Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Chris Barnard
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

US House of representatives member Ronny Jackson tweeted on Tuesday that, "something is seriously wrong with Biden, and it's only going to get worse". The Republican congressman from Texas added in another tweet that, "it's past the point of embarrassment. He's lost, he can barely put a coherent sentence together.

"He must have a cognitive exam and release the results!"

Mr Jackson then appeared on Fox News to claim that Mr Biden and lost his footing on the stairwell of Air Force One.

He now maintains that because of the president's "difficulty speaking coherently", he will have to be either forced from office with the invocation of 25th Amendment or he will resign.

The former physician to Donald Trump then said: "If members of Biden's cabinet aren't looking into invoking the 25th Amendment, then this is a national security issue at this point it really is."

 

Is the 25th amendment is the one put in place in 1964 or sometime around then. I suspect they wanted to get rid of JFK on medical grounds and have Johnson in but, didn’t have the framework in 1963. The Dr Max Jacobsen’s cocktail of amphetamine salts would probably have given grounds for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Is the 25th amendment is the one put in place in 1964 or sometime around then.

The Keating–Kefauver Proposal suggested allowing Congress to make a law about who should decide when a President is disabled.] It was proposed in 1963 by Senator Kenneth Keating of New York, and supported by Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver. However, other Senators were worried that Congress could abuse this power, or would not actually make the law after the amendment was passed.

The Bayh–Celler Proposal ended up becoming the Twenty-fifth Amendment.[On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed the amendment in the United States Senate, and Representative Emanuel Celler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) proposed it in the United States House of Representatives. Unlike the Keating–Kefauver Proposal, it suggested a way to fill the Vice President's position if it was empty, and also set out rules for how a President could be declared "disabled."

I do not know just when in 1963 Keating-Kefauver's proposal was raised.

Edited by Pete Mellor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 5:32 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

      The NIST report is not accepted science.  In fact, it has been thoroughly debunked.

      Read the scientific references I posted for you (above.)

      It's not a matter of opinion or mainstream media spin (and truly astonishing censorship.)  It's a matter of scientific fact. 

Again, you are playing some semantics game while trying to beat around my point.

I'm not trying to get you to abandon your position, or to even speak favorably of the NIST report. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge reality. Being in the profession you are in (or were in), I'd think this to be an easy task. You don't have to defend your views to me, or the views of A&E, or even try to prove to me why the NIST report is wrong. This isn't about that. This isn't even about the NIST report being right or wrong. It's about it being accepted by the scientific community at large, and we both know that it is. The scientific community, in an overwhelming fashion, accept the information in the report, as well as the calculations and science which are used to make the conclusions.

Again, the NIST report has not been 'thoroughly debunked." Please provide one scientific, peer reviewed journal or publication which supports your statement. A report published in the echo chamber of "A&E" does not debunk anything anymore than the book "Harvey and Lee" debunks the Warren Commission.

Until then....

The NIST report is accepted by the scientific community at large. The consensus between scientists agrees with the report.

The NIST report is accepted by the general public as the official story.

The NIST report is accepted by the federal government as the official story.

For all intents and purposes, history recognizes the NIST report as the official "bona-fide" story and as the real evidence.

At this point you are doing the same thing climate change deniers do. They say the scientific consensus has been "debunked" and their science which is not accepted by anyone but them is the real science, the "bona-fide" truth if you will. You have said the scientific consensus has been "debunked" (without providing anything to support your claim, and when you do it will just be the views of A&E, which doesn't actually debunk anything). You have said that the science that is not accepted by anyone outside of A&E is the real science.

How are you any different from a climate change denier, how does your argument not deserve censorship based on your own criteria?

Again, I'm not even saying I agree with the NIST report. I'm just saying its the recognized, scientific, "truth." My agreement with that "truth" isn't going to change the simple that fact. I don't have to recognize it, you don't either. The same as climate change deniers do not have to recognize the scientific consensus. Does it change the fact that the consensus exists? Has it been "debunked?" Maybe in your eyes, yes it has been debunked. In the eyes of science, the simple truth is again, no, it has not been debunked.

So we can keep playing semantic games around "debunked," "scientific consensus," and whichever other words you want to play games with, but you know what I'm saying and you know what you're doing when you play those games, probably better than most people here do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, excuse me if I enter into this even though I am not at all a student of 9-11.  As I always say, four cases is enough for me.

IMO, there is a chasm between climate denial and 9-11 criticism.

The whole global warming movement is an environmental cause, not really political.  It was helped along by a popular film An Inconvenient Truth which won on Oscar, and to a lesser extent by Who Killed the Electric Car?.  The politics of it is really on the other side and has been exposed as that.

The 9-11 issue, at its heart, is political.  A good example of this would be when Stephen Jones was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and he wanted them to show the collapse of Building Seven. As I recall, Carlson did this: he showed the very beginning, and the very end, or close to it. 

Because it is so political, and because it is so potentially politically explosive, the Establishment backs it.  You can always find people like this in the sciences.  They have littered the JFK case for decades: Latimer, Alvarez, Guinn, Canning, Baden.  And because the media and political establishment backs them, they get exposure and have influence.  Therefore it does not matter how many authorities line up on William's side, their voices will not be heard.   The NIST study has been exposed by more than one authority, but it does not matter. You will not hear about it in the MSM echo chamber. 

I chalk this up to Hallin's spheres. (Although I have to say, when people like Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer are part of your crowd that does not help.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mark, excuse me if I enter into this even though I am not at all a student of 9-11.  As I always say, four cases is enough for me.

IMO, there is a chasm between climate denial and 9-11 criticism.

The whole global warming movement is an environmental cause, not really political.  It was helped along by a popular film An Inconvenient Truth which won on Oscar, and to a lesser extent by Who Killed the Electric Car?.  The politics of it is really on the other side and has been exposed as that.

The 9-11 issue, at its heart, is political.  A good example of this would be when Stephen Jones was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and he wanted them to show the collapse of Building Seven. As I recall, Carlson did this: he showed the very beginning, and the very end, or close to it. 

Because it is so political, and because it is so potentially politically explosive, the Establishment backs it.  You can always find people like this in the sciences.  They have littered the JFK case for decades: Latimer, Alvarez, Guinn, Canning, Baden.  And because the media and political establishment backs them, they get exposure and have influence.  Therefore it does not matter how many authorities line up on William's side, their voices will not be heard.   The NIST study has been exposed by more than one authority, but it does not matter. You will not hear about it in the MSM echo chamber. 

I chalk this up to Hallin's spheres. (Although I have to say, when people like Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer are part of your crowd that does not help.)

      Exactly right, and I was actually going to bring up the case of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his cellophane-wrapped Exploding Melon as an example of the way that the U.S. government has used scientific "experts" to endorse bogus explanations of black ops. 

      The bogus NIST Report is a Luis Alvarez Exploding Melon type snow job used by the Bush-Cheney administration to confuse the public about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.  They developed an alleged computer simulation of the WTC demolitions, then used secret, undisclosed parameters to "explain" the demolitions-- while refusing to publish their numbers!

      And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report.  Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST.   His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.

     To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.

1)  What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?

2)  What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?

3)  How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

4)  How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

5)  Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?

6)  If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The whole global warming movement is an environmental cause, not really political.

Hi James, I think in a few years you’ll see exactly the opposite of this. Just to be clear, we are destroying our habitat but, the cause is hijacked by the political elite (often the same guys who have exploited and trashed the planet) and they’ll use peoples compassion to walk society into a carbon credit style system where everyone is seen as environmental debtors who must pay compensation. Of course this will be for the general public, whats left of the middle class and poor, and the elite will move more wealth upwards and have even greater control. Sustainable Development (technocracy) will feed into this system. There is lots going on with planning smart cities, which the World Economic Forum are involved in (amongst others). 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Because it is so political, and because it is so potentially politically explosive, the Establishment backs it.  You can always find people like this in the sciences.

Yes, it happens all of the time, it’s a bit like the Asch Conformity Experiments. People will support things they think they should, as opposed to critically thinking and covering all bases. The trust in the state is huge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 5:42 PM, Mark Stevens said:

Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not.

Mark I couldn’t disagree more. The truth has nothing to do with how many subscribers it has, only if its true. Agendas, on the other hand, absolutely require subscribers in order to advance their means because they generally need to massage the truth in some way. “Accepted truth” therefore is essentially code for agenda or propaganda.

 

In regards to the climate science, the “consensus” figures bandied about require investigation. Climate science is largely funded through federal grants, guess who gets the money? Guess what happens if your “study” says anything against the co2 narrative? Guess who they send their “polls” to on these climate change questions. The consensus is not what corporate media is telling you. Jim Steele is a good source who isn’t politically biased as far as i can tell, his book is an excellent opening to this entire question.
 

If the corporate elite cared so much about our environment, why do they back pouring a million gallons of toxic nuclear waste into the ocean? Why do they champion cancer causing poisons like glyphosate in all of our food to the point where essentially 100% of breastmilk is contaminated with up to 60 chemicals/pesticides that will lead to devastating health issues? Why do political leaders refuse to endorse easily obtainable and very clean thorium salt reactors or maglev rail technology that would do wonders for the environment and economy? It is difficult to be truly objective about these things, but genuine efforts to save our world will never include restrictions on hard earned civil rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Mark I couldn’t disagree more. The truth has nothing to do with how many subscribers it has, only if its true. Agendas, on the other hand, absolutely require subscribers in order to advance their means because they generally need to massage the truth in some way. “Accepted truth” therefore is essentially code for agenda or propaganda.

 

Well said, Dennis.

Science is science.  Mark's concept of "fringe science" is an oxymoron of sorts.

It is more accurate to speak of science and pseudo-science.

Luis Alvarez's Exploding Melon theory and the NIST Report are pseudo-science.

The research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is science.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2021 at 3:13 PM, W. Niederhut said:

      Exactly right, and I was actually going to bring up the case of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his cellophane-wrapped Exploding Melon as an example of the way that the U.S. government has used scientific "experts" to endorse bogus explanations of black ops. 

      The bogus NIST Report is a Luis Alvarez Exploding Melon type snow job used by the Bush-Cheney administration to confuse the public about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.  They developed an alleged computer simulation of the WTC demolitions, then used secret, undisclosed parameters to "explain" the demolitions-- while refusing to publish their numbers!

      And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report.  Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST.   His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.

     To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.

1)  What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?

2)  What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?

3)  How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

4)  How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

5)  Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?

6)  If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

The irony of all of this...

Quote

And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report.  Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST.   His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.

The reason I am having this conversation to begin with is because you want to censor climate change denial. You want to censor climate change denial based on the evidence and scientific consensus which supports the facts of climate change and the dangers climate change poses. I can't believe you don't realize this, but your argument is a...you guessed it...argument from authority. Science says climate change is real, therefore climate change deniers must be silenced. If your argument is not this, please correct me.

Then there is some group, just like A&E, who believes the data is not real, who believes the science is pseudo-science, who believes the media is an echo chamber repeating the lies that hold up the entire hoax. They post links showing how the science which is accepted by the scientific community is wrong and therefore...debunked. 

But, they are actually wrong...right? According to you, to scientific consensus, to the general public, and to the federal government, their science is the pseudo-science, their claims are the ones which have no merit, which have been...debunked. That is the...authority...right?

If I'm wrong in anything above, please correct me.

Quote

 

To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.

1)  What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?

2)  What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?

3)  How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

4)  How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

5)  Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?

6)  If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

Sure, I've answered it here...

Quote

But, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions).

And here...

Quote

This isn't meant to be a 9/11 debate so there really isn't a point in trying to convince me one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what science says about the issue and how that relates to your ideas of censorship. 

And again...

Quote

You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report.

And again...

Quote

Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.

Again, this conversation was not about my beliefs on 9/11 or whether or not WT7 was brought down by a CD. This conversation was about our ability to even have this conversation. It was started based on your ironic appeal to authority.

Will you please now answer the original question which I have asked repeatedly in which you have not answered, but have continued to deflect from by questioning my 9/11 beliefs. I will clarify the question...

Do you believe climate change denial should be censored? Do you believe it should be censored because the government and science (aka the authority) has spoken on the issue?

If that is true, how does that differ from 9/11 debate, and our ability to have this conversation? If the authority (aka the government and the NIST report) says 9/11 was not brought down by a CD, but by the "official story" would we be censored? Could me and you have this conversation?

My position, again, is no. The situations are one and the same. The same "authority" which says climate change science is real, says the NIST report is real. If that authority says climate change denial is censored, 9/11 debate would be equally censored.

How am I wrong?

(please for the love of John O'Neill do not just again question the validity of the NIST report, let's just assume it's as wrong as eating through your ass, it doesn't change the fact that the government recognizes it as the authority and it would be that authority making censorship decisions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

     You still haven't answered the basic science questions about the NIST Report that I posted for you on Saturday (above.)

     Honestly, I fully expected you to duck those questions and change the subject, and you did.

     I'll address your distorted argument about my objections to the oil industry propaganda denying climate change, but first be so kind as to answer my questions about the NIST Report.

      Let's deal with one pseudo-science propaganda problem at a time.  🤥

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

Thousands of scientists and engineers who have actually studied the WTC demolitions overwhelmingly reject the NIST report, which was nothing more than an expensive, pseudo-scientific cover up by the Bush-Cheney administration.

Mark Stevens replies:

Quote

The thousands of scientists and engineers you speak of are still only in the 2%. The other 98% says you're wrong and right or wrong that is the voice that is listened to, that is the voice of "reason."

Mark's point hasn't been denied, which implies that Mr Niederhut agrees with him. I don't know whether the exact proportions are 98 to 2, but I presume it's accurate to say that only a small minority of experts think that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by explosives.

Very few of us, however, are experts in structural engineering or architecture. As a general principle, what should non-experts do when faced with a question whose answer requires scientific or technical expertise? What is the rational course of action for those who do not possess the expertise to properly assess the evidence for themselves?

Surely the non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This has to be done provisionally, with the understanding that the balance of expert opinion might change in the future. If expert opinion does change, the non-expert should then be obliged to reflect the new balance of expert opinion.

This principle applies to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings just as much as it applies to other topics in which overwhelming expert opinion is opposed by small but vocal minorities, such as climate science, or mass vaccination, or evolution by natural selection, or whether the Earth is round or flat. If resolving the question requires expertise, and one doesn't have the appropriate expertise, the only rational course is to reflect expert opinion. Non-experts who don't do so are irrational.

Pointing to this or that article on a 9/11 truthers' website means little, no matter how well-qualified the article's author might be. Why should any non-experts accept what that article says, if a large majority of other, equally well-qualified experts think it's wrong?

Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect Mark Stevens to argue against some 9/11 truther's account of the science (I assume that Mark, unlike W. Niederhut, is not an expert in anything to do with structural engineering). All Mark has to do is to point at the majority expert opinion. If Mr Niederhut wants someone to answer his technical questions, he needs to ask his fellow experts.


*  *  *

When I looked briefly into the 9/11 stuff years ago, what struck me was that the 'inside job' argument relied fundamentally on the idea that the buildings had been sabotaged.

There are two big differences between this scenario and the JFK assassination. First, there's the question of expertise. Whether or not the towers could have fallen as a result of being hit by planes is a question that only the relevant experts can answer (and it seems they have done so). Working out what happened in the JFK assassination, on the other hand, relies mainly on evaluating witness statements and documentary evidence. There are some scientific aspects, but none of them are fundamental.

The second difference is one of plausibility. It seems somewhat unlikely, to put it mildly, that a team of Bad Guys could plant explosives and cut into steel joists, tasks that would have taken many hours and generated plenty of noise and disruption, in buildings containing thousands of people, in one of the busiest cities in the world, without being spotted ("Hey, guys, why is our stationery cupboard full of sticks of dynamite? And what's he doing with that angle grinder?") .

It seems perfectly feasible, on the other hand, that a rifle could be planted in the book depository, or that a gunman could surreptitiously enter and leave the building, which had several unattended rear entrances, at a time when the majority of the people who worked there were outside, watching the president go by. And it surely wouldn't be hugely difficult to organise a small team of gunmen to shoot someone who is sitting in the back of a slow-moving, open-topped car. Finally, there have been innumerable examples throughout history of political figures who were killed by their political opponents for political reasons. It's almost the default explanation for a political assassination.

The only aspect of JFK assassination conspiratorial thinking that resembles the 9/11 version is the far-fetched stuff such as presidential body-snatching squads, or teams of people seizing and altering most of the home movies and photographs, or doppelganger Oswalds following each other around Dallas.

But you don't need any of that poorly supported, superfluous crud to explain the assassination as a political act carried out by more than one person. In contrast, there doesn't seem to be any way of explaining 9/11 as an inside job without coming up with something as inherently implausible as blowing up the buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

W. Niederhut writes:

Mark Stevens replies:

Mark's point hasn't been denied, which implies that Mr Niederhut agrees with him. I don't know whether the exact proportions are 98 to 2, but I presume it's accurate to say that only a small minority of experts think that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by explosives.

Very few of us, however, are experts in structural engineering or architecture. As a general principle, what should non-experts do when faced with a question whose answer requires scientific or technical expertise? What is the rational course of action for those who do not possess the expertise to properly assess the evidence for themselves?

Surely the non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This has to be done provisionally, with the understanding that the balance of expert opinion might change in the future. If expert opinion does change, the non-expert should then be obliged to reflect the new balance of expert opinion.

This principle applies to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings just as much as it applies to other topics in which overwhelming expert opinion is opposed by small but vocal minorities, such as climate science, or mass vaccination, or evolution by natural selection, or whether the Earth is round or flat. If resolving the question requires expertise, and one doesn't have the appropriate expertise, the only rational course is to reflect expert opinion. Non-experts who don't do so are irrational.

Pointing to this or that article on a 9/11 truthers' website means little, no matter how well-qualified the article's author might be. Why should any non-experts accept what that article says, if a large majority of other, equally well-qualified experts think it's wrong?

Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect Mark Stevens to argue against some 9/11 truther's account of the science (I assume that Mark, unlike W. Niederhut, is not an expert in anything to do with structural engineering). All Mark has to do is to point at the majority expert opinion. If Mr Niederhut wants someone to answer his technical questions, he needs to ask his fellow experts.


*  *  *

When I looked briefly into the 9/11 stuff years ago, what struck me was that the 'inside job' argument relied fundamentally on the idea that the buildings had been sabotaged.

There are two big differences between this scenario and the JFK assassination. First, there's the question of expertise. Whether or not the towers could have fallen as a result of being hit by planes is a question that only the relevant experts can answer (and it seems they have done so). Working out what happened in the JFK assassination, on the other hand, relies mainly on evaluating witness statements and documentary evidence. There are some scientific aspects, but none of them are fundamental.

The second difference is one of plausibility. It seems somewhat unlikely, to put it mildly, that a team of Bad Guys could plant explosives and cut into steel joists, tasks that would have taken many hours and generated plenty of noise and disruption, in buildings containing thousands of people, in one of the busiest cities in the world, without being spotted ("Hey, guys, why is our stationery cupboard full of sticks of dynamite? And what's he doing with that angle grinder?") .

It seems perfectly feasible, on the other hand, that a rifle could be planted in the book depository, or that a gunman could surreptitiously enter and leave the building, which had several unattended rear entrances, at a time when the majority of the people who worked there were outside, watching the president go by. And it surely wouldn't be hugely difficult to organise a small team of gunmen to shoot someone who is sitting in the back of a slow-moving, open-topped car. Finally, there have been innumerable examples throughout history of political figures who were killed by their political opponents for political reasons. It's almost the default explanation for a political assassination.

The only aspect of JFK assassination conspiratorial thinking that resembles the 9/11 version is the far-fetched stuff such as presidential body-snatching squads, or teams of people seizing and altering most of the home movies and photographs, or doppelganger Oswalds following each other around Dallas.

But you don't need any of that poorly supported, superfluous crud to explain the assassination as a political act carried out by more than one person. In contrast, there doesn't seem to be any way of explaining 9/11 as an inside job without coming up with something as inherently implausible as blowing up the buildings.

Who did a solid and adequately funded scientific polling of these so called experts to come up with a 98 to 2% result with 98% stating they didn't see anything suspicious with the building collapses, especially building 7?

If thousands put their names to published papers on the conspiracy side ( which they actually did ) you mean to say 50X that number of other experts did the same with other non-conspiracy published papers

All these 100,000 conspiracy refuting experts were shown films of the collapses and asked to submit their findings?

That poll and it's proclaimed numbers seems as phony as Trump's election fraud claims.

To me, the "fact" that 1,000 or 2,000 or even more valid experts in the relative fields were willing to put their names and their reputations out in the public realm and on the line to express their suspicions regards the building collapses ( again especially building 7 ) says alot.

I'm one of the totally ignorant public in these areas of study, but my common sense says the collapse of building 7 seemed as perfectly footprint, all at once free falling as any controlled demolition videos I have seen since the story was first widely reported. 

Heck, it seems even more accomplished than many controlled ones in those videos. Not all of even the controlled demolitions fell as uniformly and footprint perfect as WTC building 7 ... imo.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

     You still haven't answered the basic science questions about the NIST Report that I posted for you on Saturday (above.)

     Honestly, I fully expected you to duck those questions and change the subject, and you did.

     I'll address your distorted argument about my objections to the oil industry propaganda denying climate change, but first be so kind as to answer my questions about the NIST Report.

      Let's deal with one pseudo-science propaganda problem at a time.  🤥

Dude, I started by asking a question that you never answered. In the spirit of fairness, being that I asked first and then you changed the subject, shouldn't you actually be answering my questions? Read back a few pages if you need to see who asked who first and who was ignored first.

I actually answered yours, this was never a 9/11 debate until you made it about 9/11. It was a question about our ability to even have a 9/11 debate. You didn't want to answer that because you know I'm right, so instead you intellectually condescend to me while deflecting and changing the subject. You know 9/11 debate would be censored right along with JFKA debates, climate change debates, and a list of others which would be deemed harmful to the public interest.

I've never changed the subject, each of my posts has been on the topic of the original question I asked.

The irony of all of this is so astounding.

I ask you a question.

You ignore the question, change the topic and then ask me a list of questions.

I refer back to my original question.

You ignore that, and ask more questions on a different topic.

I refer back to my original question.

You tell me to answer your questions (even though this began with me asking you a question that you'll get around to answering after I kowtow to you and your intellectual superiority) and to stop deflecting (which is what you have done and are projecting onto me). You know your field well, don't you?

Wow.

Just....

Wow....

But, in any even, I've more than proven my point.

9/11 debate is no different that climate change debate, no different than JFKA debate, no different than COVID debates, no different that QANON debate. No different than "insert conspiratorial debate here."

An "authority" has decided the official story in each of these. Speaking out against that "authority" rejects the basic tenets of "accepted science." 

If you want to ban any of these because the "authority" has spoken (which is what W. Niederhut wants to do with climate change debate) then a precedent is set which opens the door for all others to be equally censored on the same grounds.

It doesn't really matter what Mark Stevens, or W. Niederhut believes. Those people do not make the rules, the "authority" does and W. Niederhut would like that "authority" to save us from the "crazies."

This is a horrible idea and would make us all criminals just for having conversations or having ideas.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2021 at 2:13 PM, W. Niederhut said:

 Frankly, my dear Mark, I don't give a damn about your alleged "polls" and propaganda sources.

Let's get back to the actual science of the WTC demolitions and the pseudo-scientific NIST Report.

I'm posting the answers (in red below) to my questions from Saturday that you still refuse to answer.

Exactly right, and I was actually going to bring up the case of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his cellophane-wrapped Exploding Melon as an example of the way that the U.S. government has used scientific "experts" to endorse bogus explanations of black ops. 

      The bogus NIST Report is a Luis Alvarez Exploding Melon type snow job used by the Bush-Cheney administration to confuse the public about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.  They developed an alleged computer simulation of the WTC demolitions, then used secret, undisclosed parameters to "explain" the demolitions-- while refusing to publish their numbers!

      And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report.  Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST.   His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.

     To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.

1)  What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?

They offered no explanation.  Their computer "simulation" merely described a theoretical model for the initiation of a partial upper floor collapse.  But there was no observed top-down gravitational "pile driver" effect during the WTC7 collapse.  The distance between the upper WTC7 floors remained constant as the entire building collapsed in a free fall.  The NIST offered no explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical demolition of the entire 47 floor steel sub-structure!

2)  What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?

They had no explanation for the massive explosive pulverization of the WTC concrete, office furniture, and human bodies. In fact, they didn't even acknowledge the obvious explosions.

3)  How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

They did not acknowledge the existence of the liquefied steel described by multiple witnesses.

4)  How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

They did not acknowledge the visible and audible serial explosions.

5)  Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?

The NIST did not even examine the WTC debris for evidence of explosives.

6)  If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?

Zero.  Any resistance to collapse would have impeded free fall acceleration.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...