New 9/11 Truth Conference

[Spindrift]

Dwain Deets spent a great deal of time arguing on JREF for the Pentagon no-planers. I note with interest that he's changed his mind. What would interest me most is not that he's changed his mind.

I'd like to find out why and how he changed his mind. I have this crazy and romantic notion that conspiracism is caused by people not knowing how to operate their brains, so to speak.

In order to appear to be including all sides they needed someone to argue for the planes. He obviously lost the coin flip.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was kind of you to boil down that 4224 "statement" for us. Geez. Even for truthers, that was verbose and rambling. It does provide interesting insight though; can you imagine trying to organize anything where the participants are all conspiracy theorists? Even the other conspiracy theorists are out to get them. I mean seriously, look what he says about their attempt to agree on a consensus:

Lolz, it was Shaky Craig, the S.O.B. is one loopy dude.

 

[jaydeehess]

Or, we could all show up, as "Independent Investigative Reporters" for the Nearly-Worldwide Organization of News Reporters.

Microphones labelled "NWO News" optional, but encouraged!

North Western Ontario News Corp. Regional, national, and international news of interest to those in Ontario, west of Sault Ste. Marie.

 

[dudalb]

Should be an interesting "discussion"

I smell some Comedy Gold here......

 

[EvilBiker]

This is like The Grateful Dead doing a road show a decade after being Gratefully Dead.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oooh,I read Ranke's rant. The paranoia is strong with that one, it is.

 

[EvilBiker]

I was wondering why Shaky Craig was not representing his side. It appears (to him) there is a conspiracy to bring him down at this conference.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/2/DC-911-Truth-Conference-2013-CIT-Statement.html

I think he was just peeved he didn't get star billing:

Despite his photograph appearing on the conference web site as a participant, Ranke confirmed in an interview this week that he has not yet decided whether he will accept the invitation. He notes that he was invited considerably later than other potential participants.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII
Should be an interesting "discussion"

I smell some Comedy Gold here......

I'm hoping they pull this off, replete with HQ video posted to YouTube. If they can do it, I'll have my beer and pizza rolls handy!

Uncle Fetzer's Vancouver get-together last year was so incompetently managed that they only got videos of a few speakers, and the video and sound quality was garbage. I need my cheap laughs.

 

[Redwood]

Dwain Deets spent a great deal of time arguing on JREF for the Pentagon no-planers.....

I'd like to find out why and how he changed his mind. I have this crazy and romantic notion that conspiracism is caused by people not knowing how to operate their brains, so to speak.

No, really - I'd really like to find out why and how Deets has gone from this:

Originally Posted by dadeets
1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

2. The CIT NoC ..... testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible.... The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles. Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path couldn’t have caused that damage...... This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon.

3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6695054#post6695054

to this:

Three Perspectives
Dwain Deets, Retired Aerospace Research Engineer -- Plane Hit the Pentagon

What new evidence entered the picture? What changed his mind? Are Truthers really just random meme generators?

 

[LSSBB]

No, really - I'd really like to find out why and how Deets has gone from this:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6695054#post6695054

to this:




What new evidence entered the picture? What changed his mind? Are Truthers really just random meme generators?

May have had something with the Flight 77 FDR analysis.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
No, really - I'd really like to find out why and how Deets has gone from this:

Originally Posted by dadeets
1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

[snip]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...54#post6695054

to this:

Three Perspectives
Dwain Deets, Retired Aerospace Research Engineer -- Plane Hit the Pentagon

What new evidence entered the picture? What changed his mind? Are Truthers really just random meme generators?

May have had something with the Flight 77 FDR analysis.

No, that would be thinking logically. Deets rejects the FDR:

Dwain Deets
July 18, 2013 – 12:23 pm

I don’t think the FDR data can be used. As to the aerodynamics, we lack full scale empirical evidence to settle that issue once and for all.

As I said:

I have this crazy and romantic notion that conspiracism is caused by people not knowing how to operate their brains, so to speak.

 

[Horatius]

As to the aerodynamics, we lack full scale empirical evidence to settle that issue once and for all.

Okay, am I reading this correctly? Does he actually expect someone to fly a plane in a ridiculously dangerous fashion (that is, way too fast, way too close to the ground, and probably around buildings, just to avoid that argument), just to prove to him that it's actually possible to fly like that?

 

[Brainster]

Dwain Deets spent a great deal of time arguing on JREF for the Pentagon no-planers. I note with interest that he's changed his mind. What would interest me most is not that he's changed his mind.

I'd like to find out why and how he changed his mind. I have this crazy and romantic notion that conspiracism is caused by people not knowing how to operate their brains, so to speak.

Yeah, Deets actually endorsed the flyover theory in Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory:



Deets' segment starts around 11:45 and he proposes the flyover at 14:00.

 

[Pinch]

Yeah, Deets actually endorsed the flyover theory in Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory:



Deets' segment starts around 11:45 and he proposes the flyover at 14:00.

14:40..."So said former Air Force pilot Rob Balsamo..."

Well done, Jesse. Your credibility just went from the crapper to the septic field. Bet Cap't Bob is loving that...its as close as he'll ever come to being a military aviator.

 

[George 152]

14:40..."So said former Air Force pilot Rob Balsamo..."

Well done, Jesse. Your credibility just went from the crapper to the septic field. Bet Cap't Bob is loving that...its as close as he'll ever come to being a military aviator.

Cpn Bob seems to claim to have been a lot of things.
None of which are apparent in his posts.

 

[OCaptain]

So no Simon Shack at the convention, how about Judy WOOO

Space beams from SSPPAAAAAAACCEE!!!

 

[BStrong]

Cpn Bob seems to claim to have been a lot of things.
None of which are apparent in his posts.

Which is why the pairing of Balsamo and Ventura (Janos) is so perfect.

 

[Mister Earl]

Loose Change was a satire people inexplicably took seriously. If memory serves, Dylan Avery admitted it was done as a lark, but didn't get serious about it until he started making money from it.

The whole truther thing started up for serious only when Dylan realized that there were sheep that needed fleecing.

 

[carlitos]

In May 2002, he began writing "Loose Change," a fictional story about how he, and his friends, discovered that September 11th was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by our own government. Doing research for the movie, it became apparent to him that the subject matter may not have been entirely fiction. Over the years, adding more and more information, the movie evolved into a documentary, one of the most viewed films ever, on the internet, nurturing the budding 9/11 Truth movement into a widespread grassroots phenomena.

In the Bay Area, where the first San Francisco International Inquiry into 9/11 was held and there is much public support for the Truth movement, when Loose Change Version 2 was premiered at the Grand Lake Theater, the producers were challenged by researchers in the audience. To their credit, the producers of Loose Change took the challenges, as well as information offered, to heart. Loose Change- Final Cut is a completely new film, with questionable bits and pieces removed, new revelations and evidence incorporated, and given the glowing approval of the primary fact checker for the film, author David Ray Griffin, who has written and edited some excellent books on the topic.

http://www.communitycurrency.org/LCFC.html



DRG as a fact checker. That's quite a stretch.

 

[BrianH]

http://www.communitycurrency.org/LCFC.html



DRG as a fact checker. That's quite a stretch.

No more of a stretch than this.