GDH - Thanks for the post. I understand where you are coming from, but obviously, I hold a different view. I simply take the Bible as a whole, both OT and NT. There is still a time for peace and a time for war (Eccl.) We must be prepared to engage in both if we are to include ourselves as part of any state. And there are no war atrocities, war is an atrocity, bit still one that God has ordained and will do so again. And the worst collateral damage the US has incurred in war is no different from God's commands to destroy not only other warriors, but women, children, and infrastructure as well at many times in the OT. OT or NT, human nature hasn't changed. There will be aggression and wars will continue to pop up around the world.
Now I know there are Christians that believe that the OT has been completely superseded and should no longer be considered part of the cannon. If that's where you are, I don't think I'm going to change that view. It sure isn't mine.
Now to the technicality of a military response. I am a veteran and was an officer, so I went through the typical professional military courses a company grader (captain) would have. History teaches (me at least), that if we aren't prepared for war, we will have to fight one. And when the war starts, the more brutal the response, the shorter it will be. In particular, the nuclear bombs used on Japan were needed to break the will not only that of the Japanese gov't, but the will of a brainwashed people. Don't forget - they believed the Emperor was a god and their death defending him was met with glory in the afterlife. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So by the awful act of dropping those nukes, the populace was brought to surrender. This terrible event ended the war at that point while the option of continuing a land war to capture the Japanese islands was avoided. That invasion would have mobilized the whole population to fight despite that fact that the Japanese were quickly running out of material. The bombs saved many more lives than they took. This is the perverse calculation of war.
Taking all these together, my Biblical beliefs, life experience, knowledge of history, etc. I stick to my idea. We should have responded after 9/11 with awful force - or even just a display of that force (a few 60 MT bombs set off in some wilderness near Kabul). This would have quickly ended the jihad and saved many lives and much treasure.
@Green Lantern - great post. I'm not sure how to respond at the moment or if I really need to since you made your point very clear. I'm not blind to America's faults and I know how some people see events like Pearl harbor and 9/11 as "logical" or "reasonable" responses to America's behavior by people with a different view of how to fight a war. As a matter of strategy, the 9/11 attack will be in the military tactics texts for the rest of human history. Also, if you've seen the "Why We Fight" series and "Victory at Sea", perhaps you should also watch "Triumph of the Will" and see how the other guys did it.
The one point that I will definitely take issue with here is that I certainly believe the main reason the jihadist were always trying to attack America is our "belief" that Israel should be a favored ally and that they have a right to exist in Palestine. Muslims in general truly hate the Jews and the jihadists want genocide. They have seen the US (and its military protection of Israel) as the main barrier to their goal - that's why we were attacked many times. Because this goal is based in their theology, this fight will go on ad infinitum until they have an existential crisis that makes them change their mind. It's too late now, but back on 9/12/01, several nukes would have provided that crisis in the jihadist mind and the last ten years would have been much different.
BOP - You specifically say you put me on "ignore", then you post here in this forum? You made this move and I have reciprocated, so don't bother trying to make a point to me. Let me know when you shut off the "ignore", then we can talk.
HUGH G - When you stop posting like a child, you will be treated like an adult. Until then, take your responses to me about war tactics and your WTC7 ignorant conspiracy theories to someone who cares. I don't. Eddy Current on YT has said it all for those of us who understand (theoretically and professionally) structural dynamics and the material properties of steel and aluminum.
I also will not be told about the particulars of the WTC by a bunch of people who have probably never set foot in NYC. I was in out of those buildings more times than you've had hot meals. I was up and down in those towers while the paint was still wet.
PS - Try getting sober first.
GL - You mentioned Ron Paul, so I would like to relate to you a "OMG" moment I had yesterday. After hearing that Anwar Al-Awlaki had been killed in a US attack in Yemen, I thought to myself, "How long before someone says in the press that we had no right to kill him and he should have been brought back to the US for trial?" And of course I thought that person would be some radical leftist or denizen of the ACLU. Well, I was absolutely floored when the first person to stand up and say it was Ron Paul. I wasn't surprised philosophically, but certainly surprised in the completely politically naive way he did. He will now be trounced on across the political spectrum. Stick a fork in him, he's done. Paul has shown no ability to keep his mouth shut at an appropriate time. For all his good ideas and libertarian views, his tactics stink because he is continually shooting himself in the foot. Of course, there needs to be a discourse about the US killing an American-born person overseas, but Paul's method just cost him the election for good.
We definitely need to have a debate, if not a trial about this kill. Al-Awlaki was born here in my state of New Mexico under common circumstances with parents here at a US school. Technically (and only technically), he has US citizenship and therefore has Constitutional protections. And because of that, a bad precedent may have been set. If I was President, I would ask for a trial or a Supreme Court ruling on the matter immediately even if I had to be the one on trial (but only after he was room temperature). My argument would be simple - Al-Awlaki through his words and actions (especially being on the soil of a foreign country on the US "watch list") had effectively renounced his US citizenship and therefore due process was not required. Would this be a dangerous legal precedent? Not IMHO. Of course it could be abused, but all laws (case law especially) can be abused by wicked men; so it's no different from the usual legal struggles in our society.
If Ron Paul had brought up this matter as a "we really should have a Federal judicial decision about that before we do it again", he would have been seen as a reasoned statesman instead of a "libertarian nut". Not that I would use that term, but I think right now 80% of Americans would and I wouldn't have a good footing to argue with them.
I hate having to exercise political savvy to make philosophical points. But in a country where the vast majority of people never think about philosophy or know about Aristotelian logic, political savvy is one of your few tools. Kiss Dr. Paul good-bye now.
Scarlet, I don't have much time, so I will simply ask this, do you seriously believe Jesus would hold the same stance as you? I find it hard to believe that you honestly think that Jesus would advocate nuking a bunch of innocents no matter how deluded they may be. Just look at the example of his life, what you saying doesn't add up.
You seem to be doing what the radical Islamists do, which is bend the faith to fit their beliefs. How do you define the difference between what you support and the 911 bombing, to me it appears the same, taking out innocents to teach those you imagine to be oppressing you a lesson.
the rocket scientist who right off the bat blew every bit of his credibility out the window early on by making the outrageous statement:
"How come there are no engineers or architects who believe any of this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense" (I paraphrase).
Which demonstrated admirably how ignorant he is in regards this topic.
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4.due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
I'd say 2-4 apply here.
When, understandably it's pointed out that there is an organization of over 1,500 professional engineers & architects who are calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11, said 'rocket scientist' dismisses all of their bona-fides out of hand. You can bet your bottom dollar Mr. I'm-sure-of-myself has NEVER bothered checking out any of the links provided here, nor has watched any of the videos. Why should he? He's a ROCKET SCIENTIST and what he does for a hobby MOST PEOPLE HERE can't even come close to comprehending. Why should somebody with such a huge intellect and normalcy bias ever bother questioning his beliefs? That might lead to a realization that he might actually be WRONG about something, and, we all know that rocket scientists have much more knowledge of demolition, nanothermite, the historical results of fires in high-rises, etc,etc than actual architects and engineers.
They are referred to as "your WTC7 ignorant conspiracy theories", but of course the 'ignorance' in them is never addresses, such as, how do ALL the structural supports in a building that was damaged on one side and only had minor fires on a few floors fail simultaneously - even more suspect - first the center supports fail (you can see the dimpling in the middle) then the other ones fail, all in a classic, yes CLASSIC controlled demolition scenario. Or how 'bout the BBC reporting the collapse of bldg 7 23 minutes before it actually collapsed? Bldg 7 was less damaged than some of the other buildings, and up to that point in time historically NO skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire alone, yet somehow they nailed it in a feat of amazing precognition. Yup - nothing fishy here - go on - you think something is strange about any of this just ask a rocket scientist - they'll set you straight. Don't ask architects, or engineers or demolition experts - they have no idea what they're talking about.
Ya gotta hand it to him though, talk about conviction in your own beliefs - rather than honestly consider anything outside of his normalcy bias sphere, he'd prefer to nuke 'em.
@yangster - I am seeing in your post a much more "cultural" Christianity than a Biblical one. In Jesus' earthly ministry he said and did many things that we must adhere to. In his ministry, he gave us the examples we need as we walk among men and spread the gospel. Also, along the way, he did not support anarchy or ignorance of governance. He also allowed the state to continue in its path - even to his own crucifixion. So in this context, the state deciding to go to war (and participating) is not negated in anyway through the gospels. Paul, in Romans, further validates the actions of the state if they protect the good and punish the bad (surely the nuclear determent has done some of that in out lifetimes). Surely, current governance is problematic here at best, but the passage is clear. The state has a purpose and the soldier/policeman holds the sword for a purpose.
And please don't forget, through his ministry, Jesus quoted the law, prophets, and poetry, which validates them for our edification along with NT revelation. So adhering to both OT and NT teaching is valid for making decisions in life. And the OT is full of times when God had his people take up the sword - often unilaterally and with complete destruction of the enemy as a marching order.
Finally, Jesus' ministry on earth is not done. Revelation is very clear. He is returning and in His return, he will make WAR against the enemies of God. It will not be pleasant and the destruction will go down to the very souls of men. Finally, many will be cast into the lake of fire. Those who meet that fate will yearn for the comparative "coolness" of a nuclear holocaust.
The complete view of the Godhead must be that - complete. Jesus was not some "nice" guy who wanted us all to love each other so we wouldn't "fight" or "offend" anybody. If he was truly that type of man, the Romans would not have crucified him. In the Godhead, we see both the great healer and great warrior. We see the mercy and justice. To embrace the whole picture is not easy, but it can and must be done. I believe I do that with some success.
I will say one more thing about tactics. I simply want the armed conflicts to stop and the events of 9/11 never to be repeated. Since I loathe the thought of enslaving a people and forcing them at gun point to accept my ideology and theology, my only option is to make sure they understand what will happen to them if they try to do the same to me. That is the heart of deterrence.
@mudshark - First read my reply to Hugh G. Second, I'll bite - direct me to peer-reviewed papers on the subject so I can read the views of these architects and civil engineers you speak of. In my neck of the woods, peered-review publications are pretty much the do-all-and-end-all. I want journal publications or conference proceedings - ASME, ASCE, American Architects Accoc. and other groups like that (one would think ASTM would have had something on all this as well). Not YouTube videos, not some conspiracy website.
Give me that type of documentation and I'll read them. Until then, I think these so-called experts you talk about are all farts in the wind who couldn't even write a reviewed magazine article. Put up or shut up. Your WTC7 theories are beginning to grate. The last time you challenged me on this, I went looking for all the "evidence" out there. It is garbage by garbage-headed minds. When I see the ground-cam views of the collapse, the top of the building is most definitely rotating away - it was not a straight down collapse. There were no "detonations" - it was air blowing out windows as the floors collapsed. There was no "micro-thermite" in the ground samples - it was iron and aluminum from the structure itself. You don't use thermite in a controlled demolition anyway. It burns, it doesn't explode. BBC did not report early - I know the NYC skyline much better than you do. I only wish I had the passion and time to do what Eddy Current did - you guys were punked so bad.
I wait for your journal and conference citations.
You call me arrogant and ignorant. Fine. You're a paranoid camp follower. Even now?
There's plenty more out there for those with eyes to see.
While I'm at it, it's a classic logical fallacy to ignore evidence simply because of it's source. Broadly, this is an ad-hominem fallacy, aka poisoning-the-well.
IOW, just because somebody believes 9/11 is fishy, doesn't necessarily make them wrong. What are you afraid of, being 'fooled' by ae911truth.org?
This is the verification process used for all those ignorant Farts over at AE911Truth.org
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has an extraordinary Verification Team. They are a very special group of volunteers – individually responsible for ensuring that signers of the AE911Truth petition are real and the information they provide is accurate. All petition signers are verified, whether they are architects, engineers, or “other” supporters, and regardless of whether they live in the United States. Verifying 13,000 petition signers, 1,400 of whom are licensed and/or degreed A/E professionals, is no small task.
In 2010 alone, more than 400 professional architects and engineers were verified and displayed on the AE911Truth petition. Each of domestic A/E signer is contacted personally by phone by one of the Verification Team volunteers. Most of these professionals are surprised, then satisfied and thankful for the time and effort we spend verifying their credentials. After making personal contact with each signer, the volunteer reviews the signer’s credentials. If contact cannot be made or if appropriate credentials cannot be found, we do not count or display the signer on our A/Eprofessionals list.
Even the thousands of people who sign our petition in the “others” category are reviewed for valid emails, phone numbers, and other criteria. While reviewing the body of other supporters, we have found many amazingly skilled individuals ranging from physicists to lawyers and veterans. In fact, many people in theothers category are also architects or engineers by trade, but without the credentials we need for the professionals category. Please visit and read some of the testimonies from either category, as both have much to offer.
Throughout 2010, the Verifications Team was led by Sean Brizendine, who worked tirelessly to make sure all the volunteers’ questions were answered and issues resolved. He also called most of those professional signers himself.
Sean was backed by a diverse group of volunteers throughout the year, including many who are still with the current Verifications Team. Carol Cleveland, Laura Nieboer, Brian Romanoff, Laila Selk and Blake Shatto make up the Verifications Team heading into 2011. Sean Brizendine has graciously passed the torch on and moved to other necessary AE911Truth operations.
Our weekly Verification Conference calls are a vital communication tool. Emails sometimes just aren’t enough (and sometimes they are too much!). Every week there are more petition signers than days, and some signers offer challenges as well as rewards. A thank-you email is sent to every single signer by the Verifications Team .
You can view all of the Farts bona-fides here, unless you're afraid to:
I would have posted a sampling of them here, but when I tried to do that, it crashed the browser. Go look for yourself.
The fact that you call these professionals "Farts in the Wind" while knowing nothing about them is not surprising.
Furthermore, what I do for a hobby almost nobody here could come close to doing - that doesn't prove a thing.
@mudshark - I have downloaded the first two articles and will be reading them and going into the references. The paper from bethamscience will not download.
I am willing to read these, but they are not would I asked for. An "open" journal is not peer-reviewed (the name says it all). And "The Environmentalist" is no journal - it is a ultra-left biased website - not a good start. I want professional papers reviewed and refereed by professionals. Not propaganda.
I am serious here - I am not taking "letters" and magazine articles as anything but more speculation in a biased forum. I want journal papers and conference proceedings. If you're so cock-sure of yourself, this should not be a big request. And government reports don't cut it either, or am I supposed to start trusting the government when they support your views?
@mud - I'm taking a look at the list of Arch. and Eng. for 9/11 Truth - quite a list. I am going to try a little experiment and contact some on the list who are from New Mexico to see if this list is legit and where they stand. The way the linked petition is worded, it doesn't imply they all think there is some conspiracy going on, they just think an investigation is a good idea. We'll see.
I've been out splitting wood all afternoon and am too pooped to reply with much depth right now, but wanted to take a second to make one observation.
There is a difference between saying there is a conspiracy going on and saying there needs to be a further investigation. Myself, I have never pointed fingers and said so-and-so is responsible for 9/11, instead, I have stated that the official 'conspiracy' doesn't hold water.
As to who is responsible for the events on 9/11? I don't know. But there are too many anomalies in the official report for me to take it at it's face value - certainly too many for me to want to commit troops or nukes in acts of retaliation.
I am more than happy to agree not to make this a matter of "who did it".
I have already received a response to one of my emails that confirms a name on the list as valid. Not bad for a fairly random check. He gave me a list of web sites for research. One of them calls themselves a "journal", but it the Journal for 9/11 Truth - not exactly an old, established publication. Their front page also doesn't strike me as particularly "fair and balanced". However, I found some interesting paper titles and will take the time to start reading. They say these papers are "peer-reviewed", but they are not clear as to what they mean and who the referees are. I will continue my research.
I am particularly motivated over the whole "micro-thermate" issue. If this is really an invention of Los Alamos Nat. Labs, I should have little trouble finding out what it's all about.
@mudshark - I just got a second reply to the emails I sent out this afternoon. Another NM architect on the list responded that he did in fact sign the petition. He describes himself as "curious", but "agnostic" about the entire conspiracy theory and really doesn't want to pursue it. So at this point I would definitely have to conclude that the petition list is definitely authentic as to who has signed the petition. Their "motivation" on the matter seems mixed.
Now I am also starting to read two papers from the Journal of 9/11 truth website and looking at the credentials of the authors and their references. Here's a big problem - that site is not a technical journal in any sense - papers ranging from politics to architecture are there. There is also nothing in the way of a list of referees are a board of editors. I highly doubt the peer-review here is unbiased. The two papers are on the dynamics of collapse and thermate composition in ground samples. These will take time to read and properly research the references. Don't expect to hear back from me for a while.
However, I still want to make sure you understand that the papers I have found at this website are no where near the type of research that I am willing to call "bona fide". I need to see something substantial (true technical papers) properly reviewed and vetted in a journal of engineering and architecture that has been around way before 9/11 and is not dedicated to someone's view of the "truth". That's how I had to present my research in the past and I expect the same from others trying to make such accusations.
If you don't think that's fair, than we can stop this right now.
I typed a nice long reply, then accidently hit a button and the whole thing got wiped out. I've not the energy to redo the whole thing, so just a few of the more salient points.
The third article, from Benthamscience.com downloaded fine for me. Try this link:
You should be able to download it from there.
Here's the abstract from that paper:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
I will give you credit for examining this material. To be honest, I really didn't think you would. Your past statements have made it pretty obvious that you are not familiar with any of this material. If nothing else, maybe reading some of these papers will help you to understand why people take such umbrage at having their intelligence insulted simply because they question the official story.
I honestly don't know if I have the time or the resources to be able to find research that rises to the criteria you are requiring in order to take this information seriously. I have more than a passing knowledge of statistics and I understand the research and math that is involved in order to arrive at the 'truth' at alpha levels of .05 or .01. I also know that facts speak for themselves and are no less valid if they come from the mouth of Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. One of my pet peeves is how many people fall victim to one of the many many logical fallacies that plague debate and attempts to get to 'the truth'. Fact of the matter is, truths that come from 'left leaning' or 'right leaning' sources are not, in and of itself, untrue simply because of their pedigree.
Since it appears you are making a good faith effort to delve into some of this material (I suspect for the first time) I will make a good faith effort to try to find what you are looking for. I personally have concerns that regardless of what I find you will claim it is not good enough, but maybe I am wrong. I was certainly surprised you actually looked at the list of people you previously referred to as "ignorant farts" and said it was 'quite a list'. I was wrong when I thought you would never read any of the sources I found.
If you still cannot get the bentham science article downloaded, let me know and I will try to get a copy to you somehow.
Read The Book of Revelation - Nukes will be the least of a lot of people's problems on That Day. Repent. The End is Very F**king Near.