Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[PhantomWolf]

MY biggest issue with LIHOP is that it creats a contridiction, or opens the "How many people knew" box. It's easy to say "Just a few people knew and kept it quiet" but in reality that can't be true. How would have Cheeny or Bush learned of the plan? They don't do investigations themselves, they get told what agencies have found. That means that either the FBI or CIA had to have already discovered the plot and told the Cabinet, then the Cabinet would have had to have said, "Well let's just do nothing and let it happen." The issue here becomes, what about the agents down the bottom. We have heard about all the newar misses that occured, or reports that should have been connected and weren't, so if there was a case of the plot having been discovered and then ignored, why hasn't that come out? Why hasn't an agent stood up and said, "We knew, we figured it out and were told to drop it."? If it really was LIHOP then where are the people down the bottom that were the first to discover the plot and tell the higher ups who quashed it?

 

[Confuseling]

Depends on your LIHOP scenario. It's possible that a central group in the administration slightly lowered general defences against terrorism - eg cut funding or diverted attention, in the hope that an attack would occur. This to my mind still counts as LIHOP, it's just a more nebulous 'it'.

But I find it highly implausible that they could have reacted in the opposite way than expected to a specific threat without someone noticing, unless, again, you allow the conspiracy to snowball into the thousands.

ETA: I suppose it's also possible that high level operatives could have collaborated between agencies to ignore evidence.

This is devils advocate speculation here, I assure you I don't think this. But if Mossad, for example, had a good idea that something was up, and told the CIA, but the information only entered the CIA at a high level, it could perhaps be squashed without anyone noticing - nobody apart from the highly trusted need even know that the CIA had been made aware.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

Well... I think this answers the age-old question, "Is it possible for God to create fail so epic that even He can not comprehend it?"

 

[metamars]

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?

This pdf file is only regarding what Griffin has written about NIST. Do you think NIST = 911?

Part of "the point" is to give substance to people who say, or imply, that Griffin (and other 911 Truth authors) get everything wrong. Just how credible do you think such statements appear to a non-debunking audience? Also, do you think that maybe, just maybe, people might give a pass to a theologian venturing so far out of his realm of expertise?

If one's intention is to preach to the choir, no additional effort is necessary, whatsoever. One can just say "Obviously, another conspiracy loon. We've already discussed this, and shown it's without merit." when somebody new visits this forum and posts one claim or another. Indeed, post like that seem to appear daily, although it seems more typical for a member of the choir to post, quoting a 911 Truth activist.


In terms of a public service, however, the intended audience would be anybody but the choir + visitors to the JREF forum. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I had assumed otherwise, though.

Your pdf is substantive, so it might well comprise a few chapters in a more inclusive debunking book.

If you want your paper to reach wider circulation, why don't you submit it to the stj911 journal? I would think you'd want to do this for kicks, at the very least. While I consider the idea that WTC7 collapsed without a demo to be laughable, I don't view conclusions re WTC 1&2 collapses as slam dunks, either way. (Even so, I will take a look at the WTC 7 report, should it actually ever be produced. Hey, you never know!) Although Gurich will be submitting articles or letters critical of CD arguments to the Journal, as far as I am concerned, you are certainly also invited to the party.

"Science thrives on controversy." - Lee Smolin

 

[R.Mackey]

This pdf file is only regarding what Griffin has written about NIST. Do you think NIST = 911?

Part of "the point" is to give substance to people who say, or imply, that Griffin (and other 911 Truth authors) get everything wrong. Just how credible do you think such statements appear to a non-debunking audience? Also, do you think that maybe, just maybe, people might give a pass to a theologian venturing so far out of his realm of expertise?

So... you're suggesting that my work is irrelevant because I haven't tackled everything that Dr. Griffin says??

Are you serious?

I spent over 200 pages and I demonstrated, page by page, claim by claim, that every single thing he says about NIST and WTC 1, 2, and 7 is wrong.

I'm not about to write another 1,000 pages dealing with the rest of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, or a further 4,000 pages with his other books. The man is unreliable. Period.

ETA: The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" published an article by Kevin Ryan attempting to refute my whitepaper, so needless to say, I doubt it would be welcomed there. Mr. Ryan was also completely wrong in his rebuttal, as you see in v.2.0 of the whitepaper.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Part of "the point" is to give substance to people who say, or imply, that Griffin (and other 911 Truth authors) get everything wrong.

The issue is that they do get almost everything wrong. I have even seen a truther get the date wrong! The few things they get right usually has no actual outcome on the effort. I am constantly amazed that 9/11 CTs and their authors are wrong about so many things. By the law of odds you'd explect them to get something right on occassion but instead they seem to manage to get the wrong end of the stick and work with that consistantly.

Also, do you think that maybe, just maybe, people might give a pass to a theologian venturing so far out of his realm of expertise?

Why? If he's going to write a book that is outside his area of expertise then he should be more sure to get his facts right. If you write a book around what doesn't make sense to you and you have no knowledge of the topic and so no way to know what makes real sense and what doesn't to the experts, how can you expect anyone take it seriously?

 

[Confuseling]

...
In terms of a public service, however, the intended audience would be anybody but the choir + visitors to the JREF forum. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I had assumed otherwise, though.
...

You seem to think it behooves these people to shape up and get serious.

They're just interested passers by - many of them not laypeople, certainly, but they have no professional incentive to organise or put many hours in to this cause. For most, like me, I suspect its just a frivolous interest. Interesting to see the debates, because they involve a lot of different specialities, and interesting to see the psychologies of the antagonists. Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house.

Estimates vary as to how credible the threat is, but they tend to cluster around 'not very'.

If a truther paper were published in a journal (not that one ), or if a government, anywhere, started to lend credence to these ideas, I don't doubt that a lot of people here would jump up and get animated.

I tend to think of this as like an exhibition sports event. The professionals are playing with the amateurs, for laughs or for charity. And very, very occasionally, one of them will have to unbutton his shirt to put someone back in their seat, but mostly they can play one handed.

That's not meant to be condescending to truthers, that's honestly how I see it, and I include myself ranked amongst the amateurs.

ETA:

Also, do you think that maybe, just maybe, people might give a pass to a theologian venturing so far out of his realm of expertise?

Hell, why not, when they do so well when they tackle evolutionary biology.

 

[metamars]

I don't really want to continue this discussion here because it's a derail of the purpose of this thread,

OK

including at least one wiki site just as you suggested.

Can somebody please direct me to this wiki?

thread in this forum which updates my progress and lays out the evidence for all to see.

I read some of the first page. Looks interesting.

 

[gumboot]

The only way I can see a LIHOP being plausible is if it was very long term. That is, I can consider it viable that (for example) conspirators intentionally brought in a policy of degrading the USA's protective assets and weakening the elements that would protect against a 9/11-type attack; for example the repeated downgrading of the NORAD air defense mission and closure of alert sites, etc.

That's a LIHOP that I believe could go undetected.

The problem with this, of course, is that you're talking a conspiracy at least a decade in the making. So in the late 80's or early 90's these conspirators decided that in ten years time they'd initiate a horrific terrorist attack that would enable them to carry out a never-ending "War on Terrorism" and seize control. Okay, that works. Except now you're stuck back with the old "NWO" conspiracy, because you're talking about a conspiracy that managed to control US policy across three administrations - two Republican and one Democrat. That's a bit harder to swallow.

Then you also run into another problem - that is one of motive. The "War on Terrorism" hasn't actually devolved into the police state that some think. Despite some controversial laws and policies, the reality is very little has changed. So where's this seizure of control we should be expecting?

Some would argue the goal was to invade the Middle East and seize their oil - this is what I call the "Iraq Motive". But this motive is utterly undermined by this long-term covert LIHOP conspiracy. Why? Because in 1990 the conspirators had the best justification for invading the Middle East that they could ever hope for; Saddam invaded a sovereign state. The US led a UN-authorised coalition to drive them out. That was their chance. That was their moment to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and establish a puppet state. No one in the western world would have batted an eyelid.

So why didn't they?

As you can see, the LIHOP scenario runs into major hurdles just as the MIHOP scenario does.

 

[metamars]

So... you're suggesting that my work is irrelevant because I haven't tackled everything that Dr. Griffin says??

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I spent over 200 pages and I demonstrated, page by page, claim by claim, that every single thing he says about NIST and WTC 1, 2, and 7 is wrong.

I'm not about to write another 1,000 pages dealing with the rest of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, or a further 4,000 pages with his other books. The man is unreliable. Period.

You're taking my remarks too personally. I am thinking more in terms of a community effort. I have criticized the 911 Truth activist community, also, for example for failing to verify Daniel Hopsicker's research (probably the only person researching 911 like a detective dealing with a crime), which some people took too personally.

ETA: The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" published an article by Kevin Ryan attempting to refute my whitepaper, so needless to say, I doubt it would be welcomed there. Mr. Ryan was also completely wrong in his rebuttal, as you see in v.2.0 of the whitepaper.

All the more reason to submit it, in my view. Who cares if it's welcome?

 

[R.Mackey]

You're taking my remarks too personally. I am thinking more in terms of a community effort. I have criticized the 911 Truth activist community, also, for example for failing to verify Daniel Hopsicker's research (probably the only person researching 911 like a detective dealing with a crime), which some people took too personally.

OK, I think I see what you're saying.

However, there's two obstacles. One is the effort required. Taking on literally hundreds of pages of outright nonsense is daunting, to put it mildly.

The other is that it isn't clear to me anyone outside the Truth Movement takes him seriously to begin with. And those people aren't likely to be swayed. It's possible the effort would be overkill.

I only wrote my own whitepaper because I was asked to by a friend. I eventually put much more effort into it than I needed to, as a way to gain some closure with the Truth Movement, by demonstrating a higher level of rigor and thoroughness than they had ever produced.

The Truth Movement response to it has been extremely feeble. Only three responses I'm aware of (Kevin Ryan, Charles Thurston, and Jim Hoffman, presuming he ever finishes), and not a single valid criticism in the bunch.

Postive response was much higher, about 95% of e-mail feedback. But still a pretty small showing, under 200 individuals. I'm not particularly surprised by this, but it demonstrates that few people even pay attention to the Truth Movement, fewer still are on their side, and almost none have the chops for a detailed and factual argument.

This is what led me to this very thread. Suppose you're someone who's been influenced by Dr. Griffin. Maybe that defines your own "critical question." Let's talk about it. Rather than asking me (or a larger community) to refute his entire speaking history, just ask us what matters to you. That's acceptable. Tackling it all exhaustively is just a waste of effort.

 

[Confuseling]

The only way I can see a LIHOP being plausible is if it was very long term. That is, I can consider it viable that (for example) conspirators intentionally brought in a policy of degrading the USA's protective assets and weakening the elements that would protect against a 9/11-type attack; for example the repeated downgrading of the NORAD air defense mission and closure of alert sites, etc.

That's a LIHOP that I believe could go undetected.

The problem with this, of course, is that you're talking a conspiracy at least a decade in the making. So in the late 80's or early 90's these conspirators decided that in ten years time they'd initiate a horrific terrorist attack that would enable them to carry out a never-ending "War on Terrorism" and seize control. Okay, that works. Except now you're stuck back with the old "NWO" conspiracy, because you're talking about a conspiracy that managed to control US policy across three administrations - two Republican and one Democrat. That's a bit harder to swallow.

Then you also run into another problem - that is one of motive. The "War on Terrorism" hasn't actually devolved into the police state that some think. Despite some controversial laws and policies, the reality is very little has changed. So where's this seizure of control we should be expecting?

Some would argue the goal was to invade the Middle East and seize their oil - this is what I call the "Iraq Motive". But this motive is utterly undermined by this long-term covert LIHOP conspiracy. Why? Because in 1990 the conspirators had the best justification for invading the Middle East that they could ever hope for; Saddam invaded a sovereign state. The US led a UN-authorised coalition to drive them out. That was their chance. That was their moment to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and establish a puppet state. No one in the western world would have batted an eyelid.

So why didn't they?

As you can see, the LIHOP scenario runs into major hurdles just as the MIHOP scenario does.

I don't think those problems are fatal. For one thing, it's quite possible that a small group of Republican strategists sought to dismantle terror defences for odious reasons, and the Democrats found it politically impossible or incompatible with their own strategic objectives to reverse those decisions when they had the chance*. It's also possible that high level groups within both parties agreed that a terrorist attack would be a good thing, one of those realpolitik things that they could never disclose, only really known to the trusted. Didn't Brzezinski openly discuss the fact that the political classes in America intended to subvert democracy around the world just as they had during the cold war, and when asked how he could get away with saying that publicly, just baldly state that the American public doesn't read?

As to motive, it's possible that they realised it would be a quagmire, and thought that the American public didn't have the stomach for that when it was 'somebody elses problem' after the first gulf war. It's possible that the UN were too strong and heavily involved at that point, and would have prevented any US designs on building a protectorate. It's also possible that later events, such as the weakening of the House of Saud, have changed the balance of US interests.

But a cross party decades long conspiracy hoping gently to create a reason to invade the Middle East? Why the hell not?

To be honest I would be more surprised if conversations like that didn't take place. The more interesting question to me is how much influence such a cabal could really hold - it's hardly a New World Order, and as you stated in one of your posts above, the whole point of the institutional complexity of a democracy is to prevent too much power slipping into nefarious clutches.

* Or the other way round! I'm an equal opportunities speculative accuser of crypto-fascism!

 

[uk_dave]

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?

Yet again you miss the point.

I will state here and now that it is entirely possible for two structures such as the wtc towers to be destroyed by detonation of preplanted explosives.
Happy?

Now please confirm for me that you also think it entirely possible that structures such as the wtc towers could suffer structural failure and a gravity driven progressive collapse from the effects of the plane impacts and subsequent fires. Will you do that? Will you or any other 'truther' have the courage to concede that yes, actually it is possible.

I don't think you will because you know the implications of such a statement. If it could happen and the evidence of the day suggests that it did happen, then all your nonsense about controlled demolition matters not a jot.

But the 'truth' isn't about the truth, is it? It's about having a fixed position on a subject that must never ever be conceded. Just like a religion.

 

[1337m4n]

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?

We don't have any details on the collapse of the Kader Toy Factory, but if you like I can give you some names to call or send emails to who might know about what happen.

(also Gumboot is right; none of that happened at WTC either)

 

[Tippit]

The other way to look at it, of course, is that a NASA scientist attempting to aid popular understanding of science, in his spare time, and maintaining restraint and civility despite provocation, is actually being remarkably down to earth, in the face of a pontificating ideologue bent on externalising his fears about his own sorry predicament.

Most of my questions pertaining to 9/11 aren't scientific, so I'm not interested in soliciting scientists, NASA or otherwise. I've followed the threads and I've read his posts and exchanges with Apollo 20, and others. Despite being a NASA scientist I don't think there is any way he could have enough (credible) information to make any meaningful conclusion about what happened on 9/11, other than the obvious. He wasn't part of the investigation, he wasn't on the scene, he didn't design the buildings, he didn't construct the buildings, he didn't supply the people who constructed the buildings.

He's resorting to some equations to draw conclusions about an incredibly complex event. I'm not convinced.

The nuance you haven't grasped here - despite Mackey having explicitly said it - is that he isn't claiming to have all the answers. He's trying to drag you, screaming and kicking, through a process.

The process is tainted by his being certain of the outcome. He already knows that all the conclusions he's going to draw will support what he believes happened. I could be accused of the same. However, unlike him, I'm willing to admit I don't know with certainty what happened, and I remain suspicious.

Once you formulate falsifiable views about a situation, more or less however trivial it may be, the process infects the rest of your thinking. Your world view is a vast mosaic of interrelated assessments; akin to a hologram, each part contains the germ of the whole. No thought exists in isolation from your ideology, and if you examine one in complete dispassionate honesty, the rest will probably follow.

The important distinction here is the one between an assertion that is logically falsifiable, and one that is practically falsifiable. I don't believe there is much that can be said about 9/11 that falls in the latter category. We can't practically run experiments to recreate what happened on 9/11, it occurred in a sea of unknowns, and all we have are a few assumptions fueled by what seems to be obvious - that it was a terrorist attack by 19 hijackers.

My world view was dramatically altered when, as a natural skeptic, I questioned the money system that exists in the world. I learned that the supposed causes of inflation are an open lie, and that this has surreptitiously undermined the political system to the point where it is an unfunny joke. Based on this alternative interpretation of history, politics, and economics, I find the attributed motives of the hijackers to be laughable. This is the basic reason for my skepticism towards the official account, and the myriad contradictions (apparently of which there are none that any self-respecting JREFer will admit to) about what happened that day.

You have your own ideology that drives your own assumptions about 9/11, namely that irrational religious zealotry is a predominate political force in the world, as opposed to the more methodical, Machiavellian power-grabs using this as a premise.

If you can't think of a question, then you aren't playing the game. You play the game, and you will understand, eventually, that you don't disbelieve the 'official' narrative about 911 because of its own inadequacies, or the earth-shattering fruits of so many hours of precocious internet sleuthing, but because you don't want to believe it.

It's not that you don't understand the physical science of it - you arbitrarily cram 'anomalies' into any cracks that will bear the strain. The truth is you willfully misunderstand the politics of it, because you don't understand your own psychology.

[Sorry, rant over, I realise you intend this thread not to degenerate into mudslinging, but that just annoyed me]

I can think of plenty of questions I'd like answered, just none by an egotistical scientist on a computer forum. The process isn't motivated by an attempt to understand what really happened - wherever that may lead, but to convince himself yet again that he is right, and we are wrong.

 

[Tippit]

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.

One could hardly blame Griffin for appearing on your show, since you're operating under the premise that he's a liar. None of the aforementioned people speak for me, but that doesn't stop you from using your polarizing rhetoric on anyone who dares question the official 9/11 gospel, does it?

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.

So, I was born in the United States, raised in the United States, I live happily in the United States, and yet you claim "my" movement has an agenda to weaken America. I submit that it's the neo-cons in Washington who are chasing phantoms of bogeyman Osama Bin laden all over Iraq under false pretenses while simultaneously leaving our borders wide open. It is they who are weakening America. Could you explain exactly what I, a lifelong US citizen, have to gain from having my country dismantled?

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.

Just because he's a scientist doesn't make him authoritative on what happened on 9/11. Criminals make successful attempts at fooling forensic scientists all the time. I realize this sort of groupie behavior for anyone claiming any scientific credentials is par for the course at JREF, but this doesn't bestow on you the ability to qualify a man like him, even for what little he is truly authoritative on. You judge him favorably because - big surprise here - you've both arrived at the same conclusions.

 

[gumboot]

He's resorting to some equations to draw conclusions about an incredibly complex event. I'm not convinced.

That's a stundie indeed!

 

[Tippit]

MY biggest issue with LIHOP is that it creats a contridiction, or opens the "How many people knew" box. It's easy to say "Just a few people knew and kept it quiet" but in reality that can't be true. How would have Cheeny or Bush learned of the plan? They don't do investigations themselves, they get told what agencies have found. That means that either the FBI or CIA had to have already discovered the plot and told the Cabinet, then the Cabinet would have had to have said, "Well let's just do nothing and let it happen." The issue here becomes, what about the agents down the bottom. We have heard about all the newar misses that occured, or reports that should have been connected and weren't, so if there was a case of the plot having been discovered and then ignored, why hasn't that come out? Why hasn't an agent stood up and said, "We knew, we figured it out and were told to drop it."? If it really was LIHOP then where are the people down the bottom that were the first to discover the plot and tell the higher ups who quashed it?

Have you talked to Sibel Edmonds, or Robert Wright?

Why did the US government assert State Secrets and put a gag order on Sibel Edmonds? What could they possibly be trying to hide?

 

[uk_dave]

Have you talked to Sibel Edmonds, or Robert Wright?

Why did the US government assert State Secrets and put a gag order on Sibel Edmonds? What could they possibly be trying to hide?

ermmmmm...state secrets perhaps?

 

[DC]

ermmmmm...state secrets perhaps?

would a Conspiracy inside your government be dealed as a state secrect? and would it also be in the interest of National security that it would stay a state secret?