R.C.Macaulay wrote:
Stephen Lawrence wrote..
But last night, after being asked to shut up about it or at least
watch what the other side has to say, I watched the second half of
"Loose Change". After seeing that and reading Jones's paper (posted by
Jed) I'm left with three nagging questions,
Howdy Stephen,
Gosh, you got it refined down to only 3 questions ?
Oh goodness -- I mean I had three nagging questions about the conclusion
that the WTC collapsed due to aircraft impact!
If I included all the 'nagging questions' I've got about everything I'd
never finish writing the list...
The questions regarding Iraq, and Iran, and Osama bin Laden (alive or
dead?), and the coincidence of the 'exercise' the morning of 9/11, and
Bush's lack of action during the "goats" story, and the apparent coverup
of his behavior even though there was nothing that obviously needed
"covering up", and the issues surrounding Cheney's use of recently
acquired powers to order Norad to "stand down" thus leaving us open to
the attack, and ... and ... and ... anyhow none of those have any
bearing on what made the buildings collapse. Even if Bush Senior turns
out to have been piloting one of the planes (he parachuted out at the
last minute, that's why they confiscated all the tapes of the impact
that they could find, didn't want anyone to notice the chute opening),
it doesn't affect the question of whether the towers collapsed solely
due to impact from the aircraft. That stuff's all just politics.
But frozen iron droplets in the dust and the possibility that the fires
were not as hot as assumed could both affect our understanding of the
collapse. And the "molten steel" in the basement, which is also a
physical thing, has been bandied about a lot and remains something I
find very hard to comprehend. The politics is slippery and will likely
never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction (who ordered the
assassination of Lincoln? uh...) but the physics of the collapse
should be clear and should have a definite, iron-clad conclusion -- yet
there are these loose ends, and they bother me.
(Assuming thermite doesn't help, it makes things worse; the number of
loose ends with the thermite scenario is far, far larger IMO. Particle
beam weapons similarly could explain a lot of physical things but the
political difficulties get completely out of hand with that assumption,
and we won't even touch on the question of how such technology could
work or where it came from. Assuming an alien attack took place that
day might resolve all the nagging questions at once, but Occam's Razor
forbids going so far afield.)
Why not add the Iraq scene to the mix ? Consider military tactics and
strategies on a grand scale. If you were a US military commander
handed this task, how would you fight ?
Luckily the ROTC application I got in the mail many decades ago was
horribly thick and I can't deal with paperwork, so I never completed it,
never applied for ROTC, and consequently didn't become an officer on
graduation, and consequently never served in the military (just missed
the Vietnam draft by about a year), so I won't have to answer that question.
There's no question that there's a swamp over there which could use
draining but at this point we're up to our necks in alligators and there
are strong environmental arguments against just nuking all the 'gators.
It's a tough one.
We are watching military science at it's very best that will go down
in history. How to contain opposites bent on using any tactic for
advantage.
Jeez, Richard, if this is military science at its "best" what's it look
like when it's just being sort of normal? And its worst must be
unthinkable...
Richard
