In line with OBF’s concerns about the authenticity of the WTC1 and WTC2 footage, the WTC7 footage is almost certainly genuine because there were just too many vantage points by that time in the evening, to be controlled. Even the most elaborate conspiracy theory could not encompass controlling all angles on WTC7. So, WTC7 is also a better starting point for those who have concerns about the authenticity of the WTC1 & 2 video footage.
Clayton -
"I’m not comparing specifically this footage to an entire body of established scientific research. "
But you are. Your very next sentence confirms this:" I’m saying footage in general is reliable until given good reason to think otherwise, ..".
In effect you are claiming that for purposes of scientific proof, 10-20 second network video footage clips are as reliable and trustworthy for reaching valid conclusions about 911 as are the results obtained through 100’s of 1000’s, perhaps millions of hours spent in scientific research/experimentation and cross checking by other researchers playing the “devil’s advocate” role, under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, hours which were then used to formulate a theory of genetics . Do you not see the difference?
Regards,onebornfree
"I’m not comparing specifically this footage to an entire body of established scientific research. "
But you are. Your very next sentence confirms this:" I’m saying footage in general is reliable until given good reason to think otherwise, ..".
In effect you are claiming that for scientific proof, 10-20 second network video footage clips are as reliable for reaching valid conclusions about 911 as are the results obtained through 100’s of 1000’s, perhaps millions of hours spent in scientific research/experimentation and cross checking by other researchers playing the “devil’s advocate” role, under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, hours which were then used to formulate a theory of genetics . Do you not see the difference?
Regards,onebornfree
"I’m not comparing specifically this footage to an entire body of established scientific research. "
But you are. Your very next sentence confirms this:" I’m saying footage in general is reliable until given good reason to think otherwise, ..".
In effect you are claiming that for scientific proof, 10-20 second network video footage clips are as reliable for reaching valid conclusions about 911 as are the results obtained through 100’s of 1000’s, perhaps millions of hours spent in scientific research/experimentation and cross checking by other researchers playing the “devil’s advocate” role, under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, hours which were then used to formulate a theory of genetics . Do you not see the difference?
Regards,onebornfree
Why not step back and try to look at a bigger picture here.
Do you think that it might be possible that, for psychological reasons, you might choose to believe that the WTC7 collapse footage is genuine?
In other words, because you have studied that particular footage [with the unquestioned assumption that it is genuine],and because you then reached your conclusions perhaps largely based on analysis of that footage, [therefor] it has to be real- otherwise your conclusion [controlled demolition of WTC7] would be unjustifiable?
Do you possibly view the questioning of the authenticity of WTC7 collapse sequences as a direct threat to your particular theory?
Regards,onebornfree
It’s not simply 10-20 seconds of network video. It’s 10-20 seconds from vantage points in the double digits all corroborating the same event in the same manner, with thousands of eyewitnesses. Out of all of the people out there, and out of all of the video captured of the event, NOT ONE SINGLE VIDEO captured no plane hitting the the towers assuming they had a vantage point possible to see the plane.
So you, by saying that all the video was faked are implying that the government rounded up 1000’s of people around the event, and confiscated their media of the event to ensure that they could fake all video from all vantage points. Yet there is no evidence for this ever happening.
No. Although that is what I believe, my quibble here is with the lack of any evidence of a sound, neutral [i.e unbiased one way or another] scientific methodology being employed by “scientists” to reach their conclusions [not mine] , thereby making the conclusions reached by those scientists to date[ on both sides of the aisle] invalid, as far as I can see.
I am merely pointing out that any real scientists must remain neutral on the question as to the truth or falsity of any/all supposed video footage and photos to be used as evidence,until any/ all such footage/evidence has been closely examined and verified as being genuine.
This has never been done - “scientists” have in fact unquestioningly assumed, in advance , with no way of actually knowing for certain that the footage etc. is genuine [in sharp contrast to laboratory test results] that it is genuine, and then based their conclusions on the unquestioned assumption of authenticity.
Although understandable and excusable for “laymen” and none-scientists, for scientists, this is a huge error in scientific methodology.Such a “deductive” process has no place within a sound scientific investigative methodology, as far as I am aware.
To be of any use at all for scientific conclusions, all such footage under consideration would first need to be closely and repeatedly analyzed, from an entirely neutral [neither for or against] scientific vantage point _ in advance_ of the formulation of any definitive conclusions, i.e. before it could be used to draw any valid conclusions about the events of 911.
Otherwise, “scientists” are merely reaching what are likely to be erroneous conclusions based on dubious, unverified assumptions about the “evidence” used to draw their “scientific” conclusions.
Regards, onebornfree
Larger view:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RQjQvxtmK8A/TG27SJoHUtI/AAAAAAAADN8/aHDZNQEyWEc/s800/Woo+Table+v2.1.png
I’m surprised no one has posted this yet.
Over 1300 professional architectural and engineering professionals demanding a new independent investigation into 911.
I often wonder why Austrians are so hostile against entertaining the idea of the government being complacent in the attacks on 911. It’s not like this would somehow refute Austrian Economics, in fact it would reinforce and strengthen it’s importance.
The only thing the truth of 911 would threaten would be a false world view on how politics really works in the world.
@SamArmstrong
Regarding the meaning of “pull (it)”, I believe this could be of some help.
Of course, even if WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition (as I think the evidence bears out), that says nothing about the motives for doing so.
LOL, no. Like most people, I was only dimly aware of the circumstances of the WTC7 collapse for many years after 9/11… I knew there was another building collapse but I thought it was just a minor out-building and it was triggered by the collapse of the nearby WTC1. I get a kick out of watching these YouTube conspiracy theory vids (David Icke, Alex Jones, et. al.) and when I started looking into the WTC1 & 2 demolition theories, I stumbled across WTC7. It took quite some time to take my focus off WTCs 1 & 2 which are very difficult to make a case for premeditated demolition and put it onto WTC7. In time, I realized that while the circumstances under which WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed were merely fishy, the collapse of WTC7 was, well, obviously a demolition. Given the obstacles I faced in realizing this, I have come to the conclusion that the excessive airtime that WTC1 & 2 conspiracy theories receive is the result of a disinformation campaign.
Well, yeah. If those tapes are photoshopped, then who knows what actually happened. The collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 happened in a very short period of time from the initial strikes (the second tower collapsed by 10:30am, not even two hours after the initial impact), so it is not completely unimaginable that you could have complete control of all camera footage of the events, though there are an awful lot of cameras in New York City, so it’s pretty hard to believe. But by 5:21pm when WTC7 collapse, a full eight hours had passed. Only a conspiracy involving aliens or demons with superhuman powers could encompass someone controlling absolutely ALL footage of the building’s collapse, eight hours from the initiating event.
I have a pretty open mind so I don’t completely discount the photoshop hypotheses but I can also easily see them playing a disinformational role.
Clayton -
Andy: I don’t think “Austrians” are hostile towards it, I just think it’s not part of their core focus. I’m sure individual Austrians each have their own views on 9/11 conspiracy theories, some more sympathetic, others less so. For an organization like LvMI to publicly take a skeptical stance toward the official theory of the 9/11 attacks, however, risks discrediting the other work they do, which is economics. So, let the AE911 guys do what they do well and let the LvMI guys do what they do well. AE911 has the hard-sciences horsepower necessary to take all comers, including NIST and FEMA.
Clayton -
Good points.
There seem to be way to many what-ifs in every ‘inside job’ scenario. What I could possibly be made to believe is that, considering we know how much the government took advantage of 9/11 in the aftermath, they may have let the attacks happen. I read something pretty weird a while back about Cheney moving military planes away from one of the attack locations (or an action similar to that).
And again I state the fact that I don’t have to prove genetic theory in order to do a phylogenetic analysis of primates.
If the conditions necessary for your base assumptions to be false (Well established genetic theory is wrong for some reason/The government was able to contain all video footage and media of the attack, without any stories of agents confiscating video) are incredibly unlikely, you do not have to look into your base assumptions until given good reason to do so for the study at hand to be valid.
This is what scientist do, and we wouldn’t be able to get anywhere with out this procedure.
“If those tapes are photoshopped, then who knows what actually happened.”
To be clear, mere photoshopping of a collapse sequence is not what is being suggested by most “fake footage” proponents, rather, entirely fabricated collapse sequences rendered on computer, no different from those produced by Hollywood special effects studios.
In other words, fake building[s], fake sky, fake background,fake foreground, fake shadows, fake smoke etc. etc.[and fake aircraft in other sequences of course]
Although it might be convenient for yourself and others to be able to use WTC7 collapse sequence footage to “prove” that the building was imploded, if instead you were satisfied that the footage was in fact either photoshopped or entirely fake, that does not hurt a deliberate demolition case at all, as far as I can see. After all, why would someone deliberately alter/fabricate footage?To what end?
Furthermore, if evidence of footage fakery was found in that sequence, or even somewhere/anywhere else,[say in WTC1 or 2 collapse sequences , or in plane impact sequences] ,would that not poison the entire pool of 911 network imagery [i.e. by employment of the “false in one,false in all” legal doctrine]?How could we trust any of the footage?
“there are an awful lot of cameras in New York City, so it’s pretty hard to believe.”
Yes, I understand your point, but just because you and I do not understand exactly how it could be accomplished does not mean it cannot/could not be done. A “straw man” objection perhaps?
Surely, the more direct approach [ instead of raising the objection of not being able at this time to see how such fakery could possibly be achieved] would be to instead actually thoroughly investigate [with your fairly open mind 
] the footage in question to see if it reveals consistent evidence of tampering or complete fabrication to yourself? You know, like real scientists should/would do before blindly assuming its authenticity? If you do not know what would constitute evidence of video fakery, then perhaps a crash course in the giveaway signs would be in order?
If that unbiased investigation for evidence of fakery is not done [for all of the network footage,not just the WTC7 collapse sequence], I suggest that there is no way for yourself and others to know that it was not fabricated, only a trusting assumption that “they must be telling the truth because I don’t know at this time how they would possibly fake it”, or other similar objections.
And, at this point , I trust that there should be no need for me to remind [at least] yourself here, that the trial provisions of the Bill of Rights for evidence were designed to enforce a higher standard of proof for any and all evidence supplied by the government to bolster its case- the federal legal system was not designed to entitle the government to any presumption of trust for _any_of its evidence.
Surely you yourself should not be graciously supplying it with a level of trust systemically denied to it in the legal system via the Bill of Rights in your own investigations?
Regards, onebornfree.
Are you able to closely analyze video and photographic evidence with a completely open mind and no prejudgement [i.e employing a neutral scientific mindset], to determine whether or not it has been tampered with ? Do you know what to look for?
My guess is no- you do not have the skill.
And even if you had that particular skill [actually two: [i] knowledge of video fakery procedures and their “dead giveaways” and [ii] the ability to employ an impartial, neutral scientific review mindset throughout the review process] , would you even employ it/ them?
My guess would be “no”.
Regards, onebornfree
The real questions is: do you have the skill to determine whether or not there is even a place called “New York City”? A “city” of 8 million people, while feasible, has not been proven. If you start with the assumption such a place exists, you have committed an error before you’ve even begun!
“NOT ONE SINGLE VIDEO captured no plane hitting the the towers assuming they had a vantage point possible to see the plane.”
Why are you bothering to debate people who say no planes hit the towers. No truther suggest that. Noone Alex jones or any other truther show EVER has a person on who talks about no planes hitting the tower…
It should be OBVIOUS that anyone saying no planes hit the tower are disinformation plants…who’s job is to make real truthers look bad.
"
I often wonder why Austrians are so hostile against entertaining the idea of the government being complacent in the attacks on 911. It’s not like this would somehow refute Austrian Economics, in fact it would reinforce and strengthen it’s importance.
The only thing the truth of 911 would threaten would be a false world view on how politics really works in the world."
Well said…
although…I can see some people being turned to the dark side of “free market economics”…Austrian School of Economics…
it is much harder to believe our government knew of and did nothing to stop horrible attacks from happening…
it is even harder still to believe parts of our government conspired in secret to acomplish the attacks.
Oh man, Mtn Dew, I wish this forum had rep points, I would give you the max possible! That was the best reply EVARRRRR.
Clayton -
