Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[metamars]

I think you missed my point. The purpose of my NORAD work was to investigate what happened, not to address any CT claims. I've often argued that 9/11 CTs only find fertile ground in ignorance - if the public were educated on the facts of what happened there would be no need to counter alternative claims. I think my NORAD work demonstrates that somewhat.

A reasonable point of view, though I tend to distrust anything coming from our government.

In terms of persuading groups of people what the truth is, at least for the sorts of groups I'd be interested in - critical thinkers, who don't naively take every tale told by various government agencies as the Gospel Truth - privately held notes or arguments scattered in a forum are not efficient ways to communicate ideas to them.

I've often marveled that anybody could take the notion that the Democratic Party actually cares about national health insurance. (This is as of a couple of years ago. Things may be different now.) I've looked at the PR on the Democratic Party website, and found it to be almost completely boilerplate type text that could have been transposed to the Republican Party web site.

What's missing is the sort of detailed, yet not too detailed, articulate presentation with summary information of the sort you can see in just about any issue of Scientific American, often purchased and presented by countries that are trying to attract technological investment. It's clear that the people who prepare these extensive advertisements do their homework, and then take the trouble to present their arguments as clearly as they can.

Not so the Democratic Party, as judged by their web site of a couple of years ago. Which is precisely why I question their commitment to any significant health care program. Where are the cost-benefit analyses for different versions of health care plans, not only those being proposed as candidates, but those already extant in Europe, e.g.? Where is there plan for communicating these options to the public at large? Are we to believe that the Democratic Party is so stupid that they can't see the desirability of doing so, if the party actually cared about national health care? I, for one, don't, and as far as I can tell, the only reason for their web site PR is to create a vague sense of concern, to which individuals are free to project their cheeriest fantasies of a viable, thought-out program or options for programs.

Similarly, while your personal situation (apparently not unlike mine) doesn't allow for the further investment of lots of time to presenting a point of view re 911 events, I would say that the debunking community as a whole, in order to be taken seriously by a thinking section of the public, needs to make more of an effort to communicate information. I don't think a lot of so-called "debunkers" really want to do this, because, as is easily observed, so many of them lead via insult, accusations of lying, presumptuous dismissal of entire bodies of work when flaws are found, etc. The main thing this subspecies of "debunker" seems to want to communicate is ridicule.

However, for those that do want to communicate effectively, I would suggest two things.

1) a moderated wiki, wherein, e.g., there might be sections similar to your work on NORAD (hopefully already in a coherent form), but also sections that would attempt to answer the questions of coherent and articulate groups, such as the 911 families. The wiki would then invite responses from the 911 families groups, where the editorial responsibility for their responses is entirely in their hands. Unlike normal wikis, there would have to be functionality for freezing and/or versioning of posts, so that moving of goalposts doesn't complicate things, unnecessarily.
2) books, of the level of detail of "Crossing the Rubicon", footnotes and all. This could be a group effort by debunkers, where individual chapters are written by different individuals.

I'm not sure if I will continue or not... I've done about 20% of his claims thus far and have not found a single one that had any merit.

I'm not the sort of person that takes statements like this on faith, and the people whose opinion I value would not do so, either. If the debunking community similarly finds this to be so, why would they not make the effort to communicate this in a manner that scholars and real journalists, e.g., would appreciate?

Like it or not, agree with it or not, DRG's books (e.g.) have persuaded a lot of people. Insofar as his work has errors, the debunking community would be performing a public service by pointing them out, with whatever degree of detail is necessary, unemotionally and coherently.

 

[R.Mackey]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, DRG's books (e.g.) have persuaded a lot of people. Insofar as his work has errors, the debunking community would be performing a public service by pointing them out, with whatever degree of detail is necessary, unemotionally and coherently.

Needless to say, this is off-topic, but we've done that.

I sympathize with gumboot's burnout. For every page of crap Dr. Griffin writes, it takes two to five pages to correct it. After a while, what's the point?

 

[RedIbis]

Needless to say, this is off-topic, but we've done that.

I sympathize with gumboot's burnout. For every page of crap Dr. Griffin writes, it takes two to five pages to correct it. After a while, what's the point?

Since DRG is arguably the most influential Inside Job researcher, do you obtain and read his books? I ask this because if you happen to have a copy of his latest, 9/11 Contradictions, I'd be interested in your impressions of his section "Testimony of Firefighters" in Chapter 23. There is commentary, but he eventually simply lists and quotes firefighter and FDNY personnel reports.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would never buy his "book", as it would contribute to his personal wealth, and that I would have a hard time living with.

If someone gave me a copy, or there was a copy online, I would read/critique it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Since DRG is arguably the most influential Inside Job researcher, do you obtain and read his books? I ask this because if you happen to have a copy of his latest, 9/11 Contradictions, I'd be interested in your impressions of his section "Testimony of Firefighters" in Chapter 23. There is commentary, but he eventually simply lists and quotes firefighter and FDNY personnel reports.

Since I don't care for his opinion or interpretation, why both buying his book for those testimonies...they are all available here,

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Since I don't care for his opinion or interpretation, why both buying his book for those testimonies...they are all available here,

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

TAM

Have you actually read any of his books? How do you know if you "care for his opinion or interpretation" if you haven't?

 

[funk de fino]

Since DRG is arguably the most influential Inside Job researcher, do you obtain and read his books? I ask this because if you happen to have a copy of his latest, 9/11 Contradictions, I'd be interested in your impressions of his section "Testimony of Firefighters" in Chapter 23. There is commentary, but he eventually simply lists and quotes firefighter and FDNY personnel reports.

He is a coward, his books are full of falsehoods and contradictions and he makes money from stupid people and laughs behind their backs.

You are not one of them are you?

 

[gumboot]

A reasonable point of view, though I tend to distrust anything coming from our government.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. Who said anything about believing what came from your government?

In terms of persuading groups of people what the truth is, at least for the sorts of groups I'd be interested in - critical thinkers, who don't naively take every tale told by various government agencies as the Gospel Truth - privately held notes or arguments scattered in a forum are not efficient ways to communicate ideas to them.

I don't really want to continue this discussion here because it's a derail of the purpose of this thread, but if you feel like discussing the most effective methods for getting the facts out there, feel free to start another thread. But be warned; you'll need to do some homework. You act as if these forum posts are all that the people here do regarding 9/11 work. That simply isn't true. A number of posters here maintain very comprehensive websites about 9/11; including at least one wiki site just as you suggested. None of us have written a book (I'm writing several novels and it's no small undertaking to produce a book), but many of us have written very comprehensive papers of various sorts addressing various points. And as R.Mackey has already pointed out, you don't have to take my word at face value regarding Dr Griffin's failings; I have a thread in this forum which updates my progress and lays out the evidence for all to see.

Anyway... I don't want to continue this derail. If the subject interests you, begin a new thread.

 

[tanabear]

No, once again it is those who don't believe in it who should be trying to prove that it is impossible

Can you do that, tana?

The performance of steel in fire is well known around the world
The performance of fire proofing materials is well known around the world
The performance of structural steelwork is well known around the world

Put together a set of circumstances where all three of those known factors are affected and you can understand why it is entirely possible for towers such as the wtc could collapse in the manner they did.

If you think otherwise, then it's up to you to prove it.

It seems as though that the people who believe in the official 9/11 story always seem to come up with a new epistemology(theory of knowledge) to dismiss their critics with and not answer questions. Let me see if I follow your reasoning correctly. Someone makes a claim, then it is incumbent on the person questioning that claim to show that it is 100% impossible. The person actually making the claim is under no obligation to marshal evidence and arguments in its favor. If the critic can't show that it is 100% impossible we have to accept the claim as truth. This method gives us no way to discriminate among claims that can't be shown to be 100% impossible. So if this is your epistemology then use it in this circumstance. I assert that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of the moon. You have to show me this is 100% impossible, if not, it is true. My standards for showing the impossibility of such a claim is for you to dig up the whole dark side of the moon and photograph the entire endeavor. If you can't do this, then you have to believe that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of moon. Remember, I have no obligation to present any evidence in support of my claim.

I assert that people can walk through walls, without damaging them of course. You have to show me that this is 100% impossible or you must accept it is true. My standard to show the impossibility of such a claim is for to you have every person on the planet attempt to walk through every wall. If you can't do this, then you must accept the fact that people can walk through walls.

Name a scientist that reasons in such a manner? What experiment can be done for you to accept the idea that it is impossible for a steel-frame high-rise to be destroyed the way NIST claimed it was?

I assert that the World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosive charges. You have to show that it is 100% impossible for explosions to destroy buildings, otherwise you must accept it as true. Once again it is those who don't believe in it who should be trying to prove that it is impossible. Can you do that, UK Dave?

Will this do?

Did the destruction of the Kader Toy Factory mirror the destruction of WTC1,2 or 7? Was the concrete laterally ejected and pulverized before it hit the ground? Were the steel beams cut and laterally ejected as well? Did it come down in essentially free-fall time? Was it largely symmetrical? Was it destroyed via a pile-drive effect? Can I see the video tape of its destruction to see it matches the destruction of the World Trade Centers?

 

[gumboot]

Was the concrete laterally ejected and pulverized before it hit the ground? Were the steel beams cut and laterally ejected as well? Did it come down in essentially free-fall time? Was it largely symmetrical? Was it destroyed via a pile-drive effect?

You realise that none of the above occurred in the collapse of WTC1,2 or 7 either right?

 

[DGM]

tanabear:
Can you show me a credible reason (not in this thread please) to distrust the "official story" or should we take your word that it's wrong. So far that's all your movement has presented in response to the "official story" is that you think its wrong..

 

[pomeroo]

You have a pattern of calling everyone who disagrees with you on this issue a liar, over and over. If you really believe that we're all charlatans, with some ulterior motive, then what do you think it is? What do we have to gain by "lying"?

Yes, I have a pattern of accurately labeling conspiracy liars. There are exceptions, such as Ace Baker, who are seriously disturbed people gripped by massive delusions. They are not "lying," in the sense that they are locked into a mindset that cannot be penetrated by reason. Most twoofers understand perfectly well that their "arguments" are utter rubbish. To cite just two examples, I have repeatedly asked Morgan Reynolds to take his fantastic no-plane nonsense to a physics teacher. He refuses. Do you think he's interested in learning anything about science? David Ray Griffin tap-danced furiously around his original agreement to discuss his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, on 'Hardfire.' Posters on the JREF were correct in suspecting that he had no intention of appearing. The matter was settled when Mackey published his white paper refuting the book's errors. Griffin smeared me and ran for the hills. He is not merely deluded; he is a charlatan and a fraud who preys on gullible suckers.

What you gain by lying is obvious. Your movement is purely agenda-driven. Its aim is to weaken America and render it defenseless. Whether your brand of twoof is the anarcho-libertarian drivel served up by Alex Jones or the loony-left, blame-America-first propaganda embraced by show biz airheads, for every conceivable event you have identified your villain well in advance.

And what would be the point of even engaging us at all, if you believed we were liars? You're a tiresome man who finds it inconceivable that anyone sees the world differently than you do. I suggest that if you truly believe that anyone who has doubts about what happened on 9/11 is a liar, that you simply don't communicate with them anymore.

I am not interested in engaging you, specifically, as you are unpersuadable. You have chosen to place yourself outside logic, reason, and science. I want to engage people who are too apathetic to educate themselves, but who are susceptible to being indoctrinated in the false doctrines of unscrupulous demagogues.

It's amusing that you dismiss Mackey as being unable to offer authoritative answers because that is precisely what he can offer. Many of us--people like myself--rely on people like Mackey, Newton's Bit, Beachnut, Gumboot, RWGuinn, Reheat, Shrinker, AMTMAN, Apathoid, and Architect (please forgive me if I've omitted your name) to explain the science behind the collapses of the Towers, the flight path of AA Flight 77, the feasibility of remote-controlled flight, and other technical issues. I can judge who is a real expert and who is an incompetent fraud. I make this bold claim because I have the critical thinking skills and general knowledge that a free society requires of its citizens. I'm saying--let there be no misunderstanding--that I rely heavily on guys like Mackey. Mackey, however, KNOWS that the fantastic stuff peddled by your movement can't stand scrutiny. He is abundantly qualified to be a gatekeeper.

 

[R.Mackey]

Since DRG is arguably the most influential Inside Job researcher, do you obtain and read his books? I ask this because if you happen to have a copy of his latest, 9/11 Contradictions, I'd be interested in your impressions of his section "Testimony of Firefighters" in Chapter 23. There is commentary, but he eventually simply lists and quotes firefighter and FDNY personnel reports.

Absolutely not. One book full of lies and errors is plenty.

He also spends a lot of time on "testimony of firefighters" in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, where presumably he selected those that best supported his position. I analyze them in depth. His conclusions based on those accounts is completely unsupportable.

And, again, we're Off Topic. Just a gentle reminder, I'm guilty myself.

 

[Par]

Have you actually read any of his books? How do you know if you "care for his opinion or interpretation" if you haven't?

Well, have you read David Irving’s latest effort? How about the rubbish being peddled by the creationism movement?

 

[pomeroo]

It seems as though that the people who believe in the official 9/11 story always seem to come up with a new epistemology(theory of knowledge) to dismiss their critics with and not answer questions. Let me see if I follow your reasoning correctly. Someone makes a claim, then it is incumbent on the person questioning that claim to show that it is 100% impossible. The person actually making the claim is under no obligation to marshal evidence and arguments in its favor. If the critic can't show that it is 100% impossible we have to accept the claim as truth. This method gives us no way to discriminate among claims that can't be shown to be 100% impossible. So if this is your epistemology then use it in this circumstance. I assert that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of the moon. You have to show me this is 100% impossible, if not, it is true. My standards for showing the impossibility of such a claim is for you to dig up the whole dark side of the moon and photograph the entire endeavor. If you can't do this, then you have to believe that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on the dark side of moon. Remember, I have no obligation to present any evidence in support of my claim.

I assert that people can walk through walls, without damaging them of course. You have to show me that this is 100% impossible or you must accept it is true. My standard to show the impossibility of such a claim is for to you have every person on the planet attempt to walk through every wall. If you can't do this, then you must accept the fact that people can walk through walls.

Name a scientist that reasons in such a manner? What experiment can be done for you to accept the idea that it is impossible for a steel-frame high-rise to be destroyed the way NIST claimed it was?

I assert that the World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosive charges. You have to show that it is 100% impossible for explosions to destroy buildings, otherwise you must accept it as true. Once again it is those who don't believe in it who should be trying to prove that it is impossible. Can you do that, UK Dave?



Did the destruction of the Kader Toy Factory mirror the destruction of WTC1,2 or 7? Was the concrete laterally ejected and pulverized before it hit the ground? Were the steel beams cut and laterally ejected as well? Did it come down in essentially free-fall time? Was it largely symmetrical? Was it destroyed via a pile-drive effect? Can I see the video tape of its destruction to see it matches the destruction of the World Trade Centers?

Your post reads like a parody. It's as though you wanted to show the mental workings of someone who is clueless about the nature of logic. You are attempting to turn the process of rational inquiry inside-out.

The 1,000 engineers and scientists who produced NIST's 10,000 pages of graphs, tables, illustrations, photos, diagrams, calculations, analyses, and commentaries did not merely make a claim. They conducted an investigation and reached conclusions. Nobody in the scientific community, here in America or in the rest of the world, has found serious errors in their work. You, an agenda-driven crank with no knowledge of science or engineering, want, for emotional and ideological reasons, to deny the validity of the NIST Report. The onus, then, falls on you to point out specific errors. Science is self-correcting. Where are the scientists who disagree with NIST's findings and what do they say?

You assert that explosives brought down the Twin Towers. But nobody who works in the demolition industry agrees with you. The question is frequently asked, without ever being answered, what do you, someone who knows nothing about demolition, understand about the collapses that all the professionals overlook? Tell us, please. Rationalists keep reminding you fantasists that there is zero evidence--absolutely none!-- for the use of explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. What evidence do you think you have?

For the last time, it is not those who take a position supported by ALL the evidence who need to make their case. Their case has already been made. You, whose position flies in the face of logic and evidence, must make your case.

 

[RedIbis]

Absolutely not. One book full of lies and errors is plenty.

He also spends a lot of time on "testimony of firefighters" in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, where presumably he selected those that best supported his position. I analyze them in depth. His conclusions based on those accounts is completely unsupportable.

And, again, we're Off Topic. Just a gentle reminder, I'm guilty myself.

Fair enough. I only asked because it wouldn't be uncommon for a critic of an author to have and study the books. If so, it would be very easy to reference several accounts, rather than me give you the names and have to search through transcripts.

 

[Nick Terry]

It seems as though that the people who believe in the official 9/11 story always seem to come up with a new epistemology(theory of knowledge) to dismiss their critics with and not answer questions.

Nope, it's the same theory of knowledge that the real world works on; it's just that Truthers wouldn't know their epistemology from their elbow.

I suggest you start by looking up key terms such as 'inference to the best explanation'. The key point here is there must be an explanation, and it must be coherent and explain more of the evidence than another explanation, otherwise you don't get to play.

 

[RedIbis]

Well, have you read David Irving’s latest effort? How about the rubbish being peddled by the creationism movement?

No, and since I'm not familiar with his work, I have no comment on it. A stab in the dark guess is that he's the British Holocaust denier. I've never read anything by him, but I have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I particularly like the latter half.

 

[R.Mackey]

Fair enough. I only asked because it wouldn't be uncommon for a critic of an author to have and study the books. If so, it would be very easy to reference several accounts, rather than me give you the names and have to search through transcripts.

I found numerous instances of Dr. Griffin taking quotes well out of context. Rather than refer to his books or the references therein, I think we need to go directly to the original sources.

 

[Pardalis]

I assert that the World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosive charges. You have to show that it is 100% impossible for explosions to destroy buildings, otherwise you must accept it as true. Once again it is those who don't believe in it who should be trying to prove that it is impossible.

No.