TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Spam from "The Wisdom Fund": Scientific Evidence That Flight 77 Did Not Strike (47 posts)

26. truthmover
    Administrator

    Just because the CIT claim may not be true doesn't mean flt 77 is what hit the building.

    What? Did I suddenly turn 4? My thinking is binary? Lame sentence dude.

    Nothing makes either concern remotely important to this movement. On a pragmatic level it doesn't matter if we are dismissing certain speculation with certain convincing facts. It's just one big dead end.

    Some in the movement can't separate the Indiana Jones part of this effort from the Public Relations side. And the bottom line is you don't have any movement if it has no clear definition. And you have no movement unless that definition includes a concern for credibility.

    Personally, I don't want to be a part of the total truth movement of all available facts that no one ever pays any attention to. I want to be a part of a credible movement for factual history that many people can comfortably access. That excludes Alex Jones. That excludes interesting but poorly founded hypotheses. We just don't need it.

    And with enough evidence to suggest that a plane did hit the Pentagon, and the likelihood that the Pentagon does have footage of the impact, the issue is dead. Not worth our speculation. There will always be people who do. And they aren't necessarily undermining the movement. I enjoy indulging my curiosity with elaborate speculation. But this movement is bigger to me than what I find interesting.

    Posted 14 years ago #
27. JohnA
    Member

    and there you have it.

    its like a virus.

    Posted 14 years ago #
28. JohnA
    Member

    Our old friend and 9/11 researcher Nicholas Levis (where is he lately?) made a very good point regarding certain labels in the movement: LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). He pointed out that nothing valuable is gained by dividing the movement up into these two belief systems since both scenarios carry the same moral culpability for the perpetrators. Whether certain someone ‘let’ it happen on purpose – or ‘made’ it happen on purpose – is irrelevant. Both scenarios involve culpability in mass murder.

    There were (are) those who turned this into a wedge issue for the movement. I see a very similar pattern with the Pentagon issue. There appear to be those who seek to turn this into a wedge issue.

    I bring this up because the false LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is very similar to the misinformation/disinformation dichotomy. Ultimately it does not matter what the intentionality is behind those who continue to promote junk science, urban legend and weak conclusions as fact. It just matters that they do it – and it serves the interests of those who seek to misdirect our attention away from more productive lines of inquiry.

    I no longer care if this Pentagon crap is the result of unintentional misinformation (more colloquially known as ‘stupidity’) – or INTENTIONAL disinformation. It serves the same ends. It is profoundly damaging to our cause.

    I do not give a rat’s ass about amateur opinions about the Pentagon.

    I want to see an appropriate forum for lobbying the public to petition our current government for answers - not a platform for bombarding the public with ridiculous speculation.

    And those to refuse to ‘get’ this are either being intellectually dishonest – or hopelessly stupid – and I make little distinction between the two.

    Posted 14 years ago #
29. Manatus
    Member

    Quote by Arcterus...

    "Bullshit, you haven't made any points. Read your own posts. All you've done is solicit your stances. "Man, there's so much evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. Totally." That's not a point, that's baseless supposition. My point is none of us can say with 100 % certainty that Flt 77 is what struck the building.

    It's difficult to take you serious when you make up a quote... "Man, there's so much evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. Totally." ...and attribute it to me. I never said that or implied that.

    You're a case in point that emotion and prejudice can skew objectivity. It's clear you either haven't even read my posts, or lack effective reading comprehension. Go back and read my posts, I clearly stated I thought an aircraft hit the building. Based on your subjectivity and ad hominem, I won't waste my time discussing it with you further.

    Posted 14 years ago #
30. Manatus
    Member

    Quote by truthmover...

    "And with enough evidence to suggest that a plane did hit the Pentagon, and the likelihood that the Pentagon does have footage of the impact, the issue is dead. Not worth our speculation. There will always be people who do. And they aren't necessarily undermining the movement. I enjoy indulging my curiosity with elaborate speculation. But this movement is bigger to me than what I find interesting."

    You're so wound up that you fail to even recognize that I'm not disputing an aircraft hit the building, I'm saying anyone who believes with 100% certainty that Flt 77 is what hit the building is not practicing effective science in their decision making process. It's faulty logic.

    It appears many here are now engaging in a form of group think. It's condescending and comes across as elitist. You are projecting your anger at disinfo and CIT towards me. That attitude will alienate people. Just letting you know.

    Posted 14 years ago #
31. Arcterus
    Member

    Don't be daft. I was paraphrasing what your posts were basically saying as far as "points", not making a direct quote

    You're a case in point that emotion and prejudice can skew objectivity. It's clear you either haven't even read my posts, or lack effective reading comprehension. Go back and read my posts, I clearly stated I thought an aircraft hit the building. Based on your subjectivity and ad hominem, I won't waste my time discussing it with you further.

    ...

    Was that my quote or his?

    Because I'M the one who delivered facts to support why the idea that Flight 77 hitting the building is a reasonable conclusion and not contradicted by any conclusively valid information.

    All you did was insist that there was evidence to support a plane not hitting while dismissing silly little roadblocks like "physical evidence".

    Amazingly, you do the exact same thing in this post, yet remarkably say that I have somehow not read your posts! That's crap, of course, I quoted almost every sentence, but you remain completely oblivious to the points I made. In fact, later in that sentence, you say "I clearly stated I thought an aircraft hit the building", which of course was not my point. I was arguing against the idea that there's an even remotely legitimate reason to think that anything but Flight 77 hit the building. You distort my position in the very same post where you both accuse me of misquoting you (when I wasn't really quoting you) and accuse me of not reading your posts. I can't tell if you're being intentionally dense or if you just blocked out the points I made and started arguing against things I never said. In other words, are you being deliberately disinformative or are you so keen to argue that you are psychologically incapable of processing opposing information? Either way, it doesn't bode well on you.

    Come back when you have something legitimate to say.

    Posted 14 years ago #
32. truthmover
    Administrator

    You're so wound up that you fail to even recognize that I'm not disputing an aircraft hit the building, I'm saying anyone who believes with 100% certainty that Flt 77 is what hit the building is not practicing effective science in their decision making process. It's faulty logic.

    On one level I appreciate it if you are correcting an overly broad statement. I think it would be silly to say that we have 100% certainty. Did anyone say that? Maybe you felt it was implied. If so, I think you mistook what was being suggested. 100% certainty in not a part of the scientific method.

    We don't need 100% certainty to consider it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and to know either way that it's not worth much of our time. Whether I'm 99% sure or 80% sure, the whole thing is a pointless distraction. There is a compelling case to be made that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You can find it elsewhere. That argument is far stronger than any speculation about alternatives. As those alternatives hurt the movement they should be ignored in favor of the most likely scenario.

    Otherwise, what JohnA said directly above hits the mark. By the way, we don't allow the kind of behavior here that you might be getting away with elsewhere. If a bunch of people answer your question and you seem more interested in simply selling your opinion, you will not be welcome here. Otherwise, I hope I've addressed your concern.

    Posted 14 years ago #
33. JohnA
    Member

    It appears many here are now engaging in a form of group think. It's condescending and comes across as elitist. You are projecting your anger at disinfo and CIT towards me. That attitude will alienate people. Just letting you know.

    and what exactly is 'elitist' anyway? being discriminating and taking personal responsibility for what we are willing to promote? having our own opinions and internal measuring stick for weeding out fact from fiction? refusing to bend to your will?

    if i had a dime for everytime i've heard these sorts of accusations from Pentagon and no-planer advocates,...

    the best i can tell these sorts of accusations happen for 1 of 2 reasons:

    1 - it is the result of immature frustration. you are given an opportunity to present your case. you fail to persued people. therefore, ergo, we must all be brainwashed by group think - or - shudder - elitists.

    2 - it is classic misdirection and disruption designed to bait people into responding. it is a cheap way of hijacking a thread. all too often the Pentagon issue ends up becoming an exercise in futility, verbal semantics and contentious accusations.

    Posted 14 years ago #
34. Victronix
    Member

    Luckily this forum has moderation. It's like a mirage, yet true.

    Posted 14 years ago #
35. Manatus
    Member

    JohnA-

    The form of elitism I have experienced here has been prejudice. Because I questioned whether Flt 77 hit said building, I was attacked as a supporter of the CIT theory or a no planer. I did mention I believed an aircraft of some sort was involved. My point, or the case I have presented, is how are any of you certain Flt 77 was the aircraft that hit the building? Instead of objectively answering the question, I get attacked as a CIT or no plane at pentagon advocate.

    I believe truthmover has finally answered my question. Thank you for that.

    Maybe this can serve to provide a little perspective for dealing more objectively with contentious issues in the future.

    Posted 14 years ago #
36. JohnA
    Member

    i have reviewed all of the responses you received here and, although firm, i do not see any evidence that you are being mistreated.

    you just seem fustrated that many of us here have zero-tolerance for these Pentagon theories. i see multiple instances of posts here explaining to you WHY - yet you persist in making generalized statements (e.g. Flight 77 may not have hit the Pentagon) - without the requisite evidence, logic or research to back it up. you just say it. and that's not enough.

    this forum has a very lower tolerance for unsubstantiated claims, urban legend, misinformation, disinformation and plain old stupidity. there are plenty of loosely moderated message boards out there that will allow posters to make unsubstantiated claims framed as facts. but you will receive no apologize from anyone here for seeking to hold the contributors to this forum to a higher standard.

    btw - i'm not a moderator here - but since you directed your comments to me - this is how i see it.

    as the old adage goes - if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    nothing personal.

    and lastly - lets be real here. the Pentagon theories have been proven to be a source of disruption on one message board after another. seemingly polite posters like yourself show up - and turn ugly, inflammatory, divisive and DISHONEST. so YES - if you seek a debate on Pentagon theories you sure as hell better have the ability to put your money where your mouth is.

    Posted 14 years ago #
37. Manatus
    Member

    JohnA-

    There's nothing wrong with zero tolerance for absurd theories, as long as it doesn't compromise objectivity. Being accused as a no planer or CIT advocate with ad hominems constitutes mistreatment. I have no problem with the heat here, it's the elitist groupthink behavior that could be a problem. I have responded logically and civilly despite the unfounded insinuations that have tainted most responses to my questions.

    I never said that no aircraft hit the building.

    You appear to see and hear only what you want. Basic logic and research does back up my questions. What credible evidence exists to confirm Flt 77 hit the building?, and why should that evidence be trusted considering its source?

    I don't know what is clouding your objectivity. An intolerance for absurd theories does not make it acceptable to shoot first and ask questions later. Of course you haven't even admitted you erred or may have erred. If you cannot even confront that possibility, it is clear I am wasting my time discussing anything with you. Maybe you should do some research on how groupthink can skew good judgement.

    I

    Posted 14 years ago #
38. JohnA
    Member

    enough!

    Basic logic and research does back up my questions.

    we are all still waiting for you to see this amazing logic and research. either put up - or shut up.

    What credible evidence exists to confirm Flt 77 hit the building?

    i'm not going to do your homework for you. this question has been asked so many times it really calls into question the agenda of those who persist in asking it. it is quite obvious you are just going to flat-out refuse to except cold hard concrete evidence - instead opting to defend speculation and pose open-ended questions.

    stop asking us. what am i - buddah? make your own case. you keep accusing us of not listening - while suspiciously failing to actually provide us with any actual research.

    where's the beef?

    and why should that evidence be trusted considering its source?

    sources. that should be plural.

    again you get all bent out of shape that you are being equated with CIT - yet you employ their same tactics of calling into question the integrity and validity of any and all witnesses who contradict your speculative questions.

    sources. plural. multiple witnesses. multiple people who pulled bodies from the wreckage. multiple people who sifted thru the remains. multiple people involved in the DNA testing. multiple people who identified the plane parts. multiple people involved in the clean-up.

    on the OTHER hand - YOU have not provided one SCAP of evidence to support the theory that Flight 77 went somewhere else.

    you seem long on questions - but short on evidence to support your own theory/question.

    stop asking. make a credible case - or ANY case (for that matter).

    now - if you don't mind i am going down to the group-think cafeteria for lunch and ordering an elitist arugula salad - with a side order of ad hominem humus and pita bread.

    yummy

    Posted 14 years ago #
39. truthmover
    Administrator

    Arcterus said:

    Not enough evidence? JUST as scientifically dubious? Witnesses saw a plane impact, the hole in the wall suggests a plane impact, the DNA of the flight 77 victims were identified, and this is JUST as scientifically dubious as claiming that everyone but a few witnesses got it wrong and even those witnesses got it wrong about the impact part and the physical evidence that suggests a plane impact was all faked? It's hardly my intention to be rude, but can you not see how ridiculous this sounds?

    Manatus,

    It is the explicit position of TruthMove and everyone who has posted to this thread that it is MOST LIKELY that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The content of the following website pages supports that assertion and Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman are two of the most credible people involved in this movement.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/pentagon.html

    http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

    http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

    You said:

    OK. So it is assumed that it hit the building because that's what we have been told, despite myriad anomalies surrounding the incident.

    That was an unprovoked attitude on your part relative to what had been said above your post on this thread and certainly the reason why people here have been less than cordial. You are implying that we simply appeal to authority. I would point out that most of those posting here have done a fair amount of research and don't need to quote sources to each other about things we've all known for years.

    If you aren't familiar with 911research and Oilempire I'd say you have some homework to do as that is where I got started doing researching into 9/11 as soon as I realized that they were basically the only two sites other than Cooperative Research that I found credible.

    Very simply, I look at the very minimal, cherry picked, and internally contradictory evidence provided by CIT and a couple of other less than reputable sources and compare it to the very dense and well supported evidence on the sites above, and there is absolutely no comparison.

    Now, it may be that people here have been a bit aggressive with you. I understand that you are just unsettled about the issue and that you aren't here shilling for CIT. That's fine. And I don't want you to feel like you are being pushed off the forum just because we disagree with you. But this issue is one that many of us are totally fed up with and any attitude other than believable curiosity or logical inquiry will likely be met with additional attitude.

    So, I hope you can accept that we REALLY believe that this issue is settled based on evidence. And I hope that you can believe that there is no reason why we would care to choose one conclusion over another. If I really felt that evidence supported a different conclusion I would not hesitate to make my opinion known. I also hope you know that this argument is wasting a lot of our time right now as what happened at the Pentagon, either way, does not benefit the movement greatly.

    Posted 14 years ago #
40. Manatus
    Member

    JohnA-

    C'mon now. Are you kidding? You rattle off the below listed quote as your proof of credible evidence?

    "sources. plural. multiple witnesses. multiple people who pulled bodies from the wreckage. multiple people who sifted thru the remains. multiple people involved in the DNA testing. multiple people who identified the plane parts. multiple people involved in the clean-up."

    No offense, but this is starting to remind me of Rumsfeld and a couple broken vases in Baghdad.

    Posted 14 years ago #
41. Manatus
    Member

    Truthmover-

    As I have already stated on this thread, I understand your position here. Nonetheless, if someone chooses to misrepresent my question or words, I will support my position.

    Logic dictates no one (aside from perps) can be scientifically certain what really hit the building. The default assumption is it was Flt 77. I find it strange that some folks here put so much trust in the data (or lack thereof) provided by the authorities.

    Posted 14 years ago #
42. JohnA
    Member

    Logic dictates no one (aside from perps) can be scientifically certain what really hit the building.

    just because you say so?

    you're like a child who just repeats the same phrase over and over again - while ignoring any personal responsibility for actually presenting FACTS that support your opinion.

    logic dictates? sounds like the impressive turn of a phrase. unfortunately - without presenting a reasoned detailed explaination of that LOGIC - the statement is empty.

    furthermore - if you persist in simply wallpapering this forum with opinions that you cannot or will not honestly debate or support - members of this forum have every right to accuse you or spamming.

    Posted 14 years ago #
43. truthmover
    Administrator

    Moderator Comment

    It's been a while since I've had to post one of these.

    The TruthMove forum will not host extended arguments about what hit the Pentagon between people who will not be changing their minds. That would be to acknowledge the possibility that reasonable debate could be had. However, based on the comments above I don't consider it likely at this time.

    Logic dictates no one (aside from perps) can be scientifically certain what really hit the building.

    As John points out, that's not going to cut it. That position basically denies the whole premise of this movement, that the public is capable of determining sound reasons to question the official story. I have now presented you with links to pages of data and analysis that support our position. If you haven't reviewed that information we aren't at all interested in arguing with your opinions on this matter.

    Further, you are really missing the point behind our position. It's based in the scientific method. The data available is not complete. Everyone here would like very much to see the release of all the Pentagon camera footage. We are all perfectly willing to accept the possibility that something different happened at the Pentagon. However, the evidence available at present leans much more strongly in one direction. It's a matter of what is most likely based on the available evidence, not what we know. You got that? We aren't saying we KNOW what happened. We are committed to the most responsible conclusion presently available. That reflects best on our commitment to logic.

    John, you could do us a favor and self-regulate on this matter. If Manatus isn't going to debate in good faith, please simply end the conversation. I'd rather not lock the thread.

    Posted 14 years ago #
44. JohnA
    Member

    well i'm done.

    but you know how it is. its not like you will be sending Stefen any Chistmas cards this year. : )

    Posted 14 years ago #
45. mark
    Member

    I like John Judge's conclusion that he does not "think" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, he KNOWS that it did from looking at the facts. No Plane (and its many variations) was very clever, but it was never real, even if most of the adherents are sincere (but wrong).

    It can be hard to admit making a mistake in the search for "truth." It's important to be able to see the humor in all of this ...

    Posted 14 years ago #
46. truthmover
    Administrator

    Here's an image from the event sponsored by the Wisdom Fund that featured Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT.

    

    Aldo Marquis, Adam Syed, Sheila Casey, Craig Ranke

    Posted 14 years ago #
47. Arabesque
    Member

    All four of these individuals have repeatedly slandered me as a "spook", "cointelpro", "agent", "government operative", etc. on 911blogger and elsewhere. It's perfectly consistent to support a theory without any credible evidence while also slandering and accusing people of being agents without any evidence.

    William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles" http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-l...

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.