Doing the Research

[Realityhack]

It seems to me from reading this forum from time to time that there are a lot of questions raised that are very easily answered by spending a few moments reading up on things.

There also seem to be a lot of 'theories' that have serious flaws that could be exposed with just a little time and effort to learn about the relevant topics.

Many posts are ignorant of entire fields of existing knowledge, not to mention the frequent logical fallacies.

So I guess my question is:
Do you think it is appropriate to ask a question here or demand an investigation into something before you spend time researching what is already known?

And Also
How much time/effort should someone put into finding facts on their own before asking the DU community for input on a question?

Personally I love reading some of the posts here by well educated/informed people like our resident mechanical engineers etc. I learn a lot from them. Unfortunately, I don't think I am learning as much as I could if the questions where a bit better researched.

What are your thoughts about how you would like to see discussions flow? Do you feel responsible for doing your own research? What is your response when other people raise questions about your logical assumptions or point out key information you where unaware of?

Just an evening rant I guess but I would be interested in what people thought.

[AZCat]

1. It's not just the questions that aren't well researched.

I've found myself increasingly reluctant over the years to spend time investigating or calculating something only to have the other participants in the discussion hand-wave away my answers, especially when not-so-nice labels are attached to me and people like me. This is an injustice to the other people reading the discussion, but encountering a curious mix of apathy and anger can wear a person down after a while.

[Realityhack]

2. I have always enjoyed your posts

You clearly know what you are doing and I have learned quite a bit on the research tangents I have gone on because of something you mentioned.

[AZCat]

3. Good - I'm glad.

I'd always hoped someone rational was reading my posts (other than the usual suspects). I don't pretend to know everything (regardless what petgoat claims) but that isn't necessary to understand quite a bit of the phenomena related to September 11th. Some of the topics are math-heavy, but most physics can be understood with a grasp of algebra and a little spreadsheet work. The NIST reports may have flaws (as others far more educated and experienced than me have pointed out) but they do an excellent job explaining the basics of the mechanics and thermodynamics of the pre-collapse behavior (both during and post-impact) of the buildings. Once initiated, it gets quite complicated and as far as I know nobody has seriously attempted to model the behavior post-initiation.

[Realityhack]

4. It does not seem like a serous model is needed

Once that large a chunk of the building starts falling on the sections below I would expect something exactly along the lines of the videos we see. The upper section becomes slightly skewed and is demolished as it smashes into the rest of the building with the sheer weight of material bringing the entire structure down.

A question for you... which I admit I have not done the research on.
I haven't had a chance to look into it much, but as I understand the WTC towers had significantly more of their 'structure' in the outside walls than most designs. Is it possible/likely that that helped to contain the falling debris to some extent?
It is difficult to think on that scale. It's very un-intuitive in many ways.

[AZCat]

5. I don't know about "containment"...

but you have to remember there wasn't much of a lateral force on the building fragments. Sure, there were some local collisions that spread debris, but if you've ever looked at photos of the spread of debris from the towers a lot of stuff did actually fall outside the footprint of the buildings themselves. We do know that parts of the exterior and the core stood for some time (several seconds IIRC) after the majority of the debris had hit the ground. This may have contributed to the "funneling" that you seem to be describing.

But that's just my opinion.

[Realityhack]

6. True

There wasn't much in the way of lateral force. It was really just idol conjecture on my part.

[AZCat]

7. Conjecture has value.

I just spent a week and a half on idle conjecture on my part (fortunately my work was validated). Asking questions is always welcome - it's the acceptance of answers only when they concur with your beliefs that is not welcome.

[Realityhack]

8. Confirmation bias is such an intersting phenominon...

annoying as hell though.

[petgoat]

11. LOL, AZ! Not much lateral force? How then did column trees

wind up flung all the way across West Street and Liberty Street to lodge in the
World Financial Center (500 feet away)and the Deutsche Bank building?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Because the sides of the building peeled outward and fell that far.

This isn't ejection. This is the side of the building falling out and down. You can see the "path" of perimeter columns all the way to the Winter Garden and the World Financial Center.

[petgoat]

13. Look at the upper right of your own picture

How did that massive steel structure wind up sticking out
of the 20th floor at World Financial Center 3?

Did it bounce up from the street, after peeling off the
building? Did it break off from the rest of the "peel"
after striking the building?

No, neither one of those explanations are reasonable.

(That's AZ's cue to come in and say "Yes they are, but
they're so darn complicated I'm not even going to try to
explain why, but trust me, I know.")

Those massive steel structures in WFC3 were flung 500 feet,
and they did not peel off the building as a sheet.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Look at the perimeter columns laying in a path all the way to the WFC, petgoat. n/t

[petgoat]

16. Look at the massive steel that flew 500 feet into the 20th floor of the WFC. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Pay attention, petgoat. That steel didn't "fly" there. It was attached to the side

of the building that fell outward.

That's why the perimeter columns all in a line to the WFC is important. The sides fell out and down. That piece didn't "fly" there. It was ripped off when the top of the side hit the WFC before crashing the rest of the way on the ground like that.

[petgoat]

19. Bullshit.

You're claiming that those steel structures embedded in the 20th floor of
the WFC (I'm not even sure they're perimeter column trees) were part of a
"peel" of perimeter wall that tipped off the WTC, stabbed the steel into
the WFC, and broke off to land at the base of the WFC. Can't you see that if
that happened, the broken off peel would have raked down the surface of the
wall? What you propose is impossible.

It's easy to see why you have such funny ideas about 9/11--you imagine
impossibilities to support your illusions.

Of course if we'd had a proper investigation we would have the ID numbers of
all the pieces lodged in the WFC and the pieces at the base, and we could see
if they matched up. But the authorities didn't want any matching up, did they?

[LARED]

37. "perimeter column trees"

Clearly the words of someone intimately acknowledgeable with steel structures and should feel free to comment on the collapse of the WTC

[petgoat]

41. You object to the term "perimeter column tree"? It's from FEMA 's report. You knew that, right?

Or would you rather call them "Wheatchex"?

What do you call them?

[Grateful for Hope]

47. I didn't know that

thanks for the info, Petgoat.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

14. The NIST report has done an excellent job of nothing, AZ.

By fudging the input parameters they were able to get
a collapse that according to the laws of physics should
have been localized and asymmetric.

They then assumed that any collapse at all would yield
total progressive symmetrical collapse while providing
no calculations supporting this assumption.

Their extremely dishonest study you laud as excellent.

[Realityhack]

20. Your flashing sig is a bit anoying. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

21. kinda like your posts?

[petgoat]

24. Epileptic, are you? nt

[Realityhack]

26. No just distracted by neon flashing things. n/t

[AZCat]

23. I might give a shit what you think about the report if you'd actually read it. n/t

[petgoat]

25. I might give a shit about your opinion on my post if you'd actually address the issues. nt

[Realityhack]

27. Not sure if you already addressed this.

but just for my edutainment.

Have you read the full NIST report?

[Make7]

28. "The NIST report is 10,000 pages. Nobody has read it." - petgoat ( n/t )

?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=202816&mesg_id=202939

[AZCat]

34. Nothing like a little personal incredulity to spice up an opinion. n/t

[Realityhack]

36. Why are you answering a question for a diffrent poster that you are not qualified to answer?

[AZCat]

52. He's quoting petgoat from a previous thread.

I might be able to find the link if you require it, but that's pretty much what petgoat said.

[Realityhack]

56. Oh. I didn't know.

No need for the link. It's not that surprising, and it's not like he answered my question. If the issue where in dispute I think he could do that easily enough.

[AZCat]

29. How the fuck can I address the issues...

when you refuse to educate yourself about the basics and when asked to hold up your end of the discussion take the lazy way out? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. A lazy, ignorant brick wall.

[SDuderstadt]

30. I deny that Petgoat...

is anything like brick.

[AZCat]

31. You must know petgoat better than I. n/t

[petgoat]

32. One addresses issues by addressing them. Fudged input parameters yielding a collapse initiation

model that according to the laws of physics should
have been localized and asymmetric, which was then
assumed to progress to total symmetrical collapse--
with no calculations supporting this assumption.

Their extremely dishonest study you laud as excellent.

Those are the basics, and on them it appears I am better
educated than you are.

Give it up, AZ. Have you looked at column 79?

[AZCat]

33. You can't just string words together and expect them to make sense.

You don't know jack about the "laws of physics" - that much is apparent to those of us who have read your posts over the years. More importantly, you haven't clarified what you mean by "fudged input parameters". It's possible you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Realityhack]

35. Ahh.

I was hoping *someone* might actually specify what their question about a specific input parameter was on my specific questions thread so people could perhaps help us understand things better or point out where there might be room for improvement in the model.

Alas I think I overestimated peoples intellectual capacities and may have to make a general apology for that thread.

[petgoat]

40. What is meant by "fudged input parameters" is obvious except to the wilfully blind.

When NIST's realistic computer model input parameters for airplane speed,
airplane damage, and fire damage failed to yield the desired collapse,
they simply increased the values until they got the result they wanted.

Stop feigning ignorance of the essential dishonesty of the whole NIST farce.

[Realityhack]

46. Petgoat

I must profess ignorance as to the these 'fudged input perameters'.

Could we start with just one and work our way from their so I can get a handle on it?

How about aircraft speed.
How was it originally determined?
What was that value?
What value was used later?
What if any justification was provided for the change (wither or not you like said justification)?

[AZCat]

53. Which computer model and which input parameters?

The LS-Dyna model, the ANSYS model, the SAP model or the FDS model? Please refer to specific sections of the NIST report when criticizing these models.

Of course you could always admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but I know from long experience how unlikely that is.

[Realityhack]

60. But AZCat... they fudged it, they fudged it, they fudged it!

oh never mind. I can't keep making that shit up for more than the title of the post. Intellectual dishonesty makes me feel 'dirty' (for lack of a better term).

I would be very interested (as I imagine you would be) if a specific fudge where identified in an important parameter of any of the models.

But I do not think their is a significant chance of that happening here.

[AZCat]

62. Since petgoat hasn't read the NIST report...

and has expressed no interest in doing so in the future, I think you'll be waiting a long time for specific information regarding his claim. It's a pretty common claim in the "truth movement", likely rising from the various models NIST ran and then checked against other evidence to determine which set of parameters most closely matched what really happened.

[petgoat]

72. The Fudging of NIST's computer models is discussed in Jim Hoffman's "Building a Better Mirage"

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

For each Tower, NIST created two cases. The first set of cases, North Tower case A and South Tower case C, were based on the averages of NIST's estimates of building and plane strength, impact trajectories and speeds, etc. The second set of cases, North Tower case B and South Tower case D, assumed conditions more favorable to the failure of the buildings. The enhancements adopted for Cases B and D over cases A and C are described in the following table:

North Tower South Tower
increase in impact speed 29 mph 28 mph
decrease in approach angles 3º 1º
increase in aircraft weight 5% 5%
increase in aircraft strength 25% 15%
decrease in Tower strength 20% 15%
decrease in Tower live load 20% 20%
increase in Tower fuel load 25% 25%

The Report noted that cases A and C did not produce results matching observations, so cases B and D were selected for use in its four-step modeling.

Since the Report does not provide any evidence that NIST was able to model its alleged "collapse initiation" in which the "upper building section" began tilting and then moving downward (as noted in NIST's "Global Analysis"), one might ask why they bothered to fudge their models. Perhaps NIST's detailed descriptions of its substitution of cases B and D to for cases A and C is a dissembling tactic. Showcasing the adjustment of parameters to favor the failure of its computer-modeled buildings draws attention away from the lack of any evidence that NIST's models predicted building failure at all.

I'm flattered to see that the clowns think that discussing me is more important than discussing the
issues.

[Diane_nyc]

42. "Fudged input parameters" and Kevin Ryan

The reference to "fudged input parameters" appears to be derived from Kevin Ryan's critiques of the NIST report:

• http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html">Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories by Kevin Ryan


• http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html">Jim Hoffman’s review of a presentation by Kevin Ryan


• http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf">What is 9/11 Truth? The First Steps (PDF) by Kevin Ryan


• http://stj911.org/ryan/NIST_Responses.html">Kevin Ryan’s response to the http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm">NIST FAQ

Are you aware of any concise but substantive and reasonably thorough response to Kevin Ryan's objections to the NIST report?

The last time I asked someone this question, I was referred to a very long paper by Ryan Mackey critiquing David Ray Griffin's work. Mackey's paper is said to include a critique of Kevin Ryan's work as filtered through Griffin. Mackey's paper is on my future reading list but not a high priority for me, since I don't expect Griffin, a theologian, to be very knowledgeable about technical matters in the first place.

I would give higher priority to reading a direct critique of Kevin Ryan's work itself. Unfortunately, most such critiques I've come across have focussed on attacking his credentials rather than on the substance of Kevin Ryan's objections to the NIST report.

If you know of a more substantive (and direct) critique, I would appreciate it very much if you could refer me to it.

[AZCat]

54. I haven't read anything of Ryan's other than his original letter to the NIST.

That was full of errors, and from what I've heard he has not improved the quality of his arguments. I'd be happy to provide a critique of his letter, but reading and critiquing anything else would take more time and I'm not sure if it is worth the effort.

[Diane_nyc]

70. Yes, I would be interested to see your critique of K. Ryan's original letter. nt

[dailykoff]

98. So would I. (n/t)

[AZCat]

99. I sent you a PM. n/t

[Realityhack]

57. What *specificaly* is wrong with column 79?

and what exactly do you base that on?

As far as I can tell that seems to be a reasonable working hypothesis. So what specifically should I re-examine and why?

[LARED]

38. PG. what "laws of physics" states the collapse should

be localized and asymmetrical?

[dailykoff]

43. Good point. The NIST report is an appalling piece of shit.

Totally deceptive, mostly by omission. I've read it, I've posted on it, and I've seen no evidence that AZcat has ever read anything but digested flak in trade mags.

[Diane_nyc]

44. Could you please provide links to some of your specific criticisms of the NIST report? nt

[dailykoff]

49. Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

[Diane_nyc]

51. I replied to that post. But what about the NIST report itself?

In the thread you referred me to, the O.P. doesn't contain any specific criticisms of the NIST report per se. Your post just contains what you consider to be your own "proof" that the WTC buildings were demolished. Can you provide any specific criticisms of any of the specific contents of the NIST report itself?

Anyhow, I've posted a reply in the thread you referred me to.

[dailykoff]

59. The discussion I had in mind starts in post #235

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=131889

I answered your question more directly in the thread.

[Realityhack]

95. Checked it out.

you had no idea what you where talking about.

[dailykoff]

97. Any specific points or objections? (n/t)

[Realityhack]

45. Please feel free

to post specific objections to the technical material in the NIST report on my technical questions thread.

[dailykoff]

48. It's not a report, it's a fantasy. It lacks the most basic documentation.

Without the structural drawings and specifications it's completely worthless except as propaganda.

[Realityhack]

50. OK.

So post that as a specific objection. You think the structural drawings as specifications should be released in full.

I honestly have no idea which bits and pieces may already be out there.

You raise a valid point that seeing that information would be good.

[AZCat]

55. The NIST has no right to release either the blueprints or the specifications to the public.

The NIST does not hold the copyright to these documents.

[dailykoff]

58. "Source: Reproduced with permission of The Port Authority of New York

and New Jersey." That's the caption below a detail drawing on page NIST NCSTAR 1-1A 46, which is reproduced from a set drawn by Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, whose name is on the drawing.

In other words, the NIST was given full access to all available documents, a point they make repeatedly in the report, and apparently also had permission to reproduce whatever they thought was relevant. Well, ALL the construction documents are relevant, and they haven't reproduced them.

[AZCat]

61. Permission isn't always granted to reproduce full documents.

Besides, who in the "truth movement" is qualified to read the documents in the first place? Gage? He's a fucking idiot. I wouldn't trust him to do the shell building for a strip mall.

[dailykoff]

63. The report has multiple appendices stuffed with xeroxed construction documents,

most of them totally irrelevant, but nowhere in the entire mess have I found one original floor framing plan. Amd as I said, the report repeatedly mentions the full cooperation they had from Skillington's office, Roberston, the PA, and the city, so permission to reproduce was clearly not the problem.

[AZCat]

64. Then why don't you ask the NIST why they don't reproduce them, instead of whining about it? n/t

[dailykoff]

71. I already know why they didn't include them.

There's a pattern of omitted information, at least one anyway, relating to the construction of the floors. The NIST collapse theories are extremely vague and improbable, but to the extent that they exist, depend largely on magical behaviors by the floors, and accurate information would show them to be ridiculous.

[Diane_nyc]

39. I'm sure this must be very frustrating. I have a suggestion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212266">AZCat wrote:

I've found myself increasingly reluctant over the years to spend time investigating or calculating something only to have the other participants in the discussion hand-wave away my answers, especially when not-so-nice labels are attached to me and people like me. This is an injustice to the other people reading the discussion, but encountering a curious mix of apathy and anger can wear a person down after a while.

In my experience, people naturally tend to dismiss criticism from people they perceive as their opponents. For example, progressives tend not to listen to criticism from right-wingers, and vice versa. Similarly, people with strong suspicions about 9/11 are unlikely to take seriously criticism from people who seem impatient to dismiss their concerns.

It seems to me that many people are more apt to listen to people who are actively sympathetic to at least some of their concerns. So, with the aim of determining whether you have any significant common ground with most of the people here, I'd like to ask you some questions:

What are your thoughts about the 9/11 Commission? Do you agree with most of us here that Philip Zelikow's conflicts of interest were a problem, compounded Hamilton's and Kean's go-easy approach, most likely resulted in significant non-revelation about the administration's failures (or possibly worse?)?

If so, I would suggest that you write (preferably in a separate thread) some posts about what you consider to be legitimate areas of suspicion regarding 9/11.

It seems to me that people with strong suspicions about 9/11 are more apt to listen to people who actively share at least some of their suspicions than to people who come across as consistent official-story defenders. By "actively share," I mean not just an occasional brief mention that one has such suspicions, but actually talking or writing about those suspicions in some detail, thereby showing that you care, and thereby also providing a positive example of how you would like to see the cause of 9/11 accountability advocated.

So, my suggestion to you is that you not only criticize what you see as unsound approaches to the topic, but also try to lead by example, pointing the way to a sounder approach to the matter of calling for a new investigation or otherwise calling for greater government accountability regarding 9/11.

If you can make a frequent point of spending time on the latter, then more people will be likely to perceive your criticisms as constructive.

[Diane_nyc]

73. P.S.: To any debunkers who are at all interested in my suggestion of setting a positive example ....

Below are some threads that might perhaps help you get started ....

(Of course, if you have better ideas, that would be even better.)



The 9/11 Commission:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=193287&mesg_id=193287">WTF?-Rove-decided what we were to believe about 9/11?-"The Uncensored History of 9/11 Investigation"


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=213291&mesg_id=213291">Members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

Important specific questions about 9/11:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196617&mesg_id=196617">FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report (raising questions about a possible Saudi role)


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=182140&mesg_id=182140">9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211500&mesg_id=211500">Phila. law firm wages an epic legal battle to win billions from Saudi Arabia. Click here to hide this thread


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=176166&mesg_id=176166">Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211539&mesg_id=211539">Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210030">9/11 Insider Trading

Meta-questions:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211181&mesg_id=211181">Is a new 9/11 investigation necessary? (poll)


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211373">what are the three biggest problems


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=165321&mesg_id=165321">Constructive Criticism of 911 sceptics


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211607">Let's say a new investigation of 9/11 begins...

The anthrax attacks:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=213631&mesg_id=213631">But there is surely a point after which incompetence becomes an insufficient explanation for failure (about the FBI's anthrax investigation)


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212821&mesg_id=212821">US to settle former Army scientist's anthrax suit

About official-story defenders:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206792&mesg_id=206792">The Official Story


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211166&mesg_id=211166">The Official Story, Part Deux (more detail, 2004, from Justicefor911.org)


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206336&mesg_id=206336">What is the goal of 9/11 debunkers?


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=203375&mesg_id=203375">Since OCTers hate it when people "just ask questions"


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=213637&mesg_id=213637">Detailed account of how the perception management operation worked ended up on editing room floor

(To debunkers who don't want to be thought of as official-story defenders, please see my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212753">I'm sure this must be very frustrating. I have a suggestion.)

[SDuderstadt]

75. I've got a better idea, Diane....

This whole idea that we are "official story defenders" is a total red herring and a product of illogical thinking. Beyond that, it's a rhetorical tool to deflect valid criticism of conspiracy theories, illogical questions and just plain, downright laziness on the part of some (not all) truthers. For the record, the burden of proof is not on the "debunkers" to prove the "official story", it's on the "truth movement" (and most clearly on the CT's within that community) to prove their claims. All we have to do to debunk is, as I have said many times, point out how the "truth community" has not met the burden of proof.

Instead of "suggesting" we modify our behavior, why don't you guys modify yours? We're not obligated to point to whatever "qualms" we have about the "official story" (which is, in itself, a rhetorical tool designed to divert attention away from the lack of proof for most of the claims made by the "truth community"), we need simply to point to the lack of proof that accompanies "just asking questions". No one that I know of is opposed to simply "asking questions". It's asking the same questions over and over, while waving away scientific or expert evidence (on the grounds that anyone who "defends the official story" must somehow be a RWer or government shill) as suspect (the funniest thing I've ever heard is that "911myths.com is a neocon site" - of course, the first clue that it isn't is the absence of any real political agenda) and, thus, irrelevant or, worse yet, "propaganda".

For the record, I know a great number of liberals (myself included) who are simply cognizant of the fact that the CT contingent of the "truth movement" cannot offer a coherent narrative for their claims nor, seemingly, do simple math (for crying out loud, take the common CT's and try to figure out how many people must have been "in on it" to pull it off, then try to tell me that is more plausible than the "official story"). I'll freely admit my bias here, in that, I read Bugliosi's monumental study of JFK's assassination in great detail and paid particularly close attention to the chapters in which he thoroughly debunked the common JFK CT's in painstaking depth, as well as the chapters devoted to conspiracy theories and theorists in general.

It's not hard to see the same fallacies (confirmation bias, strawman arguments and red herrings) that typify the JFK assassination CT's running through the "truth movement". Conspiracy theorists often ask ill-informed questions or even assert CT's in the form of a question, which largely indicates one of their prevalent problems is their inability to, not only, ask hard questions of themselves and their beliefs but, more importantly, their unwillingness to subject their own fantasies to the same standards of proof they demand of the "official story". I encountered the same silly myopia during the Clinton years with RWers who had read the "Clinton Body Count" and began to pass it off as truth without even so much as engaging their brains to question whether the claims could be remotely true (I mean, honestly, how anyone could claim someone who died of viral pneumonia was "suicided" is beyond me). In the Snopes.com (which, believe it or not, has also been described by some as a "propaganda site") debunking of the "Clinton Body Count" CT, Barbara Mikkelson did an excellent job of presenting the "tactics" that nearly all conspiracy theorists rely upon (and which can convince people who don't think critically, thus creating "false certainty") and I believe it makes sense to present those "tactics" here. Although they are most relevant to the "mysterious deaths related to the JFK assassination" or the previously mentioned "Clinton Body Count", hopefully many who read this will see the parallels to the average 9/11 CT.

List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of Clinton's mother's chiropractor.

Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious". All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious", even though, by definition, accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed". Make liberal use of words such as "allegedly" and "supposedly" to dismiss facts you can't contradict with hard evidence.

Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."

If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claim to have the most damaging goods on Clinton - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr - are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.

Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumnia as a "suicide", do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff...

It's not a perfect fit, but I see many of the same tactics employed above by well-intentioned, yet equally mistaken, "truthers". The most obvious example is "long lists" (read ponderously long and incoherent) which parallel some postings here. I'm nearly certain that many (not most or all) readers plod through them, saying, "Yup...this is well researched so it must be true", an obvious example of "false certainty". There are a number of "truthers" who dutifully post endless YouTube videos or screeds by obvious CT sources only to be met by readers who uncritically accept it as fact and express their gratitude for the poster "bringing out the truth here". I never see these tactics employed by us so-called "OCT defenders". You should ask yourself why.

[Diane_nyc]

76. WHY don't you WANT to set a positive example?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213765">SDuderstadt wrote:

75. I've got a better idea, Diane....

This whole idea that we are "official story defenders" is a total red herring and a product of illogical thinking.

No, it's quite logical. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212534">I've explained my reasoning here. (See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212598">my subsequent post here.)

Beyond that, it's a rhetorical tool to deflect valid criticism

Can you name any group of humans, especially any political group, that takes kindly to any group of outsiders who have nothing to offer except criticism?

For the record, the burden of proof is not on the "debunkers" to prove the "official story", it's on the "truth movement" (and most clearly on the CT's within that community) to prove their claims. All we have to do to debunk is, as I have said many times, point out how the "truth community" has not met the burden of proof.

The 9/11 Truth movement wasn't origiaally and should not be, in my opinion, primarily about promoting any particular theory. It should be primarily about pointing to as-yet unanswered questions and calling for government accountability.

Instead of "suggesting" we modify our behavior, why don't you guys modify yours?

There are changes I would encourage on both sides. Why does this have to be an either/or?

More to the point, I'm asking you to make a modification which would, in turn, facilitate the kinds of modification you say you desire on the part of people in the 9/11 Truth movement.

We're not obligated to point to whatever "qualms" we have about the "official story"

Of course, you have the right to say or not say whatever you want. My point here has nothing to do with abstract obligations, but rather with the question of whether you would like to become more effective at getting more people to listen to you rather than just dismiss you as a highly biased oppenent. You spend an awful lot of time here in this forum. Wouldn't you like, perhaps, to have a little more return on your huge investment of time? Perhaps not. But, if you would like more of the people here to listen to you and take your criticisms seriously, then, well, I've told you what you can do.

Ever heard the saying, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

You've said that you support a new investigation. That being the case, why not set a positive example of how you think we should go about calling for a new investigation?

No one that I know of is opposed to simply "asking questions". It's asking the same questions over and over, while waving away scientific or expert evidence (on the grounds that anyone who "defends the official story" must somehow be a RWer or government shill) as suspect

Okay then, why can't you spend a little time pointing us to what you think are the valid questions? Why not lead by example?

Please don't answer by telling me you're not obligated to. The question here isn't about obligations.

Rather, my question is why you don't want to do something that (1) would most likely make you much more effective at what you say you are trying to do here (discourage unsound thinking) and (2) at the same time advance a cause you say you support (a new investigation).

Do you or do you not want the average reader of this forum to listen to you and take you seriously? If not, why not?

[SDuderstadt]

77. I'm hoping the "average reader" will look at some of the really....

unsupportable claims of both the CT's and other "truthers" and decide for themselves as to what needs to be done. I'm also not particularly convinced that a new 9/11 investgation is likely and I also feel that ample resources exist other than an "official investigation". It's the "truth movement" that needs to sharpen its focus.

My "qualms" about the "official story" have mostly to do with the Bush administration's efforts to escape accountability for their negligence prior to 9/11 and their exploitation of it after the fact to engage in clearly illegal and unconstitutional conduct. I am much more disposed to indictment and prosecution of Bush and Cheney, which will probably go much further towards the aims of some in the truth movement. Frankly, my biggest reticence about discussing my "qualms" about the "official story" is that it will be hijacked by certain "truthers" and held up as proof of something I never ever said or even implied. It's a given that I don't trust either Bush or Cheney. Unfortunately, there are some parts of the "truth movement" I trust even less.

[dailykoff]

78. The "average reader" wouldn't be here if the OCT passed the sniff test.

Nobody wants to believe their own government would pull something as monumentally, biblically, sickeningly rotten as 911. But the story doesn't hold water and the closer you look at it, whatever part you look at, the more you realize that, in fact, they did. So the debunkers can be as sweet as Mr. Rogers and they still won't catch any flies.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Give us the narrative that is more plausible than the....

"official story". Why is that so hard?

[dailykoff]

80. Real estate scam with Pearl Harbor payoff.

Politically and financially profitable for all major players and many secondary ones. Lethal for insiders not on board. PERIOD.

[SDuderstadt]

81. I think you need to be a lot more specific than that...

I'd also like specifics about how it could have been pulled off, not some bullshit scenario label.

[dailykoff]

82. My suggestion is to buy a copy of David Griffin's New Pearl Harbor

and start there. There are free versions all over the place including print and audio on the web. This stuff has been out there for at least five years, and it would take a lot more than one post to explain it all. But at least you're curious so this would be a great time to catch up!

[SDuderstadt]

83. I should have known that's where you're getting this bullshit...

I don't want to read it again for myself. I want YOU to explain, not parrot DRG's nonsense.

[dailykoff]

84. It answers your questions.

But I see you're not looking for answers.

[SDuderstadt]

87. No, I'm looking for facts, DK...

not your conjecture based upon the writings of DRG

[dailykoff]

88. Griffin's book is a starting point.

He doesn't cover everything, but he answers the basic who-what-where-why. There are some things he doesn't get into that are covered better elsewhere, but if you're looking for the basic alternative narrative, there it is.

[SDuderstadt]

89. It's also rife with errors....

not that you'd care, of course.

[dailykoff]

93. Hard to comment without specifics.

In any case, it's far more credible than the government issued reports, which are rife with bald-faced lies.

[Diane_nyc]

86. Are ALL the many criticisms of the official story correct? Are NONE wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213836">dailykoff wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213810">SDuderstadt's reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213806">a post by me:

Reply #78: The "average reader" wouldn't be here if the OCT passed the sniff test.

That is true.

However, ddon't you think that there have been both valid and invalid criticisms of the official story? Or do you believe that all criticisms of the official story are correct?

Do you not think we should aim to present only valid criticisms and avoid the invalid criticisms?

So the debunkers can be as sweet as Mr. Rogers and they still won't catch any flies.

Indeed they probably would not succeed in persuading many people that the official story is entirely correct. However, isn't it possible that the "debunkers" might have caught at least some genuinely invalid criticisms of the official story?

And don't you think more people would be inclined to listen to what they have to say - not necessarily to believe it, but at least to consider it seriously - if, instead of consistently defending the official story, the "debunkers" were to spend at least some significant portion of their time discussing their own problems with the official story, as well as criticizing other people's criticisms of the official story?

(Many "debunkers" say that they do have their own problems with the 9/11 Commission Report. But, for whatever reasons, they rarely discuss those problems beyond an occasional vague mention.)

[dailykoff]

90. To some extent, yes.

For one thing, the most "extreme" claims have over time come to correspond most closely with the evidence: no planes, nukes, Stephen Jones is CIA, fakery galore. Maybe not DEW but I'm not ruling anything out. So to me the only clearly invalid criticisms of the OTC are the tepid LIHOP tsk-tsks for not paying enough attention to the intel reports. That's basically the official fiction and that kind of hooey strikes me as obvious disinformation.

[Diane_nyc]

91. No planes? Never mind. I consider no-planes claims to be self-evidently nutty. nt

[dailykoff]

92. What exactly are you trying to learn here?

Just wondering.

[Diane_nyc]

85. Bush administration's negligence prior to 9/11 and subsequent illegal and unconstitutional conduct

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213810">SDuderstadt wrote:

Reply #77: I'm hoping the "average reader" will look at some of the really...

As far as I am aware, there has been no scientific survey to determine the characteristics of the "average reader" of this forum. But I think it's a reasonable guess that the vast majority of readers would be people with a strong interest in the question of what really happened on 9/11, and that the majority of such people, in turn, are likely to believe strongly that there is something amiss with the official story

I'm also not particularly convinced that a new 9/11 investgation is likely

Typo noted ("investgation"). You're human.

and I also feel that ample resources exist other than an "official investigation".

It seems to me that there are many issues that cannot be resolved without subpoena power - or, at the very least, access to all the papers collected by the 9/11 Commission. Of course, there are some issues that can be resolved just by more diligent research into matters already made public, or with the aid of FOIA requests, but that's certainly not true of all the important 9/11-related issues.

My "qualms" about the "official story" have mostly to do with the Bush administration's efforts to escape accountability for their negligence prior to 9/11

What are some specific examples of what you would consider to be the Bush administration's negligence prior to 9/11?

and their exploitation of it after the fact to engage in clearly illegal and unconstitutional conduct.

What specific actions of theirs do you deem to be clearly illegal and unconstitutional?

I am much more disposed to indictment and prosecution of Bush and Cheney, which will probably go much further towards the aims of some in the truth movement.

For what specific crimes do you think there is the greatest likelihood that Bush and Cheney could be successfully prosecuted?

Frankly, my biggest reticence about discussing my "qualms" about the "official story" is that it will be hijacked by certain "truthers" and held up as proof of something I never ever said or even implied.

If there are specific kinds of misinterpretations you fear, I would suggest that you include disclaimers aimed at forestalling those particular kinds of misinterpretations. If your posts are misinterpreted anyway, you can always quote and link back to them. In my experience, that usually settles misunderstandings pretty quickly. (I see that you already have a DU journal, which should make it easier for you to keep track of your own posts.)

It's a given that I don't trust either Bush or Cheney. Unfortunately, there are some parts of the "truth movement" I trust even less.

I should point out that some "debunkers" have been known to misrepresent other people's opinions as well. (See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=213476">this post by Boloboffin and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=213605">this subsequent post by me.)

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. I hadn't really spent much time on studying 9-11 myself, but found myself coming here

to the 9-11 forum when I got bored in GD. I read a lot here before I ever posted in this forum. 99% of my reading about 9-11 is done right here. I've read some really great posts from both sides of the argument, and I've agreed with some things on both sides of the fence. I usually just read what I can here, then make my own mind up about what I think and/or believe.

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with asking questions to people who seem to know more than you do about something. That's how you learn, isn't it? I don't want to have to search through 900 other sites to find something out when I know there are people here who have already weeded out the bullshit and can give you a straight answer.

Someone who has spent the time learning all this stuff should be proud to share their knowledge with those who are truly seeking to learn... and find answers to legitimate questions. They may sound like dumb questions to some of you, but you *should* take it as a compliment that someone is seeking *your* input and knowledge in their quest to find answers.

Lots of people pay good money for the education you can get right here on DU.... lots of good people on here..

Peace!

Ghost

[Realityhack]

18. I am glad to hear you are learning things

How do you judge between various responses without outside information from other sites?

Also, to what degree do you think it would be incumbent upon you to do independent research before putting forward a complicated theory vs. asking a question?

Finally, do you think the tone of a question can be adequately judged online? That is, is it always clear that a question is 'innocent' information gathering vs. a challenge?
For example: 'Did anyone ever look into X?' might be able to be taken more than one way in various contexts.

I hope I am not coming across badly I am just interested in your thoughts on the subject as you have been nice enough to reply to my topic.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. I've always said that the day I stop learning is the day I die....

"How do you judge between various responses without outside information from other sites?"

I just try to keep an open mind to what's being discussed here. I've clicked on a few links that were put out here, and I've read the NIST report on the Twin Towers and the preliminary report on WTC7. I can read both sides objectively right here, as I have stated before. Even though we may have differences of opinions, I know I can take some of the guys on 'the other side' seriously. AZCat, jberryhill & Flatulo have my utmost respect and when they say something, I give it some serious thought and attention. In short, I don't want my mind all junked up with bullshit from other sites since some of them are deemed "hate sites" and such...

"Also, to what degree do you think it would be incumbent upon you to do independent research before putting forward a complicated theory vs. asking a question?"

I do a little searching around, but as stated, draw most of my info, and conclusions, from here. That's also why I don't really put out any "complicated theories", but I do have the ability to go down those real dark paths and ask "what if"? I can do that from following a conversation that's going on.

"Finally, do you think the tone of a question can be adequately judged online? That is, is it always clear that a question is 'innocent' information gathering vs. a challenge?
For example: 'Did anyone ever look into X?' might be able to be taken more than one way in various contexts."

I lurked and read for a longggggg time (2 years) before I ever signed up here, then I lurked and read in this forum for a while longer before I ever posted in it. It's not hard to learn someone's personality by observing their posts over a long period of time... Of course it's harder to tell in the beginning with new posters, but you can pick up on them over time. It usually doesn't take long to tell if someone is here to merely disrupt and distort/divide or if they are genuinely interested in the subject of 9-11.

"I hope I am not coming across badly I am just interested in your thoughts on the subject as you have been nice enough to reply to my topic."

No worries, you came across just fine. There was nothing out of line and you raised legitimate questions and points. Honest and open debate and conversation are the keys to getting answers, imho. One thing you'll find out about me is the fact that I can vehemently disagree with you about one thing, but agree with you 100% on something else. That's important to remember: Just because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we're gonna disagree on everything...


PEACE!

Ghost

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

66. There are strong parallels between this forum and

moon landing conspiracy sites as well as Creationsit/Itelligent Design sites.

The proponents of the CTs seems to be the biggest jerks in discussions. Some are friendly and polite, but almost all of the jerks are CTers, not debunkers in my experience. Many are not interested in finding truth, they are interested in evangelizing, attacking anyone who is on the other side, and categorizing the other side as shills, government plants, and people who otherwise are not individuals interested in debate and discussion.

And in all three cases, the CTs often do not understand the science more than superficially, but think they do. Creationists trying to talk about the laws of Thermodynamics and molucular evolution, moonies trying to discuss how a Lunar Module descends to the moon or how objects behave in a vacuum, or 911 truthers who do not understand structural engineering or physics while trumpeting so-called contradictions of basic engineering or the laws off physics - they all come off similarly.

Having qualms about the 911 Commission itself (like I do) is not the same as assuming the NIST deliberately covered op thousands of things or is so incompetent that a simple observation by a CTer will blow their work out of the water. It's comical to think so.

I'm pretty sure that if we built one more trade center tower then crashed an unmanned 767 into it and it once again again collapsed after a fire, many of the most strident Truthers (certainly the biggest jerks among them) would not be convinced at all that the towers came down the way 99.9% of structural engineers believe they did. So I salute the posters providing calculations and explanations of technical matters. Many questions are actual requests for information or clarification, but many are attempted traps and hostility. And by the way, I have a BS in Civil Engineering, so I am on the side of all of the world's civil/structural engineers in this matter.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Extremely well said...

however, the CT's will attack it as wrong for the very reasons it is right. It is almost an anti-science, anti-reason backlash that I find very troubling.

[dailykoff]

68. No one is saying a "simple observation" of the NIST report blows it out of the water.

It's a fortress of misleading information distributed over dozens of unlinked, unindexed jumbo .pdf files. So it's not exactly an easy nut to crack, and isn't meant to be. But once you get the hang of it, it's pretty clear to see how the game is being played, and the game is a coverup for what were obviously carefully planned and executed demolitions.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Oh, bullshit, Dailykoff....

This is just more of your usual nonsense.

[Diane_nyc]

74. Could you please tell us (perhaps in another thread) about your qualms about the 9/11 CR?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213527">Donkey_Punch_Dubya wrote:

Having qualms about the 911 Commission itself (like I do)

Could you please tell us (perhaps in a separate thread) about your qualms about the 9/11 Commission Report?

(Please see my earlier post titled: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212753">I'm sure this must be very frustrating. I have a suggestion.)

[Realityhack]

94. Well said.

and an excellent observation IMO.

[SidDithers]

96. Good post...nt

Sid