Former conspiracy believer here

[T.A.M.]

Allow me to clear up a few misconceptions. For one thing, there is no excuse for incivility, fatigue or otherwise. That's just something some posters on here believe they are entitled to.

You are right that it is not an excuse, but it is a reason, a reason all users here are entitled to.

"Truth Movement", "truther", "twoofer" and other variations are just attempts at labeling large groups of people, with whom you disagree. I don't belong to any movement, attend meetings, pay dues, or organize with people based on 9/11 research. I'm not aware of the gossip, in-fighting, or grudge matches that go on with Scholars for 911T, jref, or anyone else.

Labeling is done for many reasons. For some of us, it is simply an easy way, within a few words, to describe our view of what side of this argument or debate you likely fall on. For others, right or wrong, it is a way of demeaning or belittling your pov.

And although R Mackey didn't bring this up in his post, allow me to address this here: Diagoras was asked to provide the evidence or source that inspired his transformation. A TV show is not evidence, the Popular Mechanics website is not evidence in itself. I was asking for what specific source or evidence caused this change in thinking. Perhaps a brief narrative, such as,
"I talked to an engineer at a local university and he explained that ..." or "I read the NIST Report and ..."

So more appropriately, for you, the answer would be along the lines of...

1. The Popular Mechanics book on 9/11 CTs
2. The Nova Documentary "Why the Towers Fell"
3. The NIST Report on the WTCs
4. The eye witness testimony of Pentagon attack witnesses as listed at Gravy's site.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

You are right that it is not an excuse, but it is a reason, a reason all users here are entitled to.



Labeling is done for many reasons. For some of us, it is simply an easy way, within a few words, to describe our view of what side of this argument or debate you likely fall on. For others, right or wrong, it is a way of demeaning or belittling your pov.



So more appropriately, for you, the answer would be along the lines of...

1. The Popular Mechanics book on 9/11 CTs
2. The Nova Documentary "Why the Towers Fell"
3. The NIST Report on the WTCs
4. The eye witness testimony of Pentagon attack witnesses as listed at Gravy's site.

TAM

Not all members are entitled to incivility, insults and namecalling. Some are, not all.

Labeling is always a simple, easy way to marginalize a pov you wish not to address. It's a juvenile and transparent tactic.

3 and 4 yes, but a book or documentary is not evidence. What specifically in the PM book or NOVA doc inspired Diagoras change of thinking, would be my question.

If someone said to me, "I watched Loose Change and now I belive 9/11 was an inside job." I'd ask, "what specifically in LC convinced you of this?"

The response might be, "the Pentagon info, or the rapidity of the towers' collapse, or the circumstances surrounding WTC 7, or the lack of debris in Shanksville, or..."

I may or may not agree, but at least the answer would be specific.

 

[SDC]

3 and 4 yes, but a book or documentary is not evidence. What specifically in the PM book or NOVA doc inspired Diagoras change of thinking, would be my question.

If someone said to me, "I watched Loose Change and now I belive 9/11 was an inside job." I'd ask, "what specifically in LC convinced you of this?"

The response might be, "the Pentagon info, or the rapidity of the towers' collapse, or the circumstances surrounding WTC 7, or the lack of debris in Shanksville, or..."

I may or may not agree, but at least the answer would be specific.

Cut down by me. You are, essentially, making distinctions without differences. To take the Pop Mech book... No, it isn't a "primary source." It is a professionally edited collection of evidence, and evaluations, drawn from other sources. It is not a technical document in the way that the NIST report is; like the magazine itself, it aims at what might be termed an educated, non-professional audience. Actually, the NIST report isn't a "primary source," either. It is a technical document aimed at a professional audience, drawing on evidence.

Note that I use "professional" in different ways here. The first time refers ("professionally edited") to the fact that the editors and authors are professional editors and authors. The second -- "non-professional" refers to the difference between, say, me and R.Mackey. I can't read the NIST report and understand it, but I sure can and did read the Pop Mech book -- it was my introduction to the topic. I had no idea that there was a "truth movement" before mid-2006 when, god help me, a professor in Canada whom I've known since he was in bouncy castles tried to hook me, relying on comments by a mutual acquaintance who has or had ties to UK intelligence. My friend is a scientist, though not in this field; anyhow, he should know better. (Before anyone asks, No, neither of them has been referenced in this section. They are not famous or infamous. Both are very decent human beings.)

What do I go on so long, above? Because I suspect you might have picked at my post with regard to Meigs et al. not being real scientists, unlike the NIST guys, even though Meigs et al. are science journalists and tied to the field. Sheesh. Why do I feel compelled to explain this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you Tony. To keep my anonymity, I will not be able to email him myself, but hopefully someone who has already decided to let the world know who they are, can do so.

TAM

TAM, don't you find it a little bit of a conflict that you want your own anonymity left intact but are pursuing the removal of it from others?

While I feel that there are certain bonified reasons to allow anonymity on some public forums I believe it is being abused and finally has more wrong with it than right.

There was never anonymous posting on Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth but that isn't a public forum now thanks to some who lied about their identity in a fraudulent attempt to smear the website when it first started. A poster on this forum, MarkyX, was one of those fraudsters. What is his real name?

 

[Gravy]

There was never anonymous posting on Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth but that isn't a public forum now thanks to some who lied about their identity in a fraudulent attempt to smear the website when it first started. A poster on this forum, MarkyX, was one of those fraudsters. What is his real name?

Mark Iradian, as it says in his signature and on his website. I posted with my own name on the AE site and was banned for saying things about the quality of information there that were apparently unbearable for the site's management.

Still waiting for your answer in your peer review thread, which you abandoned, Tony. What seems to be the trouble?

 

[Disbelief]

And although R Mackey didn't bring this up in his post, allow me to address this here: Diagoras was asked to provide the evidence or source that inspired his transformation. A TV show is not evidence, the Popular Mechanics website is not evidence in itself. I was asking for what specific source or evidence caused this change in thinking. Perhaps a brief narrative, such as,
"I talked to an engineer at a local university and he explained that ..." or "I read the NIST Report and ..."

So Red, can you tell us what engineering professor at a local university you have spoken to? Would you be willing to ask the same of other truthers (not a derogatory use) to do the same? When we ask, they never appear to be willing to do so.

 

[T.A.M.]

Tony:

No, because I am not claiming to be an expert that is a reviewer for a PUBLIC, PEER REVIEWED Journal, making accusations of Government cover up and complicity to murder.

Just as anything I claim about 9/11 (say I made the claim to have spoken to an eye witness to the pentagon crash) you can dismiss by saying that while I remain anonymous, there is no way of verifying that i am telling the truth, I will continue to debate the legimitacy of the journal's peer review process, until we have access to the peer review pool to vet their credentials.

I protect my identity, to protect my family and patients from people in your movement that are less civil, less sane then yourself. It has nothing to do with cowardice. If I was a single man, who did not have people (such as my patients) to protect from harrassment, I would gladly reveal my identity. I have revealed who I am to some people on this board who I trust not to divulge it.

I would add that some people (not you) in your movement have only come out with their RL identity, after they had created something for which they could get some fame or fortune from (a website and/or DVD, giving them earning potential, and a degree of fame within their movement).


TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cut down by me. You are, essentially, making distinctions without differences. To take the Pop Mech book... No, it isn't a "primary source." It is a professionally edited collection of evidence, and evaluations, drawn from other sources. It is not a technical document in the way that the NIST report is; like the magazine itself, it aims at what might be termed an educated, non-professional audience. Actually, the NIST report isn't a "primary source," either. It is a technical document aimed at a professional audience, drawing on evidence.

Note that I use "professional" in different ways here. The first time refers ("professionally edited") to the fact that the editors and authors are professional editors and authors. The second -- "non-professional" refers to the difference between, say, me and R.Mackey. I can't read the NIST report and understand it, but I sure can and did read the Pop Mech book -- it was my introduction to the topic. I had no idea that there was a "truth movement" before mid-2006 when, god help me, a professor in Canada whom I've known since he was in bouncy castles tried to hook me, relying on comments by a mutual acquaintance who has or had ties to UK intelligence. My friend is a scientist, though not in this field; anyhow, he should know better. (Before anyone asks, No, neither of them has been referenced in this section. They are not famous or infamous. Both are very decent human beings.)

What do I go on so long, above? Because I suspect you might have picked at my post with regard to Meigs et al. not being real scientists, unlike the NIST guys, even though Meigs et al. are science journalists and tied to the field. Sheesh. Why do I feel compelled to explain this?

Neither James Meigs nor Davin Coburn have any scientific background. Meigs was a video critic and Coburn a local sportswriter prior to joining Popular Mechanics. In spite of this both were introduced as experts, on the August 2007 History Channel show about 911 Conspiracy Theories, who dispute the alternative theories to those of the Bush administration, concerning what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

Do you think they deserved being given this title in a public venue, with millions watching, and no one to dispute this bestowed "expert" status?

 

[jhunter1163]

Almost everyone (95.4% according to Zogby) disputes the alternative explanations of 9/11, expert or not.

 

[T.A.M.]

Neither James Meigs nor Davin Coburn have any scientific background. Meigs was a video critic and Coburn a local sportswriter prior to joining Popular Mechanics. In spite of this both were introduced as experts, on the August 2007 History Channel show about 911 Conspiracy Theories, who dispute any alternative theories to those of the Bush administration, concerning what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Do you think they deserved being given this title in a public venue, with millions watching, and no one to dispute this bestowed "expert" status?

I agree that they are not EXPERTS on any given aspect of the 9/11 attacks, that I can see, and it may have been a bit misleading to introduce them as such.

HOWEVER...

They are journalists that consulted hundreds of experts on the various aspects of the 9/11 attacks and the CTs. They are WELL VERSED in the topic, and presented the information relayed to them by said experts.

Where in their interviews do the speak on a topic as if their knowledge is first hand, and if they do, is the information provided that which only an expert beyond their qualifications could explain?

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Neither James Meigs nor Davin Coburn have any scientific background. Meigs was a video critic and Coburn a local sportswriter prior to joining Popular Mechanics.

They're journalists who did the necessary thing: they consulted experts in the relevant fields, and people who were actually involved. Quite a lesson in that for the "truth" movement, don't you think?

I'm a tour guide. What about 9/11 have I gotten wrong? Please focus on the facts, the evidence, and the arguments.

 

[T.A.M.]

Almost everyone (95.4% according to Zogby) disputes the alternative explanations of 9/11, expert or not.

well to be fair, 95.4% dispute the MIHOP scenarios. The LIHOP explanation of things has a little more support...lol

TAM

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Allow me to clear up a few misconceptions. For one thing, there is no excuse for incivility, fatigue or otherwise. That's just something some posters on here believe they are entitled to.

There is a difference between a testimonial and a post full of claims. There is also a difference between responding to claims and incivility. I can't tell you, as someone who has spent a number of years discussing a variety of subjects on-line how many times people who hold conspiratorial viewpoints, be they Moon Hoaxers, Creationists or Truthers bemoan how "mean" people are when they are only being corrected or offered alternate views.

Secondly, I never called Diagoras or anyone else a fool, liar or stooge. Namecalling is a privledge of the most prominent voices on here (not you, R Mackey. You're generally polite).

Correction. You never directly called him a liar. You suggested and implied he was a liar by saying his OP was a "work". Subtlety doesn't win you any brownie points.

"Truth Movement", "truther", "twoofer" and other variations are just attempts at labeling large groups of people, with whom you disagree. I don't belong to any movement, attend meetings, pay dues, or organize with people based on 9/11 research. I'm not aware of the gossip, in-fighting, or grudge matches that go on with Scholars for 911T, jref, or anyone else.

If it walks like a duck and talks the rhetoric of a duck it shouldn't whine about being called a duck.

And although R Mackey didn't bring this up in his post, allow me to address this here: Diagoras was asked to provide the evidence or source that inspired his transformation. A TV show is not evidence, the Popular Mechanics website is not evidence in itself. I was asking for what specific source or evidence caused this change in thinking. Perhaps a brief narrative, such as,
"I talked to an engineer at a local university and he explained that ..." or "I read the NIST Report and ..."

Nice move of the goalposts. Why didn't you directly ask him that back on page one rather than doing the BS semantic jig and dancing around whether he provided "what piece of evidence" convinced him and ask him to clarify what specifically in that article, show and in his debates rather than suggest he hadn't noted any evidence at all?

 

[jhunter1163]

well to be fair, 95.4% dispute the MIHOP scenarios. The LIHOP explanation of things has a little more support...lol

TAM

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit you are correct.

 

[Gravy]

...and no one to dispute this bestowed "expert" status?

Go right ahead. Start a new thread and show us what the Popular Mechanics articles and book get wrong.

Will you do that? No, you won't. Because you're just here to whine. This seems to be a big thread for that. Poor, petulant truthers. Hardly the attitude to spark a revolution, is it?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:

No, because I am not claiming to be an expert that is a reviewer for a PUBLIC, PEER REVIEWED Journal, making accusations of Government cover up and complicity to murder.

Just as anything I claim about 9/11 (say I made the claim to have spoken to an eye witness to the pentagon crash) you can dismiss by saying that while I remain anonymous, there is no way of verifying that i am telling the truth, I will continue to debate the legimitacy of the journal's peer review process, until we have access to the peer review pool to vet their credentials.

I protect my identity, to protect my family and patients from people in your movement that are less civil, less sane then yourself. It has nothing to do with cowardice. If I was a single man, who did not have people (such as my patients) to protect from harrassment, I would gladly reveal my identity. I have revealed who I am to some people on this board who I trust not to divulge it.

I would add that some people (not you) in your movement have only come out with their RL identity, after they had created something for which they could get some fame or fortune from (a website and/or DVD, giving them earning potential, and a degree of fame within their movement).


TAM

TAM, I understand your reasons for remaining anonymous. I certainly would in your position also.

A comment I would also make though is that it is not a common practice to reveal the identities of reviewers for Journals. In all cases, the editors, who are ultimately responsible for the publishing of papers on these journals, are known to the public. However, I have never seen an instance where the reviewers are publicly acknowledged as a group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

By the way, I hope you realize that I believe the peer review process to be of limited value. It does and can serve to weed out gross errors and poor writing but there are many limitations to it, which are well discussed in the link above. The final arbiter is the free market of ideas. Given that, a work should still not be represented as peer reviewed if it has not been, such as what is happening with at least some of the papers currently published on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, where the authors admitted they weren't involved in any peer review process.

 

[jhunter1163]

A major difference between Truthers and debunkers is that a Truther might say "NIST is wrong about such-and-such. Gordon Ross says so." A debunker such as R. Mackey might say "Gordon Ross is wrong BECAUSE...." and then go on to explain Ross' error in detail, with associated calculations, full orchestration, five-part harmony, and 27 8 x 10 color glossy photographs.

See the difference, Real?

 

[T.A.M.]

Tony:

I understand that, and that is why I have not asked, lets say, for the individual reviewer of your paper, or any particular paper. However, the "pool" of reviewers in some case may be available, and it is a sign of transparency that goes a long way to the legitimacy of the process.

From your wiki article:

Traditionally, reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard is slowly changing. In some academic fields, most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgements section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Also from your Wiki reference I found the following paragraph quite interesting...

In addition, some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[9] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[10][11][12] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[13]

Others have pointed out that there is a very large number of scientific journals in which one can publish, making total control of information difficult. In addition, the decision-making process of peer review, in which each referee gives their opinion separately and without consultation with the other referees, is intended to mitigate some of these problems. Some have suggested that:

"... peer review does not thwart new ideas. Journal editors and the 'scientific establishment' are not hostile to new discoveries. Science thrives on discovery and scientific journals compete to publish new breakthroughs."[14]

Nonetheless, while it is generally possible to publish results somewhere, in order for scientists in many fields to attract and maintain funding it is necessary to publish in elite, prestigious journals. Such journals are generally identified by their impact factor. The small number of high-impact journals is susceptible to control by an elite group of anonymous reviewers.[citation needed] Results published in low-impact journals are usually ignored by most scientists in any field. This has led to calls for the removal of reviewer anonymity (especially at high-impact journals) and for the introduction of author anonymity (so that reviewers cannot tell whether the author is a member of any elite).

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

A major difference between Truthers and debunkers is that a Truther might say "NIST is wrong about such-and-such. Gordon Ross says so." A debunker such as R. Mackey might say "Gordon Ross is wrong BECAUSE...." and then go on to explain Ross' error in detail, with associated calculations, full orchestration, five-part harmony, and 27 8 x 10 color glossy photographs.

See the difference, Real?

umm...I hate to disagree again, lol...but.

There are those of us, even debunkers, who are not experts or physics gurus, who do on occasion state such things as...

"Truthers are wrong about CD, because NIST, with its experts in the field, has provided an alternative to this that makes more sense."

I hate to admit that sometimes, when the science is a little above me (or buried deep in my brain) I may do this...though usually I try to provide corroborating opinion, to enhance or strengthen my argument.

TAM