Ed Beyond misinformation

[ozeco41]

Indeed I don't get that - partly because I have no real understanding of engineering. This is why I'd like to know how many qualified people think there may be something in the claims. It's the only way I know to shade the probabilities of who is correct in an argument I don't understand.

You are sadly down the wrong path. And the "right" path is not easy for you as a non engineer - nor is it easy for quite a few engineers.

The TECHNICAL bottom line is NOT "how many accept the truther claims" V "how many reject them"

They TECHNICAL bottom line is "are the truth movement claims valid?"

They aren't says I - so there is one engineer telling you. But the real issue than arises - why should you believe me?

That is the real problem - the PROCESS bottom line - "How do you know who is telling you the truth?" NOT "How many on either side?"

Numbers for and numbers against is a very inefficient way of approach that question.

The best way is to get yourself across a table - real or virtual - with an engineer who is knowledgeable in the topic, competent in the necessary physics and proficient in explaining. And work through the issues till you are satisfied that you have been fed the correct advice.

If you are genuine, honest, rational and objective that stage is not hard to achieve IF you can find (one or more) competent advisors.

(I don’t suggest you are BUT If you are tainted with "faith based" reasoning or other forms of obsession you will never get there.)

My advice is pick one single topic to start with....those who are trying to confuse you will deliberately overload you with lots of overlapping and poorly defined issues.

One suggestion is consider this question as a starter:

"Was CD needed for the collapse of the Twin Towers?" <<Note "needed" - so understand why the engineering mechanisms did NOT need any help from CD.

Once you are satisfied that CD was NOT needed then you can address:

"Was CD performed even though it wasn't needed?"

At that stage you know with confidence "No CD" - and that is the main plank of the truth movement claims.

(An aside - pity the poor terrorist CDer who carried out the undetectable CD - then finds out it wasn't needed? Wouldn’t look good on his CV when applying for that "Consultant in Terrorism" job would it? "Performed a perfect but unnecessary CD and never got credit for it." )

So once you take those two relatively easy steps:
Understand why CD wasn't needed; AND
Why it wasn't performed.

You have pulled the rug out from under most truth movement claims. Certainly you will have defeated AE911's claim "There was CD THEREFORE we demand a new investigation."

Truther claims - for RATIONAL people - are like a house of cards. Pull out the critical cards and the lot comes tumbling down.

Not that THEY will accept . but you are a rational objective person. So you accept the logic.

Take it bit by bit. And CD at WTC is a good place to start.

I disagree - can you find, let's say, 100 qualified geographers who think the question of whether the earth is flat is still open?

As I said - wrong track - it will only lead round in circles.

The cloudless daytime sky is blue. And even if 100 persons line up to tell you "It is purple with orange polka dots!" - it ain't - it is still BLUE.

 

[Animal]

A professional organisation serves the interests of its members. Employees serve the interests of a company. They're more or less opposites.

Dave

Many professional organizations exist to serve themselves......and only provide window dressing WRT members interests. but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Indeed I don't get that - partly because I have no real understanding of engineering. This is why I'd like to know how many qualified people think there may be something in the claims. It's the only way I know to shade the probabilities of who is correct in an argument I don't understand.

The TECHNICAL bottom line is NOT "how many accept the truther claims" V "how many reject them"

They TECHNICAL bottom line is "are the truth movement claims valid?"

...That is the real problem - the PROCESS bottom line - "How do you know who is telling you the truth?" NOT "How many on either side?"

Numbers for and numbers against is a very inefficient way of approach that question.

What ozeco41 said. Validity is not determined through a vote.

A claim is valid if it survives the test of time, argument, and the addition of evidence and observations leading to further analysis and conclusions that end up supporting the original claim. It is invalid if that test of time and additional observations eventually nullify it. Numbers of subscribers can at times be a quick and dirty shortcut to vaguely point out where validity may lie, but it's not always accurate, and it's definitely not determinative.

Look at what happened with Flat Earth theory vs. modern geology. Look at what happened to Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism and eventually modern cosmology. Look at what happened to Lamarckian vs. genetic evolution. It's the same thing that has happened and continues to happen to Trutherism vs. what they like to disparage as "The Official Story". The former repeatedly collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, rebuilt time and time again only by those who wish to impose a conclusion rather than draw one from evidence. The latter is strengthened by discovery and investigation of what appear to be anomalies or contradictions. Hence it's robustness even in the face of challenges such as the one Chandler issues regarding collapse time measurements.

It's not a vote. It's a process of establishing truth by examination of fact and analysis of evidence. An entire profession initially standing against Wegener did not prove him wrong regarding Plate Tectonics. A majority share of professionals in China and the then USSR standing with Lamarck did not prove him right regarding evolution. What really matters is not determined by numbers.

 

[Oystein]

In science and academia, there is such a thing as "consensus" - it is generally valid, even smart, for members of the public to try and determine what the current consensus is among those experts in the field that have actually studied the problems at hand. This "consensus" is not strictly established by majority, but certainly numbers do a play some role - plus vaguer things like "esteem" and "pre-eminence".

Key word in the above is, by the way, the phrase "actually studied".
Where "to study" does not mean "peruse biased internet sites" or "join echo chambers and learn the chants by heart".

Pick experts and talk to them. From the truther side, the debunker side, "neutral" ones. You will soon find out who has actually studied the events, and who have not: Those who have actually studied the events, looked at them from all sides, will tend to make claims of fact which you can verify to be true, and not avoid facts that are seemingly inconvenient to their conclusions.

My experience has been for years: No debate with any truther ever comes to an end without the truther side pulling the plug on me - often by outright banning me from the venue where we debated, often by absolutely, steadfastly refusing to give straight and honest answers to straight and honest questions.
I am not saying that you don't find this sort of refusal to debate openly on the debunker side, too - you certainly do. But it is generally the case with truthers.

 

[spooky24]

I got a new pamphlet-I guess that is what it is called-"911 for truth" and it is another 'Jew dump' that blows away any previous attempts to blame Jews for everything-not just 9/11 but everything.

It's just stupid beyond belief. Lets see- the 2007 mortgage meltdown-scum bag Jews in America caused/created/carried out the holocaust-killed President's Lincoln and Kennedy-were behind the cold war-turdhead Jews concocted AIDS-just to name a few.

 

[Animal]

I got a new pamphlet-I guess that is what it is called-"911 for truth" and it is another 'Jew dump' that blows away any previous attempts to blame Jews for everything-not just 9/11 but everything.

It's just stupid beyond belief. Lets see- the 2007 mortgage meltdown-scum bag Jews in America caused/created/carried out the holocaust-killed President's Lincoln and Kennedy-were behind the cold war-turdhead Jews concocted AIDS-just to name a few.

That must be quite a mailing list you are on

 

[Georgio]

I got a new pamphlet-I guess that is what it is called-"911 for truth" and it is another 'Jew dump' that blows away any previous attempts to blame Jews for everything-not just 9/11 but everything.

It's just stupid beyond belief. Lets see- the 2007 mortgage meltdown-scum bag Jews in America caused/created/carried out the holocaust-killed President's Lincoln and Kennedy-were behind the cold war-turdhead Jews concocted AIDS-just to name a few.

This has nothing to do with the thread subject. May I suggest posting in the dedicated thread about the 911 Truth Movement and anti-semitism here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290351

 

[Georgio]

Look at what happened with Flat Earth theory vs. modern geology. Look at what happened to Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism and eventually modern cosmology. Look at what happened to Lamarckian vs. genetic evolution. It's the same thing that has happened and continues to happen to Trutherism vs. what they like to disparage as "The Official Story". The former repeatedly collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, rebuilt time and time again only by those who wish to impose a conclusion rather than draw one from evidence.

To clarify my personal position - from what I've read on this forum I think the chances are extremely small that the WTC buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. I still describe myself as being 'on the fence' though, due to my lack of complete understanding of either side's arguments.

There may also be a little 'faith based' reasoning going on in my case. The question keeps nagging me about the number of qualified people who have signed the AE911Truth petition. How has it happened if there's nothing at all in the claims? Surely nobody would be able to get a single geographer to sign a petition calling for more money for studies to determine whether the earth is flat.

I suppose I want reassurance that they have understood the claims and do not believe they are valid and are willing to put their name to this. Just to know they have dismissed the organization out of hand is not good enough as anyone, regardless of profession or qualifications, is capable of intellectual lazyness like dismissing 'conspiracy theorists' as a rule without actually looking into what they say.

ETA: Missed the edit window for my previous post but it's hypocritical of me to talk about being off topic when I'm already off topic myself.

 

[Oystein]

...
I suppose I want reassurance that they have understood the claims and do not believe they are valid and are willing to put their name to this. ...

It may be instructive to read the profiles of the A&E signatories - most have a "bio" and a "personal 9/11 statement" filled out (they are required fields, but are missing in a few of the earliest profiles and in a number of profiles that were entered manually into the database, not using the usual form).

You will find that many parrot AE911T talking points, claims of fact, that you perhaps already know to be of no substance.
You will find that many started their doubts with political grievances and general mistrust of government.
You will find that many misrepresent the "official" version and are protesting a strawman
You will find that some even misrepresent AE911T's positions.
You will find that many openly admit they are not experts, or haven't really studied the issues, and have taken their opinions from watching a couple of YouTube videos.

 

[DGM]

The question keeps nagging me about the number of qualified people who have signed the AE911Truth petition.

Surely you agree the number of signers is extremely small. How many are really qualified? Have you looked into that?

How has it happened if there's nothing at all in the claims?

How many of these people still believe the same things as when they signed the petition? There's no way to know. One thing is sure, they are not convincing their peers. Growth of the list proves this beyond any shadow of doubt. Would you agree?

 

[ozeco41]

To clarify my personal position - from what I've read on this forum I think the chances are extremely small that the WTC buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. I still describe myself as being 'on the fence' though, due to my lack of complete understanding of either side's arguments...

My advice - Step one - decide to get off the fence before you get splinters in the posterior anatomy.

Step Two - get your head around the reality that there are NOT two sides of ARGUMENT - that may be a bit harder. there is no argument - never has been - a valid argument worthy of serious consideration which favours CD. Lots of unsupported - unsupportable - assertions. That is sad but true fact.

I outlined a path forward for you to take in my previous post. Oystein suggested another way forward. IF you are not prepared to take those or some other steps you will remain uncertain and confused.

Do you understand how the Twin Towers collapsed?
Sufficient to identify two key stages; AND
That there was no need for CD in either stage?

(And - whilst I'm at it - the reality that no truther has ever presented a supported/supportable argument to explain why CD was needed or how it was achieved.)

There may also be a little 'faith based' reasoning going on in my case. The question keeps nagging me about the number of qualified people who have signed the AE911Truth petition. How has it happened if there's nothing at all in the claims? Surely nobody would be able to get a single geographer to sign a petition calling for more money for studies to determine whether the earth is flat.

Yes - more than a little "faith based". In fact you cannot be "a little faith based" - it is either/or.

And you are still thinking in "probabilities". IF you want to persist in "probabilities" think about this:
A) In any human opinion situation there will NEVER be 100%
B) Professional opinion pollsters EXPECT a percentage of nonsense from the "manic fringe" in any poll. Some say as much as 5% - the actual number matters little BECAUSE
C) The number of professionals accepting - signing up for - the R Gage AE9112Truth poll is way below 1% of the target demography. That is 4% LESS support AE911 than the rat-bag manic fringe who would respond to many polls. Stated differently only 20% of the support that would normally be given to NONSENSE in an opinion poll. If you take the probabilities argument seriously that low number is an argument against CD - NOT for it.

I suppose I want reassurance that they have understood the claims and do not believe they are valid and are willing to put their name to this.

"they" - those accepting the AE911 claims have not understood. "Understanding" is a reasoned rational position. They are "faith based believers" - understanding as in reasoned understanding does not factor.

Their leading engineer - Tony Szamboti - is a member who periodically posts here. He has repeatedly been shown the errors in his false engineering claims. Makes no difference - his "religion" says "There was CD" so reasoned argument is set aside. Remember "faith is the substance of things hoped for"

Just to know they have dismissed the organization out of hand is not good enough as anyone, regardless of profession or qualifications, is capable of intellectual lazyness like dismissing 'conspiracy theorists' as a rule without actually looking into what they say.

Take care to be clear who the "they" are. You seem to be switching sides.

And if you are referring to people like me or Oystein who reject AE911 claims try to avoid the implicit insult. Both of us have given outline reasons yet you are saying we haven’t looked at the CT claims. Your vagueness when we have been specific is inherently patronising and or insulting.

And - if you say "I don't mean you Ozeco or Oystein" - you have started down the path towards reasoned acceptance of what we have said. So don't stop there - press forward.

 

[ozeco41]

Surely you agree the number of signers is extremely small. How many are really qualified? Have you looked into that?

Beat me to it by a minute. My slow typing.

The number is way below the "mad fringe" you would expect in any poll.

The ~2000 doesn't say "there are a lot of people suspecting CD"

It actually says "There are very few so most don’t favour CD as a topic worthy of consideration."

AE911 are marketing the issue "arse about". 180^o off course.

 

[beachnut]

Delusional nonsense does not count as a side; more like signs of mental issues, or complete ignorance, or Gage taking advantage of the fringe few gullible enough to send money to fake movement based on lies.

Box man, fools a fringe few; imagine if Gage had a valid movement, his 500k/yr would be 5,000 plus/yr... Gage, the fantasy pusher - 19 terrorists the reality. Gage's failed followers, the fringe few who celebrate ignorance and the love of BS.

There are no sides for 911 truth. 911 truth manufactures lies dumbed down for people who refuse to think for themselves. 911 truth is fantasy, 19 murderers the reality.

Gage's claims are BS based on the ignorance of his followers, those who sign his petition based on lies, failed to use critical thinking skills. After 13 years, it is sad to see anyone who can't see Gage is spreading lies. Why does our education fail us.

AE911T is easy to dismiss as fraud and nonsense. 911 truth spews lies of thermite, CD, and explosives. The inside job they can't explain given 13 years. Spreading more nonsense to keep the cult members daze and confused. Gage is using the old adage, be the first to the board, take action, and his do nothing cult members fall for his BS.

There is no fence to be on, there is a wall where 911 truth stands, lies.

There is money to be made by fooling the fringe few who love BS, fantasy and the delusional inside job paranoia of being a conspracy theorists. Too bad 911 truth cult members can't change to Bigfoot, and stop mocking the murder of thousands by 19 fellow dolts inspired by BS.

Who is more mentally challenged, the 19 terrorists, or 911 truth cult members. Ignorance lives, and is personified by 911 truth membership, and failed followers who do nothing.

Bigfoot, flat-earth, 911 truth - movements based on massive follower ignorance. Are Gage's major contributors getting kick backs in some tax scam, is Richard Gage movement a scam... How could anyone be fooled into donating $100,000... That takes great ignorance. May we all avoid scams... good luck

 

[Georgio]

My advice - Step one - decide to get off the fence before you get splinters in the posterior anatomy.

No. Sorry - there is absolutely nothing wrong with staying on the fence if you know you don't fully understand the arguments (claims, whatever) from either or both sides.

Stated differently only 20% of the support that would normally be given to NONSENSE in an opinion poll. If you take the probabilities argument seriously that low number is an argument against CD - NOT for it.

Only if the voters are actually aware of the claims put forward - they may have dismissed them without looking at them properly because of a blanket rule never to take 'conspiracy theorists' seriously.

Their leading engineer - Tony Szamboti - is a member who periodically posts here. He has repeatedly been shown the errors in his false engineering claims.

My problem is that I partially understand Tony Szamboti's claims and reasons and partially understand the rebuttals.

Take care to be clear who the "they" are. You seem to be switching sides.

Stop prodding me with your pitchfork - I'm still on the fence and not on a side.

And if you are referring to people like me or Oystein who reject AE911 claims try to avoid the implicit insult. Both of us have given outline reasons yet you are saying we haven’t looked at the CT claims.

'Reject' is not 'dismiss'. Dismiss means you don't even need to know the claim to know it is wrong. The only explanation I can think of for you even dreaming that that could refer to you or Oystein (or many others on this forum) is that you didn't read that part of my post properly.

@ beachnut - thank goodness you posted that. Imagine if you hadn't?

 

[dudalb]

Let;s be blunt:Every profession has it's crackpots;People who have the technical background but none the less hold dumbbutt opinions on the topic intheir profession.
And also politics can distort opinions,and no dobut some of the signer of the AE Truth petition allowed their political sympathies to overule their engineering knowledge in siging that petition.
Basic fact is the precentage of experts (let's leave aside that the credentials of some of the signers are really questionable) who signed the AE911 Truth petition is really,really,really, small.
Frankly,people who don't make up theri minds because of that just do not want to makeup their minds.

 

[beachnut]

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=876ebb6658&e=[UNIQID]

The pit of ignorance reaches new lows, and continues to fool the fringe few too lazy to think for themselves. It take massive ignorance and gullibility to to fall for this campaign of BS. I guess Gage does have a side; it is ignorance, mocking the murder of thousands. How long can Gage bilk dolts with lies.

Beyond misinformation, another ironic title, like "truth".

Once it is unveiled, this authoritative guide — designed to bring together the most compelling evidence into one easy-to-read, professionally produced document for laymen and technical readers alike — will be permanently available as one of AE911Truth’s main resources.

AE911T promises to celebrate stupidity forever... crackpots continue to fool the clueless


http://www.runnerspace.com/members/photos/3026/Cow-stuck-on-a-fence_full.jpg
For 911 truth, their side of the fence is a deep pit of delusional claptrap, with extra credit cretinous BS.

https://www.google.com/search?espv=...bL8Ooj7tQWfr4XQCg&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CCkQ1QIoAg
The train left the station on 911. 911 truth diverging from the truth for 13 years of solid failure with lies based on BS.

http://reneewarren.com/get-off-the-fence-and-decide/#.VZxXUPlVhuA
When we see 911 truth followers are so few, is it a sign education for most worked. Do movements like 911 truth make chemtrail nuts look smarter. Why is 911 truth so dirt dumb stupid.

Richard Gage says...

Without you, we wouldn't exist.

You keep us in this Fight for 9/11 Truth and Justice!

Without ignorant people, Gage's movement based on lies would not exist - the truth.
Gage meant to say, "you keep us in this Fight to spread lies and do nothing of value. Keep up the good work Richard Gage, the anti-science expert.

 

[Georgio]

Don't stop there, beachnut. More! This is gold!

 

[ozeco41]

No. Sorry - there is absolutely nothing wrong with staying on the fence if you know you don't fully understand the arguments (claims, whatever) from either or both sides.

That is true IF you have decided to stay there. Doesn't remain true for very long if you have decided to get off the fence. Your call.

My problem is that I partially understand Tony Szamboti's claims and reasons and partially understand the rebuttals.

Then tell us which bits you don't understand.

e.g. Tony's most prominent work was the paper "Missing Jolt"
--are you aware of it?
--Do you know what was wrong with it?
--do you want an explanation of what was wrong?
--What level of explanation - broad overview OR details?

(the broad overview was that he made some false starting assumptions and was looking for something that could never happen.)

Stop prodding me with your pitchfork - I'm still on the fence ...

Sorry for that - you raised the topic of fence sitting and "get off the fence" is IMO the obvious response. Hence my suggestion of one way to move forward. You have a choice - stay there or move.

 

[DGM]

Has anyone else noted the fact Georgio has refused to address the qualifications of those on the "list" and how they are an insignificant number? How about how ineffective they are convincing their peers? My guess is this truth is just too inconvenient for our "fence-sitter".

 

[ozeco41]

Has anyone else noted the fact Georgio has refused to address the qualifications of those on the "list" and how they are an insignificant number? How about how ineffective they are convincing their peers? My guess is this truth is just too inconvenient for our "fence-sitter".

Despite me being my usual assertive self - he resented my suggestion to "get off the fence" AND my strong hints that I would explain the technical engineering stuff if he would take it point by point.

And a determination to remain sitting on the fence is a sure sign of a faith based thinker.

Few of "us" - you, me, Oystein etc could remain standing still when faced with something we don't understand.