It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9-11 Experiment: Who Wants to Be A Part of It?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.

No YouTube videos done by others. No pointing to other websites. No snarking. Just an investigation and presentation of findings. You have to review the evidence of both sides as objectively as you can and present it like an academic paper, pro and con (showing you've addressed both).

I have a background in archaeology, DNA analysis, and research. There are some others with similar backgrounds on here that we could invite to join. Weedwacker, you (and the other pilots) could examine the flight data and theories. We could have people review the testimonies of the presenters and list potential biases (both sides) and their "track record", as well as, their ability to make the testimony.

I know we all have strong opinions, but honestly we really only have subject matter expertise in our field of study. In fact, most of us have enough information to be dangerous in areas outside our SME and pretty much regurgitate the "party platform" of our "side", and do it enough snark to turn off anyone who might possibly want to interject an idea.

This experiment might be helpful in not only investigating the issue and learning to trust our fellow Americans, but seeing how we would rank compared to the 9-11 Commisssion.

Would anyone be interested?




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.


I'd argue that we already are, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't do it in a more organized fashion...


Originally posted by A Fortiori
No YouTube videos done by others. No pointing to other websites.


Why not?



Originally posted by A Fortiori
No snarking.


That'll be the day :-p.



Originally posted by A Fortiori
Just an investigation and presentation of findings. You have to review the evidence of both sides as objectively as you can and present it like an academic paper, pro and con (showing you've addressed both).


Personally, I think that the best such investigations have been done by authors, such as David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs.



Originally posted by A Fortiori
We could have people review the testimonies of the presenters and list potential biases (both sides) and their "track record", as well as, their ability to make the testimony.


I think that it'd be easier to just start writing up a document. If you want, you could be the scribe. After you start writing, we could try to find some reviewers from both sides, but I can imagine that there might be a lot of disagreement on who the reviewers are and I think that we should atleast get started on what it is they'd supposedly be reviewing so that we don't get stuck on that point.


Originally posted by A Fortiori
This experiment might be helpful in not only investigating the issue and learning to trust our fellow Americans, but seeing how we would rank compared to the 9-11 Commisssion.


I think we've already done much better than the 9/11 Commission :-p. I personally think authors like the ones I mentioned are far better role models...



Originally posted by A Fortiori
Would anyone be interested?


Me :-)



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
It's a great idea, but I can't see it panning out for one specific reason:

We already have high level professionals submitting data for review.
People are making excuses against the individual instead of the data.

IE: Steve Jones. He's apparently a crack-pot, and "pays" to have his
science published...yet nobody will attack the science constructively.

We already have live debate shows where professionals discuss video
evidence, and science only to be snuffed out by comments like, "e-mail
your questions and we'll get back to you" (< NIST
) never to be
heard from.

I guess what I'm saying is, we already have the scientific papers, the
video testimony, FDR analysis...but those who refuse to see the obvious
will never come to terms.

Also keep in mind, there are people here determined to spin the truth
and prevent us from getting a real investigation.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out. I'd like to see a few
people on this forum open their eyes. They know who they are.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
The media depiction of the 9/11 WTC implosions is really a complex Milgram Obedience to Authority Study.

In these larger scale abductions most people don't see through the choreography.

The pilot/engineer groups were more likely to see the event as a planned obsolescence because of their spacial recognition abilities and the logic and emotional detachment required by their professions.

There was a similar German first impression survey of young adults that showed over 30% believed the US government was involved with 9/11. That would seem to indicate some reality filtering differences due to age.

You say we are not allowed to link evidence from outside the thread so you must be looking for primarily emotional responses within ATS.

It feels like i'm watching a racist divide and conquer program only instead of ethnicity they are producing a national schism based on perceptive differences in the publics response to media.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I thought that was what is going on here at ATS - independent investigation and scientific analysis?

You guys have had 8 freak'n years to perform a "scientific study" but, what have you come up with? The theories from 911 truethers are endless....

I don't think I could name them all, from holographic planes, super thermite, controlled demolition, lasers from space, alien involvement, bush did it, cheney pushed the button, the u.s. military ordered to stand down, guliani - "pull it" statement, the freak avery and his edited versions of 9/11 video.......Oh and the new one I read just the other day - remote controlled planes.......the list goes on and on.

Since you guys believe there was a conspiracy, there is no way you can perform a NON-BIAS investigation. You have a tremendous conflict of interest.

Also, since you DISPUTE EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES...where are you going to start?

I believe your 8 years too late. Because, now, there is too much B.S. out there. All your arguing, bickering and so called "experts" are just not credible.

Just to make my point,

The last show brought on by the National Geographic channel was "dismissed" by your movement simply because (according to your "experts" that sat in and viewed the program - including the idiot averey) It did not meet there criteria. They even had the guy who conducted the experiments on the phone and could not ask him a legitamate question.

This special was "written off" by you guys as propaganda and disinformation by your "experts"

I'M NOT HERE TO PICK A FIGHT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT, the math you're using is only going to add up to your preconceived conclusions because you already believe in the "conspiracy".

Also, where are you going to get your evidence from? Is the government going to let you in to these hangers and sites where the materials are for you to conduct your experiments? And what kind of experiments are you going to conduct that the experts have not?


Good luck - I'll be watching to see what comes of this.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.



There is no impediment to the TM doing just that.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are 2 agencies that demonstrate that IF this is done rigorously enough, then they will be taken seriously. And the rational will realize that they get absolutely ZERO cooperation from the perps, and yet they expose a lot of stuff.

Nothing has ever stopped the TM, other than their own laziness, from doing it. You have a few celebrities that could fund it.

Get going.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Hi, A Fortiori.


Originally posted by A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.

Good idea.


Originally posted by A Fortiori
. . .Weedwacker, you (and the other pilots) could examine. . .

! ! Ha ha ! You're calling the wrong guy. He's on the "terrorists side" ! !

May I suggest/offer you this:
You know that there are:
the architects about 9/11,
the engineers about 9/11,
the pilots about 9/11, and
. . .etc. . .

I have excellent/first-class sources of inspirations/informattions !
Sooooo if you need help, on that side, count me in !


Originally posted by A Fortiori
Would anyone be interested?

! I I SIR !

Blue skies.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
It's a great idea, but I can't see it panning out for one specific reason:

We already have high level professionals submitting data for review.


Good point. My ATS post on the Pentagon "Surface to Air Missiles", submitted a few weeks ago, can be viewed as evidence that PfT has no idea what they are doing or talking about. Signing on in such robust and fervent support of a fatally flawed law suit (not to mention the other egregious errors of fact or omission in that lawsuit, discussed and pointed out in various posts here and on other websites) relates directly to the credibility of "organizations" such as PfT.

Before any serious ad-hoc/independent "investigation" or collection of experts can take place, credible and experienced individuals/groups with a solid grasp on what the facts are (i.e. SAM missiles, Camp Springs 1 departures, "rush hour" traffic into DCA, P-56 fly-bys, etc) need to be agreed upon.

Until and unless that happens, you are simply setting yourself up for more ridicule based on the rantings of uninformed, misinformed and ill-informed hucksters of snake oil.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 





Before any serious ad-hoc/independent "investigation" or collection of experts can take place, credible and experienced individuals/groups with a solid grasp on what the facts are (i.e. SAM missiles, Camp Springs 1 departures, "rush hour" traffic into DCA, P-56 fly-bys, etc) need to be agreed upon.


The pretty lady with the wand thingy appears out of a cloud of smoke to say "I'm Glenda the *GOOD* which"?




[edit on 16-10-2009 by fromunclexcommunicate]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fromunclexcommunicate
The pretty lady with the wand thingy appears out of a cloud of smoke to say "I'm Glenda the *GOOD* which"?


More like the Tooth Fairy stops by...or the Easter Bunny pays a visit. Ain't never gonna happen because the egos involved on the PfT club-level are way to big to get through the door. They will never admit they are wrong, as they are with the Gallop lawsuit, the Camp Springs 1 departure, the flight path of Gopher 06, the ability or a 767 to fly 450 mph, the effect of digital flight controls, the ability of a flight management computer to take a lat/long (say...41 52' 44" N, 087 38' 09" W, for example) way point and have the aircraft fly directly to that waypoint with a fixed altitude set and at as fast a speed as can be made, ad nauseum.

Troother Fairies.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
It's a great idea, but I can't see it panning out for one specific reason:

We already have high level professionals submitting data for review.
People are making excuses against the individual instead of the data.

IE: Steve Jones. He's apparently a crack-pot, and "pays" to have his
science published...yet nobody will attack the science constructively.

We already have live debate shows where professionals discuss video
evidence, and science only to be snuffed out by comments like, "e-mail
your questions and we'll get back to you" (< NIST
) never to be
heard from.

I guess what I'm saying is, we already have the scientific papers, the
video testimony, FDR analysis...but those who refuse to see the obvious
will never come to terms.

Also keep in mind, there are people here determined to spin the truth
and prevent us from getting a real investigation.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out. I'd like to see a few
people on this forum open their eyes. They know who they are.



I mean, you would research Weedwackers position and list the positive points, Weedwacker would research your position and list the positive points so that we are forced to confront positions from outside of our comfort zone.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I've always thought that those people clamoring for an "independent investigation" were doing a pretty good job of it themselves.

For example, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, has compiled a fantastic presentation based on his and others' research.

To me, this was a more well done and professionally executed investigation into the collapse of these buildings than anything I've seen the government hand our way.

As far as I'm concerned, an independent analysis has been done, and I find it's conclusions convincing.


Google Video Link




[edit on 16-10-2009 by 30_seconds]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 





I mean, you would research Weedwackers position and list the positive points


For example Weedwacker claims the holographic plane theory is false so based on his usually tight logic we assume he is projecting from an engineers standpoint.

The problem in this example is that much of the modern holographic design information that might have been employed is classified, so we end up finding only crystal acoustic optical modulation technologies from the 1920's to build our interpretation from.

We can't assimilate weedwackers position because we don't have his education level.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Thats a good question...continue



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fromunclexcommunicate

The problem in this example is that much of the modern holographic design information that might have been employed is classified, so we end up finding only crystal acoustic optical modulation technologies from the 1920's to build our interpretation from.



I think the basic premise of the OP would be to eliminate this type of speculation/appeal to magic/appeal to fairytale from the table cuz it's NOT provable.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds
For example, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, has compiled a fantastic presentation based on his and others' research.


Hi 30,

I will have to disagree with you. I have seen Mr. Gage's 2 hour presentation. It is far from researched. At best, be plagurizes the work of other truthers. (Griffin, Jones, etc.) He does not offer any usable evidence in his slide show and offers nothing in regards to the Scientific model.


To me, this was a more well done and professionally executed investigation into the collapse of these buildings than anything I've seen the government hand our way.


He has not "investigated" anything, sorry.


As far as I'm concerned, an independent analysis has been done, and I find it's conclusions convincing.


Again, there is nothing convincing about Mr. Gage and his crew.






posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomfrusso
I thought that was what is going on here at ATS - independent investigation and scientific analysis?

You guys have had 8 freak'n years to perform a "scientific study" but, what have you come up with? The theories from 911 truethers are endless....


This isn't a "scientific study". Don't call me a "truther", please. It is juvenile.


I don't think I could name them all, from holographic planes, super thermite, controlled demolition, lasers from space, alien involvement, bush did it, cheney pushed the button, the u.s. military ordered to stand down, guliani - "pull it" statement, the freak avery and his edited versions of 9/11 video.......Oh and the new one I read just the other day - remote controlled planes.......the list goes on and on.


*yawn*


Since you guys believe there was a conspiracy, there is no way you can perform a NON-BIAS investigation. You have a tremendous conflict of interest.


I am going to trust people. I am going to take an opposing viewpoint and list its merits. That is the point of this. We take the opposing viewpoint and list its merits first, then we present them to show that we can look at this out of the comforts of our own box.

It is more a study in "us" than 9-11, with 9-11 being the icing on the cake.


Also, since you DISPUTE EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES...where are you going to start?


If I get interest, I will send assignments since I know the individuals involved then we will present to each other.

Btw, scientific and academic communities? Individuals of an academic background and/or scientific background have weighed in. You are exaggerating.


I believe your 8 years too late. Because, now, there is too much B.S. out there. All your arguing, bickering and so called "experts" are just not credible.


There is the 9-11 Commission and their relevant artifacts. I said no ripping from other websites.

As far as "my" experts, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a part of an organization. I am not a self-identified "truther". I am an individual asking other individuals if they want to try an experiment.




Just to make my point,

The last show brought on by the National Geographic channel was "dismissed" by your movement simply because (according to your "experts" that sat in and viewed the program - including the idiot averey) It did not meet there criteria. They even had the guy who conducted the experiments on the phone and could not ask him a legitamate question.


First, step back and take a deep breath. You are making assumptions about me. Also, you are quite irksome with this "experts thing. I highly doubt you are a forensic expert yourself, therefore explain how you are qualified to dismiss "experts" presented by anyone.



This special was "written off" by you guys as propaganda and disinformation by your "experts"


"...you guys" is generalizing, offensive, and, well, stupid.


I'M NOT HERE TO PICK A FIGHT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT,


Then quit using ALL CAPS. That's Internet shouting.


the math you're using is only going to add up to your preconceived conclusions because you already believe in the "conspiracy".


People will have to take the opposite position.


Also, where are you going to get your evidence from? Is the government going to let you in to these hangers and sites where the materials are for you to conduct your experiments? And what kind of experiments are you going to conduct that the experts have not?


I'll lay it out better in a follow up post.



Good luck - I'll be watching to see what comes of this.






posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I have a background in aviation and law enforcement.

1. Crew Chief, US. Air Force.

2. Federal Police officer for the DoD.

3. Have access to many government an professional research sites.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PHIXER2
 


Excellent! U2U me your 9-11 position (if you feel comfortable) and I can get you an assignment!

Thanks so much for wanting to participate.

I need someone to give me an assignment based on my posts. I'll ask Watcher or Weedwacker.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Excellent! U2U me your 9-11 position (if you feel comfortable) and I can get you an assignment!


Has anyone been doing FOIA requests, i have done a few.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join