Daily Digest

Image by petter palander, Flickr Creative Commons

Daily Digest 2/9 - Good News Friday: A Good Life For All, Wind Power Blowing Away The Competition

Friday, February 9, 2018, 11:12 AM

This is Good News Friday, where we find some good economic, energy, and environmental news and share it with PP readers. Please send any positive news to [email protected] with subject header "Good News Friday." We will save and post weekly. Enjoy!

Economy

A Good Life For All Within Planetary Boundaries (Adam)

The chart above demonstrates the profound challenge nations currently face to provide a good life for all without transgressing planetary boundaries. National performance on seven global environmental boundaries that are shared using an equal per capita approach are plotted against eleven minimum social thresholds below which lies human deprivation (see About page for further details). Ideally, nations would be located in the top-left corner with no biophysical boundaries transgressed and all minimum social thresholds achieved. Use this tool to Explore Scenarios with different thresholds for a “good life”, and see what your choices would mean for sustainability.

If we gave everyone a decent standard of living, could we sustain it? (jdargis)

Things like democratic quality and equality don’t directly produce high standards of living, but they are associated with them. These items have less of a clear relationship to resource use: getting everyone food and healthcare is linked strongly to physical resources, but getting everyone social support is a different ball game. Extra consumption of resources isn’t as closely tied to advanced needs, the researchers suggest.

This implies that wealthy countries should be able to reduce their consumption without reducing their quality of life. But this would require a shift from the pursuit of GDP growth to what the researchers term “alternative economic models such as a steady-state economy.”

Voting Rights Process For Florida Felons Unconstitutional, Judge Says (sv)

The decision could have repercussions for a state that is deeply divided along partisan lines and that has increasingly become a cliffhanger in presidential elections.

ISPs must follow net neutrality in New Jersey, governor declares (jdargis)

"We may not agree with everything we see online, but that does not give us a justifiable reason to block the free, uninterrupted, and indiscriminate flow of information," Murphy in his announcement. "And, it certainly doesn't give certain companies or individuals a right to pay their way to the front of the line. While New Jersey cannot unilaterally regulate net neutrality back into law or cement it as a state regulation, we can exercise our power as a consumer to make our preferences known."

Washington governor rejects permit for oil-by-rail terminal (sv)

“The Council has thoroughly examined these and other issues and determined that it is not possible to adequately mitigate the risks, or eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of the facility, to an acceptable level,” Inslee wrote.

Nearly Half Of All Public Buses Will Be Electric By 2025 (Michael K.)

Electric buses may take away some of the market share from both diesel and CNG buses. While electrified buses are more expensive in upfront costs than diesel and CNG buses, the BNEF study found that all-electric buses can offer lower total cost of ownership through their vehicle lifecycles. The cost of fuel and maintenance expenses can be much lower. Electric buses are much easier to maintain and require less parts replacement than diesel- or natural gas-powered buses.

In Europe, Wind Power Is Blowing Away The Competition (jdargis)

This is a promising sign for Ørsted Energy, the company currently in charge of building what will soon be the largest offshore wind farm in the U.K. Come 2022, the initiative, known as Hornsea Project Two, will generate enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes in the U.K. This growing enthusiasm for wind-generated electricity seems to align with offshore wind’s 32% drop in prices since 2012. As the cost of generating wind power continues to decline and major cities draw more power from similarly sustainable sources, it seems a future of clean energy is just a gust away from full fruition.

California May Have A Way To Block Trump's Offshore Drilling Push (tmn)

Santa Cruz proposed a ballot measure that said if an oil company wanted to build facilities on land, residents would have to vote on it first. It passed. The measure also designated funds to spread the idea, so Santa Cruz hired Dan Haifley to be an anti-oil Johnny Appleseed.

"I would sleep on couches and I would travel the state in my little car, tiny little thing," Haifley says.

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 2/8/18

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

24 Comments

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1810
Tired of watching RED financials? How about UFOs?

Steven Greer, MD, posts today:

"Well it happened. Close friends and very close family members of both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have separately told me that indeed there were numerous, large UFOs around the crater where the Lunar Module landed and that these were seen by both Armstrong and Aldrin. I have also spoken to military officers that have seen the footage of this event- but it has never been made public. One close family member of Buzz Aldrin told me “It is not my place to out Buzz on this- someday if he can speak about it, he will…”

Neil Armstrong became somewhat of a recluse after the moon landing, and rarely spoke of the historic event. His friends and family have told me that this is because he was a man of such integrity that he simply did not want to be put in a position to lie to the public about such a momentous encounter. How tragic that our heroes have been placed in this untenable situation!

When we were organizing The Disclosure Project a few years ago, I asked one of Neil Armstrong’s friends if Armstrong would come to Washington to brief members of Congress at the 1997 Congressional briefing we organized in April of that year. I was told that Armstrong wished he could –but that if he spoke about what really happened during the moon landing, that Neil Armstrong, his wife, and children would all be killed. It was put to me this bluntly.

I found this to be unbelievable at the time, but since then have found that such threats and bullying by the over-reaching national security state is routine. A very senior scientist at the Naval Research Labs in Washington DC recently told me and the Disclosure Project team that if he spoke about some of the information he knew, that he, his wife, his children and grandchildren would all be killed" - Dr Steven M Greer

 

Turn on your "spidey-senses" and get a read of these returning Apollo 11 astronauts giving a press conference.  Triumphant? Excited?  Exhausted but euphoric?  The capstone event of a human lifetime?

The whole thing is here.

A short version here, and another here

 

OK, everyone can now return to watching the markets crash...

 

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Capricorn One (1978)

Hey Sand_puppy,

Capricorn One (1978)

Finn

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 373
William Tomkins in his book "

William Tomkins in his book " Selected by Extraterrestrials " also said the astronauts were met by alien craft where they landed.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5257
driverless cars: they record everything

One fun aspect of driverless cars is that they must have sensors that can pretty much see everything around them.  A secondary aspect of that is that, to figure out what went wrong (in the event something bad happens), they must also record everything they see.

What's more, our friends in law enforcement do not need a warrant to pull that data from any car; there is no expectation of privacy when you are wandering around in public.

Think of a driverless car as one big mobile recording device that sees everything, with a 360 degree view, and keeps all of its recordings for ... some indeterminate period of time, likely related to the size of the drive in the car.  Days?  Weeks?  Months?

And we are going to have millions of these recording devices on the road in the next few years.

Any bets that the NSA will have a backdoor-ability to access, in real time, any car's sensors they choose to select?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/why-self-driving-cars-may-be-heaven-for-investigating-crimes-and-accidents/

Jaeger ... watched in awe as the engineers showed him the autonomous vehicle's (AV) own view. This screen reduces everything to line drawings and other simplified sensory inputs.

"It's incredible," he told Ars. "It felt like The Matrix, when they flip the switch—it's seeing everything, it's seeing way more than you or I can—and it's making decisions."

Jaeger, a veteran of the department, said that as someone whose job requires that he "reconstruct" serious traffic accidents, he could only dream of a machine that captured as much as an AV does.

"I felt like I was in heaven," he said. "It's like instant replay in the NFL, I can tell what happened. The engineers looked at each other like, 'Aw, crap.'"

Instantly, Jaeger realized that the promise of AVs to not only be safer for those inside the car, but it may also, potentially, be a way for law enforcement to collect data and information about everything else around it.

 

David Allan's picture
David Allan
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2009
Posts: 101
Wildcard?

Interesting post Sandpuppy. I occasionally wonder if extra-terrestrials (if they exist) could be a wild card in terms of avoiding the total destruction of our ecosphere and annihilation of our species.

I don't know how - possibly neutralisation of atomic warheads in event of full on nuclear war. Not that I'm expecting any outside agency to step in and fix our problems.

Any civilization that has developed the capability of interstellar travel must surely have reached a high level of sustainability in the way they behave. I suspect we would need to achieve that too - to be accepted into any 'cosmic club'.

My own experience with UFOs is limited to one sighting. About 30 years ago I observed what I initially took to be a shooting star while walking on a beach at night. The object was arcing across the sky at a constant velocity then seemed to bounce like a stone skipping in then out out of the water. After the 'bounce' point it accelerated off into space at a phenomenal rate disappearing in a second or two. As I was standing in gob-smacked disbelief a second object followed along the same flightpath and performed exactly the same manoeuver,

DennisC's picture
DennisC
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2011
Posts: 292
Another "solution", IMO

It's been a while since I watched the 2008 remake of this classic, cold-war era film, but it sure seems like a possiblity; that is, aliens (the not-of-this-world ones) saving us from ourselves (like the government trys to do for us on a regular basis).

Directed by Scott Derrickson and starring Keanu Reeves as Klaatu, this version replaces the Cold War theme of nuclear warfare with the contemporary issue of humankind's environmental damage to the planet. It follows Klaatu, an alien sent to try to change human behavior or eradicate humans from Earth.

Klaatu meets with another alien, Mr. Wu, who has lived on Earth for 70 years. Wu tells Klaatu that he has found the human race to be destructive, stubborn and unwilling to change, which matches Klaatu's experiences. Klaatu orders the smaller spheres to collect specimens of animal species, to preserve them for later reintroduction to the Earth. He clarifies for Helen that he means to save the Earth from destruction by humankind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_(2008_film)

Save the earth, or save the earth, open for interpretation it seems.  Perhaps it's a big (cosmic) club, and we ain't in it, as G.C. would say.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1810
Valerian: Fun images of a diverse universe

The Sci Fi young-adult movie Valerian was recommended by Catherine Austin Fitts.  It was pretty much panned by the critics however.

But I must say, that it was a fun and playful peak at a vision of very very diverse species living together.

The opening several minutes set the tone.  :-)

 

Broadspectrum's picture
Broadspectrum
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 90
Timing Is Everything. What You NOW Need to Know

OK Everyone,

First I want to thank Sand_Puppy for once again being brave enough to bring to all of us (at least the persons that are ready for it) truly enlightening information about our shared objective reality and as to what it all may really mean.  His diligence and relentlessness on the subjects of 9/11 and the deep state in conjuction with the powers that be who want to and currently do "rule the world" so to speak, to whatever degree (the kings and queens have never gone entirely away).  I must say at this point, please excuse me for not every deliverying especially to him and to all of you my reasoning as to why the so called terrorist event at the Pentagon on 9/11 is more important and more easily refuted than what happened in NYC that day.  And I must inform, if not just remind him that no discussion of the ruling powers is complete without the mention of the Rothchilds which should actually be the starting point of those discussions (the only Family worth trillions of dollars which makes those billionarie Families seem so petty). And don't forget Cecil John Rhodes.

I wasn't plannng on posting here today, but as stated in my subject line, "Timing is Everything" and I should know how true that is not only as a drummer (which I am) but also as to my other role I play which I refer to as a "disseminator" (I even wrote a song about it. A SNL reference Ha ha).  There is some danger, maybe a lot, but fear is what the TPTB want us to feel.  However, the truth shall truly set you free, especially free of fear.  The FDR statement regarding fear may have been the most revealing statement he ever made.

I have been in the physical presence of Dr. Steven Greer many times as well as Carol Rosen and even Dennis Kucinich when he was just starting out as a Congressperson and was working on legislation regarding "No Weapons In Space" with Rosen.  I helped raise  a lot money for the Congressman during both of his Presidental campaigns.  However it was during his first run when I first got to know him and Rosen.  And I was at the forefront of disseminating The Disclosure Project when it had reached its zenith, at that time (because it is picking up again) back in 2001.  But then 9/11 happened and that event really threw a hugh wrench in our works.  

Our World would be a much different place if 9/11 had not happened.  That's why that event is so important to our collective history.  It's unfortunate that Howard Zinn (RIP), Norm Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein (by the way her Wikipedia entry does not mention her membership in the Council of Foreign Relations. I wonder why) and other persons like them promote the "Official 9/11 Story" that we all should know so well.  As brilllant as they seem to be, it should make you wonder why they don't get it, why they aren't allowed "to go there" and an honest person must question their motives and who controls them.  As Sand_Puppy has said 9/11 is a true litnus test of one's intellengence and ability and/or desire to see the truth.  I also like pedestrian walk signals and Chem Trails too, but those are somethings for another time.

OK, so what is it that you need to know right now?  I can only point you into that direction.  It will be up to you to listen with your open mind.  Yesterday (that's why seeing Sand_Puppy's post today is so timely) I was in the presense of a man by the name of David Adair.  I had never heard of him before until yesterday.  And I bet neither have you.  He's not in Wikipedia (whatever that means to you). But what he had to say was the most profund and important information that I have ever heard and I don't refer to myself as Broadspectrum for no good reason.

This link to an interview with him is from several years ago but it's the best one I could find.  Because what he said yesterday in person was only a little bit of what he says in this interview, which is his background story.  What he said yesterday takes this infomation even further and up to date and explains why he is still alive to tell us NOW.  The workshop that he mentions in the interview in which he worked as a boy along with his dad was in relationship with NASCAR and Richard Petty, which he explains is where the similarities are between rocket and race car science, i.e. the science of propulsion and going super duper fast.  

Yesterday Adair talked about Electro Magnetic Fusion Containment (EMFC) and the rocket that he built at the age of 17 back in 1971, that used a EMFC engine.  We're talking about the containment of 100 million degrees centigarde of heat.  Don't scoff at that.  With the friendship and protection of General Curtis Le May he progressed with his rocket technology.  That's enough from me right now.  Hear Adair in his own words. You may or may not be surprised by from where Adair obtained/received his knowledge.  That will depend on what you understand about the creation of your own realities and our collective one.  Enjoy. 

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?41175-David-Adair-The-Ele...

And here's what Le May's daughter had to say about him...

https://allaboutdavidadair.wordpress.com

Like I said before, I don't get the time very often to post here but this week maybe an exception if anyone wants to know what else he said yesterday about this stuff or if you have questions, I will do my best to respond.  Thank you for having/keeping an open mind.  It just may well be your salvation.

Peace for Real,

Broadspectrum

 

 

 

 

Broadspectrum's picture
Broadspectrum
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 90
Correction as to Whose Daughter That Is

Hello Everyone,

Excuse me, but the daughter is not LeMay's but another colonel's daughter, Colonel Bailey Arthur Williams.  LeMay put Adair under that colonels' direction in 1969.  However yesterday, Adair talked about the importance of LeMay to him.  So I momentarily mixed them up/together.  Thank you for your understanding.

Broadspectrum 

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Charlie Brookers Black Mirror

Hey Sand_puppy,

have you caught any of Charlie Brookers Black Mirror yet?

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
The Map is Not the Territory
Broadspectrum wrote:

 

Our World would be a much different place if 9/11 had not happened.  That's why that event is so important to our collective history.  It's unfortunate that Howard Zinn (RIP), Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein (by the way her Wikipedia entry does not mention her membership in the Council of Foreign Relations. I wonder why) and other persons like them promote the "Official 9/11 Story" that we all should know so well.  As brilllant as they seem to be, it should make you wonder why they don't get it, why they aren't allowed "to go there" and an honest person must question their motives and who controls them.

Hello Broadspectrum,

I really enjoyed reading your stream of conciousness about David Adair. It's a fascinating back-water subject that opens up a whole ream of information about political intent and its repercussions, and of course, the Electromagnetic Fusion Containment Engine.

However, I must insist that after surfing for hours on the web I can't find a single point of reference where you could firmly state that Naomi Klein has membership with the Council Of Foreign Relations. The only point of reference I can find on the net regarding the CFR and Klein are the transcribed minutes to a discussion in April 2016 where her name was mentioned - you'll have to CTRL-F to find it. 

It appears utterly counter to everything that she stands for, something far removed from every book that she's had published in almost 20 years, such as: - 

No Logo (1999)

Fences and Windows (2002) 

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007),

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (2014)

No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need (2017).

I've also been rewarded by being a member of the audience to two of her lectures.

To top this, she made a documentary in 2004 called The Take, about the financial destruction of Argentina, which, for an Argentinian, mashes to a paste the CFR, the IMF and the World Bank.

Moving onto Noam Chomsky, as again, his opinion never comes across as light-weight. His points are usually heavily contextualized - which I'd expect for a man in his field - along with over 100 books to his name. 

I recall a speech he made at the university of Florida in October 2013, and his response to a 911 question in the Q&A. I've also found the transcript to the video.

As much as I agree with Sand_puppy and his need in turning our cultures submeged stones over, I wonder what ambition people have to do anything other than debate about it on hidden forums about the net to the end of time.

NC: Well, in fact you’re right that there’s a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers – a tiny number – and a couple of them are perfectly serious. But they’re not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.

What you do, when you think you’ve discovered something, is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at M.I.T. or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results. And then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional societies of physicists and civil engineers, the departments in the major universities – and convince them that you’ve discovered something.

Now there happen to be a lot of people around who’ve spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics – but it does not work like that, and it never has.

There are reasons why there are graduate schools in these departments. So the thing to do is pretty straightforward: do what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve made a discovery.

Now when the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement is brought up in talks I give, there are always one or two minor articles cited. Like there’s one article that appeared in an online journal, in which someone claims to have found traces of nano-thermite in Building 7. Now, I don’t know what that means. You don’t know what that means. But if it means anything, bring it to the attention of the scientific community.

So, yes, there’s a small group of people who believe this, and there’s a straightforward way to proceed… 

However there’s a much deeper issue, which has been brought up repeatedly, and I have yet to hear a response to it.

Whatever one thinks of Building 7, and frankly I have no opinion: I don’t know as much about science and engineering as the people who believe they have an answer to this. So I am willing to let the professional societies determine it if they get the information.

There’s just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved. Very elementary evidence; you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. So let’s think for a minute.

There are a couple of facts which are uncontroversial. One fact that is uncontroversial is that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq – that’s a longstanding goal, there’s good reasons for it. It has some of the largest energy resources in the world, right in the middle of the world’s energy producing region.

So they wanted to invade Iraq.

Second uncontroversial fact: they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis. They blamed it on Saudis mainly. And that’s our major ally. So they blamed it on people from a country which is a major ally, not on the country that they wanted to invade.

Third uncontroversial fact: unless they were total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis. That would have given them open season for an invasion of Iraq. Total international support. A UN resolution. No need to concoct wild stories about WMD’s or contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which of course quickly exploded, discrediting them…

The conclusion is pretty straightforward. Either they are total lunatics, or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. So whatever you think about building 7, there are other considerations to be concerned with.

Finn

David Allan's picture
David Allan
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2009
Posts: 101
You're right. And yet...

Fionnbharr said  As much as I agree with Sand_puppy and his need in turning our cultures submeged stones over, I wonder what ambition people have to do anything other than debate about it on hidden forums about the net to the end of time.

You're right. And yet the self-serving plotting and lying and manipulation and misrepresentation and suppression and obfuscation..... of the various diverse elements of the deep state is perhaps the biggest impediment to humanity addressing our predicament.

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Inverted Totalitarianism
David Allan wrote:
fionnbharr wrote:

As much as I agree with Sand_puppy and his need in turning our cultures submerged stones over, I wonder what ambition people have to do anything other than debate about it on hidden forums about the net to the end of time.

You're right. And yet the self-serving plotting and lying and manipulation and misrepresentation and suppression and obfuscation..... of the various diverse elements of the deep state is perhaps the biggest impediment to humanity addressing our predicament.

Hello David,

after I wrote the post that you've just commented to me on, I was sent a number of private messages. In a nutshell, I was asked to search out and read a thread called Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse Of World Trade Center 7, which I've now done.

On the one hand, I thought that many of the postings were very good individually. But I have an edge that many would miss by sitting and reading it in its entirety in one sitting. So, I'm sorry to say, on the other hand I found that, in its collated, collective, one piece form, it was closer to excrement.

As an aside, I think Hamish (Gyrogearloose) did a very good job of maintaining my original "belief" that building 7 didn't free fall (demolition), but then I'm just a poster on this forum, not a physics-metallergist-construction-demolition expert, and after 16 pages and 461 posts to the thread, I still stand with what Noam Chomsky said in my post above, and I don't wish to debate it.

Yet, then I read the thread, John Perkins: The Shadow World Of The Economic Hitman, because I hadn't recalled who you were and found the thread by reading your posts to-date, and I totally agree with John Perkins.

I also agree with you with what you wrote on it : - 

David Allan wrote:

The key, I believe, is how and where we CHOOSE to focus our attention. If the process is unconscious and automatic we can become ensnared in all manner of unpleasantness. When the process is largely conscious we can choose to explore 'unsatisfactory' situations without becoming swept away.

So, yes, to quote you, I get your approach to "the self-serving plotting and lying and manipulation and misrepresentation and suppression and obfuscation". But, as a tip of an iceberg, in an attempt, i've already read, researched and understand : - 

Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins (2004)

Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon S. Wolin (2008)

Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky (1988)

The Creature from Jeckyll Island by Edward G Griffin (1994)

History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell (1945)

So, again, we agree cool

 Finn

p.s. I've also been asked (pm'd) to head over to sand_puppies thread Guyenot: Who are the Neocons? So, if you need me, I'll be over there ...

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 368
hmmm....
fionnbharr wrote:

As an aside, I think Hamish (Gyrogearloose) did a very good job of maintaining my original "belief" that building 7 didn't free fall

Except NIST was forced to admit that it did indeed free-fall...

From their own report

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

It was for reasons such as this that I gave up on the Tower 7 thread. No one actually believes what they saw, nor will they apply the laws of physics.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1810
Any analysis needs to address the Main Three Points

Discussions of what did and did not happen to WTC7 need to address the main three issues.  These 3 points are the key differentiators between an explosive demolition versus a progressive collapse.

1.  The building fell at freefall speed for 2.25 seconds.

This was measured by David Chandler, a high school physics teacher and after several years of obscuration, finally admitted by NIST.  See here WTC7 in Freefall:  No Longer Controversial, about half way down the page.

2.  Does they hypothetical computer model offered by NIST explain what we saw in real life?  Watch the video.  Compare to the model.  This is the predicted twisting of the face of the building.

3.  Is the collapse MOST typical of a progressive process or a sudden, en toto collapse?  Do all 4 corners of the building drop simultaneously?  Watch the video.  Read the NIST report and compare.

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Crossing The Rubicon

Hi Luke,

this is strange - permit me?

I wrote to Broadspectrum and David Allan Replied.

I write to David Allan and Luke Moffat replies.

Who next, I wonder?

The NIST investigation put out their FAQs page on the 27th of June 2012 you've linked me to - which I've already read.

Noam Chomsky in the video above - with transcript - made this statement in the Q&A section at the University of Florida on the 13th of October 2013 - in full above - where he stated : -

What you do, when you think you’ve discovered something, is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at M.I.T. or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results. And then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional societies of physicists and civil engineers, the departments in the major universities – and convince them that you’ve discovered something.

In 4 months, Luke, the NIST investigation will be 6 years old.

In 7 months, the attack on the twin towers will be 17 years old.

Luke Moffat wrote:

It was for reasons such as this that I gave up on the Tower 7 thread. No one actually believes what they saw, nor will they apply the laws of physics.

So, why are you replying now if you already know the outcome?

Finn

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 368
huh?

Hi Finn,

Why would you find it strange that I replied? It's a public forum.

Why I am replying now? I was dismissing a fallacy. Remember, you are free to ignore me.

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Web of Deceit

Hello Luke and Sand_puppy,

listen, I have an idea.

I'm being given a little guidence with some support via private message, and I think that a discussion behind the scenes with you would be better than another nube getting a public castration.

How say you both?

Finn

David Allan's picture
David Allan
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2009
Posts: 101
The more things change...

Hi Finn

I appreciate your comments and the links. I guess I chipped in because the situation seems so intractable which is incredibly disheartening.. I'm currently reading a historical novel set in 12th century France. The machinations of various bureaucrats in the church hierarchy was exactly what we see today with all the usual suspects. 

Best regards, David

 

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
A Confederacy of Dunces
David Allan wrote:

Hi Finn

I appreciate your comments and the links. I guess I chipped in because the situation seems so intractable which is incredibly disheartening.. I'm currently reading a historical novel set in 12th century France. The machinations of various bureaucrats in the church hierarchy was exactly what we see today with all the usual suspects

Best regards, David

Hi David,

I'm reading for a second sitting, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics by Riane Tennenhaus Eisler (2008). I've read all of her books. She's just beautiful. Listen : -

This situation we find ourselves really is intractable and incredibly disheartening, and yet, I see this world as a giant, as yet unfullfilled Memex.

To quote Vannevar Bush in As we May Think (1945) : -

Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.

And, further: -

The real heart of the matter of selection, however, goes deeper than a lag in the adoption of mechanisms by libraries, or a lack of development of devices for their use. Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path.

The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.

I now see the game play of our present existence - this forum even - discipated, because our cultural identity is prone to fade. It will fade because it is neither fully formed, nor permanent, and our collective memory is transitory.

David / Louis (maybe?) : -

However, I am awaiting private messages with links to wherever the best of this forum can send me ...

Warmly,

Finn

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 368
Sorry Finn

My apologies, I shouldn't have been rude. I'm happy to be PM'd if you like

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 818
Fallacies

Finn,

I've been busy with late winter chores and just read this thread. My apologies for responding late to a post not addressed to me, but I would like to point out a couple of fallacies with Chomsky's (and your) thinking.

fionnbharr citing Noam Chomsky wrote:

NC: Well, in fact you’re right that there’s a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers – a tiny number – and a couple of them are perfectly serious. But they’re not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.

What you do, when you think you’ve discovered something, is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at M.I.T. or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results. And then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional societies of physicists and civil engineers, the departments in the major universities – and convince them that you’ve discovered something.

What he is describing is the gold standard of methodology. Unfortunately, it takes physical evidence to make a rock solid case. Even then, engineers will debate the exact causes of the failure mechanism shown in the evidence. Without evidence, it basically boils down to an unprovable theoretical discussion where neither side has to concede. Will a reputable university department want to be associated with promulgating an unprovable and unsubstantiated theory? That's a good way to get "reputable" removed from your reputation.

Engineers learn best from failures. Building 7 was the first steel framed skyscraper (never to have been hit by aircraft) to ever collapse due to fire. It was an unprecedented event - and a great learning opportunity. Structural Engineers and Fire Protection Engineers repeatedly requested access to examine the building's remains. Each time, they were denied. Does that make sense to you? Speaking as a (formerly) licensed professional engineer, it sure doesn't make sense to me. You see, the building was totally evacuated before it collapsed. That means that there wasn't any need for survivors to be rescued. In addition, the collapsed remains were mostly stable and posed exceedingly negligible possibility for further damage to life or neighboring property. Besides, we have laws in this country to protect evidence of a crime from being disturbed.

So, why did Mayor Rudy Giuliani deny access to investigate the rubble? Why didn't New York Governor George Pataki step in to override Giuliani's decision? Why didn't any federal agencies of the George W. Bush Administration (especially the FBI) override Giuliani's decision? Hmmm. Why don't you question that?

fionnbharr citing Noam Chomsky wrote:

However there’s a much deeper issue, which has been brought up repeatedly, and I have yet to hear a response to it.

Whatever one thinks of Building 7, and frankly I have no opinion: I don’t know as much about science and engineering as the people who believe they have an answer to this. So I am willing to let the professional societies determine it if they get the information.

There’s just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved. Very elementary evidence; you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. So let’s think for a minute.

There are a couple of facts which are uncontroversial. One fact that is uncontroversial is that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq – that’s a longstanding goal, there’s good reasons for it. It has some of the largest energy resources in the world, right in the middle of the world’s energy producing region.

So they wanted to invade Iraq.

Second uncontroversial fact: they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis. They blamed it on Saudis mainly. And that’s our major ally. So they blamed it on people from a country which is a major ally, not on the country that they wanted to invade.

Third uncontroversial fact: unless they were total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis. That would have given them open season for an invasion of Iraq. Total international support. A UN resolution. No need to concoct wild stories about WMD’s or contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which of course quickly exploded, discrediting them…

The conclusion is pretty straightforward. Either they are total lunatics, or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. So whatever you think about building 7, there are other considerations to be concerned with.

This boils down to a straw man argument. Chomsky cites a couple of uncontroversial facts (I agree with 1 & 2 - frankly, which country in the world wouldn't Bush have wanted to invade?) and then assumes securing Iraqi oil was the only possible (or primary) motivation for bringing down the WTC complex. If that was the only outcome resulting from 9/11, he'd have a point. What if the primary motivation was to increase government surveillance capabilities? Look at the consolidation of executive power in the newly formed Homeland Security Administration. They collect, analyze, and store all the electronic communication they can get (including posts you and I make to this website.) Since this is a public forum, the right to privacy is obviously relinquished; however, they indiscriminately collect private communication as well. As a US citizen, that infringes on my Constitutional Rights.

Without this "New Pearl Harbor," would Americans be willing to give up portions of this Constitutional Right? Some idiots would, but enough people would resist to keep it from happening. It took an horrific event to catalyze enough fear in Americans that they would trade some Constitutional protections for a modicum of perceived safety.

As events unfolded, enough information became available that a myth could be created and repeated enough that it became a meme. All good myths have enough truth embedded within to answer tough questions. We all saw the hijacked planes fly into the Towers. We all saw the fireball of burning kerosene successively engulf the Towers. We all saw copious amounts of smoke pouring out of the buildings. And then we saw the buildings each fall with very little resistance essentially within the building's footprint.

The myth created was that al Qaeda planned and executed this terrorist event by using 19 hijackers to hijack 4 planes (using box cutters) and flown by extremely inexperienced pilots into 3 separate targets. The fourth plane was commandeered by a group of passengers who were led by a martial arts expert. That plane plummeted into the ground in Pennsylvania. The myth also included a remedy. We were too trusting in our everyday activities and need to change to avoid future similar catastrophes. [Note: al Qaeda would have disputed claims that Iraqis were the terrorists. That would have been egg on the Bush Administration Intelligence.]

Deep down (on a subconscious level,) I think most people realize that this myth is just a story that fit the revealed facts. They don't want to be reminded that there are unrevealed truths that if revealed, would make this myth impossible to accept. They'd rather live an uncomfortable lie than have the myth challenged. That is why they fight "the truthers" so much. They subconsciously feel they can't afford to question the comforting myth.

In another post on this thread, fionnbharr wrote:

after I wrote the post that you've just commented to me on, I was sent a number of private messages. In a nutshell, I was asked to search out and read a thread called Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse Of World Trade Center 7, which I've now done.

On the one hand, I thought that many of the postings were very good individually. But I have an edge that many would miss by sitting and reading it in its entirety in one sitting. So, I'm sorry to say, on the other hand I found that, in its collated, collective, one piece form, it was closer to excrement.

Since I contributed many posts to that thread, I can't help but feel somewhat offended by your assessment. (Then again, I should just consider the author's ability to accurately assess.) If you are truly sincere about finding the truth, please include me in the private message discussion group. I'm sure the other members would welcome my input.

Grover

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
At the Mind's Limits
Grover wrote:

What he is describing (Noam Chomsky) is the gold standard of methodology. Unfortunately, it takes physical evidence to make a rock solid case. Even then, engineers will debate the exact causes of the failure mechanism shown in the evidence. Without evidence, it basically boils down to an unprovable theoretical discussion where neither side has to concede. Will a reputable university department want to be associated with promulgating an unprovable and unsubstantiated theory? That's a good way to get "reputable" removed from your reputation.

Hello Grover,

thank you for your headway, and yes, it would be wrong not to include you. I will add you to the groups private message.

I do wish to add a public point though, and that is what I've highlighted above.

If, indeed, no reputable university department would wish to associate with promulgating an unprovable and unsubstanciated theory without destroying their reputation and the career' of those involved, the system in place has achieved its task and won.

Further, if it were even possible to achieve, the circular nature of this unprovable and unsubstanciated debate - even if carrying the weight of a majority board of professionals - would varily collapse in upon itself.

Grover wrote:

So, why did Mayor Rudy Giuliani deny access to investigate the rubble? Why didn't New York Governor George Pataki step in to override Giuliani's decision? Why didn't any federal agencies of the George W. Bush Administration (especially the FBI) override Giuliani's decision? Hmmm. Why don't you question that?

I think we're both very aware of what degree a political triage is in the eyes of the general public. It is mostly built upon a media that assures our public at large the measure not to think, to be drawn to a subject that is expansive yet simple, and to keep on oft-repeating it in the eventuality that it will be believed.

A case of point - which I believe you may agree - I suggest that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York Governor George Pataki and President George W. Bush are each just a gold plated hood ornament, one and all.

They're very well paid gold plated hood ornament's with fairly easy to dismiss supposed professional headings - Mayor - Governor - President.

They made effective speeches, but with words coming out of their mouths that were mostly written by professional speech-writers who are governed by a board of public relations mills, promoting the required oft-repeated public meme, spinning it out big, simple, and boldly believed.

New York is a corporation : -

Transcript of The Wire Clip

Let me tell you a story, Tommy. 

The first day I became mayor, they sit me down at the desk, big chair and dark wood, lots of beautiful things.

I'm thinking, "How much better can it get?" There's a knock at the door in the corner of the room, and Pete comes walking in carrying this gorgeous Sèvres silver bowl, hand chased.

It was this big.

"It's from the unions," he says.

So I think it's a present, something to commemorate my first day as mayor.

And he walks over, puts it on the desk.

I look down at it.

It's disgusting.

I said, "What the hell is this?"

He said, "What the hell's it look like?"

I said, "It looks like shit. "What do you want me to do with it?"

He says, "Eat it. "

"Eat it?"

He says, "Yeah. You're the mayor. You've got to eat it. "

So, OK, it was my first day, and Pete knows more than I do.

So I go at it.

And just when I finish, there's a knock on the door.

And in walks Pete carrying another silver bowl, and this one's from the blacks.

"This too?" And he nods.

I start eating. And when I'm finished, there's another knock and another bowl.

This one's from the Polacks. Then after that, one from the ministers.

And you know what, Tommy? That's what it is.

You're sitting, eating shit all day long, day after day, year after year.

When I realized that, I decided being a downtown lawyer and seeing my family every night made for a fine life.

Just a fine life.

Finn

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 818
Motivations
fionnbharr wrote:
Grover wrote:

What he is describing (Noam Chomsky) is the gold standard of methodology. Unfortunately, it takes physical evidence to make a rock solid case. Even then, engineers will debate the exact causes of the failure mechanism shown in the evidence. Without evidence, it basically boils down to an unprovable theoretical discussion where neither side has to concede. Will a reputable university department want to be associated with promulgating an unprovable and unsubstantiated theory? That's a good way to get "reputable" removed from your reputation.

Hello Grover,

thank you for your headway, and yes, it would be wrong not to include you. I will add you to the groups private message.

I do wish to add a public point though, and that is what I've highlighted above.

If, indeed, no reputable university department would wish to associate with promulgating an unprovable and unsubstanciated theory without destroying their reputation and the career' of those involved, the system in place has achieved its task and won.

Further, if it were even possible to achieve, the circular nature of this unprovable and unsubstanciated debate - even if carrying the weight of a majority board of professionals - would varily collapse in upon itself.

Hi Finn,

I agree with what you wrote based upon my statement. I put "unsubstantiated" in my statement based on not having physical evidence to support the conclusion. After more consideration, I realize that engineering models provide substantial support for a conclusion. As such, I would like to remove that portion of my statement (as I've currently modified above.)

The reason it is "unprovable" is due to variability in the materials incorporated in the structure. Modern steel is a mixture of iron, carbon, and other alloys that is processed and heat treated to provide various grades of steel. Although modern manufacturing techniques reduce variability, it is still present. Concrete is more variable than steel. A concentration (or dearth) of aggregates in a localized area will either be stronger or weaker than the overall mixture. Construction placement methods compound the variability. Then, there is the question of whether the specified material was actually incorporated in the structure. Inspectors have been known to miss critical details (inadvertently or on purpose.) When stresses exceed the material's innate strength, failure occurs. That failure puts additional stress on other associated structural components. If the stresses are too high, failure continues. Knowing which component originated the collapse sequence is critical for proof. Without proof, it devolves into conjecture.

Engineers compensate for this variability by making the components stronger than the physics based calculations would require. This is commonly known as a "factor of safety." Each component of the structure is tested against every known failure mechanism and designed to exceed established minimum factors of safety. That's why studying a failure is such a great opportunity to identify deficiencies to improve the safety standards so that future designs will be robust enough to withstand the same failure mechanism.

fionnbharr wrote:
Grover wrote:

So, why did Mayor Rudy Giuliani deny access to investigate the rubble? Why didn't New York Governor George Pataki step in to override Giuliani's decision? Why didn't any federal agencies of the George W. Bush Administration (especially the FBI) override Giuliani's decision? Hmmm. Why don't you question that?

I think we're both very aware of what degree a political triage is in the eyes of the general public. It is mostly built upon a media that assures our public at large the measure not to think, to be drawn to a subject that is expansive yet simple, and to keep on oft-repeating it in the eventuality that it will be believed.

A case of point - which I believe you may agree - I suggest that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York Governor George Pataki and President George W. Bush are each just a gold plated hood ornament, one and all.

They're very well paid gold plated hood ornament's with fairly easy to dismiss supposed professional headings - Mayor - Governor - President.

They made effective speeches, but with words coming out of their mouths that were mostly written by professional speech-writers who are governed by a board of public relations mills, promoting the required oft-repeated public meme, spinning it out big, simple, and boldly believed.

New York is a corporation : -

Again, I agree with your description of the pressures that elected officials have to deal with. That doesn't obviate their responsibility to uphold the law - regardless of potential impacts. That is the office holder's primary responsibility. Eating bowls of shit from the various constituencies may be reality, but it pales in comparison. When we accept unlawful behavior by our elected officials, we lower the standards we expect them to uphold. Is it fair to hold other elected officials to a higher standard? Wouldn't that be considered arbitrary and capricious? Shouldn't we expect more of the same behavior as a result?

From your choice of spelling, it is obvious that you didn't learn English in America. You can be forgiven for not knowing our laws and customs. Your motivation for engaging here may just be an academic pursuit to temporarily alleviate your boredom, but we Americans have a vested interest in the outcome. I don't know (nor care) what the oaths of office are for the mayor of NYC or the governor of NY, but the President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability. Since the laws in this country are based on the Constitution, ignoring any law undermines the Constitution and therefore, goes against the oath that was taken. (Perhaps GWB is such a functional idiot with limited abilities that he actually did do his best.) The NY bobbleheads (governor and mayor) are still subject to the laws of the US regardless of their oaths of office.

We are either a Land of Laws ... or we are not. The legal profession has definitions for every conceivable issue. Someone can be innocent of committing a crime and yet still found guilty if enough evidence exists to sway a jury. By the same token, someone who committed a crime can be found not guilty if proof can't be established in court. That doesn't mean that the perpetrator is innocent - just that it couldn't be proven to legal standards. Then, there is the case where a perpetrator isn't charged with a crime. Does that mean that no crime was committed or that the perpetrator is innocent?

When I was young, I voluntarily joined the USAF. It wasn't so much due to overwhelming patriotism as it was a financial decision to get the G.I. Bill so I could afford to go to college. Every enlistee takes the following oath found many places on the web, including here:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

At the time, I knew what I was promising, but I didn't pay attention to the actual wording. I more or less just viewed it as a hurdle to getting what I wanted. With age, I've learned to appreciate the subtlety and nuance of this oath. Once I met all the conditions of my enlistment, I was released from the commitment. As a veteran, I share a kindred spirit with all the military personnel who took the same oath. Many of them joined for similar reasons as I had and are fighting in the sandbox. Some come back in a flag draped box. Some have limbs missing. Some are mentally disabled. Some come back unscathed. None of them should have been there in the first place.

Because of the realities of the age, I know I cannot stop the senseless slaughter by myself. I can continue to educate as many as will listen. Once enough people realize the basis for these wars was a farce, attitudes will change throughout the political spectrum.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

Grover

PS - Although I am willing to discuss this with you and the others in a private setting, I'd prefer doing it in public so others can see and participate. After all, I get more bang for my effort in public. Those who choose not to follow are free to ignore us.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments