jberryhill's Journal

I don't think you have the least grasp of how failure analysis works.

Transformers did NOT bring down any buildings on 9/11. There were certainly transformer explosions. People certainly heard them and felt them, and the conflagration of the transformer oil, among other fuels readily available in those structures, certainly contributed to the fires.

I bring up the decades-long analysis of the Titanic, because I don't think you understand the nature of analytic inquiry.

The morning after the Titanic sank, it was clear that "The ship hit an iceberg and sank."

Well, that leaves questions. The ship was designed not to sink, even if the hull was ruptured. So, did the compartments fail to do their job? Did the iceberg rip open too many compartments? How does ice cut steel? And so on...

There has been a lively discussion for DECADES about various theories of how the Titanic hull failed. Not all of these theories agree - even today.

Now what folks like you do - and I've seen it in action in creationism/evolution "debating" for a very long time - is that you pick up on discrepancies between various theories of building failure and then claim that the "experts don't know" or have not provided "a definitive final answer", therefore they must be wrong. Creationists are particularly good at that tactic, and you might want to study their techniques because they are quite good at it. They will go on and on about how "gradualism" and "punctuated equilibrium" don't agree, and therefore these disagreements and inconsistencies - which attempt to explain the FACT of evolution - demonstrate that evolution did not occur.

So, no, "the ship hit an iceberg" does NOT explain how or why the Titanic sank. "The ship hit an iceberg" does NOT explain why the ship is found in three major pieces across a debris field in the North Atlantic. Just what happened to that vessel that night will continue to be an area of study for a long, long time, and there will continue to be new theories that deal with various aspects of how or why the Titanic sank.

The events of 9/11 were on a large scale, were chaotic, and involved complicated structures and systems. A video of some people standing on a street and hearing something go BANG does not persuade me that a shadow government was running around lower Manhattan that day, or any previous day, planting explosives so that we would believe in an attack by Saudi Muslims as a pretext for an invasion of a secular Baathist country.

But you claim to be seeking "truth". Okay, fine, but you have to consider among various alternatives - all of which may be a "truth" - for things that you observe and for which you do not have a ready explanation.

I'm willing to bet two things - (1) you've seen lots of reports about people hearing explosions, and (2) you've seen the video where something goes BANG.

I'm willing to bet on a third thing - you probably never really thought too much about transformer explosions, how frequently they happen in a variety of circumstances, or how powerful they are.

So you have a choice. You can spew shit that's posted somewhere else, or you can think for yourself. I've never read the NIST, FEMA, or 9/11 Commission Report. I wouldn't know if they mention transformer explosions or not. And I further don't give a shit if they do or do not.

What's funny is that you think there is something "odd" about someone simply using their own power of critical thinking as applied to why people would hear random explosions in a disaster area which have no apparent connection to the disaster. It's bleedingly obvious to me that there had to be transformers popping like corks on New Year's Eve down there.

But, yeah, if one's idea of "thinking" consists of spewing crap that other people wrote then, sure, I can see why you find original thinking to be a character flaw.

Now, WHAT IS THE PREMISE OF THIS THREAD? The premise here is that HBO is hiding evidence of bombs used to blow up buildings, because they cut a clip of some people on a street hearing something go BANG at a point in time obviously after the collapse of at least one of the towers. Does a video of something going BANG in a disaster area persuade me that there were bombs planted in buildings? No. There are lots of things already in buildings that can go BANG. I can't imagine the type of mind that can only believe that BANG means "shadow government planted explosives to bring down large buildings". But, yeah, if that's what's been spoon-fed to you, then I guess that's what you'll believe until you get off the teat and think for yourself.