The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.

Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Discussion of the truth movement organizations and their leadership and as well as leading critics and opposing organizations.

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby ozeco41 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:36 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:...add BasqueArch to the list:
.....Oooh, let's add a dash of condescension to the raw stupid, shall we?

The only other person participating (at this time) in the discussion between BasqueArch and femr2 is Oystein, and Oystein gets it, and what Oystein gets is that femr2 is right....

There is a bit of "one small step for mankind...." type of progress showing through the noise.
Recall that BasqueArch led the character assassination move on JREF against femr2 and/or Major_Tom whenever it was last year. Part of that was the banishing of some of M_T's work off the 9/11 forum - a bad moderating call apparently swayed by weight of dishonest/stupid claims. (I am still agnostic on the issue of biased intent in moderation over there. Only on intent BTW.)

femr2's patience seems to be paying off recently BA has been discussing mostly politely with femr2 in that three way discussion which includes Oystein. His technical claims may still be way off. He may still be determined to prove femr2 wrong BUT he is at least discussing the technical issues rather than concentrating on falsely based personal attacks.

That is a big step away from the hostile animosity of last year where no technical issue would have been discussed in the face of the personal antagonism. Recall my code phrase about "blue sky" :wink: *see footnote

Naturally we still have the beachnut types making snide "miss the point" comments - but they are not intruding on the femr2/Oystein/BA three way at this time.

Far better for Oystein to be in it than me - I would almost certainly go so hard on the meta-process aspects that my contribution would be useless. So I have been monitoring progress but not intruding.

Bottom line is that femr2 is gaining credibility.

But there is a long way to go. I get more opportunities to praise Major_Toms work - especially the identification of how the Twin Towers perimeters "peeled off". Several references to that work in recent weeks including suggesting to ChrisMohr that he refer to it in support of his epic interaction with Gage and AE911Truth - both "sides" still seeing the "thrown girders" as resulting from explosions or air blasts.

Despite my default position of "if femr2 says it he is almost certainly right" his detailed motion studies on WTC7 are off my focus of interest so I cannot add meaningfully to discussion. Again better it be Oystein - he doesn't pull punches and his reasoning and analysis skills are as good as anyone's.

So signs of progress with femr2's patience winning through BUT at the current rate of progress I'd better word up my 5 year old grand son to watch for results.



* Footnote - for those who don't know the issue. I have said, mostly in the context of JREF polarised antagonism, that should a person who the JREF mob have branded "truther" claim that "the cloudless daytime sky is blue" the mob would line up to denounce that person and the blueness of sky would be strenuously denied.

So if you ever see me refer to 'blue sky" - usually in a brief comment for femr2 - you will know the code.

BTW I have explained it several times on JREF but the "corporate memory" over there is very short on process issues. So the inherent sarcasm and the point of the comment goes over the heads...
ozeco41
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

 

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby ozeco41 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:51 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:..The problem is that the domain of quality of this measurement is already at the 97% mark of diminishing returns.

True.

IMO the even bigger issue is that all the players seem to have lost sight of why they are discussing it.

"When you are up to your arse in alligators it is easy to forget that the objective was "drain the swamp'"

Some of the mixed up/confused/forgotten objectives in downwards order of hierarchy of those objectives:
10)Determine whether WTC was CD'd
20) Understand the mechanisms of collapse for WTC7
30) Determine whether NISTs collapse explanation is plausible
31) Ditto for the Girder Walkoff initiation subset of the above
40) Determine whether NISTs collapse explanation is correct and the only one
41) Ditto for the Girder Walkoff initiation subset of the above
50) Argue round in circles about FFA - multiple sub issues - including
51) The so called "truther meme" that FFA always and only means CD
52) several others
60) Understand measurement techniques as applied to WTC7
61) Resolve disparities of techniques - three main contestants being femr2, NIST and Chandler
70) Apply measurements data to whatever objectives the participants may have as their priority
80) Do the measurements because you enjoy doing it

That will do for now.... :oops:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:10 pm

femr2's classy and measured replies to the above over at JREF - merit worthy of note. BasqueArch doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding the nature of the data acquisition and processing, but is so arrogantly certain that femr2 is expressing sour grapes - because there are certainly better ways to do this job than femr2 did it. Why? Because femr2 is thought of as a 'truther', and it is an article of faith that truthers must be wrong if a debunker doesn't understand something.

When you don't know what you're talking about, and what you're sure is wrong is right, and what you think is right is certainly wrong, what does that make you?

Hint: thread title.

I no longer have the restraint to hold my tongue, if I ever did. Hats off, femr2.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:32 pm

ozeco41 wrote:
OneWhiteEye wrote:...add BasqueArch to the list:
.....Oooh, let's add a dash of condescension to the raw stupid, shall we?

The only other person participating (at this time) in the discussion between BasqueArch and femr2 is Oystein, and Oystein gets it, and what Oystein gets is that femr2 is right....

There is a bit of "one small step for mankind...." type of progress showing through the noise.

I do see improvement. And, make no mistake, I recognize the instances in other contexts where BasqueArch has been correct and resoundingly so, usually within a narrow subset of his professional field. I omit the positive intentionally in my assessment, not because of the severity or frequency of error, but because of the manner in which the error is expressed.

When I don't know much about a subject, I'm pretty clear on what my limitations are. I know when I know something, I know when I don't know something, I know when I'm guessing and speculating and talking out of my ass. I try to identify the differences when I make assertions, so others are clear and know that I'm clear. I also know how to resolve my ignorance on a subject by asking the right questions and strive to achieve an objective level of understanding before I assume something is wrong (unless there's an overriding principle like energy conservation at play). I know that I can understand most things if I'm interested enough and apply myself properly, and have the self-awareness to realize when I've achieved a level of understanding sufficient to confirm or refute a claim.

If all's said and done, and all I have is faith and belief, then I'll identify it as such.

BasqueArch operates purely from faith in this series of posts. Whether he knows this or not (I'd say not) is unimportant towards judging his overall intellectual faculties. If he knows his conclusion is faith-based, he's talking another talk, including writing checks his butt can't cash. If he doesn't know he's operating on faith, then it's just one more thing he's clueless about.

I can't respect that. These are literally people who don't know how to think. They've mastered one field, apparently by rote, and thinks it makes them master of all they survey.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby femr2 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:41 pm

Why thank-you. It interesting to see how perspectives have changed.

I was never too concerned about the derived data :) More interested in what moves and when.

Haven't really touched any of the data for a year. Maybe I'll finalise the cam#3 data (with +/-0.01px static region variance ;) )

I guess sub-pixel accurate tracing really is possible. Who would have known ? [sarky]Lucky those boffins at JREF were around to solve the mystery eh[/sarky]

It would be interesting, really interesting, to see the results of someone NEW having a go at extracting motion data and generating acceleration data from it...using the Dan Rather footage especially.

We collectively went through lord-knows how many refinements along the way.

Side-lined into it all really...was getting somewhere with the impact trajectory stuff...and async impact model...and exporting motion data to 3dstudio...and... :)
femr2
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:49 pm

Yep :)
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby ozeco41 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:47 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:... Why? Because femr2 is thought of as a 'truther', and it is an article of faith that truthers must be wrong if a debunker doesn't understand something...

That's the target of my "blue sky" hidden sarcasm comment. And for the worst offenders the conditional "...if a debunker doesn't understand something..." is redundant.

So it is: "it is an article of faith that truthers must be wrong" for the mob over there BUT quite a few emerging who respect femr's work.

AND anyone who doesn't become a paid up member of the club and fully toe the party line is a "truther" on JREF. So femr2 and Major_Tom have been classed truther despite AFAICS never having made any comments in the last couple of years that were other than strictly neutral technical and objective. Begging a few "bite backs" by femr in last years sessions which he has avoided this time round. Why he needs to avoid any biting back whilst others attack with impunity is another example of the bias but I needn't explore it here. M_T's situation is somewhat different due to his posting style but his technical material is first class and objective. Achimspok and enik not all that regular on the JREF scene. And I worry some of them on JREF because I won't toe the line. I can still get "over the top" reactions by praising M_T's work on perimeter peel off or suchlike. And I don't go aggressive in strong support of femr/M_T because that would be counter productive.

I can see ironies in the fact that those who attack femr and M_T include one who routinely digs up years old "evidence" and uses it as if current. If either of our friends formerly held views more to that side and they now have progressed towards middle ground that shift reveals more learning that the "stuck with my 2006 understanding and nothing will shift me" of quite a few JREFers including some big names. The extreme Bazantophiles being one such group as Major_Tom, pgimeno and I know from the experience we had by daring to question God...

Most JREFers don't even accept the distinction between truther and troll where I think there are several pure trolls on JREF 9/11 and I give benefit of doubt to those who seem to hold genuine truth movement type concerns but occasionally venture into trolling.

So it is binary polarised and didn't a US President decree "you're either with us, or against us"?? Is a Presidential decree binding on US people? :wink:

OneWhiteEye wrote:... Hats off, femr2.

Definitely.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:12 pm

ozeco41 wrote:
OneWhiteEye wrote:... Why? Because femr2 is thought of as a 'truther', and it is an article of faith that truthers must be wrong if a debunker doesn't understand something...

That's the target of my "blue sky" hidden sarcasm comment. And for the worst offenders the conditional "...if a debunker doesn't understand something..." is redundant.

Yeah, you're right about that, and it's no small point. Some of those, I think, are closet truthers. It's just more important for them to be part of what they perceive to be the winning side than to pursue any lingering questions they may have. For sure, many of them appear in one of the two "I was once a truther until..." confessional threads. All of the militancy of an ex-smoker, methinks...

I love 'testimonials' (for that's what they are, reminiscent of 12-step groupthink and religious tent revivals) given that go something like this: "I was lost until I read the Popular Mechanics article..."


Hahahaha, the PM article sucked! More faith-based religious propaganda. There are dime-store reasons to change your belief systems, and then there are sound reasons. I wouldn't be too proud of trotting out dime-store justifications.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:01 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:...Yeah, you're right about that, and it's no small point. Some of those, I think, are closet truthers....

Allowing the disclaimer of the truism that, by definition, we cannot see our own blind spots (or biases).
1) I don't think I have any difficulty sorting the wheat of objective claims and reasoning from the chaff of emotive and personal attack crap; And I think I can apply that to friends, foes and those of undetermined status.
2) My biggest categorisation of people I read posting tends to be by the level of applied reasoning skill or the technical validity of what they say. And in this bit of demographic layering the main vertical divide is between those who can think for themselves and those who cannot and rely on parroting. With sub-grades in each of those naturally.

On 9/11 matters there are a number of commonly encountered divides:
A) Between the "globals" - "If it doesn't change aircraft and fire damage caused the collapse it isn't worth pursuing." and the "more details" - "I want to know why it collapsed in mechanism below the global 'aircraft and fires' level".

B) Between the meta process capable and those who haven't a clue what meta process capable means. (Reminds me of a comment on a totally unrelated topic. Harry Secombe - Welsh comedian, singer, actor said "If anyone asks me how to become a comedian I know they never will be one."

C) The "Cannot see the forest for the trees" lot AKA the "alligator and swamp confusees".

D) etc

OneWhiteEye wrote:...It's just more important for them to be part of what they perceive to be the winning side than to pursue any lingering questions they may have. For sure, many of them appear in one of the two "I was once a truther until..." confessional threads. All of the militancy of an ex-smoker, methinks...
I wouldn't mind pursuing my thoughts on "convergent" v "divergent" thinking somewhere but it wouldn't work on an Internet forum - certainly not a 9/11 forum with its technical bias. Reasons including(1) too sophisticated a point (B) the members include both groups and the loser side would be offended by the inevitable mirroring (C) It would be meta process and the non meta noise would be high level (D, E, F, ....)
OneWhiteEye wrote:...I love 'testimonials' (for that's what they are, reminiscent of 12-step groupthink and religious tent revivals) given that go something like this: "I was lost until I read the Popular Mechanics article..." ...
been there. done that. outgrown it.
OneWhiteEye wrote:...Hahahaha, the PM article sucked! More faith-based religious propaganda. There are dime-store reasons to change your belief systems, and then there are sound reasons. I wouldn't be too proud of trotting out dime-store justifications.
I've been assisting ChrisMohr with his ongoing discussion with Gage and AE911. And his involvement and methods differ from mine. Very much.... :roll:

But the challenge of explaining complex issues to not so clever lay audiences is a big one. How do you explain level 7 issues to a level 2 audience. And maintain your honesty/integrity if faced by counter attack by grades 4 or 5 players who have no respect for your grade 2 audience?

I ran into that challenge in my professional career. Explaining multi billion dollar water and sewer system upgrades to large audiences of community members, politicians and other "stakeholder groups". The economically viable solution was less than perfect but a valid step IMNSHO towards a better long term solution.

The grade 4-5s counter attack by claiming that presenting the interim solution you are (I was) being dishonest and misleading the grade 2's/pollies/stakeholders.

Mohr of course in in the disadvantaged side in the asymmetric warfare. He cannot afford even a small number of minor error or loopholes whilst the "truth" side has no such constraint...But we are all familiar with that situation.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:48 am

ozeco41 wrote:The grade 4-5s counter attack by claiming that presenting the interim solution you are (I was) being dishonest and misleading the grade 2's/pollies/stakeholders.

I know about this.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:48 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:
ozeco41 wrote:The grade 4-5s counter attack by claiming that presenting the interim solution you are (I was) being dishonest and misleading the grade 2's/pollies/stakeholders.

I know about this.

I rationalised on the basis that I was personally (and professionally) satisfied that the interim solution was the most effective way forward to the ultimate and therefore I was presenting a true overall picture to the grade 2's even though they could not knowingly check my advice for validity.

I never did much social science/ethics studies - even by engineer standards I trained in a particularly philistine era. 1/2 a topic on psychology and 1/2 topic on "philosophy" (ie Logic) in a course that from memory was 44 units total. So token "humanising" for the philistines.

Plus zero biological science - hence my years moderating on Dawkins net forum was a learning curve on biology esp focussed on evolutionary biology - plus a bi of geology (plate tectonics) on the side given that the two are so interconnected.

So I could be nearly at the start line for admission as a "human" :oops:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby SanderO » Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:38 pm

Ozzie refers to the grade levels without a clear statement of what distinguishes one from the other. The concept is perfectly clear. This sort of thing is common and there is hardly a way round the problems it creates.

It's almost like the appeal to authority fallacy which many rail against. An example from real life.

I practice architecture and deal with a client who may need a building or an alteration to one he or she owns. I presumably have the technical and legal expertise to produce the drawings and specs to make it happen. They usually don't nor have the time to do it even if they could.

The finished product is something everyone is familiar with and it's part of our lives almost 24/7 - the *built environment*. We have the sort of *experience* when we buy and use cars or planes or boats and so forth. We used the products etc. but we don't have *what it takes* to design or build the many things which are part of our lives.

There are many *grades* of technical expertise along the way to get to the final product. Some of those grades have very esoteric knowledge of a small part but not of the entire big picture or end result. The people who engineer a door hinge are not concerned or involved with the structure of the building or the windows or the paint!

9/11 was something that we all "experienced" and understand as defined and limited by our own technical experience and expertise. The most naive model it in a way that makes sense to them and they ARE correct within the limits of their understanding and more sophisticated understanding is simply inaccessible to them. I can't make sense of most physics except the most basic Newtonian concepts... certainly not quantum physics. I simply have to trust Feyman and Michio Kaku as knowing what they are talking about.

And so we see the I can't explain it but I trust X, Y and Z experts such as Gage, Jones, Harrit and the 1,700 architects who signed a petition.. THEY know. And all those articles and papers and science that they use. And no one can tell me what I am seeing with my own eyes. It looks like explosions and looks like a CD... looks like is understand as ... just another example of...

And then of course ego enters the picture. The false prophets come up with wrong explanations and junk science which many actually BELIEVE to be real science - Chandler comes to mind... and they present so much certainty that others follow and they themselves don't even question their own work... How would it look to admit they made some big boners on basic stuff? Very very bad. And it may undermine the conclusion that their wrong and flawed work was used to derive/support. If you take away the *pillars of truth* in the AE911T Blueprint for Truth as being incorrect assertions and not undisputed facts... the explosive controlled demolition conclusion is out the window. The more pillars that fall the weaker the conclusion they drawn from them is.

The dishonesty is a bit more far reaching with many truthers. While many claim they want the truth and a new investigation... they are not engaged in actually finding the truth as much as assembling a case... and pushing the case for CD and an inside job. What investigation are they actually seeking, if at all? Perhaps the one to determine who and how the insiders did the CD not whether it was a CD... that's all ready settled in their minds.

So here you have a range of people who are intelligent as many of the public is... most without the technical expertise to understand what they saw... few to none have any way to work with the evidence available and most simply take a follow the (chosen) leader role or step up to be one of those chosen leaders.

One glaring example is

"James R. Gourley

James R. Gourley practices primarily in the following areas:

Commercial Litigation, including Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual Property Prosecution
Entertainment Law
Franchise Law

Mr. Gourley has represented documentary film makers, helping them successfully defend against copyright infringement claims and negotiate distribution deals with producers and distributors in Hollywood. He has also represented start-up internet companies with copyright and trademark issues, and helped clients enforce and defend patent and other rights in court.

Mr. Gourley has prosecuted and obtained patents for clients in technology fields that range from oil and gas production to food chemistry. He has also applied for and obtained federally registered trademarks for clients in many different industries. Mr. Gourley understands that intellectual property rights are among a company's most valuable assets, and has been successful in helping companies build strong intellectual property portfolios.

In the area of franchise law, Mr. Gourley has drafted Uniform Franchise Offering Circulars and assisted franchising companies complete nationwide state registration campaigns. He has also helped franchising companies expand globally by negotiating international master franchising agreements.

Mr. Gourley earned his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from Southern Methodist University in 2005. Prior to law school, he graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering. His undergraduate education exposed him to a wide range of technical courses, including high level organic and physical chemistry, biochemistry, physics, mechanics, electronics and computer science, which gives him the unique ability to help companies protect technology in many different fields.

Mr. Gourley is a registered patent attorney before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also a member of the State Bar of Texas, and admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts."

This is the same James Gourley who is a co author of the Nano Thermite paper with Jones and Harrit... and "At the conclusion of the Hearings, a final report will be produced and edited by attorney James Gourley, Director of the International Center for 9/11 Studies... "

Ha????????????????????????? An intellectual property attorney is publishing in a engineering journal? Writing the final report about the destruction of the WTC and Director of the International Center for 9/11 Studies???????????????????????

The truth movement seems to care not... He's not the only non expert whatever grade who poses as an expert by writing technical papers or reaching technical conclusions and publishing online and in print, speaking at conferences in disciplines they have no expertise; Add to this category:
David Ray Griffin
Frank Legge
Greg Roberts
Richard Gage
Niels Harrit
Steven Jones
Jim Hoffman
Voctoria Ashley
Graham MacQueen
Jim Fetzer
Sunjata
Kevin Barrett
Shelton Lankford

and many many others

Many of these use their standing within their profession as a stand in for standing in the discipline they are publishing in. Some of them have no serious standing in their own profession to thrust themselves forward as an expert even IN their own profession. Hello Richard Gage.

No humility... no self doubt... no caveats... no room for anything but their conclusions. What grade are these guys on?

What grade are the average truthers on? Take a guy like Senator Gravel who wanted a new investigation... or Ed Asner... who are they listening to? What grade are Asner McKinney:

Lookie here - the witnesses at the Toronto hearings presenting what was to be the best evidence of the inside job:

Mike Gravel is a former U. S. Senator and was a 2008 Presidential Candidate. He coauthored and sponsored the act that created the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights. Senator Gravel served on a number of important committees such as the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, the Special Committee to Study Secret and Confidential Government Documents, and the United States Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Recently, he has campaigned for a citizens commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001.

Cynthia McKinney is a former US Congresswoman and a member of the Green Party since 2007. As a member of the Democratic Party, she served six terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives. In 2008, the Green Party nominated McKinney for President of the United States. She is the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the House. McKinney is amongst the first prominent Americans calling for a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

Lance DeHaven-Smith is a Professor in the Reubin O’D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. A former President of the Florida Political Science Association, he is the author, coauthor, or editor of 15 books on topics ranging from religion and political philosophy to Florida government and politics. Dr. deHaven-Smith’s articles on State Crimes Against Democracy have set the stage for widespread study in this important new field.

Peter Dale Scott : Born a Canadian, Peter Dale Scott is a former English professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a former diplomat and a poet. He is known for his anti-war stance and his criticism of U.S. foreign policy dating back to the Vietnam War. He spent four years with the Canadian diplomatic service. He retired from the UC Berkeley faculty in 1994. He is the author of numerous books, and his books on deep politics, including ”The Road to 9/11,” have been highly influential among those investigating the events of September 11, 2001.

David Ray Griffin is an American retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He is the co-founder of the Center for Process Studies, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought. More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks. Dr. Griffin’s books and presentations have been among the most important contributions to the 9/11 truth movement. He is a two time Nobel Peace Prize nominee and was named among the New Statemans’ 50 People Who Matter Today.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He is Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He has acted as an economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the World Health Organization. He has written books that highlight the historical relationship between the US government and Al Qaeda.

Barbara Honegger has served as White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. For over a decade, she was Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense. Prof. David Ray Griffin has said of her groundbreaking investigative work on the Pentagon attack that “it will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11.”

Paul Zarembka is Professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He spent two years as a senior research officer for the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Since 1977, Zarembka has been general editor of the hardback series Research in Political Economy, publishing work typically from a marxist perspective. He has held a Fulbright Teaching Award to the Academy of Economics, Poznan, Poland. Zarembka was editor of Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) that included a chapter that became the principal citation for Daniel McFadden’s Nobel Prize in Economics. He is editor of The Hidden History of 9-11 (first edition by Elsevier Press; 2008 expanded edition by Seven Stories Press).

Jay Kolar is a freelance writer in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. As a film studies instructor, he has taught courses in film analysis and mass media at Lane Community College, the University of Iowa, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). His specialization in French Film theory, semiotics, and close structuralist analysis of film alerted his critical response to the events of 9/11/2001, forcing him to examine more closely the available 9/11 footage and subsequent releases of bin Laden and alleged hijacker “Last Will and Testament” martyrdom videos. He authored “What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers” and its Update in The Hidden History of 9-11, edited by Paul Zarembka (first edition by Elsevier Press; 2008 expanded edition by Seven Stories Press).

Jonathan Cole is a Professional Engineer licensed in New Hampshire and Florida, with 28 years of experience. For more than 10 years he has been the head of a mid-sized engineering firm with some 25 employees. In addition to designing large-scale engineering projects, he has performed services as an expert witness in his field. He volunteers his services for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in his capacity as a board director. Recently, his experiments related to the thermite theory of destruction for the WTC have become very influential among independent investigators.

David Chandler is known for his 9/11 videos and his success in getting NIST to admit free-fall acceleration for WTC building 7. He is a graduate of Harvey Mudd College and has an MA from Claremont Graduate University, and an MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona. David’s article, WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall focuses on significant errors and incandescence in the final NIST report on the collapse of tower 7 and includes excerpts from a technical briefing held by NIST on August 26, 2008. During this briefing, questions were put to the panel by Chandler. David’s videos related to the destruction of the WTC have made significant inroads in educating the public about the problems with the official investigations.

Laurie Manwell is a PhD candidate in Behavioral Neuroscience and Toxicology at the University of Guelph. She has published research on the effects of drugs on learning, memory, behavior, information processing, self-esteem, emotion, motivation, cellular and molecular biology, and most recently on political psychology and democracy (American Behavioral Scientist). Her recent article was part of a special issue of six articles on State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) published in the February 2010 edition of American Behavioral Scientist.

Niels Harrit : After teaching Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for forty years, Professor Harrit retired to devote his time to seeking truth and justice. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles in the best scientific journals available and his most recent paper, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the WTC Catastrophe” has become a topic of great interest in the international community. Professor Harrit now gives presentations on 9/11 to enthusiastic audiences around the world.

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Since founding Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) in 2006, Gage has presented Blueprint for Truth all over the world, and he has appeared on radio shows and television spots. AE911Truth now includes nearly 1,500 licensed and degreed architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the events at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.

Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in comparative religion from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies department of McMaster University for 30 years. He became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he co-directed peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles and book chapters as well as four books. He has written four research articles on 9/11 and is a recognized authority on the eyewitness testimony related to the destruction of the WTC.

Kevin Ryan: Through his work at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Ryan began to investigate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. He was fired by UL, in 2004, for publicly asking questions about the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ryan has served as co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and a member and/or director of a number of 9/11 truth groups. Additionally, Ryan has co-authored several books and peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject.

This is a media circus like most things in the USA...
SanderO
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:44 pm

OWE:

When you don't know what you're talking about, and what you're sure is wrong is right, and what you think is right is certainly wrong, what does that make you?


Vulnerable, locked in false certainty.

WIthin the JREF forum we are witnessing some extreme cases, but the observable consequences of my stated thesis in my "book" show that they are just the tip of a very big iceberg.


We have a thread called "smart idiots" and this sister thread called "just plain idiots". To capture this aspect of human nature with more precision, we would need one more thread in the series called "pathetic jerk-offs", but for our purposes these 2 existing threads should cover the whole spectrum.
..............

This latest series of posts touches on what Ozeco calls "meta-processes" and what I try to delve into in part 1 of my book called "science vs subjective viewpoints".


Ozeco writes:

IMO the even bigger issue is that all the players seem to have lost sight of why they are discussing it.

"When you are up to your arse in alligators it is easy to forget that the objective was "drain the swamp'"

Some of the mixed up/confused/forgotten objectives in downwards order of hierarchy of those objectives:
10)Determine whether WTC was CD'd
20) Understand the mechanisms of collapse for WTC7
30) Determine whether NISTs collapse explanation is plausible
31) Ditto for the Girder Walkoff initiation subset of the above
40) Determine whether NISTs collapse explanation is correct and the only one
41) Ditto for the Girder Walkoff initiation subset of the above
50) Argue round in circles about FFA - multiple sub issues - including
51) The so called "truther meme" that FFA always and only means CD
52) several others
60) Understand measurement techniques as applied to WTC7
61) Resolve disparities of techniques - three main contestants being femr2, NIST and Chandler
70) Apply measurements data to whatever objectives the participants may have as their priority
80) Do the measurements because you enjoy doing it

That will do for now....



Many of the people that Ozeco calls "all players" would love to hear Ozeco get to the bottom (and I do not mean "bottom of the gut") of where he sees "all players" going off the true path.


Just to play the devil's advocate, I call the Ozeco approach "the philosophy of good enough".

It is now 2012, so let us try to do better than "that will do for now", since at this rate the end product will arrive well after we are all dead.

Ozeco, could you please explain how all players go astray wrt meta-processes?
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby SanderO » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:29 pm

Interesting that no *truthers* are actually even engaged in discussion or debate as the JREFers are supporting the OCT. It seems as if the don't have the interest in debating and discussing their science... or they don't want to and simply want to gather sycophants to their ranks.

Why do you suppose this is? I've tried to introduce some ROOSD and physics to some truth groups and listserves I participate in. I am considered a loose canon, or a dis info agent and worse... barely tolerated. One group wanted to have a vote that 9/11 was a inside job as their official position - litmus test. The vote never game.

When you post a coherent presentation they will pop up with something which is supposed to destroy a theory such as ROOSD - such as NASA thermal images or molten metal pouring from tower 2... Gotcha!
SanderO
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Just Plain Idiots (split from Smart Idiots)

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:49 pm

Major_Tom wrote:We have a thread called "smart idiots" and this sister thread called "just plain idiots". To capture this aspect of human nature with more precision, we would need one more thread in the series called "pathetic jerk-offs", but for our purposes these 2 existing threads should cover the whole spectrum.

Hahahaha!!!!
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

PreviousNext



Return to Leadership and Group Dynamics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



suspicion-preferred