Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's the thing. The minute you try to prove all of the things you default to believing because the media told you so, the minute I ask you to actually prove every thing they imply, your case would evaporate by those exact same standards. So try looking at things like you actually have some sense about yourself, like a FEMA team, OEM members, and Rudy Giuliani's office showing up at WTC7 on the evening before 9/11 and setting up a command post that they used the next day to advise the NYFD, PD, and EMS. You can call me paranoid if you want but I call you naive for taking FEMA's word at face value at such a bizarre coincidence, when they have even been shown by the MSM to have lied outright 2 or 3 times already, during Katrina and other events.

Here's how it goes for me. I watch zero television. I read newspapers for news filtering out inherent bias. I plug into a personal network of associates, some from my journalist days and new people I interface with who share interests.

None of us have much faith in commercial media, often from long experience. But we also know there is an exponentially greater level of unreliability from the alternative sources online that have no overriding controls as far as confirmation from independent sources.

When I need some new insight into something I want to know more about, I usually ask pointed questions to those who have studied the matter and demonstrated their expertise.

Just as an MD sometimes has to confer with specialists when he is dealing with something beyond his knowledge base.

It doesn't mean I'm always right, just that I get a consensus of uninvolved people who have examined a subject extensively and whose analysis can usually be counted on.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
None of us have much faith in commercial media, often from long experience. But we also know there is an exponentially greater level of unreliability from the alternative sources online that have no overriding controls as far as confirmation from independent sources.

Have you ever considered logic and reasoning as independent verification? That you apply yourselves? I'm talking all the "nitty-gritty" issues where I've seen you throw your hands up and say you're not a chemist. Well you know, science IS online (like basic chemistry, enough to get you thinking about everyday things in chemical terms) and you can learn more about it and come to your own conclusion based on your best understanding, which you can always refine by learning more. I love learning. That's MY independent verification. And if you are really lacking something, and someone corrects you and provides you all the relevant and substantiated information, that isn't hard to discern either. And when people just start making things up on the internet, that also isn't hard to tell.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Have you ever considered logic and reasoning as independent verification? That you apply yourselves? I'm talking all the "nitty-gritty" issues where I've seen you throw your hands up and say you're not a chemist. Well you know, science IS online (like basic chemistry, enough to get you thinking about everyday things in chemical terms) and you can learn more about it and come to your own conclusion based on your best understanding, which you can always refine by learning more. I love learning. That's MY independent verification.

Logic and reasoning are automatically applied to everything I tackle.

On one of these forums, myself and others have gone through the problems in attempting preplanned controlled demolition of WTC buildings. Multiple factors from precision timing to predicting the extent of plane damages. Nothing is impossible, but getting this right almost is. And then there's the mega-question - how much more would it accomplish?

An hour of sourcing and typing gets dismissed with a one-liner platitude about MSM, brainwashing, etc.

I don't bother any more. I actively exchange information with people who concede they are not completely certain, but not those just looking for opportunities to shoot down anything that conflicts with their conclusions.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
Multiple factors from precision timing to predicting the extent of plane damages. Nothing is impossible, but getting this right almost is.

So if you believe this is the case with intelligently-planted devices, why would it not also be the case without them?

And then there's the mega-question - how much more would it accomplish?

That's a question you'd have to gear towards a military psychologist, someone who specializes in propaganda, false flags and all that. The destructions of the buildings and its aftermath were certainly a lot more destructive and impressive upon the mind than the plane impacts and fires, though.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's a question you'd have to gear towards a military psychologist, someone who specializes in propaganda, false flags and all that. The destructions of the buildings and its aftermath were certainly a lot more destructive and impressive upon the mind than the plane impacts and fires, though.

Considering the WTC complex was the most critical nexus of the US economy, any self-serving rationale would make it the last place to be attacked. Ditto the Pentagon.

Attacking these and claiming the US did it for maximum dramatic purposes defies any logic. Killing 6000 people with an attack on Boston would have been just as effective, maybe more.

Financial losses resulting from the WTC attacks alone and disarray in NYC are incalculable.

No one rational shoots off their arm for attention.

Mike

[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]

First of all I notice you completely ignore this:

Originally posted by mmiichael
Multiple factors from precision timing to predicting the extent of plane damages. Nothing is impossible, but getting this right almost is.

So if you believe this is the case with intelligently-planted devices, why would it not also be the case without them?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Considering the WTC complex was the most critical nexus of the US economy, any self-serving rationale would make it the last place to be attacked.

The WTC Complex wasn't "the most critical nexus" of our economy. Wall Street has always been more important and it was just right down the road. The WTC Complex was commissioned and funded from the start by the Rockefeller family, namely David Rockefeller, and was only intended to "revitalize" that part of Manhattan, which was relatively stagnate at that time. Some banks rented office space in them. And it became home to the largest skyscrapers in the world at that time. But none of that is "critical" to our economy and the fact that the largest losses after 9/11 were resultant from the airline industry supports that fact.

Attacking these and claiming the US did it for maximum dramatic purposes defies any logic.

If the intent was to launch a bunch of wars and pour trillions of dollars into already-wealthy companies, for example, then it was extremely logical, because that's one of the things it resulted in. In general, anything that 9/11 did in fact result in, could be named as a logical reason for it to have taken place. Because logically, it led exactly to those next events.

Killing 6000 people with an attack on Boston would have been just as effective, maybe more.

And you would be sitting there declaring Boston to be an illogical place. NY is known all over the world, and is a much bigger city, than Boston. But what are we arguing over? The logistics of the best site? You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. I already told you, consult somebody that actually does these sorts of things for the military (black ops). It isn't my place to answer every single question YOU have, and I never said it was. I have other points to make.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. I already told you, consult somebody that actually does these sorts of things for the military (black ops). It isn't my place to answer every single question YOU have, and I never said it was. I have other points to make.

Sorry, I don't buy into the Truther conspiracy logic one bit. I find it mostly nonsense.

Not just my opinion, one shared by people who know a lot about how the US and it's agencies operate and think.

People who know little about politics, economics, demolition, military strategies can impute hidden strategies all they want. Googling back into the past and finding names like Rockefeller and extrapolating dot connected schemes is kid's stuff.

Those seeking to display some sort of superior knowledge and rebelliousness are attracted to these scenarios. Even when they conflict with what is known and independently verified.

I side with who seek the truth not a fabricated variant that makes them feel self-righteously indignant.

The US government does lots of bad things. Not everything bad happening in the world is part of some master plan of the US government.

But a growing number choose to believe in active US complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

It's a simplistic assessment by those incapable of dealing with actual complexities of their world.


Mike



[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by bsbray11

You keep degrading further and further into opinionated drivel.

I'll just post this for a 3rd time and let's see if we can start heading back in the other direction:

First of all I notice you completely ignore this:

Originally posted by mmiichael
Multiple factors from precision timing to predicting the extent of plane damages. Nothing is impossible, but getting this right almost is.

So if you believe this is the case with intelligently-planted devices, why would it not also be the case without them?

Hey, if I wanted to be nasty I could say I keep degrading into opinionated drivel so I can speak to you on your level.

Don't understand the rest of your message.

If Uncle Dick comes out and confesses he had thermite planted it will be accepted. Barring that, it will staunchly be believed by the new converts that it was put there by the Forces of Evil.

A few opportunists will provide some tantalizing evidence and his audience will cheer.


I can accurately predict no assembly of word will shake your faith.

So we've reached an impasse, really.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
Hey, if I wanted to be nasty I could say I keep degrading into opinionated drivel so I can speak to you on your level.

Yeah, and you might as well have said that, because it wouldn't change my opinion of you.

I'm trying to talk about something that actually relates to the towers and how they fell, that you brought up, and you don't want anything to do with it anymore. Typical, right? No one else wants to have anything to do with it either, but the lot of us are still calling for independent re-investigation.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm trying to talk about something that actually relates to the towers and how they fell, that you brought up, and you don't want anything to do with it anymore. Typical, right? No one else wants to have anything to do with it either, but the lot of us are still calling for independent re-investigation.

OK, let's forget about all the points covered a million times and the scientific data forwarded and ignored by those not wanting to hear it.

Let's get an independent investigation rolling right now, keeping in mind there are claims of thermitic material in the debris.

Where would you start to plant explosives in the targeted buildings? How invasive would the procedures be to expose the structural steel support beams? What materials would you require, and in what quantities?

How would you co-ordinate your planned explosions to be set off successfully and do the intended damage without being obvious to observers and recording?

How would you be able to predict exactly where the incoming planes would impact, how much damage they would do to the structural support, and the nature of the spreading fires cause by the spilling fuel?

How would you insure this secondary damage would not compromises your explosive materials either making the necessary split-second timing impossible or destroying the ignition devices?

That's for starters.


Mike





[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
OK, let's forget about all the points covered a million times and the scientific data forwarded and ignored by those not wanting to hear it.

I haven't seen it all a million times already. All I've seen is you weaseling out of lots of different things. That's all I have to say. You never did respond to the only even remotely related question I kept asking you. You think this is all so hard to accomplish and yet it just happened on its own. Doesn't work both ways, sorry.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
OK, let's forget about all the points covered a million times and the scientific data forwarded and ignored by those not wanting to hear it.

I haven't seen it all a million times already. All I've seen is you weaseling out of lots of different things. That's all I have to say. You never did respond to the only even remotely related question I kept asking you. You think this is all so hard to accomplish and yet it just happened on its own. Doesn't work both ways, sorry.

OK, let's get our facts straight. I am replying to your comments, insulting and demeaning often, out of choice. This not my profession or even a hobby.

I can stay on this thread and put you on Ignore. Or just not respond to what you say. I don't even have to go to an ATS 9/11 thread.

I certainly don't have to answer ever question you raise, just as you choose not to answer most of mine.

I am not as technically versed in the half dozen interrelated fields involved in understanding how and why a building hit directly or secondarily by an airplane collapses. So I read as much as I can and further commentary from credible sources. Then I get the opinions of those with deeper understanding of aspects I only know of in broad terms.

I've seen hundred of posts from knowledgeable people on these matters here on ATS, but do not keep a catalogue of them. You have the option of reviewing old threads and reading them yourself if you are in a 'need to know' mode.

I prefer to take the cumulative understanding of what I have absorbed and go further into the logistics of how and why things happened the way they did. On the way I can recognize fallacies and misinterpretations of data.
Sometimes I try to point them out. But not every instance. I am not engaged in a peer review process.

I just do my best in the areas where I have certain strengths and understanding, and readily admit reliance on others for what I haven't studied in depth myself.

Take it or leave it.

Mike

[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by cognoscente
Once again, we have been given the opportunity to gauge the academic rigor and editorial standards of Bentham Publishing, the singular journal, which happened to publish this paper. Ultimately, they discovered "something", looked at the photos, and then undertook a poor, unsubstantiated scientific experiment, that happened only a crock-house like Bentham would even consider. The paper just isn't scientific. Why should anyone even "consider" the data? It's not worth the read.

Good story of the two students who submitted a computer generated random nonsense paper to Bentham and got it accepted - on payment of the $800 publication fee to be sent to the United Arab Emirates.

And this is the only place that would public Jones's paper - a scam operation.

Irony of ironies, an editor for Bentham actually quit over Jones's paper getting into print. She hadn't accepted it but other staff members put it in anyways.

Mike