| | Junk E-Mail | Inbox
Hello,
I thought you did quite well with Chip Berlet, given the forum was slanted in his favor, ie the nature of the forum. It was a perfect example of process philosophy and its emphasis on process and cumulative evidence vs mechanistic materialism and emphasis on little details, as if the whole is simply the sum of its parts, like a car engine. I do feel, however, you could have made a stronger argument re the WTC collapse. Yes, no "structural engineering expert" can be quoted to support the view that planes and fires did not bring down the towers, but the facts are pretty strong, and based on fairly elementary physics, which trump any specialized knowledge (i'm speaking as someone with a degree in mechanical engineering). There is the case of Van Romero, a well-known demolition expert, who was quoted 2 days after the attacks as saying it looked like demolition, then strangely recanted, saying he didn't say anything. But there is really no need to rely upon experts here. The "expert firm" Berlet brought up does not exist, he meant the American Society of Civil Engineers, whose chief investigator, Prof Astane-Asl of UC Berkeley (my institution), admitted he never got to examine the physical evidence, yet still came up with a report backing the "pancaking theory", which does not hold up given overwhelming evidence. And buildings don't turn to dust even during standard demolition. In this, the towers differed from WTC7, which seemed more like conventional demolition. The towers turned to dust *while in mid-air*. And energy balance studies completely demolish official theories. Much of this information, as i've said before, is at our website, http://911research.wtc7.net we think it can help those who want to figure out what happened.
But again, overall i think you did fine, given the time and structure constraints. Good luck to you!
Jeff Strahl
--"The future's here, we're it, we're on our own"--John Barlow and Robert Weir, 1982.