Accurate representations of 9/11 truth movement?

[The Doc]

A question to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

What is an accurate representation of your movement?

At first Loose Change was the accurate representation of the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. When Gravy released his viewer's guide, when Pat and James started their blog and when MarkyX released "Screw Loose Change", that appeared to change. Conspiracy theorists themselves wrote critical hit pieces directed at the film, saying it wasn't an accurate representation of the movement.

And then from Dylan himself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&
"Loose Change really is not a very fair representation of the 9-11 Truth Movement. I would recommend 9-11 Press for Truth, 9-11 Mysteries."The same thing happened with James Fetzer, Judy Wood and even Steven Jones. Some say Fetzer and Judy Wood aren't a fair representation of the movement because they promote space beam theories. Others say that Steven Jones isn't a fair representation of their movement because he promotes thermite theories.

So again, what exactly is a fair representation of the 9/11 truth movement's theories? I've always heard of things not being a fair representation, but I want to know something that is a fair representation.

[T.A.M.]

Pre August 2006 - "Loose Change".
August to December 2006 - "Press for Truth"
2007 so far - 9/11 Mysteries

TAM:)

[The Doc]

Loose Change:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25

Total flubs: 426

9/11 Mysteries:

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/appendices.php
False information presented as fact: 79
Lies via 3rd party commentator: 4
Assumed accidental mistakes: 38
Appeal to Authority: 4
Incomplete Quotes used to support evidence: 23
Quotes taken out of context to support evidence: 15
Assumptions/Speculation used to support evidence: 62
Anonymous Sources: 1
Sources who disagree with conspiracy theory used to support conspiracy theory: 12
“Straw Man” Arguments: 16
Oversimplifications: 67
Similes or Metaphors taken as literal statements: 22
Omissions from Transcript: 4
Bad Analogies: 6
Contradictions: 18

Total Errors: 371


Sounds like a couple of pretty accurate representations of the truth movement to me :)

[Slayhamlet]

Wow! That's your site?

I'm impressed.

[The Doc]

Thanks :)

It was designed by forum member "NeoRicen".

[T.A.M.]

Doc:

Alt+F4 emailed the creator of the alleged "voice mimicking" software that LC and the truthers in general claim was used to fake the airfone calls. According to his reply, even today, in 2007, the technology is not close to being able to mimick in real time.

For the exacts, see a post made by him today on the matter.

I thought you might want to get the guys address, and perhaps get a quote from him and then use it in any upcoming films you might make.

TAM:)

[The Doc]

Doc:

Alt+F4 emailed the creator of the alleged "voice mimicking" software that LC and the truthers in general claim was used to fake the airfone calls. According to his reply, even today, in 2007, the technology is not close to being able to mimick in real time.

For the exacts, see a post made by him today on the matter.

I thought you might want to get the guys address, and perhaps get a quote from him and then use it in any upcoming films you might make.

TAM:)

Thanks TAM :)

I believe 9/11 Mysteries Part II will be making this claim. This could come very much in handy.

[Slayhamlet]

Thanks :)

It was designed by forum member "NeoRicen".

Props to you and NeoRicen, then! :)

BTW, how were you able to get through all of "9/11 Mysteries"? I made it like 15 minutes before I vomited. How long is it, anyway? Hell, I almost died watching Loose Change all the way through, and there's no way I could stomach any more "troof" than that.

[T.A.M.]

Doc: you are welcome. Anything I can do to help quash the lies.

TAM:)

[The Doc]

The film is 1 hour and 30 minutes long. It's hard to watch, due to fear of becoming stupid. There is a link to a "cleansed" version of the film in my signature which makes it a bit easier to watch :)

It troubles me that people would call this an accurate representation of their claims, that's for sure. Especially when the film claims a cloud of ash exclusive to volcanic activity covered New York City, despite these clouds being exclusive to volcanoes, over 500°C in temperature and typically known to travel at 200km/h.

So much for 9/11 Mysteries being "a more scientific analysis of 9/11 than Loose Change" eh?

[~enigma~]

Don't forget it goes clunkity-clunk :)

[Slayhamlet]

The film is 1 hour and 30 minutes long. It's hard to watch, due to fear of becoming stupid. There is a link to a "cleansed" version of the film in my signature which makes it a bit easier to watch :)

It troubles me that people would call this an accurate representation of their claims, that's for sure. Especially when the film claims a cloud of ash exclusive to volcanic activity covered New York City, despite these clouds being exclusive to volcanoes, over 500°C in temperature and typically known to travel at 200km/h.

Pyroclastic flow! LMOA!!

I remember our own Ace Baker using that term, and I laughed my ass off when I saw it then too. I knew he got it from somewhere, but I had no idea it came from such a well-reputed source among Troofers. How do they expect anyone with an IQ higher than 90 to take them seriously?

[T.A.M.]

The key word, that tells you the truthers think a work is representative of their movement, is "undebunkable". If they use this word to describe said work, than you can be pretty sure they consider the work to be their "current" benchmark.

TAM:)

[slugmancs]

The best part of 9/11 Mysteries is the CD one where they say no building has ever collapsed due to fire then, in practically the same breath, say that WTC 1 & WTC 2 were the first ever top down CDs, as if it were now common practice.

[~enigma~]

Pyroclastic flow! LMOA!!

I remember our own Ace Baker using that term, and I laughed my ass off when I saw it then too. I knew he got it from somewhere, but I had no idea it came from such a well-reputed source among Troofers. How do they expect anyone with an IQ higher than 90 to take them seriously?
That idea came well before Sofia was even a twinkle in a truthers eye. I first heard it from uncle fester and his merry band. That was before him and Jones split over Judy Wood :)

[The Doc]

Yes, enigma is correct. It was hardly an original theory for 9/11 Mysteries. In fact, a majority of the film she uses for that section of the movie is taken from another denial movie, "9-11 Eyewitness".

[Slayhamlet]

So they don't even correct their ridiculously wrong terminology which makes them look foolish? I thought at least they could do as much research as looking up the definition of a word. Guess I was wrong.

Wow. Just wow.

[Brainster]

The key word, that tells you the truthers think a work is representative of their movement, is "undebunkable". If they use this word to describe said work, than you can be pretty sure they consider the work to be their "current" benchmark.

TAM:)

Sometimes "undebunkable" means "contains no claims" like 9-11 Press for Truth.

[qarnos]

Anything which hasn't been debunked (yet) at any given moment is an accurate representation of their movement. Once it's been debunked, "that was their theory, not ours".

[bje]

The film is 1 hour and 30 minutes long. It's hard to watch, due to fear of becoming stupid. There is a link to a "cleansed" version of the film in my signature which makes it a bit easier to watch :)

It troubles me that people would call this an accurate representation of their claims, that's for sure. Especially when the film claims a cloud of ash exclusive to volcanic activity covered New York City, despite these clouds being exclusive to volcanoes, over 500°C in temperature and typically known to travel at 200km/h.

So much for 9/11 Mysteries being "a more scientific analysis of 9/11 than Loose Change" eh?

There is a little problem with the definition of "Pyroclastic flow." In volcanoes they can be hot or cooler depending on their origin. An eruption like Mount St. Helens produced an immediate, extremely hot pyroclastic flow down its slope. But technically a pyrochlastic flow can result for the collapse of an eruption column of ash that has been ejected into the atmosphere and falls back to earth after the rising heat from the volcano is insufficient to support the column and they can be much cooler. That is also called an ash cloud surge. Pompeii got hit with the former; Herculaneum got hit with a collapse column of ash that was much cooler than what hit Pompeii.

What happened at the WTC towers was more like a collapse column of ash at the air temperature at the time. No heat whatsoever. But the downblast of air and dust filling in behind the collapsing towers was of such force and speed that people were blasted hundreds of feet away and cars overturned.

Charles Pelligrino, a specialist in downblast and surge physics, was called in on the investigation of the collapses and provided a fascinating account of the effects of the WTC downblasts.

"Many people outside of WTC2 as it collapsed were carried far by the downblast; some survived, some didn't. 'At a radius of 300 feet southwest of the collapse column's core,...NYPD's Teri Tobin was blasted 200 feet west by the surge.'"

"Ghosts of Vesuvius: A new Look at the Last Days of Pompeii (http://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Vesuvius-Pompeii-Strange-Connections/dp/0060751002/)," How
Towers Fall, and Other Strange Connections", Charles Pellegrino,
2004, ISBN: 0-380-97310-3

[The Doc]

I'm not doubting that there was a surge of smoke at all. However, if you watch the film they go more than simply mistaking the name. They say the cloud on 9/11 was "exactly the same thick, scudding ash – heavy with debris, hugging the ground as it flows out from a tremendous internal explosion." referring to a pyroclastic flow from a volcano.

They provide a definition from the USGS (United States Geological Survey) website of a pyroclastic flow as well. They must have read it at some point.

Having studied the film for a few months, I seriously doubt they mixed their terms up. They are making the claim that the thick dust cloud was caused by both heat provided by thermite reactions (see other chapters of the film) and explosions within the building, which somehow mimicked a volcano and therefore caused a pyroclastic flow just like a volcano.

[CHF]

What is an accurate representation of your movement?

It will become harder and harder for anyone to answer that question as the twoofers get more desperate and their infighting gets worse.

At this point I think every twoofer thinks his per theory is the real one.

[bje]

Having studied the film for a few months, I seriously doubt they mixed their terms up. They are making the claim that the thick dust cloud was caused by both heat provided by thermite reactions (see other chapters of the film) and explosions within the building, which somehow mimicked a volcano and therefore caused a pyroclastic flow just like a volcano.

I didn't mean to imply they mixed there terms up at all. Of course their claims are ridiculous. Sorry if it came off that way.

[The Doc]

I didn't mean to imply they mixed there terms up at all. Of course their claims are ridiculous. Sorry if it came off that way.

Ah, cool.

I didn't really think you were saying that they were correct in their claim, but I thought you might have thought that I didn't think there was a surge at all ;)

(That last sentence is a bit of a doozy lol)

[Dr Adequate]

Nice work, Doc, but that should be "propter hoc", not "prompter hoc".

[gumboot]

There is a little problem with the definition of "Pyroclastic flow." In volcanoes they can be hot or cooler depending on their origin. An eruption like Mount St. Helens produced an immediate, extremely hot pyroclastic flow down its slope. But technically a pyrochlastic flow can result for the collapse of an eruption column of ash that has been ejected into the atmosphere and falls back to earth after the rising heat from the volcano is insufficient to support the column and they can be much cooler. That is also called an ash cloud surge. Pompeii got hit with the former; Herculaneum got hit with a collapse column of ash that was much cooler than what hit Pompeii.




Just to be pedantic...

A pyroclastic surge can be hot or cold. A pyroclastic flow is always hot.

A collapsed ash column doesn't so much fail because the heat from the volcano fails to support it, but more because it doesn't contain enough heat to heat the surrounding air, thus the column is not carried upwards by convection but falls down. However when it falls the column itself is still certainly hot.

Both Herculaneum and Pompeii were engulfed in the same pyroclastic flow - most materials in Pompeii showing exposure to temperatures of 240-340oC while materials in Herculaneum were exposed to higher temperatures - around 400o. The original ash column is estimated to have been at about 800oC.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Loose Change:
9/11 Mysteries:
Sounds like a couple of pretty accurate representations of the truth movement to me :)I can see the promotions for Mysteries: "Even our critics agree that we're 13% better than other leading 9/11 crockumentaries!"

Nice work, Doc, but that should be "propter hoc", not "prompter hoc".That's my typo.

[Miragememories]

I can see the promotions for Mysteries: "Even our critics agree that we're 13% better than other leading 9/11 crockumentaries!"

That's my typo.

What's another typo in a never ending pile of typos and propaganda.

MM

[slyjoe]

What's another typo in a never ending pile of typos and propaganda.

MM

The difference on this forum is that someone points out an error, and the person who actually made the error owns up to it. And the error is corrected. I can understand why some people would find this a novel concept.

[boloboffin]

The correct term to describe the flow of dense dust from the collapses is "density flow," right?

[bje]

Just to be pedantic...
Not at all. We all learn something here.

A pyroclastic surge can be hot or cold. A pyroclastic flow is always hot.

I stand corrected.

A collapsed ash column doesn't so much fail because the heat from the volcano fails to support it, but more because it doesn't contain enough heat to heat the surrounding air, thus the column is not carried upwards by convection but falls down. However when it falls the column itself is still certainly hot.
Ditto.

Both Herculaneum and Pompeii were engulfed in the same pyroclastic flow - most materials in Pompeii showing exposure to temperatures of 240-340oC while materials in Herculaneum were exposed to higher temperatures - around 400o. The original ash column is estimated to have been at about 800oC.

-Gumboot

I understood Pompeii was hit first (because of the wind direction) with falling ash, then a pyroclastic flow. Then Herculaneum was hit some hours later first by a collapse column then by successive pyroclastic flows.

But then I do suffer from decaying brain cells, so thanks for the info.

[Civilized Worm]

What's another typo in a never ending pile of typos and propaganda.

MM


Come again?

Loose Change

Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25

Total flubs: 426


9/11 Mysteries

False information presented as fact: 79
Lies via 3rd party commentator: 4
Assumed accidental mistakes: 38
Appeal to Authority: 4
Incomplete Quotes used to support evidence: 23
Quotes taken out of context to support evidence: 15
Assumptions/Speculation used to support evidence: 62
Anonymous Sources: 1
Sources who disagree with conspiracy theory used to support conspiracy theory: 12
“Straw Man” Arguments: 16
Oversimplifications: 67
Similes or Metaphors taken as literal statements: 22
Omissions from Transcript: 4
Bad Analogies: 6
Contradictions: 18

Total Errors: 371

[gumboot]

I understood Pompeii was hit first (because of the wind direction) with falling ash, then a pyroclastic flow. Then Herculaneum was hit some hours later first by a collapse column then by successive pyroclastic flows.

But then I do suffer from decaying brain cells, so thanks for the info.



Ah, right, if you look at it that way...

How I recall it is, Herculaneum was closer to the crater than Pompeii. When the eruption started on the afternoon of 24th August it initially belched ash into the sky, which the wind carried onto Pompeii. Most of the people in Pompeii died inside houses as a result of roof collapses.

As the sun set on the 24th the ash column cooled to around 400 degrees and collapsed, causing the pyroclastic flows. These hit Herculaneum first, and the bodies found there are thought to have died due to the extreme heat. The flows filled the buildings in Herculaneum so that they did not collapse from the following ash falls, and were instead preserved.

By the time the pyroclastic flows reached Pompeii they had cooled to a chilly 240 - 340 degrees, and those outside were killed most likely by a combination of the pressure wave and choking, rather than heat.

This might be what you mean by the hot/cold thing. In the context of a volcanic eruption, you could argue some pyroclastic flows lack sufficient temperature to kill primarily through heat. However in the context of the WTC, a pyroclastic flow, even a "cool" one, would still cause severe burns.

-Gumboot

[Hokulele]

Ah, right, if you look at it that way...

How I recall it is, Herculaneum was closer to the crater than Pompeii. When the eruption started on the afternoon of 24th August it initially belched ash into the sky, which the wind carried onto Pompeii. Most of the people in Pompeii died inside houses as a result of roof collapses.

As the sun set on the 24th the ash column cooled to around 400 degrees and collapsed, causing the pyroclastic flows. These hit Herculaneum first, and the bodies found there are thought to have died due to the extreme heat. The flows filled the buildings in Herculaneum so that they did not collapse from the following ash falls, and were instead preserved.

By the time the pyroclastic flows reached Pompeii they had cooled to a chilly 240 - 340 degrees, and those outside were killed most likely by a combination of the pressure wave and choking, rather than heat.

This might be what you mean by the hot/cold thing. In the context of a volcanic eruption, you could argue some pyroclastic flows lack sufficient temperature to kill primarily through heat. However in the context of the WTC, a pyroclastic flow, even a "cool" one, would still cause severe burns.

-Gumboot


Oops, late to the party. Anyway, here is what I know of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The citizens of Pompeii were primarily killed when trapped or crushed by buildings collapsed by the ash and dust fall, or suffocated do to the high ash content in the air. The ash fall precipitated from the initial eruption, and could have been witnessed by citizens of Herculaneum, as they were upwind. When the initial ash column collapsed, as was noted earlier, this caused a pyroclastic surge, which was believed to have been hot enough to burn skin and flesh off of the citizens of Herculaneum, and those of Pompeii who were not trapped inside buildings. There were several surges associated with Vesuvius' eruption. Later on, a pyroclastic flow did come through Herculaneum, and this is believed to be responsible for "sealing" up the city in such well-preserved detail. I don't think a pyroclastic flow was believed to have come through Pompeii.

Pyroclastic surges are mostly gas, and react differently when it comes to traversing terrain than pyroclastic flows. Surges respond more to fluid dynamics, and can even go uphill! Surges can be hot or cold, but both can be deadly due to a high rate of speed (blasting things over), and presence of deadly gases. Pyroclastic flows have a greater percentage of rock and other debris, and tend to follow patterns more similar to avalanches, only going downhill.

[The Doc]

The basis of my tally is a slightly different version to Gravy's, and I did copy his and edit it changing the numbers (obviously) and adding a few things and removed a few things. This was simply the quickest way to do it.

I credited Gravy in the paper :)

[gumboot]

Oops, late to the party. Anyway, here is what I know of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The citizens of Pompeii were primarily killed when trapped or crushed by buildings collapsed by the ash and dust fall, or suffocated do to the high ash content in the air. The ash fall precipitated from the initial eruption, and could have been witnessed by citizens of Herculaneum, as they were upwind. When the initial ash column collapsed, as was noted earlier, this caused a pyroclastic surge, which was believed to have been hot enough to burn skin and flesh off of the citizens of Herculaneum, and those of Pompeii who were not trapped inside buildings. There were several surges associated with Vesuvius' eruption. Later on, a pyroclastic flow did come through Herculaneum, and this is believed to be responsible for "sealing" up the city in such well-preserved detail. I don't think a pyroclastic flow was believed to have come through Pompeii.

Pyroclastic surges are mostly gas, and react differently when it comes to traversing terrain than pyroclastic flows. Surges respond more to fluid dynamics, and can even go uphill! Surges can be hot or cold, but both can be deadly due to a high rate of speed (blasting things over), and presence of deadly gases. Pyroclastic flows have a greater percentage of rock and other debris, and tend to follow patterns more similar to avalanches, only going downhill.



I think you might be confused because a pyroclastic flow caused by a collapsed ash column is called a base surge which is what happened in 79 with Vesuvius. Also consider that the precise distinction between a flow and surge is not clear. For example "flows" often produce "surges" in front of them.

Bear in mind that Both Herculaneum and Pompeii were very close to Vesuvius (Herculaneum is about 7km from the crater due SW, Pompeii about 10km away due SE) and directly down hill. Also neither town was in the direct path of the ash column which was being blown away from them, based on the reported southerly winds which prevented Pliny the Elder getting close.

The pyroclastic flows came during the night, when the ash column collapsed due to cooling, thus it's unlikely anyone would have seen it coming. The flows would have reached Pompeii about 15 seconds to 1 minute after they hit Herculaneum (depending on the speed of the flow, and assuming even distrubution).

The records of Pliny the Elder indicate that the ash made day like night until the 26th - well after the eruption had ended. Thus it seems likely that the flows (with a surge leading?) that hit Pompeii actually arrived before the ash collapsed roofs. Those that survived the flows (remember, it was cooler at Pompeii, only scolding hot, not asphyxiatingly hot) would have been indoors as the remained of the collapsed ash column fell to earth over the following day.

Given that the flows that hit Herculaneum filled up the buildings (later to be buried under a shell of ash and preserved) and they didn't at Pompeii, this would indeed indicate the Herculaneum flows had more solid material and were more "flow-like" compared to a more "surge-like" event at Pompeii.

However as far as I can tell both events, whether flows or a flow and a surge or flows that produced a surge :faint:, occurred at the same time, as a result of the same thing (the collapse of the ash column).

-Gumboot

ETA. Note that in both Pompeii and Herculaneum the majority of recovered bodies were killed by the surge/flow event. Only about 1/3 of people at Pompeii were found in ash deposits (almost all inside buildings).

[Hokulele]

I think you might be confused because a pyroclastic flow caused by a collapsed ash column is called a base surge which is what happened in 79 with Vesuvius. Also consider that the precise distinction between a flow and surge is not clear. For example "flows" often produce "surges" in front of them.

Good point, flows do often create surges, and there is no clear boundary between the definitions.

Bear in mind that Both Herculaneum and Pompeii were very close to Vesuvius (Herculaneum is about 7km from the crater due SW, Pompeii about 10km away due SE) and directly down hill. Also neither town was in the direct path of the ash column which was being blown away from them, based on the reported southerly winds which prevented Pliny the Elder getting close.

The pyroclastic flows came during the night, when the ash column collapsed due to cooling, thus it's unlikely anyone would have seen it coming. The flows would have reached Pompeii about 15 seconds to 1 minute after they hit Herculaneum (depending on the speed of the flow, and assuming even distrubution).

The records of Pliny the Elder indicate that the ash made day like night until the 26th - well after the eruption had ended. Thus it seems likely that the flows (with a surge leading?) that hit Pompeii actually arrived before the ash collapsed roofs. Those that survived the flows (remember, it was cooler at Pompeii, only scolding hot, not asphyxiatingly hot) would have been indoors as the remained of the collapsed ash column fell to earth over the following day.

Given that the flows that hit Herculaneum filled up the buildings (later to be buried under a shell of ash and preserved) and they didn't at Pompeii, this would indeed indicate the Herculaneum flows had more solid material and were more "flow-like" compared to a more "surge-like" event at Pompeii.

However as far as I can tell both events, whether flows or a flow and a surge or flows that produced a surge :faint:, occurred at the same time, as a result of the same thing (the collapse of the ash column).

-Gumboot

Hmm, I will have to go back to my library, as I had read on this quite some time ago, and there may have been more research done since then. I seem to recall that the initial devastation was a series of surges, and evidence of only one flow (Herculaneum) had been found. Again, this could just be old data. Fortunately, with the Volcano Observatory being fairly nearby, I should be able to find some more recent reference works. Thanks for letting me know, I find vulcanology fascinating and would love to check out the active areas in NZ some day.

Sorry to everyone for the derail.

[gumboot]

I seem to recall that the initial devastation was a series of surges, and evidence of only one flow (Herculaneum) had been found. Again, this could just be old data. Fortunately, with the Volcano Observatory being fairly nearby, I should be able to find some more recent reference works. Thanks for letting me know, I find vulcanology fascinating and would love to check out the active areas in NZ some day.



Me too :D

(To finding volcanology fascinating, I live in an active area in New Zealand :p)

I think part of the problem with Vesuvius is there's only one written account of the eruption, from Pliny the Younger.

Thinking about it a bit more, the final massive "Plinian Stage" (named after him and his Uncle) that resulted from the column collapse and engulfed the entire area, even just managing to reach as far as Stabiae 16km away, must have occurred on the day of the 25th, rather than the night of the 24th.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

A question to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

What is an accurate representation of your movement?

At first Loose Change was the accurate representation of the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Loose Change was nowhere near the beginning of the movement. I know you're not exactly saying that it was, but for newcomers who might think that it all started with Loose Change, keep in mind that it is basically a montage of content provided by other researchers.

[Mobyseven]

Loose Change was nowhere near the beginning of the movement. I know you're not exactly saying that it was, but for newcomers who might think that it all started with Loose Change, keep in mind that it is basically a montage of content provided by other researchers.

So, what is an accurate representation of your movement?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So, what is an accurate representation of your movement?


Pretty loaded question. Kind of like asking a Democrat what the Party stands for. It's a loose coalition of people with different perspectives, perceptions, mindsets, and yes, even agendas. (Like the Democratic Party).

Some want to save the whales, others want to raise the minimum wage. Like some believe MIHOP, others LIHOP. And some want to end war, others want to save the environment. Like some believe thermite, others Tesla energy weapons.

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic. It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did. (Even though that has changed several times). Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side. Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth. The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off. We want to know more, and find out what happened. For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be. We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations. Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT! We want gag orders lifted. Redacted documents uncensored.

Ya know, junk like that. :p

[ref]

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth. The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off.

Could you name some of those anomalies and coincidences?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Could you name some of those anomalies and coincidences?

I sure could! But I'm not going to bother. I'm busy reading 3 books about them at the moment. Sorry, I don't have the week off this week. I would need that to debunk all the bunk-filled debunks of the debunks that will flood the forum.

One man's debunk is another man's bunk.

[ref]

I sure could! But I'm not going to bother. I'm busy reading 3 books about them at the moment. Sorry, I don't have the week off this week. I would need that to debunk all the bunk-filled debunks of the debunks that will flood the forum.

One man's debunk is another man's bunk.

Too bad. You would have needed a bunker to shield you from all that debunking. I'm not good at wordplays in english, damn. I like the fact that you read, but don't give those guys your money.

[Mobyseven]

Pretty loaded question. Kind of like asking a Democrat what the Party stands for. It's a loose coalition of people with different perspectives, perceptions, mindsets, and yes, even agendas. (Like the Democratic Party).

Some want to save the whales, others want to raise the minimum wage. Like some believe MIHOP, others LIHOP. And some want to end war, others want to save the environment. Like some believe thermite, others Tesla energy weapons.

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic. It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did. (Even though that has changed several times). Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side. Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth. The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off. We want to know more, and find out what happened. For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be. We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations. Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT! We want gag orders lifted. Redacted documents uncensored.

Ya know, junk like that. :p

So what do you think is considered the majority view within the truth movement as to what happened on 9/11, beyond the idea that the government is covering something up? Where do you find your most common ground?

[qarnos]

Pretty loaded question. Kind of like asking a Democrat what the Party stands for. It's a loose coalition of people with different perspectives, perceptions, mindsets, and yes, even agendas. (Like the Democratic Party).

Some want to save the whales, others want to raise the minimum wage. Like some believe MIHOP, others LIHOP. And some want to end war, others want to save the environment. Like some believe thermite, others Tesla energy weapons.

But the truth isn't decided by vote.

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic. It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did. (Even though that has changed several times). Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

Yes, because the truth isn't decided by vote.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side. Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

:i:

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth.

Geez, I hate that phrase - "Government Story" (or Myth, if you insist). It's not like G.W. Bush came up to the mic and said "You know, guys? This is what I reckon happened on 9/11...".

There were thousands of different people involved from all over the world. It is not the "governments" version. It is sciences version.

The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off.

What are you talking about?

We want to know more, and find out what happened. For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be.

Please don't abuse the memories of the victims in this way.

We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations. Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT! We want gag orders lifted. Redacted documents uncensored.

No, you want an investigation that confirms your beliefs. Another 9/11 investigation would produce the same answers and you would still complain.

Ya know, junk like that. :p

Junk, indeed.

[Travis]

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic.

Dogmatic: Adjective
dogmatic (comparative more dogmatic, superlative most dogmatic)

1) Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid.

Yep debunkers sure are dogmatic when they hear that a group of fanatics, whom had previously openly declared war on the USA, attacked the USA using a method that was within their means and believe it. Yep, that is so completely unreasonable.

Historical precedent of terrorist attacks, on the USA and the WTC? Who needs that stuff when you can subscribe to pseudohistory!

Physical evidence, flight manifests and the group of fanatics accused of the crime claiming responsibility all corroborating and cementing the claim? Nope! "Inflexible" that's what that is.

It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did.

Sure, because I believe the government's story just because it's the "governments story".:rolleyes: I am such a lackey for that President I didn't vote for either time he ran.

(Even though that has changed several times).

Yeah, because changing your hypothesis as new evidence emerges is a sign of "weakness."

Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

This is an example of how debunkers arrive at their interpretation of events independent of the "official" version not an example of cognitive dissonance.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side.

Agreeing with someone who just happens to get things mostly right only means you are thinking on the same page and not that one is a mindless parrot.

Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

I did not need this forum, or debunking websites, to understand what Silverstein meant by "pull it." It was obvious given the context of the quote, being about the fire fighting effort, and the complete lack of "pull it" ever referring to building implosions that he was referring to the efforts to save WTC7. There's also the lack of motive, the fact the quote itself indicates 'they made that decision' the lack of explosives and all the damage the building sustained but apparently taking that into consideration would be "dogmatic."

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth.

So you don't believe anything the government says just because it was the government that said it. And you call the debunkers "dogmatic.":rolleyes:

The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off.

Such as?

We want to know more, and find out what happened.

Noble in theory, but if you've already dismissed the mountains of viable corroborating evidence presented thus far what is to prevent you from dismissing all future evidence?

For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be. We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations.

Done, done, and done multiple times already. Or do they not count because you did not like the result?

Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT!

Okay, I don't normally sue on the first date but if you insist on it I will... But what do you want to be sued for?

We want gag orders lifted.

Real gag orders or the "double secret probation" type gag orders?

Redacted documents uncensored.

Which ones specifically?

Ya know, junk like that. :p

Well thanks, I think.

[The Doc]

Pretty loaded question. Kind of like asking a Democrat what the Party stands for. It's a loose coalition of people with different perspectives, perceptions, mindsets, and yes, even agendas. (Like the Democratic Party).

Some want to save the whales, others want to raise the minimum wage. Like some believe MIHOP, others LIHOP. And some want to end war, others want to save the environment. Like some believe thermite, others Tesla energy weapons.

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic. It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did. (Even though that has changed several times). Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side. Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth. The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off. We want to know more, and find out what happened. For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be. We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations. Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT! We want gag orders lifted. Redacted documents uncensored.

Ya know, junk like that. :p

Politics and science are two completely different things. Politics are highly based on opinion, ideology and social backgrounds. Some people are democrats simply because their parents are, and some republican simply because they live in a red state.

In science, people make their conclusions based on solid fact, rather than politics, where their opinion is what matters. Nobody votes on facts. Facts just are. It doesn't matter what anyone "wants" at all.

The unavoidable fact that you must understand is that for every time someone within your movement disagrees with someone else in your movement, at least one of them is wrong (if not both). 9/11 conspiracy theorists are continually trying to find ways where both can be correct, which is poor science and is just wrong.

My point is, there is a very, very good reason why "our side" seems rigid. There are no splinter groups of debunkers because we all agree on the scientific, historical and evidential facts. It doesn't matter if we all "grasp" the "governments" (hardly the governments... but meh) story, because it is backed up by scientific evidence, and you have provided no evidence to refute it. You may think you have, but any logical thinker will tell you that you are wrong, and why. Of course, in the end you will choose not to listen to the answer and repeat your argument that has already been demolished. But that's your problem.

"Your side" on the other hand, deals with opinions, and I find it hard to believe that you have no problem with that. Each researcher has their own opinion on what happened. That strictly means that they are not dealing with facts, but rather agendas.

I laugh out load every time I hear a 9/11 conspiracy theorist state that "all we know is that the government's version is a fairytale", just like you have just done SCG. Why, then, have you concluded that the towers were brought down by thermite, shapped charges or telsa space cannons? You are accusing innocent people of murder and you claim that "all" you know is that the government is wrong, and you don't know what's right. Stop making ridiculous accusations then!

If you have a problem with the previous investigations done into events of 9/11, tell us why! You can't just demand a new investigation, you need to show why the old one wasn't enough. You must then listen to our response because your whole "NIST FIRES NOT HOT ENOUGH NO FIREPROOFING DISLODDDGED!!!one!!!11!" is simply not good enough.

Doc.

[qarnos]

Sure, because I believe the government's story just because it's the "governments story".:rolleyes: I am such a lackey for that President I didn't vote for either time he ran.

Hey, I don't even live in your country and, yet, I'm a shill!

[tsig]

Pretty loaded question. Kind of like asking a Democrat what the Party stands for. It's a loose coalition of people with different perspectives, perceptions, mindsets, and yes, even agendas. (Like the Democratic Party).

Some want to save the whales, others want to raise the minimum wage. Like some believe MIHOP, others LIHOP. And some want to end war, others want to save the environment. Like some believe thermite, others Tesla energy weapons.

See my point? There is no "accurate representation." Unlike your side, which is more dogmatic. It's cut and dry, no gray areas. 9/11 happened exactly the way the government says it did. (Even though that has changed several times). Cognitive dissonance is handled well. As in Gumboot's "Omissions and Distortions" debunk exercise.

Gravy is an accurate representation of your side. Or Posner. To your side, there is no reason to waste a minute pondering what Silverstein meant by "pull it." Within 20 seconds, you all made it fit your world-view. (Well, or else you hopped on the JREF to get your talking points).

The only accurate representation of our side is: we don't believe the government-created myth. The anomolies and coincidences are too big to ignore or brush off. We want to know more, and find out what happened. For the victims and their families, and our country, which has become a shell of what it is supposed to be. We want subpoenas, oaths, investigations. Lawsuits even! SUE US, DAMMIT! We want gag orders lifted. Redacted documents uncensored.

Ya know, junk like that. :p

one thousand coincidences do not equal a fact.

[tsig]

I sure could! But I'm not going to bother. I'm busy reading 3 books about them at the moment. Sorry, I don't have the week off this week. I would need that to debunk all the bunk-filled debunks of the debunks that will flood the forum.

One man's debunk is another man's bunk.

Enjoy your sleep of fantasies.