JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Except that well over 99 percent of the relevant qualified professionals seem to believe the same thing we do. Call your critics names won't get you the respect of your peers.
Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology
- Thread starter WilliamSeger
- Start date
Except that well over 99 percent of the relevant qualified professionals seem to believe the same thing we do. Call your critics names won't get you the respect of your peers.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
The way truthers operate, place the names of possible perps on the wall blind fold some one and randomly throw darts.
ozeco41
Philosopher
So am I.
AND those two are the key questions - "What?" and "How?"
-"what do we investiogate?" - how far do we go; AND
- "how do we do it?" - hence my questions about subpoena and under oath.
Personally I'm multiple times on record stating that I think there could be some aspects of political mis/mal/non feasance which may still be worthy of examination in the eyes of some US folk. (Note the may and some) They are of little interest to me from my AU perspective.
...and there is not - never has been a prima facie hypothesis worthy of investigating in the technical domain.
So the real issue under investigation is almost certainly an investigation into the psychology of conspiracy beliefs - and the threshold for that would be quite high.
There will always be a nut-job fringe; then some genuine believers next to them - they are the target group.
BUT are they sufficient to cause problems? Sufficient to warrant expenditure of public funds?
AND - will such a program succeed. I doubt it would therefore why waste resources?
Meanwhile - in the context of this the read - what does Tony mean by "all aspects" given that the debate does include some way out suggestions such as energy beams.
- If he excludes them - on what basis?
- If he includes them how far does he go given that we are talking about expenditure of public funds and the community would not support an "open chequebook". So "even' a truther will need some limiting criteria.
NIST explanations included reasonable assumptions... such as the location, intensity and duration of heat. A new investigation might try other reasonable assumptions to perhaps better match the real world visuals. But why? What would change?
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Don't forget an investigation of the unusual chemistry.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Wasn't the point I made. You are not calling for the investigation. Neither is Crazy. Tony is. So I'm asking Tony "What?" and "How?"
WHAT is included in the investigation?
HOW is it investigated?
I'm taking Tony's wish as reasonable - I'm certain it is from his perspective. So WHAT does he want investigated? (Alt - flip side - what does he NOT want to investigate?) and HOW does he want it investigated?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I think it would be fair to leave space beams out of it, as no investigation that I could imagine would ever have considered it to begin with, and it is nothing but a speculation without a basis.
However, since it could be shown quite quickly to be impossible as a cause, maybe it could be addressed for completeness. Same thing with your example of Santa. These things could be dismissed quickly and a bonifide investigation could get to work.
I think any legitimate investigation would have both scientific and criminal aspects. Detectives can legally call anyone in for questioning where there is reasonable suspicion, so there would be no need for subpoenas up front. They can also question people without them taking oaths. I am not sure if subpoenas and oaths would be involved initially, as they are usually involved with a court proceeding. Since it is likely that charges would be brought against certain individuals at some point they would be necessary.
Last edited:
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 31, 2015
- Messages
- 344
Chiming in here.... the collapse of all three towers must be reconciled. The bombing (I mean "plane crash") at the Pentagon and shoot down (I mean "heroic crash") of 93 could be left as is. Certainly some "fringe thinkers" would continue the debate, but by leaving PENTBOM out of any new investigation, you might avoid a civil war. A tidy approach might be to designate an acronym which orchestrated the bombings in NY, pardon the players, and then dissolve the acronym in outrage. Another alternative I'm certain has been explored is to blame another Nation State, and this may in fact be just. Even in that scenario, we could 'give peace a chance'.
Alternatively you could run amuck with subpoenas through certain VA corporations and Agencies and truly prosecute what was arguably the most treasonous action this Country has ever seen. Should we short-sell SAIC before there's blood in the streets?
The problem with launching any form of legitimate investigation is that you run the risk of triggering a massive distraction, such as a CBRN attack. Do we really want to risk that? That's why I'm a fan of the pardon. Let's skip the civil war and horrors of relocation camps and just move on with a new American century, complete with intact physical laws.
What does not seem to be working is doubling down on the insanity and pushing BRICS into WWIII. Listening to both Russia and China at the UN this year, it's clear they would rather see the US stop the global terrorism. I think the world is ready for 911 truth, and ultimately... would just be grateful for it.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Chiming in here.... the collapse of all three towers must be reconciled. The bombing (I mean "plane crash") at the Pentagon and shoot down (I mean "heroic crash") of 93 could be left as is. Certainly some "fringe thinkers" would continue the debate, but by leaving PENTBOM out of any new investigation, you might avoid a civil war. A tidy approach might be to designate an acronym which orchestrated the bombings in NY, pardon the players, and then dissolve the acronym in outrage. Another alternative I'm certain has been explored is to blame another Nation State, and this may in fact be just. Even in that scenario, we could 'give peace a chance'.
Alternatively you could run amuck with subpoenas through certain VA corporations and Agencies and truly prosecute what was arguably the most treasonous action this Country has ever seen. Should we short-sell SAIC before there's blood in the streets?
The problem with launching any form of legitimate investigation is that you run the risk of triggering a massive distraction, such as a CBRN attack. Do we really want to risk that? That's why I'm a fan of the pardon. Let's skip the civil war and horrors of relocation camps and just move on with a new American century, complete with intact physical laws.
What does not seem to be working is doubling down on the insanity and pushing BRICS into WWIII. Listening to both Russia and China at the UN this year, it's clear they would rather see the US stop the global terrorism. I think the world is ready for 911 truth, and ultimately... would just be grateful for it.
I would go along with what you are saying here. Certain things do need to be reconciled and the nonsense needs to stop. However, we also do not need a civil war and more blood shed over it. David Griffin proposed something along the lines of what South Africa did a while back in a reconciliation where things were admitted under immunity and pardons were guaranteed.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thanks for the response Tony. I agree on the need for the rigours of procedure including "subpoena" and "evidence under oath" - so set those two aside for now.
Now I also agree with the direction you are heading in with this next bit:
The process would need to be seen as "complete" in coverage and transparent in process - otherwise it leaves part of the audience disenfranchised. Esp those whose pet scheme gets thrown out without what they accept as due process.
But I agree with you that some issues are less substantial than others. And "space beams" is easily shown to be without substance. HOWEVER how does a transparent and honest investigation process address and dismiss those claims which are at the low level of credibility?
There is a need for criteria - as a first draft I would suggest:
1) Accumulate a list of every concern that has been raised in significant debate. (Which immediately begs the question of "What is "significant?")
2) Rank them in at least three classes viz:
(a) Not worthy of consideration on the face of the assertion/claim; "Santa's Custard" probably in that class - that is one reason why I referred to it - it is obviously ridiculous But....;
(b) Claims/concerns which warrant summary consideration and dismissal - that is where you put "space beams" and I agree;
(c) Serious matters needing rigorous formal review. (I am of no doubt that these would sub class (c(i)), (c(ii)), (c(iii)) as the investigation progressed and started to "rank" the issues.)
BUT - how does the investigation decide transparently and rigorously which ones can be eliminated at the start? Maybe it depends on those initiatives where the original proponent has lost interest? Has Wood, J lost interest in "space beams"? - would she cause a ruckus if her former pet scheme was arbitrarily dismissed?
Sure. My parody of "Santa's Custard" was never serious as a specific happening - but still has validity as an example of some classes of logical error.
The problem will be a "chicken and egg" situation...one of process sequence. I suggest that both subpoena and evidence under oath would be essential to finding if there is any need for legal actions. An investigation process that found "no grounds for action" and did NOT have subpoena plus oaths would not be acceptable to the Truth Movement - it is exactly the situation we have had for years. Au contraire if the same process found that there were "grounds for action" without subpoena or oaths THEN there would be a civil liberties outcry.
So the investigation as step one needs both subpoena and oaths (and a couple or three more but those two illustrate the principle) And any subsequent formal legal process would have access to both anyway.
So those are preliminary thoughts. It is potentially a two stage process - Stage 1 investigation to determine if there is any basis for legal action THEN (if basis is found) Stage 2 - legal proceedings.
And the critical "filter stage" is the step where each and every claim is considered based on witnesses under oath to see if there is a prima facie case for further investigation.
Which is the SOP for formal inquiries into matters of serious concern here in AU.
Last edited:
Even then it isn't that simple, given that CD of 'I' columns requires charges on both flanges. Many of the shaft-accessible columns had one flange abutting drywall covering adjacent to open space such as corridors and stairways. Access to that flange would require removal of the drywall and lead to an inability to replace it, as the drywall was flush-fitting originally.
The catch here is that anyone capable of entertaining the concept is certainly not capable of recognising the obvious, catastrophic flaws. It's like arguing with a YEC.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Yes the analogy is IMO 100%. (I served my forum apprenticeship moderating on the (former) Richard Dawkins forum.)
The main reason being that their "reasoning" is faith based - not rationality or logic.
The conclusion is determined THEN evidence and any arguments are "force fitted" - or - in the pure form - simply admit/assert "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Reason does not enter into the computation.
Truthers try to hide it more than the YECs - but:
"It was CD and none of your arguments will change my belief."
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Yes - "muddying the waters" off topic to take focus of the main proponent.
It's the octopus approach to argument, squirt a bunch of black ink and run off.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Naval tactics in the era of optically sighted guns. "Make lots of smoke - and withdraw."
In this case - and several examples over recent moths - the MO is consistent. The main truther proponent is in difficulty so make a smokescreen and distract attention.
And it is succeeding. Debunkers directing their gunnery at the smokescreen.
I've got news fellows - he isn't there.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I get it, these are some kind of truther bingo cards, right?
Best guess I've seen so far.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
ozeco41
Philosopher
My "Santa's Custard Hypothesis":
1) Is better argued than "Missing Jolt"; AND
2) Has never been rebutted or falsified.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339