Schisms

[JSanderO]

Source, please?

email of minutes from last teleconference. Years ago I participated in the call... then I changed to listening.... then I stopped listening live and listened to the recorded version... then I just read the emails of agenda and the meeting minutes.

I think these people are intelligent, but deluded and driven by some pretty nutting beliefs... and lack in education in science and engineering... which doesn't seem to have the least bit of impact to prevent them from being forensic "technical" investigators and self declared experts.

They completely refuse to allow anyone one who doesn't subscribe to the conspiratorial view to participate and that everything these days is a false flag. The movement is fracturing because of the junk scientists fighting over which whacky theory is the real deal... such as:

no plane hit the pentagon
something else but not the commercial flight hit the pentagon
the whole pentagon event was staged to look like a plane hit the pentagon
bombs did the damage at the pentagon

 

[Oystein]

Craig McKee has a brilliant idea about how to overcoe the schisms that are so apparent in his blog and the comments to it:

"9/11 TRUTHERS MUST FOCUS ON DESTROYING THE OFFICIAL STORY, NOT SPLINTERING OVER DOZENS OF THEORIES"

In short, he proposes to abandon the scientific method where theories are only replaced when a new theory is found that explains the totality of evidence better.
Instead, he advises all truthers to concentrate on being/remaining to be "NO-CLAIMERS".

His problems are manyfold. First, he is too much married to a theory (the CIT "fly-over" nonsense) to heed his own advice. Secondly to x-thly, he is read, and commented, by adherents of too many competing Churches of Truthdom. We find Jim Fetzer, we see Dwain Deets, there is Wayne Coste. And again they argue about demolition method and plane-or-no-plane at the Pentagon.


It's a strange and sad day when I find myself agreeing with Dawin Deets and Jim Fetzer at the same time: Dwain explains nicely why a high-momentum impact on the SoC path, such as a 757 crash - best explains all the Pentagon evidence. And then Fetzer certainly is right with the following:

With no theory, we have no story to weave the data together, just an assortment of facts, some far more interesting than others, no doubt; but without a narrative, none of it has much power to impress the public.

These guys are effectively suspecting the others of being plants and shills and agents and dupes. Why? Because their "facts" do not, cannot, converge on a consistent, realistic narrative. They think that the other guys' theories are wrong because they are in fact wrong - all of them! And Craig comes dangerously close to admitting this.

 

[Mark F]

Speaking of schisms,...

I stumbled across this article in the Foreign Policy Journal the other day by John D. Wyndham, who makes reference to a group I was previously unfamiliar with called Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

In the article the author (who thinks there was CD at the WTC) applies the scientific method - and pretty well at that - to the Pentagon attack and concludes it was AA Flight 77. He then insists the 9/11 Truth Movement should stop bickering over competing nonsense claims and all rally around that conclusion.

The comments section of course contains the usual bickering drivel and ignore all the other evidence, where is the video non-thinking, strongly indicating the message was not heeded.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Speaking of schisms,...

I stumbled across this article in the Foreign Policy Journal the other day by John D. Wyndham, who makes reference to a group I was previously unfamiliar with called Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

In the article the author (who thinks there was CD at the WTC) applies the scientific method - and pretty well at that - to the Pentagon attack and concludes it was AA Flight 77. He then insists the 9/11 Truth Movement should stop bickering over competing nonsense claims and all rally around that conclusion.

The comments section of course contains the usual bickering drivel and ignore all the other evidence, where is the video non-thinking, strongly indicating the message was not heeded.

With people like this,

https://youtu.be/tAXmie-plnA

I don't think uniting around a common theme is even in the distant future.
The fact I caused one of the first Schisms, still brings me laughs.