• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

R.Mackey said:
Gentlemen, take your disagreement elsewhere. You are derailing my thread and inviting abuse.

To all posters, let us please keep the signal-to-noise high. There are plenty of other places to snipe at one another. Don't do it here.
Click to expand...


I apologize for the derail, but it is important to point out that precisely-worded challenges to present an actual case or ask a relevant question do not--can not!--appeal to members of the "truth" movement.
 
pomeroo said:
I apologize for the derail, but it is important to point out that precisely-worded challenges to present an actual case or ask a relevant question do not--can not!--appeal to members of the "truth" movement.
Click to expand...

No sense of optimism?

I disagree. I maintain there's some who might be interested. Perhaps they've never really thought about it this way before.

If one is going to assume the other will not respond categorically, then there's little reason to attempt a discussion. I'm holding out for the other, more constructive path. Let's now return to topic, please.
 
R.Mackey said:
No sense of optimism?

I disagree. I maintain there's some who might be interested. Perhaps they've never really thought about it this way before.

If one is going to assume the other will not respond categorically, then there's little reason to attempt a discussion. I'm holding out for the other, more constructive path. Let's now return to topic, please.
Click to expand...


Frankly, any optimism I once felt has been long since pounded out of me. I got involved in these controversies assuming that there were sincere differences of opinion, differences that could be resolved by appealing to the available facts. My assumption was terribly mistaken.

You are a man of science. Your life is built around proposing hypotheses, testing them, and ultimately reaching a conclusion. The idea of wanting to believe something so badly that you'd ignore all inconvenient evidence is alien to you. I think that it is very hard for you to come to terms with people who simply don't care whether they're right or wrong.

RedIbis likes to accuse Larry Silverstein of lying. The key word here is "likes." He can't begin to formulate the nature of Silverstein's lie. When cornered on the subject, he'll vanish only to return and repeat the charge. Heiwa posts absurd gibberish, gets corrected by people like yourself, and calmly continues to spout the same nonsense. Max Photon is fixated on a substance he knows nothing about and ignores all criticism. Ace Baker posts a photo clearly showing the outline of a commercial airliner in the South Tower and uses it to claim that there was no airliner. LastChild is content to say nothing at all and to say it constantly.

I have no background in any mental-health field. I can't pinpoint what the specific motivations for various individuals might be, although I can offer certain probable generalizations. I can state the following without fear of contradiction: There is no debate. The other side doesn't want one.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
You are a man of science. Your life is built around proposing hypotheses, testing them, and ultimately reaching a conclusion. The idea of wanting to believe something so badly that you'd ignore all inconvenient evidence is alien to you. I think that it is very hard for you to come to terms with people who simply don't care whether they're right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't alien to me at all -- it's human nature. Science is difficult in part because it requires one to supercede these selfish tendencies. All of the "rituals" we have in science, e.g. peer review, the Scientific Method, etc., have evolved as checks and balances to help us escape these logical errors.

Everyone makes mistakes, has biases, prejudices, and so on. I rely on others to catch me where I screw up. I've seen abuses of science up close and personal, sometimes from people who should know better. The way to avoid this is through community.

What I'm trying to do in this thread is share some of that with others, principally the Truth Movement. I hope it helps some of them (and us) look at the world a bit more objectively. That's about all one can ask, really.
 
R.Mackey said:
Actually, it isn't alien to me at all -- it's human nature. Science is difficult in part because it requires one to supercede these selfish tendencies. All of the "rituals" we have in science, e.g. peer review, the Scientific Method, etc., have evolved as checks and balances to help us escape these logical errors.

Everyone makes mistakes, has biases, prejudices, and so on. I rely on others to catch me where I screw up. I've seen abuses of science up close and personal, sometimes from people who should know better. The way to avoid this is through community.

What I'm trying to do in this thread is share some of that with others, principally the Truth Movement. I hope it helps some of them (and us) look at the world a bit more objectively. That's about all one can ask, really.
Click to expand...


You aims are noble. I am willing to showcase Ace Baker's mad delusion because he is willing to say something, however fantastic it might be.
 
pomeroo said:
RedIbis likes to accuse Larry Silverstein of lying. The key word here is "likes." He can't begin to formulate the nature of Silverstein's lie. When cornered on the subject, he'll vanish only to return and repeat the charge. .
Click to expand...

I'll respect Mackey's request to stop sniping and focus on specific questions and specific answers. He's been gracious thus far. But I do have to simply state that I "like" nothing about surmising Silverstein is a liar. I wish to correct you on the idea that I derive any pleasure whatsoever in discussing the possibility that Americans, non AQ, had anything to do with 9/11. On this I'm adamant.
 
RedIbis said:
I'll respect Mackey's request to stop sniping and focus on specific questions and specific answers. He's been gracious thus far. But I do have to simply state that I "like" nothing about surmising Silverstein is a liar. I wish to correct you on the idea that I derive any pleasure whatsoever in discussing the possibility that Americans, non AQ, had anything to do with 9/11. On this I'm adamant.
Click to expand...


The larger point is that Mackey is calling for an actual debate, i.e., both sides make assertions that are testable by logic, evidence, or both. You are content to slander an innocent man without offering any substance whatever. You have never suggested a reason why you regard Silverstein as a liar; you merely "like" to hurl the charge. The OP asks the fantasy movement to pose questions that would either validate or shake its unexamined convictions. Predictably, your side is unwilling to play.
 
R.Mackey said:
I don't, either. There should be many questions, each of them critical. But I'll settle for one. You'll note I still haven't gotten any.
Click to expand...
This is a minor point, since you've stated clearly that there should be many. But if the same person asks, say, 2 critical questions, and you answer one satisfactorily, but not the other, we could have a situation where one concludes that there is both no conspiracy and conspiracy, an obvious contradiction.

I've read and seen commentary from the Jersey Girls, in particular "Press for Truth." Their questions have been answered, but it seems to have had little effect.
Click to expand...
Have they actually documented all of their questions, in written form? I was under the impression that they have hundreds of unanswered questions, but I don't know that they've collated them for the public.

FWIW, I was in Manhattan today, and took a flyer from a 911 truth activist. It claims that the 911 Commission failed to answer 70% of the "questions the victims families had". This is a superset of the Jersey girls, which doubtless has some advantages (more manpower) and disadvantages (the Jersey girls are articulate, level-headed, and, if I'm not mistaken, shy away from embracing scientific claims that they have no expertise in. I would not assume that the victim families, in general, are such powerful proponents for a serious investigation.)

Unfortunately, this claim isn't documented.

If you wish to adopt one of their questions as your own critical question, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.
Click to expand...

Maybe somebody who has more time than me can get a hold of the Jersey girls and produce some for you.

==========================================

Still, from my perspective, the more important question is "How many of the questions which have gone unanswered by the government can we possibly get answered by it as long as only incremental improvements are made in it's integrity?" That's assuming that, in the near term, we get a President Obama, and that there are any improvements, at all.

I correctly predicted that if the Democrats took control of Congress, they would still not do anything wrt 911. A bigger bunch of wusses is hard to imagine. (Even so, I prefer them to Republicans.)

I don't like to discourage activists, even when they pursue goals I don't believe in. However, I hope any activist who reads this will consider this question - does it make sense to a) beg and embarrass public officials to do a serious investigation, to the exclusion of other political activity, or does it b) in fact make far more sense to focus on replacing unresponsive, cowardly and/or corrupted elected officials with better ones?.

I definitely vote for "b", and would direct activists to dailykos.com as a jumping off place for people investigating how to organize themselves via cyberspace to fund and otherwise support political candidates that they believe in. You can also check out pdamerica.org. For libertarian, populist Republicans, there are certainly groups, though I don't know of any funding success for a non-mainstream Republican candidate, with the notable exception of Ron Paul. Also, unlike bona fide election successes amongst progressive Democrats, there's no way that Ron Paul will get elected as a Republican.

That 911 activists are so poorly organized that they can't scrape together $1 per citizen per month, for research and outreach purposes, where said citizen believes that the US government is hiding something significant and could have prevented the attacks, says a great deal about the immaturity of activism in the US, in general. I don't think that 911 activists are very different from other groups, in this regard. Have you ever heard of an anti-global warming group which effectively uses crowd-funding, ala dailykos, to target any demographic group (e.g., high school students) with their message? I don't know of any.

In any event, there's such a huge resistance to serious 911 investigation on the one hand, and indifference amongst others (who assume the official story is hunky dory), I don't see where getting 911 Truth candidates elected is a viable strategy in the near future. (Let's not even talk about the handicapping effect of our pathetic media.) The only strategy that makes sense to me is to first get honest candidates elected, who actually respect the Constitution, (sufficient to not have any problem impeaching traitors to same, e.g.) and then, after they've cleaned out the government of more obvious corruption, go after more insidious examples of it. 911 is just one more example, doubtless grander in scope, but it's certainly not the only skeleton in the closet. Like many activists before them, whose efforts ended up getting wasted, many 911 Truth activists assume that their cause is so important, in and of itself, that it alone can carry the day.

I've been around the block enough times to not only see the falsity of single-issue activism, but I've so soured on it that I think it's immoral. Activists don't make laws, Congress does. If you have a corrupt Congress, even if you successfully beg them to do the right thing this year on whatever issue you believe is so essential, what's to prevent them from reversing themselves next year?

So, in the case of 911, if a serious investigation began in '09, e.g., and we find out that pilots were given suspicious orders but were told to keep their mouths shut about it, the investigation may eventually yield a superior who clearly interfered with an effective response, for reasons yet to be divulged. As '10 approached, and the defendant was 'sweated', cowardly politicians comprising Congress lose their nerve, terminate the investigation, perhaps offering up the superior as a sacrificial, traitorous, lamb.

I'm speaking hypothetically, but the point remains - if you have corrupted, cowardly individuals in the seats of power, you can beg them to do the right thing until the cows come home. In the end, they will manifest their inner selves, and if that inner self is a "go along to get along" coward, who wouldn't stick up for the Constitution or what's right if cost them more than 1 hours worry, they will fail to perform their duty, sooner or later.

Judged by the criteria of even getting Congresspersons to talk about 911 critically, even outside the halls of Congress, the 911 Truth movement has failed. Nevertheless, I suspect that by pressing the issue, it has spread awareness amongst Congress critters, military, and intelligence (no "everybody in on it" nonsense, please), who may have done what they can to prevent further false flag attacks. All the more reason for me not to criticize 911 activists too severely, even if some of them rudely interrupt public speeches, and fall into the same single-issue pitfall which is holding back many other activist groups.

IMO, until 911 activists get smarter, and the US government is cleaned up by a responsible citizenry (most of whom probably have little interest in 911, so many years after the event) there is little chance that serious, extant questions, and obvious followups which become so as the initial questions get answered, will get asked in a serious investigation.
 
Ok Mackey, here's one you might be slightly more able to get your teeth into.

I once heard it asserted that absolute top level secret military technology is generally somewhere around 30 - 40 years ahead of what's available to the public, as revealed by later declassification. I assume this refers to preliminary research compared with commercial deployment, but I really don't know.

Now obviously you can't go into specifics, and I have no idea how much of what you do may be sensitive. But I have often wondered about that quote - whether it was ever true, and whether public and secret levels of technology are converging because of the more distributed nature of research today, or perhaps diverging because of the snowball effect of high tech (I once heard it said that there were more patent applications in the 1990s than in the century before, or something similar. Obviously many are spurious or commercial minutiae, but I think you can make the case that the general pace of technology is increasing).

Any thoughts on this? Holographic / remote control boeings... just how implausible?
 
metamars said:
This is a minor point, since you've stated clearly that there should be many. But if the same person asks, say, 2 critical questions, and you answer one satisfactorily, but not the other, we could have a situation where one concludes that there is both no conspiracy and conspiracy, an obvious contradiction.
Click to expand...

It's a small risk, particularly as nobody has even given me one such question so far. If that should occur, then the logical answer is that there might or might not be a conspiracy. Most adherents are in one camp or the other. That includes me, I do not believe there could be a conspiracy, and above I've listed my own "critical question" if you'd like to try to convince me otherwise.

metamars said:
Have they actually documented all of their questions, in written form? I was under the impression that they have hundreds of unanswered questions, but I don't know that they've collated them for the public.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the answer is "no." There have been a few public talks and such, and one could approximate this list, but I'm unaware of any concerted effort on their part to organize their questions. That would help in getting answers.

metamars said:
That 911 activists are so poorly organized that they can't scrape together $1 per citizen per month, for research and outreach purposes, where said citizen believes that the US government is hiding something significant and could have prevented the attacks, says a great deal about the immaturity of activism in the US, in general.

[...]

In any event, there's such a huge resistance to serious 911 investigation on the one hand, and indifference amongst others (who assume the official story is hunky dory), I don't see where getting 911 Truth candidates elected is a viable strategy in the near future. (Let's not even talk about the handicapping effect of our pathetic media.) The only strategy that makes sense to me is to first get honest candidates elected, who actually respect the Constitution, (sufficient to not have any problem impeaching traitors to same, e.g.) and then, after they've cleaned out the government of more obvious corruption, go after more insidious examples of it.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you that the state of activism in the USA is rather poor.

However, I disagree with you that there is "resistance to serious 911 investigation." The investigations we have are quite thorough and conclusive. There's nothing like it in history. The overwhelming majority of scientists are comfortable with the core conclusions, even those who are still researching the problem. This is not a lack of political fortitude, it's an acknowledgement that remaining unknowns are merely details. You can't fault Congress for that.

If you disagree with my assessment, I again invite you to entertain my OP.
 
Confuseling said:
Now obviously you can't go into specifics, and I have no idea how much of what you do may be sensitive. But I have often wondered about that quote - whether it was ever true, and whether public and secret levels of technology are converging because of the more distributed nature of research today, or perhaps diverging because of the snowball effect of high tech (I once heard it said that there were more patent applications in the 1990s than in the century before, or something similar. Obviously many are spurious or commercial minutiae, but I think you can make the case that the general pace of technology is increasing).

Any thoughts on this? Holographic / remote control boeings... just how implausible?
Click to expand...

I don't have any classified access, and I wouldn't tell you anything sensitive if I did. However, where "black" projects are ahead of acknowledged science is almost always in response to particular needs, and therefore the distinction is usually quantitative rather than qualitative. For example, you may have a "black" radar sensor or imager that outperforms commercial analogues by a factor of ten, but you will not find a "black" imaging system that is based on totally unknown physics.

Very little in the military is so advanced. The military requires quantity and ruggedness, and both require a high degree of refinement and maturity on the part of new technologies. True cutting-edge super-secret stuff tends to be one-offs, fabulously expensive, and difficult to operate. Not the kind of thing you'd hand over to a platoon of soldiers to drag through the sand.

Regarding holography and remote-control planes in specific, holography of the type proposed by the Ace Bakers of the world defies all known physics, period. It's too foolish to be considered.

I've discussed remote-control planes elsewhere, and while the idea is technically possible, it is not possible to apply this technology without fabricating specialized aircraft well ahead of time, and somehow slipping these into the airports unnoticed, without arousing the suspicions of the pilots who have to overlook a few hundred kilos of hydraulic actuators where their seat used to be.

The cost to develop remote controlled airliners for this mission I eyeball at about $100-150 million, requiring three years, about 200 scientists, pilots, and engineers, and free run of a large, unobserved chunk of unrestricted airspace to pull off -- probably Nellis, either that or overseas in which case cost goes up substantially. At minimum. And this approach still has problems as noted above.

In short, utterly implausible.
 
metamars said:
This is a minor point, since you've stated clearly that there should be many. But if the same person asks, say, 2 critical questions, and you answer one satisfactorily, but not the other, we could have a situation where one concludes that there is both no conspiracy and conspiracy, an obvious contradiction.
Click to expand...


Umm, no... Such a situation would result in "may or may not be a conspiracy". The key operator being "or".

The "is and is not a conspiracy" is a logical impossibility that you yourself have created, but is not a possible result of the situation you put forth.

ETA: If the two questions posed are both required for belief in a conspiracy and are ANDed together, as you have done, then having one of them "evaluate" to false would, logically, result in the belief being false.

If an individual chooses to continue belief in the conspiracy despite one of their questions evaluating to false, then it was not a critical question to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Confuseling said:
.........I once heard it asserted that absolute top level secret military technology is generally somewhere around 30 - 40 years ahead of what's available to the public, as revealed by later declassification. I assume this refers to preliminary research compared with commercial deployment, but I really don't know.
Click to expand...

I can help answer this question. First of all, it's malarkey that actual technology is 30-40 years ahead of what's available to the public.

The kind of research you're suggesting is EXTREMELY expensive and would involve hundreds of scientists. The military or CIA does not have that kind of budget.

One of the highest priorities of the military in recent years is to control the ELECTRONIC SPECTRUM. There is wide belief that he who controls this spectrum wins wars. Therefore, this arena has the highest priority. It's simpler than you think and involves mostly radar detection systems and weapons guidance systems. I don't think that it can be measured in years or that the technology can even be applied to civilian application. For the most part, it isn't applicable to anything required in a civilian arena.

I see no application of any of this type of technology to 9/11. Sure, there are advanced weapons systems that are not public knowledge, but your hypothesis goes far beyond realism. Keep in mind that there are HUNDREDS of military people that know about the technology in development and they are NOT the shills made out to be by the TWOOF Movement (BM). They are honorable people serving their Country in contrast to the scum that call themselves "truthers".
 
Thanks Mackey.

Thanks too Reheat - although I feel I have to point out that that isn't my hypothesis, I'm just casting my voice into the void in lieu of the uncharacteristically diffident Truth.
 
metamars said:
I see no reason why there should be only a single critical question, per truther. IIRC, the Jersey girls compiled hundreds of questions and only about 2/3 of these were even so much as superficially addressed by the 911 commission. Furthermore, a more serious investigation, involving serious cross-examination, would have generated numerous additional questions. I only watched the "investigation" on TV the last day, because the brilliant 911 commission decided to put off what to me was the most interesting aspect of the "investigation", till then. And that aspect was the lack of jet fighter response. A first cousin of mine has told me that a customer of his, an Air Force mechanic at a base in NJ, told him that while the first plane might possibly have hit the WTC towers without an intercept, there's no way that the 2nd plane could have done so.

The 911 commission asked a general (I think his name was Eberhart, but I'm not sure) words to the effect "There were exercises involving fighter aircraft on 911. Did this impair the fighter response?" His answer (again, not an exact quote) was "No, they improved the fighter response". (I think, additionally, he said that that's because fighters were already in the air.)

So, what was the brilliant followup question by the 911 commission, that was devoid of a prosecutor? Quite honestly, even at 8 years of age, I'm pretty sure that I would have at least mustered up the intelligence and curiosity to ask "How so?"
Click to expand...


If you're interested, I can fill you in on the above information, I know a fair bit about it.

It is worth noting that the "Jersey Girls" have had their questions answered - they just don't like the answers. They are also not as "knowledgeable" as they claim. I don't know if you're familiar with their documentary, "In Their Eyes" but in this they make a major point of the FBI releasing photographs of the hijackers within a few days of the attacks - and fair enough, how did the FBI find these people so quickly? Or at least it would be fair enough, if it was true.

See, the Jersey Girls are wrong about the FBI releasing the photographs days after the attacks - this didn't happen until over two weeks after 9/11. And it's not all they're wrong about. They're wrong about no fighters being scrambled until after the attacks were over (a claim they make in 9/11 Press For Truth). They get a lot wrong. Indeed, in my experience the "Jersey Girls" have very little more actual knowledge of 9/11 than the average ignorant truther, which confuses me a little given their situation and the work they have put it. My only conclusion is they're knowingly lying, but I can't work out why. Either that or they're some of the worst researchers around.

Anyway, I can fill you in on the US air defense response to the 9/11 attacks if you're interested - both how it was designed to react and how it actually did react. But I can tell you now; there's no conspiracy and there's no incompetence.
 
metamars said:
Have they actually documented all of their questions, in written form? I was under the impression that they have hundreds of unanswered questions, but I don't know that they've collated them for the public.
Click to expand...


The "Jersey Girls" are not actually a group of their own, but four of the 11 people who formed the "Family Steering Committee" which is the group that pushed for the forming of the 9/11 Commission.

According to their website, these are the Family Steering Committee's unanswered questions.

I would estimate that I could answer at least 90% of their questions just off the top of my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom