Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Zen and the Art of Post-Modern Philosophy
Dustin
12/12/02
Philosophy of Religion
Carl Olsen’s Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy (henceforth Z&PmP) compares and contrasts the perspectives of two Zen Buddhists, with the perspective of numerous postmodern philosophers. Z&PmP is not an easy book to review, not so much because of the difficulty of the subject-matter (though it is difficult), but because of it’s structure. It does not proceed in a straightforward manner, or have much of a thesis; Olsen merely makes the claim that Zen and postmodernists have some similarities in their thought, and some differences as well. Olsen then presents these similarities and differences in diverse chapters like The Self and Other, Nihilism and Metaphysics, and Radical Skepticism and Doubt, to name a few. As a result of this, summarizing Z&PmP in a thorough way would be almost impossible, as there are simply too many positions to discuss, and the book itself is already a summation. Therefore, what follows here is more synthesis than summation.
The major difference that becomes apparent between Zen and the postmodernists is that the former are absolutists about the mind, while the later are more relative and have more diversified interests. It is not surprising that Zen Buddhists are absolutists since the idea of Zen is that there is a Buddha-nature, absolute mind, center of consciousness, etc., that exists behind the surface ego, and that it is possible to realize this mind. As a result of this position, the Buddhist thinkers are not so concerned with philosophy or even words; they are concerned with helping people realize their true mind. Therefore, they are not concerned with being logical, or not contradicting themselves; their aim is to encourage the listener to make that leap into Being. Of all the postmodernists discussed in Z&PmP, Heidegger comes closest to the Zen concern by focusing on the problem of Being; his major work is called Being and Time.
Like the Buddhists, the postmodernists have a similar distaste for abstract philosophy and metaphysics, but it is for entirely different reasons than the Buddhists. Postmodernism is defined more by what it is not then what it is: postmodernism is not modernism. Modernism is commonly defined by the Enlightenment-era-ideals of using truth, reason, and science to forge a better existence for mankind. It is safe to say that the postmodernists have been more then just a little bit disillusioned by many of the events of the Twentieth century. The fact that most postmodernists are European, specifically French, German, and Italian, should then come as no surprise. It is these countries that had an advanced intellectual tradition prior to World War II, and saw the effects of the war firsthand. The role of French and German existentialism also cannot be discounted as a precursor to postmodernism. Many of the revolutions in modern physics also provide support for postmodernism’s distrust of concepts like object truth; Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle posit an end to the understanding of objective reality that can be gained through the scientific method.
Postmodern applied to the arts says that everything that can be done, already has been, so all the artist of today can do is replicate the old forms, pastiche it is called. Postmodern philosophy also shares this view to some extent. The postmodernists are very distrustful of ‘grand narratives’, and metaphysical schemes, in essence, explanations of reality. What the average person doesn’t realize that the postmodernists do, is that our minds function to a great extent off of explanations of reality imposed from outside. Simplified, it could be said that the ego-mind functions off of dominant ideas.
Recall earlier how I spoke of the effect of World War II on creating the right conditions for postmodernism to take root. Buddhism begins with such disillusionment. One of the Buddha’s main tenets is that ‘all life is suffering’. Anyone entering into Buddhism was never attached to a notion of social progress. It is important for Westerners to be aware of how much the idea of social and personal progress dominate the mind. Both postmodernism and Buddhism share this understanding, but take it in two different directions. Zen sees an abandonment of ideals as a positive affirmation of the meaning of existence, while the postmodernists are led to nihilism, or meaninglessness. To me, this condition of the postmodernists seems a result of abandoning progressive ideals on the intellectual level, while retaining them in their hearts.
Nietzche was the first philosopher to examine nihilism, and his views on the subject were examined in Z&PmP. Many of the postmodernists can trace their intellectual roots to Nietzche, as he and Kierkegaard were the earliest Western thinkers to perceptively analyze the “decadent Christian civilization” (Olsen 181). Nietzche saw nihilism as inevitable as “the highest values devalue themselves” (ibid 181). In the case of the Enlightenment-ideals, there appears to be some truth to that statement. The Enlightenment-ideals were the progression of mankind through reason. Reason, leading to individuality, then serves to alienate man from humanity.
Interestingly, Nietzche had a perspective on Buddhism: he saw it as a “passive kind of nihilism” (ibid 187). The charge has been levied by Westerners who fail to understand Eastern religions, specifically Buddhism and Taoism, that those religions are ‘quietistic’. Nietzche’s view corresponds to this claim. This opinion, I think, comes from a misunderstanding of Eastern views. For example, a Buddhist may say, “everything is emptiness”. Or a Taoist may talk about how the Tao is like water and how therefore, if one wants to follow the Tao, one must ‘go with the flow’. These ideas have clashed with the prevailing Western notions of progress, materialism, and consumerism. But a non-nihilistic interpretation of these Eastern statements is easy to make. On emptiness, one can say, “the world of senses has no meaning because truth is found within your mind only”. On the Tao being like water, one can say, “it is better to accept reality than to fight it, because reality always wins”. While that does indeed still smack of quietism, one solution is to say that it is necessary to accept reality in our hearts, and if it is still necessary to fight the prevailing conditions, then go ahead, but just don’t be devastated when things go wrong.
Along different lines, Derrida’s idea of deconstruction also correlates to the Zen-sphere very well. One can look at enlightenment from two perspectives: shedding all the ‘mental-rubbish’ away and coming to understand who one really is, or enlightenment could simply be the realization of the true mind, which would therefore eliminate the rubbish. I think that both processes are needed, but that it is the second step that is mandatory. Derrida’s idea of deconstruction focuses on that first step. It is deconstructing all the ridiculous ideas about ourselves and the world that have been constructed through society and culture. Derrida does this by attempting to find the underlying assumptions responsible for a position. Personally, I find the idea of deconstruction very easy to accept, as I commonly come across questions stemming from faulty perspectives. Such questions cannot be answered because in answering it, one validates the faulty premises. Instead, all one can do is attempt to deconstruct the question, in the hope of coming closer to the truth.
The second chapter of Z&PmP is titled, Language, Disruption, and Play. It is the disruption aspect of the chapter that comes closest to Zen. Some of the popular lore of Zen contains stories of Zen masters shouting at their pupils, hitting them with sticks, and behaving in ways seemingly unbecoming of an enlightened person, i.e. crouching on the ground and roaring like a tiger. All of this is with the idea of disruption in mind. What is being disrupted is the unenlightened mind’s expectations of reality.
The Zen koan also serves to disrupt the mind, but in a different way. Koan means problem, but the koan is not a problem can be solved using rational means. The koan most widely known in the West is: what is the sound of one hand clapping? The idea is to put all of ones rational efforts into solving the koan, and since it cannot be solved through reason, the mind finds another way, and a greater understanding of the self is achieved. By creating a practical method for overcoming Reason, the Koan takes the postmodernist’s distrust of it to a higher level.
One postmodern conception that I think corresponds particularly well to Eastern ideas, is the notion of Deleuze and Guattari that human beings are “desiring-machines” (ibid 85). Deleuze and Guattari see humans as having fragmented minds, full of various thoughts, ideas, and desires, many of them contradictory. Of the schizophrenic, Olson summarizes the pair by saying, “the schizophrenic is a fragmented, divided, and false person because such a person can only become him/herself by being totally foreign to oneself” (ibid 86). I find that statement particularly useful because it encourages a closer examination of who we in fact are. Of interest here is what Ted Hughes, Britain’s former poet laureate, and husband of poet Sylvia Plath, has to say about her shaking off her fragmented selves:
Delueze and Guattari, all of the Buddhist discussed in Z&PmP, and many other postmodernists, would praise Hughes’ lucid statement in its concordance with their views.
It is easy to draw parallels to Zen Buddhism because the only thing that Zen is saying is that it is possible to go deeper into one’s mind. As a result, Zen has an affinity with literally every single brand of mysticism and esoteric philosophy. But is postmodernism an esoteric philosophy? Esoteric is the antonym of exoteric; they mean inner and outer. So to the extent that postmodernism encourages increased thought and subjectivity, it is indeed an esoteric philosophy. And much postmodernism is firmly centered on topics that promote introspection. So I do feel that it is fair for Olson to write a book such as Z&PmP.
I have several criticisms of Z&PmP, some of them fair, and some not fair. One unfair criticism is that Olson spends too much examining the differences between the positions, without trying to look deeper to find to commonalities that exist. This is not a fair because a good work of comparative philosophy should try and set the positions as far apart from each other as possible, so that each position can be seen fully in its own light. And Z&PmP is a good work of comparative philosophy.
Another unfair charge is the omission of the French existentialist/absurdist Albert Camus, and other existentialists in the discussion. It could be said that an existentialist is not a postmodernist, and therefore outside of the realm of the book, but Heidegger is much more commonly associated with existentialism than postmodernism, and his positions were discussed at length. Camus’ absurdist philosophy, particularly what he explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus would have been very useful in bridging the gap between the postmodernists and the Buddhists in regards to nihilism. Sartre, likewise, was mentioned only a few times. Overall, I find existentialism much more closely associated with Buddhism because existentialists tend to fall on the absolute side of that absolute-relative divide.
Many times I found Z&PmP tedious, but that was probably a result of the fact that I am much more interested in the comparative philosophy of similarity, rather than of difference, and much of the book is spent explicating the differences between the various thinkers. Z&PmP was however a very stimulating book because it did promote thought and introspection, and I tend to enjoy any such ‘disturbing’ material. The book has also renewed a plan I once had to read Heidegger, and spawned a desire to read Nietzche as well. Because Z&PmP has the potential of introducing the reader to so many foreign thinkers and ways of thinking, it is a valuable book. I do however feel that some knowledge of both Buddhism and postmodernism is probably required before taking up Z&PmP. I feel this because it is important, at least for me, to have a feel for the overall structure of someone’s thought in order to understand it. I argue that two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right, and the other one wrong. The lack of beforehand knowledge of many of the various postmodernists discussed, prevented me from making such distinctions. One warning though, Z&PmP is for the serious minded individual who is capable of introspection. As Sylvia Plath says speaking about two men in her life:
Bibliography
Olson, Carl. Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy: two paths of liberation from the
representation mode of thinking. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2000.
Plath, Sylvia. The Journals of Sylvia Plath. Edited by Francis McCullough. New York:
Anchor Books, 1982.
12/12/02
Philosophy of Religion
Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy
Carl Olsen’s Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy (henceforth Z&PmP) compares and contrasts the perspectives of two Zen Buddhists, with the perspective of numerous postmodern philosophers. Z&PmP is not an easy book to review, not so much because of the difficulty of the subject-matter (though it is difficult), but because of it’s structure. It does not proceed in a straightforward manner, or have much of a thesis; Olsen merely makes the claim that Zen and postmodernists have some similarities in their thought, and some differences as well. Olsen then presents these similarities and differences in diverse chapters like The Self and Other, Nihilism and Metaphysics, and Radical Skepticism and Doubt, to name a few. As a result of this, summarizing Z&PmP in a thorough way would be almost impossible, as there are simply too many positions to discuss, and the book itself is already a summation. Therefore, what follows here is more synthesis than summation.
The major difference that becomes apparent between Zen and the postmodernists is that the former are absolutists about the mind, while the later are more relative and have more diversified interests. It is not surprising that Zen Buddhists are absolutists since the idea of Zen is that there is a Buddha-nature, absolute mind, center of consciousness, etc., that exists behind the surface ego, and that it is possible to realize this mind. As a result of this position, the Buddhist thinkers are not so concerned with philosophy or even words; they are concerned with helping people realize their true mind. Therefore, they are not concerned with being logical, or not contradicting themselves; their aim is to encourage the listener to make that leap into Being. Of all the postmodernists discussed in Z&PmP, Heidegger comes closest to the Zen concern by focusing on the problem of Being; his major work is called Being and Time.
Like the Buddhists, the postmodernists have a similar distaste for abstract philosophy and metaphysics, but it is for entirely different reasons than the Buddhists. Postmodernism is defined more by what it is not then what it is: postmodernism is not modernism. Modernism is commonly defined by the Enlightenment-era-ideals of using truth, reason, and science to forge a better existence for mankind. It is safe to say that the postmodernists have been more then just a little bit disillusioned by many of the events of the Twentieth century. The fact that most postmodernists are European, specifically French, German, and Italian, should then come as no surprise. It is these countries that had an advanced intellectual tradition prior to World War II, and saw the effects of the war firsthand. The role of French and German existentialism also cannot be discounted as a precursor to postmodernism. Many of the revolutions in modern physics also provide support for postmodernism’s distrust of concepts like object truth; Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle posit an end to the understanding of objective reality that can be gained through the scientific method.
Postmodern applied to the arts says that everything that can be done, already has been, so all the artist of today can do is replicate the old forms, pastiche it is called. Postmodern philosophy also shares this view to some extent. The postmodernists are very distrustful of ‘grand narratives’, and metaphysical schemes, in essence, explanations of reality. What the average person doesn’t realize that the postmodernists do, is that our minds function to a great extent off of explanations of reality imposed from outside. Simplified, it could be said that the ego-mind functions off of dominant ideas.
Recall earlier how I spoke of the effect of World War II on creating the right conditions for postmodernism to take root. Buddhism begins with such disillusionment. One of the Buddha’s main tenets is that ‘all life is suffering’. Anyone entering into Buddhism was never attached to a notion of social progress. It is important for Westerners to be aware of how much the idea of social and personal progress dominate the mind. Both postmodernism and Buddhism share this understanding, but take it in two different directions. Zen sees an abandonment of ideals as a positive affirmation of the meaning of existence, while the postmodernists are led to nihilism, or meaninglessness. To me, this condition of the postmodernists seems a result of abandoning progressive ideals on the intellectual level, while retaining them in their hearts.
Nietzche was the first philosopher to examine nihilism, and his views on the subject were examined in Z&PmP. Many of the postmodernists can trace their intellectual roots to Nietzche, as he and Kierkegaard were the earliest Western thinkers to perceptively analyze the “decadent Christian civilization” (Olsen 181). Nietzche saw nihilism as inevitable as “the highest values devalue themselves” (ibid 181). In the case of the Enlightenment-ideals, there appears to be some truth to that statement. The Enlightenment-ideals were the progression of mankind through reason. Reason, leading to individuality, then serves to alienate man from humanity.
Interestingly, Nietzche had a perspective on Buddhism: he saw it as a “passive kind of nihilism” (ibid 187). The charge has been levied by Westerners who fail to understand Eastern religions, specifically Buddhism and Taoism, that those religions are ‘quietistic’. Nietzche’s view corresponds to this claim. This opinion, I think, comes from a misunderstanding of Eastern views. For example, a Buddhist may say, “everything is emptiness”. Or a Taoist may talk about how the Tao is like water and how therefore, if one wants to follow the Tao, one must ‘go with the flow’. These ideas have clashed with the prevailing Western notions of progress, materialism, and consumerism. But a non-nihilistic interpretation of these Eastern statements is easy to make. On emptiness, one can say, “the world of senses has no meaning because truth is found within your mind only”. On the Tao being like water, one can say, “it is better to accept reality than to fight it, because reality always wins”. While that does indeed still smack of quietism, one solution is to say that it is necessary to accept reality in our hearts, and if it is still necessary to fight the prevailing conditions, then go ahead, but just don’t be devastated when things go wrong.
Along different lines, Derrida’s idea of deconstruction also correlates to the Zen-sphere very well. One can look at enlightenment from two perspectives: shedding all the ‘mental-rubbish’ away and coming to understand who one really is, or enlightenment could simply be the realization of the true mind, which would therefore eliminate the rubbish. I think that both processes are needed, but that it is the second step that is mandatory. Derrida’s idea of deconstruction focuses on that first step. It is deconstructing all the ridiculous ideas about ourselves and the world that have been constructed through society and culture. Derrida does this by attempting to find the underlying assumptions responsible for a position. Personally, I find the idea of deconstruction very easy to accept, as I commonly come across questions stemming from faulty perspectives. Such questions cannot be answered because in answering it, one validates the faulty premises. Instead, all one can do is attempt to deconstruct the question, in the hope of coming closer to the truth.
The second chapter of Z&PmP is titled, Language, Disruption, and Play. It is the disruption aspect of the chapter that comes closest to Zen. Some of the popular lore of Zen contains stories of Zen masters shouting at their pupils, hitting them with sticks, and behaving in ways seemingly unbecoming of an enlightened person, i.e. crouching on the ground and roaring like a tiger. All of this is with the idea of disruption in mind. What is being disrupted is the unenlightened mind’s expectations of reality.
The Zen koan also serves to disrupt the mind, but in a different way. Koan means problem, but the koan is not a problem can be solved using rational means. The koan most widely known in the West is: what is the sound of one hand clapping? The idea is to put all of ones rational efforts into solving the koan, and since it cannot be solved through reason, the mind finds another way, and a greater understanding of the self is achieved. By creating a practical method for overcoming Reason, the Koan takes the postmodernist’s distrust of it to a higher level.
One postmodern conception that I think corresponds particularly well to Eastern ideas, is the notion of Deleuze and Guattari that human beings are “desiring-machines” (ibid 85). Deleuze and Guattari see humans as having fragmented minds, full of various thoughts, ideas, and desires, many of them contradictory. Of the schizophrenic, Olson summarizes the pair by saying, “the schizophrenic is a fragmented, divided, and false person because such a person can only become him/herself by being totally foreign to oneself” (ibid 86). I find that statement particularly useful because it encourages a closer examination of who we in fact are. Of interest here is what Ted Hughes, Britain’s former poet laureate, and husband of poet Sylvia Plath, has to say about her shaking off her fragmented selves:
Sylvia Plath was a person of many masks…some were camouflage cliché
facades, defensive mechanisms, involuntary. And some were deliberate poses, attempts to find the keys to one style or another. These were the visible faces of her lesser selves, the minor roles of her inner drama…
Her real self had showed itself in her writing, just for a moment, three years earlier -the self I had married, after all, and lived with and knew well- in that brief moment, three lines recited as she went out through a doorway, I knew that what I had always felt must happen had now begun to happen, that her real self, being the real poet, would now speak for itself, and would throw off all those lesser and artificial selves that had monopolized the words up to that point, it was as if a dumb person had suddenly spoke.
A real self, as we know, is a rare thing. The direct speech of a real self is rarer still. Where a real self exists, as a rule, it reveals itself, only in the quality of the person’s presence, or in actions. Most of us are never more than bundles of contradictory and complementary selves. Our real self, if our belief that we have one is true, is usually dumb, shut away beneath the to-and-fro conflicting voices of the false and petty selves. As is dumbness were the universal characteristic of the real self. When a real self finds language, and manages to speak, it is surely a dazzling event. (Plath, xii)
Delueze and Guattari, all of the Buddhist discussed in Z&PmP, and many other postmodernists, would praise Hughes’ lucid statement in its concordance with their views.
It is easy to draw parallels to Zen Buddhism because the only thing that Zen is saying is that it is possible to go deeper into one’s mind. As a result, Zen has an affinity with literally every single brand of mysticism and esoteric philosophy. But is postmodernism an esoteric philosophy? Esoteric is the antonym of exoteric; they mean inner and outer. So to the extent that postmodernism encourages increased thought and subjectivity, it is indeed an esoteric philosophy. And much postmodernism is firmly centered on topics that promote introspection. So I do feel that it is fair for Olson to write a book such as Z&PmP.
I have several criticisms of Z&PmP, some of them fair, and some not fair. One unfair criticism is that Olson spends too much examining the differences between the positions, without trying to look deeper to find to commonalities that exist. This is not a fair because a good work of comparative philosophy should try and set the positions as far apart from each other as possible, so that each position can be seen fully in its own light. And Z&PmP is a good work of comparative philosophy.
Another unfair charge is the omission of the French existentialist/absurdist Albert Camus, and other existentialists in the discussion. It could be said that an existentialist is not a postmodernist, and therefore outside of the realm of the book, but Heidegger is much more commonly associated with existentialism than postmodernism, and his positions were discussed at length. Camus’ absurdist philosophy, particularly what he explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus would have been very useful in bridging the gap between the postmodernists and the Buddhists in regards to nihilism. Sartre, likewise, was mentioned only a few times. Overall, I find existentialism much more closely associated with Buddhism because existentialists tend to fall on the absolute side of that absolute-relative divide.
Many times I found Z&PmP tedious, but that was probably a result of the fact that I am much more interested in the comparative philosophy of similarity, rather than of difference, and much of the book is spent explicating the differences between the various thinkers. Z&PmP was however a very stimulating book because it did promote thought and introspection, and I tend to enjoy any such ‘disturbing’ material. The book has also renewed a plan I once had to read Heidegger, and spawned a desire to read Nietzche as well. Because Z&PmP has the potential of introducing the reader to so many foreign thinkers and ways of thinking, it is a valuable book. I do however feel that some knowledge of both Buddhism and postmodernism is probably required before taking up Z&PmP. I feel this because it is important, at least for me, to have a feel for the overall structure of someone’s thought in order to understand it. I argue that two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right, and the other one wrong. The lack of beforehand knowledge of many of the various postmodernists discussed, prevented me from making such distinctions. One warning though, Z&PmP is for the serious minded individual who is capable of introspection. As Sylvia Plath says speaking about two men in her life:
“I was too serious for Peter, but that was mainly because he did not participate in the seriousness deeply enough to find out the gaiety beyond. Richard knows that joy, that tragic joy” (Plath 107).Olson’s Z&PmP certainly has the subject-matter capable of producing that “tragic joy”, and bringing us to the “gaiety beyond” our egos.
Bibliography
Olson, Carl. Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy: two paths of liberation from the
representation mode of thinking. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2000.
Plath, Sylvia. The Journals of Sylvia Plath. Edited by Francis McCullough. New York:
Anchor Books, 1982.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Induction, Deduction, Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore
Induction and Deduction
Within the philosophy of logic there are different modes of reasoning, and it is our job as logicians, i.e., people who think logically, to determine the best mode of reasoning and employ it accurately. The various modes of reasoning include but are not limited to inductive reasoning, deductive reasong, and abductive reasoning.
What concerns us here is the differences between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. My premise is that a large segment of the population, to put it bluntly, lacks critical thinking skills. When faced with a strong inductive argument which challenges basic ideas, these people will turn to deduction and simply claim, "that doesn't make sense". This is due to a psychological concept called cognitive dissonance, which we will return to shortly.
Inductive reasoning simply means starting from the facts and working upwards, forming more general theories as we move up the pyramid. Induction moves from observations, to patterns, to a tentative hypothesis, to a theory. It is a bottum up approach.
Deductive reasoning is the opposite; it works from the top down. Deduction begins with a theory, then forumlates a hypothesis, then moves to observation. Arguments can be expressed both inductively and deductively. When the proverbial apple hit Newton on the head, he used induction to come to the theory of gravity. Everything that comes up must come down, and this is a general principle or law that we can call gravity. Someone like Einstein on the other hand would be able to use his tremendous understanding to arrive at the theory of gravity via an alternative method, the general theory of relativity. Perhaps gravity is a bad example, but the differences between induction and deduction should be clear by now.
Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore
Lets suppose for a minute that Hugh Hefner is accused of raping a 57 year old, 220 lb. crack-whore. The police, initially highly suspect of these claims, investigate anyways. Witnesses report seeing a man matching Hefner's description getting out of a limo and entering this woman's home. DNA analysis determines that the DNA does indeed match Hefner. Police then search Hefner's home and they find writings indicating Hefner fantisized about these types of women. Other women then come forward and and also make allegations against Hefner. It turns out that at every single aspect investigators look into, things are not what they seem with Hefner.
At this point a very strong case, both scientific and circumstancial has now been made against Hefner. Prosecutors charge Hefner with rape and the case then goes to trial. At trial the prosecution presents all of the evidence. The defense doesn't even cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. When it is their turn to present their case, they simply rest. During closing arguments the defense simply talks about the absurdity of all this, considering the fact the Hefner lives with dozens of beautiful women, playmates in fact, who are more than willing to sleep with him. They make no reference whatsoever to the prosecutions case, other than to simply point out the illogicality of it. Naturally the jury finds Hefner innocent. Orange juice anyone?
In this hypothetical situation we have a very strong inductive case (a bottum up approach dealing with facts first and theories second) against Hefner "debunked" by a deductive argument: that Hefner simply wouldn't do such a thing (a theory that ignores the evidence).
Monday, December 11, 2006
Time Article on 9/11 Truth
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
I'm know there are a lot more things that I could take issue with in the Time article, but compared to the CBS/The Nation article which I just spent hours writing about, I don't have much to say besides dealing with this:
The magic bullet theory is YOUR THEORY, that is the official government theory. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to resort to MAGIC THEORIES in order to explain the OFFICIAL VERSION.
Forensics? Is that like how EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR that was there that day in Dallas described A LARGE MASSIVE EXIT-WOUND in the back of Kennedy's head? In addition to the all the other wounds between Kennedy and Connelly that simply can't be explained with Oswald firing 3 shots from a 5th floor window. That is percisely why the official theory has to resort to MAGIC.
Or does forensics refer to fact that the WTC steel was quickly shipped off to China to be recycled, preventing a proper investigation? Instead, we got what Bill Manning of Fire Engineering (yes, there is a Fire Engineering magazine) called a "half-baked farce"
And then to have the audacity to bring up the Zapruder film, which clearly shows Kennedy getting his head blown off BACK AND TO THE LEFT. Fortunately thanks to Seinfeld this is immortalized now in our popular culture. Back and to left means Kennedy wasn't shot from the 5th floor window a couple hundred feet behind him.
It is literally insane. To write a 9/11 hit piece and then to bring up the magic bullet and Zapruder film.
Once again, to make it simple. When theories have to resort to magic, thats when you know they are in trouble.
I'm know there are a lot more things that I could take issue with in the Time article, but compared to the CBS/The Nation article which I just spent hours writing about, I don't have much to say besides dealing with this:
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.
The magic bullet theory is YOUR THEORY, that is the official government theory. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to resort to MAGIC THEORIES in order to explain the OFFICIAL VERSION.
Forensics? Is that like how EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR that was there that day in Dallas described A LARGE MASSIVE EXIT-WOUND in the back of Kennedy's head? In addition to the all the other wounds between Kennedy and Connelly that simply can't be explained with Oswald firing 3 shots from a 5th floor window. That is percisely why the official theory has to resort to MAGIC.
Or does forensics refer to fact that the WTC steel was quickly shipped off to China to be recycled, preventing a proper investigation? Instead, we got what Bill Manning of Fire Engineering (yes, there is a Fire Engineering magazine) called a "half-baked farce"
And then to have the audacity to bring up the Zapruder film, which clearly shows Kennedy getting his head blown off BACK AND TO THE LEFT. Fortunately thanks to Seinfeld this is immortalized now in our popular culture. Back and to left means Kennedy wasn't shot from the 5th floor window a couple hundred feet behind him.
It is literally insane. To write a 9/11 hit piece and then to bring up the magic bullet and Zapruder film.
Once again, to make it simple. When theories have to resort to magic, thats when you know they are in trouble.
Mind The Gap: London 7/7 Bombing
Mind The Gap: London 7/7 Bombing
Another short documentary on the London Bombing. This one is much more hard-hitting then the Ludicrous Diversion documentary, and I recommend watching this one.
Another short documentary on the London Bombing. This one is much more hard-hitting then the Ludicrous Diversion documentary, and I recommend watching this one.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The Nation/CBS Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth
The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers Nation
This article kind of pisses me off. It has a interesting thesis:
But furthermore, a lot of the best LIHOP arguments are in a lot of ways a lot more damaging then the MIHOP arguments, which focus more on the physical evidence. Americans are so ignorant of science that in some of our schools we don't even teach the theory of evolution. After all, its "just a theory", instead we teach something called "intelligent design", so its unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that it is physically impossible for debris to be ejected out hundreds of feet laterally from the WTC buildings in a GRAVITY powered collapse. It is unreasonable to expect Americans to be able to understand that the massive dust clouds after the demolitions that we saw, that covered the streets of New York "from river to river" with dust "two to three inches thick", as described by N.Y. Govenor George Pataki to CNN, is simply impossible in a gravity powered collapse. (set timer to 9:50 to hear Pataki). It is also unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that red hot molten metal from the still smoking rubble pile weeks later, could not possibly be caused from jet-fuel.
However, when we find out that the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Porter Goss (who subsequently became head of the CIA) and Bob Graham, were meeting on the morning of September 11th with the head of Pakistani intelligence Mahmood Ahmed, and that it would later be reported that Ahmed gave the order to transfer $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, well thats something that Americans can sink their teeth into, because after all, us dumb Americans love us a good conspiracy theory.
And then of course there is the Able Danger program, and the Norman Mineta testimony, and
The Israeli Spy Story. None of this sort of stuff these hit pieces ever want to talk about. Its much easier to make us all look like fools by talking about pod-planes, particle-weapons and cg graphics.
This is my favorite part of the whole article. Look at these silly conspiracy theorists. They are so dumb that they base their conspiracy theory off of a disproven conspiracy theory (and not just that but one that has to do with nazis) Now, I know very little about the Reichstag fire, but how about these examples of U.S. shenanigans (aka false-flag operations). How about the USS Maine incident that lead us into the Spanish-American War, or the USS Liberty, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? How about Operation Northwoods, or Operation Gladio and the "strategy of tension"? How about Operation Condor?
Not that any of these programs and events matter one little bit. And why you ask? Because it is absolutely impossible that all of the phenomena exhibited in the collapse of the WTC buildings can be explained through a gravity powered collapse. And guess what? The NIST report doesn't even try. I can see you all shaking your heads incredulously, but I will say it again they don't even try. Because the NIST report isn't a theory of the collapse of the towers, it is a PRE-COLLAPSE THEORY.
Of course, the purpose of hit pieces like this isn't to try and convince anyone who has already defected from their media-driven-lies, it is to try and insulate and poison the minds of those who might otherwise approach 9/11 truth with a more open-mind. And it isn't a hard thing to do, after all, who would want to believe that their government (no, not the postman) could be responsible for such a horrible crime? Nobody would. So they say they assembled some experts, and claim that they have debunked all those myths (pod-planes, mysterious white-jet, etc). And of course, if you repeat the lie enough it will start to be believed, and again- especially from those who already want to believe it anyways.
And so the article continues:
Satisfied that the 9/11 truth movement has been sufficiently debunked, Hayes then goes on to further explain why we might all be so guillible and then to further explain his thesis.
Or how about the football stadium attacks? Here is an article from today in the London telegraph, Christmas Terror Attack 'highly likely'. They don't care if these arrests and false reports later turn out to be unfounded, just as long as terrorism stays in the news. And when it does come out that there was nothing really going on, it ends up in the back pages of the paper, and probably receives no t.v. coverage at all.
And speaking of London. Learn about the London 7/7 bombings because if you think 9/11 is a joke, then you haven't seen anything. Here is Peter Power, formerly of Scotland Yard and now with a company called Visor Consultants- a crisis managment firm, talking about how he was involved in running drills simulating terror attacks on the exact same tube stations at the exact same time as the actual attacks. Did I mention that the #30 bus which was blown up that day happened to be the only bus diverted by the police.
Its really simple, sometimes there are coincidences, and sometimes there is conspiracy, and the laws of physics don't care one way or the other.
This article kind of pisses me off. It has a interesting thesis:
"the danger is that it [the 9/11 truth movement] will discredit and deform the salutary [healthy] skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders"So basically if the truth movement takes hold, all "legitimate" questioning of our "leaders" will just be branded as kooky conspiratorial questioning? One of the premises of this article is that the reason the 9/11 truth movement is growing is because:
the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?The fact that these ideas might actually be true, and that a growing number of Americans have the courage and intelligence to see through the mainstream media's lies doesn't enter into the equation.
Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon.Not to appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), but these people have their PhDs, how about showing a little respect and putting a Dr. in front?
jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500Under ideal conditions jet-fuel burns at around 1800 F and steel melts at 2750 F. There is no indication that the steel got anywhere near 600 F, and even NIST's own data shows this.
If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.And some people who support the official story molest their children. In regards to LIHOP vs MIHOP. The vast majority of the truth movement is MIHOP, but articles like this would much rather focus on our differences then on what brings us together.
But furthermore, a lot of the best LIHOP arguments are in a lot of ways a lot more damaging then the MIHOP arguments, which focus more on the physical evidence. Americans are so ignorant of science that in some of our schools we don't even teach the theory of evolution. After all, its "just a theory", instead we teach something called "intelligent design", so its unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that it is physically impossible for debris to be ejected out hundreds of feet laterally from the WTC buildings in a GRAVITY powered collapse. It is unreasonable to expect Americans to be able to understand that the massive dust clouds after the demolitions that we saw, that covered the streets of New York "from river to river" with dust "two to three inches thick", as described by N.Y. Govenor George Pataki to CNN, is simply impossible in a gravity powered collapse. (set timer to 9:50 to hear Pataki). It is also unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that red hot molten metal from the still smoking rubble pile weeks later, could not possibly be caused from jet-fuel.
However, when we find out that the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Porter Goss (who subsequently became head of the CIA) and Bob Graham, were meeting on the morning of September 11th with the head of Pakistani intelligence Mahmood Ahmed, and that it would later be reported that Ahmed gave the order to transfer $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, well thats something that Americans can sink their teeth into, because after all, us dumb Americans love us a good conspiracy theory.
And then of course there is the Able Danger program, and the Norman Mineta testimony, and
The Israeli Spy Story. None of this sort of stuff these hit pieces ever want to talk about. Its much easier to make us all look like fools by talking about pod-planes, particle-weapons and cg graphics.
To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.
This is my favorite part of the whole article. Look at these silly conspiracy theorists. They are so dumb that they base their conspiracy theory off of a disproven conspiracy theory (and not just that but one that has to do with nazis) Now, I know very little about the Reichstag fire, but how about these examples of U.S. shenanigans (aka false-flag operations). How about the USS Maine incident that lead us into the Spanish-American War, or the USS Liberty, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? How about Operation Northwoods, or Operation Gladio and the "strategy of tension"? How about Operation Condor?
Not that any of these programs and events matter one little bit. And why you ask? Because it is absolutely impossible that all of the phenomena exhibited in the collapse of the WTC buildings can be explained through a gravity powered collapse. And guess what? The NIST report doesn't even try. I can see you all shaking your heads incredulously, but I will say it again they don't even try. Because the NIST report isn't a theory of the collapse of the towers, it is a PRE-COLLAPSE THEORY.
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)NIST simply cannot account for the lateral ejections of debris, the pulverization of concrete and the ensuing massive dust clouds, the speed of the "collapse", or all of the molten metal that still existed weeks later, so they don't try.
In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.The Popular Mechanics hit piece has been thoroughly debunked by the 9/11 truth movement. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Furthermore, as you will see from examining any of the links, the Popular Mechanics piece does not examine the truth movement's "most common claims". Instead their technique is to employ whats called straw-man arguments. A straw man is a false claim that you ascribe to your opponent for the sole purpose of debunking. In fact, the first myth (and I won't use quotes around myth here since it really is one) that they debunk (again, no quotes) is that there were no explosive pods attached to the buttom on the planes that struck the towers. Glad they cleared that one up for us.
Of course, the purpose of hit pieces like this isn't to try and convince anyone who has already defected from their media-driven-lies, it is to try and insulate and poison the minds of those who might otherwise approach 9/11 truth with a more open-mind. And it isn't a hard thing to do, after all, who would want to believe that their government (no, not the postman) could be responsible for such a horrible crime? Nobody would. So they say they assembled some experts, and claim that they have debunked all those myths (pod-planes, mysterious white-jet, etc). And of course, if you repeat the lie enough it will start to be believed, and again- especially from those who already want to believe it anyways.
And so the article continues:
And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think the 9/11 Commission Report is a joke, and for his credit, he does concede that:
Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.Those other key witnesses that he is referring might have been Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), who was prepared to testify but was blocked by top Pentagon brass. And then there is the aforementioned Norman Mineta testimony, which seriously contradicts Cheney's timeline, and is probably a good reason (but certainly not the only one) why Bush and Cheney testified not and under oath and behind closed doors: so that Cheney wouldn't have to perjure himself and/or create a big stink about the contradictions between him and Mineta. I can only imagine them behind those closed doors, eating pizza and watching Goonies.
So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."
Satisfied that the 9/11 truth movement has been sufficiently debunked, Hayes then goes on to further explain why we might all be so guillible and then to further explain his thesis.
In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.Just one example is far from enough. I'm sure everyone remembers those liquid-explosive bombers that were going to blow up 10 planes bound for the U.S, but the London police stopped them right at the last minute, and now we can't take water on planes anymore and mothers have to taste their baby's milk. Google it.
Or how about the football stadium attacks? Here is an article from today in the London telegraph, Christmas Terror Attack 'highly likely'. They don't care if these arrests and false reports later turn out to be unfounded, just as long as terrorism stays in the news. And when it does come out that there was nothing really going on, it ends up in the back pages of the paper, and probably receives no t.v. coverage at all.
And speaking of London. Learn about the London 7/7 bombings because if you think 9/11 is a joke, then you haven't seen anything. Here is Peter Power, formerly of Scotland Yard and now with a company called Visor Consultants- a crisis managment firm, talking about how he was involved in running drills simulating terror attacks on the exact same tube stations at the exact same time as the actual attacks. Did I mention that the #30 bus which was blown up that day happened to be the only bus diverted by the police.
Its really simple, sometimes there are coincidences, and sometimes there is conspiracy, and the laws of physics don't care one way or the other.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Ludicrous Diversion: The London 7/7 Bombing Documentary
Ludicrous Diversion: The London 7/7 Bombing Documentary
At only 28 minutes this is quite short. And its a little fluffy. It didn't get into the really damning evidence, barely mentioning the simultaneous drills- and not mentioning the fact that the #30 bus was the only bus diverted by the police that morning. What is does do nicely is highlight the lack of evidence that has been released, especially the lack CCTV footage- which should be plentiful given the fact that London is the most heavily surveilled city in the world.
Here is Peter Power discussing the simultaneous drills
At only 28 minutes this is quite short. And its a little fluffy. It didn't get into the really damning evidence, barely mentioning the simultaneous drills- and not mentioning the fact that the #30 bus was the only bus diverted by the police that morning. What is does do nicely is highlight the lack of evidence that has been released, especially the lack CCTV footage- which should be plentiful given the fact that London is the most heavily surveilled city in the world.
Here is Peter Power discussing the simultaneous drills
The Infamous Larry Silverstein Comment
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, speaking in the 2002 PBS documentary, America Rebuilds
This quote has become a distraction. Instead of focusing on real issues, people focus on what exactly Silverstein meant. Was he talking about the firefighters or was he using "pull it" in a controlled demoltion sense? What is even worse is that some even have the audacity to use the truth movement's response to this quote, in order to make the claim that we take things out of context (which does happen, just not here)- as if a plural group of firefighters could ever be referred to as "it".
In my opinion Silverstein is talking about CD, and that they are playing for the history books. We can't think about the Silverstein quote like it is some sort of slip-up. It is part of a PBS documentary and it was delberately included for a reason.
As the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition idea gain 'currency', it will become increasingly apparent that the collapse of WTC 7 via fire is simply an untenable idea. Therefore, it is necessary to plant the seeds of the idea that WTC 7 was in fact taken down via CD.
The fact of the matter is that it takes weeks of careful study and planning in order in order to take down a building the way WTC 7 went down. The charges have to be set just right. And that is why there are only a handful of companies in the world that do CD.
So then what happened with WTC 7? Why the apparent screw-up? It is possible that flight 93 was bound for WTC 7. But the by the time flight 93 would have impacted WTC 7 the lack of fighter response would have been simply too apparent. There are many questions with which we will never have answers to.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
The CIA and the Media
The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein
This was originally published in Rolling Stone on 10/20/77 by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. Its very dry and its almost 30 years old, but its still an important read.
This was originally published in Rolling Stone on 10/20/77 by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. Its very dry and its almost 30 years old, but its still an important read.
What Happens to Steel Framed Skyscrappers in an Inferno
The first building is the Windsor Building in Madrid. The second is of course WTC 7, a building which should need no introduction- but it is amazing just how many people are unaware that a third building came down that day. WTC 7 is one of the biggest jokes of 9/11. There are a lot of jokes, but WTC 7 is the biggest.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
The Fake Osama Bin Laden Confession Video
The Fake 2001 Osama Bin Laden Confession Video
"Fatty" Bin Laden
Government Refuses to Authenticate Bin Laden "Confession Video"
Which one doesn't look anything like Osama?
(I have had a hard time finding the "official" release of this tape online. But I think that this youtube video should be good enough to clear up any doubts thats this is just one frame taken selectively. If you still have doubts just search google pictures for Bin Laden pics and compare)
Here is a BBC report which contains some of the translations
(realplayer needed)
Now, the link above presents some other interesting things. Namely, this quote:
Apparently in subsequent interviews Osama does admit to being behind 9/11. Things aren't as simple as they seem. Please read Chaim Kupferberg's article Truth, Lies, and Legend of 9/11, to begin to see just how complex they are. When you combine this with his other great article, The Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker, we can begin to understand just exactly why they would need to put out such an obviously faked tape in the first place.
Official U.S. Translation/Transcript
"Fatty" Bin Laden
Government Refuses to Authenticate Bin Laden "Confession Video"
Which one doesn't look anything like Osama?
(I have had a hard time finding the "official" release of this tape online. But I think that this youtube video should be good enough to clear up any doubts thats this is just one frame taken selectively. If you still have doubts just search google pictures for Bin Laden pics and compare)
Here is a BBC report which contains some of the translations
(realplayer needed)
Now, the link above presents some other interesting things. Namely, this quote:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. [Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001]
Official U.S. Translation/Transcript
"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower, we calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. ....(Inaudible) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
Under ideal conditions jet fuel burns at 1800 F, steel melts at 2750 F. Its nice the way "Bin Laden" goes that extra step in helping to support the official jet-fuel-caused-collapse-myth.
Notice that the real Bin Laden's nose is both flatter
and more acute.
Notice that the real Bin Laden's nose is both flatter
and more acute.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
September 11 Revsited Volume 2
September 11th Revisited v2
I didn't watch v1, but I think its actually just an earlier version of this movie. This movie is, for the most part just a collection of media clips. It contains a lot of 9-11 MSM goofs from the day of- like when members of the main stream media talked about secondary explosions on 9-11. I recommend watching this or I wouldn't have posted it.
I didn't watch v1, but I think its actually just an earlier version of this movie. This movie is, for the most part just a collection of media clips. It contains a lot of 9-11 MSM goofs from the day of- like when members of the main stream media talked about secondary explosions on 9-11. I recommend watching this or I wouldn't have posted it.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Sunday, December 3, 2006
NIST Report Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
NIST Report Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
I recommend reading this. This same information can be found in Improbable Collapse, but a paper always helps.
This series of photographs show the North Tower at about 6, 8, and 10 seconds into its collapse. Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the collapses. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total collapses, blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
(from Hoffman's paper)
I recommend reading this. This same information can be found in Improbable Collapse, but a paper always helps.
This series of photographs show the North Tower at about 6, 8, and 10 seconds into its collapse. Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the collapses. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total collapses, blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
(from Hoffman's paper)
Friday, December 1, 2006
Poisoning The Well and Muddying the Waters
What is poisoning the well? Its really a simple concept. The well water is good; it is drinkable- perhaps we could even learn something from it. But a little bit of poison can ruin it all.
Poisoning the well is different than muddying the waters, which is again, a fairly straight-forward idea.
These ideas, at least as I mean them, fall under the umbrella concept of disinformation. Well, actually- poisoning the well is more of a logical fallacy- but it is certainly capable of serving as disinformation.
Poisoning the well is different than muddying the waters, which is again, a fairly straight-forward idea.
These ideas, at least as I mean them, fall under the umbrella concept of disinformation. Well, actually- poisoning the well is more of a logical fallacy- but it is certainly capable of serving as disinformation.
Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
These articles by Chaim Kupferberg might be some of the most important articles ever written. On October 6, 2001, the Times of India wrote an article which did severe damage to the official narative. Their attempt to repair the leaky story is exposed for all the world to see. Read the article, and investigate. When I have more time I will provide a summary of both this article, and the earlier one I posted entitled The 9/11 Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker. Although both of these articles deal with highly interconnected subject matter, I would read The Smoking Gun first.
I wanted to note that this article repeats the claim that John O'Neill was killed on his first day on the job as the new security chief for the WTC. This has been repeated numerous times but is apparently false. More recent reports say that O'Neill had started two weeks earlier. And in fact, in a paper by Kuperberg which takes up the O'Neill thread, has O'Neill starting two weeks prior. According to the wikipedia page the false claim is attributed to New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who said "That Tuesday (9-11) was his first or second day on the job".
These articles by Chaim Kupferberg might be some of the most important articles ever written. On October 6, 2001, the Times of India wrote an article which did severe damage to the official narative. Their attempt to repair the leaky story is exposed for all the world to see. Read the article, and investigate. When I have more time I will provide a summary of both this article, and the earlier one I posted entitled The 9/11 Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker. Although both of these articles deal with highly interconnected subject matter, I would read The Smoking Gun first.
I wanted to note that this article repeats the claim that John O'Neill was killed on his first day on the job as the new security chief for the WTC. This has been repeated numerous times but is apparently false. More recent reports say that O'Neill had started two weeks earlier. And in fact, in a paper by Kuperberg which takes up the O'Neill thread, has O'Neill starting two weeks prior. According to the wikipedia page the false claim is attributed to New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who said "That Tuesday (9-11) was his first or second day on the job".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
