So yes, people do get very short and dismissive of Jammonius and his claims. And part of it is indeed because of what you identified - he certainly does know how to put a unique spin on things - but a great deal of it is from some here having experienced the "GZ is flat" thread in real time. Many here, myself included, already tried to communicate sanely and fairly with him, but we never got reciprocation. We only got a parody of that. And that's why many of us have reached the conclusion that his clowning is simply that: Clowning, and not honest argument. It's more that he's been doing this for years now, and less the actual acts themselves.
... Frankly, I begin to see why. My patience for the polite argument is waning fast, particularly given that we are rapidly reaching a point where further polite discussion is pointless (we can go back and forth at each other saying "well I think this is reasonable" and "well I don't" for far longer than I care to).
In all honesty, what I posted was really just supposed to be a polite way to tell him I think his conclusions are, well, fairly stupid, without actually saying so.
Well, ok. However, the audio recorded voices as voices, emergency sirens as emergency sirens and everything else as and for what it was. That such technology would not be able to capture what should have been the single loudest source of sound, jet engines at 140dB at their source, is, to me, inexplicable absent an assertion that no such thing happened.
Without knowing what technology was used to make the recordings, I can't say with any degree of certainty why it would or would not have been able to pick up the noise from the jetliner. Simple distance is a major factor, though - sound, like any number of other things, decreases in intensity very quickly with distance.
I don't think your above explanation is all that clear or consistent. You seem to vacilate on the essentials. Would you mind clarifying the above?
In so doing, would you please consider the recent psych experiment where people were told to give increasingly powerful electronic jolts based on the authority of a person in a "lab coat." The labcoat was the symbol of authority that needed to be "obeyed." Nearly all gave a jolt on command even when they knew it would be deadly. Such is the power of conformity.
I think you understate that power.
Ah, you're quoting the Milgram experiments at me. That has more to do with obedience - obeying what is thought to be a legitimate authority. Which, come to think of it, might be a factor if the government had anything to do with this. Even so, "nearly all" is not true. It was about 60%, if I remember correctly (yeah,
Wikipedia says 65%, 26 out of 40.) Still a majority, but there would be a significant number of dissenters. I'll also point out that in one of the variations, in which there were two more participants who disagreed with the authority, the rate at which people agreed to go along with the authority drops to 10%. If we compare this to 9/11, with the government's official story as the authority and the public in general as the participants... well, truthers should comprise anywhere from the 40% that disagreed in the first to the 90% that disagreed in the second. This doesn't appear to be the case.
And as long as I'm discussing psychology, the Asch conformity experiments
WP are also relevant, perhaps more so given the circumstances. In short, people had to look at three lines, then say which was the longest. When people before them consistently gave the wrong answer, about 75% did so on at least some of the questions. Again, there were variations; there are two important effects that they illustrate. One I already mentioned - when the "lines" problem was replaced with a simulated police lineup, conformity dropped as the test subjects decided to value correctness instead. Also, even one dissenter in the group caused the test subjects' resistance to conformity to rise dramatically. Neither of these phenomena is visible in the real world, if we regard the main population's plane theory as the "incorrect" answer and the no plane theory as the "correct" answer. In short, if the plane theory was actually false, these experiments tell us to expect reasonably high resistance no matter what the "official" answer is. Maybe not a majority, but not the relatively insignificant minority which the truthers appear to be at the moment.
In the absence of knowing what happened, it is foolhardy to say who did it. I do not claim "the government" did 9/11. I do, however, claim that "19 Arabs with boxcutters" did not do it, UNLESS, "19 Arabs" is code for some corporate cabel that included operatives from companies like SAIC and ARA; and unless "boxcutters" is a an acrynym for directed energy weaponry (DEW) just like "daisy cutters" is one for a very large bomb. Do you get my drift here?
Ah, this seems like a contradiction to me. You start by saying it's foolhardy to say who did it and then advance a theory as to agencies responsible... which seems to me like you're trying to say who did it.
No, the issue has nothing whatever to do with claiming someone is a liar. This is simply a matter of what is or is not "evidence." You need to look up and familiarize yourself with the legal definition of the word "hearsay". Newspapers are not evidence because they are hearsay. However, business records, of which the 503 Task Force Statements and the PAPD statements are examples of, count as evidence.
Also, audio visual info may or may not be evidence, depending on whether they can be shown to be authentic.
So, that is all I'm saying. One has to consider the source so as to determine whether the statements are valid or not from the perspective of "evidence" understood by its legal definition.
I won't claim to know the full definition of the hearsay rules, but I assure you, having participated in mock trial and having a brother who still does so, I have at least a passing familiarity with hearsay and several other rules of evidence. You are right in that those newspaper accounts wouldn't be accepted in court due to the possibility that the person lied (or was otherwise inaccurate). However, that person quoted by the newspaper could then be called into court and questioned on their observations, which would then be direct testimony subject to cross-examination and not blocked by hearsay. Simply calling hearsay, for this logical argument, is akin to saying the possibility exists - it doesn't provide any explanation for why that person would have lied or made a mistake.
... Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the definitions of evidence for legal arguments and logical arguments are different.
And that still doesn't account for the reports in the sources you do trust which mention a plane.
I disagree. NO PLANE and PLANE SPOT claims are to be considered by the same standard, not by one that is more favorable to the one than to the other. And, PLANE SPOT claims are not presumed to be correct.
I think you slightly misunderstand me. I am not saying that the plane theory is presumed to be correct. I am saying that any theory, particularly a contentious one like this, must include some way to account for why competing ideas are mistaken. I am challenging the no plane theory's ability to explain why the plane theory advocates are incorrect. I have already pointed out that relatively simple perception problems and distraction could cause someone to miss a plane, particularly in a chaotic environment, which is the plane theory's explanation for the no planers. Even if you disagree, pointing out that the plane theory's explanation may be faulty does nothing to explain why the plane theory is wrong as a whole.
ETA: Forgot to mention that I used my brother as a source regarding the hearsay rule. Maybe not necessary, but I'd rather be cautious... and he pointed out something I forgot to mention. You can treat my discussion of hearsay above as largely his words.
