Sozen
DJ Shure (Jeff Hill) interviews Purdue's "WTC1-AA11 crash" computer modeler and official shill, Mete Sozen. Sozen also modeled the "Pentagon-AA77 crash".
First of all, the interview was flawed, as Hill keeps talking about the WTC2 hit when Sozen only modeled the hit on WTC1.
Second, there's no way that big-time and no doubt very busy Professor Sozen would be so patient with a random non-engineer calling about this. Even if Hill said he was doing a media interview, certainly Sozen would want to check up who Hill was-- and Hill clearly is not part of the mainstream media. So at minimum, Sozen was under some kind of orders to talk to Hill for a good while.
Third, Sozen says some interesting things:
a) "We weren't trying to prove there was an airplane-- that's not our business." (no doubt true, but a bad attitude for such an important issue)
b) "I would love to go to the conclusion that our government did it all-- but it's not true." (WTF? Sozen is originally from Turkey, and is likely Muslim. This is a very odd and seemingly damaging admission.)
c) Sozen says he was at the Sandia F4 crash simulation, and gives some worthwhile details (none of which surprised me, but at least he clarifies a couple of things). Unfortunately, the contrast between the Sandia test and the Sozen's Pentagon crash model were not brought up. Interestingly, it turns out Sozen was involved in the FEMA OKC bombing cover-up. So Sozen has a history of involvement in government cover-ups and propaganda campaigns.
Fourth, oddly, Hill says that he didn't think the US govt did 9/11-- then says he doesn't think Bush and Cheney did it. But the first statement is a surprising thing to say for a "truther".
A last point is that I think it is very interesting that Sozen DIDN'T model the WTC2 hit-- when the video record for that event is at minimum an order of magnitude better. Why did he pick the WTC1 hit? Is it because the WTC2 hit is so clearly bogus and he could get away with more fudging for the WTC1, where there was less evidence? Although in any case, his simulation is a joke.
First of all, the interview was flawed, as Hill keeps talking about the WTC2 hit when Sozen only modeled the hit on WTC1.
Second, there's no way that big-time and no doubt very busy Professor Sozen would be so patient with a random non-engineer calling about this. Even if Hill said he was doing a media interview, certainly Sozen would want to check up who Hill was-- and Hill clearly is not part of the mainstream media. So at minimum, Sozen was under some kind of orders to talk to Hill for a good while.
Third, Sozen says some interesting things:
a) "We weren't trying to prove there was an airplane-- that's not our business." (no doubt true, but a bad attitude for such an important issue)
b) "I would love to go to the conclusion that our government did it all-- but it's not true." (WTF? Sozen is originally from Turkey, and is likely Muslim. This is a very odd and seemingly damaging admission.)
c) Sozen says he was at the Sandia F4 crash simulation, and gives some worthwhile details (none of which surprised me, but at least he clarifies a couple of things). Unfortunately, the contrast between the Sandia test and the Sozen's Pentagon crash model were not brought up. Interestingly, it turns out Sozen was involved in the FEMA OKC bombing cover-up. So Sozen has a history of involvement in government cover-ups and propaganda campaigns.
Fourth, oddly, Hill says that he didn't think the US govt did 9/11-- then says he doesn't think Bush and Cheney did it. But the first statement is a surprising thing to say for a "truther".
A last point is that I think it is very interesting that Sozen DIDN'T model the WTC2 hit-- when the video record for that event is at minimum an order of magnitude better. Why did he pick the WTC1 hit? Is it because the WTC2 hit is so clearly bogus and he could get away with more fudging for the WTC1, where there was less evidence? Although in any case, his simulation is a joke.
posted by spooked at 8:12 AM
1 Comments:
In re Blagojevitch:
What is the reason DA Fitgerald busted the Gov. yesterday, rather than waiting until an actual bribe had taken place?
Could it be that THIS way Obama sustains the maximum damage whereas waiting until after an actual bribe (if any really was going to happen) would cause Obama the LEAST damage because there would be no doubt that he had anything to do with it.
My conjecture is that Fitzgerald, being a political appointee, sought to earn his "bones" by making the bust and by timing it NOW he hopes to burnish his "bones" in the eyes of those who can help him down the road...whether Democrats or Republicans.
He can tell Democrats that it was urgent to make the bust now so as to prevent Obama being "dragged" thru the mud during these transition days and leading up to what might well have been a somewhat spoiled inauguration...and into his Presidency.
Republicans don't need to be told anything.
Post a Comment
<< Home