The objective of the Panel is to create a bank of points refuting elements of the official story.
May 2, 2012
By Craig McKee
Two members of David Ray Griffin’s Consensus 9/11 Panel have quit in protest following the dismissal of fellow member Paul Zarembka.
Journalist and author Barrie Zwicker and Pilots For 9/11 Truth core member Shelton Lankford resigned from the Panel last week in solidarity with Zarembka (author of The Hidden History of 9-11) and over disagreements the three have with Griffin and Panel co-founder Elizabeth Woodworth about how the project is being administered.
“I felt Paul’s treatment was kind of a last straw,” Lankford said in an interview. “For me the Consensus Panel process was functioning as a gatekeeper, and evidence deemed controversial was not going to be considered.”
Zarembka added in an interview: “It’s kind of an authoritarian process. They determine what questions are dealt with, how they are dealt with, and even how many points are considered. They chose the panel members; they chose the structure of it.”
The departures leave the Panel without three of the strongest supporters of the research efforts of Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that the plane that approached the Pentagon flew on a flight path (north of the Citgo gas station) that was inconsistent with the physical damage path and with impact of any kind. In fact, the three listed the complete absence of CIT evidence being considered by the Panel among reasons they lost confidence in the project. None, however, says they renounce all the points the Panel has agreed upon.
With the departures, the chances of the Panel approving any points based on this evidence in the future have been markedly reduced if not eliminated. The effect on the Panel’s credibility remains to be seen.
Woodworth responded to a request for comment with a written message in which she said all three departing members had done good work on the first set of consensus points.
“Most of our Panel Members understand that the Consensus Panel is not a forum for discussing and attempting to settle unresolved evidence. It is basically a ‘blind’ review and approval process for straightforward evidence that has achieved peer review through publication, or that represents a logical contradiction within the 9/11 account.” Griffin was unavailable for comment.
Lankford explained some of his concerns with the Consensus Panel process in his letter of resignation:
“The Consensus process, as it is being administered, seems by design to exclude any evidence that contradicts the framework within which the 911 Commission operated … The removal of Paul Zarembka from the panel would seem to cement the enforcement of an authoritarian view of evidence as being what the co-founders say it is.”
The Panel uses the Delphi Method originally created by the RAND Corporation. With this project, points are formulated by the founders and submitted to the members (although new provisions were announced to members in March allowing them to submit points as well) to be considered and voted upon.
Zarembka questions the value of the Delphi Method to arrive at “best evidence” of what is false in the 9/11 official story (members are given points against an element of the official story and asked to approve or not. Each point requires the support of 85% of the members to be adopted. The Panel is currently working on its third set of points).
“I didn’t understand why it was useful in the 9/11 context,” Zarembka said. “I still don’t. It’s not by any means a democratic process; it’s a top-down process.”
Zwicker added in an interview: “There’s too much power residing with Elizabeth and David. There wasn’t sufficient room to question why a particular point was brought forward and how it was worded.”
The Panel was founded for the purpose of creating a bank of points that contradict individual elements of the 9/11 official story. These points are intended to stand as reference material for the public and media. There is no limit to how many points may be added over time.
Woodworth has argued that the process is both an academic and a scientific one that is very useful in determining what the “best evidence” is against the official story.
Woodworth and Griffin jointly wrote to Zarembka on April 22 stating that his objections to certain points under consideration by the Panel and his written assessment of those points were “irresponsible” in that he didn’t stick to the assignment to comment only on whether the points effectively showed the falsity of the official story. Zarembka countered that some of the points had other problems with them that needed to be addressed.
One point of contention was a proposed point that would have implicated Donald Rumsfeld in the 9/11 crimes. Zarembka objected to the point on the grounds that it could be libelous and expose the Panel to possible legal action. When the points were sent out to members for a second round of consideration, no mention was made of Zarembka’s concern. He says this was the only time he violated the rule against communicating with other members about points under consideration, and that he did this so they’d be aware they could be legally vulnerable.
Zarembka also objected to the wording of another point because it referred to the Sept. 11 “attacks,” a term he feels reinforces the official story that an external enemy attacked the United States. This term is sprinkled throughout the Consensus 9/11 web site. Both Griffin and Woodworth have stated that they consider “attack” to be a neutral term that does not support the image of the event as an external attack.
Zwicker has been the most vocal on this point. In his resignation letter he writes:
“After all these months, the website still refers to ‘Why the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented,’ a persistence in significant self-sabotaging language that verges on the perverse.”
He added in an interview: “How reasonable and intelligent people can argue that ‘attack’ is perfectly good is beyond me.”
Zwicker joined Lankford in supporting Zarembka’s stand on the “stonewalling” of CIT evidence, contending that the controversy over CIT has been artificially created.
“The work and reputation of CIT can be deemed ‘controversial’ only because they have been subject to a most destructive disinformation campaign,” he wrote to Woodworth and Griffin.
The dispute between Zarembka and the founders came to a head when Zarembka was given an ultimatum in writing from Woodworth and Griffin. He was given three choices:
- Revise his “irresponsible” report on the third set of Consensus Points
- Report that he was unable to write the report with a promise to do better in the future
- Resign
Zarembka refused to do any of these, stating he had done nothing wrong and that the objections he had raised concerning the process and individual points were justified.
Underlying a lot of the frustration that all three departing members have expressed with Consensus Panel process is a concern about the direction Griffin himself has taken in recent months, notably with the publication of his book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.
In it, he devotes an entire chapter to the Pentagon, reviewing at some length the arguments of those who attack CIT and claim a 757 did hit the Pentagon but not mentioning CIT at all (in the chapter, does Griffin effectively lay out the non-CIT evidence against impact).
“From an academic point of view that’s unconscionable, to do a whole chapter on the Pentagon and not to mention CIT’s existence,” Zarembka said. “That’s unforgiveable.”
In the book, Griffin lays out his “consensus approach” which takes emphasis away from whether a plane hit and focuses on the fact that a 757 piloted by al-Qaeda could not have. All three of the departing panelists believe this is a significantly weaker position because CIT has shown conclusively that the flight path of the large plane that approached the Pentagon could not have caused physical damage like felled light poles – proving inside job.
Speaking at the Toronto Hearings last September, Griffin repeatedly quoted CIT opponents like David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge, all of whom have written papers attacking CIT. But again, no CIT evidence was mentioned.
“Dr. Griffin’s shunning of CIT and their well-supported and documented evidence, and embracing their chief critics was a serious mistake,” Lankford said. “Far from identifying best evidence, it seems likely to further marginalize it.”
Where does the panel go from here? Zwicker says there is still the hope that something positive will come of the project and that its credibility hasn’t necessarily been fatally compromised.
Zarembka says the ball is back in their court.
“The personal advantage for me is that my name doesn’t have to be associated with something deeply problematic.”
***
The Panel added Aidan Monaghan as a member in February. The changes in the Panel’s membership have been laid out on the web site under the innocent heading: “Consensus Panel comings and goings.”
I agree that the controversy over CIT has been artificially created (probably because it is the final nail in the coffin that proves beyond a doubt that the official story is a lie). I am so sad to see that Griffin and Woodworth have refused to allow CIT evidence to be examined.
Has Dr. Griffin made a statement about this? After all of his good & courageous work, I hate that he has put his credibility is on the line and sided with the sociopaths.
It seems clear that Griffin and Woodworth are no longer in the camp of truth seekers and truth tellers. Nothing is more incriminating than a faked plane crash at the Pentagram and most garden variety truthers (such as myself) can see it.
Why is it, that increasingly, our so-called leaders cannot?
Woodworth and I went back and forth over this very issue last year via e-mail. I found her to be evasive and biased about CIT’s evidence. I also found her to be ill informed about CIT’s evidence which it seems to me is a common factor among the anti CIT camp. She is simply not properly informed about the Pentagon and should therefore not be involved in the process of deciding what points should and should not be considered.
In regards to DRG’s latest book I agree 100% with Paul Zarembka when he said: “From an academic point of view that’s unconscionable, to do a whole chapter on the Pentagon and not to mention CIT’s existence,” I included DRG on all my e-mails to Woodworth but he did not respond to me in any way shape or form. In one of my final points via e-mail to Woodworth and DRG in regards to the consensus process itself I quoted Gandhi when he said:
“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.”
In other words the truth is not a popularity contest nor is it subject to the whims of any “panel”. The truth is the truth.
Because of this fiasco involving DRG and several others involving other so called “9/11 truth leaders” such as Richard Gage I have seriously re-evaluated who I listen to and work with for 9/11 truth and justice. For me CIT has become a litmus test for differentiating real truthers from the fakes and real researchers from the pretenders…
Yawn. This development comes as no surprise. Thanks for the update though Craig.
The Toronto Hearings were a farce (seriously the saddest looking event I’ve seen in a long while). I bet the DVDs are selling fast – not.
The papers by Frank Legge, David Chandler and Jonathon Cole attacking CIT are the most pathetic pieces of crap I’ve ever read, while CIT’s responses are utterly brilliant.
What is wrong with David Ray Griffin? No seriously what is wrong with him?
Great job, Mr. McKee.
God forbid we actually were to have iron clad evidence of an inside job. These people seem to thrive on ambiguity dressed up as PR. LIHOP dressed up as “consensus”.
“Peer review”? As in Frank Legge’s multiple reviewed government sourced paper that’s still an irrelevant mish mash of disinformation? What a sick joke.
Can you imagine that William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings (RIP) and the “118” confirmed witnesses to explosions in Manhattan were treated with the same disregard?
Why are witnesses in Arlington and Shankesville treated as irrelevant? As non-existent?
I suggest that a moderated public truth debate forum be set up to thrash out the “strongest evidence”. Sort the wheat from the chaff. If we leave this in the hands of the dinosaurs, we’re screwed.
Thank you Barrie, Shelton and Paul.
PS. Excellent write up again Craig.
Thanks for the update Craig, yours is the only site where I’ve seen this info presented, please keep up the good work. p.s. if something doesn’t pass the B.Z. smell test, I will look very closely why.
Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I hope this article will provoke some useful discussion. The comment thread on my previous article, a piece on Richard Gage, has now reached 864 comments, most of them on No Planes. Believe me, I’m ready for a new topic.
On this thread, I’d really like to see a serious discussion about where the Truth movement is going and the conflicting philosophies, approaches, and positions (consensus, Pentagon,CIT, truth leaders, infiltration, “best” evidence, etc.) that are in play.
The Consensus Panel has approved a number of points (a third set is imminent), but CIT is not going to be there as things stand. I’d like to know where people think the weaknesses are in the current two sets of Consensus Points (http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/), and what the strongest pieces of evidence are that the Panel has not dealt with. Just some ideas for debate.
Mr. McKee wrote (with my approximate update on the numbers):
As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it.
My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.
Mr. OneSliceShort’s excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.
I post this concession on NPT here (as well as the other thread) as a final termination point so that a new topic is free to begin.
Wow, it takes a lot of courage to make a public statement like that Senor. Kudos.
Good, Senor. Now that you admit that we were right all along, perhaps you can apologize to Hybridrogue and myself for accusing us of being NSA agents?
Thanks Keenan, for the suggestion to Señor. But it makes no difference whatsoever to me one way or the other what Señor’s opinion is of me. An apology as a ‘second thought’ or upon prodding seems as sincere as Fetzers “apologies” to Craig…ie, worthless.
ww
Well said, ww. I completely concur. I guess my question to Senor was more of a rhetorical one as I’ll likely just skip over his posts anyway.
Dear Mr. Roberts, you wrote:
I make the distinction between “finding yourself on the winning side” and “having argued for that side in a rightful manner.”
I conceded points of the discussion when it was justified regardless who made them. Mr. OneSliceShort was convincing through and through. Most of your postings? Not so much.
In my apology already rendered, the fact that you cannot view yourself among the “participants whom I may have skewered”, that you push for more, and that you weasel your wrongful tactics into the frame of being on the winning side, seems to shake off the dust from my A-List of the NSA Q-Group assessment of you.
It will be best for you to avoid me and to turn “likely” into “definitely” in your promise:
Craig,
First let me say, great article. Personally I would love to see a very focused discussion on the specifics that you reported in it, and the implications of this.
However you suggest this for “debate”: “I’d like to know where people think the weaknesses are in the current two sets of Consensus Points, and what the strongest pieces of evidence are that the Panel has not dealt with. Just some ideas for debate.”
I think your article speaks to a much more specific issue here which is the merit of the consensus panel in general and whether or not it is creating a limited hangout.
Here are what I would suggest are the more “on topic” questions for discussion:
1. Is it appropriate for any group or organization to claim they are speaking for the “consensus” of the entire truth movement by telling the world what “we” consider the “best evidence” at all? Particularly when we already know from Cass Sunstein directly that “controversy” is deliberately manufactured in the first place?
2. According to your report we now have solid evidence from respected participants that the “911 Consensus Panel” in particular used methods that bring the very intention of the creation of the panel into question. From what you reported it seems as though it was an “authoritarian” or “top down” approach via the established corporate created manipulative technique (Delphi) to achieve a predetermined agenda. Shouldn’t this strongly indicate that we, as a truth community, should consider denouncing the panel completely as opposed to trying to find the good in it?
3. Since we already know that the evidence presented by CIT is considered by many to be among “the strongest pieces of evidence are that the Panel has not dealt with”, if not THE strongest piece….isn’t it already clear that the 911 Consensus panel is, by definition, amounting to a “limited hangout”?
4. Isn’t a “limited hangout” one of the primary ways that deception is facilitated via counter-intelligence? Isn’t it simply a powerful means to manipulate people away from the real “best evidence”?
I guess my point is that your report to me suggests there are much bigger problems we should be discussing here without getting bogged down in a drawn out discussion on the exact level of veracity of each and every individual point that the panel may have addressed or not addressed.
Larry27,
I agree with every point you made here. I have always stated that I felt ‘consensus’ in itself is a false paradigm. But even further to your points, I think this is a prime instance of the USE OF consensus as a political tool.
I mention in the last thread, the techniques developed by Atzioni in his Communitarian school, of using consensus in the very same manner {“community organizing”} which seems very much akin to this ‘Delphi technique’ – in fact, I believe some investigation into the matter would reveal Atzioni’s hand or direct influence in the Harvard ‘design masquerading as diagnosis’ technique.
Great thoughts, thanks again.
ww
Larry27,
You’re right, I guess I’m just used to things not staying on topic for long –and I figured I don’t want to define the topic too narrowly. But what you suggest would be an ideal area for us to concentrate on. I look forward to reading more about where you stand on all the questions you listed.
Very well said larry27, I agree with all your points here. I would expand on your statement about “bigger problems we should be discussing” and say that the bigger problems we need to be discussing are as follows:
1. The declining morale of the movement as a result of our lack of major victories in the battle for truth and justice.
In my opinion we need to revise our whole strategy of activism and move towards a much more active resistance in the way Gandhi was confrontational with the British. We need to confront our adversaries on camera more (WeAreChange style) including so called “leaders” who have taken obviously bogus positions that are hampering the movement. For example Richard Gage needs to be confronted on camera about his anti CIT position at his events. “No comment” is not acceptable to me.
2. The clear infiltration of the truth movement including the consensus panel.
More later since I have to go to work.
Craig said, “But what you suggest would be an ideal area for us to concentrate on. I look forward to reading more about where you stand on all the questions you listed.”
No problem. Here is my stance on the numbered questions I listed:
1. No it’s not appropriate at all. Particularly when the organization founders are well aware of the concept of “cognitive infiltration” as we all know that DRG is since he wrote an entire book on the subject.
2. We should not only consider it, we should categorically follow through with it. To me there isn’t even a question here since the “panel” openly states that they are using the Delphi technique. It’s been known for years that this is a very cunning method of manipulation as now confirmed in your report by Zwicker, Lankford, and Zarembka who experienced it firsthand and recognized it as such. A simple search of “Delphi technique” pulls up numerous articles that discuss this. Example:
http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
It’s not logical to pick out the “good” parts of a fundamentally flawed and inherently deceptive campaign as that will only serve to incorrectly validate its legitimacy. All gatekeepers provide SOME good information. They wouldn’t be able to be gatekeepers otherwise.
3. Again I feel the answer is yes. Most who have looked closely at both sides, certainly most participants at this blog, are well aware that the “controversy” surrounding the north side approach witness evidence has been manufactured. Those who don’t understand this, but are interested to know, need only to set aside some time to carefully read the detailed and heavily sourced response that thoroughly demonstrate this:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2011_02_03-response-to-chandler-cole.html
Once you understand this, anyone who uses this manufactured controversy as a reason to pretend like CIT’s findings do not exist is very clearly promoting a limited hangout.
4. Again I feel that the answer is clearly yes as we have seen it done time and time again on numerous levels in the mainstream as well as alternative media. Anyone who has studied historical false-flag events and the subsequent propaganda surrounding these events understands this to be the case. Since we know that Griffin very clearly propped up CIT detractors, while omitting any mention of CIT from his book, we know that he was deliberately setting the stage for this last year, well before the panel was established. The controlled results of the Consensus Panel (which mimic the precedent set by Griffin alone in his book) could therefore only be an attempt to cement this in “truth movement” history by deceptively using the names respected “experts” or opinion leaders towards this end via the fraudulent Delphi technique.
Even in Griffin’s “endorsement” of National Security Alert from 2009 we see him very cunningly try to divorce the north side approach from the flyover. An honest person with the intelligence, knowledge, and logic that Griffin has demonstrated on so many other issues simply would not be able to do such a thing. Griffin claims he believes the plane did not hit. He also stated the north side approach of the plane had been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”, yet he doubts the plane flew over? It doesn’t make sense and someone of his intelligence level would have to understand this.
I understand it’s a hard pill for many to swallow, but the history here thoroughly demonstrates that Griffin and Woodworth are not to be trusted because they are deliberately working to represent the entire truth movement with a limited hangout via the “911 Consensus Panel”.
Yes Craig,
This is an important topic, as the movement seems in disarray, and fragmentation.
Your presentation was again and as usual, superb.
As I have said at other times I know Woodworth’s writings and thought mode very well, having read quite a bit of her works – I took her as lukewarm at best on the inside-job aspect. I was distressed to find her and Griffin had linked up for this project.
ww
As this ‘Consensus Panel’ seems to have blown out it’s wheels on the issue of the Pentagon, and the CIT information being summarily dismissed, I hope it is within the bounds of this discussion to address this from my personal perspective – which seems to have been misconstrued here on other threads.
While I was considering the pros and cons of the issue I took the opportunity to discuss it with Frank Legge. I was able to get a lot of his further thinking on this by both an email exchange and having him send PDFs of a new paper he was writing on the subject.
After my own deep analysis and comparison of the two camps I chose to favor the CIT position over the one taken by Legge. I was mainly convinced by the arguments and presentations put by OSS on the CIT and Pilots forums. On the other side I was chagrined by the use of ‘evidence’ presented by Legge, involving such ‘evidence’ that has no standing as there is no ‘chain of possession’ proven on any of the items he used to make his arguments upon.
In the meantime, I have been characterized as “being in the Legge camp” – which is a charge made by the “guilt by association” argument. The fact is that Legge and I never became ‘associated’ in any manner beyond the exchange I make mention of here.
I make no plea for apologies here, I am simply stating the history of my exchange with Mr. Legge.
ww
Hi Hybrid,
Here are some facts regarding the Legge/Stutt analysis if you wish to browse.
Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10778240
Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not shows signs of “impact”, proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to “impact” as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10794146
Warren Stutt’s admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21131&view=findpost&p=10799563
RA – PA Correlation, proving the “Altitude Divergence” calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20999&view=findpost&p=10794074
If Legge/Stutt “Altitude Divergence” calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793490
Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt’s theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10794159
More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=findpost&p=10803407
Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt “Paper”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793061
Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10793501
A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt “Paper” and “Rebuttal”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025
Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21025&view=findpost&p=10803075
Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a “Honey Pot” trap for readers
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=findpost&p=10803456
Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole’s Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21054
Thank you Mr.Balsamo,
I have read some of that, but certainly not all of it. I will certainly be looking at those…There is a LOT to digest there {grin}.
As I said, I find the CIT info compelling. I also follow your site, and will do so with more frequency now.
I haven’t heard from Mr. Legge for some time now. I think he was getting the message from my continued questioning that I was growing more wary, rather than becoming convinced with his argument. I never did finalize that I rejected it…it felt awkward at the time.
I will say in discussing it, I think he is fully convinced he is right. That is to say I didn’t come away with the impression that he was being dishonest and trying to lead astray. But one never knows with these things.
ww
Adam Syed weighing in here…
My history with Elizabeth Woodworth goes back to 2009 when myself, David, Elizabeth, Ed Asner and a few others worked together to launch Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth. In that context, she was very friendly and easy to work with. I did not have any qualms with the way she operated.
I later left the Actors project to work on other things. However, being in the loop with Barrie Zwicker, I was forwarded an email from Elizabeth to Barrie right after Richard Gage put out his “complete withdrawal” statement. It was clear that she was heavily misguided on the Pentagon issue. Here is what she in part said on 2/9/2011:
“Hi Barrie:
Thought you should see this, from yesterday, in case you missed it:
Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT
hxxp://911truthnews.com/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-from-cit/
I like what Richard said, in support of his decision:
John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Hopefully this will reduce conflict within the movement over this issue!”
I was dumbfounded when I read Elizabeth saying that Richard’s attack piece might actually “reduce conflict.” Even more dumbfounding was that several months later, she referred to the letter of protest to Richard signed by the 27 concerned truthers to be “an act of force against Richard.” Oh, but when Richard put out an attack, she felt it would be a conflict reducer. Gotta love it.
Barrie, myself, and several others patiently guided her, letter after letter, as to why the two sides to this “debate” are not equally strong and why, in fact, the anti CIT arguments have no merit whatever. On the one hand, she seemed to get it and she didn’t strongly , but on the other hand, she refused to seriously consider that the anti CIT camp and their arguments are in all likelihood the work of professional disinformants along with their willing dupes. She seemed to figure that if controlled demolition advocates like Jim Hoffman, Frank Legge and David Chandler all believed the arguments in favor of impact were strong, then that’s that. Issue unresolved, so let’s sweep it under the rug and move forward in unity.
In another letter (to Barrie, myself, and DRG) she said:
“Also, it was a political, rather than a scholarly action, to seek the endorsements. This can easily be perceived as an effort to gain dominance in the field of Pentagon research, and it was bound to create a backlash.” To support her position, she quoted a similar statement by Kevin Ryan.
The fact seemed to escape Elizabeth that what CIT did was no different than DRG seeking blurbs of praise for the back covers (and inside fronts) of his books, or AE911Truth seeking the “endorsements” of qualified professionals via their petition. One could argue that AE911Truth is causing “division” and “backlash” within the architectural and engineering worlds, since there are clearly plenty of a’s and e’s in the world who haven’t signed the petition and who probably think the truth movement is a load of crap.
In another letter she actually suggested that CIT advertise on Craigslist in search of flyover witnesses.
I wish I could refine this comment further but I must leave for work, will check in again later.
Excellent write up once again Craig.
Hi Adam,
I will defer to your take on Elizabeth Woodworth, as you got to know her personally, and I have only read her writings.
The impression that she didn’t think it was orchestrated by the government, but that it was due to incompetence, was the one I got from that.
Susan Lindauer is also a member on the site Elizabeth posts on. Susan’s story seems to be that it was all a matter of intelligence failures as well. I have heavier suspicions of Susan actually.
ww
You might notice that I’ve added a poll to the bottom of the article. The fact that I figured out how to do it is a miracle. I still haven’t figured out how to get it into the sidebar column on the left, but this will have to do for now. Please check it out and tick off your answer.
Craig, you need another option in your poll. How about:
“Griffin and Woodruff are now actively working to suppress the truth about what happened at the Pentagon, and any events, books, or panels controlled by them will not serve the truth movement.”
So Craig, I take it this is just a poll for those of us here. When I voted I was surprised to see only 6 votes. For some reason I thought this was from the Consensus panel.
I’d like to see that vote set up on a national level for the whole Truth community to vote on.
I just think it’s ridiculous for some small group to take it upon themselves to speak for such a diverse movement as the 9/11 community as a whole.
I suppose they think that the rest of us are all supposed to shut up if we disagree to their ‘findings’ – that’s what irks me about deals like this – this “community organizing” technique.
I think it is an obvious scam, and I am beginning to wonder about the impetus behind all this like many others here seem to as well.
I’ve never been one to accept a bit in my mouth like a broken horse.
ww
I just added the poll this afternoon (actually, I just figured out how to do it; I’m a little challenged on the technical stuff), and I was responsible for choosing the question and writing the four choices. Why only six votes (it’s up to nine now)? I guess the majority of people don’t want to bother or aren’t familiar enough with the issue to register an opinion.
You’re right, there is a sense that if you oppose this Panel, you’re not “with” the Truth Movement.
@Craig
“You might notice that I’ve added a poll to the bottom of the article. The fact that I figured out how to do it is a miracle. I still haven’t figured out how to get it into the sidebar column on the left, but this will have to do for now. Please check it out and tick off your answer.”
Ha! Know exactly how you feel mate.
I don’t want to be a pain repeating this suggestion, but Keenan Roberts and I were discussing the setting up of a moderated forum (not by us – just talking it through) where real debate could take place between invited guests (opposing sides of each argument) and moderated by people with neutral, opposing and/or “expert” backgrounds. Just the facts. Backed up. No brawling or multiple posters. No movement made until agreement is reached or until moderators make a call.
If no agreement is reached (I’m talking about verifiable facts and details), they should be put aside for future debate rather than getting bogged down.
The fog needs to be cleared before any genuine truthseeker can make an unbiased call.
It also counters the latest trend of making sweeping, ill informed judgements on the word of people who are experts/researchers in their own field, but “noobs” in other areas where they are in no position to say which evidence to reject.
It might sound time consuming and open to abuse but I honestly can’t think of any other way to counter both the infiltrators and “bandwagon hoppers”.
The grassroots need to be hands on in this.
2cents
Onesliceshort,
I think it’s a fantastic idea. It would take work and commitment from some people, but if we can clear that hurdle it could be something really worthwhile.
I would like to see such a forum as well OSS – Keenan too.
My main interest would be on explaining the topic of special effects cinematography, and branching from that such as plainaire effects, such as theme park effects. I also worked at both WED and Imaginerring during my career.
Such things as how the decapitated talking head of the gorgon in a globe in the Haunted Mansion is achieved, plus the miniature lady waving good-bye at the end of that ride. These are not actually holograms but a form of parabolic projection on a solid object. Like most of the physical effects the angle of view is carefully controlled.
Such as the dancing ghosts in the ballroom, this is not a projection of any kind. The ghosts are just a reflection of animatrionic models directly under the floor of the point of POV – which is looking into a large mirror. Their apparent transparency an optical illusion created by perspective; the dance floor scene is a scene behind the action set up.
I would imagine that most are familiar enough with animatronics to only give a quick preview of that.
ww
Good article Craig… you should post it to our Latest News Section.
Email me if you would like to read some of the exchanges I have had with Elizabeth and DRG on the topic and I will forward them to you.
In short, there is nothing “Consensus” about the “Consensus Panel”.
What do I think about what, exactly? And people’s behavior on forums is not particularly pertinent.
AND Rob…in dealing with Paul and all this nonsense, I have been left alone in answering Mr. Wright in his continuing escapades directed at the Pentagon issue below.
I would hope that those of you who are much more familiar with this would have something to say as well.
This is why such hijackings as Paul’s are such a detriment to discussions – the distraction leaves us spinning our wheels over spit lather rather than attending to the issues.
My current response to Mr. Wright may not be adequate in the eyes of others here, and I would like to see him addressed by those who feel so.
Thanks, ww
Paul,
The only person in danger of being banned right now is you. You continue to use this site as a forum for bickering with Rob Balsamo and others about things that have nothing to do with debating 9/11 evidence and certainly nothing to do with the subject of this thread. And you continue to post comments and then ask for a more correct version to be substituted. Sometimes you send three versions of the same comment.
This is inconsiderate because it makes double the moderating work for me. Sometimes I suspect you’re doing it on purpose. I have mentioned this to you before. You did it again today, and I cannot find the difference between the comment with the supposed mistake and the corrected one. They look the same to me.
From now on, only comments that deal with substantive 9/11 issues will be posted here under your name.
Paul,
I’m letting this comment in to make the point that I don’t want the exchange between you and Rob to continue (as you have subsequently suggested it should). You can comment about 9/11 and issues with the movement, but not arguments about how you were treated on another forum. Not interested. Offer serious comments and I’ll approve them, but not the squabbling over names and forum etiquette.
Dear Mr. McKee,
I think you should delete everything in this 911Artists detour and leaving only Rob Balsamo’s top-level posting.
Those who care have already read and responded. Ain’t too much about it deserving of being preserved for lurker-readers.
Call it a post-publication clean-up.
“This appears to be the case only because many of those engaging in the dispute have failed to notice that the proponents of the flyover theory have neglected to adequately explain the form of damage and the large amount of aircraft debris at the Pentagon.”~Wyndham
I just went over the Wyndham paper, ‘Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact’
[November 27, 2011] – for the third time with a rebuttal on the points in mind. However in just the first few pages it was obvious that the man is basing his case {1} too strongly on the Legge – Chandler information. {2} miscomprehension of the actual information compiled by CIT and Pilots.
He obviously hasn’t studied either CIT or Pilots, but defers to other Journal papers with links to those as background.
This phrase, “large amount of aircraft debris at the Pentagon.” is what kicked me out of his house. When PhD’s such as Wyndham follow pied pipers without doing their own checking, we know the ‘group mind’ process is taking over.
I’ve seen some of the pics available on the web of this supposed large amount of aircraft debris, as well as several shots not publicly available that Legge sent me. Anyone who can believe these shots is looking through delusional eyes. I won’t go on to a formal critique of these shots and why they fail scrutiny here, as posting the images discussed would be a necessity. But I am convinced there is nothing compelling there.
ww
So I simply threw it out as another hooda dance. I got there because Pilots site that I attempted to load fails for me, so I escaped the notice page by going to Journal again.
“I did not accuse. I stated an observation and asked questions.”~Paul T-squared – May 7, 2012 at 11:49 am
Of course none here have ever heard of innuendo, tacit implication, weasel words and slippery rhetoric, because I certainly never had sex with that woman, and surely it depends on what “is” is.
“Make your enemies by choice, not by accident.”~Alfred Bester, novella, THE DEMOLISHED MAN
ww
Hi Rob, as John Bursill’s former friend (I no longer speak to him), just wanted to say I’m very happy to see you posting here.
Cheers
Naomi, Sydney
Hi Naomi,
Nice to e-meet you and thank you for your kind words. Here is more on Bursill if you haven’t already viewed this….
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19288&view=findpost&p=10780830
Regards,
Rob
Hi Naomi,
I see you are here happy to see Rob posting. And I note you are a “great fan” of Jim Fetzer.
And so naturally the question arises, ‘how doth that twain meet?’
Can you untangle what seems a dichotomy of allegiances?
ww
I just want to state categorically that I have a VERY high threshhold when it comes to being definitely convinced that someone is knowingly working for the other side. A couple people I’ve noticed have become convinced that certain persons (namely Elizabeth and DRG) are operatives, while I still give the benefit of the doubt that those persons are well meaning but duped on the Pentagon issue (due to groupthink + time constraints, etc.). Never underestimate the sheer power of propaganda; it can con even the brightest of brains sometimes; look at the bright scientists in Nazi Germany who were well meaning scientists but got sucked in to the “science” of Eugenics simply because it was being promoted by Ph.D.’s. Just like I’ve seen bright people be “impressed” with the Pentagon material of Frank Legge simply because he’s “Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D.”
I was watching the Kay-Tarpley debate and Webster showed his graphic chart of moles, dupes, patsies and actual perps. Not everyone who makes decisions which disappoint us is a knowing operative. Unlike a couple others, I am hardly convinced that Griffin, of all people, is actively working to suppress the truth about the Pentagon.
(And I say this as someone who is definitely convinced that certain people on the online scene are infiltrators and am not afraid to publicly say it, like the owner of 911blogger Justin Keogh.)
David Griffin has done WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to much good, has caused SO many hundreds (thousands, even millions perhaps?) of people to snap out of their delirium and realize that 9/11 was an inside job. There’s no way that the Cass Sunsteins would send a person like DRG in to do so much good, just so he could then carry out his “real” assignment of hush-hushing the NoC flight path / flyover evidence.
I think that he, like Elizabeth, can’t get his head around the fact that some of the people he’s heavily footnoted in his books re the WTC, who he trusts, could be disinformants. I can kind of understand where he’s coming from. If I had written several books which heavily footnoted Jim Hoffman and David Chandler (re the WTC), for example, and I were forced to come to terms with the fact that those two people just might be working for the other side, that would cause me some huge cognitive dissonance with regard to the credibility and “purity” of my books. It would force me to step back and reevaluate the quality of my internationally published work.
In my previous comment I lamented that I didn’t have time to proof it further because I had to get to work, yet I wanted to post it. I noticed an unfinished sentence:
“On the one hand, she seemed to get it and she didn’t strongly , but on the other hand, she refused to seriously consider that the anti CIT camp and their arguments are in all likelihood the work of professional disinformants along with their willing dupes.”
If I can take the liberty of refining that now, I would say this:
“On the one hand, she seemed to get it and she didn’t strongly object to the [NoC evidence] and even, in one letter, said she found National Security Alert to be extremely compelling. But on the other hand, she refused to seriously consider that the anti CIT camp and their arguments are in all likelihood the work of professional disinformants along with their willing dupes.”
I remember being in junior high school when I first heard people talking about the concept of book smarts versus street smarts. “So and so is book smart, but they’re not street smart.” DRG is incredibly book smart. Cerebral-wise, he fully knows the movement would be heavily infiltrated, to the point of writing a whole book devoted to the subject. But on the street smarts front, I’ve seen him (in private emails) say words to the general effect of: “I disagree with Hoffman’s take on the Pentagon, but I have seen no reason to doubt his integrity.” When I responded that Jim Hoffman says on his website that anyone taking the flyover seriously must be the equivalent of being strung up on crack or PCP, he would basically respond that Hoffman is a fallible human being being a fallible human being. (Or not respond at all.) David is simply the master of “staying above the fray,” but I think that in more recent times this has caused more harm than good. He should have taken the firm stance that Zwicker, Lankford and Zarembka have, and really called out the anti CIT people for being guilty of spewing BS arguments to make their case. (He could even have forcefully done that without calling anyone an agent.) Elizabeth also used a similar line of reasoning with Richard’s “complete withdrawal” statement, saying that “IF” (she used caps) Richard erred, it’s because he’s a human being who makes mistakes like the rest of us, and given how busy he his, we should have some sympathy for him. etc. I think these peoples’ respect for Hoffman, Chandler, Richard etc. outweighs anything wrong the said individials have ever done, so they essentially turn a blind eye.
Like I said in another post, Richard was (and is) book smart but not street smart. When AE911Truth first went public, anyone could go on the petition and sign it in real time, claiming they’re a structural engineer. At first, it didn’t occur to Richard that this would instantly attract the trolls. He was so naive as to believe that everyone who would sign was a well meaning individual. A person that street-naive will easily be taken in by a skilled infiltrator, especially if that infiltrator is an enthusiastic volunteer with a desk in the same room!
Just trying to keep all options open and not jump to immediate conclusions that Woodworth and even Griffin are “actively working to supress” the truth about the Pentagon. This does not of course change the fact that I have been disappointed with their method of bending over backwards to appease the Jim Hoffman crowd.
Hi Adam,
I think the best policy when discussing “mis/disinformation” is to point out the flaws in the actual information instead of directing the accusation at the source because..
1) if it’s an actual honest mistake or a case of not checking the information or the counterarguments out themselves (which is nearly as criminal as purposeful disinformation IMO), siege mentality sets in.
2) if it’s actual purposeful disinformation, they can cry “split the movement” or point to the same blanket accusation of other “prominent truth leaders” who have simply jumped on the bandwagon or have an almost snobbish attitude towards other researchers who aren’t afraid to “tow the line”.
It’s the perfect set up for them.
My problem is that DRG and Gage have quoted dis/misinformation and haven’t the decency to even talk to those who have been uncerimoniously dumped into the manufactured LIHOP rubbish bin because they believe that there will be no repurcussions from people who have had a raw deal and been at the end of a 6 year smear campaign.
For me personally, the “Truth Movement leaders” have taken the role of unelected politicians where only those who have manouevred themselves into gatekeeper positions can influence their decisions based on PR and “acceptable truths”. One thing is to reject the conclusions of researchers and evidence but to reject those conclusions and evidence based on lies, distortion, convenience and the OCT itself is a cop out.
In recent weeks I’ve been sourcing and quoting WTC researchers who would normally label me a “moonbat” for my stance on the Pentagon. I’ve no qualms in using their information because I verified it for myself. They are very meticulous and detailed when discussing their own area of expertise but when it comes to the Pentagon they are the equivalent of 2 year olds daubing their own excrement on the walls.
If they see the grassroots as irrelevant or feel that they aren’t responsible for decisions made because of the denial bubble made by the likes of the nodding dogs at TruthAction, I think it’s time to leave these dinosaurs behind. Quote them? Yes. But see them as leaders of a group of people determined to educate, investigate and agitate? No. No way.
Adam,
This is a very level headed comment you have just posted. I think the “Psychology of Lynching”, should ever be borne in mind when in the thick of things.
‘MAYBE’ could possibly be one of the most important concepts in human cognizance.
ww
This was a very refreshing comment to read, Dennis. Glad that you did not stay swayed by the propaganda forever. Glad you found this blog.
The Amazon discussion to which you refer is here (starting with the comment Gretavo/RT pasted on his blog):
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1ZLJ3J1FM55XO/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxNG8NGESE5P3L&cdMsgNo=21&cdPage=3&asin=B007DVDV2S&store=digital-text&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3AC4AG4DDFOQF&cdMsgID=MxB362VGWK5N90#MxB362VGWK5N90
And speaking of Amazon, I was definitely applauding when I first read your words in your review of Griffin’s latest book:
Dennis,
Since you have admitted that for awhile, you were “taken in” by the anti CIT propaganda, and now have come to the conclusion that propaganda is indeed what it is, and that CIT is on the right side of the fight: I am curious: what specific talking points against CIT’s work were you taken in by? Accusations of cherrypicking, starting with a conclusion, omissions/distortions? Or the talking points that focus on CIT as people and ignore the witness testimonies?
One thing that is clear to me, and becomes more strongly reinforced each time I take a fresh look at National Security Alert, is that the anti CIT propaganda is designed to convince people, like yourself, that it’s all been debunked and that there’s no need to watch CIT’s presentations. People who have actually watched the presentations first, then taken a look at the anti CIT websites, see through it as hollow propaganda in a heartbeat.
Adam
adam,
as a member of drg’s consensus 911 panel, i find this thread especially intriguing. i’ve been tuned in to 9/11 truth since the summer of 2008, but until i read zwicker and lankford’s very impressive resignation emails, i don’t think i had ever heard of “national security alert.” it was after reading those emails that i made it a point to see the movie.
i found “national security alert” to be excellent, and very persuasive. previously, i had been dismissive of CIT because, in hindsight, i was taken in by the anti-CIT propaganda, which was (and is) so prevalent. as you say, “Never underestimate the sheer power of propaganda; it can con even the brightest of brains sometimes…” not that i consider myself to be among the brightest, but i grew up on the streets of brooklyn and do credit myself with having some street smarts. which is why, in part, “national security alert” appealed to me so much—it has a real and honest street feel—two guys taking it to the street in the best of ways, searching for 9/11 truth and tracking down real witnesses. now, as a result of my having seen the movie, the militant anti-CIT crowd has lost a ton of credibility retroactively.
drg (of whom i am a huge fan) may indeed be a master of “staying above the fray,” as you say. at times, however, i find myself wanting to see him enter the fray, and apply his brilliance to finding out who is what. as i wrote in my dec. 8, 2011 amazon review of drg’s “9/11 ten years later” re his call for “a consensus approach” among 9/11 truth activists who have long debated over what actually struck the pentagon: “I would like to have seen Professor Griffin address whether this debate is being fueled by cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers.”
fyi, i somehow found this (“truth and shadows”) website when (unsuccessfully) trying to track down the amazon discussion mentioned on “rt’s” website here http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3394 wherein you were quoted. can you advise where that amazon discussion is? i want to go there and add that, contrary to rt’s “fairness” claims, he has thrown people off his site without any advance warning, and i am one. still, i’m thankful to rt and his wtcd site for (unintentionally, it seems), leading me here. from what i’ve gathered so far, “truth and shadows” is an excellent site—and pretty much what the heavily-infiltrated 911blogger pretends to be. i plan to return here soon, read more articles and comments, and participate when i can.
Dennis,
I’m really happy you did find the site, and I appreciate your words of support.
The reaction you’ve had to National Security Alert is similar to mine. I was relatively new to the movement when I saw it, and I wasn’t up on all the internal politics. But I was immediately blown away because I could see the implications of what Ranke and Marquis had uncovered. I have also reacted with great suspicion to the orchestrated campaign to discredit CIT.
You mentioned being a fan of David Ray Griffin. So am I. This is why I’ve also become frustrated with the accommodations he has been making to the anti-CIT cabal. He has bought into the idea that the movement is “deeply divided” on the Pentagon. I don’t call 15 or 20 vocal CIT opponents indicative of a division. From all accounts, a HUGE majority of truthers don’t believe any 757 ever hit the building.
My take on his Pentagon chapter in 9/11 Ten Years After is that his argument against 757 impact is thorough and persuasive. But lending so much credibility to the other side gave them a weight they don’t deserve. I’m anxious to read what you wrote about the book.
I look forward to your future participation here; I think the Consensus Panel is very lucky to have someone with such a refreshing, open-minded perspective.
Craig McKee
“drg (of whom i am a huge fan) may indeed be a master of “staying above the fray,” as you say. at times, however, i find myself wanting to see him enter the fray, and apply his brilliance to finding out who is what. as i wrote in my dec. 8, 2011 amazon review of drg’s “9/11 ten years later” re his call for “a consensus approach” among 9/11 truth activists who have long debated over what actually struck the pentagon: “I would like to have seen Professor Griffin address whether this debate is being fueled by cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers.”
Dennis,
Good comments, thanks for making them. I had to think long and hard about resigning, but decided that it was necessary. Your wish to have Dr. Griffin “enter the fray” is a position in which I find myself in full agreement. I phrased it as wishing that 9/11 Truth Leaders would lead instead of letting food fights break out in the community over distortions of fact and startingly bad analyses being put forward as peer-reviewed research. Dr. Griffin’s position that “what hit the Pentagon” (which makes an assumption counter to best evidence, in my opinion) being unimportant, is a position which is highly convenient for someone who has his sights on consensus within that community, but which cannot be reconciled.
“Was a plane crash faked at the Pentagon or not?” is a question that carries a lot of freight, and whatever you may say about it, unimportant is not an adjective that applies. If the answer is “yes”, there are many more questions behind that and we are looking at a crime of gigantic proportions and a great many new suspects. I can think of no more important role for leaders of Dr. Griffin’s stature than to lend their voices to achieving clarity in the community on that issue, particularly if the alternative is to preside over a process that seems bent on sorting out issues that represent the lowest common denominator of 9/11 Truth while in the process marginalizing stronger evidence of more impact.
Mr. Gage described CIT as “controversial” in a teleconference call some time back. I had no opportunity to engage with him on whether “controversial” says anything about evidence when dealing with 9/11 Truth, since there is a sizeable, active, and very motivated opposition community to 9/11 Truth whose purpose it appears to be to create controversy. The JFK Assassination research community has labored for almost 50 years under what looks like deliberately created controversy, and, it appears that is the shared destiny of 9/11 Truth.
At any rate, thanks for commenting here and I hope to read more from you.
SFL
craig and shelton,
thanks very much for your replies, kind words, and feedback. i’d really like to see a transparent open debate on the issues raised by cit, with participation of all they key players in the field (among whom, i am not one). ideally, the forum would be one where civility and respect is a prerequisite. the cass sunstein crowd is a most formidable force. that they have 9/11truthers arguing vehemently amongst themselves is testimony to that, and an indication that “they” are amongst us.
–d
thanks for the kind words and url, adam. i addressed rt in the amazon discussion, will see if he responds. he’s been ignoring my posts to him on his own site.
adam,
for me, it was people–who obviously knew a lot more about 9/11 than i did (e.g. the folks at 911blogger before i caught on to the infiltration there)–being dismissive of CIT. not so much any actual articulation “that it’s all been debunked and that there’s no need to watch CIT’s presentations,” but more the outright dismissal of anything and everything CIT. also, being a new yorker who was a mile and a half north of wtc on 9/11, i’ve been first and foremost drawn to the nyc events, and building 7 primarily. i’d never much focused on the pentagon or shanksville, but did hold the belief that the official stories had to be bogus. initially, that was enough for me to back-burner both the pentagon and shanksville events. after i was bounced from 911blogger, i landed on the gretavo and willyloman sites. there the pattern repeated. both of them knew (and know) a lot more than i do about 9/11 and were very down on a CIT proponent (keenan, i think it was, who was bounced from wtcd just before i was). i sort of figured that willy and gretavo knew what they were talking about and didn’t pay that close attention, mainly because all the arguing was very heated and i didn’t want to get it.
Craig, I’m not voting in your poll because there’s no option that represents my view of things. It’s not that I’m opposed to consensus seeking per se, in fact there IS a consensus in the truth movement that the “plane crash” at the Pentagram was faked, and the crowd is right about that.
The problem is that the consensus panel is controlled by people working at odds to the truth. As with 911blogger, TruthAction.com, A&E, Journal of 911 Studies, their goal is to slowly and steadily rehabilitate the official lie.
But that choice is not reflected in your poll.
No, that goes further than I’d be prepared to go. But that doesn’t restrict anyone from expressing that in the comments. And the poll is just for interest, really. It’s not scientific. Perhaps I’ll be able to refine my poll-making abilities as I go.
Craig,
You have by far the best 9/11 truth site. Bravo.
Very kind of you to say. And I love your name.
Thanks, hoped that would bring a chuckle to at least one person. I was inspired by Luke R.’s recent confrontation with Cass Sunstein where he introduced himself as “My name is Bill… de Berg.”
http://youtu.be/4OIiOztc52g
Mr. McKee, do you believe that you’re speaking to someone that is posting here under the name “Jimtoria Hoffshley” only?
Whether you are intentionally “hijacking the thread” or not Paul, you are dealing with something here that no one but yourself gives a diddly about – you come off as utterly self consumed with trivial points to generate self importance.
I have never read you once to contribute to the topic of a thread. What I get from you is someone who “copyrighted” a clever 9/11 name, looked around at others “making money off of the topic” and are chagrined that it hasn’t worked out that way for yourself.
I just wish you would eat your sour grapes by yourself and quit grimacing over the taste here.
ww
It may be seen as the view of a cynic – and I readily admit that I am one; to say that I don’t see even the slightest possibility that 9/11 will ever be revisited in an honest and forthcoming manner by the present criminal syndicate posing as “government” here in Amerika Inc/Ltd.
Then why do I seek the truth in this matter?
Simply because it is the truth.
Truth should be sought in all things. But this seminal truth of of 9/11, is the key to the discovery that the present system IS a criminal syndicate. It is this core issue that is of prime import, above and beyond this singular crime committed by the criminal cabal.
I have been “on the trail of the assassins”, as it were, for more than forty years. Deep historical and social studies, while constructing a purposeful epistemic frame — that as a whole is a matrix of fractal complexity, each node, a complex picture in itself.
The “who done it” is remarkably clear and simple to see within this frame. It is the construction of the frame that is the long hard journey.
ww
I agree, ww. I’m definitely not holding my breath for any real investigation or truth reconciliation regarding 9/11 or any of the other major black op crimes by the ruling class without a total regime change. And not just because of the criminal syndicate’s opposition to such things. The Amerikan public by and large either don’t really care or are incapable of defending themselves against the brainwashing and manipulation of their minds. Any doubts about the shear hopelessness of the Amerikan public ever waking up will quickly be allayed be this sobering statistic: 71% of Americans think Iran already has the Bomb according to a CNN/Gallop poll!”
Have the Amerikan public completely forgotten about the WMD hoax used as a false pretext for the Iraq invasion? Or is the Amerikan public completely incapable of learning lessons of history? What’s more, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has repeatedly said that the US believes that Iran has not decided yet whether to initiate a nuclear weapons program. If it doesn’t have a weapons program, how can Iran actually have a weapon? How can so many people hold beliefs that are completely irrational? Especially after having been lied to with similar false pretexts for wars so recently?
We’re screwed. Most people in this country are farkin idjits.
“We’re screwed. Most people in this country are farkin idjits.”~Keenan
Agreed, I would just expand that to the race as a whole…Homo Vishnu Whakadoodlus.
ww
I read the list of “Consensus Points” that this unelected panel came up with and was absolutely dumbfounded that the only reference to the Pentagon was this point:
This point, which implies that there is no dispute with the OCT of Flight 77 having crashed at the Pentagon, is worded exactly as the Jim Hoffman team of infiltrators would write it, which means that they do not represent the 9/11 truth movement at all on this point. What this tells me is that the Cass Sunstein type of operatives continue to be very successful with their program of infiltration and co-optation of the leadership and major nodes of influence of the 9/11 truth movement. What can be more ironic than when the author of “Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” allows his own mind to be cognitively infiltrated?
I have been actively involved with the 9/11 truth movement for over 6 years, and can say with absolute certainty that a good 90% of the rank and file of the movement believe that no large passenger plane crashed at the Pentagon, or are at least extremely skeptical of the official account of a large passenger plane crash. This “consensus” panel is completely at odds with the actual movement that they are claiming to represent. Something is very wrong with the manner in which they decide what is “best evidence”, particularly considering the fact that one of their “leading researchers”, Frank Legge, unapologetically admits that he utilized “research” from the anti-truth, government loyalist JREF group when he wrote his crap paper (a paper that uses logical fallacies such as proving a negative “You can’t prove that there was no crash” among other unscientific, unacademic aspects) that would not meet the standards of any legitimate peer review process. Yes, this is the same Frank Legge that says that the JREFer’s analysis and calculations of the WTC collapses that support the OCT are complete poppycock.
I’m just completely shocked that David Griffin has allowed himself to be so throughly manipulated and cognitively infiltrated by this Pentagon disinformation crew, to the point where he is willing to shut his mouth and suppress what he used to think was best evidence that the physical damage was not consistent with a plane crash at the Pentagon.
Another excellent write up, Craig.
Okay, now just to play the devils advocate for a moment with a ‘What If’ scenario.
What if, this consensus panel report were to get enough exposure that the result was a doubling or even tripling of the number of people who realize that the government story is a load of BS?
Wouldn’t these folks, upon finally waking up to the central fact of this, at least some large portion of them begin to look into things closer for themselves?
Would they not be in the same sort of headspace as many here were when it first dawned on you?
For some of you here, I gather that it was a year, two years, some even longer before something turned your head around. At that point you began studying and forming your own opinions on the details. And as is displayed here, there are differences minor to large as to those details.
As I said, this is a ‘What If’….and probably a ‘BIG What If’. I doubt it will come about, just as I doubt there will ever be an honest “Official Investigation”, because the term is an oxymoron given the present sociopolitical paradigm.
It seems our hill of beans isn’t going to matter anymore than another hill of beans in the long run.
That is why I am satisfied in the personal pursuit of truth as a rather spiritual fulfillment rather than as an evangelist – and perhaps why being an odd-man-out with a point like this doesn’t still my breath.
ww
I did a poll last January on the Facebook group “1,000,000 people for 9/11 TRUTH” and the results were entirely consistent with my experience of views within the 9/11 truth movement for the last 6 years. https://www.facebook.com/groups/286311730249/10150507532365250/
So, out of 55 votes, only 1 person buys the government story of an AA77 crash.
Virtually no one who has studied the 9/11 conspiracy for long enough to be familiar with the lack of evidence for a plane crash buys the official story about AA77 having crashed there. You can see this in poll after poll. Jim Hoffman, Legge, Chandler, and the rest of the group of Pentagon disinformationists have been acting very divisively and destructively as thought police and have been shown that they have no authority and legitimacy to do what they are doing. It is time that the wider truth movement force these people out of leadership positions and recognize them as the agents of disinformation that they are. How can DRG allow such an unrepresentative clique have so much influence and pressure him to adopt a stance that nobody else in the movement supports? Unbelievable.
Yes, I’ve also seen such polls taken. Ken Doc did a similar poll. I documented it here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10011
I’m gonna take a gamble here and try to post the images. There’s no preview feature so I don’t know if it will work until submitted.
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5346/kendoc1.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7136/kendoc2.jpg
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7145/kendoc3.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1564/kendoc4.jpg
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5286/kendoc5.jpg
“Results
1) AA77 crashed into the Pentagon……………………………………………………1 vote
2) A missile and/or small military aircraft crashed into the Pentagon…………..38 votes
3) Nothing crashed into the Pentagon, only pre-planted explosives caused the damage…..7 votes
4) I have no idea……………………………………………………………………………. 9 votes”
What’s very telling is that the majority of pollsters believe that a missile or military aircraft hit the Pentagon. This was the common claim pre 2006 (I believed that myself previously) and there was no incessant campaign to discredit it. The shills were happy to let this unproven “theory” roll. And it worked judging by the numbers who support it. And the previous deafening silence trying to debunk or refute it by those same people who are at the forefront of attacks on CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth.
The NOC evidence cropped up and BAM! Anonymous disinfobot bloggers came out of the woodwork. Clumsy infiltrators such as Russell Pickering and John Farmer were hung out to dry.
Previously velvet tongued,easy treading “researchers” threw logic out the window and gatekeepers tripped over themselves to stifle very simply understood information that points to an inside job. Information that doesn’t require architectural or engineering degrees to understand.
Pleb-friendly. How can evidence like this be controlled?
Just look at the nonsense these once respected “sages” proposed in light of this simple concept.
Jim Hoffman actually claims that a SAM (surface to air missile) struck “Flight 77 pre impact” to ease “penetration”. Chris Sarns (and apparently Richard Gage) spout the NOC impact tripe. Even Victoria Ashley claimed that a “booster” was smuggled on board the aircraft to aid mobile phonecalls!
The most obvious cointelpro operation emerged with the Legge/Stutt paper. If NIST had released contradictory garbage data that contradicted the OCT on the collapses, it would have been treated with delicacy, professionalism and a demand (on the street or in the law courts) for an explanation. Nooo..Warren Stutt, an unknown with apparently no interest in 9/11 pops up and allegedly broke every 0 and 1 in the alleged FDR, made a hash of it, but got together with a chemist from the same country, Australia, and worked through a garbage paper that no pilot endorsed (I even confronted alleged pilots who were government loyalists and they sached out the door). It was a crafty subplot to explain away the discrepancies on physical evidence and the perps didn’t get their hands dirty. Job done.
Same thing has been happening the past year or two with the emergence of the “fuel fires” claims regarding WTC7. Both online and through the ConEd insurance claim (coincidentally at a time when the family member WTC7 ads were released)
The Pentagon “quagmire” was the result of a lot of people happy with the easily debunked “missile/military aircraft” sideshow, being caught offguard on not being able to control or refute the NOC evidence. End of story.
This is partially true. The campaign didn’t heat up until the NoC evidence though. And for me, that’s when the campaign became really transparent, where I could no longer chalk things up to “honest differences of opinion.”
I was recently in San Diego on business, and I met up with Dwain Deets and also attended a monthly SD911Truth meeting (where the film “Thrive” was screened). I met the founders of that group, Ted and Nelisee Muga. Several years back, prior to CIT and the NoC evidence bursting onto the scene, the Mugas actually hosted Jim and Vic Hoffman in their home in SD. Even back then, Jim/Vic were basically trying to encourage people to “not go there” re the Pentagon, insisting it would be dead end of research and one that wouldn’t get us any closer to our goal.
The Mugas came away from the experience with the very strong conclusion that Jim/Vic were disinformation specialists.
Prior to my exposure to NoC, I assumed Hoffman was well meaning but simply had a different opinion on the Pentagon, which for awhile I respected as his right to have that opinion. They definitely did argue against missile or small plane. For a little while there, I even thought there was some merit to the Pentagon “honeypot trap” theory (namely, that the govt will someday release a clear video showing impact, complete with, as K Barrett humorously says, “Barbara Olson smiling and waving out the window”). However, It wasn’t when I started seeing the “arguments” he was using to sweep NoC under the rug, that I became convinced his intentions were impure.
Dear Mr. Syed,
You wrote across two different postings:
I no longer champion NPT, but there is too much to remnant evidence regarding active media participation in the ruse within the September Clues genre that needs to be fished out before that “honeypot trap” gets dismissed.
Likewise, I’m open to having my mind changed that DEW is a “honeypot trap.” However, on our way to settling this, the sacred cow of nano-thermite is going to get slaughtered. We’re going to see that A&E9-11Truth, while harping about super-duper nano-thermite flakes in the dust, did not themselves test for any other type of incendiary within that dust, just like the govt didn’t, and used lame arguments to keep “no testing” as such when this was pointed out.
Wrapped into this puzzle is the fact that unvetted, unthorough, and unsystemmatic govt reports on radiation were produced that were accepted unchallenged. A nuclear physicists deep within the leadership of the 9/11 movement explained away the radiation readings with a couple scientific slights-of-hand. [“Radiation of types A, B, and C were measured, but didn’t match the radiation signatures of just these three known common types of nuclear weapons, thus NO NUKES were used.” And no speculation was given into what could account for those radiation readings, which, by the way, were characterized as being at trace levels, requiring traces levels to be re-defined 55 times greater than they were previously.]
On our way to ruling DEW in or out for some part of the WTC destruction, we’re going to discover that pulverization is a massive energy sink, as is hot-spot duration, that as of this date we do not have adequate explanations for. [No, not even nano-thermite can do it.] Meanwhile, those radiation reports from the govt [probably juked low by the govt] was still damning enough that a nuclear physicists deep within the leadership of the 9/11 movement had to step in bury it even further.
My bets for part of the destruction are still on nuclear powered DEW that could be directed precisely to not hit the structure they were mounted on, which in the case of WTC-1 later became known as “the spire.” Something confusing to me is the cavernous and glassy bed rock area that was discovered under WTC-4 that they attribute to geological formations [a nugget of truth from Dimitri K.]
I know that Dr. Wood’s textbook has some disinformation, such as her leading but unanswered questions [in relation to 9/11] into “free-energy from space,” Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, and Hurricane Erin’s role. But she at least brings up the energy questions that all theories-du-jour need to address. She has a whole series of anomalous vehicle damage that n-o-b-o-d-y ever talks about. [DEW rays slipping out through window openings could partially.] I’d like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.
Christopher J. Farrell (ex? military intel) of Judicial Watch (responsible for FOIA release of gatecam footage) was the first to pen the term “honeytrap” on the Alex Jones show.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/170506farrell_clip.mp3
Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/board-of-directors/
Wiki
“Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations – the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation, both managed by Richard Mellon Scaife, and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.,[40] which folded in 2005.[41] As of 2010, Scaife remains the group’s main contributor.[7]”
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Institute_for_Strategic_Studies
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife
Keep following the links and you’ll come across PNAC signatories and alleged high profile dubious “Pentagon witnesses” that government loyalists never mention (Regnery – Barbara Olson’s publisher, Gary Bauer – PNAC, etc)
Chris Farrell also claimed that he was meant to travel on “Flight 77” but changed at the last minute (can’t find source at the moment).
Maybe it’s the koolaid eating my brain but uhh..
Señor,
You say:
“I know that Dr. Wood’s textbook has some disinformation, such as her leading but unanswered questions [in relation to 9/11] into “free-energy from space,” Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, and Hurricane Erin’s role.”
And I asked you before what you knew about Hutchison Effects and you said that you knew little but what was conveyed by Wood. So I will tell you what was in the hints I gave you at the time we were discussing this stuff before; Hutchison Effects have been determined to be due to the man himself, not his machinery, which NEVER worked when he wasn’t present. It is considered to be a form of poltergeist, he seems to have been endowed with psychokinetic abilities. I read a lot about this researching anti-gravity several years ago.
Hurricane Erin’s role is utter science fiction balderdash.
Free energy will come from the inner energies of the planet Earth itself according to Tesla.
“I’d like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.”~Señor
Man, we went through this as well, the damn cars were towed there from the areas around the towers…it is documented fact. I gave you Jenkins papers on this, he fricking proves these things there, and there are no rational arguments against the facts as he lays them out as provided by public information on all counts, plus photo evidence.
You have issues Mr. Once, and I have a prepared statement ready to post as soon as the proper thread comes up to do so. You have the badge of a 4 year chump to wear on the NPT situation, and this is not addressed in full here as of yet.
ww
I find it interesting the Alex Jones has been one of the major purveyors of the Pentagon “honeytrap” theory within the “9/11 truth movement”. I put that in quotes, because certain people who claim to be part of the truth movement are confirmed liars and con artists, such as Alex Jones. Alex Jones has for years adamantly asserted that we should stay away from the Pentagon issue. As with so many other issues, we again find Alex Jones doing the job for those who seek to cover up the truth and using the same identical language as the Jim Hoffman team in this case.
I wrote yesterday:
Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
What you write about psychokinetic abilities is news to me; it doesn’t surprise me that it only worked when he was present; and it takes nothing away from what I wrote yesterday. The crafty way in which Dr. Wood’s textbook is written, one first has to determine viability or voracity of a concept and then one can contemplate applicability (to 9/11). Honestly, I had hopes that the Hutchison Effect would be a real scientific principle and repeatable. Okay by me if Hutchison Effects are taken off of the table
You write:
Ja-ein as they say in German. Dr. Wood hints that Hurricane Erin could have provided free energy to some destructive device. Returning to the questions of viability/voracity and applicability in this regard, maybe your labeling is appropriate.
Hurricane Erin should not be swept under the table too quickly, if for no other reason than it demonstrated coordinated efforts by the media into ignoring it so as to not distract from the show they were going to help put over. Also, many hints suggest that it was being controlled. (a) It could have been a reason not to go to work that morning. (b) Why were certain FEMA command centers set up on a pier if they could be so easily damaged by a shifting hurricane? (c) Hurricane’s suck and made for clear skies and predictable wind patterns useful in recording the event and handling any necessary media manipulation. [Media manipulation did happen, as evident by multiple versions of the same footage.] (d) The hurricane may have been a back-up plan to obfuscate the evidence or hide events should some of the original plans fail.
You write:
Returning to the questions of viability/voracity and applicability in this regard, the former may be assured (one can hope) but suppressed by the PTB. Again, however, applicability to 9/11 is rather nebulous.
I wrote:
You responded:
No, no, no, no.
No, we did not go through this. We discussed cars damaged in other areas and towed to the bridge.
We did not discuss any of the vehicles damaged along West Broadway essentially perpendicular to the WTC complex. My avatar is one such vehicle.
I am not going to let you get off so easily on this one. Here are two such images. The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg
There’s a great video of some reporter coming out from WTC-7 who didn’t know really where he was but was commenting on the damage to car after car after car as it looking like a war zone.
Study these videos from WCBS Vince Dimentri who was at West Broadway and Barkley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
You continued:
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Dr. Jenkins to my knowledge never discusses the damage to these vehicles in question.
Mr. Rogue continues:
How quaint!
Yep, I’ll wear that badge of a 4-year chump on NPT. While you’re making badges, how many years will be embroidered on your nano-thermite chump badge?
Dear Mr. HybridRogue and Mr. Keenan Roberts,
Mr. Rogue wrote:
Yes, and that is a good thing. “Feed my sheep.”
Depression was part of that headspace, because we are but individuals and (at least in my case) admitted cowards going up against a machine whereby we ourselves are cogs in our daily endeavors to shelter, clothe, and feed ourselves and etch out a pleasant life experience.
At the end of previous discussion, Mr. Rogue asked:
I don’t have an answer, must contemplate more, and turn the floor back to Mr. Rogue to share his answer.
To be well adjusted to an abnormal or grossly atypical society means, I guess, going along with the abnormal or grossly atypical methods, actions, and groupthink foisted on the society by those directing the cameras.
Meanwhile, Mr. Roberts wrote:
Let’s also be responsible in our assessment. Amidst what they enforced as “thought police” were nuggets of truth. Let us be careful in our own dismissiveness not to shoot Truth in the foot in the process.
Mr. Roberts wrote:
Woa! Woa! Woa! Slow down, cowboy!
What and who are going to fill the vacuum? Better the devil that you know, you know? There is always the chance that they could redeem themselves.
Mr. Roberts wrote:
He’s human. He’s had major health issues.
These are intellectual battles designed to zap strength, divide our forces, and start witch-hunts against many good people who have done much good for 9/11 Truth, even if a purposeful action or two from their long courageous legacy became gatekeeping on an area needing more thorough contemplation by thinkers. Let us be charitable, moral, and ethical in our assessments.
I have the hope that 9/11 leaders will reconsider evidence on lots of fronts (like Dr. Wood, like September Clues) and present proper, scholarly reviews that acknowledge nuggets of truth as well as the dross of disinformation: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
To be well adjusted to me: to have retained some moral and ethical values, a kernal of truth, the essence of love, and to reflect this in some measure in actions, the more measure of such, the merrier.
Not that I would want to be accused of lessening division in the 911 truth movement but this idea about the controversy about CIT being artificially created is really quite inane in my view. The division between those who support the CIT and those who are anti CIT is a division between those who reach a conclusion about an event using part of the evidence and those who think that all the evidence should be weighed up before reaching conclusions. The strange thing is that on neither side is there any recognition that this is the case and it’s not that it’s somehow hidden – CIT et al have been saying it since day one, out in the open, advertising the fact that their conclusions are flawed, and those on the other side don’t appear to recognise what is staring them in the face. You would imagine ,with the alphabet of letters after their names and their ability to argue logically on other issues – Paul Zarembka for instance detailing the flaws in Dr. Griffins inplausible fake calls scenario- that the patently obvious would be obvious to them. Yet all we hear on the one hand is how baffled the CIT side are that others don’t see how brilliant and straightforward the whole thing is, and that anyone who disputes it either has to be blind or some kind of disinformation agent trying to marginalise them and their definitve conclusions- and, on the other hand people saying ‘but what about this witness..?’ as if CIT’s conclusions took any account of those witnesses.
And then there is the terminology like ‘the CIT evidence’. It is not their evidence, they don’t own it. It is the evidence of the people they interviewed. If CIT record interviews with witnesses and present them in a DVD or on the internet then I ,and everyone else, knows as much about that evidence as they do. What the ‘CIT evidence’ means of course is CIT’s conclusions drawn from the evidence which is a very different thing. What they present on National Security Alert ,and the Pentacon etc. ,is just that , a presentation, giving a slanted take on the evidence that they choose to present and drawing their conclusions from it, guiding the viewer along an illogical path. People can reach any conclusions they like but they ought to be able to recognise when they are being lead along an illogical path to reach them. No one should assess the evidence for others or tell you what conclusions you should draw from it . Everyone should assesses it for themselves, like members of a jury are expected to do.
A. Wrong
“And then there is the terminology like ‘the CIT evidence’. It is not their evidence, they don’t own it. It is the evidence of the people they interviewed”
CIT (and myself) are always the first to point that out. It isn’t as complicated as some make out.
1) They interviewed witnesses who place the aircraft on a trajectory incompatible with the directional damage (some from positions where they physically could not be describing the “official path”
2) none of them placed it anywhere near the directional damage path.
3) to date, there have been no witnesses that have placed the aircraft on the directional damage path (present them..while you’re at it present the documentation to prove the official Pentagon narrative)
4) no interviews have been edited and are free to view (despite your insinuation that you have to buy a “DVD”)
5) there are no “off SOC paths”. The alleged FDR data, aerodynamics and the alleged physical damage are part and parcel of the “official path”
Glad to see you’ve finally acknowledged that the witness testimony is “evidence”
Craig, I think it would be interesting to see if A.Wright is actually going to address all points made (both now and in future discussion). It will show whether he is using disinformationist tactics that purposely bog down debate on the subject.
And no, I’m not calling you a “disinfo agent” Mr Wright. I’m referring to your unsourced, hop, skip and jump style of “debate”.
Wright has the habit of throwing one of these blabs in the pot and disappearing for the rest of the thread.
Whether his is a ‘Disinfo’ naboob or just a true believer in the mainstream paradigm is up for grabs. Personally I don’t think he is effective enough to be an agent. He just can’t believe “our government” is capable of such murderous intentions. That is, he is the typical TVZombie.
ww
Quote Onesliceshort
——-
“1) They interviewed witnesses who place the aircraft on a trajectory incompatible with the directional damage (some from positions where they physically could not be describing the “official path””
2) none of them placed it anywhere near the directional damage path.
“3) to date, there have been no witnesses that have placed the aircraft on the directional damage path (present them..while you’re at it present the documentation to prove the official Pentagon narrative)”
———–
Excellent summing up of what CIT are saying , and of how I have described what they are saying.
So what evidence do CIT use to conclude where the plane flew in relation to the gas station ? The accounts from eyewitnesses about where the plane flew in relation to the gas station.
Did the first-hand eyewitness evidence from all of the people who said that the plane did not fly over the building play a part in that? No it didn’t. They are just trying to determine where the plane flew in relation to the gas station. Fine. Not going to argue with that.
They now reach a conclusion that the plan flew NOC since they say there is nothing to contradict this ‘simple claim’. They then say that a plane flying NOC can’t cause the damage to the lightpoles and the directional damage to the building so it had to fly over the building.
So they have now reached a conclusion that the plane flew over the building.
All without all of the eyewitnesses who said that the plane didn’t fly over the building being involved. The conclusion that the plane flew over the building is the ‘unequivocal’ result of the conclusion that the plane flew NOC so once that conclusion is reached the conclusion that it flew over the building is reached. All without any reference to the evidence that contradicts that conclusion.
A simple basic principle of assessing evidence of anything is that all the evidence has to come into the evidence assessment, evidence that supports some conclusion and evidence that contradicts it, before you reach a conclusion. They reach a conclusion that the plane flew over the building without the evidence that contradicts that conclusion playing a part in reaching that conclusion.
The reason it doesn’t come into it is that they failed to follow one of the other basic principles of investigating anything, namely that if you find some initial evidence for something, you form a working hypothisis that it is true, you don’t come to a conclusion about it. You then test that working hypothisis by comparing it to all the other evidence in the case going back and forth assessing and re-assessing everything seeing what evidence there is to support it or what evidence contradicts it, forming other hypothises on the way. This means that all the evidence gets to be assessed, and assessed fairly and without predjudice, and is not declared false because it contradicts some conclusion you have already reached. CIT come to a conclusion that the plane flew NOC and then declare things that contradict it to be false. They say that since the plane flew NOC then the lightpoles have to be staged. Have to be…. This just illustrates the fact that they come to a conclusion. Now something that contradicts that conclusion has to be false. And this is a conclusion reached on the basis that there was nothing to contradict it- and now they are saying it contradicts other things. If it contradicts other evidence then it is in turn contradicted by that evidence. Contradiction is mutual- things contradict one another. If A contradicts B ,then B contradicts A. It’s not A contradicts B so B is false. Did you ever hear Craig Ranke use the phrase ‘fatally contradicts’? That phrase is a contradiction in itself. It’s not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, made on the basis of a conclusion already reached about one of the pieces of evidence that contradict each other.
And then there is the pejorative division of witnesses into those who are ‘independant witnesses’ and those other witnesses.. How do you get to be an independant witnesses? I’d like to be an independant witness , it sounds good, like you’re honest and truthful, unlike that other division of witnesses, who are well, ‘dubious’ it seems. Does it depend on whether you work for the Government or not? No, because practically all these NOC people are government employees. It must be because of something they say. If they say something at odds with the ‘official story’ about a plane hitting the Pentagon , then apparently they are deemed to be worthy of inclusion in the catagory of the independant witnesses. They get to be included in the CIT presentations and DVD (available free). If they say a plane hit the building, well then they are repeating the ‘official story’ that the plane hit the building. If that isn’t bias for and against witnesses and the evidence of those witnesses , then I don’t know what bias is.
And where did the ‘official story ‘ come from, that a large airliner flew over Arlington and crashed into the Pentagon? From the people who were there. The media reporters asked them what happened and they told them. They didn’t tell the witnesses. They passed on to everyone else what the witnesses told them. George Bush or the 911 Commission didn’t tell the witnesses. The people who were there are the source of the official story and they said a bloody great plane crashed into the Pentagon. None of them said the plane flew over the Pentagon, and they were the people in the best place to see it. The view from France, California and Canada was not that great.
CIT’s assessment of evidence is full of faulty logic and flaws. They go around saying that their conclusion that the plane flew over the building is ‘proven’ and ‘conclusive’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt , which is easy to say when you haven’t included the evidence that contradicts that conclusion. It’s declared false after they reach their conclusion, without it playing a part in reaching that conclusion.
A. Wright
1) Can the aircraft cause the directional damage from the witnessed flightpath?
2) Can you provide witnesses who counter the multiple witnessed flightpath?
3) Can you point me to a verified witness who claims to have witnessed an impact and the necessary flightpath?
4) what documented, independently verifiable “evidence” can you point me to?
A.Wright,
Your false framing of the conflict between those who support the CIT and those who are anti CIT shows how incredibly ignorant you remain of the actual issues involved. You also leave out a crucial aspect of the anti-CIT contingent, which is that they are by and large OCT supporters regarding the Pentagon attack who insist that AA77 crashed there, which a good 95% of the truth movement has rejected as an obvious hoax since the damage is completely inconsistent with crash of a large airliner. And yet you insist that this contingent is the “logical” one who “weighs up the evidence before reaching conclusions”? Too funny. Your bias is again showing through your words.
If you can’t get your framing of the issue right and you use false premises with which to build your analysis, how do you expect to convince anybody here to take you seriously?
The issues involved in the conflict between those who support the CIT conclusions and those and who don’t support them are all laid out on this page, if you read ‘Adam Syed’ and’ Ruffadam’ and others and if they are to believed ,anyone who says they disagree with CIT’s conclusions actually agrees with them, but are pretending not to. . This is because they are agents or disruptors or have been influenced by these people and are trying to marginalise the incontrovertable conclsuions of the CIT. What other explanations could there be? Either that or
On the other side they believe the same it seems, that CIT are some kind of ‘cointelpro’ trying to discredit the truth movement by pushing what they regard as a spurious and implausible scenario. What I said in my previous post was the way I frame it, as someone looking from the outside and trying to analyse what is being put forward. Do I think people on either side are covert agents or ‘gatekeepers’ etc working against the truth movement? I’m afraid the facts are a bit more prosaic. CIT’s conclusions are flawed because they have ignored the basics of intelligent evidence assessment and neither side ,as far as I can see, seem to recognise it and resort to all this ‘your and agent’ ‘no, your an agent’ claptrap.
When you have two groups of people , looking at the same evidence and one group is declaring it definitive. conclusive and proven beyond a reasonable doubt while the others think it is not only beyond a reasonable doubt but totally wrong, then alarm bells should be ringing. Unfortunately everyone has their fingers in their ears.
Quote:
“You also leave out a crucial aspect of the anti-CIT contingent, which is that they are by and large OCT supporters regarding the Pentagon attack who insist that AA77 crashed there, which a good 95% of the truth movement has rejected as an obvious hoax since the damage is completely inconsistent with crash of a large airliner. ”
The official story at the WTC is that planes crashed in the buildings there. I think most people in the truth movement think that is the case. What is so ‘heretical’ about thinking a plane crashed into the Pentagon? What’s the problem with it? Is this how people in the truth movement define themselves , by not believing the ‘official story’? – I thought the idea was to seek the truth no matter where it leads. In which case what would be wrong with believing that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon? No matter who is supposed the carry out this whole thing , it is the most plausible scenario. Any alternative is far, far less credible.The 95% of the truth movement who think a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, were not at the Pentagon. A far more interesting statistic is the 0% of the people who were actually at the Pentagon, who think a plane didn’t hit the building.
CIT’s arguement is not about the damage to the Pentagon – that’s presented as ‘what made people suspicious’ and they lay out some pretty lame arguements about it. Their big idea is this northside witness evidence, which leads them to pronounce the conclusive results of their investigation, results they seem to think everyone, looking at the same evidence ,can only agree with.
A.Wright says,May 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm:
Thank you A. Wright,
You seem to have made a reasonable argument here.
I agree with one thing within. The calling out of the ones making an argument one disagrees with as ‘enemy’ or an ‘agent’ is of the “Lunching Mentality”. Both sides of the isle have and are doing this…which is precisely into the pocket of the perpetrators.
Should you care to investigate a bit more closely the CIT evidence, I think you may alter your assessment of it as such a fatally flawed argument. I think it DOES take some effort to sort this out. I was dubious for the longest time. What I find there is that the “witnesses” to the Pentagon were never parsed N-side/S-side originally. Then when CIT came along they discovered that there were witnesses [at Citgo] that had some startling new perspective…that the plane had passed over the trees north of the station.
It is my understanding that the team, CIT, did not go to Arlington with this in mind, but simply went there hoping to interview actual witnesses to the Pentagon event.
Then and only then did the N/S-approach become an issue. As I said at this point their detractors simply ASSUMED that all the rest of the witnesses automatically fit into the S-side approach. As has been documented now, by both CIT and P4T this is certainly not the case.
It is THIS case, that I feel you haven’t given sufficient study to.
Now, what really intrigues me, is that with your obvious facility for reason, that you still buy the Official Story hook line and sinker, despite the the penumbra of evidence proving that that story cannot possibly be true. For instance, how you can watch a video or view photos of the destruction of the towers and not see that they are plainly exploding. They are not simply collapsing down into their own footprints as the mantra goes. And I think that anyone with ample visual acuity should be able to see this with their own eyes.
Thus, you leave me baffled.
ww
As a quick answer to Mr. Wright,
I would say that he has some misinterpretations as to the breadth of the evidence compiled by CIT, and certainly a misconception of how strong the other side’s evidence is as to where all the witnesses were and what they said.
Having read Legge, and his flowchart of witness testimony, a great deal of emphasis is put to the ‘assumption’ that this is all evidence to a “South-side approach” for the plane. On further investigation one finds this assumption false. It takes not only a flow chart of what was said, and a vague reference to the location. When the locations are then plotted on actual maps and plan view diagrams, we see that much of the testimony can be said to be ambiguous as to the N. or S. question, or as in many cases these witnesses must be describing a N side approach.
One must take into consideration Mr. Wright, that the N/S controversy did not exist at the time of the majority of these interviews, and as such the question was not addressed.
Thus YOUR assumption that the 14 or so CIT witnesses are the ONLY north-side witnesses is a false one.
Your mention of the “cellphone controversy” is misplaced as an apple in your discussion of oranges.
You make complaints as to CIT’s methods of “leading the viewer” – while not recognizing the guilt of the MSM in this technique in every single broadcast they make. Read some Bernays Mr. Wright, ALL presentation meant to persuade is propaganda. This comment to you is propaganda, your comment is propaganda. The word simply means a “prop” for an “agenda”.
What we deal with in the mainstream is a special type of propaganda, termed “Public Relations” – this is the “official” propaganda of the regime in political power.
I would hope others might address some of your misconceptions as well.
ww
Wright,
Why do you not actually look at the page from the Consensus Panel?
All this flying by the seat of your pants with mere abstract reasoning leads your head into the same wall every time we discuss something.
Aside from the digests of the points, there is all of the attributions to evidences in the index section.
Just one example being:
“9/11 Flight 93 Shanksville: No Plane, No Crash.” A 1994 US Geological Survey showed the same crater and scar that was allegedly left by the crash of Flight 93.
It is obvious from this information alone that the scene in Shanksville was chosen out of convenience, and staged dressed very quickly by the perpetrators of this hoax.
And of course this leads to many propositions as to ‘stage management’ throughout the entire case. The Pentagon for example – where it is ASSUMED, that because it would be DIFFICULT to bring in airplane parts and such, that it would therefore be IMPOSSIBLE. Difficult and impossible are worlds apart. This is especially so when one considers the power of ‘chain of command’ and compartmentalization in hierarchical systems such as the military.
Before leading with your chin here Mr. Wright, I would suggest adequate study of your topic. There are several ungloved fists ready to take a shot at that protrubrence.
ww
A Wright,
Your latest comment May 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm, to Onesliceshort, is long on abstract reasoning again and short on relevance to the particular argument.
As I stated in my comment to you before, it is not that only the CIT interviewed witnesses that are now being assessed to make the CIT case. It has been shown that the *assumption* that the majority of the witnesses who saw the aircraft, whether just that or claiming to see it strike the Pentagon has been that they were strong on the South-side approach.
Do you understand this parsing?
It has been shown that many of these witnesses were not in a proper location to judge one way or another whether the approach with N or S. Therefore they are not available as S-side verification.
It has been shown that many of those who do think they saw the plane strike were not actually in a position to determine this because of perspective or obstruction from their POV. In fact the Pentagon policemen and the gas station attendant are three such witnesses – who HAD to have merely ASSUMED the airplane hit the building. And this extends to many of the witnesses who were too far distant to be absolutely sure, and those that were so close but had such a fleeting glance as to have to reconstruct via imagination and assumption of announced consensus via media between the time of their witnessing, and the time of their interviews.
I will only agree with a single point, absolute certainty. However I think their case does have strength of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone who has seen a real master stage magicians act can say for certain that it wasn’t real magic or necromancy that they have witnessed – never the less their eyes were fooled, and they are unable to describe how that occurred other than their knowledge that such feats are possible as illusion.
“CIT’s assessment of evidence is full of faulty logic and flaws. They go around saying that their conclusion that the plane flew over the building is ‘proven’ and ‘conclusive’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt , which is easy to say when you haven’t included the evidence that contradicts that conclusion. It’s declared false after they reach their conclusion, without it playing a part in reaching that conclusion.”~Wright
I think you are the one who is using faulty logic as enumerated above.
ww
“Pathology is the precise study and diagnosis of disease.”~Señor
And pathological is the state of being in such a disease. If the society is based in, steeped in pathos. If one is well adjusted to, fits in, and thrives in such a medium of such pathology, then the inescapable indication would be that those such persons share in the myriad of pathological conditions of that society.
Your guess:
“To be well adjusted to an abnormal or grossly atypical society means, I guess, going along with the abnormal or grossly atypical methods, actions, and groupthink foisted on the society by those directing the cameras.”
This is a good guess Señor.
This commentary would naturally lead into the topic of pathologies; neurosis, sociopathy and psychopathy – the *difference between the two, and then political ponerism.
‘Psychopathy’; caused from a physical deformation of the brain, usually the amygdala and often the L. or R. hippocampus and areas of the cerebellum. These are most often birth defects, but can develop from trauma and degenerative disease.
‘Sociopathy’ is the result of emotional trauma, often inflicted by a psychopath. Usually a parent, sibling or other close family member, or a guardian during the formative years.
‘Ponerism’ is the situation we deal with now. The ability of psychopaths to identify and relate to one another while remaining virtually invisible to most ‘normal’ individuals. From the time of mass communication political power has been gathering into the hands of a structure organized by psychopaths. This is the current paradigm.
Throughout most of history of ‘civilizations’ the majority has suffered from various neurosis, do to the hierarchical structures of organization, which stunt the individual’s natural abilities and force them into compliance and regimentation [See: Otto Rank, ‘Art and Artist -also ‘Ther Fear of Death, by Ernest Becker]
This is about as far as I can go off the top of my head. And is probably enough for the readers {grin}
ww
I may be singular here in my rejection wholesale of any and all evidence lacking a clear and proven chain of possession. That would include the alleged FDR for the plane alleged to be flt.77.
I am sure to get grief for this from certain parties here on this page. But that is my position. I find all such ‘evidence’ as irrelevant in proximation, and only of secondary interest in nature as a ‘maybe’.
ww
>>keep counting the frequency of posts Senor..{grin}
hxxp://911blogger.com/news/2009-07-14/national-security-alert-sensitive-information-citizen-investigation-team#comment-211962
F*cking BARF, John. How can you be so street un-smart?
Somehow I get the feeling that a lot of people think that reality is like a ‘story’ or a ‘movie’ – structured with a beginning, middle, and end. That there will be a ‘resolution’, a finale – like the last note of a song.
This is the longing of the mortal being, who does have a beginning, middle, and end.
It may seem like that. But like is not.
ww
Rob,
What is your assessment of, Lieutenant Colonel Field McConnell?
And his allegation that on 9/11 there were Boeing airliners in service that had been modified with QRS11 GyroChips [electronic hijack] and “something more sinister”?
ww
hybrid says –
“I may be singular here in my rejection wholesale of any and all evidence lacking a clear and proven chain of possession. That would include the alleged FDR for the plane alleged to be flt.77. ”
Hi hybrid,
The reason that the FDR should not… and can not be rejected wholesale is due to the fact it does in fact come from the NTSB, a govt agency, combined with the fact it does not support the govt story.
FDR data is very strong evidence that can and will be used in a court or hearing if we can ever find a Judge willing to listen to the evidence. Whether it is faked or not doesn’t matter. It came from the NTSB and was handled by the FBI, and for that simple fact, the NTSB and FBI are responsible for it’s contents.
If the FDR data is faked, it is a felony.
If it is real, it shows the aircraft too high to impact the Pentagon and performing maneuvers outside the capability of a standard 757.
Again, either way… it’s checkmate.
Hope this helps.
Yes Rob I understood all that going into my statement.
As I said, I do not think the issue of the FDR is not interesting. I just said it is not legally relevant until the chain of possession and actual genesis of the information from it is proven.
As far as the faking of it being a felony…{grin}…that is low on the totem for indictments in the list of offenses for 9/11.
I do understand what you are saying and I am not making fun of this. But this in my view, will NEVER come to a court of law in this criminal system we labor under today.
ww
When thinking upon the issue of the FDR data, you must keep in mind at least one indisputable fact: If the ‘black box’ got into the Pentagon by any means except by riding in its installed place in an aircraft – specifically the aircraft alleged to have flown into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 – it is a fraud. CIT evidence proves that it did not do that, beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, refer to the statement of Mr. Balsamo above. The FDR data itself testifies to the fact that the FDR did not ride into the building on a crashing jetliner, however it does seem to testify that it was part of an attempt on the behalf of various government agencies – namely NTSB and the FBI – to make people believe that it had. It was a vital element of the cover story, and they screwed it up, just as they screwed up the staging of the flight path and the pantomiming of a crash, which nearly worked, except for one pair of investigators (Craig and Aldo) who proved otherwise.
As Maxwell Smart (RIP, Don) used to say “Missed it by THAT much!”
It is worth a visit to Pilotsfor911truth.org to review a thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21125
This thread presents some other very interesting information gleaned from the FDR data showing just how sloppy this particular attempt to pull the wool over our collective eyes was. AA procedures call for alignment of the IRS – the intertial system that continually plots aircraft position while the engines are running. The data file represented as that from AA-77 shows that:
1. It operated the evening before with the IRS well outside acceptable parameters.
2. It operated on 9/11 out of Dulles with the IRS still showing a very large error rendering it not airworthy by AA standards.
3. It pulled back from a gate far removed from the one alleged to have been used by AA – 77, D26.
H/T to Jan Zelman (Tume..), poster at P49T, and Rob Balsamo.
Yes, yes Shelton,
I do understand these points you just put forward, and have read of these things right there on the Pilots forums and elsewhere.
There is the issue of two ‘discoveries’ claimed for the FDR at the Pentagon.
There is the issue of the date the file was originally begun – prior to claimed discoveries.
There is the issue of lack of ID within the data itself as per protocol.
There is the issue of lack of ID of the physical unit – a first in planecrash investigations in the last 20 something years.
So I think we are all standing on the same argument…that the FDR is a fake.
Like I said I am rejecting the FDR on those grounds. That it is a fake is indeed significant, I am not saying it isn’t. What I was and am saying is that there are innumerable instances of lack of ‘chain of custody’ – that in fact it is this complete lack of chain of custody that is the essential back breaker of the official story.
ww
So, you want me to get into more trouble, eh? Anyway, I allowed this comment (against some of my better judgment) because you don’t use a last name and because you don’t put his name together with the name he uses here.
Your points are well taken. But let’s let this be the last word on the subject. I think there is plenty more to be said about the consensus approach and how the leadership of the Truth movement has been pushed into dumping Pentagon research to appease Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, and the rest of the gang.
“..how the leadership of the Truth movement has been pushed into dumping Pentagon research to appease Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, and the rest of the gang.”
Yes, and the answer to that is to do our best here to promote the Pentagon research here and elsewhere as best we can. A rear action as it were. Fussing directly to the face of the “leadership” will only bring a defensive posture from them.
The best effort would be to compile the essential elements in one cohesive argument. As you see the misconceptions presented by A. Wright, that the CIT argument only has the [14? – whatever] witnesses for North side approach is the major misconception.
Now this is one place I would be interested in doing a deep study into the imagery. Not so much is a Shackian sense, but in pointing out how certain ones {burnt bodies and other items} are framed in such a way as could have been shot anywhere. A black plastic tarp, an obscene burnt figure; again no chain of verifiable possession.
The photo’s of the facade – there are indicators there of directional charges and blowback of such – the chain-link fence being one example of being pushed outward, when it should have been tugged into the building instead.
A very intense forensic visual analysis should be made, along with a concise argument as per the witness testimony – which is well on the way to being fully formed in OSS’ presentation [the one that convinced me]
I would prefer a document over a film or video – but it could be translated to a new documentary as well.
ww
@HR1
“Now this is one place I would be interested in doing a deep study into the imagery. Not so much is a Shackian sense, but in pointing out how certain ones {burnt bodies and other items} are framed in such a way as could have been shot anywhere. A black plastic tarp, an obscene burnt figure; again no chain of verifiable possession.”
The images of blackened bodies were of the sacrificial lambs who were in the Pentagon.
I will say though that I know exactly what you mean.
The DNA testing (which was carried out at Dover Air Force Base, recently exposed for incinerating and dumping subjects, including alleged remains at the site of the Pentagon and Shankesville in chemical waste dumps) was on record as saying that the identities of the alleged passengers weren’t confirmed for over 2 weeks after the Pentagon employees were done.
It was claimed that because of their military background identification was easier (even though alleged passengers with military backgrounds was in double figures) and that passenger IDs were made when the FBI took over.
Then we have the much touted “passenger still strapped in the aircraft seat”. This surely implies that a person, and not a “fragment of bone” or “tissue” was available for DNA testing, yet no passengers were “identified” until after all Pentagon employees (bar 4?) had been accounted for.
Or the media claim from “sources” that samples from a hotel room the “hijackers” stayed in matched samples from the Pentagon. Pure horseshit. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the DNA report.
As you mentioned earlier, at least three different stories about the actual location and “finder” of the alleged FDR. And interestingly enough, the same person who is claimed to have seen the “body still strapped in the seat” was also alleged to have found “an orange object with two handles” (an FDR) but this was denied to be the case by the FBI (and no further comment was made on the matter by this person).
4 evacuations, 3 fake firefighters arrested, one fake “PenRen go between with the military” within 48 hours of the event.
*drinks a good glug of koolaid*
Contradiction after contradiction.
@OSS in reply to, May 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm
A backdrop on Armitage, with info on the DNA testing for 9/11:
Armitage was one of the signatories of a 1998 letter to President Clinton from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), calling for military intervention against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 2001, Armitage was the Deputy Secretary of State reporting to Colin Powell. He was involved in the secure video teleconference run by Richard Clarke that failed to respond to the hijacked airliners. The week of 9/11, in Washington, Armitage met with General Mahmud Ahmed, the head of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) who ordered $100,000 to be wired to the alleged hijackers…
** Moreover, Armitage was a director at Choicepoint, which provided DNA testing on 9/11 victims through its subsidiary, Bode Technology.**
It is my understanding that Bode was head of the whole DNA op, although there were several locations the work was done at. Again no chain of custody – no verification of anything, just assertions by the ‘authorities’.
To tell you the bottom line truth of the Pentagon “victim photos” – they ‘could’ all be special make-up effect models for all we know. I have made hundreds of ‘victims’ for cinema, and dark-rides for parks. Just a standard human skeleton from a biological model supply house, a gallon of liquid latex, sheets of foam rubber, rubber adhesive, and proper paints…and voila. Burn victims are by far the easiest to create, one only needs to be careful of getting too ‘creative’ {or ‘designy’} – painting them charcoal and sprinkling some of that fine ashtray sand while tacky, gives the right texture and color for a totally consumed fire victim.
Of course high budget would involve casts and gelatin parts, and if a moving creature, all the special armature works to build over…latex bladders for “breathing”. A fascinating craft all in all.
ww
Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
Just another rinky-dink coincidence?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ChoicePoint
A critical empirical investigation is possible within the 9/11 community. However it must also avoid the pitfalls of clicks taking on a politically oriented agenda due primarily to their own opinions and seeking to bully other factions using their status rather than logical argument.
Therefore a logical argument made to them proving their use of status rather than logic, must be made and made clearly. It is obvious that at some point ‘consensus ‘ became the overriding objective to this grouping. It is equally obvious that this not only failed, but generated a distinct lack of consensus, in fact becoming divisive itself.
It would be helpful if this “leadership” were made aware of the real purpose of the ‘Delphi Process’, it’s hidden agenda, as revealed in the works of Atzioni, and the genesis of all of this at Harvard.
ww
My humble apologies to the forum here for relying on my four year old memory of this issue and getting the name wrong: it is not Atzioni – but Etzioni:
http://newresearchfindingstwo.blogspot.com/2010/09/nikki-raapana-explains-communitarianism.html
Amitai Etzioni proposes “humble decision making,” an … The Greeks consult the Oracle of Delphi. Prophets and … explains many fundamental decision-making techniques …
I think it is first necessary to grasp the Delphi Technique itself, as this is the ground of the issue.
It should be noted as well that Etzioni, like the Neocons are Trotskyites, having their dialectical genesis in the 3rd Nationale. Leo Strauss, the father of Neoconservatism was a Trotskyite as well.
Communitarianism is the synthesis of this dialectic, and is a shared concept of both the Obama camp and the Federalist camp in synchronized political power today.
Of interest as well should be the moniker etymology of the name, Etzioni – et =you/your + Zionist. I have no idea as whether this is his real name or not, but if it is, it still carries such meaning: of Zion.
ww
It is growing absurdly long under the particular reply button wherein Señor has answered my latest. So I answer here:
And so the first thing to say in response to this new comment from him is – yes, you are right Señor, I confused the Broadway autos with the Woodrow Wilson Drive autos. Jenkins never addressed this, as you say.
So I will.
Yes I’ve seen those videos:
“Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel… That gaping hole? That’s where one of the twin towers stood.”
And it is so bloody simple to note that these vehicles were right in the path of the pyroclastic flow from the erupted towers – churning dust clouds with burning particulates. It seems obvious that such might toast a few vehicles in it’s path. And how these vehicles might then be presumed to be a mystery when the other burnt out vehicles have been explained, is some more strange thinking on your part Señor.
If you wish to keep imagining space beams/energy beams – however you wish to phrase it, great and fine for you. And when the ‘Chump Certificates’ are handed out for either the Thermate, or the Beam Weapon theories, is when one or the other of us shall have his serving of humble pie.
Meanwhile, I shall hold my compendium of noted Maxwellian jabberwacky from the last thread, yet still for another thread. As this is likely enough of this detour for the likes of our host.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
One of your tells is the manner with which you try to dismiss unique anomalies under the guise of being “obvious” to the situation. Case in point:
So, you’re saying that the pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates? That this was done to an extreme to torch cars?
Watch those videos again. This time, pay attention to both the things that got torched and the things that didn’t. Pay attention to where those burned and unburned things were.
From the still shot of the third video in my postings, we see Mr. Dementri pointing over his right shoulder to the gaping hole where the tower once stood; the building on the left is WTC-5; the building behind his head is WTC-7. Behold the mail truck (below his arm) that is closer to the WTC and isn’t torched. Behold the vehicles behind him that are dusty from that “pyroclastic cloud” and close to the WTC but not torched.
Here’s a great picture:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
Federal building is on the left and WTC-7 is on the right, and WTC-5 burns. Mail truck on the right appears unaffected, yet mail truck towards the center appears to have its front end a bit toasty. The vehicle in front of that mail truck I believe is the back end of the fire truck given as my avatar. [Guess maybe it wasn’t torched yet, because its lights appear functional.]
My avatar’s firetruck.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image184.jpg
In the following image, why were certain cars toasted and others not? And if this “pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates”, why didn’t the tree or its leaves get toasted? What about the paper?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg
In the following image, explain why the “pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates” not burn the rear door of the police car in the lower right?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
The following image is further down the street and shows the same police car whose whole front end appears to be covered in debris but is not burned. Had it been on fire, its front plastic bumper would have been one of the first casualties. How come the “pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates” didn’t take out the working stop lights?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
The testimony of Patricia Ondrovic is worthy of considering:
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
The above statement have some bearing on the destruction cloud from WTC-1 rolling toward the parking lot.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
Just after WTC-1 is destroyed, fires start to burn in the large parking lot. But not the paper?!
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
Here are several more images to consider:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg
The point is that a “pyroclastic flow churning out burning particulates” would not have been so particular in what it chose to burn and what chose not to. Paper among other things would have fallen victim.
The line-of-sight beams of a directed energy weapon within the towers slipping out through the tower’s window slits, on the other hand, would have been a little bit more selective, ignoring paper yet exciting large Eddy currents in metal, leading to heat and combustion of paint, door handles, gas caps, seals, etc. touching such metal. [EMP has similar characteristics.]
I have developed a taste for humble pie. Are you man enough to graciously eat a slice or two?
All I will say at this time Señor, is that moments of photography and video are captured throughout time.
Especially in an event such as 9/11 scenes change their character quickly from moment to moment.
A scene of burnt and burning cars may at one moment appear to be a scene where everything is in fire effect.
Moments later paper held aloft prior to said shot, may begin drifting into the scene. At that point if, photographed with no clear sequence being noted – the scene will appear ‘anomalous’: “What could cause the cars to ignite that wouldn’t ignite paper???”
I would simply suggest that you be more careful in your thinking – in your haste to jump to conclusions.
And taking more time with this here is not my interest, nor the forums at this time. I am sure we will have a chance at some time for detailed debate point by point. I am sure you look forward to it as much as I.
ww
“pyroclastic flow churning out burning particulates”~Señor
“churning dust clouds with burning particulates.”~ww
In what do you see an edge to your argument by this subtle twist to my words Mr. Once?
I can detect what that edge would be, as mine is the dust cloud imbued with burning particulates, whereas yours implies these particulates are bursting out of the cloud with an extra energy I do not omply. Perhaps a subconscious affair on your part here. However I do read how this change creates a subtle boost in our imaginations.
I have very little taste for humble pie Señor, it is not very often a part of my diet.
Will you not let this stand until the proper time?
ww
Ooops! My bad. I should have been repeating your version of “pyroclastic flow … churning dust clouds with burning particulates” as opposed to my rendition of “pyroclastic flow churning out burning particulates.” Sorry for the repeated misquote. If it bothers you, I can fix the mistake, post it again, and have Mr. McKee remove the bad one.
Thus you can nullify any edge that you detect as we substitute in your phrasing.
Doesn’t change my argument. The moving dust clouds combined with the distances traveled would act to rapidly smother and cool any burning particulates. Assuming your premise of the extent of burning particulates that would torch cars in the catticorner parking lot some distance away, they would not have been so selective regarding what they burned, ignoring trees & humans & paper & flags & orange plastic traffic barriers & street signs & traffic signals and opting instead for steel in vehicles that just happened to be line-of-sight with towers.
You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn’t flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter’s piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of them appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
I just discovered an interesting anomaly in a collection of photos that Dr. Wood borrowed from infoWarsMedia. Several images like the following from 2001-09-18 is a mirrored image:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/DX-2.jpg
P.S. I think I got the location of my avatar’s firetruck wrong. It was not along West Broadway but on Vessey around the corner of the Federal Building closer to WTC-6.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image184.jpg
So my previous comment about the following image was in error: “The vehicle in front of that mail truck I believe is the back end of the fire truck given as my avatar. [Guess maybe it wasn’t torched yet, because its lights appear functional.]”
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
Dear Readers of this thread:
I apologize for my detours into anomalous vehicle damage and DEW. What I do not apologize for is pointing out that all information about 9/11 is disinformation.
The discussion is supposed to be about the consensus panel failing to have even consensus on who is on the panel and what information gets consideration. The most vocal complaints are that they are ignoring the evidence of CIT’s flyover theory.
My point in the distraction is that if we sit too assuredly on a consensus theme like “nano-thermite was involved in 9/11,” we’re likely to be purposely led astray from the fact that this doesn’t address all of the evidence. [After calculating how much nano-thermite would be required to pulverize the towers and then calculating the quantities required to sustain the under-rubble hot-spots, Mr. HybridRogue should calculate the quantities (clumped like kitty litter) required to remain burning in a pyroclastic cloud for several seconds to then land on vehicles and blow them up instantly.]
The massive energy requirements of pulverization via the basic principles of high school chemistry and physics are to my knowledge not being addressed by points of the concensus panel either. Nor are many pieces of anomalous evidence as already exhibited.
Thus we see how we are being played.
[I’m already cutting myself a piece of humble pie with regards to how I have championed Dr. Wood. We can cut a big piece and say she is disinformation, and then plunge on ahead with our mining, refining, and re-purposing nuggets of truth contained therein.]
Craig I don’t care whether you post this or not – but I just have to say that the more I think about Paul T’s coming on here and pissing all over the place…it seems it exhausted everyone’s interest in the conversation.
And THAT pisses me off.
I was real interested in getting Rob’s take on a few more items. Looks like he’s had enough.
Now it’s just me and Senor trading doodles and sharing papshots. And his Wittgenstein headspace really does bore me…but I spoze I asked for this dance…shoulda known better – aye?
If it was Paul’s intent to come in here and spoil the party, it looks like he did a good job of it.
Very discouraging — no home on the range.
ww
It pisses me off, too. He wants space to refute two of Rob’s posts, but I see no purpose in allowing this. Maybe we can get the conversation back on track.
Yes…maybe we can. Of course it is not just Rob I wanted to here more from…everybody was seeming to bounce off each other and come up with prescient observations…
My next one in line here as to Señor, I feel is relevant, as it explains what it is, that provokes me to attend to his assertions, it seems a necessity. Even though I want to drop it, somethings just appear to outrageous to let pass.
I do hope if he wants to continue on this course it will be to the thread in general with no more pleas to or reference to me. I hope the space and time arrives when we can take these issues in hand…but not here, not now.
ww
ww,
When you ask for a dance with a tar baby, you usually end up asking yourself, “Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy…..what was I thinking?” I feel your pain. I think I’m finally cured of the temptation.
Yea Keenan…“Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy..” indeed. It has been more like stepping on a claymore in some ways actually
I suppose I give him too much credit as per influence. I should have more faith that other reasonable souls can see through the foam churned up in otherwise straight forward issues.
Moving on to the Delphi thing, I think I am going to look into making a case against the bottom line of the technique itself, as I have been hinting to in my posts about Etzioni.
You may have seen I began talking to this in the last thread as well. I saw that was what Fetzer was leading into – this “community organizing” technique. And THAT is what the Delphi process is really all about when it comes down to it.
Remember “Change You Can Believe In”?
What was Obama in his incarnation before his transformation into a national figure?
He was a “Community Organizer” — a “Change Agent”.
This is why I keep urging that we look beyond the nuts and bolts issues of “what happened”, and grasp how 9/11 was a prepping for these further steps along the dialectic cycle.
ww
Hi hybrid,
I still drop by and read here. Feel free to ask any questions you may have and I will do my best to answer. If you need a more rapid response, feel free to email me as I usually reply to emails pretty quickly. You can also sign up to our forum and ask questions there as well.
Hope this helps….
Regards,
Rob
Well Rob, there was this question you may have missed:
What is your assessment of, Lieutenant Colonel Field McConnell?
I don’t know how to explain a dilemma I have in “signing up” for forums..I am not signed up here either. Quckly, it is that I had my email account stolen last year…so my gravitar and my email don’t match. So anything needing that match throws my deal into the gears of the machine that has no capacity for sorting such a simple thing out…
Perhaps your email again…is it already on the thread here?
Thanks, ww
Hi hybrid,
Our email address is on the bottom of our website.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
My assessment of Field might be a bit off topic here.
Regards,
Rob
“all information about 9/11 is disinformation.”~Señor
I do believe you made an error in your sentence. It seems more proper like this:
‘all of Señor’s information about 9/11 is disinformation.’
Such a wide open generalization implied to be applicable to every particular, is the very type of remark that yanks me off the bench yet again. Such blatant insults to reason so casually passed off this way, but to be left and not countered is beyond my bearing.
To parse between misinformation and disinformation – even in just a short nod, seems the least you might do. It might be ample to go on and say that you aren’t going to accept every point in ‘Anyone’s’ argument. Or give some indication of some caveat to act as a bridge to some firmer ground on-which we might stand.
Again, you leave me in a state of wonder.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
Fair enough that more parsing could be done between misinformation and disinformation, but participants such as yourself more and more use that as an excuse to detour from the salient point: wrong information was in the mix and effort must be spent to ferret out the right.
My poster-child of all information about 9/11 containing disinformation is your hero, the discoverer and founder of nano-thermite in the dust: Dr. Steven Jones. You do not even acknowledge the exposed slights-of-hand in his scientific analysis regarding the evidence of nuclear radiation. You ignore the boojie woojie high school chemistry & math that exposes the weaknesses of super-duper nano-thermite (and all other incendiaries) in explaining hot-spots, let alone pulverization and now “pyroclastic flow … churning dust clouds with burning particulates” to account for anomalous vehicle damage.
Yes, yes, yes, okay by me to take the position that September Clues and Dr. Wood’s textbook are disinformation. But so much money was spent in their quality productions — which both of them are — that to bury them without ascertaining nuggets of truth from the “gloss” of disinformation is Act II of the disinfo play that you seem to direct. [Recognize how other avenues towards 9/11 truth run often parallel.]
And this is why the concensus panel is doomed to failure: They sweep with a non-discerning big broom leaving such a sanitized view of govt & PTB involvement in 9/11 that methods & means remain available for re-use and re-deployment against us. The USA PATRIOT ACT was no fluke, neither was “Heimland” Security.
Señor,
Maybe my impatience with you is somewhat misplaced__maybe I am jaded in having and so long working with others having enhanced visual acuity…as this is where my major frustration usually arises with you.
But there is also in attendance to that, long leaps of logic that fray my nerves as well…
When the proper time arrives Señor…alas – alas!!
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
I have repeatedly demonstrated an open-mind and a willingness to change that mind when the facts change. I admit to being a back-handed champion of certain fringe theories I didn’t fully believe just so that science, evidence, and proper analysis could set me straight (into full belief or full disbelief) and just so nuggets of truth would be preserved and addressed.
I have repeatedly stated that I didn’t want to be the sole duped useful idiot on some topic and that I desired to be brought back into the fold.
You’ve written more than once the hint that you have a statement (or essay or whatever) already prepared to put me in my place.
May 7, 2012 at 12:34 am
May 7, 2012 at 11:28 am
May 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm
May 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm
You’ve already been to web locations that expose my email address. Don’t keep me in suspense.
Looking forward to more waxing philosophical from you ala:
I am still interested in the topic at hand so let’s get back on track.
I think the consensus panel is yet another example of the complete lack of REAL leadership in the 9/11 truth movement. The panel is a poor attempt at PR at best and at worst is yet another semi-covert effort to marginalize CIT. I am so dissapointed in DRG for this whole episode I cannot even express it. I do not think he meant any harm by organizing this panel. I think his intentions were to try and bring two opposing factions together. The effort was naive on two counts though.
1. I believe DRG thinks the anti CIT faction (Chandler, Legge, Hoffman, etc.) are honest truthers with legitimate points supporting their position, which is simply not true. He also summarily dismisses the idea that any of them could be professional operatives bent on destroying the truth movement or at least suppressing CIT. He and Richard Gage both seem to have this extremely naive idea that having met these people in person and evaluated them as being “nice people” somehow means that they could not be operatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact genuine operatives would bend over backwards to endear themselves to people like DRG and RG. David should know that considering his book about Cognitive Infiltration. He SHOULD know it but apparently he doesn’t.
2. I think DRG honestly thought that he could convince the CIT supporters to embrace his much weaker points about the pentagon (the consensus points he outlined) in order to foster unity within the movement. This again is because he is naive to the fact that most if not all the CIT supporters consider the opposition to be contrived by professional dissinformants. I think DRG and Elizabeth Woodworth, because they summarily dismiss the idea that any of these people opposing CIT could be professional bad guys, are genuinely perplexed by our (CIT supporters) attitude that they are essentially being duped by infiltrators and unknowingly helping them to suppress CIT’s evidence which is monumentally important.
One final issue I have with DRG and RG both is this idea that they can just issue statements to us and then completely ignore our valid concerns and issues related to their work. 27 truth movement veterans signed and sent a letter to RG and got NO COMMENT in response for example. That is unacceptable! When I see people like DRG and RG thinking they can just dismiss us, it just sticks in my craw. We have the government and MSM giving us the cold shoulder and that isn’t acceptable is it? So why should we accept the brush off from them? Well I don’t accept the brush off, I am just stubborn that way I guess. So my attitude about it is simple, if they won’t deal with legitimate issues the easy way by engaging with us in open discussion and debate, I recommend we do it the hard way by confronting them WeAreChange style as though they are just like the MSM and Government hacks who have been stonewalling us all along. If their positions are sound and based on solid reason and logic the encounter will turn out well. If their reason and logic is faulty however the encounter will expose it and allow us to address it in the open and move forward. This kind of confrontation MUST happen if we are to ever escape the quicksand we are stuck in.
We don’t have time to play games and patiently wait through 10 more years of fumbling around until they “get it” that they have been duped. The FEMA camps are built and staffed. Martial law is imminent and none of us have time for this (placate the anti CIT cabal) game. We need a major breakthrough in the 9/11 truth movement NOW! Morale within the movement is low and we are losing steam because we are not achieving any victories. We are not achieving any victories because we are not confronting our adversaries effectively. We have to change our ineffective tactics. We need MASSIVE MOVEMENT WIDE PRESSURE applied to this issue NOW. Pressure on DRG, RG, and the entire anti CIT crowd to hash this out in public once and for all. Refusing debate, stonewalling, and evasion has to be met with the strongest possible condemnation throughout the movement. REAL PRESSURE has to be applied to break this deadlock. If heads have to roll and heroes have to fall so be it! Know it or not people, our time is nearly up and our lives depend upon winning the battle for 9/11 truth. We cannot afford to lose or to wait.
I agree with you ruffadam,
There is a logjam in the movement, and it is obviously due to the so-called “leadership” and the arrogance of assuming such “leadership” is perpetually valid. It is not, it is as transient as their capacity to error – which is shown to be substantial at this point.
It seems that Lord Acton’s maxim has come into play here, and we now have to deal with a slew of Humpty Dumpty’s sitting on a wall needing toppling. Let’s see some yokes running.
And yes, the clock is ticking on that martial crackdown thing…a lot is coming to a head here on FFWD>>
ww
Bravo Adam. I see the situation 100% eye-to-eye as you do. I also don’t think DRG meant any harm with the Consensus Panel. To the contrary, he meant to do good, but he made a huge mistake, I think largely due to his personal attachment to Woodworth. Honestly, I feel sorry for the man. He is essentially the grandfather of the movement (a title I would never attribute to Alex Jones for example). Not only has he watched the movement from essentially the beginning, but he has been one of its central driving forces. And after receiving so many accolades around the world at his speeches, after signing so many books with people saying to him, “You’re an American hero,” and also, simply given how much progress the movement DID make over the past decade (in garnering support from numerous experts in relevant fields) and even getting a favorable hearing on Fox/Geraldo, it must really be causing his soul much pain and distress to see so many splintered groups, broken friendships, and bitter infighting at some of the highest levels (as highlighted by Craig’s current article) over the Pentagon. So he was trying to mend some of that division. But it was the wrong move for the reasons you stated Adam.
I remember him saying in a message to me that he simply dignifies the positions of Legge, Chandler, Hoffman etc. because they are “scientists who support the 757 crash view.” Keenan also put it perfectly when he said that ironically, DRG has allowed his own mind to be “cognitively infiltrated.” Yet, not only did his book not mention the NoC evidence, but it did not mention Pilots for 9/11 Truth and their evidence either. It did not mention “9/11: Attack on the Pentagon.” In other words, he did not even mention the group of people who have expertise in the SPECIFIC field of aviation when it came to the aeronautical aspects and the flight path, or their professional presentations. This is as unconscionable as doing a 9/11 Truth WTC chapter and never once mentioning AE.
Another point here is that beyond just the “met in person” and “nice people” aspects, there seems to be this assumption that if you promote the controlled demolition of the WTC, then you are absolutely a bona-fide, well meaning truth seeker, no questions asked.
911blogger moderator LeftWright is also in this camp of naivete, as he showed me when he tried to assure me that (quoting old emails here) “CIT’s work has been thoroughly critiqued within the truth community, including numerous times at 911blogger, so your charge that the moderators are censoring discussion of CIT is frankly without merit, especially as their threads go into the hundreds of comments.” He also said to me: “I suggest you read (or reread) Frank Legge’s paper which stresses the Precautionary Principle, reflect upon it, and reconsider the merits of CIT’s work with that paper in mind.” LeftWright is apparently thinks that because Legge claims to be a truther and his name appears on the nanothermite paper, that everything that comes out of the mouth of “Dr. Frank Legge, Ph. D.” are words of gold.
I don’t think LeftWright is an operative, but, I DO think that Justin Keogh and Erik Larson, who in all likelihood ARE ops (the tip-offs being behavior and disinfo peddling), invited LeftWright to be on the team because they were correct in profiling him as an infiltration-naive bloke who believes in the best in everyone, since he exudes all of this flowery-powery “cheers!” and “Love!” and “I hope you and yours are well,” “dear brothers and sisters,” in each of his posts like he’s on some permanent magic shroom trip. And what better a person to defend the idea that the mod team is not infiltrated, than someone who knows he himself is not an op, which in his own mind constitutes “proof” that the 911blogger infiltration charge is baseless! And indeed, LeftWright was the ONLY moderator who did publicly defend the entire team when the infiltration charge was leveled by the Creek Article. Silence from all the others.
Once again, look at Tarpley’s chart of enablers, moles, dupes…
Mr. Syed,
Your evaluation of DRG, Elizabeth Woodworth, and John Wright is solid and in the absence of actual hard proof to the contrary is probably accurate in my opinion. That of course is the problem when dealing with professional dissinformationists, proof. We have no proof any particular person(s) are operatives and it is extremely unlikely we ever will obtain any proof, barring disclosures by legitimate whistleblowers. The flip side to that coin is that there is a way to determine who is a “likely” operative. We can determine “likely” operatives by their behavior. I will quote a rather famous book on this point which gets this accross better then I ever could.
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.”
Those who disparage CIT or other truthers for that matter and then refuse to debate the issues in public are the “evil fruit” of the truth movement. Ask yourself these questions about other truthers you deal with.
1. Does this person employ known dissinformation techniques?
2. Does this person disrupt and derail discussions?
3. Does this person level accusations at others and then avoid discussing their rebuttals?
4. Does this person avoid debate with those who disagree with him/her?
And the most important question, in my opinion, to ask.
5. Does this person spend their time and effort attacking and attempting to tear down others rather than contributing to the movement?
I humbly suggest that if you find yourself answering yes to most or all of these questions that you are very likely dealing with a professional disruptor/operative. If you answer yes only to question number 5 then I suggest you are, at a minimum, dealing with a person that has an agenda far afield of 9/11 truth and justice.
Adam,
You have written: “I also don’t think DRG meant any harm with the Consensus Panel. To the contrary, he meant to do good, but he made a huge mistake, I think largely due to his personal attachment to Woodworth.” I would like to make a few remarks spinning off this.
1. I don’t think we learn anything important by psychoanalyzing DRG (whether or not he meant any harm).
2. It is hard to decipher if there is any distance or not between Griffin and Woodworth. As Panelists, the messages almost always came from Woodworth’s email address but carried both signatures. I don’t think we get anywhere important trying to find light between them.
3. I think we would learn something if we paid more attention to the history of Griffin’s work and seeing if there is something embedded in his approach to 9-11 which LED to his (unbelievable as it is) completely ignoring the CIT/P4T evidence and instead taking on Chandler, Cole, and Legge in the latest of ten books. (I have an idea about the reason, but not for this posting.) That is, I was SHOCKED when I read his book and he made absolutely no mention of CIT/P4t in his chapter devoted to the Pentagon; I was shocked, frankly, as a scholar reading another scholar avoiding critically important evidence. This is the opposite of honest, scholarly investigation for the purpose of reaching accurate conclusions. I don’t need to offer any statement about agents to say I was shocked. I am now trying to understand why I should not have been shocked.
4. I do not suggest addressing the Consensus Panel itself. I joined not fully understanding it and certainly not understanding the Delphi method. When I asked about the method I was told that the Delphi method was being used. But I did not get from Griffin and Woodworth any feeling that they deeply cared about the limitations of the method or were even aware of limitations or were aware that its origins were with the Rand Corporation. For them, it is a tool to supposedly obtain legitimate ‘consensus’. Therefore, addressing the Panel suggesting that it correct itself will not happen because on Griffin and Woodworth make decisions about virtually everything of significance and the Panelists are not going to revolt.
5. One of the charges leveled against me was that I called some points “unimportant”. No where was I told that my vote would be controlled and participation considered illegitimate if I did not vote the right way. Yes, I did vote “no” on certain points because I did not consider them sufficiently important. Why would I do that? Because there are 10,000 or 100,000 issues one can raise and I felt entitled to vote for putting some items beneath sufficient concern. (A couple of dozen points could have been the target for completing such a project, not a book-length list.) Griffin and Woodworth position is basically that if they give the Panelists a point to consider it becomes thereby “important”; they are the deciders.
6. I agree that we have to move proactively on CIT/P4T evidence. I’d like to struggle (not easy, given our enemies on the issue of the Pentaqon) to make that series of evidence the “gold’ standard regarding 9-11. I welcome discussion of that.
Thanks! Paul Zarembka
Dr. Zarembka, Griffin and Gage created a cult. Like most cults it’s pretty much hysterical idiocy, an attempt to empower it’s leaders, and everybody gets damaged. Griffin, Gage, and some others end up making some money. It’s a pain to have to expose it but it needs to be exposed. However, I’ve been shut down on this very site trying to expose some of the actions of this camp. I can’t even respond to a direct personal attack. You see? To me, it looks like everyone is nuts and attempting to generate power for themselves regardless of anything. It’s a gang war.
It’s time for all of us to speak the truth and live up to our highest most noble qualities.
Paul,
I’m really getting tired of your act. You seem to love playing the victim.
You said: “However, I’ve been shut down on this very site trying to expose some of the actions of this camp.”
The actions of this camp? How so? And what camp are you talking about? You were squabbling with Rob Balsamo here about things that happened on the Pilots forum. What does that have to do with this blog or this comment thread?
And what have you exposed exactly? The hysterical idiocy of a cult? What are you saying? Instead of just repeating how Griffin and Gage earn money from the movement (are you throwing Paul Zarembka in there because he is editor of a 9/11 book?), why don’t you bring some insight to where they’ve been leading the movement?
Paul T, again is concerned with money made on the issues of 9/11, that is obviously the ONLY concern that he has, that he hasn’t figured out how to do so. It is pure and obvious jealousy and he is out for vengeance.
There you go Paul, lets hear you call for me to be banned again for speaking to the obvious.
ww
Hey gang, I just sent an email to Legge, I included some samples of what is going on here with the URL to this page…
________________________________
Hi Frank,
I suggest you and others involved with this “consensus deal” get a load of what is happening in the trenches of the 9/11 movement.
The following is being discussed on this thread and many others. You are quickly playing yourselves into a corner of irrelevance, and we shall not beg for yours and the others attention for much longer: […]>
ww
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nix_on_sea_burials_YrEo4z7xypUK6yfAOS3mHM#ixzz1tXemdBXW
“WASHINGTON — The Air Force considered burial at sea before classifying 1,321 fragments of unidentifiable 9/11 remains from the Pentagon as medical waste and ordering that they be incinerated, according to documents released yesterday.
E-mails from Aug. 5 to Aug. 7, 2002, reveal that an unnamed Air Force colonel suggested scattering the remains at sea and that a civilian official noted that it might be appropriate to have witnesses and a chaplain present.
But others rejected that idea.
The e-mails are among nearly 2,000 pages that detail operations at the Dover Air Force Base mortuary in Delaware and investigations into the mishandling of war dead and other remains and the disposal of body fragments.
The documents were made public hours after senior officials met with the families of some victims of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.
Last month’s disclosure that incinerated remains had been dumped in a landfill triggered outrage. The practice was ended in June 2008. Since then, the Air Force has put all remains in urns and disposed of them at sea from Navy or Coast Guard ships.”
@HR1
If you want to check out Frank Legge ak “gravity32” and his logic check out this post
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9620
And his disinfo regarding the “addendum” is addressed here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21840&view=findpost&p=10803512
There’s a multitude of reasons that Legge won’t come here, or anywhere CIT supporters are allowed to post. Tell him that he can choose a neutral venue of his choice and I’ll debate him.
Wouldn’t hold my breath though.
@OSS,
Okay, I am on 9/11oz, it is taking a long time to load each page [mobile connection to web]…
Hemphill’s is a troublesome testament…
{1} In a perfect location to view these events.
{2} Also describes what must be a N-side approach.
{3} Is adamant that he saw the plane [A] fly straight [B] did not pull up [C] fly right into the Pentagon.
{4} Claims he saw a lampost clipped – which I would dismiss for reasons of his distance {ww}
How to resolve the N-side approach with Pentagon hit + established damage path?
I have an answer in ‘Magic Show’ …which I would bring forward on Craig’s ‘okay’. I wait on this as it was promised that this would not turn into another NP topic.
I notice that “gravity” relies on several witnesses that could not actually have seen impact due to obstruction of view – the three Citco witnesses, the two officers and the attendant, being among these.
Oh yeah, I acknowledge those issues but you have to take other issues on board.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2464894
In his interview with Jeff Hill, even after Hill posted the official path and asked him which path the aircraft took(!)
“Hemphill: Yeah. [unintelligible] That just. It didn’t. There’s just no way! It came, it looked like it went over the gas station!”
Line of sight
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/604/hemphilllos.jpg
There’s no doubt which path he’s describing. But as for the, what he calls “3 second” view, watching an unexpected event through a window, into the sun (you may say that I’m clutching at straws here, but it’s very relevant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f7LCpFWo7s
“As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up…. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk.”
As for the “straight path”
“He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he’d just “jinked” to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment”
He’s obviously describing wing motion.
Either way, he saw the aircraft “closer to the cemetery”
My point is, Legge’s interpretation of his testimony is an example of detractor “logic”. If they’d at least concede to the path witnessed, whether they believe an impact occured or not, the debate wouldn’t get bogged down and they wouldn’t have to revert to proven disinfo.
But they can’t. The poles and exit hole mean that they have to shimmy.
Yea OSS,
I am with you on this…I have gone through 7 pages at 911oz – where it was simply a carousel.
I note that ‘AlseadyPublished’ and ‘Debs’, and by extension, Legge are not getting the kernel of this argument. I have the entire Jeff Hill interview of Hemphill in file and have studied it many times over now.
What they do not grasp is that, despite Hemphill wanting desperately to agree with it being “damn close” to the official path – he cannot help but repeat that it went over the gas station and near cemetery side – regardless of how strongly Jeff Hill attempts to lead his testimony. Thus his testimony is N-side. No ‘ifs’ no ‘buts’.
The kernel is obvious, N-side means incompatibility with the directional damage of the Pentagon.
Also no lightpoles hit by aircraft.
Hemphill must be assessed the same way as the three Citgo witnesses, who have to have ASSUMED the plane impacted, as they could not have actually seen impact. Hemphill is separate in that his vantage point seems to give him the ability to have witnessed impact – but even still it is impossible because of the directional evidence of the official story.
I can understand not ‘wanting’ to believe this. But it must be attributed to an illusion, whether by the magic trick I see as the most probable explanation, or a psychological trick in Hemphills memory.
ww
Could people please bring their comments back in line with the topic of this thread? There’s no problem in talking about CIT and their evidence because it central to the whole consensus debate, but please stay within the context of how this evidence is being treated by the Truth movement in general and the Consensus Panel in particular. I want to give some leeway, but Keenan is right that we’re in danger of drifting off topic altogether. Full marks to Adam Ruff, Adam Syed, and Keenan Roberts for commenting on topic. Sorry if I left anyone out.
Craig, I think Framk Legge and his associates are very relevant to this thread.
Adam Ruff has set out very good points to narrow down those who are manufacturing the Pentagon “quagmire”.
1. Does this person employ known dissinformation techniques?
Yes, his “interpretation” of witness testimony, links to outdated and/or false testimony quotemines and Jeff Hill’s blatant leading of witnesses and poisoning the well for any further investigation and disregard for multiple flaws in a serial number void, contradictory “set of data” outlined by experienced aviation personnel is just the tip of the iceberg with this guy.
2. Does this person disrupt and derail discussions?
He posts this disinformation at sites where he knows people will overlook the flaws and who have the same agenda. Those who speak out are voted down or banned.
3. Does this person level accusations at others and then avoid discussing their rebuttals?
Yes.
4. Does this person avoid debate with those who disagree with him/her?
Most definitely (see 2)
And the most important question, in my opinion, to ask.
5. Does this person spend their time and effort attacking and attempting to tear down others rather than contributing to the movement?
The guy has penned 10 “peer reviewed” papers that no pilot has endorsed. He uses government loyalist literature from entities that have been attacking 9/11 truth, including CD advocates such as himself. And his papers are quoted unashamedly by groups that have been at the head of a disinfo campaign for years.
I think he fits the criteria.
Yes, you’re right. I have no problem with discussing Mr. Legge and his dubious positions on the Pentagon. It was more in another area where we risked going off track.
Señor {with the required rolling of the tongue} El Once,
A can of worms remains open on the table here, and at the risk of it overflowing the forum with squirming shadows, I feel the issue is in need of redress.
I do not consider it unfair nor rude to point these things out to you__and would hope you can appreciate my misgivings.
You have admitted here on this thread to having been chumped – for four years no less, on the issue of NPT. You credit OSS with finally opening your eyes to this just days ago. Four years is a substantial length of time Señor. One can attend and graduate from college in four years.
What strikes me, and I am sure at least a couple of others here is; in going into the argument with Mr. Fetzer, it was clear FROM THE VERY START that his physics are utter nonsense. It was clear that his argumentation was totally juvenile. It was indeed obvious that he is dishonest {or loosing his senses}. Yet for some 800 something posts you supported or waffled in-between, during this exchange.
Personally, I cannot see any reason to take your judgment seriously. You were duped for 4 years on an issue that is clearly based in nonsense. Now you continue to support ideas that are equally untenable. Perhaps being so frank is unkind–hard truths are indeed unkind – this is the nature of our existence…we must all deal with such things.
I like you Señor, but I cannot allow this to hush my honest assessment.
Just two for instances here recently:
>toasted/080 jpg: It is September in this shot – the trees would be full bloom – take a closer look Señor, the leaves ARE charred.
>081 jpg: again a September scene, same thing, the trees are mostly stripped of leaves. And the area has obviously been attended to this is not a raw aftermath shot.
To go through every one of these pics here and now is not something I am willing to do.
To go through arguments about Thermate and the hot spots that we have gone round’n’round about already – yet one more time – is not something I am willing to do.
IF Mr. McKee offers a page especially for these arguments THEN I will be willing to go into minute detail on all of your issues. I will not make an argument to you – Fetzer – nor anyone else in other than a public arena.
So again – drop this until that arena comes available.
ww
“the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130’s encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, [!] [Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan] said.
– reported October 17, 2001”
This is a key – when it is discovered who was actually aboard this C-130.
I will have to go back through some files to locate…but he was a high ranking general just back from the ME theater.
ww
Craig, I thought you had decided after the last thread (about Richard Gage) had gotten completely hijacked by the NPT nonsense and turned into a complete fiasco, that you were going to institute a much stricter policy about keeping the comments on topic. It has become apparent that one of the main NPT hijackers from that fiasco has tried his best to push this current discussion thread off the rails into Judy Jetson’s DEWoowoo WonderLand, while Paul was allowed multiple hijackings. I’m just wondering if you are still intending to keep threads on topic in the future.
Again, I am grateful for your hard work on maintaining this forum and I understand that you have a day job that makes it hard for you to deal with moderating so many comments. I’m pretty sure if you were to ask for some assistance with the moderating work, that some people here that you trust and with which you have developed familiarity and confidence in relevant abilities, would certainly step up and volunteer. I personally have too much on my plate to deal with to volunteer services at this time, but I’m sure there are others who would be available.
You’re right, I had planned to be stricter. I have cut off the Paul thing because it has nothing to do with my blog, let alone the subject being discussed. But other things have crept in. I never really minded the odd comment that was not strictly on topic as long as it didn’t derail the thread. But I would like comments to at least peripherally relate to the issue of consensus, leadership within the Truth movement, etc. This can actually include a lot of things (including discussions of evidence and how certain types of evidence have been treated) as long as we don’t get back into another scientific discussion.
Hi Craig, and Keenan,
I too am a bit stray here in going over some things with OSS, which seems a fair enough peripheral as the people who left the consensus panel did so over a protest of the CIT info being shunned by the panel.
However, I would hope that the issue of Etzioni and the real agenda of the Delphi process might be looked into by others here, as it seems to have flown under the radar since I posted the clues to deconstructing the core of this issue.
I admit that it is a lot to ask, as it is a large issue requiring some amount of study. However if one would begin with the URLs I offered, and be willing to look into the agenda of Harvard when introducing the Delphi method, one would be illuminated as to what is the core psychological construct that ‘community organizing’, and ‘change agents’ actually means as put into practice.
ww
Well, I have sent a follow up letter to Frank Legge, stressing that there was an urgency to this issue of the “leadership” being in need of addressing the concerns of the “lay” 9/11 community.
I also stressed that my first letter should not be read to be sent in hostility – that it was the issue of urgency that prompted it.
Perhaps we can put together some sort of statement to the panel, as a joint statement of the group here as ‘Truth and Shadows Appeal for Attention of the Consensus Panel’ – or whatever.
If this issue just sits as a stew here, it will just boil over and scorch the pot.
I hope others are dogging those they know to stand to this issue.
I have asked Legge to bring this to the attention of Journal for 9/11 Studies. He is the only contact I have there.
Anyone with any further ideas on this?
ww
I personally think people like Legge and Chandler should be confronted WeAreChange style every time they poke their heads up at a 9/11 event. As far as I am concerned anyone up to and including DRG and RG should be confronted as well. So long as they stone wall legitimate questions they should be treated just like the government and media hacks who have always worked against the truth movement. Whoever is not man or woman enough to admit their mistakes does not belong in the truth movement at all.
I agree with hybridrouge1 that an official statement of condemnation should be prepared and signed by not only us here but by hundreds even thousands of truthers if possible. REAL PRESSURE is what is called for here. Pressure that cannot be ignored.
I therefore propose that Shelton and Barrie perhaps Paul as well write such a letter to the consensus panel and submit it for our signatures. I have great confidence that a strong letter from them would get across the sentiments of us all. I will personally commit to getting at least 25 truther signatures in addition to my own added to such a letter.
I further propose we start working as a coordinated group towards aggressively promoting CIT’s evidence as widely as possible. I suggest we start by releasing our own statement signed by our experts and truth movement veterans declaring the CIT and P4T pentagon evidence to be of monumental importance along with an open challenge to debate. We have the Pilots and Aeronautical engineers on our side, we have the evidence on our side, we have the truth on our side. Let’s get on with it and throw down the gauntlet already.
Rather than drafting a letter to the Consensus Panel (I argued against that earlier this morning in a separate message of response to your earlier message), why not figure out a larger campaign within which the Panel to could be called to account one way or another.
Also, I don’t suggest treating Griffin and Gage “just like the government and media hacks”; they are a distinct problem.
Paul Zarembka,
You speak to the origins of the Delphi process in your post above to Adam.
I have been trying to get the group here interested in looking into this as well. As you note, Rand is involved in this as well as Harvard. But I think we need to look into the works of Etzioni and his ‘school’ of Communitarianism. This is where the seeds of this technique are sown.
It is a continuation of the Hegelian dialectic, that is introduced at the 3rd Nationale. We are essentially dealing with the influence of Trotsky, and his many followers Left and Right.
The Delphi is at it’s base a technique of using “change agents” for what is termed “community organizing” – the “Consensus” is directed to a pre-fab conclusion via the ABCs of set rules in a ‘Playbook’. Like all Hegelian dialectical cycling the result is a synthesis of duality. There will be no genuine consensus through such processing – only more duels based on dualism: A continuing thesis v antithesis; a game without resolution. A continuing re-routing to a social version of a cul-de-sac
Here’s my take. Firstly a quote from the Pilots forum that I stumbled across tonight and encapsulates how I am feeling recently. It was made by the member “Painter” replying to Rob.
“Sorry, Rob. As you know, I seldom post any more or even lurk for that matter. Nothing personal against you or anyone here. I just can’t deal with all the bullshit any more. Worse, I’ve come to the conclusion that NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. 3,000 people murdered in broad daylight in what has to be the biggest and most obvious false-flag attacks ever perpetrated and NO ONE CARES. Everyone is in denial. And those who aren’t in denial and who do care are fighting one another in endless internet debates about this, that or the other detail. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of this crime against the American people — and ultimately against humanity itself — go not only unpunished but essentially unidentified. The perpetrators of 9/11 are still at large.”
All the internet debates are inevitable because of human nature but have also engineered by “truthers” who have been planted to do exactly this. They adopt a persona and have the huge amount of time required to keep stirring the pot. Some of them have short-term goals (foster division), others have longer-term goals (to become a respected voice in the “movement” and then steer it away from the evidence of MIHOP and back to LIHOP). Anyone who has spent any time looking into and thinking about 9/11 knows that LIHOP is an untenable theory – thus I am suspicious of anyone who puts forward LIHOP or who clings to hijackers flying planes etc etc.
We must stop clinging to the hope of the mainstream media suddenly blowing 9/11 open. IT ISN”T GOING TO HAPPEN. We all know that not only have the mainstream media fed us all the 9/11 OCT propaganda over the years, they are also complicit in the plot itself. There are no independent voices in this media, they just argue around different points of the same official line. If there is no mainstream media to promote the cause then what exactly can a “Truth Movement” do? A Truth Movement that is designed to operate in the very world that we know is corrupted cannot succeed. If there are leaders then leaders can be compromised and discredited.
To truly accept what 9/11 was about, you have to step completely outside of the mainstream media bubble and maybe realise that the things you thought you cared about, your politics etc are just a sideshow to keep you distracted from the real way the world works. That is a very uncomfortable place to inhabit, it takes a long time to gain the knowledge and it also alienates you from all the trivia that people want to talk about – the shite they saw on Facebook, the KONY2012 con, and all the other pieces of useless detritus that are cared about briefly and then forgotten in a few days – you step outside the goldfish generation, you start to understand history and that most of it is meant to hide the reality of WHY things happen as they do.
The Consensus looks to be attempting to appeal to the mainstream media with sensible views – but who will care? If it is all a series of LIHOP points, then why would this make “news” so many years later? My cynical view is that we are doomed to fail with 9/11 Truth – there may be a time in the future when everyone will know but by then we will realise that we knew too late.
What I don’t have is a plan of how to proceed from here but I’m interested in your ideas.
I feel this way too, but if you look deeper into this issue of morale you will discover that many of us are tired and have low morale specifically because the truth movement has not achieved any real victories lately. We can change that IF we change our tactics. I think real tangible victories are within our grasp provided we can change. We can deliver crushing defeats to our adversaries if we work together.
So far though we have not even stepped forward to really face our opposition. Until we do we won’t have any victories to celebrate. We cannot just exchange thoughts on blogs, hold signs on the streets, and write letters to our useless government, and hope to win this. We have to put ourselves directly in the path of our adversaries and take some personal risks. We have to do what Gandhi did to defeat the British empire and force them out of India. He was not passive nor did he believe in passive resistance. He believed in aggressive, active, non cooperation. We have to become non cooperative even at personal risk.
Occupy Wall Street up to this point has been essentially a failure because they buckled under pressure. Had they all held their ground when the cops came in to shut down their encampments and forced the powers that be to display their true brutality for all to see, in other words taken a beating, the entire American public would have turned from neutrality to full support for them. The battle would have been won then and there. It takes that kind of bravery to win these struggles.
So the real question for all of us is, just exactly what are we prepared to do to win? Are we prepared to join 9/11 responders in massive hunger strikes or blockades of the white house? Are we prepared to surround and blockade the NY Times building? Or ABC, or FOX? Are we prepared to be arrested in mass and then refuse to pay the imposed fines in mass? Just what exactly are we each prepared to do to win?
I will tell you this, victory is within our grasp but without real courage, personal sacrifice, and good old fashioned stubbornness, we will not have it.
What are you prepared to do?
Adam
Of all of the OWS protests that I found effective to the point of surreal was where they infiltrated town meetings, places where auctions were being held or generally where the fascists wined and dined and confronted them just by their presence or reciting what their grievances were. (yes, I know the “finger wagging” was annoying).
The first people that should be targeted for widespread publicity are the media. Public audience shows, live news reports, radio phone ins (no matter what the subject – preferably if a public figure is being interviewed), etc.
Problem is, if you simply shout “9/11 was an inside job!”, the message will be
lost. Specific snippets of information need to be gotten across (WTC7 freefall and NOC evidence). Even the NOC vs official path map will raise eyebrows. Posters could be put up or held up at public sporting events. Anywhere the media steps out of its ivory tower among the plebs.
How to get people off their asses to do it is another matter. I was involved in protest politics for most of my life in Ireland and at the drop of a hat, locals would pound the pavement because the issues affected them directly. There’s been a global effort to infiltrate, control and destroy protest rather than use the jackboot approach (unless absolutely necessary)
People have been brainwashed to accept injustice. Even the “shock factor” has been whittled down to a three day maximum attention span. I agree that if all “factions” got together, there would be a force to be reckoned with but “divide and rule” has worked for centuries.
Let’s not forget too that although the internet has its upsides in spreading information, it’s also a feet on the street killer.
“What are you prepared to do?”~ruffadam
I will tell you what I am willing to do – continue to dialog, not only with those who agree with me, but those who adamantly disagree with me.
I am at this moment pressing Mr. Legge through an email exchange to explain to me how it is that he continues to frame the Hemphill testimony as that of a S-path witness, despite the obvious; that Hemphill’s own testimony puts him squarely on the N-path list of witnesses.
And I do anticipate that this will be the question that breaks the bond of our dialog together. But that in itself will be a tell.
This question will not parse whether Legge is himself a ‘change agent’ or a dupe of such. But it will make clear the either-or choice, that it is one or the other. And that choice may percolate in his own mind, and if he has been duped it may cause him to reconsider things on his own.
At this point he is still unwilling to address the others at ‘Journal’ with the concerns I put forward to him. Chances are that it is a lost cause, the ‘Groupthink’ is well embedded at this time…
[???]
I am a writer and a thinker, I am not an “activist” in terms of getting out on the street or doing conferences and such. It is my forte to make reasonable arguments in text…I am not a headbanger for the barricades.
ww
“A Truth Movement that is designed to operate in the very world that we know is corrupted cannot succeed.”
Bingo.
Painter, who, before the economic meltdown of 2008 was one of the most prolific and, for my money, one of the most intelligent and level-headed posters on Pilots, remains a clear, albeit not optimistic, voice in 9/11 Truth. We don’t hear enough from him. Thanks for posting this. If you are an optimist at this point, you probably don’t understand the situation.
But that doesn’t mean we give up.
In my opinion, making the world safe for a LIHOP explanation is the very definition of giving up. We live in a world in which accountability is a rare outcome. We have compromised ourselves out of relevance and that may explain why the movement seems to be losing steam. It could also be used to argue in favor of the consensus process in that, by creating a list of points agreed upon by most of a panel of Truthers, we have constructed a “Credo” for true believers. Most religions have them, call them articles of faith or an apostles’ creed, or what have you. But the winnowing process brings its own issues, just as religious sects seem to become the most divided along fault lines that seem relatively trivial to those not involved in the group. But unlike religious arguments, which turn on doctrine or interpretations of scripture, 9/11 issues must ultimately turn on evidence.
Our opposition seems to resist definitive answers, content to debate endlessly without resolution, multiplying the speculation endlessly. CIT evidence is definitive regarding 9/11 in a way that very few other evidence points are. The opposition has gone to great lengths attempting to chip away at it – trying to nudge the path from the north side to over the building, or to soften the focus so that we can imagine the plane still flying into the building even though nothing about it makes sense. What distinguishes the CIT witnesses is a clear view of the scene – being able to see the aircraft and the CITGO- and to describe the aircraft behavior as it approaches the Pentagon.
I have dialogued with several people who insist that all eyewitnesses are created equal and thus must be taken into account with the same weight, even though it is obvious that they cannot be. For example, a witness who claimed that the aircraft dug a wingtip into the lawn and cartwheeled into the Pentagon has a credibility problem, because the physical evidence – a pristine swath of grass stretching in front of the Pentagon – puts the lie to that version. By the same token, those who accept that the aircraft was north of the station but still hit the building suffer from the same clash between physical evidence and visual interpretation. It may be a little less intuitive to see the clash, but it is there beyond question.
Then there is the issue of infiltrators or “agents”. If our understanding of the implications of the creation of a fake plane crash scene at the Pentagon is correct, it brings with it an immediate suspicion of complicity by numbers of people involved in security, law enforcement, the Defense Department, and others who would fall into the category of the “deep state”, as defined by Peter Dale Scott. I would find it astonishing (since it was specifically outlined by an administration official, Cass Sunstein) if significant numbers of agents were not deployed in order to help shape the public perception of such an event as being exacty what the official propaganda said it was while endeavoring to sow confusion, contradiction, and division among those who took issue with the official account. One observation that I offer as supporting the idea that CIT evidence is in a different class, is the nature of the opposition it stimulated and the way that opposition arose. It developed very quickly out of the Truth movement itself, using individuals and institutions that were “on our side”, and it arose just when CIT evidence was undergoing a rapid acceptance. The ‘conversion’ of high-profile figures in the Truth movement to the anti-CIT camp blunted the momentum that CIT enjoyed. The label “controversial” was applied without, it seemed, any examination of the controversy. CIT was attacked, and their response was to offer to debate their critics, who, with one exception, were strangely reluctant to take them on in venues where they were allowed to talk back and to challenge their detractors. The one exception was when John Bursill agreed to debate Craig Ranke on a radio show, after which Bursill reluctantly admitted that he had lost the debate.
The primary seat of anti-CIT rhetoric seemed to be 911blogger, where the management had earlier systematically weeded out supporters of Pilotsfor911truth.org and now, continued by attempting to stamp out anyone who had a good word to say about CIT or their supporters. This was followed by – or accompanied by- an effort to produce “peer-reviewed” anti-CIT papers by dressing up the logical impossibility of a NOC flight path leading to a building collision compatible with physical damage, in the trappings of scholarly research; an effort that did more to discredit the Journal of 911 Studies and the authors’ reputation than to advance the Anti-CIT case. The misguided promotion of the authors’ work by including it in citations in the latest 911 book by Dr. Griffin, “9/11 Ten Years Later – When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed” was a bitter pill, since Dr. Griffin had been a supporter of CIT on the record, but had omitted any reference to their work in that volume. The advent of the Consensus Panel under the auspices of Dr. Griffin, and the slowly dawning nature of the process as being a top-down, tightly controlled exercise in group-think, likely to produce a list of the most pedestrian, lowest common denominator items of 911 evidence continued the marginalization process. The position of Dr. Griffin, that the question of “what hit the Pentagon” was ultimately of little importance, posed, as it was, in the cause of unifying the movement by eliminating the most divisive arguments. Many, myself included, found the implied assumption that SOMETHING hit the Pentagon to be facile and counter to the facts. It would seem that Dr. Griffin is mistaken in expecting many of us to abandon the strongest and most conclusive evidence in favor of a compromise position that preserves enough ambiguity to allow the arguments to simmer along indefinitely, an outcome that seems acceptable to our opposition in the hidden government.
The question is “What options do we have now?” Is there any obvious way to regain the momentum lost by all the infighting. CIT’s case, on the merits, seems as strong and persuasive as ever. Rather than a consensus panel, would it not be better to have vigorous debates among those who prefer truth to consensus, and resolve, at least among those Truthers, who our friend are and how best to proceed?
Shelton,
I loved your entire post here.
You end with:
“The question is “What options do we have now?” Is there any obvious way to regain the momentum lost by all the infighting. CIT’s case, on the merits, seems as strong and persuasive as ever. Rather than a consensus panel, would it not be better to have vigorous debates among those who prefer truth to consensus, and resolve, at least among those Truthers, who our friend are and how best to proceed?”
As I have argued against the consensus path from the very beginning, I can’t help but agree with this summation as you put here.
As you weren’t here in the earlier discussions, I will recap my critique of the idea as consensus.
I see it as a false conceptualization, counter to human nature and reason and the nature of time. This meaning, that any ‘consensus’ is fleeting, and temporary, and perhaps illusion to begin with; dependent upon the depth of understanding of those supposedly in bonded agreement. Just the slightest misunderstanding, once more thoroughly understood by one who had previously agreed becomes a fracture line, and these may or may not be expressed immediately, but will often go unsaid leaving the illusion of the consensus. And such fracturing compounds through time as opinions will adjust among the original members of the agreement, until such time as the tension explodes into open infighting.
As you, Shelton, used examples to religion, this too is illustrated throughout history in that arena. Most all religions are held together by dogma and enforced by tyrannies, so differences in the take on a credo usually take place underground, and build into movements such as the history of splintering of the Catholic church illustrates, from Martin Luther to the Protestants, the Reformation and onward.
Again, all of this seems to indicate that ‘consensus’ is a false epistemic framing that leads invariably to the tensions and disputes it is designed to contain.
ww
@Shelton
“The question is “What options do we have now?” Is there any obvious way to regain the momentum lost by all the infighting. CIT’s case, on the merits, seems as strong and persuasive as ever. Rather than a consensus panel, would it not be better to have vigorous debates among those who prefer truth to consensus, and resolve, at least among those Truthers, who our friend are and how best to proceed?”
Hi Shelton,
I’ve been experimenting with a debate format just to see if a discussion about the Pentagon descending into farce (the tactic usually favoured by detractors) can be avoided.
It’s a point by point moderated format where each individual claim is scrutinized. Say, for example, the Legge/Hoffman/govt loyalist claims that there are “104 witnesses to an impact”. I know for a fact that this is a blatant exaggeration. But if I were to open threads on individual testimonies, posting their testimonies either individually or in batches (one much quoted link contains @190 testimonies – 70 of which were INSIDE the Pentagon at the time), and leave each thread open for discussion, this one of many claims can be whittled down to the bare bones.
Have a look (all please do) – it’s an experimental format that I’ll keep tweaking away at. Whether it will come to fruition or not is another matter.
http://911debate.forumcommunity.net/
Shelton,
You write:
–> “The misguided promotion of the authors’ work [i.e., “peer-reviewed” anti-CIT papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, P.Z.] by including it in citations in the latest 911 book by Dr. Griffin, “9/11 Ten Years Later – When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed” was a bitter pill, since Dr. Griffin had been a supporter of CIT on the record, but had omitted any reference to their work in that volume.”
What is the meaning of “misguided” as you are using it? It seems to mean “mistaken”, perhaps as in “careless” or “unintentional”. In any case, more clarify is very important regarding what is going on in Griffin’s work.
I believe that it is not a “mistake” from WITHIN the zeitgeist (totality) of Griffin’s works on 9-11. I am formulating an answer to this, but first I’d like folks to recognize the question as I feel that the need for this recognition is almost universally absent. The importance resides in knowing how we got where we are and how to move forward.
–> “The advent of the Consensus Panel under the auspices of Dr. Griffin, and the slowly dawning nature of the process as being a top-down, tightly controlled exercise in group-think, likely to produce a list of the most pedestrian, lowest common denominator items of 911 evidence continued the marginalization process. The position of Dr. Griffin, that the question of “what hit the Pentagon” was ultimately of little importance, posed, as it was, in the cause of unifying the movement by eliminating the most divisive arguments.”
Correct, but WHY was Griffin wanting to “unify” the movement? I suggest not taking motivation at face value.
–> “Many, myself included, found the implied assumption that SOMETHING hit the Pentagon to be facile and counter to the facts.”
Griffin (p. 196) says that “the issue of what hit the Pentagon [sic; also p. 197, P.Z.] loses most of its importance” since “whatever hit the Pentagon [sic] was controlled not by al-Qaeda hijackers but by the Pentagon’s leadership”. So, he has more than implied that something hit the Pentagon; he said it.
In other words, Griffin is rejecting flyover but WITHOUT argumentation. He is taking non-flyover as a premise, even as he had earlier made a statement of partial support for CIT. He cannot address NoC because to do so leads to the issue of flyover and, apparently, he feels incapable of solving the contradiction of “hit the Pentagon” and NoC without flyover. He is trapped of his own making. Even so, “mistake” is misleading because his is also more than a one-time trap and has deeper roots.
–> “It would seem that Dr. Griffin is mistaken in expecting many of us to abandon the strongest and most conclusive evidence in favor of a compromise position that preserves enough ambiguity to allow the arguments to simmer along indefinitely, an outcome that seems acceptable to our opposition in the hidden government.”
This is a fair use, in my opinion, of “mistaken”.
Thanks for your intervention. Paul
“.. the implied assumption that SOMETHING hit the Pentagon to be facile and counter to the facts.”
I was hit with a massive headache after reading all the Pentagon stuff from Legge last night.
And it suddenly hit me that something is wrong with his story.
And then I am struck by the diddling with words here and the ‘intent’ they are supposed to reveal, and am hit with the idea that perhaps some of the deconstruction skills presented here may be a bit shaky – perhaps suspicion run wild…?
ww
KP said: “We must stop clinging to the hope of the mainstream media suddenly blowing 9/11 open. IT ISN”T GOING TO HAPPEN. We all know that not only have the mainstream media fed us all the 9/11 OCT propaganda over the years, they are also complicit in the plot itself. There are no independent voices in this media, they just argue around different points of the same official line. If there is no mainstream media to promote the cause then what exactly can a “Truth Movement” do? A Truth Movement that is designed to operate in the very world that we know is corrupted cannot succeed. If there are leaders then leaders can be compromised and discredited.”
“To truly accept what 9/11 was about, you have to step completely outside of the mainstream media bubble and maybe realise that the things you thought you cared about, your politics etc are just a sideshow to keep you distracted from the real way the world works. That is a very uncomfortable place to inhabit, it takes a long time to gain the knowledge and it also alienates you from all the trivia that people want to talk about –”
You are correct KP, that ” is a very uncomfortable place to inhabit, it takes a long time to gain the knowledge and it also alienates you from all the trivia “. Very uncomfortable.
And so most here are still in [very comfortable] denial as far as I can see, at least as far as the MSM’s vast role in all this goes.
The critical,central role of the entire MSM in the lies of 9/11 is explored in great detail here: http://www.septemberclues.info/
KP said: “What I don’t have is a plan of how to proceed from here but I’m interested in your ideas.”
Here are some ideas for a freedom-seeking individual [i.e. _not_ for a group], who has come to believe that the movie “September Clues” linked to above hits the nail pretty much square on the head. [If that does not describe you then don’t click on the following link] :
“9/11 Video & Victim Fakery and The Matrix, Versus Your Freedom” :
http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=395&sid=00df49d127fd2cf65716d93166c4d848
regards, onebornfree.
P.S. KP said : “..clinging to the hope of the mainstream media suddenly blowing 9/11 open…”
“Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high, there’s a land that I heard of, once in a lullaby”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU
Has anyone here read; The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester?
I found one of the most interesting concepts in the book to be the lead character’s experience on the Sargasso asteroid, a body built of the wreckage of other crashed ships.
Here he meets the inhabitants, who call themselves “the Scientific People”.
In my travels throughout the Internet I have met and read about many other ‘Scientific People’, who might fall into the same category of “scientific” as the inhabitants of Sargasso. They carry the term “the scientific method” like a talisman and are utterly unaware of their own biased natures.
ww
What one of the “detractors” are up to at the minute…
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52524&postcount=6
One big joke.
Just wondering, does anyone else have conerns about http://www.911truth.org?
“……….You have maybe reluctantly concluded that the government controls the TV and radio media, and what little that is not directly controlled merely churns out the same tired statist propaganda masquerading as “independent opinion”, from government “educated” talking heads with fake hair, fake tans and overly white teeth, for the mass consumption of happy slaves and useful idiots within the matrix everywhere.
Breaking! – Government, and Government “Justice” is a Scam
Just like those 911 media “plane into building” movies, and just like all those permanently grinning talking [empty] heads in the mainstream media, government itself is a scam.
Ergo, government “justice” itself is essentially a scam. So if, after having realized the truth [i.e no planes into buildings], you are expecting “justice” to be administered by the government in the case of 911 or, for that matter in any other case, I’m afraid you are going to be extremely disappointed.
Nobody Cares?
As for nobody caring, it pays to remember that most are happy slaves- they do not want to be free [or they think they are free]- they certainly do not want to listen to what you or I might believe to be the truth about 911.
9/11- Business As Usual
Historically speaking, the 911 scam is just another, [albeit minor] example of the way that governments always operate. Given human nature, and being what they[governments] ultimately are [i.e. socially acceptable supra- criminal organizations] , it is impossible for them to operate in any other way- so it is extremely unwise to expect any change in their operational procedures, modus operandi, ever.
For reasons I will not go into here, given the fundamental nature of all governments, such envisioned changes [i.e. “limited” government, “smaller” government, “fair” government, “honest” government, “efficient” government, “just” government etc. etc.] are impossible objectives that only the young stupid and/or naive should persue [for yours and my entertainment]………… ”
Excerpted from: “9/11 Video & Victim Fakery-“The Matrix” vs.Your Freedom”
http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=395
Regards, onebornfree
You know Onebornfree,
Rather than pushing your cartoon version of media criticism, why don’t you get a taste of some sophisticated work, such as available by real scholars in the arena? Read some Marshal McLuhan, read some Bernays, some Walter Lippmann, for some historical background.
Try this for a good beginning:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30721
THE 9/11 MYTH: State Propaganda, Historical Revisionism, and the Perpetuation of the 9/11 Myth
by Prof. James F. Tracy
ww
This is a simple and easy layman’s explanation of the Delphi technique that I would advise everyone here read:
http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
[I am not sure who passed this on to me, I had thought it may have been here – but in looking through the comments I don’t see it..[?]
Also how to counter the Delphi:
http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf002.htm
ww
ww,
The first link, which I read last year and forgot about, claims “The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.”
Left-wing? Left-wing means empowering folks and means democratic participation.
In an earlier message of yours I noticed a reference to a connection in the Delphi technique to Hegelian dialectics and you indicated that it has also connections to Trotsky. How’s that?
Anyway, I see nothing remotely ‘left-wing’ in what Griffin and Woodworth set up which is on the authoritarian side of matters in their implementation of the Delphi technique. But I am willing to hear your explanation. Thanks.
Paul Z,
I felt that as a 101 starter lesson on Delphi this article is adequate. However if the authors actually understood in depth what they were talking about they would not have used such a simplistic statement in their article.
After all, the Hegelian dialectic is that which creates the synthetic Left/Right divide in ‘politics’
Your comment that “Left-wing? Left-wing means empowering folks and means democratic participation.” is equally simplistic, in that it is from this false paradigm of right v left.
“In an earlier message of yours I noticed a reference to a connection in the Delphi technique to Hegelian dialectics and you indicated that it has also connections to Trotsky. How’s that?”
Shall I reteach you history sir? Have you even taken it into your own hands to look up Etzioni, Communitarianism, the links offered. How about all the historical information on the tax exempt foundations?
There are many very good essays on the Hegelian dialectic available on the web today. Perhaps I can find one tailored for what I judge as your particular aptitude according to your questions.
ww
Dear Paul Z,
I am sorry if I seem impatient with some of this. But what I mean by a ‘reteaching of history’ is that I gather from your remarks that you think the L/R divide is real. That you believe there is actually a difference between the Republicans and Democrats – that you don’t see that both teams are owned by the same management…
And if that is the case, I am not going to have the ability to get through to you what I am speaking to because you are seeing things through a false paradigm – if the points I made just above are correct.
ww
So Paul, let’s jump from the freshman level to the sophomore level in our investigation into the Hegelian dialectic.
This essay by Paul Watson, may take you further than the previous essay, which as I say is simply a 101 primer.
http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.com/2007/02/hegelian-dialectic.html
Again, this is just past the starting gun level, and I would urge you and others to look into this much more deeply than can be addressed on this blog.
ww
This should be seen as relevant to all…even if not on topic:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30703
Now as more and more news organizations are investigating the recently unearthed military manual, FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations, verification is coming in that the callous plans to populate military camps in the US and abroad are not only authentic, but indeed establishes blueprints for putting the country’s own citizens into guarded Army detainment centers.
ww
Hmm? Anyway…
We have all heard what is actually a reasonable question: “Wouldn’t it be simpler to do it with real planes?”
And I think that is the reason real planes were used at the World Trade Center. But, the uncertainty of the possibility of a major miscalculation in the estimates of the dynamics of a real plane crash into the Pentagon, while Rumsfeld and other high ranking military were in the building for this scheduled event — the use of a real plane was simply too risky.
I think there was a real “air event” over Shanksville as well. I think a real plane was shot down, or a drone was blown up over the area. The site in the field with the scar and crater are known to be there already from that National Geological survey image from 1990s. That spot was simply stage dressed for this psyop.
ww
Could they not have arranged a golf tournament, a conference somewhere, a visit to some military base – Andrews airforce base, Norfolk, Cheyenne Mountain, Guam, etc. etc.
I don’t know Wright…what do you think?
I think it was more dramatic having the Secretary of Defense in the building for propaganda sake.
I think they wanted to be one line and ready to trouble shoot anything that might go wrong.
And then again the top dogs may have been in the underground bunker right there at the Pentagon…
You want to get into the land of supposing and guessing lets get some imagination going here? Guam? Why not on the other side of the moon at the US Moon City on the terraformed side of Luna? They could play a helluva game of golf in that low grav sitch.
@hybridrogue1
I think you have answered your own question and undermined the argument that you made , and that CIT make as well. ‘They didn’t want to damage their own headquarters’ I’ve heard them say. I’d be suggesting not crashing a plane into the building then. If they really felt some dire need to crash a plane into the building but not do damage I’d suggest – fly the plane slower-,or crash the plane into the car park- I can’t imaging the american public saying ‘I don’t support this invading Afghanistan and going after Bin Laden ,after all they didn’t crash a plane into that largely empty part of the Pentagon’. I’m prepared to bet that if a plane hit any part of the Pentagon then something suspicious and conspiratorial could be read into it. People say why did it crash into the west side of the building instead of where the top brass were, but the same people are saying how difficult it would be to hit the building at all and now they are expecting them to land the plane on Donald Rumsfeld’s desk.
A Wright,
You’ve heard who say, “‘They didn’t want to damage their own headquarters’”?
I never said anything remotely like that. And if you re-read my comments you will find it was based on the concept of making sure only that specific point of the Pentagon was blown up AND the specific people at the point were killed.
You should know, if you know anything about this event, that the portion that was hit, was the portion refurbished and ‘hardened’ – you would also know WHO were in that specific area; The Navy and NGO accountants investigating the loss of close to three trillion dollars of Pentagon funds. This was addressed by Rumsfeld just the day before in a press conference.
Where did the money go? Well looks like the same lying sonsofbitches that wanted to start this phony “War on Terrorism” would be prime suspects in having their filthy paws in the cookie jar.
The rest of your comment is psychobabble which doesn’t deserve a response.
However I will give you a short one. The “great difficulty” of flying a plane into the Pentagon, per say, is not so difficult at all. [It SHOULD be, if it had been properly defended – but that is another matter] – the great difficulty and mystery is why the target supposedly hit would be chosen by “the hijackers”.
As the course said to have been taken left it vulnerable for a long time to interception – the flying over then turning in that long loop – a ridiculous maneuver, especially with the Brass being in a direct line of the original approach. There would be no need to hit the building at ground level if the point was simply to hit the building – diving straight into the top of it would have been the most simple.
But on top of all this Wright, you seem to have no problems with ANY of the anomalies of this case. The discovery of the “black box” [FDR] by at least two separate parties at two different locations in the Pentagon {and now a third account just published in an officially sanctioned book}.
The fact that the data file from this unit was dated and time stamped before the unit was supposedly found.
The fact that no serial numbers were mentioned in the official records; breaking a protocol of aircraft crash investigations of more than twenty years for the first time – and this only for the two 9/11 planes.
The fact that the animation that came from the same sources shows an entirely different flight path than even the one determined by the FDR data.
The fact that a second animation of a different flight path was just pulled out of the sources hands by a freedom of information grant.
And on and on…as per anything to do with the ‘governments’ assertions, NOTHING has been proven as per chain of custody…nothing.
So you eat your gravy, eat your pork’n’beans, we of the Truth Community will eat the chicken.
ww
A Wright,
Of all the people on this blog, you would benefit the most in reading this book:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29427
America’s “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky
If you have a sincere bone in your body, you will attempt to discover the facts.
ww
Paul Zarembka said:
“What is the meaning of “misguided” as you (I) are using it? It seems to mean “mistaken”, perhaps as in “careless” or “unintentional”. In any case, more clarity is very important regarding what is going on in Griffin’s work.”
I used the word to signify that, in my opinion, Dr. Griffin was operating with good intentions, by his own lights, whatever his ultimate goals, and that, in so doing, he made an error in judgment. In the absence of an account that he alone is able to give with any authority, the validity of my observation must remain a speculation. I am willing to extend to Dr. Griffin the benefit of the doubt as befits his stature among, and contributions to the Truth community.
I believe I am correct in saying that a great many of us who count ourselves as supporters of CIT and Pilots harbor a great many doubts about the integrity, scholarship, and motives of the cabal who mounted the most vicious attacks against CIT’s evidence and their methods. We also, I think it fair to say, feel that Dr. Griffin, by citing their work in his latest book, depreciated his own work by association with a body of misrepresentations and half-truths. Dr. Griffin, to my knowledge, has yet to expand on his choice, or his reasons for appearing to give CIT what can only be described as the back of his hand, as is his perogative.
One thing that stands out about those who march under the banners of the anti-CIT group is their singular, and often observed aversion to debating the evidence with CIT. Several of them were most eager to appear on friendly (to them) radio venues and in fora where CIT was censored to deliver slights and insults to the CIT case and its protagonists. But despite standing challenges from CIT principals, only one opposition spokesman, to my knowledge, responded to the call for a face to face discussion of facts, from which he emerged the admitted loser.
The consensus process, which is ongoing, is a poor substitute for a genuine trying of the facts related to whether elements of our government attempted to sell a faked plane crash into the Pentagon (and a mass murder) as a terrorist attack. This must remain the central question, because it is the essence of what is at stake, and it deserves a full and rigorous public examination of the facts, independent of personalities. It must not be papered over by an attempt to create an artificial peace between factions.
“The consensus process, which is ongoing, is a poor substitute for a genuine trying of the facts related to whether elements of our government attempted to sell a faked plane crash into the Pentagon (and a mass murder) as a terrorist attack. This must remain the central question, because it is the essence of what is at stake, and it deserves a full and rigorous public examination of the facts, independent of personalities. It must not be papered over by an attempt to create an artificial peace between factions.”~Shelton Lankford
Bravo.
I think it is also more to keeping to the facts and not, ‘putting on trial for treason’, those personalities we disagree with.
I have been struggling in a long conversation with Frank Legge, to get him to stand to reason on some very simple points. It is indeed frustrating. But yet I do not take him as disingenuous in his positions – he is simply stuck in an ego position. It is error, but nothing sinister.
‘Intent’ is one of the hardest indictments to prove – it is also a waste of time and a spinning of wheels. It is what cements the in-fighting and creates a permanent wall of factions.
ww
“…he is simply stuck in an ego position. It is error, but nothing sinister.”
But you are drawing a conclusion about intent, aren’t you? Legge and Chandler cite Michiel de Boer (Snowcrash) as an authority on whether a plane hit the Pentagon in their anti-CIT hit piece. This is same Snowcrash who mocks and ridicules almost everyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job. He also thinks Hani Hanjour could indeed have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon. That Legge chooses to quote this anti-truther says something pretty negative about where he’s coming from.
Thanks for your comments Craig.
I am merely adopting the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ stance of western jurisprudence. I may be as suspicious as you and others. However, it is my personal take on discussing this with Legge that that is his problem. No doubt he and his comrades have cast insults galore, and this paints him in an ugly light. I recognize this.
We, he and I, are just about at the end of our abilities to communicate in a civil manner. He has become exceedingly cranky as this has evolved. Perhaps his next explosion of angst will set me firmly in the camp of seeing him as a provocateur – it is “that close” already.
ww
Let me add to my last comment, this:
I am not adopting the position of ‘council for the defense’ in the case of Frank Legge. I am merely attempting to be a ‘fair witness’.
ww
Is that the same “Snowcrash” who admits “neurological problems” as his reasons for refusing to debate CIT?
“Sorry, but the debate/discussion is off. Tomorrow a scan will reveal whether or not I have a brain tumor or some other neurological problem. Regardless of the outcome, I have been plagued by terrible headaches and other weird neurological symptoms that indicate something serious. Right now, I am in survival mode, and I can’t be active in 9/11 truth at all anymore.” – Michiel de Boer, aka “Snowcrash”, Oct 27, 2009
Source – http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1547
That’s the one. True to his word, he’s not active in 9/11 truth anymore. He is very active in disinformation and 9/11 lies, though.
Sounds to me that “snowcrash” may have got an injection of that MLUltra Soup…
Was his profile ever seen as legit…was there a point where he suddenly turned “different”?
ww
HR,
Prior to his disappearance for months due to health reasons, he certainly acted like someone who respected CIT but was on the fence about the conclusion. Here he is on 7/29/09:
hxxp://www.911blogger.com/news/2009-07-28/cit-conference-arlington-va-latest-video-endorsed-richard-gage-peter-dale-scott-ed-asner-david-ray-griffin-more#comment-212699
-Snowcrash in mid 2009.
Maybe the real Snowcrash died and his identity was conveniently stolen post-mortem. Or maybe he’s a victim of mind control. Or, most simply, maybe his assignment was to schmooze our side enough to seem like a genuine investigator, so he could turn on us later. Some of us veteran truthers have seen this happen quite a few times, such as in the case of Mikey Metz, the “ex truther.” (extruther.blogspot.com) (You should look at Metz’ “letter of resignation” from the truth movement; it’s eerily analogous to Gage’s “complete withdrawal of support” with its arguments.)
This Is my last question put to Legge in our email exchange. It has hovered for 7 hours now.
Him being in Oz, I might get a midnight response. I figure it will be extra cranky should it come.
But it also could be the last straw for him from me…
_______________________________________________________
Why won’t you accept what actual pilots and aeronautical engineers have to say?
You are using 10th grade Physics, not aerodynamics.
Does that last sentence sound familiar?
Why can’t you get a single pilot or expert in aerodynamics to sign on to your work?
Do you have an adequate answer for those simple questions Frank?
_______________________________________________________
ww
What is the Hegelian Dialectic? By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich October 2005
http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.com/2007/02/hegelian-dialectic.html
This is on the same page as the Paul Watson article – Don’t miss it, it is more precise than Watson’s piece, but both are good together.
ww
ww,
I use this post of yours to reply to all four or five of yours today on this topic.
I teach Marxist political economy and have published on Marx and Hegel (I claim that Marx lost interest in Hegel in the last decade and a half of his life). Thus I don’t suppose you need to consider me a novice on Hegelian dialectics. (Also, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as you have surmised; actually, I gave you a very, very abbreviated definition of what I meant by ‘left’ and it had nothing to do with those two political parties.)
I sense that you are part of a school that the left-right division is manufactured and manufactured out of Hegelian thought. I have read some of their works, but they have never been attractive to me as a method for understanding society.
Anyway, you moved this school of thought into discussion of the Delphi method used by Griffin and Woodworth, but I don’t see the connection one way or another. If you could offer your own concrete analysis of how the 9/11 Consensus Panel itself falls into a Hegelian trap, maybe that would help me understand.
Thanks.
P.S. what does ‘ww’ abbreviate?
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the info on you. Yes you must be very aware of the dialectic, if you teach Marxist political economy – which I should have recalled from reading your book THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 {wonderful volume BTW}.
ww – My initials, Willy Whitten is the name.
My analysis is simple as it relies on the ‘change agent’ meme of the ‘community organizer’. This is a technique that begins with a hidden predetermined end, to a ‘discussion’ that is lead by the change agent. It is a dialectical in that it is meant to ‘weed out’ the dissenting parties by ridicule. thus creating a synthetic model framed on ‘divide and conquer’.
As you are fully aware, you yourself were ‘weeded out’ in this process. Your comrades, I would posit were ‘anticipated’ to follow you out the door.
I think, if you would read Etzioni, you would recognize the same techniques are presented in very smooth rhetorical manner. This dialectic comes masked in many brands.
Whether Marx gave up on Hegel or merely re-branded it is the question. I think however we are dealing much more with the influence of Trotsky in the American styles that have cycled through the political landscape – thus my mention of the 3rd Internationale, and continuing to draw on the little black book of technique.
I would also point to Carroll Quigley in his masterwork tome, TRAGEDY AND HOPE, as he describes what the “right” has always framed as “Communism” is in reality the Fabian Round Table Groups, who had no proper “ideology” but were rather strategists for the Central Banking Cabal – still ensconced in The City Of London. In ‘conspiricist language”: The ILLUMINATI. And that term of course, has been re-branded numerous times throughout history, even arising from more ancient secret societies as far back as Babylon.
ww
“It is error, but nothing sinister.”
Not grabbing the pitchfork and torch just yet, but Legge’s “errors” are so basic and have been pointed out so many times (in public and in private) that it goes beyond “ego”. His camp, government loyalists and those who are quoted in his piece and others, from Snowcrash to Jim Hoffman, range from open disinformationists (Hill, Eric and Adam Larson), to aggressive wordsmiths (Good, Sarns) have completely contradictory and illogical stances. A lie is a lie.
It’s been open season on Pentagon (and Shankesville) research. The real questions you have to ask is why these people feel free and unashamed to blatantly lie, contradict eachother, attack and be “on the same side”? Why so immune to associating their names with proven disinfo and defending the OCT, while at the same time so meticulous in crossing their ‘t’s and dotting their ‘i’s when discussing events in Manhattan? How can they accept OCT “evidence” with open arms while rejecting “evidence” from the very same sources in Manhattan?
Yea OSS…and I am dying to read what Legge’s response will be to my last challenge — it could be the tell.
ww
Here’s a little sample of Mr. Legge’s ability to think logically and critically from 911blogger(http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11#comment-251670):
“Now you might say that the FDR file has been faked. Faked like the damage to the poles perhaps, faked like the damage to the front of the Pentagon, faked like the damage inside the Pentagon, faked like the smoke cloud that rose above the Pentagon, faked like the sound of impact, faked like the debris inside and outsie the Pentagon, faked like the corpses. What an amazingly complicated plan, and how likely to go wrong.
Isn’t it simpler to just say that the plane hit the Pentagon, and you are not sure how? You are sure Hanjour couldn’t do it but there is no proof he was on board.”
The person who formulated this argument is either not very bright or not very honest. Fake smoke? Fake sound of impact? Fake damage?
More on Frank Legge (this one’s a good laugh):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569
“Frank Legge Begging For Peer Reviewers For Pentagon Paper, gets deleted at 911blogger”
“Or, most simply, maybe his assignment was to schmooze our side enough to seem like a genuine investigator, so he could turn on us later.”~Adam S
Yes I understand sheep dipping a mole, an ingratiating forward move, a sanitized back story.
That was my instant take on Fetzer.
It could very well be Legge as well. Especially as to the Quote Craig posted – that is pure looneytoon brigade from Frank…Lol
I have told him already that the faking of a crime scene is no where near the impossibility he posits it to be…well actually I have pointed out just about everything I can as to the bullshit his position is. I’m just waiting for him to crack like Fetzer did.
I noticed Fetzer was susceptible to suggestion. The night before he “quit” the thread {last} I had said something to the effect of the heat in the kitchen and that perhaps it was time for him to check out of the room. This is one of the reasons I think he might be an MK. It was like that went straight to his unconscious mind, and he acted on it as a ‘command’. [???]
What’s with Australia? Seems this is all centered from abroad with Legge and some others.
ww
Well… clearly he didn’t have a Brain Tumor. That’s good news as I would hate to see anyone suffer from Cancer. But it is clear he does have some sort of neurological problem. Even the government loyalists at JREF have come to the same conclusion when dealing with him.
“He is a very disturbed individual, and YT is a fool that he lets such a loose cannon “moderate” his forum.” – Source http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8229479&postcount=95
Well it seems that is all theater.
Truthaction.org is fully infiltrated. Right now, it’s all fake infighting and dividing on that forum.
Those jrefers were allowed on there and then seemingly “schooled” the truthers. It was a way to promote the official story while making the truthers who promote cd at the towers seem inept.
There has been a constant attack and undermining of the CD movement and even AE911T on that forum.
Snowcrash aka Michiel de Boer(extremely common name in the Netherlands) is anonymous, shows no signs that English is his second language, and is obviously a disinformation operative/provocateur/saboteur when it comes to CIT, CD at the towers, and the truth movement itself.
THIS is an example of the Hegelian dialectic in action:
“Contrary to Bergen’s generous belief that progressives are deluding themselves about Obama’s militarism, many are fully aware of it and, because it’s a Democrat doing it, have become aggressively supportive of it. That, without a doubt, will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies: transforming these policies of excessive militarism, rampant secrecy and civil liberties assaults from right-wing radicalism into robust bipartisan consensus.”
~Celebrating our “Warrior President”
One of the Most Militarily Aggressive American Leaders in Decades by Glenn Greenwald
“transforming these policies of excessive militarism….into robust bipartisan consensus.”
The above sentence describes the ‘Synthesis’ of the Right/Left – ‘Thesis/Antithesis’
The Hegelian Dialectic is stated in this formula:
Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis
ww
Willy,
Responding to your two replies last night, I’d like to note that in order to claim the Griffin-Woodworth ‘consensus’ Panel as a Hegelian synthesis, you’ll need to demonstrate the thesis-antithesis antecedent that it would be synthesizing. Otherwise, you are simply asserting something … from a formula.
By the way, the reduction of Hegel (forget about Marx, even though Raapana and Friedrich don’t want us to) to
“The Hegelian Dialectic is stated in this formula: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis”
is much too easy. But I’ll let that pass.
Thanks.
P.S. Analyzing Obama is off-topic.
Well, it turns out that Frank Legge is his own best opponent in a debate.
Much like Fetzer on the last thread, he has whittled his club down to kindling with his own paring knife…
The man has no concept whatsoever of aerodynamics, or what he is even arguing for or against from moment to moment. He needs to be put out to pasture.
ww
To repeat, and with a fuller exposition:
‘My analysis is simple as it relies on the ‘change agent’ meme of the ‘community organizer’. This is a technique that begins with a hidden predetermined end, to a ‘discussion’ that is lead by the change agent. It is a dialectical in that it is meant to ‘weed out’ the dissenting parties by ridicule. thus creating a synthetic model framed on ‘divide and conquer’.’~ww
‘Synthesis’, synthetic, plastic, artificial, manufactured.
Thus, manufacturing a predetermined end, by the technique of a leading argument is synthetic.
The ‘argument’ is a set-up, a ‘ploy’, thus it is an artificial argument – that is, not really an argument at all, but a by the numbers path to the predetermined end.
The end result, which is predetermined is the deliberate undercutting by peer pressure of any argument made against that predetermined end. This is done by thesis v antithesis. The synthetic is in that the antithesis is molded into the appearance of the thesis to all but the dissenters, who are dismissed as ‘unreasonable’ in refusing to admit their antithesis is the same as the Change Agent’s thesis.
“much too easy. But I’ll let that pass.”~Paul Z
But it IS that easy, and it DOES work.
____________
“P.S. Analyzing Obama is off-topic.”~Paul Z
Not so, it is another illustration of how the dialectic works in the present political environment.
Paul, I am okay with you disagreeing with me on this, but I will answer as to why I disagree with your disagreement.
Thanks for your engagement,
ww
This is totally off topic but I couldn’t figure any other place to alert the T/S audience: Kevin Barrett’s latest piece of satire is hysterically brilliant!
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2012/05/return-of-son-of-underwear-bomber.html
Agree totally!
And that’s undoubtedly why they ‘hate’ him over at truthfraction.
He obviously got ‘self-awareness’, of which, they over there, knows bugger all about.
(‘Bugger all’, can be translated to mean: “virtually nothing”, in OZ lingo. Please memories, as i fell
a need to use this expression more and more in the future, dealing with the US of Bluff)!
And of course, he appears to be ‘infinitely’ more intelligent – but that goes without saying – really.
Cheers
Sorry, “memorize”!!
Damn red wine!
Cheers
These are my final words to Frank Legge, in two combined emails:
______________________1.>
There is one issue that keeps gnawing at me, and I can’t get past it.
It is the six witnesses, 3 at the Citgo, 3 at the cemetery, who are all adamant that the plane went over the Citgo. In fact the three at the station itself make it clear that it did not actually fly over the top of the station, but was north of it far enough that they saw more of its profile than underbelly.
It will be said that, “but they also said that the plane hit the Pentagon”…
Just so, but the witnesses at the Citgo could not have witnessed the strike of the plane because their view was obstructed by the rise and fall of the landscape. All they saw was the part of the explosion visible from their POV.
It is also so that if it did fly straight along that path that the directional damage to the Pentagon does not jibe.
_____________________2.>
Here is a particularly disturbing recording of Jeff Hill harassing WTC attack witness Jay Maisel at 1:00 in the morning with his no plane theories.
Have you heard this recording of Jeff Hill?
The guy is a blithering maniac. We talked about Jim v Craig and Aldo once before. Do you recall that Frank? You claimed that it was CIT who were dishonest and leading and prompting in their questions. I strongly disagreed, and attempted to show how Hill was doing what you claim for CIT.
I think your judgement is shot to hell Frank.
It is when something just won’t go away that I start to think it is the most important, as it keeps coming back over and again, and I cannot find any reason to doubt the testimony of those six witnesses. I guess you could say this is the key testimony I see for this event. I think as witnesses, theirs is ‘Best Evidence’ – it is simply unimpeachable.
This is my final verdict on this Frank. I think your whole reliance on the official story is bunk.
Sorry, have a nice day.
Yours, Willy Whitten
By the way Craig, the somewhat famous WTC2 collapse shot you have posted at the top left of your pages [titled “An Explosive Event”] here is just yet another computer faked image.[For obvious reasons when analyzed/compared to others similar but no less fake].
The one you have is probably the one attributed to a Ben Reisman, but as your version is so small and cropped it is hard to tell for sure – it could also be by a couple of other people with different versions of the same shot.
Analysis of the entire series in question occurs here :
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=4602cf9f813efe821b0305f3fd043070&start=300 ,
Starting in the 3rd post down by “Equinox”, and dated March 15th, 2012, 1:53 pm, then continues onto the next few pages of the same thread [titled “CGI collapse Footage”], if you are interested.
Regards, onebornfree.
I’ll read that, thanks.
Craig, very similar issues can be viewed in relation to the purported still imagery of WTC1’s collapse in post 3 on page one of the same thread [i.e. Equinox on February 25th, 2011, 2:12 pm ], which shows a short gif file exposing the repeated smoke and tree patterns readily apparent, here : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=6e2625f59ca349fb4cfdf9490ed7569c
and in the post immediately following by “reel.deal” on February 25th, 2011, 3:08 pm, which shows a much larger image of the exact same supposed event.
regards, onebornfree
You know Onebornfree?
I haven’t reiterated on this particular thread yet, so I will now.
As I have gone through in excruciating detail on the “Truth Leaders” thread, neither you nor Shack have any idea of what you are talking about. Zip – nada – nothing – zero.
Neither of you has the slightest grasp of the technologies involved nor of the simple principles of photography.
As per your latest about a still image. You don’t know whether this is a frame grab from a video or a single still image, yet you run off your mouth about the repeating smoke patterns – which would only be a possible artifact for a original still photo manipulated in photoshop using the ‘Clone’ tool.
If it is a frame grab from video there is zero chance of this being done with a clone tool. Do you grasp what I am saying here? I sincerely doubt that you do, as you have never had a cogent response to any of my criticisms – just as your guru Shack has never made a response with any rational substance to my critiques.
This whole ‘image fakery’ deal is a ramble in the bramble of psycho-thorns. It is utter lunacy.
ww
Adam,
Is the “13 witnesses” meme a product of Anthony Larson {Lawson??}? I cannot find anywhere that CIT makes a claim for specifically 13. It is my understanding that what has been found is that any witness with a POV to make any specific claim of N or S turns out to be a North side witness.
Please clarify as to your knowledge.
Thanks, ww
HR,
You’re confusing Anthony Lawson (of “WTC7: This is an Orange” fame) with CIT detractors Erik Larson and Adam Larson, who are not related and coincidentally share the same last name. The former is “loose nuke” and is a mod at 911blogger, and it was he who banned myself, onesliceshort, and Adam Ruff when we were backing him into a corner on his false claims about supposed “south of Citgo” witnesses. The latter Larson has a blog called the Frustrating Fraud and also goes by the moniker “Caustic Logic.” CIT’s number of witnesses at the time they made NSA who contradicted the OCT was 13 I believe. But “Caustic Logic” pushes the disinfo that there are at least 13 “SoC” witnesses to counterbalance and even outweigh the NoC ones. Pure BS of course.
Thanks Adam,
I had moved away from that blog and had just remembered the name Larson or Lawson….and of course I love the Lawson of ‘This is an Orange’. But I remember the ‘loose nuke’ and ‘Caustic Logic’ names now. I didn’t take any notes while reading that argument…and I’m notorious for not remembering names too.
Hmm. I would include Sheraton gal as N-path…after all, there the hotel is. Hemphill, certainly. The Helipad tower person. The 3 Citgo witnesses, the 3 cemetary guys. That is 9…
Personally I don’t think Paik saw enough of anything to count either way.
But certainly those 9 are solid enough for the tell. Frankly I have not heard a single person that is a solid S-path witness…which would be logical as the North path is obviously where the plane was. To tell you the truth, just the Citgo witnesses and the cemetary witnesses are ‘Best Evidence’ witnesses in this, and I would rest my case there.
You did however make good cases for a few more on that very blog.
Thank you again Adam.
ww
Hey Craig,
Is it just me??? This page loads truncated, clipped off at May 7 – consistently…I could’t even tell if my last post to Adam landed there.
Earlier in the day it would load with the format all screwed up, all the text pressed to the left, so that it was printed half in the gray field and half in the right. The upper portion would be weird too the story and headline under half a page of just the white field…
Anyone else at all having such problems??
I’ll see if it loads to the bottom when I post this one……..
ww
WW,
I have just seen what you’re talking about. The new comments are getting in but they’re not at the bottom. After the most recent comments it jumps back to May 6, ending at May 7 as you said. I don’t know why comments don’t always end up in the place where they were intended to be. There doesn’t seem to be a way of moving them around, either. If anyone knows a way, please let me know. I wondering if the last post having 850 comments has something to do with it?
I doubt if the last thread has any connection to this threads problems Craig. You have gone through and eliminated quite a few of Paul T’s posts. I would wager that in that process you did something inadvertently that has caused the thread to get twitchy. Just guessing, but it seems more likely than another thread effecting this one.
I think those following this one will get what has happened at any rate.
Remember the single post of mine that got stuck at bottom quite awhile ago? I think this is in that category. All these blogging programs have glitches of one sort or another.
I suppose you might consider creating a “Continued” thread when one gets over 200 posts or so.
You could just start another one called “Two Quit Continued” or whatever…if you anticipate much more action on this heading.
You might consider a “Free For All” page too…a thread for some of us to work out some of our differences with each other that have developed in the last few months.
ww
As I explained to Aldo in my last email to him; I’ve got the goods on Frank Legge. I have had about a month and a half email conversation, all saved to file, that includes 5 versions of his newest paper on the Pentagon, and our commentary back and forth on it. He has made several subtle U-turns in this time. His last being that his whole argument is based solely on witness testimony…Lol…which is that laugh when you read the papers.
No his central argument in the paper is on the technical aspects of plane impact, speeds, banks, crash direction, physical evidence combined with the witness testimony.
But this latest turn about, is not the first one. As he puts an argument to mollify and appease his listener, while at the same time making that which is obvious ambiguous, and turning the ambiguous into the obvious.
This can be shown with a point by point commentary on the text of his arguments. And I am doing that now. I am doing another write-up like the one I did on Profile of a 9/11 Stooge {Allbury Smith}.
It was a toss-up for a long while as to whether Legge is old and getting senile, or whether he is a clever and experienced mole. In the light of everything that has come to pass, I am ready to say that my opinion is that he is a mole, purposely spreading cognitive dissonance.
After I finish my paper, I will send it to him, and ask if he wishes to recant his position on the Pentagon. If not I will publish my findings.
ww
“Just another rinky-dink coincidence?”~Señor
Hardly…aye?
‘The Cloak of National Security’ is very much the present day “Ring of Power”, providing invisibility to the forces of evil.
ww
“One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’
Well let us reframe this situation in a more reasonable manner:
These witnesses have hours – days – in some cases months to have established their own bearings {other than those travelling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.
The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.
ww
I don’t think “Dr.” Frank Legge, “Ph. D.” can truly be this stupid, so I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that he’s a conscious fraud, deliberately trying to muddy the waters with “cognitive diversity.”
(1) Two planes had hit skyscrapers in NYC and most Pentagon witnesses would be aware of this.
(2) The Pentagon witnesses saw a large plane fly toward the Pentagon and shortly after, there’s a big fireball and the plane has disappeared.
(3) Within minutes, the govt, via the mass media, is telling the entire planet that a large plane crashed into the Pentagon.
Clearly, the witnesses have been “led” on multiple factors to believe impact.
BUT there was no such propaganda machine in effect telling the world what to believe with regard to where the plane flew w/r to NoC or SoC. So it is this portion of their testimony is pure. They all corroborate one another.
Therefore they are not incorrect about the flight path and correct about the impact.
Of course, Dr. Legge knows this already. Which makes him a fraud for dressing up such a nonsense argument with the air of “scholarly schpeak.”
Hi Adam,
You say:
“I don’t think “Dr.” Frank Legge, “Ph. D.” can truly be this stupid, so I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that he’s a conscious fraud, deliberately trying to muddy the waters with “cognitive diversity.”
Which puts it right in the same pocket I put it in.
There is certainly a lot more material to be deconstructed available in the email exchanges between the ‘professor’ and I. However, I am going to be careful in my choices of what to include.
Perhaps you should ask Aldo about the last two emails I sent to him, they give a fuller explanation of my views and situation.
ww
Just to be clear on the sequence of events concerning my conversation with Mr. Legge;
I originally contacted him with questions about the physics of the crashes into the WTC towers. Knowing he isn’t a physicist, I asked if he could inquire with one on the matter of those crash physics. The pertinence of these questions had to do with my arguments with Mr. Fetzer on the thread under the story just prior to this story on this blog.
It was only a matter of a couple exchanges between Legge and I the he broached the topic of the Pentagon. As I had already read he and Stutt’s paper, I told him I really would rather not discuss it – as I had already come to the conclusion that any discussion of the FDR for the Pentagon event is irrelevant due to lack of chain of custody for such evidence.
It was on this note that Mr. Legge took it upon himself to try to assert otherwise. The email exchange then took on a life of its own. A rather large life given the period of time it took place.
ww
@Adam Syed
A perfect example of the power of words, to distort and misrepresent the facts and turn them through 180 degrees ,turning black into white. But all in the service of the Truth, so that’s ok.
Speaking of exposing people, I’m going to be making a video tonight which exposes a fraud. Stay tuned…
Adam, don’t waste your time engaging with “Wright”. He’s a drive-by poster (with a terrible aim)
Ask Frank how many “impact” testimonies corroborate each other or the speed recorded on the alleged FDR.
Hint: Penny Elgas and Albert Hemphill.
To the theme of Dr. Legge, the only thing that impressed me about the Legge/Chandler anti-CIT article of last year just prior to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was the fact that Dr. Legge was able to get Mr. Chandler to loan his name to it and participate given that paper’s glaring weaknesses that even this non-pilot could see. Mr. Chandler’s videos of high school physics applied to the demolitions are legacy works worth building upon.
After my subsequent on & off-list communication with Mr. Chandler, I have the impression that his participation was willing and active. He probably drafted the off-topic paragraph within that very article that made sweeping dismissals of Dr. Wood and guilt-by-associations innuendos, made the worse when he has her textbook but admits to not finishing reading it.
So, naturally, my eye-brow went up when Mr. Rogue was contacting Dr. Legge off-list to get second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions.
It appears to me that the result of Mr. Rogue’s more in-depth communication with Dr. Legge may be a tainting of Mr. Rogue’s impressions of Dr. Legge from where they were initially. At the time Mr. Rogue was about as effective as could be expected given the source in relaying Dr. Legge’s comments — some of them weasely — to the points I was making on the subject at hand.
I encourage Mr. Rogue to take some contemplative moments to re-think (and/or re-read) our exchange. An opportunity might be available sooner rather than later to put any words you might write on the subject into play.
Roll over Once,
“So, naturally, my eye-brow went up when Mr. Rogue was contacting Dr. Legge off-list to get second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions”~Señor
I see Señor, no clocks, no calendars at your house. I didn’t contact Legge until near the end of the battle with Fetzer on the last thread.
Never once asked him about “second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions”. I asked him about the physics of plane crashes into the towers – he moved the topic to the Pentagon. He and I spoke naught of any of these subjects you just threw into the tub with nary a clue.
Beware Captain Doodah, about cranking up your old steam engine…you just started off on your lame foot again.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
You wrote on May 16, 2012 at 11:34 am:
For point of reference, here is one of your postings on the Fetzer thread where you mention Dr. Legge. April 18, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Note the time stamp and also that the end of that thread would have been in late April or early May.
Yet, to the my astonishment that my memory is better than yours, I went to the article where you first brought up your communication with Dr. Legge. Here are but two examples and pay attention to the date stamps.
March 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm Mr. HybridRogue1 says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm
My responses to these March postings are close by, for those curious.
I see Señor Rogue. Captain Doodah is not going to make hay out of no clocks, no calendars, and no Ctrl+F search at your house as is fitting for someone of your stature, advanced years, and AARP membership. More power to you. I see how you didn’t contact Legge until near the end of the battle with Fetzer on the last thread [and how you] never once asked him about “second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions” as well. Not.
You do a fine job of stoking the coal in my old steam engine all by yourself, thank you very much.
However, now that your memory has been refreshed and you’ll be re-visiting the March discussion, I repeat my humble request to take some contemplative moments to re-think (and/or re-read) our exchange. How does your new assessment of Dr. Legge translate into your opinions relating to that discussion today. Write those thoughts down but hold posting it. An opportunity might be available sooner rather than later to put any words you might write on the subject into play.
Yes…to my astonishment as well Senor – you are correct, I have forgotten about those earlier conversations with Legge…I am so very bad and naughty for thinking a man like you would have no clocks. At least a sundial, aye?
I had thought that I had cited Kevin Ryan…hmm…
Yea I went back to 36 Leaders and found I was wrong just now.
The last conversation with Legge became so over reaching that it was all I could remember of him.
So how about an apology from me to you with love Senor?
Of course this doesn’t change my views as per Shack or Woods…
Nukes, Spacebeams, and Image Fakery – OH MY.
It was good to go back to ’36 Leaders’. It refreshed my memories on how wanked your argument became.
Thanks.
ww
Best Witnesses – Plane flew just overhead:
Deb Anlauf, Sheraton—–>plane traveling due east —>> Hemphill, Annex>>—–due east—>> Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks,>>–Williams, Stafford and Prather ——->> due east >>———–>>Helipad tower “straight in from Annex” >>— due east—>> straight in at Pentagon…
>>——-{ due east path }——>> straight into Pentagon?
Bells ringing in your head yet Frank?
They should be, that would mean the damage path in the Pentagon would have been straight in — same due east damage pattern.
We all know the official damage angle Frank, don’t we?
Case Closed
[NOTE: Ed Paik – Rejected, he saw a microsecond glimpse with no means to judge angle of plane.]
ww
“[NOTE: Ed Paik – Rejected, he saw a microsecond glimpse with no means to judge angle of plane.]
ww”
There’s a lot more to what was seen from Ed Paik’s motor shop.
There’s an interview with his brother, Shinki Paik in 2006 that gives additional physical information as to where the aircraft flew. Listen out for his description of a “shadow” passing through his office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0
This may seem like a minor point, but we can physically draw from this statement using the azimuth of the sun that day, at that time, coupled with the alleged FDR data (alleged position and altitude), that the shadow could only have been seen if it had passed north of Columbia Pike. Or at that it couldn’t have occurred from the OCT trajectory.
http://vimeo.com/9630751
Discussed here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19556&view=findpost&p=10782468
Couple that with what Ed Paik described in that “microsecond”. That he could only see the “right wing” of the aircraft. If it had been on the OCT path, he’d have been physically able to see the entire plane and for a longer period of time.
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/POV_Cams/Paik_POV_North_South_Sun720x480_EST_TEXT.jpg
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/POV_Cams/North_South_Shadow720x480_EST_TEXT.jpg
His brother physically corraborates his story. As does Terry Morin.
OSS,
That is certainly a more elaborate situation than I was aware of up to now. I hadn’t seen that part with his brother.
Thanks for the input…seems a stronger corroboration than I had initially gathered.
ww
I also feel that the Ed Paik interview in National Security Alert clearly contradicted the official flight path. It may not have been as obvious as Brooks, Lagasse, and others who could see the gas station, but it was still clear.
A.Wright says on May 15, 2012 at 7:07 pm:
“@Adam Syed
A perfect example of the power of words, to distort and misrepresent the facts and turn them through 180 degrees ,turning black into white. But all in the service of the Truth, so that’s ok”
Well A Wright, this is a nice blanket statement with no particulars to back it up.
And just where are these “misrepresent{ed}…facts” that “turn them through 180 degrees ,turning black into white”?
Take the long hot wind out of your reply if you would, and produce a single “misrepresented fact”.
ww
Remember what I wrote about containing the damage A Wright?
“It was striking to me how little of the building was involved in the fire,” said Dr. Corley, who has reviewed the Pentagon report. The fire, he said, “didn’t spread and and trap other people in the building. “While 125 Pentagon workers and 59 passengers and crew members on the plane died, few if any of the workers who died were from outside the immediate impact zone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/nyregion/05TOWE.html
The fact that Corley calls it an “Impact Zone” does indeed illustrate the power of words in repetition. But the point is his astonishment at the centralization of the fire and how it hadn’t spread and killed anyone but those at the target.
Come out of your little box Mr. Wright take a look around at the whole landscape you are missing.
ww
@hybridrogue
I didn’t see anyone in that article, any of the people who actually went into the building, and examined and studied it, including the blast experts from the Army Corps of Engineers say that a plane had not crashed into the building or that they had any doubt that a plane had hit the building. And I haven’t seen anyone who actually went in to the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event express any doubt whatsoever that that is what had happened. Mr. Corley wasn’t suggesting a plane didn’t hit the building and I don’t think you can say he was ‘astonished’, he was just making an observation that it was striking how the fire was relatively confined to the impact area.
I didn’t say Corley or anyone but I suggested that the plane didn’t hit or anything else.
My point was and remains that the blast was contained to the target area as per my assertion that it was a controlled blast.
You do not seriously assert that any of the parties you mention were not under the jurisdiction of the very government we are asserting pulled off this psyop – certainly not.
If a scene is to be stage-dressed, the perpetrators would certainly stage-manage the aftermath as well.
“Anyone who actually went into the Pentagon in the aftermath” would obviously be held to strict oversight and chain of command rules – such as signed oaths to secrecy for “National Security” reasons.
You doubt that the system operates thus, regardless of this being proven countless times by investigative journalists – REAL investigative journalist…some who happen to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head two or three times, or die in “mysterious” plane crashes.
Your naivete precedes you into every room, hiding the clues so you need not face them. It is called ‘denial’ Mr. wright.
ww
So just what is your definition of ‘astonished’ Mr. Wright?
Is it not ‘surprise’? Is not “struck by” a statement of having been surprised?…you now want to constrict the meaning of words in your Orwellian psychobabble here, simply to better suit your arguments.
It is this very underhanded, likely subconscious form of thinking that nails your profile.
Further remarks as to this posted below.
ww
Off-topic, but I’m posting this here because I know certain people lurk here and are bound to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE8oPaqaQ78
@Adam
Don’t think that phonecall is “off topic” at all.
I read that Mrs Rothenburg was a regular visitor to the 9/11 sites or government friendly blogs in 2002. Maybe she still is. Would have been interesting to tell her to type in a few search words on google (Rothenburg+cosmos+uncle mickey). Smoke him out, ya know?
@13 minutes he refers to his “Uncle Mickey”
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20091110.mp3
Nice job man!
@06:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV5KBwfmv04
Since I put the question directly to Legge a couple days ago; “Are you el Topo Frank?”
He seems to be trying to convince me now that he is ‘certifiable’…his latest arguments for putting, Deb Anlauf, and Hemphill, and Paik as ‘south-path’ witnesses are verging on the psychotic. Utterly fruitloops nonsense.
I am now firmly convinced he is simply a mole; that his earlier work on the WTC was the ingratiating period – the sheep dipping op.
And yea Once, I know this myself from close-up, one on one experience. No better way to know a skunk that being nose to nose.
Legge may have been a ‘Top Gun’ at disinformation at one time..but he is old and slow now, he has totally tipped his hand in the latest rounds with me.
He’s Dark Side…a Vader without his lightsaber now.
ww
Once again…
In a nutshell {where you will be most comfortable, aye Señor}, this is my argument:
It is PROVEN that nanothermates were one of the explosive/incendiaries used in the World Trade Tower’s destruction__proven.
Jones was on the trail of the thermites from the time he began investigating the orange glowing liquid metal pouring from the corner of one of the towers. He set out on that trail specifically and meticulously.
It was never his assertion that thermates were the only explosives used, and time and again said the was most likely other plastique explosives involved.
However, the central point is: Nanothermates – proven.
Nukes? Unproven speculation.
DEW? Unproven speculation.
Video Fakery? Proven bullshit.
ww
Dear Señor Rogue, you wrote:
You write that (and other things) almost as if I’ve been arguing that super duper nano-thermite wasn’t used and wasn’t involved, and that nukes, DEW, or video fakery done did the deed.
Let me correct the record. The answer could very well be E. All of the above. And this is where the 911TM is getting led around by their noses and following false idols in such mutually exclusive thinking.
I guess his nose was so close to the ground in following that trail that he wasn’t able to see how the 9/11TM was misuing his findings and extrapolating it erroneously to explain demolition features that it cannot.
Here’s the big red flag that I only recently came across. Dr. Jones and everybody at the 911TM central office did not test for any other kinds of explosive residue in their collected dust samples EITHER. And when this was brought to their attention not that many years ago, it was argued (paraphrased): “We are probably passed the ‘expiration date’ of being able to detect such residue. If our reports come out that we didn’t find anything, the govt will use that to whack us down. Better not to test at all.”
Moreover, we can chalk it up to NIST and Dr. Sunder for debunking “the involvement of other plastique explosives” from the relatively quiet decibel recordings that would have been dead-giveaways for such. He wouldn’t have made such a lame argument if it wasn’t true because they knew what the real destructive mechanisms were.
Just like Dr. Jones never made any calculations into quantities of super duper nano-thermite required for pulverization AND hot-spots, the same is true for other plastique explosives. The likelihood of them being remnant & unconsumed in the rubble AND accounting for the hot-spot duration is zippo. Or do you forget that my high school math was done purposely with relatively slow burn-rate (3,000 fps) explosives? When you crank up their explosive potential to achieve pulverization via ramping up the burn-rate, you make that damn “imaginary garden hose packed with such” significantly longer than 884k miles to account for hot-spots. I don’t know whether the inside diameter of that damn imaginary garden hose is < 1/8″ or > 1″, but either way, it represents a cross-sectional area that when multiplied by its length calculates into massive volumes and weight ABOVE AND BEYOND what was consumed in the initial seconds. And then this translates into a logistics nightmare that would be hard to pull off.
For the life of me, I can only think of a couple reason why you, Señor Rogue, are so obtuse in failing to recognize or acknowledge these glaring issues.
Super duper nano-thermite was in the dust. But it hasn’t been proven to do squat. Where are the tests that show how it can pulverize concrete? Where is the high school chemistry that proves it can account for the duration of hot spots without massively ginormous quantities?
As for nuclear anything, be it weapon or reactor? Guess what? Radiation was proven, and super duper nano-thermite don’t account for nada in this regard. In fact, Dr. Jones never contested this to the extreme that he even accepted the govt’s flawed report on radiation measurements going into his own logically flawed and “nothing to see here, folks!” paper that supposedly debunked all nuclear weapons. And to assure us that we have nothing to worry about, he concludes that the radiation readings were at trace level after he pulled the scientific trick of re-defined trace level to be 55 times greater than it was previously.
To say “Nukes? Unproven speculation.” is to accept the framing put around it that purposely stopped speculation into the matter.
Same thing applies to your statement: “DEW? Unproven speculation.” DEW devices exist. DEW devices can blast rockets out of the sky and repel protesters at OWS rallies. You’re old enough to remember from the 1980’s [when I was in engineering school] President Reagan’s Star Wars program that became the Strategic Defense Inititive (and then other names and acronyms suggested by PR people). These were most certainly not public work creation programs for the super overly educated and without any expectation of one day producing anything useful to the Department of Defense.
To say “Video Fakery? Proven bullshit.” You’re wrong.
Imagery manipulation on 9/11 is not bullshit, it did happen, and this is one of the nuggets from September Clues that you also fail to recognize. Granted, it was not done to the extreme that Mr. Shack is paid-to-push it, and even I am now saying that imagery manipulation wasn’t done to an extent to substantiate the “no planes theory.” But it was done. [Think of the helicopter shot that has four versions, one involving nothing, one involving an orb, one involving pixels of a plane, and one that masks the background and does something completely whacked.]
And just as important as the few cases of proven imagery manipulation are the cases of proven media foreknowledge via miraculous pans, zooms, and focuses.
I ain’t married to either one, so could easily siddle on over and adopt your views of Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood [if I haven’t already.] But that ain’t gonna stop me from mining, refining, and re-purposings those dang nabbit nuggets of truth.
Señor,
This is again, all the same water under the same bridge. If you wish to expound upon these issues, be my guest.
I do not dispute your numbers Señor — I dispute the frame you put them in; As I have explained countless times already.
Is that your wont Señor? To put thermite in a hose and calculate the ‘burn time’ yet again?
Good Gawd man….
ww
Dear Señor Rogue,
You wrote:
That is mighty gracious of you! Don’t mind at all if I do. Thank you very much!
How about you enlighten us as to your framing versus your interpretation of my framing. Or better yet. Skip your interpretation of my framing, because it’ll be wrong and it’ll just be fodder for me to knock about and torch.
But please, do tell. What is your framing involving nano-thermite in combination with various sundry incendiaries and plastic explosives?
How is it that this limbo-ed under the low-water mark decimal level confidently used by NIST and Dr. Sunder from lots of recordings to “debunk” their usage?
Let’s be gracious and say quantities were sufficient to achieve the spectacular pulverization of the towers. By jove, what configuration and massively additional quantities were their salted remnants placed in that could account for:
(a) an excessively long hot-spot durations yet with only four notable large spikes [according to Kevin Ryan] and
(b) radiation
(1) that was measured and reported — albeit probably with some suppression of actual findings –,
(2) that necessitated a nuclear scientist within the 9/11TM accept such radiation reports unchallenged as well as introduce his own scientific slight-of-hand, and
(3) that undoubtedly contributed to 1st responder ailments very similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors?
These are clues that my understanding of your framing leave out. Gerrymander that frame, Señor Rogue, to include them. While you’re at it, you can make an ugly non-symmetrical addition to your frame for just the images of vehicle destruction, minus any commentary she might have [that I admit can sometimes be misleading if not wrong] from Dr. Wood’s website.
You say that you don’t dispute my numbers, yet my numbers and explanation seem to inspire very little waffling or repairing of your framing. You chide me for having been chumped four years as an on-/off-champion of NPT. How many more years have you been chumped by nano-thermite and conventional means to stop looking for ANYTHING ELSE that could explain the evidence?
You dismiss too easily the exercise of packing into an imaginary garden hose any combination or configuration conceivable of super-duper thermite, various sundry incendiaries, and plastic explosives. You see, these REMNANT elements could not just be placed in a pile under the rubble; their burn-rate would consume them almost immediately. Such remnant quantities from the destruction would have to be distributed in a particular fuse-like way, not just willy-nilly, or they would have to be fed into the hot-spot [at > 3000 fps] to account for the localized heat and duration of the hot-spots.
The back-of-envelope calculations into the length of such an ideal imaginary garden hose should be OPENING YOUR EYES and HAVE YOU QUESTIONING what other energy sources explain the hot-spots, before your boojie woojie high school chemistry from the Kennedy & Johnson eras has you playing with cross-sectional area of the imaginary garden hose that, when multiplied by the hose length, helps you determine volume and then weight of such massively ginormous ADDITIONAL REMNANT MATERIAL above and beyond that needed for pulverization.
Dr. Wood’s textbook is propped up and used as a symbol for objectivity. I neither know nor care whether it contains definitive 9/11 answers. I do know that it contains evidence unaddressed by your framing and that of most of the coopted 911TM. We should stand on her shoulders to help us look outside the box of all that we were told or steered into believing.
Good Gawd man, truth ain’t going to go away just because yet again you avoid the necessary change in thought.
You want to fix the world from how they have been playing us for generations? Shock-and-awe, baby! When we finally see (and can convey to others) the extent with which super-secret high-tech weaponry from our own arsenals were used against us and connect that with how they coordinated their lying to us and with all of the machinations about which fringe websites have been crying regarding FEMA camps, Constitution shredding, foreign soldiers on our soil, etc. … Maybe we will have a chance to save both our Republic and the human race.
Yes Señor, “bla bla bla bla bla…” infinitum.
This is a dismal carousel Señor,
The horses no longer go up and down on their poles, it creaks and groans over the old scratchy worn out calliope. The entertainment value is shot. As I have made perfectly clear I see no reason to take your judgment seriously. So the thought of another ride of your roundabout seems such a dreadful bore.
And really…your posts seem to be needlessly packed with filler trivia and exactitude’s of minutia. And almost every one an encyclopedic tome…that becomes a chore, once the repetition repetition begins to feel like feedback from a mic pointed at a speaker.
It is me Señor, I admit it, I am simply annoyed by your trip. I only have so much tolerance, and you so quickly burn me out with these things – almost as though it is your intent to do so.
You could very well have a varied selection of people you address here. But it always tends back to me, until I make this point, and then you post something to the forum in general. But you always bury a hook in there as a dig or a nag at me. And for you to think that I would not notice these things, and wouldn’t describe them back to you, is beyond imagination as I always do. So Keenan is right, you do the Tar-baby trick so well. It’s your prime talent. There doesn’t seem to be cold enough water from my faucet to harden your tackiness.
So I fall back to my word-processor here with the echoes of your racket still sounding in my head, and I ponder what it could all mean. And it comes to me that it’s ocelot spray – territorial piss marking, ego-pump bullshit; that’s all you have.
And you don’t like that.
You will call it ad hominem. But it isn’t Señor, it is a description of your manner of argument, not a remark as to your person, but to how you make your case, as it were, by presenting what seems ever more to be a synthetic case built on obstinacy. But again, not for any other purpose than to promote self importance.
It is so tiresome.
ww
Dear Señor Rogue,
When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn’t your blog. It isn’t your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.]
Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me.
In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.
I find agreeable your overall contributions to the forum but with these three exceptions.
[1] Your frequency of posting, sometimes with multiple postings one-after-the-other with nary a soul engaging you to merit the 2nd or nth additional posting. Obviously, you’re too hasty with your replies and not providing enough contemplative thought to your responses if you must constantly come back with additional postings of the nature: “And one more thing I forgot, Señor…” It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to flood the forum and become your personal playground.
[2] Your reply postings that are not made close to the source and are instead top-level. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to screw up the readability of the discussion and to make it difficult for lurker readers, particularly when the subject matter is important [like addressing appropriately the energy questions of 9/11].
[3] The vast majority of your postings to me, which refuse to acknowledge nuggets of truth and instead are sweeping “bla bla bla bla bla…” infinitum dismal carousels. It isn’t your place to dismiss me either. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to steer the lurker truth seekers from seeking it beyond.
Your objectivity is being tested, as is your open-mindedness. And you are failing.
Super duper nano-thermite versus Dr. Wood’s textbook stretches you beyond your limits, particularly when both have issues despite both having truth.
If I am indeed to tiresome, ignore me. Please. For both our sakes. Ignore me. Follow through, old man! Leave me alone.
Well done Adam Sayed. You are a legend!
The REAL Australian and New Zealand 9/11 Truth Movements thank you sincerely.
Unfortunately for us Down Under, Cosmos the Fake recently married his boyfriend in New Zealand (pretty sure John Bursill was the Best Man) – so the poor Kiwis are stuck with him.
A Wright,
None of the other members of this forum engage you. They reasonably consider it a waste of time, as you are obviously incapable of seeing the reality before your eyes. You are full of rationales, and petty excuses for a system that it is totally obvious is a criminal syndicate masquerading as a “government”.
You are oblivious to the machinations of the Public Relations Regime that puts on the stage show, and you are enchanted by this ‘high-tech’ electronic necromancy. You are the perfect example of a TVZombie, a processed and programmed automaton.
As an allegory I could describe as you coming into a room with symbols glowing like neon on your forehead that you are a synthetic creature with no mind of its own. You are even programmed to think that your synthetic thoughts are genuinely your own. If you saw Bladerunner, the girl that was the replicant that Decker falls for had these types of pre-fab memories. Again, just an analog…but it is obvious to anyone who has awakened that you are one of the sleepwalkers.
Having made these points. I shall join the rest of the party here in ignoring your canned wank.
ww
@hybridrogue1
Given that you are wrong about most things , I would have been ‘astonished’ if you were right about anything you said about me. At least you’re consistant.
So, What’s it all about Alpha Dog Romeo?
Well, consider this mythos of “Royalty”, this supposition that some blood is bluer than other blood and this makes one ‘special’. This is as absurd as another ‘cousin’ type group’s contention that they are “chosen” by ‘God’ as the one ‘true people’ – which is such blatant hubris as to be inconceivable to a rational human being. And of course there is Big Voodoo Daddy in the Vatican, who “cannot err” as to the true will of ‘God’ {again}. And all the branches of woowoo Zionist Christianoidal…
An one wonders that the world is set on a path of lunacy?
This situation then can be seen as a case of mass epistemic error, based upon these observations, that I take as maxims:
> Going along to get along is fine, until you get to where they are taking you.
> Naivete is not innocence.
> Ends do not justify means – Means define ends.
> Government is a racket.
> Might is not right -might is merely might. Right and wrong are self evident to the healthy psyche.
As to the Healthy Psyche:
Some are further along than others. But don’t let your ego determine how far along you are in disentangling the programming and processing that is the medium we are all steeped in. Recall that, a culture is simply the scum grown in a petri dish in a technological society.
Yes I do make judgments, I do make calls, and they are based on no authority but my own opinion. That I consider my opinion as formed on some deep knowledge and intuition is a considered opinion.
So what is the prime evidence that postmodern global society is pathological?
WAR.
War is the epitome of psychosis. Perpetual war is the paradigm. Full Spectrum Dominance is the core strategy, and the Money Power is at the helm of a technocratic dictatorship.
This is the basis for the material world in this era.
And you are here now.
ww
And just so…
I have a generic response to the blog concerning two commentators here.
One I have an agreement with to no longer respond to. So be it, cool with me.
The other I have stated from my end alone, that I will no longer respond to. And so I won’t.
The second then has written a final statement to me, which will remain unanswered. This leaves this particular participant in the cold, as others have consistently left his/her posts unanswered.
So being left to whistle in the wind, perhaps this participant will recognize the futility of the game he/she is engaged in and will eventually desist. One way or the other it is no longer my problem.
Happy trails to both.
ww
Dear Señor Rogue,
I’m hoping that when Mr. McKee gets a Dr. Wood article posted, you will consider participating [with your typical contemplative postings, less flooding, more attention to replying at the proper level, and no lame “bla bla bla bla bla…” infinitum dismal carousels.”.]
If I am the commentator being referenced with regards to you “having an agreement to longer respond to,” allow me to repeat what I think you might be referring to:
The operative phrase is: “If I am indeed so tiresome.”
Thus, if I am not [so tiresome] at some point in time on some thread on some topic, response postings from you cannot be held in breech of the agreement.
And more good news for you is that another vacation [from Truth & Shadows] for me is coming up from 5/26 until 6/4 where I’ll have probably have less [opportunity and desire for] access to the internet in the cowboy West than I did in March in South America.
Meanwhile, may your withdrawal from posting responses to me [between now and to the end of my up-and-coming absence] be happy and joyous!
[Just remember to keep the flooding in check and reply at the proper level.]
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.~ Thomas Jefferson
ww
DELPHI METHOD
I thought it would be educational for the forum to take this information directly from wikipedia and add my commentary. Thus providing a framework for my opinions, as there has been a counter argument as to whether there is a reasonable connection to my assertion that this is a form of the Hegelian Dialectic:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Delphi method is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Delphi method was developed by Project RAND during the 1950-1960s (1959) by Olaf Helmer, Norman Dalkey, and Nicholas Rescher.[10]It has been used ever since, together with various modifications and reformulations, such as the Imen-Delphi procedure.
Structuring of information flow
The initial contributions from the experts are collected in the form of answers to questionnaires and their comments to these answers. The panel director controls the interactions among the participants by processing the information and filtering out irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects of face-to-face panel discussions and solves the usual problems of group dynamics.”~wiki
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>The panel director controls…everything, obviously; The director controls the original form of the questions on the questionnaires. The director controls the interactions among the participants. The director processes the information by filtering out that which the director deems irrelevant content. This avoids accountability on the part of the director, as he is the only one with all of the input from the other participants. ‘Group dynamics’ are indeed a problem for despots.~ww]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Facilitator
The person coordinating the Delphi method can be known as a facilitator, and facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.”~wiki
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>What we have in Delphi then is what I have termed; ‘Design masquerading as Analysis’. The final ‘consensus’ is a predetermined end to be molded through manipulation, by the skillful guiding hand of the ‘Facilitator’.
This is a special application of the same sort of dialectical cycles used in public relations; The ‘Polling/Propaganda/Synthesis’, where the poll is the “questionnaire” and the random public participants take the place of the “experts” – as they are “expert everyman”.
As anyone familiar with propaganda and public relations knows, it is the form of the question that will determine breadth of the answers. The ways in which questions are framed is a science developed directly atop the core concept of dialectics.~ww]
Willy,
You quote Wikipedia on the Delphi method, “If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.”~wiki
I have no idea who wrote a Hegelian formula into a general description of the Delphi method, but I found no ‘thesis’ – ‘antithesis’ methodology in the Griffin-Woodworth 9/11 Consensus Panel.
I am not asserting that the Panel is non-manipulative, only that whatever it is has nothing to do with Hegel as I experienced it.
Paul,
I have no idea of who wrote the Wiki article either. But it does show that I am not unique in recognizing the dialectical aspect of the Delphi method.
Further, I want to assure you that there is no hostility behind my commentary. I had just hoped more dialog would make things more clear for the both of us, and the readers.
And please excuse me for misrepresenting your nationality.
ww
NOTE: Paul Zarembka’s words are in “quotes” – My words are in >>[brackets]
“Left-wing? Left-wing means empowering folks and means democratic participation.”~PZ
In an earlier message of yours I noticed a reference to a connection in the Delphi technique to Hegelian dialectics and you indicated that it has also connections to Trotsky. How’s that?”~Paul Zarembka says, May 11, 2012 at 7:48 am
“I use this post of yours to reply to all four or five of yours today on this topic.
I teach Marxist political economy and have published on Marx and Hegel (I claim that Marx lost interest in Hegel in the last decade and a half of his life). Thus I don’t suppose you need to consider me a novice on Hegelian dialectics. (Also, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as you have surmised; actually, I gave you a very, very abbreviated definition of what I meant by ‘left’ and it had nothing to do with those two political parties.)
I sense that you are part of a school that the left-right division is manufactured and manufactured out of Hegelian thought. I have read some of their works, but they have never been attractive to me as a method for understanding society.
Anyway, you moved this school of thought into discussion of the Delphi method used by Griffin and Woodworth, but I don’t see the connection one way or another. If you could offer your own concrete analysis of how the 9/11 Consensus Panel itself falls into a Hegelian trap, maybe that would help me understand.”~Paul Zarembka says, May 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm
_________________________________________
>>[ Needless to say, in light of the answers I gave, and a deconstruction of what Paul has written above, leaves me very curious as to what he is talking about here and where exactly he is coming from.~ww]
“Thus I don’t suppose you need to consider me a novice on Hegelian dialectics.”
>>[ Well, if not a “novice” then how is it that I have to point out the glaringly obvious? And now that I have in some detail {SEE: hybridrogue1 says, May 19, 2012 at 5:16 pm}, how is it that he has lost any interest at all in discussing it further?~ww]
“I have read some of their works, but they have never been attractive to me as a method for understanding society.”
>>[ What better way to understand society than the very engine that drives that society’s thought processes? The use of the dialectical is not a theory – it is proven history. It is apparent from any analytical perspective but a false analytical perspective. To deny that it is THE major force driving society into the ‘state as God’ – as Hegel proposed is delusional at this late stage of the game.~ww]
“I sense that you are part of a school that the left-right division is manufactured..”
>>[No I am an autodidact polymath, and thus belong to no school, but have my own self constructed epistemology.
What I “sense” about Paul, is that he is a Marxist, that he does embrace “the Left” and denies that it is a construct of the dialectical; this through epistemic error.
His claim that “Marx lost interest in Hegel in the last decade and a half of his life,” puts too much emphasis on the person of Marx, and departs from a reasonable systemic analysis. It matters little what ‘interests’ Marx had, when the momentum was and had been in movement beyond any one ‘leader’s’ control.
The analysis of the architecture of modern political power must not be confined to the analysis of any single individual, but must be one addressed to the system as holistically contrived.~ww]
Willy,
I would still suggest you consider a better way to format. It requires more effort than it should to follow your argument.You shouldn’t need to indicate which words are yours, just which ones aren’t.
Well okay Craig, let me ponder on just how to accomplish this.
As I was attempting to make commentary directly to Paul’s commentary, it seemed the simplest way to do that was to quote Paul, and answer those quotes.
Do you have a suggestion on a better way to do this?
Thanks, Willy
Let me get back to you, Willy. I’m trying to put the finishing touches on a new post, so I’d like to get that done.
Use the HTML syntax of <blockquote></blockquote>
Give it a little intro each time, like Mr. McKee said:
Mr. Rogue replied:
To which Señor El Once responded:
It may or may not be obvious to this forum that I would much rather be addressing Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth directly as per my observations on the Delphi Method.
I really have a very small argument with Paul Zarembka. My main argument is to the Delphi, and would be best put to those who chose this as the method to proceed.
________________
A note to Señor El Once,
I have seen what you speak of as far as such formatting as you and a couple others have used it.
But I am somewhat technically challenged – or have a more simplified comment box with my WordPress account, as I see no way to change the format in any way…[???]
ww
Señor El Once suggested to hybridrouge1
Use the HTML syntax of
tTo which I respond with, thank you Señor.
Your test didn’t quite work. You need to put the first half of what Senor suggested in front of the quote, and </blockquote> after it. Trust me, I'm also technically challenged, especially where WordPress is concerned.
I see that Craig…rather than wasting any more of this page space, I will experiment at my own blog {also on WordPress}
Thanx, ww
Yes, you need to bookend the quotation with <blockquote> on one end and </blockquote> on the other.
<blockquote>A lengthy passage from someone else.</blockquote>
becomes
“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”~Harry S. Truman
United Nations Local Agenda 21 Program was adopted by all member nations in 1992. Most citizens in the United States were never told…
It should be stressed as to the above that this Agenda 21 Program is based and written in Communitarian legal language, as are the new Supreme Court rulings under the Federalist Society members, who are in fact in covert league with the same NWO agenda.
This in fact all leads back to the classical theory of the Zionist Agenda – which is manufactured from the credo of the Talmud. A look at the Noahide Laws would be fruitful in comprehending these matters.
ww
translated into French for reopen911.info, to be published soon. TY Craig. other translations will follow in French too.
my humble opinion: stick to facts, and be patient. It took 10 years to build this panel. it is a significant step into more reality, not abstract arguing or approximative discussions. It enforces people to stick to facts, whatever the flaws in the method. Any other method would prove “flawable” too. Up to this point, there is a square named B757 (or whatever) that has to fit in a circle (name punching hole) through 2 tubes at the same time (called flightpaths), each of them connected, or not, with the circle !!!… well well well, be patient !
I just received a comment from Dennis P. McMahon, who is a member of David Ray Grifin’s Consensus 9/11 Panel. He had some very positive things to say about National Security Alert and about Truth and Shadows. His comment was response to one that’s almost a month old, so it got buried among comments from around May 4. This is very significant because McMahon has just found out about National Security Alert, and he was very impressed by it.
Here are McMahon’s remarks reproduced:
adam,
as a member of drg’s consensus 911 panel, i find this thread especially intriguing. i’ve been tuned in to 9/11 truth since the summer of 2008, but until i read zwicker and lankford’s very impressive resignation emails, i don’t think i had ever heard of “national security alert.” it was after reading those emails that i made it a point to see the movie.
i found “national security alert” to be excellent, and very persuasive. previously, i had been dismissive of CIT because, in hindsight, i was taken in by the anti-CIT propaganda, which was (and is) so prevalent. as you say, “Never underestimate the sheer power of propaganda; it can con even the brightest of brains sometimes…” not that i consider myself to be among the brightest, but i grew up on the streets of brooklyn and do credit myself with having some street smarts. which is why, in part, “national security alert” appealed to me so much—it has a real and honest street feel—two guys taking it to the street in the best of ways, searching for 9/11 truth and tracking down real witnesses. now, as a result of my having seen the movie, the militant anti-CIT crowd has lost a ton of credibility retroactively.
drg (of whom i am a huge fan) may indeed be a master of “staying above the fray,” as you say. at times, however, i find myself wanting to see him enter the fray, and apply his brilliance to finding out who is what. as i wrote in my dec. 8, 2011 amazon review of drg’s “9/11 ten years later” re his call for “a consensus approach” among 9/11 truth activists who have long debated over what actually struck the pentagon: “I would like to have seen Professor Griffin address whether this debate is being fueled by cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers.”
fyi, i somehow found this (“truth and shadows”) website when (unsuccessfully) trying to track down the amazon discussion mentioned on “rt’s” website here http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3394 wherein you were quoted. can you advise where that amazon discussion is? i want to go there and add that, contrary to rt’s “fairness” claims, he has thrown people off his site without any advance warning, and i am one. still, i’m thankful to rt and his wtcd site for (unintentionally, it seems), leading me here. from what i’ve gathered so far, “truth and shadows” is an excellent site—and pretty much what the heavily-infiltrated 911blogger pretends to be. i plan to return here soon, read more articles and comments, and participate when i can.
Hey Craig,
It was great to read that post from, Dennis P. McMahon. I hope he does stay in touch with Truth and Shadows…and can nudge some sense into DRG as well.
ww
Willy,
It was great to read for sure. Mr. McMahon is clearly a thoughtful person who is interested in the truth, wherever that leads. A hopeful sign.
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/expert-panel-reports-false-accounts-by-us-political-and-military-leaders-on-911/
“The Consensus Panel has completed 25 educational studies (using a medical consensus model)”
This is not true, the Delphi Method was developed to anticipate moves by an enemy for military purposes. Using it for medical purposes is clearly secondary to its original purpose.
So why the bullshit from people looking for government bullshit?
No doubt, they are setting up the management of this act, but I don’t think they will tie the knots together into it being a systemic operation far deeper than any single administration. And that means this is a modified limited hangout.
Of course, no one knows where this eventually might lead if there were a real investigation based on this initial evidence. But it appears to be a holding pattern to me. I am dubious.
ww
For the citing of my info on the original purpose of Delphi see:
hybridrogue1 says:
May 19, 2012 at 5:16 pm
ww
hey ww,
thanks for the welcome and kind words here.
as for me ‘nudging some sense’ into drg, well…i would not presuppose that drg needs such nudging and if he is, that i should be the one to do it. on the panel, what i have been doing (as all panelists are invited to do) is vote and offer opinions and suggestions. if my input has the effect of changing things, i hope it’s for the better.
the “limited hangout” charge is a strong one. can we get a working definition of “limited hangout” and proceed from there? as i understand it from wtcdemolition.com, a limited hangout is the revelation of a small part of a larger hidden truth in order to make people think that the full truth has been revealed and that it’s time to move on, stop questioning, etc.
so, if the panel is a limited hangout, are members (some or all? if some, who?) purposefully looking to reveal a small part of a larger hidden truth in order to deceive poeple and get them to move on? if your answer is yes, i would categorically deny the charge as it applies to me. what i am doing there is voting and offering feedback, with the hope that the efforts may do some good down the line.
personally, for me, the pursuit of truth is its own reward. i have no hope that any meaningful investigation will ever emerge in our lifetimes. i do feel and believe, however, that legitimate truth seekers are planting seeds whose fruit will be borne sometime in the distant future, in about seven generations. and that there will be progress along the way.
my take for what it’s worth.
——————————————————————————–
Dennis,
The press release announcing the new consensus points was released today. One paragraph reads:
“Official sources claimed neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs of Staff Acting Chairman General Richard Myers (filling in for General Hugh Shelton), nor war-room chief General Montague Winfield were available to take command until well after the Pentagon was struck about 9:37.”
…until well after the Pentagon was struck. How do you feel about the Panel taking the position that the Pentagon was struck? Did anyone ask the members’ opinions on this wording?
craig,
i see your point. inherent in the statement is a presumption that the pentagon was actually “struck,” right? by a plane, or missile, or whatever, vs no strike whatsoever as per the flyover theory, right? assuming yes…
re: “How do you feel about the Panel taking the position that the Pentagon was struck?” “to the best of my knowledge and recollection” (to quote john “watergate” dean), at the time of the voting, i had not seen “national security alert.” so, at the time of the voting, i was not tuned into the importance of this language. now, i am. i will see what i can do. perhaps the issue has already been aired by the CIT proponents who have left the panel? of this, i have no knowledge.
re: “Did anyone ask the members’ opinions on this wording?” i would prefer not to comment on the inner workings of the panel. if i may suggest, this type of question would be better addressed to drg or elizabeth.
Hi Dennis,
You asked about the limited hangout. As a definition you have it correct. It is in how that would be applied as to who is limiting the hangout.
It would not necessarily be the personnel on the panel even. I is part of the process of the Delphi method. If this becomes a larger social issue – that is if this panels work should bear fruit, the guiding hand behind the scenes will take control through the Public Relations Regime. The great Wurlitzer as it were.
Perhaps the power behind the throne sees the regime that was in charge of carrying out the 9/11 op as a liability at this point. This could be a designed opportunity to hang them out to dry, even though that regime had its marching orders from the pinnacle of the system.
Design masquerades as Diagnosis in this system. You will notice that all of the think tank works are presented as diagnosis, with ‘suggestions’ as how to deal with the ‘problems’ diagnosed. This is a variation of the dialectic. This dialectic is driven towards a ‘solution’ through synthesis.
As all know, the answer is in the question. Get the wrong questions being asked, and the answers will reflect that, and the truth is hidden through process.
The whole goal is endless process…the “peace process” in the Middle East. It has been artificially extended for more than sixty years now. As should be recognized, the “peace process” results in war. This is the classical Orwellian concept of “war is peace”. Although I have ranged quite a bit from your direct question, all of my answer hangs together as ground for the answer to the specific question about a limited hangout.
This is just a sketch, and could be filled out with many details…but I’m sure you have a limited time to hangout here reading my ruminations {grin}.
Thanks for the work you are doing and your dedication to finding the truth, where ever it might lead.
~Willy Whitten
It all hinges upon the depth of understanding of the architecture of political power in the 21st century. I do not speak to a grand conspiracy theory, I speak to a grand systems theory.
ww
thanks, willy. i can’t say as i follow everything you say, but i think i get the drift, especially via the mideast example.
thanks for the kind words–i do what i can.
Readers here might be interested in the article by Kevin Ryan at https://digwithin.net/2012/06/15/from-renovation-to-revolution-was-the-pentagon-attacked-from-within/
I submitted a comment on Kevin’s blog saying that I found “National Security Alert” compelling, and asking Kevin why he (apparently) feels that CIT’s work is a distraction and/or unworthy of comment. As of this writing, my comment there was awaiting moderation.
I would be interested in hearing what the participants here have to say about Kevin’s article, should anyone be inclined to read and evaluate it.
Dennis,
Ryan is just like the rest of the anti-CIT cabal, he won’t debate their evidence in public. If he had a leg to stand on regarding the pentagon he would jump at the chance to debate CIT in public and “debunk” them. Kevin would want to have a showdown, so to speak, with those who are putting out what he considers disinformation wouldn’t he? That way the bad information would be debunked for all to see right? So why doesn’t he face CIT in a debate like an honorable truther would? He doesn’t because he is full of crap regarding the pentagon that’s why. Maybe his ego is so over inflated that he cannot bring himself to admit it when he is wrong or maybe he is actively working against 9/11 truth. I don’t know what his reasons are for doing what he is doing. It doesn’t matter to me what his reasons are for working against the pentagon truth movement, the fact that he is doing it tells me all I need to know about him. I strongly recommend you question ALL of Kevin Ryan’s articles and statements about 9/11 and I recommend you do your own follow up research and fact checking. I think you will find gaping holes and blatant ommissions in some of his articles.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel has just been updated to include Set 3, considerably after Craig’s blog article. See http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points .
Updating the blog article,
1. In the Point referring to Rumsfeld, the potentially libelous statement (to which I had objected but had remained unchanged) has been replaced in the published version with an uncontroversial, “Further investigation of Rumsfeld’s actual behavior on the morning of 9/11, therefore, is needed.”
2. Use of the word “attack” persists. Last Wednesday’s 9/11 leaders teleconference resolution asked that the word “attack” be eliminated as being subjectively supportive of the official story line. That resolution also queried if use of “attack” had a 85% consensus among the Panel.
The first item on bin Laden in its opening still refers to “9/11 attacks”. The second item on insider trading includes in the first sentence under “The Best Evidence” a referencing to “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks”. I didn’t feel a need for further checking.
There is no News update (at least yet).
Paul
jeeeze – i came here to read an interesting discussion invited by the subject of this article and instead i get a bunch of argumentative egotistical blockheads that clearly have more interest in jerking themselves off and being right about every last subject EXCEPT the issues of Ms Woods very interesting observations –
thanks lots for showing me another reason beyond our lying-ass government why we will never get to the truth of this event – most of you all only care that your avatar gets to puff up and be the loudest and most obnoxious.
I think you’re attaching this comment to the wrong article. Why don’t you give us the benefit of some of your observations about Judy Wood’s work?