[Robotgroup] OT: challenge

Tue May 20 13:33:43 PDT 2008

Vern Graner wrote:
> Shane Geiger wrote:
>   
>> I assume this mailing list has some people who are somewhat prejudiced 
>> against considering these ideas,
>>     
>
> I would only assume this topic is highly flammable, not that folks would 
> be pre-disposed one way or another in evaluating evidence. :) Also, I 
> don't know how much robotics or robotics related discussion this will 
> generate. Unless we start to talk about bomb-disposal bots? ;)
>
>   
>> but I also know there are plenty of 
>> intelligent people on this mailing list who will take my challenge to 
>> tell me what is wrong (if anything) with this analysis
>>     
>
> I think popular Mechanics magazine did an excellent job of presenting 
> the facts surrounding the World Trade Center and the physics involved 
> with the collapses:
>
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
>   

Popular Mechanics did an excellent job of knocking down straw man 
arguments--that is, arguments that not representative of those the 9/11 
Truth Movement has been pushing. 

For instance, they did not deal with the molten metal issue in the 2005 
article in PM.  They sidestepped it, which is what the NIST report did 
in their report published later that same year.

Did you watch the video I sent?  Please respond to it.

Popular Mechanics' "debunking" method of demonstrating the truth is 
really a lame way to deal with evidence.  Debunking is a debate, which 
allows dishonest parties to inject false information (such as straw man 
arguments) and marginalize or ignore facts.  The scientific method is a 
much more reliable and honest way of finding facts than debate.

Here is one answer to the Popular Mechanics:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/03/kevin-ryan-squashes-pop-mechanics.html

> I think its interesting to see the arguments made to support various 
> conspiracies (I too enjoy Alex Jones.. its like listening to Mulder from 
> the X-Files!), and I have watched the video that claims there was no 
> airplane, but rather a missile that hit the Pentagon and the video of 
> Tower 7 mentioned by the OP.
>   

Since I don't watch the X-Files, I'm not quite sure what that means.  I 
am not a follower of Alex Jones, but he and I share a number of views on 
9/11. 

The "no airplane theory" video has nothing to do with the physical 
evidence outlined in the attached document.  Certainly one can say that 
the no planes theories people do not have a testable hypothesis, so they 
are not able to use the scientific method to verify their claims.  

Using the scientific method is a very important method for sorting fact 
from fiction.

One reason that the no planes theories may exist is to discredit the 
9/11 Truth Movement.  This sort of thing has been done in the past with 
other grassroots movements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Methods

Paid infiltrators or misguided people within those groups do not 
represent everyone in the group--and perhaps represent very few or 
nobody in the group.

> Personally, the body of evidence, (plus Occam's razor!) leads me to 
> believe that some Saudi citizens intentionally flew planes into 
> buildings and the resulting damage to the buildings and surroundings is 
> consistent with the explanations I've seen from reputable (and 
> ostensibly neutral) sources such as Popular Mechanics and other noted 
> scientists, structural engineers and the like. My $0.02... :)
>
>   

Use the scientific method to sort this out.  If you are relying upon 
reputation and not verification of the facts, that that is very 
unscientific.  Popular Mechanics is not a peer-reviewed journal and 
aren't scientific.

If we relied upon reputation to advance knowledge, we would have no 
robots.  :-)

Occam's razor is a heuristic.  It is not science.

People often refer in these discussions to the JFK assassination with a 
comment like this: "Every generation or two there is a big event that 
causes a lot of conspiracy theories to arise."  So it seems.  The 
implication here is that these "theories" that conflict with the 
official story are incorrect.  How do we know for sure that the official 
stories weren't parts of big cover-ups?  Many people seem pretty 
confident they were not.  Why?  Perhaps because people often assume big 
conspiracies eventually come out and are known as such by the entire 
population?

If we believe bullets can be magical, then we can believe the Warren 
Commission Report in its entirety.  Google "magic bullet theory" and 
learn about the theory of a "magic bullet" making 90 degree turns, 
pausing in mid air, and doing other magical feats.  With all the 
resources of the federal government, why does a ludicrous theory like 
that get passed off as the official story?  Certainly they could have 
investigated this better and come up an explanation that would fit the 
facts better, right?  Indeed.  In reality, there was no magic employed 
on that fateful day because "magic" does not exist--and certainly not in 
bullet form!

How can we feel confident that we know the truth about whether something 
is a conspiracy unless the media blesses something as the truth?  (Even 
to this day something like 25% of the US population believes the 
official Warren Report story--magic bullet and all.)  If we were close 
enough to or interested enough in the event and could see the evidence 
ourselves, maybe we could come to some conclusion about such an event, 
but what about the majority of people who get their information solely 
from the media?  How would they "know" something was a conspiracy unless 
it was blessed by the media as a conspiracy?  ("Magic" is not an 
acceptable answer.)

WHAT IS "TOO BIG" TO BE AN UNEXPOSED CONSPIRACY?

Certainly, if something was a big conspiracy, someone would talk, 
right?  The word would get out, right?  Therefore, the bigger the 
conspiracy, the less likely it would be kept secret, right?

Prove it.

The assumption here is that there exists a direct correlation between 
size of conspiracy and whether it will become known as such by the 
general population.

We sometimes forget what some very powerful men who were involved in 
conspiracies had to say:

  * "The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie 
than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Mein 
Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925)

  * "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a 
conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists". -- J. Edgar 
Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).

The Elephant-Sized Conspiracy

In trying to understand what "too big" is, think for a minute about the 
size of elephants, the largest land-dwelling mammals alive today.  Why 
are elephants the size they are? And why aren't they 10,000 times larger?

Some natural limitations on the size of elephants:
  * their environment must contain enough readily-accessible food to 
support such large animals
  * they must be strong enough to move around to do things like get the 
food, mate and avoid predators
  * their hearts have to be strong enough to pump blood throughout their 
bodies
  * their nervous systems would have to carry information at a rate that 
was not too slow for the beast to survive

If they were 100 times larger, elephants might have a number of 
problems.  Certainly, natural limitations keep these animals from 
growing infinitely large.

Many of us assume that conspiracies have natural limitations, as well, 
and, assuming that the larger the conspiracy the more likely it will 
become exposed, people assume they have seen the largest conspiracies 
and therefore can know the size of such beasts.

But I ask:  What is "too big" to be a conspiracy?  Could 9/11 not be a 
conspiracy because it is too big?  How does it compare with the biggest 
scandals we know about.  It would have had to be much bigger than the 
Enron scandal, an elephant-sized conspiracy.  We might conclude then 
that 9/11 simply cannot have been anything but the official story.

But let's think about the Enron scandal.

If you see the film "Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room" you will learn 
much about this conspiracy very quickly.  The largest investment banks 
in the world were knowingly doing business with fake companies set up by 
the Enron's CFO for the purpose of moving debt off the Enron books.  
These companies had ridiculous names that should raise concern to anyone 
who would take note of them in the books.  (Two examples I recall:  Jedi 
and Raptor.)  Vinson and Elkins, their attorneys who helped set up these 
bogus companies, were getting paid off to the tune of nearly one million 
dollars a week.  Arthur Andersen, their accountants and auditors, were 
cooking the books for more than a million dollars a week.  Enron must 
have had roughly fifty stock analysts who were issuing in chorus "BUY" 
ratings on Enron stock despite not knowing anything about how Enron made 
its money.  They did this in return for investment banking business that 
Enron gave them.  Enron caused rolling blackouts in the California power 
grid to financially rape that state for billions of dollars.  (This film 
has tape recordings of these ruthless acts to drive up the cost of 
energy in California.)  Naturally the governor of California tried to 
stop this, so Enron had the governor of California removed from his 
position, replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Enron was using an 
accounting system called "mark to market" which, in effect, allowed them 
to record profit on their books as soon as they had an idea--that is, 
before any actual work was done to implement the idea and to see whether 
it was worth anything.  (This kind of accounting was responsible for a 
number of scandals in the 1990s.)

In Enron's case, the beast started collapsing under its own weight due 
to a reporter from Fortune Magazine writing an article that asked the 
simple question "Is Enron Overpriced?"  It was like the innocent 
question "Is the emperor wearing no clothing?"  Then whistleblowers went 
public and helped Enron go down.

Now consider this question:  If even bigger conspiracies are possible, 
how would you know that fact if they did not come out?

The Blue Whale-Sized Conspiracy

No land dwelling creature on present day earth is large as the 
elephant.  A big bull African can be up to 12 feet at the shoulder and 
weigh 12,000 pounds.

However, the Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is the largest mammal 
ever known to inhabit the earth.

It is a marine mammal.  It used to be a land mammal with hooves, but it 
evolved into an aquatic creature.

At up to 33 metres (110 ft) in length and 181 metric tonnes (200 short 
tons) or more in weight, it is believed to be the largest animal ever to 
have existed--even larger than the largest dinosaurs.

     "Blue whales' diet consists mainly of krill, a tiny shrimp that 
lives in tremendously large schools in almost every ocean of the world. 
Krill is probably one of the most plentiful food species (outside of 
insects) anywhere on earth. It's gotta be to keep up with the blue 
whales' big appetite. A big blue whale can eat over a thousand krill at 
one time swallowing them with a tongue that weighs as much as an 
elephant! Blue whales eat the krill using a special type of filter on 
their mouths called a baleen. By gulping enormous amounts of sea water 
containing the live krill the blue whale closes its mouth and flushes 
the sea water back out through the filter leaving the krill behind for 
it to swallow. Small fish and plankton are also favorite food items of 
the whale. It takes about 8,000 lbs/3600kg of fresh seafood a day to 
keep the blue whale well fed."  Source: 
http://www.extremescience.com/BlueWhale.htm

The blue whale's tongue can weigh as much as an elephant!

It eats 8,000 pounds of krill daily.  With elephants weighing 12,000 
pounds, you can quickly get a sense of how much larger the blue whale is.

The Conspiracy's Environment

What allowed the whale to become much larger than the elephant?  Its 
environment played a key role.

It seems the whale lives in an environment that bouys its blubbery 
weight, so it is able to move relatively easily.  Elephants have to bear 
the brunt of their weight on their own feet, so naturally the evolution 
of this species was influenced by its environment, as was the case with 
the largest whales.

Food is another aspect.  To become large, animals need to live in an 
environment that has ample food.

The metaphor of the blue whale-sized conspiracy can help us generate 
some ideas about the environment of conspiracies and ask what conditions 
would have to exist for a Moby Dick conspiracy to exist?  A massive, 
mythical creature that lurks below the surface.

THE CONSPIRACIES OF MYTHICAL PROPORTIONS

So, let us think for a second about the size of conspiracies.  How big 
can they be?  Let us think about how evolution within a society bears 
upon the size of conspiracies?

If a culture of corruption existed--of no accountability and utter 
lawlessness--conspiracies could be much larger.  One can see this within 
our government.  The military cannot be sued now, according to the 
Supreme court.  The telecoms may soon be given immunity for spying on 
the US citizens in an unconstitutional domestic spy program that started 
before 9/11.  While CIA agents for decades have been doing various 
crimes with impunity (such as drug trafficking, as evidenced by the 
Iran-Contra hearings), Bill Clinton signed into law in December 2000 
what was known as Section 308, which officially made CIA agents above 
the law.  Stolen elections, preemptive war, torture.  The Patriot Act, 
the Military Commissions Act.

Our nation political structure has a culture of corruption, and this has 
bled into the media.  I won't spend much time now on the various factors 
that have contributed to our growing distrust of the media.  These 
factors are many.  Instead, I will focus on perhaps the most effective 
at suppressing 9/11 Truth and least well known:

CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT (COG) PLANS MAY STILL BE IN EFFECT

Something that might help explain why the media has been so resistant to 
the 9/11 Truth Movement is the enactment of Continuity of Government 
plans on 9/11, which would give the so-called shadow government the 
ability to censor the media.  This would be ideal for covering up a huge 
government conspiracy.  It could also let you commit a dozen impeachable 
offenses with impugnity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

Continuity of government (COG) plans were enacted on 9/11:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/continuity-of-government-plans-were.html
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/has-government-already-implemented.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20584-2002Feb28&notFound=true

It seems as if continuity of government plans are still in effect:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/evidence-builds-that-continuity-of.html
http://www.constitutionally.blogspot.com/

http://911blogger.com/node/15047
Continuity of Government: Best Case Scenario

Note that Congress was not told of this fact, and that members of 
Congress with security clearance were denied without reason access to 
the COG plans:
http://www.correntewire.com/bush_refuses_to_let_congressman_see_his_secret_plans_for_continuity_of_government_after_the_next_terrorist_attack
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977266788&nav=Namespace

Perhaps it is worth noting that Dick Cheney began working on our 
country's continuity of government plans 20 years ago with his good 
friend Donald Rumsfeld.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were in Nixon's cabinet, 
and have as much knowledge about behind-the-scenes White House spin as 
just about anyone.  (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ford in the Oval Office:  
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/avproj/A4154-09.jpg )

Recall for a second some of the strange behavior (or propaganda) of our 
Vice President:

  * He has argued as Vice Presidend and President of the Senate, he is 
neither part of the Executive nor the Legislative branch (despite being 
part of both), which might make us think he is his own branch of 
government.  What was your take on "fourth branch" Cheney when you heard 
about this?  My thought was:  "Why do you think he is going to such 
lengths to make himself unpopular?  Do you think he is hiding 
something?"  
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/31/%e2%80%98fourth-branch%e2%80%99-cheney-strikes-again/

  * Recently: Is The Vice-President Claiming He Is Not A US Citizen?  
http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=466

> Also PLEASE NOTE-- Calm, dispassionate discussions of various things 
> like science and physics etc. are welcome in this forum. Flames, 
> personal attacks or simply non-relevant/non-productive comments are not.
>
> Thanks in advance! :)
>
> Vern
>
>   

-- 
Shane Geiger
IT Director
National Council on Economic Education
sgeiger at ncee.net  |  402-438-8958  |  http://www.ncee.net

Leading the Campaign for Economic and Financial Literacy