Duck! and Gather

Archive for September 19th, 2006

With unique users on this site well on the way to crossing the 1000 barrier this month (for the first time), I figured this was a good time to clear up some stuff. In the previous posting, I mention that a couple of engineer friends of mine recently questioned my sanity concerning my take on 9/11. I figured that if they thought that, a good number of you do too.

You may all be correct on that score. But I didn’t want to leave you with misconceptions. One that I could see arising concerns my position and beliefs about Corporations. With a tag-line that starts “People vs.Corporations…”, one might conclude that I’m a “bomb throwing anti-corporate activist”.

I may be crazy, but I’m definitely not that crazy. Although I do believe that the greatest current threat to the security and prosperity of America concerns certain Corporations and Industries, I don’t believe that all Corporations are evil.

First, I don’t even believe in good vs. evil. As I have podcasted more than a few times, I believe instead in (attraction, aversion) vs. (love, wisdom). To see what that means, check out my podcasts on this point. (If I wasn’t so lazy I’d give you the links — well, if you’re interested, just leave a commont or otherwise ping me, and I’ll look for the links.)

Second, I have a more nuanced view of Corporations. Basically, I see Corporations like boa constrictors or pythons. When such snakes hatch out of their eggs, they are really cute little guys. And while they remain baby snakes, they’re really fun to have around.

But when they’ve reached full maturity, and have become massive and immensely powerful, they are now dangerous. Your nice little baby python that you once played with can now wrap itself around your neck and with one little squeeeze, you are toast.

I think Corporations are similar. So for example, I can find no evil or excessive aversion or attachment in any of the Internet companies. The oldest ones are only 10 years old. Ten years in the life span of a Corporation is nothing. The Internet companies are still babies — all fun and play and spit-ups.

But give these tykes another 50 years or so, and I predict that cute and fuzzy Yahoo, Google, EBay, and Amazon, if they are still around in 2056, will have become dangerous adult pythons.

Similarly, looking around at the Corporations and Industries that are 50-years-old or older today, we come to Big Food, Big Pharm, Big Media, what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex, and so on. My blog and podcast has looked closely at these Industries and has argued that today, in 2006 America, reasoned arguments hold that these Industries seem to cause more harm than good. Again, root through my podcasts more for detail.

Clear as mud?

A couple of good friends of mine are engineers. They assure me that believing that any of the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition is a sure sign of early-onset dementia. The problem with this diagnosis of me is that if correct, I would have no way of knowing that because, by definition, I’d be demented. Demented people don’t know they’re demented. So this is where I need your help.

Here are the two pieces of data that, collectively, “pushed me over the edge” on WTC Building 7:

1. Complete 911 Timeline (a collection of summaries of a collection of news stories)
2. 911 Eyewitness (a 1:44:40 long video)

What Complete Timeline represents for me is persuasive evidence that more than a few people had prior knowledge of the events of 9/11, ranging from pretty good knowledge to down right specific knowledge. In particular, on that site, I looked at the Warning Signs page, and the Insider Trading page.

Those pages shook me out of my certainty that all of the 9/11 “conspiracy theories” were false. After reading those pages, I now had doubt. “If more than a few people had prior knowledge of 9/11,” I thought, “it stands to reason that at least some of those people took prior steps to take advantage of it.” But what steps and who?

In this state of unsettling doubt that had replaced my prior certainty, I watched the 911 Eyewitness video. I’ve now watched it twice. I’m trying to think up how this video is false concerning its analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7. I confess that, barring “doctoring” of the video data, I can’t see why or how this analysis about Building 7 is false.

The trouble with that is that if one believes that 911 Eyewitness‘ simple analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7 is correct, logic gives one a swift kick in the rear, knocking one over the line, and into the abyss of the conspiracy madness.

So here’s the help I’m looking for. I’m not looking for anyone to argue that the analysis of 911 Eyewitness on Building 7 is correct. Hell, I already think that.

Instead, I’m looking for someone to explain to me why that analysis is incorrect or false or misleading. In other words, I’m looking for someone to “debunk” that analysis. I couldn’t find such a debunking page on the Internet. Maybe one of you could be the first.

UPDATE: I’ve come across some pages that purport to “debunk” 911 Eyewitness:

  1. Rick Siegel’s 9-11 Eyewitness: Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science
  2. 9-11 Eyewitness Review Part 1 and Moron 9-11 Eyewitness
  3. “9/11 Eyewitness” is Probably Disinformation

I’ve ranked these pages in decreasing order of what I found useful. Collectively, they do seem to provide some “reasonable doubt” about many of the arguments raised in 911 Eyewitness.

The problem, however, is that not a single one of these pages addresses what concerns me most about that video. Namely: the video’s analysis regarding the speed of collapse of WTC Building 7.

I suppose this is my remaining small question: Can one of you do me a favor and debunk the analysis of 911 Eyewitness concerning the speed of WTC 7’s collapse (found at 1:12:47 to 1:17:32 of the video)? Thanks.


for the money has gone too far

Blog Stats

  • 10,041 hits
September 2006
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930