Bring Out Our Dead! Pitch in to create a 9/11 CT Best Thread Index!

[twinstead]

If you need irrelevant humor and exasperated displays of indignation I'm in as well. Otherwise, I'll just sit it out as usual.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'll do one.

Now let me give you some reasons why this isn't a particularly good idea.

(1) The forum has a search function.

(2) Even the finest thread ever is going to have a large signal-to-noise ratio.

(3) And be repetitive. But you don't know when you're not going to get any more information out of it and you can stop reading.

(4) A thread is not a good way to arrange information, you can only navigate it in a very limited linear way.

(5) There's no way to fix broken links.

(6) It's always going to be quicker to look at a well-organized resource.

As an exercise, I saw how much good evidence I could gather from the "Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?" thread, which Gravy has marked with a "Yes".

It took some time, as you can imagine.

Here it is:

170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52*57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

<snip>

Here is a clip, in real time, from the NTSB animation that shows the last 4 minutes of the flight that is essentially the 270 degree turn.

<snip>

from CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/17/se.18.html

O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.

http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841


Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly

The manager of a US flight school told of the terrible moment she realised she had helped to train Hani Hanjour, the September 11 hijacker who flew a jet into the Pentagon.

"I knew in my heart that Hani was part of it," Peggy Chevrette said yesterday at the death penalty trial in Alexandria, Virginia, of al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

She told of her dread as the attacks unfolded.

"On 9/11 my husband told me that a plane had gone into one of the Twin Towers, then before I left for work, the second plane went in.

"On my way to work, the third plane had gone into the Pentagon.

"I remember crying ... knowing that our company helped to do this."

"People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!"
Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
Source: http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
(continues to "Report-244)

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour License AP.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

You're confusing the fact that Hanjour had a pilot's license with some opinions that he shouldn't have been issued one. Surely you don't deny that Hanjour was licensed to operate multi-engine aircraft prior to SEP 11, 2001. The evidence shows the name of the person who certified him and the name of the person at the FAA who confirmed that his license was valid.

http://www.flight77.info/docs/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

That's the first page of the passenger manifest indicating that Hanjour was on AA77 that day. I figure you will accept that he was on that flight as well.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-09/10/article02.shtml

The militants were filmed in the Afghan city of Kandahar “a few months” before heading to the United States to carry out the attacks that left about 3,000 dead, the station claimed.

Meanwhile, over still photos of the hijackers, Bin Laden’s voice was allegedly heard naming some of the attackers in the September 11 strikes, including Egyptian Mohammad Atta who he said “led the group which destroyed the first tower” of the World Trade Center.

Describing the attacks as “the New York and Washington raids,” Bin Laden praised “the men who changed the course of history and cleansed the (Arab-Islamic) nation from the filth of treacherous rulers and their subordinates.”

Apart from Atta, Bin Laden named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

What happened to the rest of the thread, you wonder? Well, there was a lot of repetition; there were things referred to but not linked or referrenced, such as the Dutch documentary with the flight simulator, which was mentioned a couple of times; there were "bare links" to websites without quoting the bits which were relevant to Hanjour's expertise; there was information giving a debunker website as a source, rather than the original source (which is reasonably useful if the debunker sites give references, it just adds work to the process); there were statements made by forum members who are pilots, but who, sadly, are anonymous; there were many attempts to cater to the idiosyncracies of the loon being argued with, such as the issue of whether a man who could hit a building could hit the Pentagon; there were statements left unproven because, again, this particular kook seemed disinclined to challenge them, for example all the satements about the width of the turn, or the statement that kamikaze pilots in WWII had little training; and there was reams and reams of repetitive waffle from the Truther such as makes one want to wrench one's brain from its socket.

I agree that the massed knowledge of the JREF debunkers should not be wasted. I'm just not sure that compiling a list of good threads is going to do much.

 

[Gravy]

I'll do one.

Thanks!

Now let me give you some reasons why this isn't a particularly good idea.

(1) The forum has a search function.

Which is useless for referring people to the best discussions we've had about particular 9/11 topics. Most importantly, the index will be arranged by topic and subtopic.

(2) Even the finest thread ever is going to have a large signal-to-noise ratio.

That's good: it's the large noise-to-signal ratios I'm concerned about. Seriously, I'm not worried about that. The important thing to me is to be able to say, "Wanna see what we've got? Here it is, in it's best feasible presentation."

(3) And be repetitive. But you don't know when you're not going to get any more information out of it and you can stop reading.

(4) A thread is not a good way to arrange information, you can only navigate it in a very limited linear way.

All true. It is what is. But having the threads arranged chronologically within each topic will allow people to start with the most recent information if they wish. As is, there's no way to tell when discussions about a topic began or ended, or even what the topics are.

(5) There's no way to fix broken links.

True, but often links can be resurrected through the Wayback Machine or Google archive.

(6) It's always going to be quicker to look at a well-organized resource.

Of course. And compared to what exists now, which is every thread lumped together, organized only by date, this will be very well-organized, and searchable and sortable by keywords, thread starters, topics, and dates.

I agree that the massed knowledge of the JREF debunkers should not be wasted. I'm just not sure that compiling a list of good threads is going to do much.

There are many ways the information here could be organized. But I don't know of another one that wouldn't take an absurd number of hours to accomplish.

I'm hoping this will get a percentage of interested parties reading first and asking (hopefully not redundant questions) later. I'm hoping it will give people who invest a lot of time here the confidence that they can walk away and not leave the oft-repeated phrase "That's been thoroughly discussed here" ringing in a newcomer's ears as empty and unhelpful words.

If someone has a better idea that's feasible, I'm all ears.

 

[ref]

Thanks, T.A.M. I'll send the PM out to everyone on Monday. Good category idea. I'll have to ask gumboot about his DRG work. I don't know how what he posted compares to what's on ref's site.

My site has all the images as a bonus, since gumboot didn't want to post images in his thread (plus I have done some font editing). But the text on my site is identical to gumboot's forum posts.

 

[Gravy]

My site has all the images as a bonus, since gumboot didn't want to post images in his thread (plus I have done some font editing). But the text on my site is identical to gumboot's forum posts.

Thanks ref.

In answer to the question about work like gumboot's DRG analysis (which covers many topics), list it under "Notable work by debunkers" and I'll decide if there are enough threads like that to justify a new category. I can't think of others offhand.

 

[DC]

I tell YouTubers to search for Mackey's threads/posts, and tell them to stay away from typical Truther trollers (ultima, dictator cheney).

for alot truthers, i am not a real truther anyway. i dont belive in free falling buildings.....

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't know what the complete final goal and/or layout for what we are doing here is, but I was hoping it would result in a a sticky thread at the top of the subforum, and within that thread, a listing, by topic (the 24 Gravy has provided plus possibly others), with all of the top threads for each topic listed under each heading, in chronological order.

That way, when a newbie comes, we can direct them to the entire history on the topic, from the JREF perspective. Dramatically filters out the noise of all the useless or trivial threads in the thousands we have in the archive.

TAM

 

[DGM]

I got my assignment OK.

I figured I'd ask in this thread to save Gravy a bunch of PM's asking the same question.

What's the time frame (deadline)? I looked through my page and probably can get it done buy the weekend. Is that OK?

 

[RedIbis]

The index is an excellent idea and the only suggestion I would make is a section for notable work by alternative theorists.

Without getting into why I think truther or conspiracy theorist is a loaded, prejudicial term, I think we can agree that there is notable work (whether you agree or not) questioning official theories. Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline comes to mind, as does the analyses of Frank Greening and Dr. Quintiere.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks!

Which is useless for referring people to the best discussions we've had about particular 9/11 topics.

Having done a page, I see what you mean. if 20/250 threads have substance, some sort of winnowing is in order.

Most importantly, the index will be arranged by topic and subtopic

You're probably more right about that then I realized. Now I think about it, when I search these forums I know what I'm searching for, I know the keywords, I have strong powers of google-fu.

That's good: it's the large noise-to-signal ratios I'm concerned about. Seriously, I'm not worried about that. The important thing to me is to be able to say, "Wanna see what we've got? Here it is, in it's best feasible presentation."

Okay, this is where we start parting company.

Because this is not the "best feasible presentation" of what we've got.

Now I agree with what you're trying to do, which is why I'm helping to do it. And yet these threads are not satisfactory as a reserve of debunkers' collective knowledge.

All true. It is what is. But having the threads arranged chronologically within each topic will allow people to start with the most recent information if they wish. As is, there's no way to tell when discussions about a topic began or ended, or even what the topics are.

Ah, that reminds me of something I meant to say. You ask that the threads should contain new information. The trouble is, you've split us volunteers up amongst time periods rather than subjects. By this method, none of is is going to find, or know that he/she has found, one of the really really good threads on, for example, Larry Silverstein saying "pull".

Hopefully you will resolve this in your role as an editor; if so, it would be best if you encouraged us to be generous in what we allow. Otherwise some major issues could suffer on your list as a consequence of being frequently discussed on the forums.

True, but often links can be resurrected through the Wayback Machine or Google archive.

True, but this is not a basis on which to provide people with information.

Of course. And compared to what exists now, which is every thread lumped together, organized only by date, this will be very well-organized, and searchable and sortable by keywords, thread starters, topics, and dates.

Again, let me say that having done a page I agree.

There are many ways the information here could be organized. But I don't know of another one that wouldn't take an absurd number of hours to accomplish.

But this very thread demonstrates a method of organizing information which would "take an absurd number of hours": you split the task between volunteers.

 

[Gravy]

Answers to some participant questions

OK, just so I'm totally clear on the concept: I assume I go to [the page of the archive assigned to me] and open the first thread on that page.

Yes, but see below.

After reviewing the thread,

Mostly you'll only need to look at the titles. Only open threads that you think may be interesting.

if I think it's save-worthy I open your spreadsheet, scroll down to [that thread's line number in the archive] and do the asterisk thing, otherwise I follow the other steps you describe.

No. Begin entering data on the first blank line of the spreadsheet (line 4). You only need to use the asterisk for threads you think are really superior: that's to denote the "best of the best," in your opinion.

After I've similarly dealt with each thread on the page I email the spreadsheet to you as an attachment. Is that about it?

That's it, but again, DON'T read each thread. You'll be able to exclude most by their titles.

One person has finished his page and only included 9 "savers," one listed with two categories. He asked for another page: w00t!. I told him that if he feels he's being too strict in his selections to loosen up this time, since he's not close to the number I thought people might be selecting. But all of this is judgment calls, and whatever you think is best works for me.

Thanks
Mark

I don't know what the complete final goal and/or layout for what we are doing here is, but I was hoping it would result in a a sticky thread at the top of the subforum, and within that thread, a listing, by topic (the 24 Gravy has provided plus possibly others), with all of the top threads for each topic listed under each heading, in chronological order.

That way, when a newbie comes, we can direct them to the entire history on the topic, from the JREF perspective. Dramatically filters out the noise of all the useless or trivial threads in the thousands we have in the archive.

TAM

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. Plus a link to the spreadsheet itself will be posted, which will allow people to search and sort the info in several ways. Thread links will be clickable on the spreadsheet.

I figured I'd ask in this thread to save Gravy a bunch of PM's asking the same question.

What's the time frame (deadline)? I looked through my page and probably can get it done buy the weekend. Is that OK?

I can't set a deadline because I don't know how much time people have on their hands. I was trying to be generous and thinking 3 weeks to a month to have the project finished. As I noted above, one person finished a page and asked for another, so if it goes faster I'm all for it.

 

[Gravy]

Okay, this is where we start parting company.

Because this is not the "best feasible presentation" of what we've got.

Now I agree with what you're trying to do, which is why I'm helping to do it. And yet these threads are not satisfactory as a reserve of debunkers' collective knowledge.

True, but it's better than nothing, and it's a good start if people want to take it further. Perhaps I should have said it's the best presentation that will happen with my participation.

Ah, that reminds me of something I meant to say. You ask that the threads should contain new information. The trouble is, you've split us volunteers up amongst time periods rather than subjects. By this method, none of is is going to find, or know that he/she has found, one of the really really good threads on, for example, Larry Silverstein saying "pull".

Hopefully you will resolve this in your role as an editor; if so, it would be best if you encouraged us to be generous in what we allow. Otherwise some major issues could suffer on your list as a consequence of being frequently discussed on the forums.

People who've spent a lot of time here (which is most of the volunteers so far) will have a decent handle on that. And as I noted above, the first replies to an OP will often indicate if the issue has been discussed at length, sometimes with links to those discussions. Some redundant threads will be included (which I can cull), and some new information will be missed, no doubt.

I couldn't think of a way to assign categories to people, since some categories will contain vastly more threads, and work, than others. Assigning categories within a page range would work, if we had many more volunteers than the 16, including me, that we've got.

But this very thread demonstrates a method of organizing information which would "take an absurd number of hours": you split the task between volunteers.

First we'll see if this project even gets finished. Then, if people want to take it to another level by fully reading threads and pulling out and organizing the best posts in a coherent way, this will be a good foundation for that work. That's a much larger project.

 

[RedIbis]

So this is a repository for debunking? Not necessarily a comprehensive index of subjects and prevailing theories?

 

[Gravy]

A spreadsheet question from a participant

Anyone know what might be causing these problems?

I think that something may be screwing up with the way your spreadsheet is displaying on my PC. For instance, I don't see the "categories sheet" you mention in your instructions. This may have something to do with the odd way the spreadsheet itself appears on my screen: the columns are all displayed on the right side of the screen, with the left side an empty gray box. I tried to drag the sheet to the left so I could see the whole thing at once, but it doesn't let me. As you can probably already tell by now, I've used Excel but not real extensively. Any suggestions as to how I can at least see the categories sheet?

Hmm. Something's very wonky there. The spreadsheet layout should look like this (it's reduced in size here):

Note the categories tab at the bottom. I'm not sure what's causing the big gray area you've got. You can try highlighting the column headers (A, B, C...J) and (in Excel) going to the Format menu and choosing Column/Autofit Selection.

If you can format a new spreadsheet from scratch with my column titles, you may want to do that.

Here's the category list:

01 WTC 1&2 Damage, fire, and collapse issues, NIST & FEMA reports, construction & structural info
02 WTC Towers CD by explosives claims: "squibs," explosives info, audio, seismic, witnesses, Rodriguez
03 WTC other: thermite, spherules, molten/sulfidation, red chips, Star Wars, fakery, power down, lawsuits

04 WTC 7 All: Damage, fire, and collapse issues, NIST & FEMA reports, Silverstein, "pull it"

05 WTC first responders, testimonies, FDNY, NYPD, PAPD, civilian responders, Bartmer, McPadden, Schroeder
06 WTC cleanup issues, fires in piles, steel recycling & inspection, Fresh Kills, crime scenes
07 WTC environmental issues, worker & resident health
08 WTC – the other buildings: damage, fires, inspection, demolition, rebuilding

09 Fire safety engineering & the performance of structural steel in fires, steel building collapses

10 Pentagon/Flight 77/Responders & investigators/(Cheney & Mineta go in NORAD category)
11 Fight 77 FDR analysis, flight path mapping, Pilots for Truth claims

12 Flight 93/Shanksville/Witness accounts, Val McClatchey, Susan McElwain

13 9/11 Commission and reports
14 Terrorists, confessions, Al Qaeda & Jihadist history & ideaology, financing,
15 Threads about 9/11 law enforcement, intelligence agencies, military intelligence

16 NORAD, ATC, intercept procedures, war games, Cheney & Mineta
17 FAA, aircraft ID, aircraft capabilities, piloting issues, truther takeover scenarios, grounding

18 Phone calls from the planes
19 Threads debunking hoaxes by truthers: Lauro Chavez, Mike the EMT, audio and video hoaxes

20 Notable work by debunkers: websites, papers, videos, appearances

21 Other resources: Video, photo, book reviews, discussions of significant truther and debunker videos
22 Scientific method, research methods, peer review, critical thinking, logic, fallacies, witness reliability, etc.

23 Victim stories, aid, charities, memorials, tributes, "Where were you on 9/11?"
24 Other conspiracy theories raised by truthers: OKC, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag, 7/7, JFK

25 Miscellaneous: good but not sure where it goes

 

[Gravy]

Another good question

regarding the index...

I have found a few, very long threads. For instance, one... that lasted 59 pages. Now it has been hellish going through it, but there are a lot of good posts from a point, counter point pov. The thread relates to WTC7 (at least the first 8 pages does).

What to do about such a thread...no great compilations of debunking data...no single phenomenal post, but overall I think the thread has merit, if for nothing more, then to see how the topic is covered...

Just wondering how you saw such threads going...it is what you wanted for the index, or should it be left for the archive alone??

These are the toughest questions (and bless your heart for wading through all that). How about listing, in the column to the right of the links column, the pages or page ranges that you think people should focus on? If you don't think that will make it much easier for people to follow, then the thread probably isn't worth including.

 

[Gravy]

A question about categories/lack thereof

...there seems to be a lack of Pentagon/77 categories - physical damage (light poles, impact hole, plane debris, etc) and witness flight path issues (CIT claims, not PFT). I'd hate to suggest throwing off the numbering, but maybe they could be smooshed into the two existing?

I plan to create subcategories once I've got all the threads together (Pentagon/flight 77 will have several categories) so feel free to lump everything that you think is relevant together. I didn't want people spending their time fretting over what subcategory to put things in. If in doubt, be inclusive.

 

[Bobert]

If you need irrelevant humor and exasperated displays of indignation I'm in as well. Otherwise, I'll just sit it out as usual.

aaaaah you beat me to it!

 

[Norseman]

These are the toughest questions (and bless your heart for wading through all that). How about listing, in the column to the right of the links column, the pages or page ranges that you think people should focus on? If you don't think that will make it much easier for people to follow, then the thread probably isn't worth including.

I addition it could be a good idea to point out the name of the posters worth looking out for in a particular thread. Many threads contain a lot of noise from what we might call the peanut gallery, or the same argument repeated endlessly with some rare good posts in between. This will make it easier for a reader to skim through the relevant parts of the thread to find the good posts.

As you pointed out in the OP Gravy, certain threads I would think needs special treatment, like the now more than 5000 posts long thread that keeps popping up on the front page. It would be almost inhumane to ask a single person to go back through threads like that to extract the few gems that might be hidden there, that goes even for those of us who have participated in such threads. The best way would be, as you have suggested in the OP, to ask members familiar with threads like that to dig out relevant posts, or page numbers containing information they remember as relevant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The index is an excellent idea and the only suggestion I would make is a section for notable work by alternative theorists.

Well when they come up with a notable alternative theory it might get included.

I think we can agree that there is notable work (whether you agree or not) questioning official theories.

Not from JREF members, and not a lot from the entire "Inside Job" brigade

Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline comes to mind, as does the analyses of Frank Greening and Dr. Quintiere.

Only one of these three have been a JREF member and contributed to the forum. Two of them have issues with specific points of one report, rather then having an Alternative theory about what happened on the day. Both Greening and Quintiere believe that 19 AQ hijackers crashed four planes destroying the WTC 1,2 and 7, parts of the Pentagon, and an empty field, they have disagreements on some of the finer points of how the buildings collapsed and if the fire loading was heavier than NIST claimed or if more chemical reactions were involved in the degredation of the metals, they don't claim that the buildings were deliberately demolished. You're also missing that NIST is not the "Official" theory any more than FEMA's report was the "Offical Theory" , it's just best study we have right now, it may or may not be surpassed in the future by others who do detailed studies. If Drs Greening or Quintiere want to do and release a study showing their evidence and support then they might be the ones being referenced as the best avaliable.

So this is a repository for debunking? Not necessarily a comprehensive index of subjects and prevailing theories?

No, it's a repository of the best 9/11 threads and posts on this board.

 

[RedIbis]

Well when they come up with a notable alternative theory it might get included.



Not from JREF members, and not a lot from the entire "Inside Job" brigade



Only one of these three have been a JREF member and contributed to the forum. Two of them have issues with specific points of one report, rather then having an Alternative theory about what happened on the day. Both Greening and Quintiere believe that 19 AQ hijackers ceashed four planes destroying the WTC 1,2 and 7, parts of the Pentagon, and an empty field, the have disagreements on some of the finer points of how the buildings collapsed and if the fire loading was heavier than NIST claimed or if more chemical reactions were involved in the degredation of the metals, they don't claim that the buildings were deliberately demolished. You're also missing that NIST is not the "Official" theory any more than FEMA's report was the "Offical Theory" , it's just best study we have right now, it may or may not be surpassed in the future by others who do detailed studies. If Drs Greening or Quintiere want to do and release a study showing their evidence and support then they might be the ones being referenced as the best avaliable.



No, it's a repository of the best 9/11 threads and posts on this board.

All squabbles aside, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I'm honestly trying to get a fix on what defines a "best" thread.

Still, an index of subjects in the forum is an excellent idea, I just wonder if certain persuasive arguments will be dismissed because they don't agree with the prevailing POV.