funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
I suspect the lying pieces of crap will redefine update and say they meant align.
The PF9/11 Truth Video
- Thread starter angrysoba
- Start date
-
- Tags
- black boxes rob balsamo
I suspect the lying pieces of crap will redefine update and say they meant align.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Sorry, but unless you are the CIA infiltated OBL and planted the idea MIHOP, or the the gov. knew what was happening but let it happen LIHOP (which are at least remotely plausible) then you are indeed an idiot. The other sort are simply paranoid, I'm not sure thats better but at least there are treatments for paranoia but there are none for idiocy
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Sorry, but unless you are the CIA infiltated OBL and planted the idea MIHOP, or the the gov. knew what was happening but let it happen LIHOP (which are at least remotely plausible) then you are indeed an idiot. The other sort are simply paranoid, I'm not sure thats better but at least there are treatments for paranoia but there are none for idiocy
And I bet you still believe we actually landed on the moon too
angrysoba
Philosophile
I would tend to agree with the others that it is misleading to use the term Truther unless you believe in LIHOP or MIHOP. Every Truther I have ever met (including those who pretend to be agnostic - or open-minded - on the subject) have endorsed the "9/11 was an inside job!" theory. They may say that all they want is to know "the Truth" but get them talking long enough and the bats will surely start flying out of their mouths before long. They'll also believe that not being of the same opinion as them is "naiive" and exhort people to wake up, etc...
(I would have suggested a more neutral term such as "investigator" except "9/11 Investigator" is the handle on this board of a Holocaust denier.)
My co-workers are Truthers because it clearly doesn't end with the "just asking questions" routine or even "the government has lied". They've formed conclusions such as "The plane that hit the WTC was not a 767 but a military plane" and "No airliner hit the Pentagon; a missile hit the Pentagon". As with Balsamo they are blatantly pushing a theory that the US government was responsible as is clear from Balsamo's "How could Arabs in caves modify a 767?" routine.
Anyway, BCR, I've seen a number of threads by you in which you've posted material you've gathered from Freedom of Information Act requests and this has been very useful. Thanks for that. I don't think that is "Trutherism". Rather, it's more like the type of thing Terry McDermott was doing when he wrote "Perfect Soldiers" about the hijackers. In that book, particularly in the notes, he spends a lot of time sifting fact from fiction and explaining where there are still gaps in our knowledge. However, he clearly isn't a MIHOPer or LIHOPer.
Just to get this thread somewhat back on track do you think you could give me some idea what you think of these books/videos on 9/11.
Broadly, I would put them into three categories:
Excellent/ Required/Minor Flaws
Necessary/Useful But Very Flawed
Piece of Crap
Here are a few titles (maybe this could be a whole new thread) - in no particular order...
9/11 Commission Report
Debunking 9/11 Myths
Perfect Soldiers
Looming Tower
Ghost Wars
Firefight (?): Inside the Pentagon Fire
9/11: INTERCEPTED
9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK
9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON
FLIGHT OF AMERICAN 77
FLIGHT OF UNITED 93
9/11 Blueprint of Truth/Architecture of Destruction or whatever the Richard Gage thing is called.
9/11 Mysteries
David Ray Griffin's books
David Icke's books
The Ground Truth
By the way, this is open to anyone, Truthers, non-Truthers, agnostics... Please feel free to add other titles or categories.
For example, I'd put "Perfect Soldiers" in the first category. It's good on the hijackers but he makes some mistakes. He talks of the fires melting the steel which we all know didn't happen and could get seized on by Truthers.
angrysoba
Philosophile
This may be a case of the "No true Scotsman fallacy" or maybe the "No true Truther fallacy."
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Sorry, all of those are sub-par. The best book on the Pentagon attack is Zoe's Flight by John Farmer
angrysoba
Philosophile
Sorry, all of those are sub-par. The best book on the Pentagon attack is Zoe's Flight by John Farmer
All of them are below par?
One of them, The Ground Truth, is by the same author as Zoe's Flight - which I've never heard of, by the way.
I had seriously thought about ordering it. But now that you say it is sub-par...
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
All of them are below par?
One of them, The Ground Truth, is by the same author as Zoe's Flight - which I've never heard of, by the way.
I had seriously thought about ordering it. But now that you say it is sub-par...
No, Ground Truth is by the smart John Farmer, although he did give me a footnote in his book kinda opening the door to mine. So no, Zoe's Flight is by the good-looking John Farmer (me) and I should have the manuscript done by the end of April. Can't rush perfection ya know
angrysoba
Philosophile
No, Ground Truth is by the smart John Farmer, although he did give me a footnote in his book kinda opening the door to mine. So no, Zoe's Flight is by the good-looking John Farmer (me) and I should have the manuscript done by the end of April. Can't rush perfection ya know
So the smart John Farmer writes sub-par books? And the good looking one writes the best books. You can see how it could cause confusion. Especially if you praise each other in the footnotes of each other's books.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Now Dave, everyone in Memphis knows Elvis is still hanging out in the Jungle Room when the tourists clear out
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
So the smart John Farmer writes sub-par books? And the good looking one writes the best books. You can see how it could cause confusion. Especially if you praise each other in the footnotes of each other's books.
Because I use the works of a whole bunch of smart guys like Dean Farmer and build on them. In response to your list though, some I have not read so I can't comment (like DRG's). However, every book is written from one persons point-of-view and I am one who loves as many pov's as I can get on a subject. That is why my book is taking so long. When I came across a tidbit about Zawahiri being arrested in Dagestan by Russian authorities and then being released after a few months, I had to go find books on Dagestan, Chechnya, and Azerbaijan to read so that I could have the proper context.
How do you understand 9/11 if you don't read OBL's, Zawahiri, Azzam, Qutb, and Taymiyyah? You cannot understand OBL in Sudan unless you understand Bosnia, so a few books on that conflict are on my reading list. A person cannot understand the 'terror summer' of 1996 unless they understand the political aspects of Clinton's re-election problems that same year. The events of 1998 cannot be understood unless Iraq is considered, while 1999 was another set of circumstances altogether.
History is something of a panorama and events are most often intermingled. When trying to understand one event, one must consider that to do so, one must understand the fabric of the moment of time for which it is only a single thread. So my real answer to your question is that each has value and worth, whether some of us agree with their 'conclusions' or not.
For example, Wright's Looming Tower paints a portrait of OBL in Afghanistan as something of a pauper, lamenting that after Sudan OBL was left 'poor'. It is an interesting portrait gleaned from personal interviews with people close to OBL. In reality, OBL had more than enough resources and was adequately funded. The money he 'invested' in Sudan was 'his', but every penny was being replenished by 'donations' to NGO's he controlled. It turns out that OBL chose to live his lifestyle of poverty in Afghanistan to cultivate the image he wanted portrayed to the Muslim world. We can learn that aspect of the story from Abdel Bari Atwan's The Secret History of Al Qaeda and other sources. I could go on, but I think you see my point.
Not trying to sell my book here, just trying to point out that limiting oneself to a single perspective can often leave a person with an incomplete portrait of events. So my answer is, read them all!
A significant amount of the miscommunication that happens between people is the result of simple differences in the definition of terms.
In order to have sensible conversations, a crucial first step is agreeing on the definition of the words we use. And then being consistent in following that definition.
As a friend of mine likes to say, "you can call a dog's tail 'a leg', but that does not mean that a dog really has five legs."
Holding out for "my own private definitions" isn't standing for principles. It's being needlessly obstinate and confounding.
It'll be much easier (& a great time saver for everyone involved) if you use conventional definitions. Or are rigorously specific each time you use one in a non-standard way.
There is nothing more frustrating than to be involved in some protracted debate with someone, only to find that the heart of the entire disagreement is simply a difference in the definition of a term. A colossal waste of time.
tom
PS. I debated Mr. Gaffney on a thread called "Orange Mane" (Denver Bronkos web site). I found him to be a deep, deep well of ignorance & truther platitudes.
NONE of his arguments stood up to 2 minutes of scrutiny.
Sorry, I disagree.
I am not the slightest bit interested in reading OBL's, or Zawahiris, or Sirhan Sirhan's, or Mark Chapman's, etc. rambling self-justifications in order to understand "their perspective".
I'm interested in the objective facts of what happened in those events.
If there are tidbits of info about "what happened" (not "why it happened) in those books, then fine. Bring them forward.
The one, the only, question that I'm interested in is "did they do it?"
Just like any mass murderer or terrorist, I'll give them a chance to explain themselves AFTER the facts have been presented & the verdict rendered. I don't mind that waste of time. I can always do a crossword puzzle while they ramble on about the justification for killing innocent by-standers for some holy cause.
tom
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Well, some people only want to know the what. The operative word was 'understand', and for that a person needs to understand the motivation behind the what. I'm writing for my kids (11,14 and 28) so that they have a record of what happened.
However, understanding why translates to modern events and why my older son had to serve in Iraq and why even now we are sacrificing blood and money both domestically and abroad. Understanding why helps the next generation avoid the same mistakes of ours.
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 291
Gage and Balsamo are FB friends at least
You are right to ask for evidence to check the validity of utterances from him. One indication that Richard Gage and Rob Balsamo are friends is that they are so on FaceBook.
You are right to ask for evidence to check the validity of utterances from him. One indication that Richard Gage and Rob Balsamo are friends is that they are so on FaceBook.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
This is laudable of course but it's not as if no other writers (or readers) do the same. Many of the books that deal with the wider geogolitical background were written by people who had spent years immersed in the politics of the regions you mentioned. Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll, is good for a broad history of how radical Islamism developed in the twenty or thirty years prior to 9/11 and also the foundations of Saudi Arabia, the civil war in Afghanistan, the Jaamaati-e-Islami movement in Pakistan and Muhammed Zia-ul-haq's co-option of the Islamists there and their policies towards Kashmir and Afghanistan. He also goes into the Central Asian Republics with their terrorist movements there (although not in-depth) and how the Iranian Revolution had kick-started copycat movements in Sunni countries such as Pakistan and Libya etc... If you haven't read it yet I can't urge you strongly enough to do so.
From reading Ghost Wars (which, in my opinion, is far superior to Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower , despite Looming Tower being good) I wanted to read around these subjects and picked up a book on the Seige of Mecca, two histories of Iran, some books by Ahmed Rashid, books about the Central Asian Republics and the war in Chechnya and also spoke to people from the various places that are central to the story to guage what the opinions of people in those places are and to get a range of POVs, which brings me to my next point...
On your remark "every book is written from one persons point-of-view and I am one who loves as many pov's as I can get on a subject" this is necessarily and trivially true of all books that only have one author and your book will be no different in that way. Surely the main difference is that not all POVs are equal. Some are far more informed than others. In my experience most "Truther" books are the ones that seek to decontextualize the facts. They can't resist finding quotes and even lopping off the end of a sentence if the truncated sentence seems to further the Truther agenda.
Saying every POV is the POV of just one person is a little too platitudinous for me. It's even platitudinous to point out that some POVs are better than others, yet that is also a better platitude.
Well, it depends on what you are trying to understand. Presumably the engineers from NIST didn't need to read jihadist literature to understand how the buildings fell down but yes, of course, if you are trying to understand what drove al-Qaeda to do what they did then reading their literature and their histories is essential. In my humble opinion I'd suggest starting with Abdullah Azzam's "Defence of Muslim Lands". I think that his vision of a type of vanguard Islamist movement was the inspiration for al-Qaeda.
Well, again, this is a platitudinouos statement, yet in this case it is most likely wrong. "Every book has its worth" is a terribly vacuous idea. It might be that some books are very good at propping up a wobbly kitchen table leg but some of them are worth nothing more than that.
See, that is interesting. If someone wrote a completely fabricated history of his life with bin Laden then I think it would be fair to call it worthless. Hitler's diaries, for example, are worthless because they are forgeries. Not all books are worthwhile.
On the subject of bin Laden, I know that Michael Scheuer has a new book out on bin Laden. It would probably be fair to say that his insights will be worth reading, even if we don't agree with everything Scheuer says. I certainly don't agree with Abdel Bari Atwan either but might be interested in reading his book.
Fine, but in fact I never asked for one definitive book on 9/11 and have read plenty of books on the subject and around the subject. As it happens, you were the one who came closest to doing that by saying all of the books I mentioned were sub-par as if they were equally sub-par and that the best book on 9/11 is forthcoming.
"Read them all!" is a great answer if I had unlimited time and unlimited money. But I think you are needlessly muddying the waters by saying they are all equally worthy of my time. As you yourself point out "History is something of a panorama and events are most often intermingled. When trying to understand one event, one must consider that to do so, one must understand the fabric of the moment of time for which it is only a single thread." But the logical conclusion to this is that I have to read every book that's ever been published as a necessary condition of understanding 9/11.
Now, obviously this is impossible and leads us to having to make judgments about what we should or need not read. And much of that decision making process is guided by what specific aspects of 9/11 we're interested in.
This is even more true when it comes to subjects outside our fields. Unfortunately, I am not a scientist and I have no aviation background. The history and the philosophy I can mostly do for myself without any help, but when it comes to engineering, aviation etc... I have to make judgments on who I can trust based on the methodology I see being applied by those people making their claims.
I have to ask: Do they use good methodology or is there some obvious agenda going on?
Are there obvious attempts to fudge data?
Do they apply skepticism equally or will they employ a radical (almost Humean skepticism) to anyone on one side of the argument and be quick to accept as fact any old junk that someone on their own side of the argument produces?
While there certainly are debunkers who will sometimes go a long with anything, the vast, vast majority of those who apply a very uneven skepticism are those on the Truther side.
So, let's quickly get back to the OP.
My co-worker, who also has no experience of aviation and about the same understanding of measuring the speed of an aircraft, believes that 9/11 World Trade Center Attack destroys the 9/11 "official story" and leads him to conclude that the government was in on it and that a military aircraft actually hit the WTC.
I see no reason at all to come to those conclusions because there is likely to be a far more prosaic answer to the questions raised in the video about the speed of the aircraft. One of those could be the very thing that I think Balsamo pointed out; the speeds estimated by NTSB are likely to be unreliable anyway as there was no black box data. The fact that his whole theory (although Balsamo pretends he has no theory) is based on unreliable data and ignores all the many, many questions that would inevitably arise if his theory is correct (i.e where is the real plane? What about the phone calls? What about the DNA evidence found at the sites of the other attacks? etc...)
So, would anyone mind tackling the subject of the OP? If not we can just let this thread die a natural death.