QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 25 2007, 07:27 AM)
In the NISTAR 1 document NIST writes about 'unusually large fires'. Is this because they knew something that we were not supposed to i.e., that there was an unusual amount of fuel aboard these planes. NIST also try to claim that building regulations did not require consideration of fuel laden aircraft colliding with tall buildings. Are we expected to believe that in an area like downtown Manhattan, with no less than three major airports in the vicinity, that the many aircraft flying into and out of these airports would do so without using fuel! This I believe is contrary to the documented design philosophy of Skilling. Note Robertson's, a very junior member of the design team, obfuscation on this point in post 9/11 interviews. Whatever, the quantity of fuel was for effect i.e., to make belief in the illusion being perpetrated more certain.
I'm sorry to say that I'm growing increasingly weary of all the infighting, self-censorship, and "pet" theories in the 9/11 Truth Movement. My background in science, welding, aerospace/defence engineering, military aircraft and military strategy (was an US AFA Candidate way back when but narrowly missed my 800 meter time due to bronchitis) has led to the following concepts that I believe played much of the part in the WTC attack and "War on Terror":
1. "Softening the target"- use multiple and varied attacks to progressively weaken a structure or enemy fortification. This idea goes back until at least the Great Wall of China (but I never finished reading Sun Tzu).
2. Misdirection. Create a lot of noise and dust away from where the much more covert or clandestine "action" is. This applies to media coverage and public opinion as well.
3. PsyOps. Use every trick in the disinfo and propaganda toolkit to discredit, distract, and divide your intended audience/target. (If you can get the target to do the same to themselves and to self-censor, so much the better). Demonize some "patsy" and your oppostion to control public opinon. Here's where the oft-accused "COINTELPRO agent" works UNDERNEATH the scenes. Subliminal effects and careful wording is used here too. See also Karl Rove's resume and "Bush's Brain".
4. Compartmentalized information, secrecy, and "need to know"- self explanatory.
Binding oaths, blackmail, intimidation, and career "pressure" have all been used as effective "persuaders" here. See Richard Perle's resume.
5. Stonewalling and Obfuscation- see Dick Cheney's resume, the Warren Commission, Watergate, and the 9/11 Commission and FEMA reports. If you control the evidence and the investigation, then you pretty effectively control the outcome/conclusion.
6. Rhetoric. If the "official explanation" finds opposition, use all the little tricks of debate manipulation: ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, guilt by association. Sadly, We don't need to look far to find this in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
7. Patience. Erode the oppostion bit by bit, taking tiny, unnoticed bites. This is "war of attrition" (and perception).
8. Emotion. Get people waving the flag, have parades, watch "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel.
9. Media Control. See Rupert Murdoch's resume, "Outfoxed," "Weapons of Mass Deception," "War is $ell," Operation Mockingbird/Mighty Wurlitzer. FAIR and Sourcewatch are my preferred websites about this.
With all this said, I'll finally refer your question over to a post about Ryan Mackay's paper at 911blogger.com:http://www.911blogger.com/node/11016
Tony Szamboti and I addressed the Skilling issue fairly well, I think. Tony is an aerospace engineer also (although he gives me the impression that he can't tell us everything he knows for professional reasons.)
I wish you well in your quest, sir. I will likely be keeping a much smaller online profile and spending more time on personal matters.
EDIT: I should add that I think we are wrong to look for one "magic bullet" explanation. This was a very complex geopolitical event that is still evolving to this day and well into the future, I suspect. I don't feel that any one source is 0% or 100% credible, but I've likely seen too much quantum physics- credibility should be a "weighted average" IMHO. I do however think there are some sources that I would rate in the negative credibility if KNOWN disinfo, but this word has been thrown around a lot recently.