lundi 20 avril 2015

Debating Mainly on Trutherism, part II, in which I point finger at John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller (not forgetting Percy Sutton)

HGL
"The original World Trade Center featured landmark twin towers, which opened on April 4, 1973, and were destroyed in the September 11 attacks of 2001, along with 7 World Trade Center. The other buildings in the complex were severely damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and their ruins were eventually demolished. The site is being rebuilt with six new skyscrapers, a memorial to those killed in the attacks, and a transportation hub. One World Trade Center, the tallest building in the United States, is the lead building for the new complex, reaching more than 100 stories[16] upon its completion in November 2014."

To me this means, they are not learning.

1973, what architects were around then and what politicians were in NYC?

Wiki : World Trade Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center


Mayor of NYC in 1973 was:

Wiki : John Lindsay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lindsay


He was then a Democrat:

"He switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party in 1971, and launched a brief and unsuccessful bid for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination as well as the 1980 Democratic nomination for Senator from New York."

Borough President of Manhattan in 1973:

Wiki : Percy Sutton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Sutton


Switching from Lieutenant Governor to Governor of NY that year:

Wiki : Malcolm Wilson (governor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Wilson_(governor)


And governor UP TO that year:

Wiki : Nelson Rockefeller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller


On this latter one, being Governor of NY was perhaps not his biggest job:

"Rockefeller was a member of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco in 1945; this gathering marked the UN's founding. At the Conference there was considerable opposition to the idea of permitting, within the UN charter, the formation of regional pacts such as the Act of Chapultepec. Rockefeller, who believed that the inclusion was essential, especially to U.S. policy in Latin America, successfully urged the need for regional pacts within the framework of the UN. Rockefeller was also instrumental in persuading the UN to establish its headquarters in New York City."

Here is on the Jap who was architect:

"On September 20, 1962, the Port Authority announced the selection of Minoru Yamasaki as lead architect and Emery Roth & Sons as associate architects. Yamasaki devised the plan to incorporate twin towers; Yamasaki's original plan called for the towers to be 80 stories tall, but to meet the Port Authority's requirement for 10,000,000 square feet (930,000 m2) of office space, the buildings would each have to be 110 stories tall."

So, if he had had them built only 80 stories high, that would have been below where the impact was?

Well, even so, the hijackers might have flown lower instead ...

Wiki : World Trade Center, a linea: Architectural design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center?#Architectural_design


Back in 1962, we are btw dealing with another Mayor.

"At the time, ridership on New Jersey's Hudson and Manhattan Railroad (H&M) had declined substantially from a high of 113 million riders in 1927 to 26 million in 1958 after new automobile tunnels and bridges had opened across the Hudson River.[50] In a December 1961 meeting between Port Authority director Austin J. Tobin and newly elected New Jersey Governor RF J. Hughes, the Port Authority offered to take over the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad to have it become the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH). The Port Authority also decided to move the World Trade Center project to the Hudson Terminal building site on the west side of Lower Manhattan, a more convenient location for New Jersey commuters arriving via PATH.[49] With the new location and Port Authority acquisition of the H&M Railroad, New Jersey agreed to support the World Trade Center project.[51] In compensation for Radio Row business owners' displacement, the PANYNJ gave each business $3,000 each, without regard to how long the business had been there or how prosperous the business was.[46](p68) After the area had been purchased for the World Trade Center in March 1964,[52] Radio Row was demolished starting in March 1965.[53] It was completely demolished by 1966.[54]

"Approval was also needed from New York City Mayor John Lindsay and the New York City Council. Disagreements with the city centered on tax issues. On August 3, 1966, an agreement was reached that the Port Authority would make annual payments to the City in lieu of taxes for the portion of the World Trade Center leased to private tenants.[55] In subsequent years, the payments would rise as the real estate tax rate increased.[56]"

Oh, sorry, actually same one, just this was back when he was Republican.

Sorry again, looked on office years. The one who was mayor in 1962 was:

Wiki : Robert F. Wagner, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Wagner,_Jr.


A lapsed Catholic, who'd have thunk it (remarried twice, first time lawfully after his first wife died, second time after a divorce, i e unlawfully, living in mortal sin to his death).

And in 1962, Nelson Rockefeller was already Governor of NY.

DB
Chomsky is my hero!

DAC
HGL not sure what end the wikipedia links serve. its best to address the fundamental question asked very precisely by chomsky in the initial post of this thread, since this is specifically a chomsky interest group. so review his question, but stay on target...eg. points about obscure claims that bin laden was seen in nyc etc are quite irrelevant to chomsky's proposition in this video. so are the physics. so are facts about the buildings.

HGL
DAC, I really and truly dislike people who tell me to "stay on target".

My wiki links serve to illustrate what set of guys has an interest in truthers being right about physics.

Say they are wrong, that means Nelson Rockefeller was a nincompoop.

Now, he is not a nobody, and that not just in the New York State where he was Governor when Twin Towers were both decided and finally built. If he were alive, he would have an interest in getting expertise from Truthers really well supported to his lawyers.

But, how convenient for him, he died the year before 9-11.

And, before he built Twin Towers he was along with building United Nations as an ideological concept. After they fell, this has been used as an argument to make international cooperation, ultimately his UN, stronger. Couldn't that be called convenient too?

Now, that's a certain view for a conspiracy theory which Truthers are not yet up to.

Also, everyone involved, State Governor, City Mayor, Borough Responsible for Manhattan, both year of decision and year of opening of Twin Towers was, excepting one of them the first year, a Democrat.

[Except John Lindsay who was not yet a Democrat in 1962 was not yet mayor of NYC either, and Wagner, who was, was the Democrat who ended Tammany Hall system. But John Lindsay got involved later and was the first year not yet a Democrat.]

Also seems this kind of people are - as Chomsky or one of you mentioned an idiocy by Jung - too busy pursuing ideals to avoid security hazards and even very major ones, by taking some though in advance. In Jung's case, he for one thing considered UFO Sightings a "Mass Psychosis" (something which unlike Mass Hysteria, which he has spread about the concept of Mass Psychoses), but on top of that considered it an irrational reaction of people fearing Nuclear Power. And yet they were also right if they did that, see Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

But when it comes to what Chomsky's central point was, I did not miss it. I answered it first, then some of you got into arguing about Truthers and pros and cons, and I had something to answer.

As to Chomsky's central point, I don't think Truthers are his main target. I think Geocentrics, Creationists and a few others, where I am very much more involved, by the way, than with Truthers, would be somewhat similarly open - or NOT as the case might be - to his naive objection. When it comes to Creationists like me and Hovind, his objection either is really naive or really amounts to pre-publication review and getting into the "right" channels is what matters most for scientific integrity. As to that claim, it stinks.

Hovind has given permission to free copying of all of his videos, it would be possible for mainstream scientists in each field to show appropriate video to all staff and students and afterwards have a free debate, perhaps construct a few rebuttals.

My own material has these conditions, which also makes such a thing possible without committing copyright infringement (though right now I would appreciate voluntary royalties):

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/


And here are a few links which include intellectual discoveries of mine which were known on my blogs years ago, and which has not been adressed:

[First two in line with usual YEC, but not yet used by others:]

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


[Online since "mardi 3 décembre 2013", not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html


[Online, excepting marked later edits, and excepting comments, since "lundi 7 novembre 2011", not published in Nature ... Genetics, who probably argued on technicality that I should have sent a pdf rather than a blog link, not otherwise post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it. Originally includeded still visible short link to a blog post by PZMyer, under which there was a discussion with heavy involvement from me. Discussion not visible any more. URL burner first went down, then up again, but only for non-public use, and without my urls, including this one. Academic establishment open to reviewing controversial ideas? Sure ...]

[Now two on Geocentrism:]

Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YEC explanation
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/03/dr-jonathan-sarfati-takes-out-one.html


[Online, not so long, since "mardi 10 mars 2015" only, but also not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

New blog on the kid : Duhem and TOF Spot
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/12/duhem-and-tof-spot.html


[Online, not so long, since "Thursday, 18 December 2014" only, but also not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

And instead of adressing it, the complaint that people like Hovind and I are not going through the right channels, not being professional etc. And, worst of all, a man with Chomsky's pretentions of being an intellectual mouthing them!

So much for his pretence of "explaining the science of making credible claims", his own claims are not credible.

DAC
HGL i looked through this thread again and didnt see where you answer his question regarding the bush administrations main goal of invading iraq. i think thats a central question. also, you quickly dismissed his point about publishing in leading academic journals...he is right about that. if you want to convince people of your theories, and if you have truly good evidence for them...it should be easy. scientists do just that with controversial theories all the time.

AO
Can we try to present facts or ideas rather than just heated angry opinions, please. I think that's what intellectual discourse is about, right? I'm not naming names. Just a good rule of thumb we should have learned in school.

EY
I wonder what the pressures of the Military-Industrial complex has on this matter. Are University studies, professors careers possibly be stifled by pulling of federal funding. I would think someone would speak out still considering the magnitude of the claims.

AO
HGL you pissed me off for the last time, as well as others. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy in America. You don't live here. You have no clue, or frame of reference. I was a New Yorker. I knew New Yorkers who died. If you have real facts, present them. You're stepping on the graves of my friends, and you don't know anything.

DRP
Please stay on topic OP...Hans-georg...admin

HGL
DAC, "here you answer his question regarding the bush administrations main goal of invading iraq"

I have't heard the video yet.

[Link on status was not to video, but to a page with a link to it and with text, so far I am answering things brought up in text on link OR brought up by others on thread.]

9-11 is more related to Afghanistan than Iraq.

I answered his point about "making credible claims". I thought that was his main one.

AO, I am not stepping on anyone's grave.

I am giving a lesson in logic. Whichever physics theory about 9-11 is true, there are two of them and they are mutually exclusive:

  • Truthers say the plane hits could NOT have made all the skyscraper in each of the towers topple down;
  • official report says it COULD.


Tertium non datur. Pissing you off or not, fact remains that the SECOND alternative has controversial implications as well. It means Nelson Rockefeller and a few more were nincompoops.

That is back in 1962 up to 1973.

DAC again "if you want to convince people of your theories, and if you have truly good evidence for them...it should be easy."

My theory is that non-Truther scenario implicates Nelson Rockefeller in incompetent management of public space within his State while he was governor. And for a long time.

My theory is therefore that if you like seeing conspiracies, the Truther scenario is superfluous. Nelson Rockefeller is on the only other available scenario indicted of either planning a disaster or being very incompetent.

"it should be easy. scientists do just that with controversial theories all the time."

Depends a bit on what side they are controversial to.

I have by the way not said I am a scientist. I know some science, but not enough physics to decide on the question. I do know sufficient logic to know that if Truther scenario is false the non-Truther scenario is correct. That is: Nelson Rockefeller and a few more were gravely incompetent.

I took my facts from wikipedia, if you think wiki got wrong when Twin Towers were decided or when they opened or who was governor of New York back then, YOU should show the facts. As you are US resident (I presume), it should be easy for you.

DRP, I think I have already stated I hate when people tell me how broad of narrow the topic is.

I thought it was a site for "fans" and not for strict disciples of Noam Chomsky, if I was wrong you need to change the description.

I am not a fan of Chomsky in EVERY respect, and I think on this one he is, the aspects I adressed initially, simply wrong. His take on what "credible claims" means is not credible.

Whichever be the truth of the physics of 9-11, which I was not claiming to know anyway.

But Chomsky being a Jew, he might have taken his infor* about me (if he's heard of me, of course) from rumours rather than from my own writings which are on the internet and the rumour mongers may have adressed the issue by "guilt by association".

Msgr Williamson is as known a Truther. I don't quite agree with him on all issues, but fact I admire him theologically, while not doing so with Chomsky, Richard Carrier, DMMurdoch/Acharya Sanning might have gotten these rumour mongers in Jewry to classify me as a Truther and therefore may have set Chomsky and his disciples onto the task of taking me to task on this - without showing I am the one meant, which is of course why this is speculation.

BUT the fact that people on this thread have challenged me as if I were MYSELF a Truther and representing this opinion is circumstantial evidence making this speculation less than totally absurd.


* Obviously I was hesitating between "information" and "info".

1 commentaire: