I just got banned at the TruthAction.org after my first three posts. I saw a number of names I recognize there from here. Anyone know anything about why I got banned?
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Banned at Truth Action (5 posts)
-
Posted 15 years ago #
-
TruthAction and TruthMove both are not about debating the minutia of CD. TruthAction is trying to get people to take action every month regardless of their particular interests within the movement. And TruthMove has a broad focus and we don't like to get bogged down in debate about any one concern within the many we address. I'm obviously generalizing.
Our projects have definitions and you came to us. And yet on both of our forums you seem to have jumped in with little regard for where you were. You also did little to establish that you really care about 9/11 truth beyond the one issue of CD.
As I've said to you, we respect your apparent intent to have people in the movement get their facts straight. We share that concern. But as your concern very obviously has you running the risk of looking like a debunking troll, you have a responsibility to convey some understanding of our the movement or measure of commitment to our common goal.
Looks like you failed to do that over on TruthAction. Two of the three posts of yours were deleted. They don't do that often. They don't ban people often. We've generally been more strict than them.
If you really want to get your message across to people, try being more of an educator and less of a salesman. From lots of experience I know that it is more effective to offer someone facts and let them decide how to respond than it is to convey the facts while telling people what to think about them.
In other words, let your work stand. Write your papers and let people decide what to think about them. You don't need to argue with people about their responses. You don't need to convince people. If you've got something valid to say, people will recognized it.
And if they don't recognize it you are left to either think that they are all deluded or just maybe that you should reconsider your approach.
I recommend learning more about social research methods. The linguistic rigor that can go into writing one survey might be a good thing for you to know more about.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Thanks for your post Truthmover,
I read TruthMove's and Thruth Action's statements and believed that they meant what they said regarding the goals and values of the organizations.
Truth Action's immediate banning is diametrically opposed to a number of the stated values. Even if I was a "supposed opponent", where is the fundmental respect in discourse if I am not even allowed to express my opinion.
Both organizations seek to counteract and minimize promotion of speculative and unsubstantiated claims. In this context, I felt that I could contribute to the goals and values of these organizations. What happens to our movement when Cynthia McKinney cites Richard Gage and his erroneous and unsupported claims? This is IMPORTANT!
Anyone who questions my commitment to the truth movement should consider my story, as follows below. The members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who have accompanied me on this journey know a good part of this and have seen me work very hard and scientifically to examine these issues.
I was in New York a few days after the attacks happened and was immediately active in peace demonstrations. At the time, I was pretty sure our foreign policy was to blame, but there was something in the back of my head saying it's just as likely that this was set up deliberately to give the Bush an excuse to finish the Unocal pipeline and go after oil in Iraq. Immediately after Bushes "not with us" speech, I sent him a personal e-mail and asked to be put on the "not with us" list. Nonetheless, I live in Sweden and didn't hear much about the truth movement until a few years ago. At that point people had already been saying "look how fast the buildings fell down, it must be CD" for quite a while. My intution told me those people were probably correct. But, being an engineer, I knew that a good portion of physics is counter intuitive. So I set out to examine whether there actually was anything strange with the collapses.
Now the great Bazant had already explained the collapses quite early on and many people accepted that. Nonetheless when I looked at his paper, my intuition said "no, that is not correct". Anyone can go on JREF and see my arguments with JREFers about Bazant. Essentially, I have demonstrated (and many JREFers have accepted) that Bazant's model was way to simplified to be meaningful and that the results were grossly inaccurate. By the way, I spent 500 hours calculating the mass and PE of the Twin Towers (published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies) to be able to show this. Is any one still wondering about my commitment? Nonetheless, after adding everything that Bazant had left out, the result was still collapse continuation. But wait, Gordon Ross had shown that the collapse would have arrested. I was suprised to discover that Gordon made egregious mistakes, to the extent that his conclusions were incorrect. The same with Ken Kuttler. I am in the process of writing up a compilation of all of this work including a more accurate calculation of the overload ratio (predictor of collapse continuation). Nonetheless, it's alot of work and I am currently more focused on the dislodgement of fireproofing issue. I currently have two other papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. One is not "party line" and I'm not sure how they will react to that. The other is innocuous.
The fireproofing article is nearly complete and will rigorously show (the calcs are done) that NIST's estimate was completely unreasonable. Being that NIST's support for their hypothesis is completely dependent on dislodgement of fireproofing, the article will demonstrate that their hypothesis is in fact unsupported. Nonetheless, it seems from the newest leaked documents that NIST is working on better supporting their hypothesis in this regard. Time will tell.
Regarding my commitment, the JREFers call me a biased twoofer liar and Truth Action thinks I am a debunker or worse (they should have known better given the polite tone of my letter). Where does that leave me? Sounds to me like some people, who don't like the results of rigorous scientific work, attack the person doing the work rather than reconsidering their unsubstantiated conclusions.
Your criticism regarding my agrumentative style are well taken. I will think more about my approach.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Even if I was a "supposed opponent", where is the fundmental respect in discourse if I am not even allowed to express my opinion.
You are allowed to express your opinion all over the internet. There are many places. Truthaction and truthmove are not censors -- they merely have goals. As you do. Sometimes goals don't mix and someone needs to be pointed in a different direction. You can also start your own forum.
Posted 15 years ago # -
ThruthAction's goals seem to be getting in the way of the truth. Let me see, who else has that problem? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Has ThruthAction has let itself become the next disingenuous manipulation machine?
No justice without truth!
Posted 15 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.