I could go through your site and offer your better links to replace the ones you have that go to bogus sites, like serendipity, which pushes "Blue Screen Fakery" and "nukes."
But a quick look on the front page looks okay.
Have you considered highlighting Danny Jowenko? There is an amazing video of him here -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&mod...
Victronix Wrote:
I could go through your site and offer your better links to replace the ones you have that go to bogus sites, like serendipity, which pushes "Blue Screen Fakery" and "nukes."
I offer hundreds of links with short discriptions, including so-called debunkers. I did also falsify information to show some of the dirty tricks being used, e.g. by Popular Mechanics. This diversion enables people to make-up their own minds upon the information they get.
The story about nukes is started by people from Palisades in AFP interviews: A “sharp spike of short duration†is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
He compared this kind of graphs with those made on 9/11.
But a quick look on the front page looks okay.
Have you considered highlighting Danny Jowenko? There is an amazing video of him here -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&mod...
My site is linking even more Jowenko: the complete interviews. You'll find it on my link page, or with the site search. I give you the direct link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jowenk...
In fact, Jowenko is not the kind of expert we need to hear about 9/11 collapses. His CV was unclear, I mean: Dutch buildings are dwarfs comparing with those in cities like NYC. Controlled demolition for your country is what damming or diking is for mine. After this hurricane Katrina, American experts came to learn in Holland. What do we know about skyscrapers?
His first reaction on the collapse of WTC7 is quite sensational, but later on he is constantly taking back and looking for excuses that neutralizes his first comments (not knowing then about what he was talking). Therefore I do not completely trust is intrinsic arguments. Thereby, the collapses where no classical controlled demolitions. They where probably adjusted with military equipment. Collapses with controlled demolition do not usually start from tops of buildings. Jowenko was far to intimidated by the shown facts to go deeper into this.
But you're not responding on my question why my site (and some others) should be on this list of suspicious 911 websites. I don't feel personally offended, but it doesn't help either. In the contrary. My question just underlines my opinion that such lists are not infallible. Nobody is. Right, there always are some rotten apples, but why taking the risk of generalizing and include everything that doesn't look cliche? Only because someone fragmentarily uses a controversial or bad example?
This parochialism can harm our range as being a big 'truthmovement' and helps those who are trying to divide us. I fear the strictness of politics and purism in our own house and the less sharpness beyond our boundaries, where mistakes are being chastised with more long term damage if we lose our common view. We ought to focus on our own strength instead of small differences. And focus on the weakness of those who sell the official 911 story without showing willingness of answering all the painful questions.
I never claimed to be scientifically correct. I'm not a scientist. That doesn't make me (or others) unreliable. And not every scientist is reliable. I try to reach a broad public in comprehensible Dutch language in order to put pressure on our news media and politicians. Holland is part of Bush's coalition of the willing. We fought in Iraq and fight in Afghanistan. Many Dutch citizens feel responsible to stand up against our administrations obedience to American politics. With no offends to the American public! Politics which are derived from what happened on 9/11.
But you're not responding on my question why my site (and some others) should be on this list of suspicious 911 websites. I don't feel personally offended, but it doesn't help either. In the contrary. My question just underlines my opinion that such lists are not infallible. Nobody is. Right, there always are some rotten apples, but why taking the risk of generalizing and include everything that doesn't look cliche? Only because someone fragmentarily uses a controversial or bad example?
I totally agree--and I've seen cooperative research and other top-notch sources linked to by some of the worst sites out there. It wouldn't be hard for one of these people to throw up a link to TruthMove, and then we too could be grouped in with the disinfo.
I haven't followed every post in this thread, but I don't think anyone is arguing your point above. For one thing, it is essentially harmless for the disinfo sites to link to non-English language sources (even if they are effective and highly credible), because the overwhelming majority of readers only speak English.
His first reaction on the collapse of WTC7 is quite sensational, but later on he is constantly taking back and looking for excuses that neutralizes his first comments (not knowing then about what he was talking). Therefore I do not completely trust is intrinsic arguments. Thereby, the collapses where no classical controlled demolitions. They where probably adjusted with military equipment. Collapses with controlled demolition do not usually start from tops of buildings. Jowenko was far to intimidated by the shown facts to go deeper into this.
I'll have to look more at your site later (I can't view links to videos or much else at work), but I wanted to mention that there was a recent phone call to him which was in English to get him to confirm his position on the demolitons -
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_02220...
So he seems to agree.
And on his site there's an image of a fairly large building being demolished, although it doesn't look like steel frame construction, still, it's pretty significant.
Victronix Wrote:
[...]but I wanted to mention that there was a recent phone call to him which was in English to get him to confirm his position on the demolitons -
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_02220...
Thanks for the link.
Jowenko was indeed certain about using explosives in building 7. First he assured that it was impossible to have that fixed in less then several days. Later on in the interview (at first he didn't know that what he saw on video -* with wtc7 *- was part of the wtc-collapses), he started to mention all kinds of circumstances that could have made it possible to fix the job in just a few hours. That leaves us with a statement that gives new credits to Silverstein's explanation about pulling the building.
Although Silverstein later on 'elucidated' his previous statement with his September 9, 2005 statement issued by his Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan. The message was that they decided to 'pull' firemen away from the almost collapsing building. But that statement doesn't fit in earlier statements written by FEMA and seems highly unlikely. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.ht....
truthmod Wrote:
[...]
I haven't followed every post in this thread, but I don't think anyone is arguing your point above. For one thing, it is essentially harmless for the disinfo sites to link to non-English language sources (even if they are effective and highly credible), because the overwhelming majority of readers only speak English
Even people in non Anglo-Saxon countries who understand English, prefer to do their first research (on such a complicated subject as 9/11) in majority in their own language. Thats the easiest way to be quick informed, although they tend to put more credibility in the more authoritative English 911-sites. A result of the circumstance that outstanding English sources are available.
911 sites in non-english language therefore do considerable lower the resistance for many interested readers to start on this important matter. Don't underestimate the numbers of people we are talking about. It won't particularly help when those people figure out that their main local news sources for some reason are set apart on suspicious 911-lists. That's why I make such a deal about the delicate balance between 911-skeptics and the importance of keeping an eye on our mutual interests.
Distinctions in the movement are becoming a clear theme on our board (as we hoped). This thread offers some good insights.
I wrote a thread a few weeks ago that may have been a bit too accusatory, concerning the Left/Progressive vs. Right/Libertarian distinction, but I hope to return to that subject in as constructive a way as possible...
Interestingly, a 911blogger editor recently said to me that they prefer not to get into the "wedge issues" that tend divide and polarize people (yet no plane at the Pentagon is on the front page 24/7) . . .
In other words - Big Tent, all get along, content being right or wrong isn't a big deal, hoax promoters shouldn't be called out because that will cause a disruption, etc.
It's understandable that one wouldn't want to become a magnet for the disinfo and that webmasters want people to get along and like the site and promote it, but the limiting of posts that critique the content is a problem because part of that effort will -- no matter how you slice it, and if it is doing its job -- cause disinfo / misinfo promoters to be angered.
No pain, no gain. Big Tent.
A good critical discussion of the movement and the Big Tent issue:
http://www.oilempire.us/911truth.html
While there are many views on precisely what constitutes "9/11 truth" among those who disbelieve the official conspiracy theory offered by the Bush administration, and the full story may never be precisely established, the common denominator for the "9/11 truth movements" is that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. Due to the successes of the 9/11 Truth Movements in shifting public understanding, the volume of parallel efforts that pretend to be part of a"Truth Movement" yet promote hoaxes increased substantially during the 2004 election season (see "COINTELPRO").
There are two 9/11 truth movements - those who are trying to document serious evidence, and those that merely echo stuff they read on line or in books without making effort to verify the claims. Most of those pushing the no plane hoax(es) are sincere, but that sincerity doesn't make them any less wrong.
The 9/11 truth movements "peaked" in March 2004 at the International Inquiry into 9/11, held in San Francisco, California. Shortly after that, the flood of nonsense claims masquerading as investigations accelerated (most dramatically with release of the film "911 In Plane Site") and the "movement" split into two factions -- those that think the no-plane claims are worth including (some of them do persuade some people about complicity) and those who prefer to focus only on claims that have evidence. Perhaps the best way to determine whether a "9/11 truth" website, book, or movie is being careful or sloppy (or deceitful) is to see whether they understand that the "no plane hit Pentagon" claim was just a hoax to distract and discredit the skeptics. In a few cases, some authors and activists who previously gave some credibility to those claims have since retracted their support for them. If there is any hope for the "9/11 truth" movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.
I've written an essay on the "Speculation Movement".
No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-specul...
I've quoted this article, and other sources including Steven Jones and others.
Interesting, this thread is cited in Mark Fenster's book, "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture." Looks like there's also some discussion of the Eric D. Williams fiasco. Not sure what the overall tone of the book is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VEO0rtx9VIMC&...
http://lic.law.ufl.edu/~fenster/
My book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture is now (August 2008) out in a second, revised edition from the University of Minnesota Press, replacing the first edition which was published in 1999. You can purchase it from Amazon. Here is the introduction (you'll need to download it, and it's in manuscript form). Here is a recent interview in which I summarize the book and its arguments. The book casts American belief in conspiracy theory as a subset of American populism, insofar as "conspiracy" presumes a breach between the people and a small, enclosed center of power. Viewed this way, conspiracy theory is not merely an extremist and anomalous exception to popular politics but a political narrative that continually circulates throughout politics and popular culture. Nor is it a new phenomenon -- indeed, its logic stretches back to the early Republic and the colonial era before it. Sometimes conspiracy theory operates in anti-democratic ways that can prove harmful to minority groups and the legitimacy of the state; at other times, "conspiracy theory" serves as a label attached to an emerging, oppositional politics; and at still others, it is an entertaining game of interpretation and an enthralling storytelling device. But however it exists, it is more than the marginal, symptomatic rantings of a paranoid few. The new edition considers a wide range of political conspiracies, from theories about 9/11 to the JFK assassination, and popular film, television, and novels.
Chapter 7 is called "A Failure of Imagination: Competing Narratives of 9/11 Truth."
And it looks like 911research and TruthMove are prominent representations of one of those narratives.
The notes for that chapter reference work by Victoria Ashley, my "Two Movements" post, the TruthMove disinformation page, and Truthmod's post on 911Blogger about the Eric Williams fiasco.
It sounds like a fairly mainstream academic book, but I ordered a copy to see what the author has to say about the movement. Given any amount of scholarly objectivity the book may have some useful insights.
JFK, Karl Marx, the Pope, Aristotle Onassis, Howard Hughes, Fox Mulder, Bill Clinton, both George Bushes—all have been linked to vastly complicated global (or even galactic) intrigues. Two years after Mark Fenster first published Conspiracy Theories, the attacks of 9/11 stirred the imaginations of a new generation of believers. Before the black box from United 93 had even been found, there were theories put forth from the implausible to the offensive and outrageous. In this new edition of the landmark work, and the first in-depth look at the conspiracy communities that formed to debunk the 9/11 Commission Report, Fenster shows that conspiracy theories play an important role in U.S. democracy. Examining how and why they circulate through mass culture, he contends, helps us better understand society as a whole. Ranging from The Da Vinci Code to the intellectual history of Richard Hofstadter, he argues that dismissing conspiracy theories as pathological or marginal flattens contemporary politics and culture because they are—contrary to popular portrayal—an intense articulation of populism and, at their essence, are strident calls for a better, more transparent government. Fenster has demonstrated once again that the people who claim someone’s after us are, at least, worth hearing.
Looks like the phrase "conspiracy community" sums up the tone. The book is researching a cult, not a crime.
Unfortunately, this seems to be another example of the limitations of many academics who are themselves professionals in their field, have a great deal of expertise in that field, and so don't believe they can evaluate the 9/11 evidence -- that belongs to a different expert -- and only believe that bodies like NIST can produce viable information about the topic.
Often they put entirely different standards on the official bodies than they do on papers produced by 9/11 researchers, who are themselves also professionals and scientists, because they are trained to look to authority to direct them. As a researcher myself, I understand that mentality and the rationale for it, but having actually looked at the 9/11 evidence, the methods of analysis used by those researching it, the complexity of the body of information, I believe that academics hobble themselves with their own limits. Unfortunately I don't think many will be able to see past them.
Even building professionals have dared to look, not just physicists, chemists, economists and lawyers, and don't agree with the Commission or NIST.
I appreciate your skepticism as it's certainly based in past experience, but I'd also point out that the summary of this book, while indicating a mainstream orientation, seems to be a bit more nuanced than what we have come to expect.
at other times, "conspiracy theory" serves as a label attached to an emerging, oppositional politics
Academic specialization isn't evil, while it may be counter-productive in some ways. The author is not stepping outside of his area of expertise, whatever that is, and is therefore limited in the scope of his review and conclusions.
Anyway, I'll read at least Chapter 7 and let you know what I think.
I'd be interested to see if the book talks about conspiracy community behaviors around insider trading.
The papers of two finance researchers also suggest some profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. Allen Poteshman, a professor of finance at the University of Illinois, published a paper demonstrating insider trading in options on United and American airline stocks. He concluded that, “There is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11.â€[19][20]. Similarly, Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, professors at the University of Zurich, reached the same conclusion in their research.[21]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledg...
Academic specialization isn't evil, while it may be counter-productive in some ways
I agree -- I'm not saying there's any problem with specializations -- my point is that it tends to lead to a belief in highly intelligent people that they are not versed enough to look outside of a comfort zone. Specializing is important for many reasons, but when it comes to situations like a political cover-up, it can be a drawback.
I can't say I don't jump to conclusions around this kind of thing, but I think I have yet to see anyone who has written a book with "conspiracy" in the title who is able to see the situation objectively.
using the word 'conspiracy' demonstrates a bias. clearly. it is the theological equivalent of using the word 'cult.'
John is a member of a eligious organization
John is a member of a religious cult
these both could be correct statements - but they certainly lack objectivity and proportion.
it is certainly true enough that EVERY organized religion under the sun meets the criteria of being a 'cult.'
talking snakes and magic underwear - Bill Maher would say. but - by using simple word over another you paint a vivid picture - and tar a very diverse subject with a very narrow brush.
Victronix said:
I agree -- I'm not saying there's any problem with specializations -- my point is that it tends to lead to a belief in highly intelligent people that they are not versed enough to look outside of a comfort zone. Specializing is important for many reasons, but when it comes to situations like a political cover-up, it can be a drawback.
This is a great point and true in my experience with academics as well. The ones that tend to appeal to us are people like Peter Dale Scott, who was a professor of English, but does politics outside of his formal teaching at Berkley.
Victronix said:
I can't say I don't jump to conclusions around this kind of thing, but I think I have yet to see anyone who has written a book with "conspiracy" in the title who is able to see the situation objectively.
The closest thing to this from what I have found are Jonathan Vankin's two books: "60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time" and "Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Crimes."
As for the Mark Fenster book, it looks like he a done some rather detailed work, but I think it is coming from an overall perspective that says: "In the end of the day these people are wrong about what they are saying."
I think it is coming from an overall perspective that says: "In the end of the day these people are wrong about what they are saying."
I got the book and read the chapter on 9/11 truth. He lays out the presence of competing groups in the movement, with big tent inclusion of AJ bluster, space beams, and no-planes on one side and 911research and TruthMove on the other. There's a direct quote from my original post here. He also uses a long quote from the TM disinformation page and even summarizes it's content. He also references arguments made by Hoffman and Victronix here. Unfortunately, he implies that our concern for disinformation is not as logical or historically based as it is paranoid or territorial. But I do think this might be one of the most mainstream acknowledgments of the basic premise of this thread. The movement isn't unified, and some are trying to be more responsible and reject the inclusion of raw speculation and fallacy.
Overall, he seems not to want to take sides. He suggests that the Commission report was inadequate, but seems to think that the movement is psychologically motivated. As though any controversial event in our history has a built in set of people who will question it. And his very superficial understanding of the movement and it's facts is very clear. He really doesn't know what has merit or not and so is just reporting some of what his research indicated to him.
I did find this take on the movement to be revealing in one sense. I think it reflects a common mainstream opinion of our effort among those who don't like to consider themselves dismissive of contradiction, but who are educated and conventional enough to think themselves above "conspiracy theory." From that standpoint, with all our various well poisoning contributors mixed in with everything else, the movement does look fairly wonky.
You must log in to post.