TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Rigorous Intuition: Critical view of the movement (5 posts)

1. truthmover
   Administrator

   Rigorous Intuition: Critical view of the movement

   If you aren't familiar with RI or Jeff Wells, we would like to assure you that despite what you might think if you only gave his blog a quick glance, he really does recognize the difference between fact and fiction. He's actually rather interested in the psychological/spiritual realm between the two, and yet he often defends fact with the veracity of a true journalist.

   For some time he's been posting specifically about the challenges facing the 9/11 truth movement. The following recent post is a good example of his critical, yet productive attitude. He understands that the core of the movement is in a promotional battle to define itself as distinct from projects that confuse fact with speculation or see no strategic imperative to distinguish between the two when promoting 9/11 truth.

   http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-real-thing....

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Victronix
   Member

   I think his writing is interesting but I also think some of his ideas are part of an agenda, such as his recent pairing the Pentagon missile and the demolitions as problematic "physical evidence," when they are completely different.

   To be in this as long as he's been and to still be making such sweeping generalizations, to me, speaks of an agenda more than well-reasoned objectivity about the situation. We can all take simple examples and try to use them to frame a situation. But that helps no one.

   The fact is, the entire movement changed and grew radically when Dr. Jones came on board, and continues to grow every day. Today we do have structural engineers, physicists, civil engineers and architects on board. And none of those people are talking about the "missile" at the Pentagon. To equate the Pentagon missile idea with demolition at this point is ridiculous.

   Here's one member of the new scholars group -

   Name: David L Griscom Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society. Research physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC, 1967-2001. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. 185 total articles now in print. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.

   He states: "Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail due to “natural causes” within the same very short time interval. In more popular language, this hidden assumption underlying Dr. Garcia's calculation is "statistically impossible. But there IS one way that all 250 some columns could have lost all strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION." http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-wa...

   If even research physicists who have worked at the Naval Research Laboratory in DC for dozens of years are suggesting demolition, why was Jeff Wells, a blog writer, cutting it down?

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. truthmover
   Administrator

   Say not so

   I've been reading his blog for a long time, and recognize that he is no expert on the matter. I agree that he is too simply dismissing the physical evidence of CD, while I understand his motive. He's making the point, perhaps in an ill advised manner, that 9/11 truth is based largely on documentary evidence, and that the physical evidence has been a locus around which we find division in the movement, and a great deal of distraction.

   TruthMove has our Demolition page, and certainly supports that ever developing line of inquiry. But we are also weary of over-emphasizing the physical evidence. Although, the collapse of WTC7 is now rightly in everyone's top five. I don't think that Wells is discounting the evidence as much as he is pointing out how much these concerns have come to dominate the stage.

   Wells is not a voice of the movement. He's someone looking in, and trying to hold the movement accountable to its own priorities. After a couple of years, I get the sense that he's just calling it like he sees it, and getting it right more often than not. I really don't think he's trying to undermine the movement. Maybe I've been duped. I've had my doubts at times.

   I liked his comments about the movement having too great a national focus. Too few of us have read "The War on Freedom." "Bush Did 9/11" just doesn't cut it. Just as understanding the events of that day do not provide adequate contextual information with which to understand the means, motive, and opportunity to commit that crime. And maybe that's his point. The 9/11 attack is only one piece of the puzzle. Understanding what happened that day doesn't lead to geo-political insight.

   Anyway, we aren't recommending RI as a source for the truth. I just thought that his comments, coming from an outsider, echoed some of our recent concerns for the state of the movement.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Victronix
   Member

   He's an outsider with an agenda, just as Moinbot has an agenda and thus uses Loose Change -- Wells does the same. He isn't talking about Jones or Hoffman or Ryan, only the worst of the physical evidence. That's a way to frame a discussion and it has a purpose. He's made a decision and he's manipulating the reader by cherry-picking his examples and ignoring a vast area of the rest of it. It's not intellectually honest.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmover
   Administrator

   But...

   Wells expressed an invalid conclusion that the movement would be better off ignoring the physical evidence. And yet that conclusion was found within a longer message arguing for a very valid conclusion. That the movement has to keeps its eye on the ball. What are we trying to accomplish, and exactly what do we need to do that? Or more to his point, what do we not need. Good question for us to consider, regardless of whether he has the answer.

   He's not trying to trash the good guys. 911Truth.org is one of his 9/11 links. He's just trying to rattle the cage a bit, maybe even push our buttons to get us stirred up. Of course, in the end we can not know his exact intentions. But it has been my sense that he is not trying to undermine our cause. In fact, I think he wants answers as much as we do, regardless of whether or not he recognizes the best approach to getting them.

   And so we can take these comments for what they are. The concerned musing of someone on the outside looking in. He obviously isn't going to totally understand, or perfectly represent the movement. But as an external reflection of our social impact, his comments have some value.

   Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.