Alternative news sources

[snyprrr]

So, how bout that Weiner? gaaaahhh He just looks soooo creepy, hope he doesn't have any nieces.

[Parsifal]

I question everything. And I don't watch TV at all since I don't have one. I don't follow celebrities at all either. You can't address the crucial issue here, so you're lashing out at "garbage culture", whatever that is, as if we were somehow connected to it simply by virtue of disagreeing with you.

Same here.  I haven't watched television or cable TV news with any regularity for several decades.  I collect information from a variety of sources and subject it to scrutiny before I accept anything.  This involves evaluation of how trustworthy the source is. 

You have lampooned the NIST report on 9/11 as a fabrication and characterized NIST as a hive of government conspirators tasked with spreading propaganda.  It turns out I am acquainted with the former head of the Physical Measurement Division at NIST and other NIST scientific and administrative staff.  Just last week I was at NIST in Gaithersburg and had a chance to chat with a physicist who is working on a new standard for the kilogram.  I put trust in the information provided by NIST because I trust the source.  The idea that NIST would distribute misinformation on 9/11 is ludicrous.

On the other hand, why should I accept your "theory."  The most obvious thing is that none of the fragmentary theories you float about 9/11 survive even the most rudimentary scrutiny.  You claim that elements of the consensus explanation are impossible based on factual misstatements, flawed reasoning and lack of understanding of math, physics and statistics.  You replace the consensus narrative with one which is absurd and for which there no supporting evidence.  Even by the standards of the info-tainment pseudo-news that fill up TV news you claims are comical.

[kishnevi]

For some years now,  I turn on the TV to get the weather forecast and to listen to the top stories--usually simply to get a sense of what other people are saying, as opposed to learning the facts of the stories.  Most of my real "news" comes from the Internet in one form or another.

BTW, I've found the weather forecasts to be as unreliable as anything else on TV.


One thing about the 9/11 truth movement that has always amused me is that many of the "truthers" are from the political right--that is, from the end of the political spectrum that views government as inherently corrupt and incompetent, or at least unforgiveably inefficient and therefore to be made use of only when actually necessary.  Yet the basic belief of the truthers is in a version of reality in which government works at one 100 percent competency and efficiency, and on a vast scale to boot.

[Karl Henning]

Sean addressing anyone as You wackos and loonies . . . my week is complete.

[Karl Henning]

So, how bout that Weiner? gaaaahhh He just looks soooo creepy, hope he doesn't have any nieces.

No one can doubt that the US of A is the world's Entertainment King, when we have exclusives like the I'm okay with my husband having no moral compass, and you, the voting public, ought to be cool with it, too Press Conference.

[MishaK]

No one can doubt that the US of A is the world's Entertainment King, when we have exclusives like the I'm okay with my husband having no moral compass, and you, the voting public, ought to be cool with it, too Press Conference.

http://www.someecards.com/workplace-cards/anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-work-funny-ecard

[Sean]

If you've no television MishaK you've gone up a rung or two for me; in my present apartment when I arrived there was this standard huge great flat screen thing which I had removed as soon as I could a few days later. No kettle or toaster but there has to be this propaganda machine at some obscene cost; the officials when they call look at me strange, but not as strange as I look at them...

Emotionally attached to being an independent thinker and a dissident, yes something to bear in mind, but not the case here.

Nice post Scarpia, info-tainment, hadn't heard of that, one to remember, but like MishaK you do seem to want it both ways. So you admirably won't just side with the government media mouthpiece and the horde's identity-thinking and reassuring model of the world needs, but you don't want to take the next step and question the independence of the NIST and FEMA government agencies either.

As for the technical details of course I'm not trained in architecture, aviation or physics but the big point here is that there are several thousands professionals who are, and who indeed can't be written off as easily as some weirdo poster like me... Your idea that it's just bunk is bunk.

By the way I don't think either of you are too moronic. A bit moronic but not too much- you know what music is and thus have an aesthetic and hence critical sense that goes beyond simplistic rationale. One book on the alternative views is Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Centre Disaster- great title I think, most people being ready to follow causal lines no matter how daft.

As I think I said, when group-emailing the staff around me here a while back on thoughts on 9/11 nobody replied. I nearly sent them a picture of frightened mice in holes but discretion prevailed, so you get my vote...

Jeffrey, similar thoughts to you though not sure about the government incompetence arguments...

[MishaK]

If you've no television MishaK you've gone up a rung or two for me

I've lived in a TV-free household for over 13 years now and don't miss it at all.

As for the technical details of course I'm not trained in architecture, aviation or physics but the big point here is that there are several thousands professionals who are, and who indeed can't be written off as easily as some weirdo poster like me... Your idea that it's just bunk is bunk.

Firstly, the credentials of your sources are questionable. But that's not the point. An appeal to authority isn't an argument but a logical fallacy, and having a certificate in one or another discipline does not shield one from error or the egomaniacal urge for fame beyond one's own mediocre existence as an unknown, middling researcher at an insignificant institution. The point that I have been making all along is not that this or that piece of evidence could absolutely not have been interpreted to have been generated by any other means than the "official story". (That said, the alternate explanations still are pathetically weak, though. E.g. the actual "study" on the alleged presence of thermite at WTC is exceptionally weak on reliable conclusions and does not address alternate possibilities for the data collected.) The point is that all of the other explanations of individual bits of evidence, taken together, do not amount to a coherent story. That is what I have been asking you for from my first post in this thread: provide a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. That is the crux of the problem with the conspiracy theories. They add up to a completely inconsistent and preposterous story of an all powerful, infallible secret government machinery, involving essentially a substantial chunk of the US workforce, miraculously free of leaks, which concocts an absurdly boneheaded plot of byzantine complexity, even though all the alleged goals could have been accomplished by far simpler means. You don't need any technical training to see with a sane mind that that is ridiculous. That's what the Taibbi article I posted at the outset gets at quite eloquently. (And, btw, Taibbi is as anti-establishment as it gets. You should read his pieces on Goldman and the financial crisis.)

Edit: underlined for emphasis.

[Sean]

MishaK, I'll agree to disagree...

* There's a wide range of academics involved in 9/11 Truth- see the documentaries and perhaps the online Journal of 9/11 Studies

* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

* On the contrary there certainly does seem to be evidence not accountable for by the official conspiracy theory, for instance the war games simulating the same events on the same day, molten metal under all three buildings, and Building 7 the worst and most mysterious building failure in history

* The complaints about complexity of 9/11 being an inside job have been answered in detail by others, and as I said the official conspiracy theory about Al Qaeda, caves in Afghanistan, Norad and so on can also be well perceived as ridiculous

* It's really not wacky or comparable with Roswell or the Face on Mars- these guys have solid arguments to make; take a look at architect Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth presentation

* In passing, have you see Ring of Power in 30 or so parts on Youtube? That's a lot more speculative but packed with great stuff to think about...

* As for this timeline you want it would take me too long to write it and you can find it elsewhere; there's plenty of clandestine motives for 9/11- the enormous military industrial complex sales, the Homeland Security Bill surveillance sales and controls, the oil, the geopolitics, and even Silverstein's profits- everyone's happy

[MishaK]

* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

It was "peer reviewed" by other people who share the same biases/work for the same "institutes"/publications. That's not peer review. That's conflict of interest. And still the conclusions are super weak.

* On the contrary there certainly does seem to be evidence not accountable for by the official conspiracy theory, for instance the war games simulating the same events on the same day, molten metal under all three buildings, and Building 7 the worst and most mysterious building failure in history

All very much accountable and accounted for.

* The complaints about complexity of 9/11 being an inside job have been answered in detail by others, and as I said the official conspiracy theory about Al Qaeda, caves in Afghanistan, Norad and so on can also be well perceived as ridiculous

* It's really not wacky or comparable with Roswell or the Face on Mars- these guys have solid arguments to make; take a look at architect Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth presentation

* In passing, have you see Ring of Power in 30 or so parts on Youtube? That's a lot more speculative but packed with great stuff to think about...

* As for this timeline you want it would take me too long to write it and you can find it elsewhere; there's plenty of clandestine motives for 9/11- the enormous military industrial complex sales, the Homeland Security Bill surveillance sales and controls, the oil, the geopolitics, and even Silverstein's profits- everyone's happy

NO. There are no timelines. There is no coherent story anywhere. Not in Ring of Power, not anywhere. Just a bunch of incredulous/incompetent idiocy and innuendo. I take it you don't know the story either, since you've been noodling around in several posts taking more time and space to say that others have "been answered in detail by others" without ever saying what it is you believe about 9-11. Is it that hard? Or is it simply that you prefer the "the-Lord-works-in-mysterious-ways" aspect of your little religion to remain that way?

[Sean]

What is it I believe about 9/11?? You must have worked that out by now, though I don't believe anything as such...

I find the explosive controlled demolition theory highly persuasive and also attractive for someone of my disposition, out on the limb of society, and in fact no longer in what was supposed, if it was even supposed, to be my society...

You understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

[Parsifal]

* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

Hehehe!   That journal is published by Bentham Scientific.  They are quite famous now.  A couple of Cornell University computer scientists did an experiment.  They used a computer program to generate a manuscript of random sentences and sent it to a Bentham Scientific publication.  They received a response saying their manuscript had been accepted after peer review, along with a bill for $800 in publication fees. 

There's the "particular care" that goes into review of Bentham Scientific papers. Heheheh!

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

[Sean]

I think you need to do a little more research.

[Parsifal]

I think you need to do a little more research.

Maybe you should be publishing in these Bentham Scientific Journals.  They accepted a string of randomly generated words for publication.  Maybe your thoughts would also pass their peer review.  It would finally put to rest the question, "is there something that makes even less sense than a string or randomly generated words?"


Do you have the $800?  That seems to be the key point.

[Parsifal]

You understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

I also understand that if they ever find out that Norad shot down Santa Clause in 1962 in a conspiracy to enable Walmart to take over the jelly-bean trade it will be the end of the US in its present form.  I've got my fingers crossed.   

[MishaK]

What is it I believe about 9/11?? You must have worked that out by now, though I don't believe anything as such...

No, I haven't. It's completely unclear to me what you believe. You've posted inconsistent things here.

I find the explosive controlled demolition theory highly persuasive and also attractive for someone of my disposition, out on the limb of society, and in fact no longer in what was supposed, if it was even supposed, to be my society...

The point is: the "controlled demolition theory" is only one very small aspect of the big picture. For the controlled demolition to be even half plausible, you have to explain who (within a government full of demonstrated incompetents, screw-ups and leakers and with inadequate budgets) hired hordes of demolition experts, where they sourced the explosives and how they rigged the place (which must have taken months at leaset) without any of the tens of thousands of people who work at the WTC noticing, without anyone having second thoughts and leaking any aspect of this monstrosity. And then you have to explain why they even bothered with airplanes, how the planes got there, how they managed to get the planes to hit ***precisely*** in the place where the facades broke and ***precisely*** where the buldings then later begin their collapse. And once you explain that, I will have lots more questions that will follow from your answers. You see, your ideas aren't even half-baked. They are at best 1/12-baked, because you never bothered to think through the ramifications of what you're saying, because your "disposition" and your self-image of one "out on the limb of society" would prefer not to be confronted with the implausibility of your theories, so you stop thinking when the theory reaches the greatest comfort level for you.

You understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

You understand that the scale of the potential social upheaval caused by the uncovering of the supposed veracity of this conspiracy theory says absolutely nothing about the actual veracity of said theory?

Hehehe!   That journal is published by Bentham Scientific.  They are quite famous now.  A couple of Cornell University computer scientists did an experiment.  They used a computer program to generate a manuscript of random sentences and sent it to a Bentham Scientific publication.  They received a response saying their manuscript had been accepted after peer review, along with a bill for $800 in publication fees. 

There's the "particular care" that goes into review of Bentham Scientific papers. Heheheh!

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

Nice!

[Sean]

You pair are more nuts than me.

Well at least you're thinking things through MishaK, and when you find that those points have some rather plausible answers out there the day of your Pauline conversion may be upon you soon.

However your points are duly noted...

so you stop thinking when the theory reaches the greatest comfort level for you

You won't mind if I stop thinking- need to get some sleep, and just don't care that much anyway. How about a Face on Mars thread?

[MishaK]

Someone's really afraid of Occam's razor...

Sweet dreams, Sean.

[Geo Dude]

That awkward moment when you like an anti-drone warfare page on Facebook and find out that the admin is a 9/11 truther and he goes on a long rant through ten separate comments after you politely suggest that posting about such things hurts his cause....

...Not-so-politely comparing 9/11 Truthers to "aliens in Roswell" and "Gov't is hiding Bigfoot" conspiracy theorists may have been a bit harsh, though. Or maybe not.  Either way that was in my second post on that thread.

I also may have said something about how a page advocating against abuse of drones is not supposed to be a Loose Change support group in my second reply after I got a bit annoyed with him.

[Karl Henning]

...Not-so-politely comparing 9/11 Truthers to "aliens in Roswell" and "Gov't is hiding Bigfoot" conspiracy theorists may have been a bit harsh, though. Or maybe not.

On the whole, I am thinking, not.