Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[Dave Rogers]

In the mid 1960's the only studies on Transcendental Meditation were in a journal started by meditators. But in 1972, the first scientific study on TM was published in an independent recognized journal, the American Journal of Physiology, by Dr. Herbert Benson and Robert K. Wallace of Harvard Medical School. www.HerbertBenson.com Benson was ridiculed by his peers for studying meditation, but now has over 50 published studies, and a Chair named in his honor at Harvard. Today there are over 600 studies, including research funded by the National Institutes of Health. www.TM.org/research

Ah, sorry. I didn't realise the true seriousness of your condition. You have my sympathies, but I think a cure is most unlikely.

Dave

 

[CompusMentus]

Here is a WAV from 2001: a space odyssey
http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/info.wav

Access forbidden.

Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

There's another interesting fallacy there that I'm used to seeing quite a lot from truthers, though, and I haven't thought of a name for. It's the claim that, when two events of the same class occur, the results of them should resemble one another exactly. In this case, the class is "building collapse", and the fallacious suggestion is this: When two buildings collapse, they should generate similar amounts of dust, irrespective of the details of the collapse. This line of thought ignores, for example, the difference in height between the two buildings, which would add to the energy of collisions between blocks of concrete in the taller building and hence very obviously result in a different size distribution in the debris. But this detail difference is ignored, as if it were irrelevant, as if all building collapses must necessarily be identical.

There's no doubt that truthers' thinking is fundamentally broken. The only real question remaining is the detail of how and where.

Dave

You're a dab hand at using pure logic haymakers Dave. Great stuff.

Annoyingly though, conspiracy theorists, particularly of the truther type do this all the time. Those that "research" the 9/11 Shanksville/Pentagon aircraft crashes have produced many examples. Ie they will display images of other (unrelated) plane crashes and howl "look at the wreckage here! Why wasn't there wreckage like that at Shanksville/The Pentagon? Inside Job!!" All other reasonable considerations are out the window.

BTW looking at the excellent list HERE I think this type of reasoning is related to an Argument By Generalization and/or Fallacy of the General Rule
.


Compus

 

[Joey McGee]

Ah, sorry. I didn't realise the true seriousness of your condition. You have my sympathies, but I think a cure is most unlikely.

Dave

I've been corresponding with him on the TM thread, and the prognosis is indeed grave. But I have seen worse cases recover. Namely, myself.

cicorp I would have been right there with ya buddy, many years ago. Things are different now. Michael Shermer loves you! He's knocking at the door, longing to commune with you, you just have to make the choice to open the door. He has dedicated his life to your salvation! His is the way, the truth, and the light.

 

[Dave Rogers]

BTW looking at the excellent list HERE I think this type of reasoning is related to an Argument By Generalization and/or Fallacy of the General Rule

The latter, I think, is precisely the one. There's a further complication added to this sometimes by truthers, in that they don't even establish that the "general" rule in fact applies in any cases, let alone the one they've attempted to apply it to. The infamous near-free-fall period of descent of WTC7 is the classic example; truthers imply that this is governed by a general rule that "Only demolition with explosives can result in a period of free-fall collapse", without even presenting examples that support the rule. It's not so much affirming the consequent as hallucinating the consequent.

Dave

 

[Sabretooth]

Scientific research takes time

You're right...but it's already been done.

Just because you choose to ignore the findings, it doesn't make them invalid.

 

[Sabretooth]

The funny part, the sun was up, visible, it was early in the morning, which way is south? Would being a boy scout pay off? Compass, Compass, I don't need no stinkin compass.

Think about it, drive to the coast (fly), turn right, and in 20 minutes or so you are in NYC! No pilot skills needed to do 911, just ability to kill, mindlessly kill for your god which you are not allowed to say his name. Whey do you make up delusions about the acts of 19 murderers who had to train to do 911?

The ADI is a pilots earth. When we can't see the earth, we use the ADI to know which way is up, along with a number of instruments to help back it up. On 911 the terrorist pilot needed no instruments, it was clear.

IIRC, they followed the Hudson. Might as well be a giant flashing arrow pointing to Manhattan.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... It's not so much affirming the consequent as hallucinating the consequent.

OMG, I have GOT to remember that! Hallucinating the consequent... I am sooo going to use that on somebody at some point!

 

[TruthersLie]

This the topic of another forum, but I am still checking my sources to find out if the 115000 AA stock purchases were outright, or puts.

NOpe it belongs right here (and in the other topic as well) as it is relevant and pertinent to any of your claims.

You made ******** claims about the put orders and then demonstrated a vast amount of ignorance and incredulity. You have shown absolutely NO idea about what you are talking about and are accusing an"unknown" group of interviewers (who I posted their names for) and the SEC of being in on the conspiracy.

It is relevant because you have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding or basic research skills on ANY of the topics you have tried to pass off.

These are good and honorable organizations that protect American citizens. I only object to rogue elements, a few who have a warped idea of what is right for America, the few bad apples who may have infiltrated powerful positions.

It may be a fault of our governmental system that a small .1% group of rich and powerful NeoCons, perhaps as a reward for campaign contributions, can become appointed as heads of organizations of the 99.9% of dedicated staff who are honest. For example, Cheney, a draft dodger, was once head of the Department of Defense. Wall Street shark Hank Paulson walked in and became boss of good Government employees at the Department of Treasury, who have worked there for over 20 years.

Maybe the Founding Fathers should have made it a requirement that to become head of a department, one must have worked there for at least a few years. Then we will get public service oriented people at the top. A good example is Lisa Jackson who worked for the US and New Jersey Environmental Protection Agencies for 22 years, before being appointed head of the EPA.

blah blah blah, handwave noted. You have claimed that the SEC were in possession of the put orders investigation and tried to pass it off that they are dirty. You made the insinuation and now you are handwaving it away.

You were given direct links to it. Your desire to have a conspiracy has caused it to grow and grow and grow.

How many people are in on it now?

I agree the peer reviewed journal articles are the way science works and the 9/11 Truth Movement need more to be taken seriously by the scientific community. It takes time. They are working on one such as Mark Basile's replication of the Bentham study.

Ummm.. you made another trutherLIE there. The 9/11 truth movement needs to get ONE. Not more. Just one that shows that any part of the NIST report is wrong. Not self published in JONES, not in a pay to publish vanity journal (bentham). And there is not replication of any of that methodological pile of ****. It is crap. And it is fail.

so when you get a peer reviewed journal article in any language in any real peer reviewed journal, look us up.

In the mid 1960's the only studies on Transcendental Meditation were in a journal started by meditators. But in 1972, the first scientific study on TM was published in an independent recognized journal, the American Journal of Physiology, by Dr. Herbert Benson and Robert K. Wallace of Harvard Medical School. www.HerbertBenson.com Benson was ridiculed by his peers for studying meditation, but now has over 50 published studies, and a Chair named in his honor at Harvard. Today there are over 600 studies, including research funded by the National Institutes of Health. www.TM.org/research

OMG.... too bad the twoof movement isn't the transcendental meditation movement... do you know what they had going for them? Science.

Next you will compare the twoof movement to people who believed the earth was round, or will it be Martin Luther King Jr?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The statement in the 9/11 Report about the AA stock purchases could be interpreted either way: standard purchase or put option like the UA puts. No one has sent me any link to prove the AA put options were outright sales.

Now there's a leap of logic that I hadn't previously categorised. I'm not even sure how best to formulate it. Let's see, it goes something like this:

Official report says A.
Truther wilfully misinterprets A as B.
Truther claims that the official report could therefore be read to imply either A or B.
Truther then highlights the fact that there is no proof that B is not A, making the implicit assumption that B is necessarily true.

It's not exactly shifting the burden of proof, because it goes a step further. Cicorp isn't saying "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA trades were sales and not put options", he's saying "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA put options were outright sales." He's assuming that they have been shown to be put options.

It goes a stage further, because the sentence "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA put options were outright sales" is nonsense. A put option is not, and cannot possibly be, an outright sale. And it's a continuation of cicorp's total incomprehension of stock transactions, in which he is unable to see that an option to sell is different from a purchase.

Fascinating stuff, though more for the psychologist than the historian.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Now there's a leap of logic that I hadn't previously categorised. I'm not even sure how best to formulate it. Let's see, it goes something like this:

Official report says A.
Truther wilfully misinterprets A as B.
Truther claims that the official report could therefore be read to imply either A or B.
Truther then highlights the fact that there is no proof that B is not A, making the implicit assumption that B is necessarily true.

It's not exactly shifting the burden of proof, because it goes a step further. Cicorp isn't saying "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA trades were sales and not put options", he's saying "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA put options were outright sales." He's assuming that they have been shown to be put options.

It goes a stage further, because the sentence "No one has sent me any link to prove the AA put options were outright sales" is nonsense. A put option is not, and cannot possibly be, an outright sale. And it's a continuation of cicorp's total incomprehension of stock transactions, in which he is unable to see that an option to sell is different from a purchase.

Fascinating stuff, though more for the psychologist than the historian.

Dave

Well, you've already coined the "Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy". Might as well do another one: The "Unacknowledged Reality" one.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Is April Gallop for real? Does she think that the Pentagon blew itself up?

I've been reading, trying to find where this has been discussed at JREF, but no luck. Has anyone looked at this new bit of Truther dirt? It involves a woman named April Gallop and a pending court case.


NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.

The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.

Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care.

Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.

The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.

Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft -- no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck at 9:38 a.m.

The 9/11 Commission reported that "by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center."

Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?

Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.

Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 -- the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day -- with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.

On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis -- that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts -- is scientifically untenable.

In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.

 

[Oystein]

I've been reading, trying to find where this has been discussed at JREF, but no luck. Has anyone looked at this new bit of Truther dirt? It involves a woman named April Gallop and a pending court case.
...

April Gallop already sued American Airlines - and succeeded. This means that before the current pending court case, she went before a court of law, successfully claiming that her ailments were caused by an American Airlines jet crashing into her work place. Now she goes to cour claimin it wasn't an American Airlines plane that caused her ailments.

I'll leave it to you to spot the cognitive dissonance.

Also, we have her statements of what happened that she made a very short while after 9/11. These statements testify to two things: a) she was badly traumatized b) The story that you just related is different from what she remembered shortly after the event.
Which memory would you trust more - the one related weeks after an event, or the one related years after an event?

 

[jaydeehess]

In my case it is a 2 year old grandson.

2 year old and 7 year old grand-daughters here....

 

[jaydeehess]

Familiar concept. She doesn't want to hear about 9/11. Thankfully there's JREF.
The only flight my wife wants to hear about is one to the Bahamas.

Mine like Mexico, doesn't like discussing any conspiracy theory.

I have sent witness point of view photos to them, but am not a member of CIT,

then why bpther responding to my quip about CiT and wives if I was not speaking to you, a married non-CiT male?

and don't agree Pentagon Police Officer Roberts is sufficient proof of a Fly Over.

I cannot find any particularily sufficient or compelling arguement to be made at all for a fly-over in any eyewitness testimony , any physical evidence , or any docuementary evidence.

On the other hand, I find the NOC testimonies of Pentagon Police Officers Brooks and Lagasse, et. al to be credible.

Referring to their credibility carries with it an unwanted connotation of stupidity or deceit. I consider them to be incorrect in their recall of exactly where the aircraft was seen as it flew by them. I feel the same way about Boger's description of the exact direction from which the aircraft came.

OTOH I find that everyone who was in position, including Boger, to see impact describes impact. None of them describes anything else, nor do they indicate that at first they thought it would do something else(i.e. fly over the building, or hit a top floor), that this very specific descripition from several sources bolsters the accuracy of this very specific description; basically that the aircraft impacted very low down on the structure's wall. This is a far cry from the diverse descriptions the CiT collectively refer to as NoC which range from Middleton's north of the Navy Annex to Morin's slightly north of Columbia Pike (but barely , or not even , over the Annex) and several in between.

 

[jaydeehess]

So in other words, you don't have a source, you are just taking truther assertions. How can you demand the release of footage from '85 security cameras' if you don't even know it exists or not?

A point that never ceases to amaze me. Conspiracy theorists basically make up the number of cameras they assume there should be and then complain when the actual number is less than this inflated number they invented.

 

[jaydeehess]

IIRC, they followed the Hudson. Might as well be a giant flashing arrow pointing to Manhattan.

Which is related to my point about 'finding' the Pentagon. Fly in the general diretion of DC then, when you spot a honking big river, look along its shoreline for the particularily distinctive Pentagon shaped, very large structure with nothing but parking lots and lawns on the other sides of it.

,,,,, or, if one has but minimal navigational skills, follow the VOR signal(fly a route that has the direction to the VOR remain unchanged as you travel) until you spot a honking big river, look along its shoreline for the particularily distinctive Pentagon shaped, very large structure with nothing but parking lots and lawns on the other sides of it.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've been reading, trying to find where this has been discussed at JREF, but no luck. Has anyone looked at this new bit of Truther dirt? It involves a woman named April Gallop and a pending court case.


NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

.

In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.

Since Gallop already took money from the airline in claiming that they were responsible she is being rather two faced by now saying that the airline did not do it.

Will she be returning her previous settlement?

BTW, yes, this has been discussed several times and I hardly think that this is new even though your article was apparently written a few days ago.

Try seaching the forum for april gallop.

ETA: Here's one

 

[Sunstealer]

Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis -- that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts -- is scientifically untenable.

I wonder which paper that is from. If it's Jones and Harrit et al's nonsense I can't wait for that to get ripped to shreds in court.

 

[jaydeehess]

All the relevant calls from Arlington Virginia's 911 Emergency Dispatch on 9/11 should be released. If anyone reported a Pentagon Fly Over, we should have the right to know about it. When they are not released, as 911 calls were in NYC, then this looks suspicious.

What causes you to believe that all relevent calls to Arlington 911 have not been released?
What causes you to believe that anyone would call 911 and say "I just saw a plane fly over the Pentagon!" when in fact the structure lies mere dozens of feet to the north of the approach to National airport? IOW, from the north and south it looks like planes are flying over the Pentagon all day every day!

How about photos from these cameras? Even some cameras were removed. Suspicious.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t14873.html

Its been noted that you have not sourced evidence of these cameras so far other than to link to a page from Pft.

In the picture at the top of that page there are three supposed locations of cameras. The one to the north is a moot point since its blow up shows it is on a north facing wall and would be incapable of showing anything along the wall where impact (or supposed bombing) took place.
there is a photo of a camera refered to as being in the center of the wall right above the impact point. The picture is referenced as having been taken in Aug 06 and supposedly having replaced one that was there at the time of impact. However is there any evidence to bolster that claim?
The third camera is at the far south end corner.

In every case the camera type and location would suggest that these are used to keep watch of the entrances on the walls. Indeed there is no reason to expect that at any time did these cameras get pointed outward. Security cameras are not there to watch for aerial attacks , they are there to watch for human intruders. Why does this simple fact seem to elude those who wish for security video of the impact/supposed explosion?

Now lets look at how fast the plane was going. Let's assume that the plane was only going 350 MPH when it hit
350MPH = 73 feet per second.
IF the security camera was pointed directly at the point of impact and IF its field of view showed up to 73 feet in front of the building and IF it was recording at 30 frames per second there sould be 30 frames of the plane moving towards and into the building.

It would take even an olympic sprinter 5 seconds to traverse this distance and enter the building.

Obviously then the first thing we notice is that there is no need to waste recording space with 30 fps and indeed the security cam watching the parking lot entrance only recorded 1 frame per second. This would lead one to lean towards the idea that most cameras recorded at 1 frame per second.

We also note that of the cameras in that PfT picture (assuming the picture is accurate which given PfT's track record is not actually a given) and taking into account that the cameras would be preferentially aimed at the doors we can no longer assume a full 73 foot wide field of view out from the side of the building at the point in question. In fact we certainly cannot simple assume that this specific point was in any shot.

PfT makes a lot of noise about the canera directly above the point of impact. One thing is quite obvious here, this camera most certainly would not record a fly over since is cannot poiint up.
It would also be unusual for it to be pointed straight down since viewing such an extreme angle would offer little to security personaell. An obligue view would be more useful in identifying an intruder. This leaves only the south corner camera whic is situated, according to the picture, such that it would cover both walls. We note that a main entrance to the Pentagon is on the south side and it would seem that this would be a likely direction for this camera to be aimed.

Finally; THIS IS THE PENTAGON, it is the headquarters of the military of the USA! Why would you suppose that this organization would be willing and eager to share exactly what their security cameras are watching from day to day? You do understand what "security" means in this context, right?

So, come back when you have more information to bolster the idea that there were cameras where PfT says there were and that these cameras were showing the location in question at the time in question. You might also include a rational for why, if these videos were not showing that location at that time, that the US DoD would be willing to share what these cameras actually watch.