lying is just another kind of gullibility.


4/3/14, 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the love of god, Tom, please delete the madness!!

4/3/14, 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Anonymous,

By James F. Tracy

On March 18, 2014 Cass Sunstein released his latest collection of essays, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas.[1] Like his other works geared toward a mainstream readership, the prominent Harvard law professor, former Obama administration regulatory czar, and NSA advisor [2] points to numerous alleged dangers posed by even “rational people” who are susceptible to adopting “crippled epistemologies.” What Sunstein fails to explain throughout his most recent medley of gentle authoritarianism is how the “conspiracy theory” term has received vigorous promotion from the editorial practices of certain major corporate news media.


“Conspiracy theory” is not merely a flippant or off-handed water cooler term, but rather a powerful tool of political discourse. “Deployed as a pejorative putdown,” political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith observes,

the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred.[3]

Along these lines, “conspiracy theory” and its common variants, “assassination buff,” “crackpot,” “wacko,” and so on, were essentially interpolated into news reports and commentary in the late 1960s by CIA media assets as the agency maneuvered to bolster the Warren Commission’s “lone assassin” explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

Only in the past forty years or so has the label become an especially salient discursive technique for channeling political dialogue and inquiry. From the late 1800s through the first half of the 1900s the phrase can seldom be found in news discourse. A search of the Historical New York Times database finds that “conspiracy theory” is used 30 times between 1870 and 1960, often in accounts of criminal court proceedings. Yet from 1960 to 1969 alone there are 46 instances of the term’s usage in Times articles. Since 1970, it is invoked in over 1,700 pieces, with a peak between 2000 and 2009 (728).[4]

memoryholeblog.com

.........( not to mention crying "conspiracy theory" is, again, intellectually very lazy. And, as far as 9/11 goes if you want to label something conspiracy theory it would be the "official" 9/11 commission report. You seem to miss that crucial point. And, again, any original idea on 9/11? Or do you wan potto cut and paste something again? Seems to me if you are so certain about what happened on 9/11 you wouldn't be afraid to actually engage the subject.)

4/3/14, 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Captain MOOD said...

Or maybe the peak is related to the rise of the internet, where a combination of misinformation and anonymity promotes communities of people who think they know better than everyone else.


Can we get back to the interesting points of this column? Tom, I am really interested to hear how you feel about this Progressive pope, seeing as how scared you were of this possibility.

4/3/14, 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know it fun to play "mysterious secret forces at work" games, but please do so by yourself or with a group that likes to play along. Stop trying to hijack others conversations.

ANd really, griping about "cut and paste" coming from someone who sems to do a ton of it himself seems very hypocritical.

Enough. We know your mind is made up and no facts will change it. Do the favor of acknowledging that the rest of us are to grounded in reality to have any discussion with you.

Now go and speculate on the secret forces behind the latest Ft. Hood shootings....but don't get back to us about it.

4/4/14, 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Anonymous,

Why invoke the outrageous? There is nothing "mysterious" at work here. You keep trying to assert anything but the official narrative is kooky. Why?And, yet again, you apparently believe the "official" narrative. Hence, you adhere to some very mysterious and supernatural ideas yourself---- i.e. Building seven collapsed yet it isn't even mentioned in the report! And I'm crazy? Haha..You believe an incompetent pilot pulled of a very very hard ( impossible really) maneuver to strike the pentagon. And I'm crazy? You believe NORAD suddenly became incompetent morons not once not twice but FOUR times on the same day! And I'm crazy? Haha..You imply that the fireman on the first floor of the north tower are lying about the explosions they heard? You believe fire collapsed steel buildings that folded so nicely into their own footprint, and I'm crazy? hahaa?wow.. And you are "grounded in reality" huh? Hahaha..ok...you have a point of view formed by corporate media, which is owned by the military industrial complex. Connect some dots

Again, what you believe as the official explanation is the most outrageous view of the event. Please, feel free to explain these things in your own words. You seem to not be able to and keep dancing around it. Which is fine. But don't throw out insults and hyperbole if you can't back it up yourself...that's pretty weak.

And the rest of you cowards need to get a spine. The article concerns objective truth! gee! how does 9/11 relate to that??? Could there be a more relevant topic?

4/4/14, 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

...Enough. We know your mind is made up and no facts will change it. Do the favor of acknowledging that the rest of us are to grounded in reality to have any discussion with you..."

How exactly are you "grounded in reality"? I'd love to know...Hahaha....

4/4/14, 1:15 PM  
Blogger Tom McLaughlin said...

What Pope Francis recommends for the church today seems to echo what the Apostle Paul did. Paul preached about the kingdom of God and the saving grace of Jesus Christ first. Then he warned against licentious actions of people in newly emerging churches like Corinth and Rome.

Francis has not altered Catholic teaching on abortion or homosexuality. He instead suggests that focusing on those problems too much might take away from the church's fundamental message.

The church has alway recommended compassion for those with for homosexual inclinations, but teaches that homosexual acts are nonetheless intrinsically disordered and sinful.

4/4/14, 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Oh, why am I wasting my time? Here is another link with loads of information debunking the nonsense, including peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..

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

What architect and demolition experts are you getting your information from - and why do you choose to believe them over the others?

ANd inserting your own opinions (incompetent pilot) does not help your case.

Your assertions are all pretty easily explained with a little research. THe firemen for instance say themselves about the noise they heard:

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

You feel that you are right, so you find sites on the web that reinforce your opinions and ignore anything that refutes it by attacking the messenger and not the message.

but this whole conversation is inane. I've wasted enought time.


4/4/14, 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

We can play debunk the debunker all day long. I'm more concerned with what you, and others like you, think and why. I can point to any number of engineers and architects who seriously question and/or don't believe the "official" narrative. As can you. ...How do you accept all the "coincidence" and incompetence involved in the official explanation? Again, to believe it seems like the most outrageous bs story out there. Any comments on the actual events I speak of? And how does believing that story makes you the sane one?

What you still refuse to answer is how you can support such an absurd explanation and think of people like me who simply question such a story as crackpots, etc. As is stated earlier---- I never claimed to know the who the when or the why. I just don't believe the official narrative as to how 9/11 happened and who was responsible. I have questions.....just questions..apparently asking questions isnt allowed anymore...
Doesn't make any sense.

4/4/14, 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

By the way anonymous, I'm not tossing around opinions. Just facts.
------
None of the hijackers were good pilots. None had ever flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners. Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."

4/4/14, 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Mr. bill said...

In an article entitled " objective truth" the most influential and tragic event in this country's history is brought up and challenged. Because the official version---the "truth"--- isn't acceptable to many many Americans. Yet, despite encouraging critical thinking the person is attacked for questioning!! By anonymous people! In an article baout truth! oh! the irony!

Where is the author of the article? Got anything to add beyond the banal "consipracy theory" comment?
Do you even realize how the official story doesn't hold water? Ever done a shred of your investigation? Got something to say about this crucial topic?

The silence on the topic says it all. As does the knee jerk reactions. Not one of you wants the truth. Your much more comfortable with the lies.......

Pretty sad....

4/6/14, 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ERIC said:

The official story "seems like the most outrageous bs story out there."

As compared to what other outrageous story? I have not heard any other scenarios laid out that are any less outrageous. In fact I haven't heard any other real explanations except for whispers of shady, mysterious forces. At least with the official story I have a who (fanatical muslims) a what (fly planes into buildings which collapsed as many experts have said is possible) a when, a where, and a why (they hate infidels).


I am not saying other possibilities are impossible, it is just that I haven't heard anything more plausible.

I don't understand the automatic dismissal of the official story. It is certainly one of the possibilities.

4/7/14, 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

The official narrative, as contained in the 9/11 commission report, is not very plausible. For starters, they failed to mention building sevens collapse. Failed. To. Mention. Uhm...red flag number one. And, as stated, NORADs record for scrambling and intercepting jets was spotless and done many many times before 9/11. Yet we are to believe they failed FOUR times on one day? Sorry, that makes no sense. And, do you know that they attest it to confusion? As there were many "drills" being done simultaneously on that same day! Red flag two...
As stated, and documented, it seems the pilots were not capable. Especially the one that flew into the pentagon. Again, the maneuver that would've had to be done could only have been accomplished by a seasoned pro. You can look that up.
And, sorry, but cave dwelling Muslims with box cutters overpowered military trained pilots and pulled this off? I simply don't buy it. Pretty convenient that despite the damage a passport from one the hijackers was found on the sidewalk! And A bbc reporter announced building sevens collapse yet the building was standing behind her. Uhm....
As for how fire topples steel skyscrapers so symmetrically. Well, it seems thermite was maybe used. There are theories out there. I have no idea how it happened. I keep an open mind because the official narrative is, quite frankly, absurd....
Honestly, you need to do some actual research if you find this important. I can't do it all for you.

I don't believe, along with countless engineers and architects, that fire did this. Something like thermite had to have been used. Again, this would be the first time in history that this happened, the first. And to have it happen twice in one day? uhm???it seems to me that the jet fuel, even if it could melt steel! and it can't, would not bring down skyscrapers into their own footprint!! Seems impossible! No? How would you explain it, in your own words? Seems even if steel was melted ( you have any idea how many steel support columns were there? A lot) by jet fuel the collapse would've been slow and asymmetrical. These buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed!! Uhm....I'm no scientist, but come on here. How are we supposed to buy this non sense? Because they told us to?


And bin laden was never put on the FBI wanted list. Never for 9/11. Despite declaring him responsible in the immediate aftermath, he was actually never held responsible. So......

So, count up the inconsistencies and get back to me with your own theory. ( NORAD, BBC reporter, near free fall speed collapse, building seven not mentioned, OBL never wanted, incompetent pilots, etc.) don't care what anyone else says about it really. How do YOU explain all this.

You obviously haven't put any time into exploring this. I would urge any and all to do so. As soon as you do the "official narrative" starts to crumble.

"I don't understand the automatic dismissal of the official story. It is certainly one of the possibilities."

This isn't "automatic dismissal". It is dismissal after years of research and reexamination. Years. And, as stated many times, if you think this story is a "possibility" the you have some pretty crazy expectations...

4/7/14, 2:13 PM  
Blogger Remember the Maine said...

And why revert to fantastic suppositions----" whispers of shady and mysterious forces.."
How does questioning the official narrative lead to this? Seems contrived to me...

4/7/14, 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite your condescending presumptions, I did indeed do my own research.

For one thing, the 9/11 Commision report is the official report of the events LEADING UP TO the attacks. Enough said about that, then.

As for NORAD, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing – not hijacked – Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

But all your statements, along with your previous firemen statement, is all explained in detail with a little research. Maybe it is you that needs to do more research.

How do I explain it all? I cipher through what the experts say. You admit that you are "no scientist... but come on here. How are we supposed to buy this non sense?"

The same reason you should buy global warming - because the scientists are usually right.

Name one thing about the official report that you claim is IMPOSSIBLE, something that is not debated amongst experts. Don't ramble, but just name the one thing that you think most disproves the official report.

4/7/14, 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Actually you seem either misinformed or misunderstand NORADs capabilities and it's folly...

"On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established automatic procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied. What conclusions can be drawn from this failure, given the awesome capabilities of the air defense network?.."

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html

4/7/14, 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Actually no, nothing is explained, as you claim. Building seven. If you want to believe fire brought it down, again, in its own footprint, then go ahead. How does a reporter remark a building has collapsed yet it is standing behind her? Free fall speed anonymous, free fall speed. How would fire do that? Please explain. And how would they both collapse so neatly? At near free fall speed? Think about it.

You know about operation vigilant citizen and the other war games being conducted that day? They certainly matter.

And, again, if you think NORAD is that incompetent and that planes can be hijacked and fly off course for nearly an hour then you don't appreciate just how mixed up and messed up they happened to be that day. Again, see operation vigilant citizen. I hope you don't think their reaction that day is typical. Because it wasn't. That's my point.

Q: "Name one thing about the official report that you claim is IMPOSSIBLE, something that is not debated amongst experts. Don't ramble, but just name the one thing that you think most disproves the official report.."

A: Uhm, everything, literally everything, has been debated by "experts". So...kinda impossible..and ramble? There hasn't been any nor will their be..I can name many things, like I already have. Yet you have failed to answer any of the questions I have posed to you. Please feel free to answer them anytime!

4/7/14, 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

"David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Visiting professorships at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Fellow of the American Physical Society. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works. Frequently cited by other researchers.
Personal blog 2/9/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True. This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.

I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the WTC collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, [and] repudiation of the Geneva Conventions.

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!"

http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

4/7/14, 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Captain MOOD said...

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

I believe these crazy people over your crazy people.

4/7/14, 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you are going to believe what you want to believe. But unless you, or anybody else, comes up with a more probable scenario than the official one, which many experts believe, then I will go with that.

Why wouldn't I go with the most plausible story, no matter how unlikely it may be? As long as it was possible, which even you admit.

I am willing to listen to more plausible stories...

And yes, I HAVE seen everything you said explained. I guess you still have not researched enough.

4/7/14, 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Captain MOOD said...

Anonymous, that link supports your side.

4/7/14, 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Captain MOOD...Yes, sorry, I was responding to the earlier posts.

Anyway, I am so confused about the line of thinking with the conspiracy people. They do acknowledge that planes crashed into the towers. SO....why would there also be explosives? The planes wouldn't have caused enough deaths by themselves to reach some goal? And if there were explosives, why do you need planes? Explosives could just as easily be blamed on whatever enemy needed vilifying.

Any explanations, Eric? You seem to have insinuated this was done to make money from insurance. So again, why the planes. Why not just the "explosives"? And really, NORAD was in on an insurance scam?

4/7/14, 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and just how many people do you suppose are "in on" this little insurance scam (or some other money making scam).


The people that piloted the planes into their targets...the many experts involved in the planning, the obtainers of explosives, those that snuck in and layed out these explosives, those that have something to gain by organizing and paying for all this.....oh, and NORAD!....Obama? The kenyens behind him? WOW! I've seen some pretty outlandish James Bond films where villians were able to pull off stuff like this, but in real life? Yikes! Perhaps Dr. Evil is behind all this? It seems even beyond him. The Illuminati? Oh, this is getting exciting.....


....now I see why you guys do this! FUN!

4/7/14, 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Capt.,
As far as the insurance goes it was in reference to Larry Silverstein making billions from the tragedy. Which seems suspicious since he is on film stating he made the decision to "pull" building seven. He later tried to back track that comment. I never said the whole thing was an insurance scam, just a very interesting piece to the puzzle.

And what is very hard to acknowledge is that jet fuel and fire was the cause of the towers falling at nearly free fall speed and into their own footprint. That's the official explanation. Doesn't make sense to me.
And building seven?

4/7/14, 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

..."Many of the peculiar anomalies violating the laws of physics in the collapse of Building 7 are also present and problematic in the collapse of the Twin Towers. With one obvious distinction - an airplane hit both the South and the North towers. According to official government reports, the collision of the airplanes into the buildings, combined with the intensity of the fire ignited by the planes' jet fuel, weakened and brought the two massive structures down. While this hypothesis is perhaps feasible in theory, the video and physical evidence of the Towers' collapse does not support it. Instead, the evidence again points to a number of tell-tale specifics that make an intentional demolition of the Towers an infinitely more viable hypothesis - a hypothesis that has never been considered by official government inquiries.

The first evidence of intentional demolition is the sheer size and power of the two buildings. It is well known that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of jumbo jets. Two hits from Boeing 707 jumbo jets, in fact, is what the architects famously said the towers could withstand. And it is true. The buildings seemed to do just fine after the impact. So the official story had to quickly turn, like with Building 7, to the 'intense' inferno as cause for the Towers' eventual demise.

But this official assertion brings us right back to the problem of fire from jet fuel and debris reaching a high enough temperature to weaken and collapse steel. Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?.."

4/7/14, 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Anonymous,
Yes, I will believe what I believe and you will as well. That seems to be your stock response. You still haven't addressed the questions I have repeatedly posed though.

4/7/14, 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Sciencedontlie said...

It's about science--- physics. That cannot be denied.

http://physics911.net/closerlook/

4/7/14, 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So again, why the planes. Why not just the "explosives"?

Also again....in your wildest imagination can you come up with a scenario that is more believable than the actual story?

Secrets are hard to keep with 2 people, let alone this elaborate scam you hint at...

Is this all "I have no idea what happened, and I am no scientist, or demolition expert, or plane expert, and despite many experts saying it was all possible I absolutely refuse to consider the possibility"

Open your mind, let all thoughts in, don't censor yourself.

4/8/14, 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

It isn't about refusing the official story to de defiant anonymous. It's about refusing based on science. As the post above says----physics. That and the fact that steel has never, ever, before been toppled by fire before. Ever.

Having a tough time with those questions huh? You still haven't answered one! Hahah....

4/8/14, 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hahah.." Really? What are you, Dr. Evil himself cackling away in your hidden lair?.

You keep bringing up such basic, easily refuted opinions. Haven't answered one? Go back and review this thread. You choosing to not believe them is beyond me. At least you gave up on the firemens quotes. The Steel? C'mon, basic research will tell you that experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

Since I have addressed your question, do you have the guts to so the same with mine...

So again, why the planes. Why not just the "explosives"?

Also again....in your wildest imagination can you come up with a scenario that is more believable than the actual story?


4/8/14, 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Doug said...

How anyone can believe the official narrative of 9/11 blows my mind. Look at how many highly improbable events have to all happen!!! What would these people have us believe next? That we exist? Now, I’m no scientist, but to believe the bs about a “big bang’?!? And even if THAT miraculously happened, then what? Poof, life magically appeared? Which somehow “evolved” into humans? Gimme a break. If it seems outlandish and impossible to me, it must be so. There is just too many things that can’t be easily explained. SO… we do not exist. My thinking applies as well to 9/11, so case closed. There is NO WAY the official story is true!!!

4/8/14, 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

The fireman are quoted on video. As seen on YouTube, etc. Not sure which you are referring to. So...no.
Yes, the supports had to have melted. And at exactly the same moment on every floor!! That's physics, sorry. Near free fall speed. Near free fall speed. Fire alone makes that impossible. And, again, it had never happened on earth before. Never...why planes? I have no idea. Yet again I'll explain I never claimed to know who what or why. Simply question the account. Do you actually read these posts before responding?

And yeah any scenario that involves aligning with physics is the account I can believe. And that's not in my wildest imagination. Pretty routine really.

If you want to believe fire brings down skyscrapers at near free fall speed into their own footprint that's your prerogative. ( have you even thought about how this is actually possible) Im just pointing out the improbability of such actions. Probably why it never happened before. Ever.

And the questions you keep dodging--- OBL was never wanted for it, bbc reporter and building seven, free fall speed, incompetent pilots, explanation for NORAD's incompetence, stand down orders, vigilant citizen war games exercises, building sevens collapse, Silverstein, etc...let me guess, you'll ignore and repeat the same answer yet again!!

Did you not read this?

"..."Many of the peculiar anomalies violating the laws of physics in the collapse of Building 7 are also present and problematic in the collapse of the Twin Towers. With one obvious distinction - an airplane hit both the South and the North towers. According to official government reports, the collision of the airplanes into the buildings, combined with the intensity of the fire ignited by the planes' jet fuel, weakened and brought the two massive structures down. While this hypothesis is perhaps feasible in theory, the video and physical evidence of the Towers' collapse does not support it. Instead, the evidence again points to a number of tell-tale specifics that make an intentional demolition of the Towers an infinitely more viable hypothesis - a hypothesis that has never been considered by official government inquiries.

The first evidence of intentional demolition is the sheer size and power of the two buildings. It is well known that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of jumbo jets. Two hits from Boeing 707 jumbo jets, in fact, is what the architects famously said the towers could withstand. And it is true. The buildings seemed to do just fine after the impact. So the official story had to quickly turn, like with Building 7, to the 'intense' inferno as cause for the Towers' eventual demise.

But this official assertion brings us right back to the problem of fire from jet fuel and debris reaching a high enough temperature to weaken and collapse steel. Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?.."

4/8/14, 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why any non-expert gets so ridiculously sure that certain experts are right and that the others are wrong is beyond me.

YOU are NOT an expert. YOU do NOT know which experts are right. That is a FACT. You can have an opinion, but for any non-expert to get an attitude and mock/get angry with people that disagree with them seems very douchy.

4/8/14, 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

And you are an expert and can tell who is on the level?
Please..

And, besides, who needs an "expert" to prove fire cannot bring down steel skyscrapers at near free fall speed into their own footprint. Which is why it never happened before. That's historical fact. Expert not needed.

Obviously you are struggling with this concept and feel the need of an " expert" to tell you what to think. I would be wary of any "expert" who claims fire alone can cause not only one but two skyscrapers to collapse at near free fall speed into their own footprint.
Instead of getting defensive actually think about the physics behind what you believe. As stated above in an earlier post--- the way those towers came down there had to have been inside demolition. And yes, there are plenty of "experts" to back that claim up. But again, I don't need an expert to tell me what I've seen on video. Furthermore, and I can't stress this enough, it is virtually impossible to blame near free speed collapses of skyscrapers into their own footprint on fire alone. That's fairly simple science. No "expert" really needed...Do you get this? Do you understand how it is virtually impossible for metal skyscrapers to fold into themselves because of fire? any comment on why this had never ever happened before? The towers most certainly were designed for plane crashes, as stated above.....still can't answer anything I pose to you? Wow.....amazing really...

4/8/14, 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Here is one of over a thousand architects, an "expert", who puts it very simply:

David Paul Helpern, M.Arch, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Founder, Helpern Architects, a leading-edge architectural design firm for educational institutions at all levels, from elementary schools to universities. Clients include a long list of prominent cultural and faith-based organizations, as well as corporate and hospitality-industry clients.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the damage. A new investigation is needed."

And another "expert". He may know a thing or two about architecture..

Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Co-author of the groundbreaking book "Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer," which is a standard college textbook in the USA. He brings more than 28 years of experience in the programming field including such projects as the Chrysler Technology Center, Microsoft's recent headquarters expansion, all sports venues for the Atlanta Olympics, and the 1.8 million square foot 3M Research & Development Austin Center.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco [May 2009] made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile."


----- can you please at least attempt answering a question. I answer what you ask me. What's up with that?

4/8/14, 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, constantly complaining that your questions aren't answered (when many have been) when YOU were not able to answer two simple questions yourself is getting a little too douchy for me to deal with. This "MY experts are better than your experts, and I know more than any expert that disagrees with me" is moronic.

I'll leave you with one more FACT that you can ignore...


In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed.


Stop being a douchbag and get a life.

I am done with you. Don't bother responding because up till now I have been the only one with enough patience with wackos to humor you. Nobody cares about your problems. Try a new medicine.

4/8/14, 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Well below free fall speed huh? This is a fact "I can ignore" all right. Haha. Sorry, but it is t a fact it's a silly lie. Do you even know what you're saying? It's not possible! Where do you get your info? It's actually the opposite. You have some interesting ideas about science...And, why so angry and defensive? Perhaps you know you are defending an absurd theory? Please, at least stop blatantly lying and acting as if you re revealing some common truth...you ain't ...( and btw I answered your questions. It's plain to see. You still ignore mine. And I'm the douche?)
------------
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it was deverticalized unnaturally, if not precisely that, quickly. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

You can move your arms and legs, non-destructively, through water -- a liquid fluid -- but not anywhere near as rapidly as you can through air. You certainly can't move your arms and legs through solids as rapidly as you can through air. And neither can gravity.

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

4/9/14, 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Hey, I have an idea, get pissed off and call me names because you can't repudiate science ! Then call me the crazy wacko!! All the while not answering any of my questions!!
--------


Conclusions

In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

( just to be clear here-- it is YOU subscribing to the the outlandish and unbelievable. YOU who believe the laws of physics were put on hold on 9/11.)

4/9/14, 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Eric, YOU'RE the one not reading our links:

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

4/9/14, 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Huh, it would seem that the official story has them falling at near free fall speed though. Golly gee. The 9/11 commission report states: " "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds". And, according to math and physics, free fall speed is calculated at around nine seconds. Hmm. And how do the floors underneath offer no resistance during collapse? Hmm. How does glass and concrete disintegrate? Hmm. Seems to me it would take hours, if not days, for a steel building to collapse from fire. And then it would not fall symmetrically and into its footprint. It would be a smoldering mess. Probably why it had never happened in the history of this planet before 9/11. And it happened three times in one day! (This all seems probable to you, huh?)

Instead of trying to find a web site that confirms your outlook consider the actual event and the laws of physics as they relate to the collapses. Bottom line: fire and jet fuel don't cause near free fall speed collapses into a footprint. Twice!!Argue that all day long it's still not possible. And building seven? Any thoughts? Original thoughts? Or bin laden not being wanted? Or the bbc reporter I mentioned? Operation vigilant citizen? Incompetent pilots? Impossible aerial maneuvers? Etc..

I've posed these exact same questions many times. You can't seem to answer them? Time and time again. And you claim I dodge your questions? Nope. I've answered them. As anyone can see..

And you call me a douchebag? Laughable....

4/9/14, 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, the link I provided demonstrated how the event was not free fall, and debunks your argument. Try reading.

As to your other questions:

Building 7: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Osama: http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

I choose to trust these arguments because they make more logical sense than yours. If you don't, that's your prerogative. Don't come at us with your "original thoughts" bullshit. You read all of this stuff online, unless this debunking website is addressing all of your "original" thoughts. This is also just one example of a debunking website. That's how we research, and get information nowadays. We go online, same as you. Unless you're telling me that you have interviewed every possible source, and gone through the physical evidence yourself.

4/9/14, 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...


Hey, if you believe fire and jet fuel can accomplish what professional demolitions companies can then more power to you. Just know that in your explanation the laws of physics don't hold. As has been proven. Official time of collapse-- ten seconds-- free fall is nine something. Seems pretty close to me. And no resistance was met by the floors below? Seems impossible if fire is to blame. And into its own footprint? How is that possible? And you side with logic? Uhm, hate to break this to you....but logic would dictate the opposite. Probably because logic and physics agree here.

I don't care what some website says about bin laden. Dick Cheney is on record saying bin laden was never connected to 9/11. As did the FBI director. Did you even read that bin laden link you posted?
" When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Anyhow I asked you the question so I expected you to respond with some original thought as to why he was never connected to that day. Never.

And building seven? Again, how do you account for the collapse? What do you think happened? Don't care what corporate media tells you what happened.. Any thoughts?

You must still be working on answering the rest of my questions, finally..maybe include your own thoughts on fear free fall collapse ( despite what you claim it was near free fall, which is easily seen) and, maybe more importantly, how do THREE buildings collapse into their own footprint? Especially if fire brought them down? please explain how logic is in your side here. That's been the debate all long yet you keep running from it.

My "original thoughts" are bullshit, huh? Hmmm.
Of course I use web sites and books to reference.
What you don't seem to get, or want to, is that what we all can see with our own eyes defies the official narrative. Plain and simple. the story is absurd. And you are rabidly defending it. Maybe take a step back and process how all of this is possible under the official explanation. That's what I want to know. Especially as you claim logic to be on your side. Again, that would require you forming original thoughts not pasting some bs link..I doubt very much you've watched the countless documentaries available on the net too..

4/9/14, 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Try this. Maybe it'll help:

"You can prove to yourself that 9/11 could not have happened as officially reported. The evidence is available to all of us - you only need to look at it with open eyes. "

More at:

http://911physicstruth.wikifoundrymobile.com/m/

Read that page and respond with your logic. Would love to read that!!

4/9/14, 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Sorry, that was mobile site.

Please read this and then get back.

http://911physicstruth.wikifoundry.com

4/9/14, 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

And why resort to blatant lies? Sorry, no, you didn't link to anything that debunked the near free fall collapse.

The official report states north tower collapsed in ten seconds. As I quoted...
Free fall speed is around 9.2. In a vacuum.

So, please explain how you "debunked " this fact! Seems a second is pretty close. No?

4/9/14, 3:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home