Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeremy Bojczuk

Members
  • Posts

    506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,735 profile views

Jeremy Bojczuk's Achievements

  1. Good points, Gil. There are some similarities between your account of the Tippit incident and Greg Parker's: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2451-the-bad-boys-of-oak-cliff-part-i I've always been puzzled by the need to incorporate the Tippit murder (or, for example, the Richard Nagell and Rose Cherami stories) into some grand unified theory of the JFK assassination. What people should be doing is eliminating as much of the poorly supported or outlying stuff as possible, rather than trying to incorporate as much of it as possible. I'm sure we all recognise the flimsiness of the witness and ballistics evidence against Oswald as the killer of Tippit. We know that the killing was pinned on Oswald after the event. But all of that doesn't mean that the Tippit killing had to be part of a finely worked-out pre-assassination plot to incriminate Oswald. A Hollywood scriptwriter might want to take the Tippit murder and make it part of the main JFK assassination narrative by, say, having Tippit chase Oswald around Dallas after having shot Kennedy from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It would make for a nicely tied-together movie plot, but it wouldn't make for a credible interpretation of the assassination. On a side note, it's good to find a thread on this forum that's actually about the JFK assassination, rather than 9/11, vaccinations, Trump, or those little green men that live among us.
  2. Dennis Berube writes: That's a good example of why know-nothing anti-vaxxer propagandists on social media aren't the most reliable source of information, even if they do tell Dennis what he wants to hear. The supposed problem is debunked here: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-posts-misinterpret-cdcs-provincetown-covid-19-outbreak-report/ The phenomenon is explained by two statisticians here: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated I gave that link a week ago in reply to Chris Barnard's comment that The principle is simple, so even ill-informed anti-vaxxers should be able to grasp it. As the proportion of a population that is vaccinated against covid increases, those who are vaccinated will form an increasing proportion of the covid-related deaths that occur. The second article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "too many". But even if what Dennis was told to believe by some ignoramus on Facebook or Fox News is correct, so what? Healthy people get vaccinated not only to protect themselves, but also to protect other people, especially those who aren't as healthy as they are. At least, that's what rational healthy people do. I'd guess this is the 'freedom' thing Dennis is concerned about. Perhaps he has a point. I mean, why should I care about anyone else? Why should the Evil Gubmint (boo! hiss!) restrict my freedom to get drunk and drive my car at 150 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road if I want to? (Not that my old car could reach anywhere near 150mph, but you get my point.) It's tyranny, I tell you!
  3. Denny Zartman writes: Chris Barnard replies: Disregarding those experts who go against one's preconceived views is exactly what Chris has been doing. Which experts should Chris believe? If expert opinion is evenly divided, Chris might be justified in tossing a coin and going with whichever opinion happens to reflect his view of the world. But if, as in this case, expert opinion is overwhelmingly on one side, it is perverse and irrational for a non-expert to prefer the minority opinion. The principle involved is very straightforward, but Chris doesn't seem to grasp it. Paul Brancato writes: RFK Jr's environmental activism is indeed praiseworthy, but that doesn't make him an expert on mercury or anything else to do with vaccination. The majority of expert opinion strongly disagrees with RFK Jr about the safety of vaccination. Why should any non-expert side with him rather than the large majority of experts?
  4. Excellent post, Kirk. Anti-vaxxers are not just misguided, they're selfish and potentially dangerous to others. Speaking of misguided, Chris Barnard writes: No, because these people do not possess specialist knowledge that the rest of us do not possess. Isn't that obvious? You don't need specialist scientific or technical knowledge to come to an informed opinion about any of the central areas of the JFK assassination debate. But you do, in the case of whether or not planes are capable of causing buildings to collapse, or whether or not vaccines are safe. What's stopping Chris grasping this obvious point? Dennis Berube hasn't thought it through either: But Dennis has worked out why only a tiny proportion of medical professionals are worth listening to: It's all a big plot. There is no scientific consensus after all. It's just something constructed by the media in order to enslave us poor souls and harvest our precious bodily fluids, all for the benefit of our overlords. I knew Bill Gates and the lizard people were involved! I was right all along! Seriously, does Dennis really believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus about vaccination doesn't actually exist? That it's all just corporate propaganda? It's not entirely clear whether Dennis means that the scientific consensus is an invention of corporate propaganda, or that the scientists and medical experts themselves have been brainwashed by corporate propaganda to mistakenly conclude that vaccines are safe. Either way, he surely doesn't believe any of that, does he? Dennis continues: For two reasons: To point out your error. Expert opinion is what decides whether or not vaccines should be considered safe. Expert opinion overwhelmingly does consider vaccines to be safe. Our two resident anti-vaxxers are making an obvious logical error in preferring the views of a small minority of experts over the views of a large majority of experts. Because this forum is about the JFK assassination, a serious subject that is harmed by being associated with anti-vaxxer propaganda. I don't know how many casual visitors this site gets, so the anti-vaxxer propaganda may not be a huge problem. But it does provide ammunition for those who want to portray critics of the lone-nut theory, and JFK assassination researchers in general, as a bunch of crackpots. Chris writes: Yes, it's called research. Plenty of it has been done, and the scientific consensus is that vaccines in general are very safe.
  5. That long, uncritical interview is uncredited, but appears to be from an anti-vaxxer website. I'm not sure Chris is justified in using this forum, which is supposed to be about the JFK assassination, to spread anti-vaxxer propaganda. If he is going to cover the vaccination debate, the least he could do is cover both sides of it, especially as the vast majority of medical opinion is opposed to the view he is putting forward. In the interests of balance, here are some links to the majority expert opinion. Chris might benefit from finding out what the experts have to say. General criticism of anti-vaxxer talking points: https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/ https://www.businessinsider.com/lies-anti-vaxxers-spread-about-measles-vaccine-debunked-2019-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/four-vaccine-myths-and-where-they-came https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597904/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-13-covid-19-vaccine-myths Criticism of RFK Jr's fact-twisting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/ (includes several blatant examples of RFK Jr's distortion of comments by scientists) https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr Historical and political context of anti-vaxxer activity: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vaccine-hesitancy-history-damage-anti-vaccination https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-anti-vax-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1125197/ The Rolling Stone article is a good account of how anti-vaxxer beliefs are linked to other current forms of irrationality in the US, and contains a sentence that might be aimed at Chris himself: Why does Chris promote those anti-vaxxer beliefs on a JFK assassination website? Why does he promote them at all, given that they represent the views of a very small proportion of medical experts? The principle here is obvious: if you aren't an expert, you do not have the ability to properly evaluate subjects that require expert knowledge. The only rational course of action for a non-expert like Chris (or me) is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. Surely Chris accepts that a large majority of experts dismiss the claims of anti-vaxxers as unjustified. Chris, like me, doesn't have the expert knowledge required to evaluate the science properly for himself. So why does he not accept the conclusions of the large majority of experts?
  6. Paul Bacon writes: Nice idea, Paul! But I don't think I could ever become an expert, what with having zero interest in structural engineering and similar subjects. And even if that changed I don't think I'd have sufficient time and funds to acquire a relevant degree or other professional qualification. I suspect it may take a little longer than that! What may seem obvious to a layman who has spent one day reading up on the subject might not seem obvious to a professional with years of experience. In this case, it clearly doesn't seem obvious to the majority of those professionals. W. Niederhut writes: The media certainly distorts topics that affect institutional power, though it's debatable how much of that is due directly to arm-twisting by the CIA or similar organisations. I think it's unlikely that distortions by the media have much to do with the lack of expert support for the idea that the towers were brought down by explosives. Plenty of 9/11 criticism does get through to the public, and hence to professional structural engineers and the like. These experts will be aware that criticism exists, and that it relates to an area of their professional expertise. They will know where to find this criticism if their expertise leads them to suspect that the official explanation is inadequate. Yet only a small proportion of them do seem to think that the official explanation is inadequate. From the general public's point of view, the attacks offer a plausible example of cause and effect: planes crash into buildings; buildings collapse. That makes sense to non-expert members of the public. As one of those non-experts, I'm aware of that example of cause and effect and of the fact that few experts seem to disagree with it. Like most members of the public, I'm also aware that regimes are capable of doing bad things, and that an inside job of some sort isn't impossible. And as a JFK assassination enthusiast, I'm aware that an event like the 9/11 attacks is likely to generate plenty of anomalous items of evidence, which may seem sinister but which may have everyday explanations of which I'm currently unaware. The question of whether or not the planes crashing into the buildings was sufficient to cause the buildings to collapse is not something I, as a non-expert member of the public, am able to decide for myself. Unless I become an expert, the only rational thing for me to do is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. It seems irrational to do otherwise. On that subject, Chris's research methods have generated some attention elsewhere: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419p25-the-mullberry-bush#37117
  7. Thanks for the response, W. Niederhut! I'm sure you can understand why a non-expert like me might not put too much trust in the claim that the scientific evidence is settled. The non-expert thinks: well, it could have been an inside job, you wouldn't rule it out in theory, but if the scientific evidence really is as conclusive as this guy claims, you'd expect a large proportion of experts to support it, and only a small number appear to do so. And anyone who's familiar with some of the claims made about the JFK assassination will apply more than a pinch of salt to a claim that the hijackers lived on after the attacks. Inside job: wouldn't put it past them; fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes: hmm, not so sure about that. I suspect the evidence is far from conclusive, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Having said all that, I'm keeping an open mind, and I'll check out those links when I get the chance.
  8. Chris Barnard writes: That remark was in response to my comment about ex-Dr Andrew Wakefield's research being flawed and that "expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism." Which part of that comment contains the lie? That Wakefield's research was flawed, or that the balance of expert opinion is unfavourable to anti-vaxxers? Perhaps Chris could explain why either or both of those statements is a lie. With luck, he'll use detailed evidence and nuanced argument, but I fear that all we'll get is the usual one-sentence talking points copied uncritically from some anti-vaxxer website. Does Chris take seriously the idea that vaccines cause autism? Perhaps he does: Yet another one-sentence talking point! Chris had already answered this one himself on page 16, when he wrote: Why? Obviously it's to keep the company's lawyers happy, in case some crazy anti-vaxxer tries to take the company to court. Note the use of the word 'potential'. I assume the company doesn't claim that its vaccine actually causes autism. There's nothing suspicious about that pamphlet. Why did Chris even bring up that talking point, if not to suggest that the company was admitting that the vaccine might in fact cause autism? Someone with Chris's vast intellectual gifts shouldn't have any trouble making his points properly, by doing more than simply repeating one-sentence talking points from anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. What started all of this was Chris's preference for the views of a small minority of experts in the matter of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. I pointed out that it was irrational for a non-expert to take this approach to a question that requires expert knowledge. Chris doesn't seem to have found anything objectionable about the point I made. Evidently he agrees with me: the non-expert would be mistaken to accept one particular view when the majority of experts think that view is wrong. So why does he do it? I assume he has no expertise in architecture or structural engineering. Would he care to tell us why he rejects the opinions of the majority of the relevant experts? Would Chris by any chance be picking and choosing which experts to believe based on whether or not they reflect his view of the world?
  9. Chris Barnard writes: I understand all of that, thank you. So it was Bill Gates after all, wasn't it? I knew it! In your comment 445409 on page 16, you replied to my point about Wakefield's research being debunked. Your reply was: I asked you to clarify what you meant by "proving that to be the case". Proving Wakefield's research was flawed? If that's what you meant, it has been done. I'd already given a link to the relevant article in the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452. Proving that vaccines cause autism? If that's what you meant, plenty of research has been done on that topic. Expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism. On the subject of 9/11, Chris writes: So you were actually trying to say that W. Niederhut doesn't want to provide evidence for his claim that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes" because it might come up if someone searches for his name. But he has made plenty of 9/11-related comments here. Why should that particular claim be so damaging to his online reputation? His reluctance might in fact be due to his not having any strong evidence to support his claim, wouldn't you think? Nevertheless, if he does have any strong evidence, I'd be interested to see it, because it would go a long way towards undermining the official explanation. All I was asking you to do was provide a bit more than simple one-sentence talking points. If you want someone to discuss a topic of your choice, you can't expect them to do all the work. You need to set out the evidence and all the relevant arguments, for and against, if only to persuade us that you are not simply regurgitating stuff from some truther's YouTube channel. One point I've been making that you haven't yet replied to is that, when confronted by a topic that requires expert knowledge, the only rational approach for a non-expert is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This applies to vaccination as much as it does to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Would you agree with that principle? If not, perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it. If you do agree with that principle, why do you not abide by it? Why do you align yourself with the opinions of a small minority of experts rather than the opinions of the large majority of experts?
  10. Dennis Berube writes: That's a strange interpretation of the newspaper article, which referred to a prominent anti-vaxxer who seemed to be encouraging people to physically attack medical staff. That's why the police got involved, not because she or anyone else didn't want to get vaccinated or wear a mask or whatever other threat to 'freedom' these people get worked up about. I wrote: Dennis replied: This may be the Wikipedia article Dennis is thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield It's a pretty devastating account, fully referenced, of Wakefield's activities. As far as "slander" goes, Wakefield sued a journalist and the TV company who broadcast the journalist's documentary, for defamation. He failed, and had to pay his opponents' legal costs. Here's what the judge said about Wakefield: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that no good evidence exists for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Magneto protein, eh? That sounds all sciencey-like, doesn't it? You've convinced me! The medical profession is wrong, and the bleach drinkers are right!
  11. Chris Barnard writes: Again, what's the significance of this? Are you absolutely sure Bill Gates isn't involved? Proving what to be the case? Wakefield tried to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and failed miserably. What is it that you think needs to be proved, and why? The mainstream media, at least in Britain, has run its fair share of anti-vaxxer misinformation. I don't read the Daily Mail, but I do read about the Daily Mail, which under its previous editor supported the anti-vaxxer fraud Andrew Wakefield: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/13/daily-mail-anti-vaxxers-paper-covid-vaccine-mmr For the benefit of non-UK readers who aren't familiar with the Daily Mail, the paper was a big fan of that nice Mr Hitler some years ago, and isn't much better now: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2017/10/horrible-history-daily-mail/ I'm sure they are. But, as Denny pointed out, your fellow anti-vaxxer preferred to get his information from unqualified alleged celebrities rather than directly from qualified medical professionals. When one has a choice of who to believe, the non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion, surely? Have I got this principle wrong? If I haven't, why do you insist on believing the small minority of experts over the large majority of experts? He doesn't want to talk about it because of this site's search engine rankings? For one thing, whatever he says wouldn't have a noticeable effect on any of this site's search engine rankings. For another, what sort of reason is that for not providing evidence and argument to support the claim he made? W. Niederhut claimed on page 14 that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes". It's quite a claim to make, because if it's true it leaves a gaping hole in the official explanation. If it's not true, of course, it leaves a gaping hole in W. Niederhut's credibility. I could understand if he hasn't provided the necessary evidence because he's been busy, or he has been taken ill, or his internet connection has gone down, or he has been abducted by creatures from the planet Tharg. But otherwise, you'd expect him to be keen to justify the statement he made. I'm starting to suspect that there probably isn't any solid evidence that any of the hijackers lived on after 9/11. Do you get that impression too? Again with the one-sentence truther talking points! You're the one who brought up these allegations, which you seem to think are deadly to the official explanation. It's up to you to demonstrate why that should be the case. Perhaps you could set out the evidence and the arguments for and against, in detail, and show us how conclusive these talking points really are. They belong in the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category, don't they?
  12. Chris Barnard writes: Do you mean that a doctor suggested that a controlled study be carried out, and his suggestion was refused? If that's what you're getting at, I'm not sure what the significance is. Would it by any chance have something to do with a deep-state conspiracy, run by Bill Gates from a pizza joint in Washington, to hide the awful truth about vaccines? The data that Wakefield came up with was intended to prove the opposite: that the MMR vaccine caused autism. As it turns out, the data was so poor that it didn't prove anything except that Wakefield was a fraud. The data shows that the original claim was unfounded. It's common knowledge that the Covid vaccines aren't 100% effective. Some vaccinated people will still catch the virus, spread it, and die from it. The point is explained here: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated That article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. The moral of the story: if you've got any sense, get yourself vaccinated, for your own sake and the sake of others. Admittedly, the authors of the article are only professional statisticians, not know-nothing actors or know-nothing TV producers. With luck, the article will be peer-reviewed by a learned committee of know-nothing bus drivers, know-nothing advertising executives, and know-nothing burger-flippers. Then perhaps the message may get through to the anti-vaxxer idiots who endanger themselves and the rest of us. Regarding 9/11, Chris writes: As I've pointed out, you have to reflect the balance of expert opinion, if you are not an expert yourself. It's irrational to pick and choose which experts to believe according to whether or not they reflect your personal view of the world. Only a small proportion of the relevant experts have claimed that the towers could not have collapsed merely because the planes hit them. I don't know the figures, but I'd guess that the proportion of medical professionals who think mass vaccination is a dangerous plot is, if anything, even smaller. When, as in these cases, expert opinion is heavily weighted in one direction, it's irrational for a non-expert to prefer the small minority. Even if the minority's views are endorsed by know-nothing actors and TV producers. I really can't take seriously the idea that a large number of professionally qualified people would be afraid to speak out on either 9/11 or vaccination, if the evidence against the official positions really is as strong as you make it out to be. Hence the quantity-over-quality list of regurgitated one-sentence truther talking points. How many of them have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt? W. Niederhut's claim that some of the hijackers were still alive and well after the attacks, for example, would indeed be devastating to the official account. Has that one been proved beyond doubt? From W. Niederhut's lack of a response, I'd guess not. How many other truther talking points fall into the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category? Any complex collection of evidence is likely to contain incongruous, anomalous items. The JFK assassination is a good example of this, and people have tried the same fruitless quantity-over-quality approach here too. Those are two items in your list of one-sentence truther talking points. From the information you've provided, there's very little to discuss. In each case, what is the evidence, exactly? How reliable is the source? What is the conspiratorial explanation of the evidence? Is there an alternative explanation? If so, what does it say, and what does it get wrong? If the conspiratorial argument in each case leaves any room for doubt, why should we believe it?
  13. Denny Zartman writes: Chris Barnard replies: As far as the original claim goes that the MMR vaccine caused autism, the data has been available for more than a decade. The data shows no link at all. Mr (formerly Dr, but he got struck off) Andrew Wakefield, who conducted the original 'research', comes across as an unscrupulous money-grubber. His 'research' was described by the British Medical Journal as "an elaborate fraud" that involved "falsification of data". It makes Luis Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment look respectable. The British Medical Journal provides readable accounts of this scandal here: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347 One advantage the 9/11 truthers have over the anti-vaxxers is that at least they aren't responsible for the spread of preventable diseases or for thousands of avoidable deaths.
  14. Chris Barnard writes: The 'planes and jet fuel' explanation seems to be accepted by a large majority of the relevant experts. As I pointed out earlier, the rational non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion in matters that require technical expertise. What it looks like to a non-expert doesn't mean much. See my previous remark. Indeed. Stand back from the window so your face won't be seen, take the easy shot, and dash down the stairs before anyone works out where the shot came from. Not that Oswald is likely to have been on the sixth floor at the time. Maybe they did, but you'd think plenty of people in the World Trade Center during the days leading up to the attack would have noticed piles of explosives or people cutting into steel joists. Two towers, each around 90 storeys high: that's a lot of joists that need to be weakened. Note to Paul Bacon: I'm sure I read somewhere (from a pro- or anti-truther source, I can't remember which) that some or most or all of the joists must have been weakened by partial cutting, in order for the explosives to bring the buildings down. This sounds like another question for experts to decide. There must be an awful lot of qualified architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and other people with the professional skills to evaluate the collapse of the towers. The vast majority of them have failed to go public with doubts about the official explanation. I suppose it's possible that tens or hundreds of thousands of people were threatened with career suicide or worse, but it isn't very likely, is it? So you agree with W. Niederhut that the hijackers, or at least some of them, did actually live on after the attacks? Presumably you also agree with his suggestion that the planes were piloted remotely? The notion of an inside job that involved actual hijackers actually hijacking the planes and actually flying them into the buildings, actually killing themselves in the process, but doing so on behalf of shadowy US government entities, sounds possible, if unlikely. But the notion of an inside job that involved fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes sounds very unlikely indeed, at least to me. It seems like the 9/11 equivalent of Lifton's body-alteration speculation, or the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger speculation. I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the evidence is for W. Niederhut's claim. I suspect it's nowhere near as conclusive as he thinks it is, which would cast doubt on at least some of his other claims. But I'm open to persuasion. What is the evidence, W. Niederhut? Only if the plan was to have Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting. But the lone-nut scenario appears to have been a post facto device to contain public dissatisfaction with political institutions, rather than a part of any original plan. Not every incongruous fact need be incorporated, square-peg-like, into a conspiracy theory. That applies to 9/11 just as much as to the JFK assassination. Sorry to interject with so much JFK stuff on a JFK forum, but the possibility that clear images might exist of Oswald somewhere other than on the sixth floor and with no rifle in sight, represents the best current possibility of a breakthrough in the case. The figure in the images we have may well turn out not to be Oswald, of course, but given that the figure does look somewhat like him, and that his own account ("went outside to watch the p. parade") is consistent with what we see, getting hold of good quality versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films is worth doing. And it's a lot more worthwhile than speculating about all the photographs and home movies being faked, which some people waste their time doing. Anyway, rant over. I'd imagine that most people would claim it was a coincidence, since anti-terror drills aren't especially rare occurrences. Do you really think the bombings in London were an inside job? If so, what evidence is there apart from an anti-terror drill possibly happening on the same day? You get plenty of this sort of vaguely suspicious activity in the JFK assassination story too. The three tramps in Dealey Plaza, for example. They might be gunmen! They might be generals or senior CIA officers! Alternatively, they might just be tramps. The thing is, all of this sort of stuff can be discarded from the JFK assassination and you'd still be able to make a plausible case that the event involved more than one gunman. But with 9/11, if you discard the vaguely suspicious stuff, there doesn't seem to be anything solid left.
  15. Chris Barnard writes: The PNAC types who were waiting for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan do seem to have been the sort of people who would have happily sacrificed the thousands of people who worked in the World Trade Center. But just because they could have intentionally killed those people, doesn't mean they did kill those people. The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan. On the other hand, making use of the helpful physical features of the book depository and Dealey Plaza in order to carry out a shooting, while having some risk of discovery, doesn't seem beyond the bounds of plausibility at all. There were three things that led me to dismiss the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, when I first looked into it years ago: The implausibility of blowing up the buildings. The very limited amount of support among qualified engineers, architects, and so on, for the technical argument that the buildings were blown up. Preposterous-sounding claims, such as W. Niederhut's statement that the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11". By 'preposterous', I mean that if the evidence was strong enough for the fact to be "known", that evidence would surely be common knowledge by now. To give another JFK comparison, if high-quality versions of the Darnell or Weigman films came to light which showed beyond any doubt that Oswald was standing on the TSBD steps, it would be impossible for that fact to be suppressed. Even if the mass media ignored it at first, many thousands of individuals would share the images over the internet, it would be reported in the fringe media, and eventually commentators in the mainstream media would be unable to ignore it. The same should have happened to the evidence that W. Niederhut finds convincing. Since it isn't common knowledge that some of the hijackers lived on, the claim sounds preposterous. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, if someone can produce incontrovertible evidence for that claim.
×
×
  • Create New...