WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[stignasty]

Jack Keller, PhD, PE

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc

Tages Anzeiger

Testimonials:

Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.

[PolyNewbie]

I see. So even when I do link to Phd structural engineers that think the buildings were demolished it has to be propoganda. Do you think Osama is doing the brainwashing on these poor souls ?

[stignasty]

Its funny reading these posts and how you guys will stretch logic to protect the Bush administration.

Transfer:

Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.

[PolyNewbie]

Stignasty, did you know that its even been on mainstream that the Penthouse Pentagon spends billions per year in shaping public opinion ?

[stignasty]

You cannot produce a single shred of evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory. The Bin Laden confession was faked - its obvious.

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

[stignasty]

Stignasty, did you know that its even been on mainstream that the Penthouse Pentagon spends billions per year in shaping public opinion ?

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion.

So the NIST report is an assertion and its propoganda. It doesn't even say what people think it says - neither does the FEMA report. They are both fine examples of propoganda. My links showing structural engineers is not because they state why they think 911 was an inside job.

Who do you think may be behind the propoganda in this 911 being an inside job movement ? Do you think those Phd structural engineers that think 911 was an inside job were brainwashed by Usama bin Laden ?

[stignasty]

So the NIST report is an assertion and its propoganda. It doesn't even say what people think it says - neither does the FEMA report. They are both fine examples of propoganda. My links showing structural engineers is not because they state why they think 911 was an inside job.

Card stacking:

Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

Who do you think may be behind the propoganda in this 911 being an inside job movement ? Do you think those Phd structural engineers that think 911 was an inside job were brainwashed by Usama bin Laden ?

Testimonials:

Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.

[Wilber]

Wilber: As a civil pilot who was flying B767's at the time I can tell you it is entirely possible.

These guys listed have flown F22's, instructed on F22's, flown F-15's in combat. You are not their equal. Don't pretend to be.

Yes and they probably know as much about airline flying and B767's as I know about military flying and F22's. The difference between me and them or you is that I don't claim to know about things I don't.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:Yes and they probably know as much about airline flying and B767's as I know about military flying and F22's.

There are plenty of truthers that have flown both.

Stignasty: Is it true that even if I post links to Phd structural engineers that they must be brainwashed or it must be propoganda then ?

It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented or how many experts say 911 was an inside job. You know that to be impossible because the Bush administration would never kill thousands of people to start wars and make money - correct ?

[stignasty]

Wilber:Yes and they probably know as much about airline flying and B767's as I know about military flying and F22's.

There are plenty of truthers that have flown both.

Bandwagon:

Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

[Wilber]

One more thing. You may have your internet pilot authorities (who's qualifications you can't verify) who claim it couldn't happen but in the five year post 9/11 period that I was still airline flying, I never met one airline pilot who agreed with them and you better believe that we all analyzed the hell out of it because any of us could have been next.

[PolyNewbie]

So you can't answer any of my questions directly stignasty ?

The Bandwagon is the NIST report and you are on it. You should take a look at it or the FEMA report.

Obviouisly those quotes above from Phd Structural engineers saying 911 was an inside job are just propoganda then.

I never met one airline pilot who agreed with them and you better believe that we all analyzed the hell out of it because any of us could have been next.

I don't cliam to be a pilot or aeronatical engineer but their explantions wrt G forces (and this is very determinable from the flight path) , etc sound reasonable. There are lots of expert pilots that say it was impossible. You have already shown that you will believe anything put out by the government - no matter how ridiculous.

[ScottSA]

Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA: Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

Who's Polly ? Getting frustrated ScottsA ?

[stignasty]

I don't cliam to be a pilot or aeronatical engineer but their explantions wrt G forces (and this is very determinable from the flight path) , etc sound reasonable. There are lots of expert pilots that say it was impossible. You have already shown that you will believe anything put out by the government - no matter how ridiculous.

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

[PolyNewbie]

Whats the difference between assertion and mathematical fact ?

[Wilber]

Wilber:Pilots run simulations to see if they are survivable, not with the intention of killing themselves. To do otherwise goes completely against their grain.

I've played on flight sims and done suicide missions. Its against my grain too.

That's right, you've played. What we do isn't playing, it's our profession. Crashing is absolutely the worst thing we can do, even in the simulator.

[PolyNewbie]

suicide is the worse thing I could do Wilber.

Wilber, what do you think of those quotes from structural engineers that I posted today on this thread that say the building(s) had be destroyed by CD ?

ScottsA ?

For your reference:

Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. Serves as an advisor to the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program and former member CALFED Independent Science Board. Awarded State of Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology (1988). Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004).

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch

[ScottSA]

Well Polly, I'm not really playing this game. It's pointless. You'll go on believing whatever it is you believe until you get into third year university, when you'll discover that big plots usually turn into big misinterpretations or paradigmatical overlays, then you'll do a 360 switch and set about debunking everything you formerly believed, without ever realizing that it debunks itself by ommission. That's cool, but I'm not really here to aid you in your journey of self discovery...I'm just here to throw in the odd kick during your intellectual mugging.

[Wilber]

So you can't answer any of my questions directly stignasty ?

The Bandwagon is the NIST report and you are on it. You should take a look at it or the FEMA report.

Obviouisly those quotes above from Phd Structural engineers saying 911 was an inside job are just propoganda then.

I never met one airline pilot who agreed with them and you better believe that we all analyzed the hell out of it because any of us could have been next.

I don't cliam to be a pilot or aeronatical engineer but their explantions wrt G forces (and this is very determinable from the flight path) , etc sound reasonable. There are lots of expert pilots that say it was impossible. You have already shown that you will believe anything put out by the government - no matter how ridiculous.

Poly, you are an idiot. I have never contributed to your wacky threads except when it comes to my own expertise or what I have personally observed because I don't claim to be an expert on many of the issues surrounding 9/11 and so, won't comment on them. The number of expert pilots who you say may believe it is impossible are vastly outnumbered by those who believe that it was not only possible but did happen. That is a fact.

You latch on to anything that fits your obsession no matter where it comes from and reject that which conflicts out of hand. Anything that fits your obsession will sound reasonable, anything that doesn't will be rejected regardless of its source.

I promised myself I wasn't going to do this again because it is a waist of time. Why didn't I listen?

[Wilber]

suicide is the worse thing I could do Wilber.

What the hell do you think happens when you crash a real aircraft?

[buffycat]

There seems to be a real misunderstanding of what 'theory' really is.

First off, a scientist develops a "hypothesis" - then designs and experiment to see 'if' his hypothesis is correct or not - if his "hypothesis" is proven to be correct by empirical evidence provided by the experiment then it becomes a 'Theory'.

Sorry but having my degrees in the sciences it ticks me off when folk don't realize what a 'theory' and a 'hypothesis' actually are.

Carry on.

[kuzadd]

There seems to be a real misunderstanding of what 'theory' really is.

First off, a scientist develops a "hypothesis" - then designs and experiment to see 'if' his hypothesis is correct or not - if his "hypothesis" is proven to be correct by empirical evidence provided by the experiment then it becomes a 'Theory'.

Sorry but having my degrees in the sciences it ticks me off when folk don't realize what a 'theory' and a 'hypothesis' actually are.

Carry on.

actually stignasty thought a hypothesis, was a conclusion, ( ask me how that's possible) but I digress.............

[kuzadd]

and you have no proof they can, because, until Sept 11th , they never had, and have never since.

So? The onus of proof is on you since the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the widely accepted explaination for why the buildings collapsed. If you want to claim otherwise you need CONCLUSIVE evidence that bombs were present. You have nothing but idle speculation about what should or should not happen when large airplanes full of fuel hit large buildings.

No actually, the onus of proof was on the Bush administration, and they did a very very bad job of it!!!!

But you forget that.

Did I mention bombs at any point in time. NOPE.

still waiting for info, and have aske dyou to enlighten me on the strengthening of wtc 7 done in 89.

In fact, I've asked you three times, and can't help but notice, that you ignore it.\

scares you eh???

still waiting as others on the forum are also...

Buffycat, aren't you waiting ?? I know I am, I am sure PN is........

don't let me down, don't let me down.......