In order to continue denying that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM you ask a convoluted question.
What he stood to gain is debatable, but such debate is only to avoid the fact that Shyam Sunder LIED!
Shyam Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.
He knew that was not true. That's LYING!
Christopher,
You should be commended for your tenacity. I would bet that 99.9 percent of those who have declared themselves to be "just looking for the truth" regarding 9/11 have not explored the NIST report to the extent that you have. Most of them probably would not understand it if they tried. Are you really going to quit digging for the truth and abandon the possible fruits of all the labor you've put into this when you are so close to the goal line?
Yes, the NIST hypothesis, as of the preliminary report and/or the interview with PM, has now been shown to be unlikely, if not impossible. Yes, the published evidence at that time makes the hypothesis look now like it was not even all that warranted to begin with. Most of the members of your movement would never have even taken the time to find the inconsistency. They would simply assume and assert that anything produced by NIST to be patently false because NIST is part of the government. You're better than them, Chris. Don't stoop to their level.
What are you trying to do here? What are your intentions? Are you simply trying to win a debate in an internet forum? Well congratulations. After more than 5,000 posts in this thread, you've outlasted most of the regular members of the forum and beat most of them by default in a war of attrition. I don't believe that is why you are doing this. You've invested many hours of your life, perhaps numbering in the thousands by now, just reading and writing about WTC7. The optimist in me wants to believe that your end goal in this is a meaningful objective like trying to identify the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice in a court of law.
(For the purposes of the paragraphs to follow, I have to assume that you believe that there was a large government conspiracy involved with the events of 9/11. Is that a fair assumption? The only reason I ask is that I cannot think of any other scenario under which it would make sense to accuse Mr. Sunder of lying. If you have another scenario in which his lying makes sense, please share it; although I think you’ve already indicated that you are not inclined to debate that point.)
So take the case of Shyam Sunder and NIST and the inconsistencies/anomalies between the evidence of the report/PM interview and the initial working hypothesis. If what you are saying is true, Mr. Sunder would have to be a large part of this conspiracy, perhaps not the planning, but at least the cover-up. He has somehow been able to coerce everyone at NIST and almost every relevant expert in the country to go along with this lie and preserve the cover-up. And its not just a tiny lie. It’s a lie that even a laymen with no formal training or experience in building engineering or fire performance can find. That is a pretty powerful key figure in your conspiracy. Your ultimate goal is to go to trial against him and bring him to justice for his lies. Do you not agree that you are going to have to take a deposition from him, or at least interview him to find out his side of the story, at some point between now and this hypothetical trial?
Why will you not just ask him why he said what he said to PM and why NIST used the working hypothesis it chose for the preliminary report, when, in examining the evidence, it looks like there was already enough evidence to disprove that theory? What is the harm in doing that? Either he will give you an answer that makes total sense, such as, “we hadn’t fully interpreted and analyzed enough of the evidence at that time to recognize that the hypothesis was flawed” or “we had some evidence to suggest that the hypothesis might not be true, but the limited analysis that we had done to that point still gave us the impression that the diesel fuel was going to prove to be the culprit for the collapse initiation” or “there was some evidence that NIST had obtained that was not released as part of the preliminary report that pointed more in the direction of diesel fire than was evident in the preliminary report.” Or any one of a hundred other answers. I don’t know; obviously I can’t speak for the man. He might give you an answer that you can live with, thus freeing you from the burden of your substantial time investment in this line of reasoning and allowing you to pursue more promising avenues to prove and prosecute this conspiracy.
On the flip-side, he might give you an answer that makes no sense at all and does nothing but fuel your suspicions of conspiracy. Guess what. You can use his answer later on as you try to build your court case against him. Either way, you win. You either make your criminal case that much stronger or you get to stop wasting time on an investigative area that you’ve now discovered to be pointless. One thing is certain, if you take Mr. Sunder to court, he is going to have the opportunity to defend his position (unless of course, his co-conspirators kill him before he can testify). Why not just have him defend it now and save yourself the potential hassle of being publicly humiliated in a court of law when he successfully defends it then? Assuming that the conspiracy is true, will you not have done the movement a huge disservice by bringing him to trial and then letting him off the hook simply because you refused to do your homework?
If you are a full-fledged twoofer and not simply someone pursuing the truth, you might take the position that “if I ask him the questions now, it will alert him that we are on to him and he will have time to cover-up his mistakes.” If the conspiracy is as far reaching and powerful as it would have to be just to get away with the lie you are accusing Mr. Sunder of pulling off, (not even considering the more comprehensive plot), trust me, they are on to you. As a matter of fact, if the conspiracy is true and it is as capable as it would have to be to get away with what you are accusing them of, they have probably read this post of mine before you did.
Why is it that the truth movement that claims to be so interested in an independent investigation will not actually use the means they have available to them to conduct one? “We’ve got to dig until we get to the bottom of this!” That’s right. We do. But if you believe that to be true, why will you not dig all the way to the bottom? Why do you always stop digging at the point where you find a tiny nugget that superficially supports your position? The movement never digs all the way to the bottom.
We went through this same exercise a few months back when arguing about whether or not the firefighter testimonies represented evidence of a fire/debris damage collapse argument. Your claim was that most of the firefighters did not assess the damage to WTC7 for themselves; they were only told it would collapse by their superiors and their belief in what they were told was objectively impaired by the events of the day. That’s not nearly the worst line of logic I’ve ever heard from the movement, and on its own, without any other information to go on, it makes perfect sense. However, you were asked repeatedly to talk to the firefighters about your claim and you predictably refused. Oh well, its just a debate on an internet forum, who cares? Well, you do, I hope. Remember, your goal is beyond winning a debate in an internet forum. You want some kind of justice for the perpetrators.
The firefighter testimonies are part of the publicly available reports demonstrating what happened on 9/11. If you are out to prove those reports to be wrong and bring the real perpetrators to justice, and as part of your evidence you want to use the argument that the firefighter testimonies were unduly biased based on the events of the day, you will have to offer some proof of that in a court of law. The firefighters will be on the witness stand prepared to answer your questions. They might give you an answer that satisfies your concerns in this area, or they might slip up and give you another piece of the conspiracy puzzle. Why not just ask them now and either solidify your case or free yourself from continuing to waste your valuable time in an area that will ultimately prove to be without merit?
Is your time not valuable to you? Count up the hours you’ve spent writing your posts. Count up the hours you’ve spent reading others’ posts. Count up the hours you’ve spent reading official and unofficial documents and news reports. Do you not wish to see something meaningful come from all that hard work. You’ve identified a valid discrepancy. You’ve made a claim that the discrepancy is the result of a lie. Provide the evidence to support your claim. You do not currently have enough evidence to prove that it was a lie. A good place to start would be to ask Shyam Sunder why he told PM what he did and why NIST used the hypothesis they did when the evidence at the time already seemed to be suggesting that it was not true. An even better place to start might be to ask some of the other scientific professionals as well. You might find additional discrepancies in their answers, thus, supporting your case.
I think you’re a smart guy who, unlike most of the truth movement, is at least making an attempt to build a rational argument. If you want to pursue the truth, I applaud you. But for the love of Mike, save yourself. Don’t waste so much of your life on a fantasy simply because you were too stubborn to ask questions of people whose answers might disrupt the fantasy.
Better yet, let’s say the 9/11 conspiracy is absolutely true, whatever that means. Is asking these questions of the alleged conspirators now, like NIST and the FDNY, going to hamper in any way, your ability to bring the conspirators to justice? If the answer is yes, then by all means, don’t do it. But again, if the conspiracy is as prolific as it has to be to have pulled off what you are alluding to with your claims, I don’t see how you could honestly answer yes to that question; because they obviously have the capability to monitor their antagonists in the truth movement and know pretty much what you are going to hit them with before you even approach them. On the other hand, pretend for a minute that the conspiracy is absolutely false and that every minute you spend researching it will end up being a complete waste of your life. Wouldn’t you want to find that out sooner rather than later? Whether the conspiracy is absolutely true or absolutely false, there is no downside to confronting the suspects with the questions to which you seek answers.
Your dilemma reminds me of that phrase about living life as if there is a god or not.
“If I live my life as if there is no 9/11 conspiracy while all along there was one, then I am a fool. But if I live my as if there is a 9/11 conspiracy while all along there wasn’t one, then I am a bigger fool” GStan, 2008
Good luck.
I still have hope for you.
