Jed wrote:
> And the NYFD rolled over and play dead. Because as we all
> know officials in
> New York City are timid and passive people who never
> question authorities.
> They are easily duped, and slavishly devoted to Republican
> administration.
>
> Plus, what would they have to gain? I mean, aside from
> world-class fame as
> the most important fire inspectors in history who broke the
> larger scandal
> in history? Of course they prefer to shut up in return for
> a payment of,
> what? maybe $100,000 for each member of the department
> "in the know." That
> would be every fireman who saw the building because I
> assure you they all
> recognize arson when they see it. You could fool me with
> thermite but you
> sure could not fool a professional fireman, or even a
> volunteer fireman in
> Emmitsburg Maryland. Any staff expert at the NYFD could
> easily get a book
> deal for $5 million but they all much prefer going along
> with the
> conspirators.
>
> Apart from everything else, the human element of this
> mishmash conspiracy
> theory is completely preposterous. People do not act the
> way you imagine!
> They do not cover up data when it is in their interest and
> it is their
> professional responsibility to reveal that data. If there
> was a scrap of
> credible information pointing to premeditated, prepared
> arson, every member
> of the NYFD would be on to it, and they would be shouting
> about it from the
> rooftops. If, as you claim, the NYFD has photos proving
> this was prepared
> arson WHY AREN'T THEY SHOUTING ABOUT IT? WHY ARE THEY
> GOING ALONE WITH THE
> CONSPIRACY? What possible benefit is it to them? Do you
> think they don't
> recognize what you yourself claim is "obvious" in
> these photos?
I'm inclined to agree with you about this, Jed. It doesn't seem to make a lot
of sense from a human motivation point of view. OTOH, it doesn't seem
immediately credible that this building should collapse as it did without a
plane striking it, although I admit that I don't have enough information about
it to form an opinion.
As far as NIST is concerned, it's easy to see why people are becoming
increasingly skeptical about information coming from government agencies
lately. As I have pointed out numerous times, the CDC was forced to make a
public apology for lying about the spread of AIDS in the general,
non-homosexual, non-drug-addict population. Their motivation was clearly
political and they more or less excused themselves on those grounds. Of the
thousands of scientists and others who work for the CDC, no one blew the
whistle, the GAO had to find them out.
A similar situation happened at NOAA concerning solar irradiance. There was no
public apology, mostly, I suppose, because the public has no idea what solar
irradiance is. It was a tempest in a teapot.
Here in the Los Angeles area, we are experiencing what appears to be a local
governnment manufactured water shortage. Rationing has been put in place with
little water-gestapo agents driving about in their Priuses, trying to catch
people using water in an unauthorized government disapproved manner.
Meanwhile, there was much longer season for snow in the surrounding mountains
due to, ahem, global cooling. The reservoirs are all full to the brim, for
those who care to look instead of believing what numbers are issued forth from
the local government agencies. The river that flows through Malibu Canyon,
which is normally a narrow trickle this late in the summer is nearly
overflowing its banks, ditto the concrete channel contained Los Angeles River
and the California Aqueduct. Fortunately for me, I live in an area that hasn't
yet implemented these apparently unnecessary restrictions.
In all these cases, there seems to be a political motivation for these agencies
to act in such a fashion. As one government agency does it, others will be
tempted to try it to see how much more power or funding they can get. It's
just human nature, or at least government agency nature. Surely you can see
why some might not be inclined to believe the NIST interpretation of what
happened at the WTC, whether accurate or not.
M.
