Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[R.Mackey]

I've been gone most of the last week and a half. Dropped in briefly to pen another bit for Gregory Urich, but that was it.

It appears that nearly nothing has happened with the Truth Movement. Likewise, what ongoing contentious discussions remain are of very low quality.

I'd like to try a return to constructive dialogue, and hopefully, bring this to a closure that is satisfying to all. In that spirit, I hereby place myself at your disposal. This thread is a living experiment. Here's how it works:

In this thread, I invite anyone -- but principally the Truth Movement -- to post their crucial questions. By that I mean your questions that, if they were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th.

If you post those questions, I will do my level best to answer them. I also freely admit that I am neither all-knowing nor infallible. It's quite possible that you will ask something I cannot answer. If so, I will be forthright about this. If I can answer but have doubts, I will give you those as well. Full disclosure.

This is meant to be a learning exercise for all of us. It will probably take some effort on your part to organize your thoughts carefully. You should present your questions in detail, with background, and your own analysis where possible. You should also think about what kind of answers you anticipate, and what those would mean.

I am completely clearing my Ignore list, and I pledge to keep this thread abuse-free to the best of my ability. For purposes of this thread, any past you may have with me or other posters here is forgotten.

This is open to non-Truth Movement folks as well, but I anticipate the Truth Movement must have more to question, thus I am specifically inviting them.

So... any takers? Let's hear what's on your mind.

 

[LastChild]

As a debunker how do you expect to satisfy so-called conspiracy theorists who question the official 9/11 account by pointing to investigations and evidence offered up by the same people the conspiracy theorist is suspicious about?

Will this ever really settle it?

 

[MetalliSociety]

No, it won't settle it. The reason for this is because no matter how many times CTers get beat in debates (Roberts vs. LTW, Roberts vs. Fetzer, PM vs. LTW, etc.) you seem to somehow, no matter how badly you get beat, to think you won something in it, even though to anyone with an ounce of common sense would see that you lost.

But i'd be more than happy to watch CTers embarrass themselves a little while longer.

 

[Finnegan]

Good Timing

Over at Screw Loose Change Justin Martell of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth was sounding off about nothing in particular, and happened to accuse a classmate of cowardice for refusing to debate him in what was apparently 'a truther forum'. I invited Justin to JREF for a more challenging discussion, and if he is a man of integrity then he should be along fairly soon.

"Will this ever really settle it?"

It should be more interesting than another "pull it" thread.

 

[CHF]

As a debunker how do you expect to satisfy so-called conspiracy theorists who question the official 9/11 account by pointing to investigations and evidence offered up by the same people the conspiracy theorist is suspicious about?

Will this ever really settle it?

The kid has a point Mackey. You can't hope to settle anything with people whose belief system is simply not falsifiable.

As has been repeatedly shown over the past few years, there is no piece of evidence, expert testimony or mathematical equation that will convince the TM diehards that their religion is based on BS. There is nothing that cannot be waved away as fake/planted/hit piece/disinfo etc.

The only people we can and should reach are the fence-sitters and those who are briefly suckered into the TM yet are open to reason. Judging by the current state of the TM I'd say that's largely been accomplished.

It seems to be just a few die-hards remaining at this point, and do we really care about them?

 

[R.Mackey]

As a debunker how do you expect to satisfy so-called conspiracy theorists who question the official 9/11 account by pointing to investigations and evidence offered up by the same people the conspiracy theorist is suspicious about?

Will this ever really settle it?

You'll note that you are not alone in your doubt, but yes, this will settle it -- IF you participate. You are not. You have not provided me your critical questions.

If you choose not to participate, please do not bollix my thread. Others may wish to. For the regulars here, that goes equally for you. Let's try to keep the signal-to-noise high this time.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, to play Devil's Advocate for a bit, what is holding up the NIST report on WTC 7? Why hasn't there been an update on this report since December of last year?

 

[Sizzler]

I've got a lot of questions Mackey. Pressed for time at the moment but here are two that you could work with.

1. Why did the Bush administration take so long to start a commission? Other examples, JFK and the NASA accidents took only days to begin. 9-11 took over a year and with the fight from family members.

2. How can you explain the put options and the fact that several people were warned not to fly on Sept 11.

Those are two of a long list.

Thanks Mackey

 

[uk_dave]

I've got a lot of questions Mackey. Pressed for time at the moment but here are two that you could work with.

1. Why did the Bush administration take so long to start a commission? Other examples, JFK and the NASA accidents took only days to begin. 9-11 took over a year and with the fight from family members.

Are you confusing the criminal/technical investigation of the events with the formation of a commission to review the event as a whole?

2. How can you explain the put options and the fact that several people were warned not to fly on Sept 11.

Those are two of a long list.

Thanks Mackey

Read the commission report for the 'put options'
Who was warned not to fly and please provide proof?

 

[AZCat]

1. Why did the Bush administration take so long to start a commission? Other examples, JFK and the NASA accidents took only days to begin. 9-11 took over a year and with the fight from family members.

You might want to clarify which NASA accident you are referencing - there have been a few. Challenger had the Rogers Commission, Columbia had the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, several of the Apollo missions had review boards.

 

[R.Mackey]

While none of these are critical questions, they are at least legitimate...

Well, to play Devil's Advocate for a bit, what is holding up the NIST report on WTC 7? Why hasn't there been an update on this report since December of last year?

Scope creep. Look on Page 4 specifically. The items outside the dotted line exceed the initial scope of the report. Also, prior to December 2007, the previous update was twelve months prior, so a delay of only five months since then is hardly out of family.

I've got a lot of questions Mackey. Pressed for time at the moment but here are two that you could work with.

1. Why did the Bush administration take so long to start a commission? Other examples, JFK and the NASA accidents took only days to begin. 9-11 took over a year and with the fight from family members.

You're wrong about that. While the 9/11 Commission did indeed take time, viz. fourteen months to start, other investigations -- such as the FBI investigation -- began immediately. The Warren Commission, which I believe you're referring to regarding JFK, did not begin immediately after JFK was shot as you claim; rather, it took slightly over a year. This is only about 20 percent faster than the delay in starting the 9/11 Commission. I see no anomaly here.

The Columbia Accident Investigation was mandated by NASA flight practices, and its timing was therefore automatic. Not comparable.

2. How can you explain the put options and the fact that several people were warned not to fly on Sept 11.

Those are two of a long list.

Thanks Mackey

Trivially. The put options make sense if you recall what was going on with airline stocks at the time, and if you view the larger pattern of specific investors, you find that the "putter" made opposite bids on American and United... This is nothing more than Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy in action. Even Snopes has dealt with this one.

Regarding "warnings not to fly," I have yet to hear anything solid enough to even investigate, let alone answer.

Next time, please present your critical questions. This requires thought on your part. This thread is not a dumping ground for knee-jerk, irrelevant doubts. I'll be enforcing this in the future.

 

[Hokulele]

While none of these are critical questions, they are at least legitimate...

Yeah, I am stuck in a hotel room and it is either try to come up with questions that may fit the OP to play with, or continue picking on Gravy over in the Community sub-forum. This seemed more interesting.

Scope creep. Look on Page 4 specifically. The items outside the dotted line exceed the initial scope of the report. Also, prior to December 2007, the previous update was twelve months prior, so a delay of only five months since then is hardly out of family.

I am not sure if the document you linked is the one you are referring to (I didn't see a dotted line, but can make an educated guess as to which items in that rough schedule are outside the original scope).

And now I can be lazy and just link back to this post when someone asks this question elsewhere.

 

[DC]

what do you know about the "Wargames" going on on 9/11. and especially who are the ppl responsible for them, especially sheduling them?

 

[uk_dave]

what do you know about the "Wargames" going on on 9/11. and especially who are the ppl responsible for them, especially sheduling them?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

 

[The Big Dog]

Trivially. The put options make sense if you recall what was going on with airline stocks at the time, and if you view the larger pattern of specific investors, you find that the "putter" made opposite bids on American and United...

To add very briefly, the SEC the Chicago Board Options Exchange did investigate the trades, and found that they were part of a routine trading strategy using puts, long positions in stocks, etc. They identified the specific traders involved, and the specific entity responsible for the trades, and found that virtually all of the trading positions were offset by opposite positions elsewhere.

 

[R.Mackey]

I am not sure if the document you linked is the one you are referring to (I didn't see a dotted line, but can make an educated guess as to which items in that rough schedule are outside the original scope).

OOps, my bad. The correct document is this one, the companion. Look at Page 4. The items inside the dotted line, plus the ANSYS response model immediately outside, are the original scope of the WTC 7 modeling effort. All the other stuff outside the box -- the additional hypothetical situations -- is extra. That's the scope creep.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Molten Metal Question

The debunking community ( I use this term loosely) discount, ignore, or explain away eyewitnesses who describe molten steel with the excuse that no tests were done to prove that the metal in question was steel. The issue is labeled as dead or debunked.

However, when the issue of explosives in any of the towers is brought up by the movement they categorically deny the use of any explosives despite the fact that no chemical tests were done to prove one way or another.

Why doesn't the debunker community state, "Yes the possibility does exists for explosives and that chemical testing would prove one way or the other."

Why is there a hypocritical approach to the process?

In other words, we don't know if that metal was steel or not because no tests were done.
But the debunker rejects the same reasoning when applied to the use of explosives.

RMackey-It will probably take some effort on your part to organize your thoughts carefully.

Is this your honest approach to the spirit of cooperation between the two sides? I took this as a stealth "stab" and that your OP is not quite as sincere as you would like it to be.

 

[R.Mackey]

what do you know about the "Wargames" going on on 9/11. and especially who are the ppl responsible for them, especially sheduling them?

So you're saying that, if I answer this question, and hypothetically speaking you can accept that my answer is correct, you will no longer believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Those are the questions I'm asking for. So far, everyone seems afraid to ask them, but instead focuses on minutiae. This is a losing strategy for you. We can go back to these trifles once we deal with the big questions, but let's start at the top, shall we?

If you cannot come up with the critical questions you have, then your beliefs are unfounded. Think about it.

 

[R.Mackey]

However, when the issue of explosives in any of the towers is brought up by the movement they categorically deny the use of any explosives despite the fact that no chemical tests were done to prove one way or another.

Why doesn't the debunker community state, "Yes the possibility does exists for explosives and that chemical testing would prove one way or the other."

Why is there a hypocritical approach to the process?

In other words, we don't know if that metal was steel or not because no tests were done.
But the debunker rejects the same reasoning when applied to the use of explosives.

I don't believe there is hypocrisy, but let me ask you the same question: If I explain why the "debunker community," whatever that is, does not state the above, will you accept that there is no conspiracy? If so, I will be more than happy to answer you.

Is this your honest approach to the spirit of cooperation between the two sides? I took this as a stealth "stab" and that your OP is not quite as sincere as you would like it to be.

No, this is not a "stealth stab," it is true. So far, nobody, including "debunkers," has given me a critical question. It is harder to come up with this than it appears. What you need to do is carefully examine why you believe what you believe, and then isolate the key turning points in that decision process. It's the reverse of the Scientific Method, in which one starts from a hypothesis, and then extracts the defining test of that hypothesis.

Even if I can't answer the question at all, just finding and articulating the critical question is valuable. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "debunker community" has never really thought about what specific things convinced them, either. There's no slight intended here.

 

[MarkyX]

The debunking community ( I use this term loosely) discount, ignore, or explain away eyewitnesses who describe molten steel with the excuse that no tests were done to prove that the metal in question was steel. The issue is labeled as dead or debunked.

Let's just say there was molten steel.

How does this prove it was a CD? No controlled demolition in history had molten steel or any sort of molten metal.