Changes in the last year

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
When you see a group of people who believe their position has been proven, it is a pretty clear sign that they have deluded themselves into believing something that is probably not true.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

Let me get this straight, and I just want to be 100% clear.

According to this, any person that claims their theory is 100% true or 100% certain is proof that their theory is not true.

Correct?




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


There has been nothing new for the past 13 years. Just more people seem to be aware of everything that everyone here has already known for a lifetime it seems. The world is slow to catch up but it's happening slowly but surely. Then there is the vast world of disinfo to wade through. Can't help you there but may the force be with you.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Did Jones ever publish the independent tests he claimed he was going to have done? Did he ever combust a chip in an inert atmosphere?

No, he abandoned you and he abandoned his research once it was clear that he was mistaken. You've been abandoned by a charlatan and defend him as if he had done anything but hurt the truth movement. I feel sorry for you.


Jones said that he would address what he admitted were legitimate concerns with his findings in a paper. He said this in, iirc, 2009 and that it would take him some months.

He appears to have had feet of clay.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
In some forums, there is the gradual awakening that the majority of truth leaders - those that run websites, have organizations that support the 9/11 "DS" (Delusional Story of 9/11 being an inside job), etc... are nothing more than chalatans and liars....

Example forum... of note there is poster Snowcrash, who id a mod there and a member here. There are several threads where he states that Gage is a liar, Griffin is delusional, Jones is a fraud, etc...

truthaction.org...



And of course, there are also a few truthers that have stumbled upon something that everyone could get behind - ferreting out the individuals that screwed the pooch regarding pre attack intelligence and seeing that those individuals are sacked because of it.

There's a thread at JREF discussing this..

Other than that, nothing new. Just new converts/kids with their first unrestricted access to the internet stumbling upon garbage...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


I rather think that this is where a sensible splinter of the TM (if that's not an oxmoron) will end up. Gradually moving to berating the (very real) failings that occured before the attack and insisting that this is consistent with their general approach since 9/11. They will continue to characterise debunkers as oppositional to this, even though most debunkers I encounter think in that exact way.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
You seem to be spending a lot of time on 9/11 forums for someone who says they don't spend much time on them anymore!

Actually, just because a website has the the term truth in the name doesn't mean they are a truth movement, as already mentioned by others, it's a term by the OS disinfo clan used in an attempt to categorise anyone who does not believe the OS tv fairy tale.

Going off you logic, that would make you part of the ATS movement, or the 9/11 movement!

Engineers for 9/11 is like any other website, someone has to pay the bills, you are cool with posting on a website like ATS that makes money from traffic/adverts, and you post here, so there is no difference with any other website.

You have made this thread in a weak attempt to ridicule and discredit people who do not believe the OS tv fairy tale, that is quite obvious based on all the disinfo in your OP.

cluesforum is a good source of info, it has a better 9/11 archieve than here, and has less wild accusation form the OS tv fairy tale believers. Dont believe everything you watch on tv, it's a shame that sheeple get sucked in my what they watch on tv!

I'd take a longer break from 9/11, it's warping your perception.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So, what has changed with the Truth Movement in that time? I don't really spend much time reading the 911 forums any longer, more Space Exploration and General Conspiracies, so I haven't had a chance to keep up. I read news about the paint chip analysis but I doubt anyone believed that. I also heard that AE911Truth started a new money making campaign. Again not exactly a huge shock..

Any other changes? Any big name departures? Any hot new stars?


Well, for one thing, Steven Jone's "smoking gun" report claiming thermite was supposedly found in the WTC dust went through peer review and was found to be wrong- the dust he found was confirmed to be paint-

Dr. James Millette report on the WTC dust

I gotta ask...can you explain more about how someone asked you if you posted on conspiracy web sites? Despite whatever the truthers want to believe, except for maybe the the occasional FBI agent looking to find the next conspiracy nut planning to shoot up the Pentagon entrance, I can't believe that too many people really take what people are saying on these boards seriously.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Loved this


Originally posted by kidtwist

Actually, just because a website has the the term truth in the name doesn't mean they are a truth movement, as already mentioned by others, it's a term by the OS disinfo clan used in an attempt to categorise anyone who does not believe the OS tv fairy tale.




Engineers for 9/11 is like any other website


You got down to writing the name of the site and realised you had to chop the name off in order not to disprove your silly point above.

Hilarious.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
You seem to be spending a lot of time on 9/11 forums for someone who says they don't spend much time on them anymore!

I haven't posted in a year and I was so motivated by the good weather that I've posted over a couple of days. Not exactly a lot of time. When I get busy at work again or the weather stays good enough I will be off for a while again I'm sure.


Actually, just because a website has the the term truth in the name doesn't mean they are a truth movement, as already mentioned by others, it's a term by the OS disinfo clan used in an attempt to categorise anyone who does not believe the OS tv fairy tale.

Whatever, you're clearly just trying to argue any possible little point you can now. The truth movement is a self given name, and a self applied label most of the time. I have little desire to bicker with you about who it applies to exactly. I let people categorise themselves.


Engineers for 9/11 is like any other website, someone has to pay the bills, you are cool with posting on a website like ATS that makes money from traffic/adverts, and you post here, so there is no difference with any other website.

Richard Gage certainly seems to have a lot of bills too, given that he's raised tens of thousands of dollars to put towards dubious causes. How much is in the 'new investigation' fund again?


You have made this thread in a weak attempt to ridicule and discredit people who do not believe the OS tv fairy tale, that is quite obvious based on all the disinfo in your OP.

More nonsense, you think just using the word 'disinfo' makes accurate information go away? It doesn't. The truth movement clearly has barely moved on since I left.


cluesforum is a good source of info, it has a better 9/11 archieve than here, and has less wild accusation form the OS tv fairy tale believers. Dont believe everything you watch on tv, it's a shame that sheeple get sucked in my what they watch on tv!

They literally believe there is no such thing as satellites. They literally believe the victims of 911 do not exist. Are you saying you believe in these two claims? You don't believe there were any victims? Since I left a while ago I have gotten in touch with people directly affected by 911. Would you like to tell my friend his father did not exist? Is my friend lying to me and is he part of the conspiracy?

Cluesforum is a psychotic mix of arrogance and idiocy, if you think that it's a good source of info you are making a huge mistake.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I gotta ask...can you explain more about how someone asked you if you posted on conspiracy web sites? Despite whatever the truthers want to believe, except for maybe the the occasional FBI agent looking to find the next conspiracy nut planning to shoot up the Pentagon entrance, I can't believe that too many people really take what people are saying on these boards seriously.


It wasn't quite that creepy. I was trying to sort out a business plan with someone, and he mentioned that he was into Alex Jones etc. I told him that I've posted a few times and I think Alex Jones is full of it. A few days after that I got a rather creepy email that could just have been spam. A few days after that I got some odd questions from a person I had weak connections to.

It all seemed rather suspicious at the time, so I took a bit of time to make sure I wasn't leaking personal information.

I am pretty sure it was just my paranoia, but who knows. I have known people to get death threats from disagreeing with truthers, so it could be anything really. I wouldn't like to say without proof. I don't worry about it anymore.

I'm considering writing a book at the moment, I've been noting down draft bits for years but now the truth movement is petering out even online, I think it's the way to go.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It wasn't quite that creepy. I was trying to sort out a business plan with someone, and he mentioned that he was into Alex Jones etc. I told him that I've posted a few times and I think Alex Jones is full of it. A few days after that I got a rather creepy email that could just have been spam. A few days after that I got some odd questions from a person I had weak connections to.

It all seemed rather suspicious at the time, so I took a bit of time to make sure I wasn't leaking personal information.


I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the spam you got about Alex Jones. Was it directed to you personally or was it a form email selling something?


I am pretty sure it was just my paranoia, but who knows. I have known people to get death threats from disagreeing with truthers, so it could be anything really. I wouldn't like to say without proof. I don't worry about it anymore.


Yeah, I've gotten them too. From my experience, the ones who actually threaten you are for the most part pipsqueaks who play-pretend to be tough guys from the anonymity the Internet offers, but who'd clam up and/or run away if they ever met you in person. It's the quiet ones stewing in the corner who never say anything who are the dangerous ones.


I'm considering writing a book at the moment, I've been noting down draft bits for years but now the truth movement is petering out even online, I think it's the way to go.


Yep, the truther movement seems to be the Bush administration's version of Dan Quayle jokes: once the target of public ire left office the incentive to keep them going evaporated. It was easy to accuse Bush of committing sinister secret plots to take over the world when he was prez but now that we have Obama's hopey-changey thing the conspiracies no longer have fertile soil to take root in anymore.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
I think the world is waiting for the next election to see how to play this. Obama has sold out so it will take a world war to confront it at the moment. If Ron Paul gets in there might be a window of opportunity to expose it without the whole house of cards coming down, otherwise the story will just end in the same trash can as JFK and all the other atrocities.


Um... wait. If Ron Paul gets in where?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
One Change I noticed and failed to mention and would be good to discuss is how the different Truth groups their leaders and strong personalities are all like a big first marriage. Then after 3 or 4 years you're sitting across the breakfast table from this person (or that person) and you're thinking, "Wait a minute what are their motives really?!" "Did she just marry me for my money!" "What's really going on here?" "Oh sure the honeymoon is over now I guess that's what it is." Like that.

In that some people have gone through the blind faith following naive bliss first love marriage thing and are starting to really question seriously who people are, what they want and what they are doing, or promoting or hiding etc.

Enough time and interaction has passed to get some perspective and people are starting to wake up individually and to start comparing notes and I think that's a very good thing.

A clear example of this can be seen in the Richard D. Hall video I posted. A few years ago Hall was keen on what Simon Shack was doing 'naively' thinking 'hey this guy is digging for the truth, for answers' and it even prompted Hall to do his own research and videos, only to produce the latest one that seems to refute massive video fakery and then he comes to look at Sept. Clues again and in a different light.

Now maybe Hall has an agenda I dunno, but I like how at least there is some dissent and reluctance with some to just naively deal with people of Truth perspectives like they're all on the up and up.

And I don't even mean if 3 people attack 1 person then that means that one person is on to something. I mean individuals having second thoughts on their own and running into others who have arrived themselves individually to the same conclusion.

Even more and more of that is welcome change.


Cheers



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Let me get this straight, and I just want to be 100% clear.

According to this, any person that claims their theory is 100% true or 100% certain is proof that their theory is not true.

Correct?


Correct.

And it isn't me who said it either...

It is given that no theory is 100% true, except for the knowledge that nothing is 100% true itself, which has been demonstrated so many times and in so many different ways it would be nigh impossible to list them.

Even things like 1+1=2 is not TRUE in the sense that you would like it to be, and that fact can be mathematically demonstrated. It is a linguistic construct. There is a proof for 1+1=2 found in the "Principia Mathematica", but that runs into the hundreds of pages, and it is well established that the "Principia" ultimately has fallacious underpinnings, something that Goedel proved would inevitably the case for any attempt to "prove" mathematics.

Now go back to Popper and try to understand why he said that the one sure sign of psuedo-scientific gobbledygook is a belief in the adherents that that position is proven.

You can't prove a theory, but you can judge the disposition of its adherents to questions of truth and fact, and the more outlandish the disposition the more likely they are selling you snake oil.

Thinking that your theory is 100% proven or true is just about as outlandish as dispositions get. Failing to disclose significant conflicts of interest in the person you PAID to do a study for you comes a close second.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
It is given that no theory is 100% true, except for the knowledge that nothing is 100% true itself, which has been demonstrated so many times and in so many different ways it would be nigh impossible to list them.

Even things like 1+1=2 is not TRUE in the sense that you would like it to be, and that fact can be mathematically demonstrated. It is a linguistic construct. There is a proof for 1+1=2 found in the "Principia Mathematica", but that runs into the hundreds of pages, and it is well established that the "Principia" ultimately has fallacious underpinnings, something that Goedel proved would inevitably the case for any attempt to "prove" mathematics.

Incompleteness is a fun concept, but it doesn't mean quite what you think. We can prove 1+1=2, but what we can't do is prove every true statement within the system of axioms. It's too complex to bother arguing about



Now go back to Popper and try to understand why he said that the one sure sign of psuedo-scientific gobbledygook is a belief in the adherents that that position is proven.

You can't prove a theory, but you can judge the disposition of its adherents to questions of truth and fact, and the more outlandish the disposition the more likely they are selling you snake oil.

Thinking that your theory is 100% proven or true is just about as outlandish as dispositions get. Failing to disclose significant conflicts of interest in the person you PAID to do a study for you comes a close second

I agree with everything here other than the last sentence. It takes a lot to prove conflict of interest and as long as the standard is applied equally then I'm fine with it.

Can you show me a standard of conflict of interest where it does apply to the studies showing thermite wasn't present, but does not apply to the studies showing thermite was present?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Incompleteness is a fun concept, but it doesn't mean quite what you think. We can prove 1+1=2, but what we can't do is prove every true statement within the system of axioms. It's too complex to bother arguing about


No, that's only partially correct.

Incompleteness means that you cannot prove the truth of ANY statement of mathematics using only the terms of mathematics, if it is assumed that mathematics is consistent.

Any such attempt leads to recursion, because the "fact" of 1+1=2 is intrinsically linked to all other "facts" about numbers.

The problem is that if some of mathematics cannot be proven this way, then either not all of mathematics is logically consistently tied together or no statement is can ultimately be proven true. You can pick one or the other, but either way 1+1=2 is screwed as a "fact".


The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, a corollary of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.



This corollary of the second incompleteness theorem shows that there is no hope of proving, for example, the consistency of Peano arithmetic using any finitistic means that can be formalized in a theory the consistency of which is provable in Peano arithmetic.



If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent.


all from the wiki page for convenience en.wikipedia.org...




I agree with everything here other than the last sentence. It takes a lot to prove conflict of interest and as long as the standard is applied equally then I'm fine with it.

Can you show me a standard of conflict of interest where it does apply to the studies showing thermite wasn't present, but does not apply to the studies showing thermite was present?


It is not necessarily the conflict of interest itself.

The guy was paid to do the study, but that was revealed at the outset. But this same guy had worked for the EPA before in a ranking position. The EPA is one of the agencies implicated in bowing to political pressure to conceal physical facts about what was in the dust after 9/11. As far as I am aware that is in the public record and is common cause.

That is why he had the sample to begin with. He is thus inseparably part of the OS from the outset.

I am not aware of any such conflict with the "Jones team", but even if there was it is not the conflict itself that is the major concern, it is the failure to mention it in the outset and the pretense that this was an independent actor with no preconceived notions.

Again, this is not the case for Jones, who lost a lot for coming out with this. You can't accuse him of being paid or doing it for the public recognition.

Whatever fault you can find with the sample collection of Jones et al., they were scrupulous about listing the sources of the samples and the methodology.

In comparison the methodology in this latest study is decidedly shoddy and bespeaks a strong inclination to reach a set conclusion as quickly as possible with as a high a ratio of reward/effort as possible. His hypothesis was clearly that this was not thermite, and he looked for evidence that this was the case. This is invalid scientific procedure, if that was his hypothesis he should have been attempting to falsify it by finding evidence that it WAS thermite, something he did not do. It would have been fine if his hypothesis was that it WAS thermite, and then tried to falsify THAT by finding evidence that it was NOT thermite. But his definition of thermite was off if that was the case because he only proved that that part of the sample he was looking at was not demonstrably aluminothermite when treated in the way that he did. He made no attempt to be thorough or investigate the sample for its own sake.

That is not valid procedure by any strecth of the imagination.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


A far more serious matter though is the fact that he never did the test that OS'ers claim would be trivial to do and would 100% prove that this isn't thermite: Testing it for ignition in a vacuum.

Either
a) he was aware that this test would be so conclusive (in which case why wasn't he asked),
b) did not think that the test would be conclusive,
c) thought that the test would be conclusive but could guess the outcome would not be to his liking, or
d) couldn't be bothered.

Either way that simple omission speaks volumes.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
No, that's only partially correct.

I think I shall refrain from arguing here. It is not of any real consequence and takes away from the thread.

It is not necessarily the conflict of interest itself.

The guy was paid to do the study, but that was revealed at the outset. But this same guy had worked for the EPA before in a ranking position. The EPA is one of the agencies implicated in bowing to political pressure to conceal physical facts about what was in the dust after 9/11. As far as I am aware that is in the public record and is common cause.

That is why he had the sample to begin with. He is thus inseparably part of the OS from the outset.

This seems a particularly harsh criticism. If any prior association with any part of any governmental agency disqualifies people, then it disqualifies a very large chunk. It seems that this is something that should have already been resolved with the talk of 'independent verification'.


I am not aware of any such conflict with the "Jones team", but even if there was it is not the conflict itself that is the major concern, it is the failure to mention it in the outset and the pretense that this was an independent actor with no preconceived notions.

I don't understand. I haven't followed the story exactly, but I did catch a couple of the threads linked to JREF. As far as I know the person's name was open from the start and the exact parameters of the study were quite well known. I don't think it's really fair to say it was not 'mentioned at the outset'. I don't really see that prior work for someone gives them a conflict of interest, especially as they were paid directly.


Whatever fault you can find with the sample collection of Jones et al., they were scrupulous about listing the sources of the samples and the methodology.

My issue is not with the sample collection, or even the methodology (although even I as a chemistry idiot understand the need to test in an inert gas). My issue is that their prior commitment to their theory and pre-existent beliefs appear to have contaminated their investigation. They have followed the classic methodology of continually experimenting and trying different approaches until their evidence for their theory becomes convincing. They then publish this information and end research.

Their research has been criticised, and we've long had promises of independent verification, but so far there has been nothing released, and Steven Jones has now moved onto free energy devices of all things.


In comparison the methodology in this latest study is decidedly shoddy and bespeaks a strong inclination to reach a set conclusion as quickly as possible with as a high a ratio of reward/effort as possible. His hypothesis was clearly that this was not thermite, and he looked for evidence that this was the case. This is invalid scientific procedure

This is silly, you condemn Steven Jones at the same time. What would satisfy you as now Jones has abandoned the research and nobody has been able to acquire samples from him (afaik) his theory is completely untestable in your eyes?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
A far more serious matter though is the fact that he never did the test that OS'ers claim would be trivial to do and would 100% prove that this isn't thermite: Testing it for ignition in a vacuum.

Either
a) he was aware that this test would be so conclusive (in which case why wasn't he asked),
b) did not think that the test would be conclusive,
c) thought that the test would be conclusive but could guess the outcome would not be to his liking, or
d) couldn't be bothered.

Either way that simple omission speaks volumes.

Surely the same goes for Steven Jones, more so as he has been a proponent of a theory for some time. It is as I say though, the classic pseudophysics researcher principle. Produce a body of work that superficially supports a claim, refuse to address any criticisms, abandon research for next area of pseudophysics.

I assume you don't believe in Hutchinson's research?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Surely the same goes for Steven Jones, more so as he has been a proponent of a theory for some time. It is as I say though, the classic pseudophysics researcher principle. Produce a body of work that superficially supports a claim, refuse to address any criticisms, abandon research for next area of pseudophysics.

I assume you don't believe in Hutchinson's research?


You mean like Newton with alchemy?

Hutchinson has nothing to do with this.

I don't care about Jones' later work, his earlier work was legit. This isn't a personality contest or a debate about what you think about someone's religious beliefs.

It is about whether or not he was getting paid to produce a report on something that he had a prior interest in, in the sense that it was in his interest to come to a certain conclusion given his earlier work, and then not disclosing that prior interest.

Even if that were the case and the science was solid it would not matter so much, but good science is marked by the fact that it raises more questions than it answers.

This is what baffles me. There is no call to even mention Jones' Mormonism nor whether chooses to subsequently the mating behaviour of Zorgs from the planet Beejubs V, it is highly irrelevant to the question at hand, yet OS'ers routinely get a free pass on this sort of nonsense.

THAT is text-book ad hominem, because it has no bearing on the question at hand.




Produce a body of work that superficially supports a claim, refuse to address any criticisms, abandon research for next area of pseudophysics.


He didn't abandon the research, he got effectively fired by his university.

A calorimeter costs say $10k, are you going to buy him one for his own personal use?
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join