Scientific Peer Review Versus Citizen Jury Review

...at the time, and now and then carried it around with me to videotape anything interesting I saw...

Is my new avatar any less creepy? ;-)

Do you mean, if it is so obvious that the government is lying and has completely failed to prove their claim, then we have already won and don't need to argue about what really happened? Or do you mean why do (fake) truthers attempt to argue that AA77 really did crash into the Pentagon when it is so obvious that it didn't?

We shouldn't be arguing. But our disbelief and ridicule over a flawed animation is not going to constitute proof of anything.

Witnesses who went on camera, on location, who didn't realize the implications of what they were telling us, who thought they were supporting the official story, who were corroborated 13-14 times over, who are willing to testify and who are subpoenaed represent very strong evidential proof.

the tail fin phased right through the intact second floor?

"Failed? By whose definition? You have to realize they are acting as if there is nothing to discuss. They, including the fooled, act as if it..."

But I'm not talking about the opinions of those who were fooled or misinformed. We need to get the objective evidence, including the evidence of "absence of evidence" into people's hands so that they can see for themselves the anomalies and problems with the official story to then be capable of determining whether or not the government has reasonably proven their case or not, and that is assuming they are capable and rational individuals. Obviously there will always be a certain number of gullible people that will always be convinced the government has provided proof even when they are shown evidence to the contrary. Who cares? That does not change the logic of my argument. When you are making a logical argument, you are concerned with how a reasonable and un-biased person would respond, not how a fool would. I don't really understand why you don't understand this.

That makes no sense. You are telling me that because YOU or any other truther deem their story incredible that this is enough to warrant Americans rejecting their story?

No that is not what I said. I am talking about objective reality and what reasonable and rational and unbiased people would consider evidence and logic. I don't care what the majority of people out there believe. The majority does not equate to the truth.

It is what we have done and to set that aside because a handful of truthers feel it is better to tell the world, "Hey look, we think they've been hiding something and we personally don't think the evidence provided is enough to prove the plane hit, so... this is proof the plane did not hit and proof they aren't telling us the truth." is utterly mindboggling and extremely fruitless and frustrating.

Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument. I did not say that we can just tell Americans what to believe and that's it. Look, I have been talking to people for 5 years about the 9/11 evidence at the Pentagon and WTC, and I've seen what works and what doesn't. What I've found is that, on average, it works better to show people some pictures/videos so that they themselves can see some anomalies, which is the first step.

When I've done it the other way, i.e., started out telling them what I think happened ("The buildings were blown up in a high-tech demolition", or "The Pentagon was blown with internal explosives while a plane flew over to deceive people", etc.,) I don't get as good of reactions and people just tend to put up their resistance and tune me out.

What seems to work for most mainstream Americans (or those who are not already pre-disposed to believe in conspiracies) is to start out with a question, not an answer. Get people to admit that there is a question, something is wrong with the official story BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH I MAKE THEM AWARE OF. THEN they will be more open to looking at an alternative explanation.

Really? We should keep investigating? Craig and I should spend thousands of dollars more to keep investigating? You don't have enough? When does it stop? When do we take what we have put it in the faces of govt officials?

Well, how has the above worked so far for you? How many govt officials have you convinced? Oh, you haven't convinced any yet? I didn't think so...

I didn't say you should spend thousands of dollars more. But if you can't admit that we are not yet at the point where we have solid incontrovertible proof to any reasonable person of what happened at that Pentagon and we don't need any more evidence or witnesses, then I think you have a problem with your logical faculties. Is your flyover theory logical and reasonable based on the available evidence to date? Yes. Does your flyover theory fit the available evidence better than any other theory offered to date? Yes. Is your flyover theory incontrovertibly proven to any reasonable person that constitutes an open and shut case? Not by any means. Just because a theory is logical or plausible does not mean it is proven.

So why would we ask for them to answer to a burden of proof still?

Because that is how it works. Since they have failed adequately to do so for the last 8 plus years, a reasonable person would have to conclude that they don't have proof, and that therefore they have lied, and therefore, we have logically proven our case to reasonable and intelligent and unbiased people who take a real honest look at the evidence and it does not depend on every last blue-blooded American to come around to agree with us on that to make it so. It really doesn't. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this over and over again.

You can suspect it all you want. It won't change that this is the evidence and there is no individual you can pin the mischief on.

That is beside the point.

It would have to be accepted at face value, suspicion and doubt included.

Not to reasonable people who take an honest, unbiased look at the evidence.

There is no way to tell it would planted or fabricated...

Bull shit. The fact that it would necessarily contradict what is already available would call into question the validity. Then you would have experts looking over the faked video/photos, etc., and there are so many ways to spot forgeries and such.

let alone if this evidence would produced at all.

I just said IF it was produced, so I'm talking about the case in which it IS produced, duh!

First, you just called WTC CD a "theory". Then went on to say it is "pretty solid and inarguable at this point". First of all if it is "pretty solid and inarguable at this point", then it wouldn't be a theory. It would be a fact.

I'm speaking in the scientific sense, in which just about anything we know to be true, no matter how certain, is called a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis. Obviously we all know the friggin buildings were blown up, as any idiot can see by watching the videos. But in terms of science-speak it is proper to call the obvious CD of the WTC a "theory", a scientifically proven theory, with peer-reviewed articles to back it up. From wikipedia: A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. It must respect the scientific method ; it must come with a number of conditions under which it has been proven true. A scientific theory identifies a set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and it makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class. It is described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, and challenge it.

Second, it isn't solid, by any means, and it certainly isn't inarguable, as the debate/argument still rages on.

Just because a debate/argument about something still rages does not mean it isn't solid or proven. The doubters or skeptics could be biased, misinformed, irrational, or purposely disputing that which they know to be true. I don't know why I have to explain this to you, as it should be self evident to someone with your level of intelligence and experience in these matters...

But our belief is not proof.

I did not say belief = proof. But we have much more than belief. We have the proof in the form of the videos which any idiot who is honest with themselves can see for themselves, and the fact that the laws of physics would have to be broken to accept the official fire explanation, among other things.

What is inarguable, what is pretty solid is that plane being on the north side of the gas station. What more needs to be done? The plane approached on the north side of the gas station, was seen pulling up into an ascent right before the Pentagon, and was seen banking around south parking lot AFTER the explosion. The data is beyond problematic in relation to their story as illustrated by PFT. What more needs to be done? What more needs to be investigated? Who determines when we stop?

Sorry, but if you are claiming that the level of certainty of your flyover theory which is based on only a few eyewitnesses but no known videos or other physical evidence is even higher than, let alone as high as, the level of certainty about the obvious proof of CD of the WTC, then I question your logical faculties.

Don't get me wrong, we are still continuing to work with and find more witnesses and we have tons more to release, but the time for investigating by anyone other than PFT and CIT should be done (unless someone wants to help bolster our case by speaking with witnesses), and you, Gretavo, Casseia and many others should be running with this.

Good, I'm glad you are still continuing to gather evidence and I look forward to seeing the "ton more to release" when that happens. I have shared and recommended your National Security Alert video to many people.

I am at a loss for why we have to be considered disinfo agents as we have been considered on here...

I certainly haven't accused you guys of being disinfo agents.

or why you or others have to take it upon yourself to tell everyone that there needs to be more investigating.

Didn't you just admit yourself that the investigation should continue, and IS continuing? What's wrong with wanting to have even more solid and convincing evidence?

This is extremely puzzling considering Officers Lagasse and Brooks remain unquestioned and Lloyde England is still walking around a free man.

What does that have to do with the fact that continuing the investigation would be useful?

"or why you or others have to take it upon yourself to tell everyone that there needs to be more investigating."

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about how many people might read our opinions about you here on this little web site - this boutique site of malcontents, smart asses, and nonconformists, most of whom were kicked of the more popular but controlled 9/11 web sites. I would say that the number of people in the truth movement who actually read this site is orders of magnitude smaller than the "everyone" you are worried about above. Though I have to admit that it does give me a little bit of pleasure and satisfaction to know that Jon Gold is among those who read this site on a regular basis. Say hi to Jon, the movement's most divisive asshole and obvious shill...Hi Jon!