Heidegger

On 09/06/2006, at 9:44 PM, That Pete wrote:

> — Dr Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
>> Are you asking for a proof from Steven E Jones essay that shows ‘Bush
>> did it’?
>
> You’re changing the rules. From merely having to show that
> Malcolm believes in a flat earth style hypothesis, you’re
> moving the goal posts to “not everything in the official
> explanation written by a committee makes perfect sense”.

13. Demand defence and distract

>> I’m not sure you understand what a proof is or what Jones’
>> article is actually about.
>
> I understand enough to pass various exams that required answering
> question like “Prove that foo derives from bar”.

Ok cool, me too, we should do well then.

>> Now if you’ve read the paper then you
>> should realise that it tests the hypothesis that controlled
>> demolition can be the only logical cause of the tower collapses
>> contrary to the official conspiracy theory that the hijacked planes
>> crashing and burning caused spontaneous collapse of not just the two
>> towers but also WTC7.
>
> No. I think the guys a crank. He just jumps from insinuating stuff
> but not proving anything.

1. Denigrate and dismiss
4. Reject scientific authority

>> Take WTC7 for instance and you can watch it collapse here:
>>
>> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
>> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
>> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
>> wtc7_collapse2.mpg
>>
>> The main contention for the demolition theory is that this
>> symmetrical collapse at free fall speed can only be explained by the
>> simultaneous catastrophic failure of all the main steel support
>> columns at once across multiple floors. Lets ask bobG what he thinks
>> as he’s an engineer … Bob? Don’t steel frame towers tend to fail at
>> key stress points and topple over rather than crumbling like a house
>> of cards? How can we best explain the way WTC7 completely collapses
>> symmetrically with no resistance from its steel skeleton in near free
>> fall with a debris radius of just 70 feet according to FEMA who
>> actually called this collapse an ‘implosion’?
>
> These buildings were supported from the center. When the center fails
> and falls down, the floors then collapse on each other. I’ll call it
> an implosion too if it pleases you. You can see the center collapsing
> first in the videos. Look at the roof. Especially in 2. You just
> have to know what to look for.

16. Assert contrary interpretation (added to list)

Here’s my contrary interpretation:

By the way, that central dip you picked up certainly implies total
failure of the central core of main load bearing columns, with the
perimeter columns all failing symmetrically around the centre and
imploding the whole structure from the 47th story down to the ground.
It’s the very neat signature of a very professionally executed
controlled demolition and there’s no way to explain how the core
structures could have so catastrophically failed by themselves either
at WTC7 or in the towers, just ask FEMA and NIST.

> You can be in a boat and say the ocean
> looks flat, or observe that ships disapear below the horizon. It’s
> up to you.

1 b. Denigrate opponents claims (was flat earth)

>> Now this controlled demolition theory says absolutely nothing about
>> who planted the explosives, it’s merely an alternative hypothesis to
>> the unquestioned assumption that all 3 steel frame skyscrapers
>> somehow spontaneously failed, and they were the first and as yet the
>> last such buildings to collapse like that anywhere in the world.
>
> Rubbish.

1. Denigrate and dismiss

>> The
>> contention here is that controlled demolition best explains those
>> collapses.
>
> One of the wtc towers actually fell to laterally. What happened?
> Did they botch the demolition on that one?

17. Misinformation (added to list)

>> So, if someone demolished the New York offices of the CIA and NSA
>> along with the mayors bunker, into a neat pile of rubble who could it
>> have been? If Osama Bin Laden was capable of coordinating from a cave
>> in Afghanistan multiple simultaneous hijackings in US domestic
>> airspace, sneaking past the guard of the US intelligence services
>> despite international warnings and on the very day when NORAD was
>> apparently preoccupied running defence games simulating multiple
>> simultaneous hijackings in US domestic airspace, then why not finish
>> the job and bomb the towers and CIA? Makes sense to me.
>
> And to many others too.

So we’re agreed then that an unknown number of Al Qaeda operatives
resident in the US aided and abetted the 19 identified hijackers and
also managed to infiltrate SECURACOM, the company responsible for
World Trade Center security and overseen in part by the President’s
brother? Then over time these infiltrators co-ordinated and secured
the placement of cutting charges throughout both towers and WTC7 in
preparation for three huge controlled demolitions. That includes
getting past WTC7’s entire 23rd floor security surrounding the
mayor’s fortified bunker which suggests the SECURACOM infiltrators
probably had Al Qaeda collaborators on the inside. It also implies
they executed the demolitions then escaped detection and are still at
large with some even possibly still employed by the US federal
government. Unless the feds have identified and secretly detained
them all which is of course possible as secret detentions are now
legal by presidential decree.

Does that make sense to you That Pete?

>> One possible explanation for the 911 demolitions is that Al Qaeda not
>> only infiltrated the US military and intelligence but also WTC
>> security at a time when the president’s brother Marvin Bush was
>> apparently a director of Securacom the company responsible for WTC
>> security. I’m guessing the incredible potential embarrassment to the
>> US federal executive led to a massive clean up operation which
>> quickly destroyed most of the physical evidence of what was the
>> biggest mass murder in US history. At least that’s my best case
>> scenario, that US military and intelligence services have been
>> completely compromised by infiltrators working for the benefit of Al
>> Qaeda. The terrorists are already anyone, anywhere and everywhere.
>>
>> What do you reckon That Pete?
>
> It’s a very nice service you provide running this list Malcolm.
> Keep it up.

Cheers mate,

feel free to check out the post editor and publish an essay or review
etc. Unfortunately it’s end of semester here and I’ve got an
avalanche of assessments and a Masters thesis to churn through in
record time. See you all on the other side.

Malcolm

**********************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
An-archos community networks
Web http://an-archos.com

Posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: 911 demolition»