What has the truth movement actually gotten right?

Profanz said:
The fact that we need to keep investigating 9/11. [1] All the debunkers still here in this forum in 2010 have proved that much to be true. [2] Not to mention the re investigative TV shows that keep coming out every year and still will because there has still not been any valid explanation for most aspects of what is claimed to be truth by some.
Click to expand...
Harpo said:
A potential Stundie?
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, it’s a funny one isn’t it? Sentence 1. says, “That we’re being opposed shows we’re right”, while 2. says “That we’re being supported shows we’re right”. It would upset a logical positivist or two.

Yours,

Par(ty) “Karl” Pooper.
 
Loss Leader said:
They've generally been correct in pointing out that a lot of very low probability events occurred on 9/11.

Of course, a lot of very low probability events occurred today and they've been pretty quiet about that.
Click to expand...


loss,

It might be fruitful for you to enumerate examples of that which the truth movement considers to be within the scope of what you call "low probability" events. Doing so would allow us to be a bit more specific about what the truth movement may be right about.

Generally speaking, when something is considered to have a low probability of being true, then, in such events, a greater proof requirement attaches precisely because the event is improbable to begin with. That would be true for low probability events occuring on 9/11/01 and on 3/2/10 or on any other day, correct? Furthermore, I don't think you are claiming that the "9/11 truth movement" is obliged to also take on a responsibility for questioning all other low probability events that have occurred before or since 9/11, are you?

Overall, what the truth movement may have gotten right in the general sense is that the "low probability" events of 9/11 were not only never explained with a greater reliance on proof -- based on the improbability of occurrence -- but, for that matter, were never really explained at all in some instances. And, none of the events of 9/11 were ever fully and elaborately explained. At best, haphazard and assumption riddled explanaiton is the absolute best that can be said about any aspect of 9/11 explanation. It is a true social phenomenon that Americans have required so little in the way of proof of the low probability events of 9/11. However, as I have explained many times, this is understandable. 9/11 is an emotional psyop and proof is not really a prerequisite.

Noteworthy as an example of this phenomenon of little or no explanation is the 9/11 Commission report's failure to mention that WTC 7 pulverized itself on the afternoon of 9/11. I am not here saying no explanation of the event was ever offered, for we know, of course, that NIST took a stab (literally and figuratively) at explanation in 2008, 7 years after the event. But, the 9/11 Commission report did not even mention the event, let alone offer explanation.

That it then took 7 years to even offer an explanation, separate and apart from assessment of the validity of that explanation, should rank, I think, as an historical red flag that says something about this generation of inquirers and citizens.


all the best
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
loss,

It might be fruitful for you to enumerate examples of that which the truth movement considers to be within the scope of what you call "low probability" events. Doing so would allow us to be a bit more specific about what the truth movement may be right about.

Generally speaking, when something is considered to have a low probability of being true, then, in such events, a greater proof requirement attaches precisely because the event is improbable to begin with. That would be true for low probability events occuring on 9/11/01 and on 3/2/10 or on any other day, correct? Furthermore, I don't think you are claiming that the "9/11 truth movement" is obliged to also take on a responsibility for questioning all other low probability events that have occurred before or since 9/11, are you?

Overall, what the truth movement may have gotten right in the general sense is that the "low probability" events of 9/11 were not only never explained with a greater reliance on proof -- based on the improbability of occurrence -- but, for that matter, were never really explained at all in some instances.

Noteworthy as an example of this phenomenon of little or no explanation is the 9/11 Commission report's failure to mention that WTC 7 pulverized itself on the afternoon of 9/11. I am not here saying no explanation of the event was ever offered, for we know, of course, that NIST took a stab (literally and figuratively) at explanation in 2008, 7 years after the event. But, the 9/11 Commission report did not even mention the event, let alone offer explanation.

That it then took 7 years to even offer an explanation, separate and apart from assessment of the validity of that explanation, should rank, I think, as an historical red flag that says something about this generation of inquirers and citizens.


all the best
Click to expand...

In all probability, as high as it may be, they probably had nothing further to say. Especially to appease the very few who think that it was probably the gubmint that probably did it. Problematic i know, but it is after all - your problem, probably;)
 
The other day I dealt myself a poker hand, consisting of the jack of diamonds, the seven of hearts, the two and seven of spades, and the three of clubs. The odds against that, as I understand them, were over two and a half million to one. How great a requirement of proof would a truther require to consider it plausible that I really held that hand?

One thing that the truth movement consistently doesn't get right is an understanding of the nature of probability, and another is an understanding of the scope of the 9/11 Commission Report. A third thing that it consistently doesn't get right is the understanding that, if a particular event is not explained in one specific source, this is in no way equivalent to it not being explained at all. And offering a reference to a specific explanation which has been accepted, by and large, by the majority of the engineering community, and claiming this as evidence that this explanation does not exist, is one of the things the truth movement frequently and spectacularly doesn't get right.

Dave
 
Several posts moved to AAH. If you believe a post is off-topic, please report it instead of making accusations in the thread. Bickering about whose post is more off-topic is always off-topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad
 
Jackanory said:
In all probability, as high as it may be, they probably had nothing further to say. Especially to appease the very few who think that it was probably the gubmint that probably did it. Problematic i know, but it is after all - your problem, probably;)
Click to expand...

jackanory,

Do you claim your post makes sense; or, is it simply meant as an indirect acknowledgment that dave hit upon a correct idea in stating that the 9/11 truth movement called attention to low probability events?

In furtherance of dave's post, I called attention to the proposition that the low probability events were never explained with the expected greater precision and, in some instances, of which I gave an examle, not explained at all in a context where explanation would have seemed to be required.

Can you please elaborate on what point or interest your quoted post sought to advance?


thanks
 
jammonius said:
Noteworthy as an example of this phenomenon of little or no explanation is the 9/11 Commission report's failure to mention that WTC 7 pulverized itself on the afternoon of 9/11. I am not here saying no explanation of the event was ever offered, for we know, of course, that NIST took a stab (literally and figuratively) at explanation in 2008, 7 years after the event. But, the 9/11 Commission report did not even mention the event, let alone offer explanation.
Click to expand...
Explain what WTC7 had to do with the mission of the 9/11 Commission.
 
Some time ago someone noted that there was a twenty minute error in one of the time lines. I don't recall if that was an observant truther or realist.
 
Even though they've taken this and run in the completely wrong direction with it, conspiracy advocates have noted the problems with Norm Mineta's identification of times in the testimony he's given. The conspiratorial conclusions truthers draw from it are little more than hyperventilation over anomalies, and the contradictions between his testimonies and others have been well explained (see links below), but they did identify that.

We're they the first to note the discrepancies? I don't remember. I just recall that, back when it was the trutheristic news of the day (wow... all the way back in '06, right?) it was my first exposure to conspiracy peddler's double standards (i.e. they wouldn't stand for the least little anomaly in other aspects of 9/11, but Mineta's anomalies and errors in recollection got a pass because it allowed them to implicate Cheney). I don't recall who actually noticed the differences first.

Anyway, links to where this has been discussed, plus Mike W.'s excellent page on his testimonies:
... and there are still more available by just doing a search. Anyway, there's my contribution to this thread.
 
Elmondo.
Like always a pleasure to read. Thank you for your contribution.

So we have
1. david chandlers futher indepth analysis of the collapse of wtc7
2. Gregory U's analysis that shows that explosives weren't needed.
3. Discrepencies in testimony of Norman M.
4. debunking of other truthers.
5. and usually noticing the obvious.
 
jammonius said:
It may be that you are now seeking to backtrack from giving the truth movement credit for calling attention to low probability events, however, if that is what you are doing, you are doing so in a most obtuse way.
Click to expand...

Jammonius,

Learn to read. In particular, learn how to read the username of the person who credited the truth movement for calling attention to low probability results.

I wouldn't credit the truth movement for that, because it's not something they've 'got right'; rather, it's a subtly applied form of dishonesty to claim that, because an event has a low probability, its occurrence is anomalous. I've given a perfectly clear example of a very low probability event which is in no way exceptional or implausible. In general, the truth movement either calls attention to low probability events which were unexceptional, or to events which although exceptional were of extremely high probability given the circumstances. The collapse of WTC7 was one of the latter; given the damage sustained by the building, it was in fact virtually inevitable.

To the rest of your wilful ignorance, delusional ramblings and outright lies I have nothing to say. If you want an education, pay for one.

Dave
 
TruthersLie said:
Elmondo.
Like always a pleasure to read. Thank you for your contribution.

So we have
1. david chandlers futher indepth analysis of the collapse of wtc7
2. Gregory U's analysis that shows that explosives weren't needed.
3. Discrepencies in testimony of Norman M.
4. debunking of other truthers.
5. and usually noticing the obvious.
Click to expand...

No problem. Don't know if I can take credit for anything more than just remembering it since I'm just a student of all this history myself, but I'm glad to contribute.

The folks to really contribute to this question would be the encyclopedic guys i.e. the one's who've put up sites. Mike W., who's put up 911myths.com, and "FactCheck" who did debunking911.com would probably have some good idea of what accuracies truthers have stumbled upon.

I'll say this, though: They overinflate their ability to find truths. For example: Chandler et. al. hyperventilated over their findings of a "free fall" period in the collapse of 7 World Trade. And while it's accurate, and above and beyond that actually helps illuminate something that wasn't known before - a minute detail about the collapse of that tower (the brief period of free fall indicated that a section of the building failed as a unit, rather than a component at a time) - it never did change the overall narrative of the collapse, nor did it even go so far as to refute any aspect of the NIST report. Contrary to what Chandler and his advocates say.

Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets. It was an honest illumination of a minute aspect of the collapse, but it never rose to the level of changing the entire narrative. And too many other truther "findings" don't even reach that. Again, I point to Mineta's testimony as an example of this: He testified to the best of his recollection, but a simple check against other events shows his recollection to be wrong. Demonstrably so, in fact (info is in the links I gave above). Yet, truthers try to make more of the discrepancies than is warranted, far too much more in fact. What you have is his best recall simply being inaccurate; what you end up with is the truther desire to turn that into evidence that someone else lied. The unfortunate part of your quest to find what they did get right is that it's going to take a bit of work to unravel the truth from the spaghetti of hyperventilating mistakes they wrap it in. Their dedication to slanting and spinning instead of straightforward analysis of facts makes this difficult to do. But they've only got themselves to blame for this.

If any more occur to me, I'll post them.
 
Does anyone else find it hilarious that the OP asks what truthers have right and along comes jammonius, who of course has everything wrong, thus correctly answering the question: Nada.

Ah jammonius, no matter how hard you push, distort and ignore the evidence, it still won't fit your fantasies.
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 210
Happy Birthday DGM!

Judy Wood and Jammonius got the fact right that every picture of ground zero is completely flat. I ran my finger over my monitor for every single picture and there was nary a bump, even the pictures with seven stories of debris.
 
they gotright that the Displacement plots of the FEA model of WTC-7 had no normalization nor amplification.
 
A large number of posts have been removed to AAH. If you want to discuss other topics, do so in an appropriate thread. If the derailing continues, this thread will simply be closed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom