for your strong and insightful posts. Welcome back, indeed.

All good points, but the most important thing in this is to follow the evidence, use logic and reason, and don't back down.

The burden of proof lies with the government and NIST and the 9/11 Commission.

All that is required to rebut their argument is a single powerful anomaly. We all know that there are far more anomalies than that.

Since the government's argument has not met its burden of proof, the evidence must be re-analyzed. A new investigation must be opened immediately.

That is logic/science 101. In the end, from a scientific or logical point of view it does not matter who points out the anomaly or who discovers the evidence. All that matters is the truth, the evidence, and the reasoning that follows from these.

That having been said, it does help when prominent people speak up, or when websites like this one keep the information flowing.

"Burden of proof" means that the person or people making an assertion must prove that assertion before others are bound to accept it. If their evidence is lacking, contradictory, or contains serious anomalies, their argument must necessarily be deemed unacceptable on logical grounds.

Since the official conspiracy story lacks evidence, does not explain counter-evidence, and contains serious anomalies and contradictions, it simply cannot be held to be true by any rational observer.

That's it. That's all that is required at this stage. This has already been done many times.

A new investigation must be opened immediately.

The best way to be politically effective right now is to keep hammering away at the anomalies, contradictions, lack of evidence, and unexplained counter-evidence contained in the "official" argument.

The "official" story is a house of cards, and it is collapsing before our eyes.

Does that apply to Scholars for 9/11 Truth too?

Yes, if they make an argument as to who did what, what happened, why it happened that way, etc.

So far, I find their assertions far more credible than the ones made in the official conspiracy story.

The main points in this context are:

1) The scholars, and others, must show that the official story does not meet its burden of truth.
They have already done this in many ways.

2) They must prove their argument that people within the US government orchestrated the attack.
They have gone a long way toward doing this, as their explanation fits the facts better than any other interpretation of them, but their case is not perfectly solid yet.

3) Due to point #1 above, a new investigation must be opened immediately.
During this investigation--when it is opened--the scholars and others will have the financial resources, subpoena powers, and human research resources to probe even more deeply into the facts of the case.

If this new investigation is open and honest, the truth will be discovered by following the evidence.

9/11 was the biggest crime in US history. To this day it has never been adequately investigated. Criminals make mistakes. It is through their mistakes that they get caught. This crime was so massive, there were many mistakes. With subpoena powers and decent financial resources, I am confident that many of the perpetrators will one day be brought to justice.

Here's an image that is burned into my mind, as I am sure it is into yours--the woman who stands near the hole in the tower where the plane struck. She is the victim of a crime, and victims speak.

How does she speak to us?

Her hair is not blowing in the wind, her clothing is still. This proves that little wind was entering through that hole. If the fires inside were really so hot that they were melting (or compromising) the steel columns, the wind coming into the building through that hole would have been very fierce. She would not even have been able to get near the hole to stand there at all.

The fact that she did stand there is an anomaly that is so poignant and so powerful it utterly demolishes the official story.

The next step is open a new investigation. Follow the evidence.

The problem Scholars for 9/11 Truth is that no one here is willing to question them and their theories. I believe the opposite of what you do - that Scholars for 9/11 Truth and other conpiracists have not presented an adequate, solid refutation of the massive amount of evidence from all sources that converges on the conclusion that the events happened as ALL of evidence - government and NON-government sourcves.

For instance, as I explained elsewhere, the thermate/thermite theory by Jones has been refuted - but no one here wants to believe it. In addition, the fact that wind may or may not have blown the woman's hair is based only on your belief - without evidence - that a forceful wind should have been blowing into the building at all or at the spot she was standing - an unprovable assertion from either point of view.

For the truth to be arrived at, all sides of the argument are going to have to be willing to acknowledge ALL the weaknesses, including the fact that Scholars for 9/11 Truth have to be held to the same standard of the scientific methods as you wish to hold the government to.

I completely agree that anyone who makes an argument about what happened on 9/11 must be held to the highest logical and scientific standards.

The main point, which is of crucial importance in this context, is that the government has not met the burden of proof for its "official" story.

THEREFORE: a new investigation is called for. It should be opened immediately.

No rational person who examines the evidence could possibly conclude otherwise. At this point, we simply cannot say with confidence precisely what happened that day.

When there is a new investigation, all of the facts and evidence will be examined in great detail. There will be enough money and research resources to do this. The new investigative body will also have subpoena powers, so that lying to them will have real consequences.

As for the woman--the fact that she was standing there at all is a very strong indication that the fire was not drawing in much air. From the smoke we can also see that the fire was not giving off much exhaust. Ergo, the fire was not as hot as NIST claims. Another indication of this same point is this: if the fires had been hot enough to melt (or compromise) the steel columns, the windows on the involved floors would have blown out. This did not happen either. This "evidence" does not need to be conclusive to be devastating to the official story--it merely needs to place reasonable doubt in our minds about the heat of the fires. Add to these doubts the low combustion temperature of jet fuel, the short time the fires burned, the low combustion temperatures of office furniture, the thickness of the steel, and its fire-proof covering and you have an accumulation of very serious doubts about the "official" explanation concerning the temperatures of the fires.

This is what is meant by their not meeting the burden of proof for their argument.

Their "evidence" is simply not convincing on this point.

Then continue with all of the other points wherein the evidence supporting the "official" collapse story is simply not convincing--symmetrical collapse of all three buildings, the free-fall speeds of the collapses, the fine dust inconsistent with gravity induced collapse, the many witness reports of secondary explosions, the blown out lobbies of the towers (no smoke or grime from a fireball coming down all those floors, an impossibility for other reasons), the fact that the 9/11 Commission falsely claimed that the buildings' cores were "hollow shafts," etc.

Added together, these anomalies show with great force that the government has simply not proved its case. It has not met even the most basic requirements for its burden of proof.

People who question the scholars may try to "explain away" the facts mentioned above, but logically that technique proves nothing whatever. A weak argument cannot be supported by adding more weak arguments to it.

Then consider this: shortly after 9/11, the FBI claimed that it found one of the hijacker's passports on the street near ground zero. Surely, you must agree that it would have been virtually impossible for that passport to have survived the crash. Therefore, we are almost entirely bound to conclude that the passport got there because someone put it there. If someone put it there, we can be pretty sure they had a reason. They were trying to frame someone. This is a very strong indication that someone was working behind the scenes to mislead investigators about the attack on the towers. This fact places even more doubt in our minds about the "official" story.

Then add to all of the above the many other glaring contradictions about that day, almost too many to recount here. But here is a short list: no jets scrambled, the path of Flight 77, the fact that the government claims this flight disappeared from their radar, the small initial hole in the Pentagon, the fact that the plane was allowed to hit the Pentagon (its anti-aircraft defenses did not work that day), no videos from the Pentagon which is surely ringed with cameras, the FBI confiscating the gas station videos within some five minutes, the fact that the Secret Service knew Bush was safe in that school, the contradictory time-line set forth by the 9/11 Commission, Atta's suitcase filled with incriminating evidence being "found" at the airport, etc., etc., etc.

All of these facts, and many more, show conclusively that the government story about 9/11 has not met its burden of proof.

Therefore a new investigation must be opened immediately. I do not see how anyone who claims to be rational, logical, or reasonable could possible conclude otherwise.

Lastly, please remember that the scholars and others who are questioning the "official" story are brave individuals working with very limited resources. They are pitted against the US government, a passive US population, the $15 million 9/11 Commission report, and a complacent press.

Those are tough odds. And yet, they have already won the argument. The "official" story simply cannot be true as stated.

I'm reading David Ray Griffin's new book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11", and it is outstanding. I highly recommend it to everyone. I just finished Chapter 3, The Destruction of the World Trade Center, and Griffin's examination of why the official story cannot be true is elegant and damning. If each of us gained command of the information in this chapter alone, discussions we might have in the future with those not in the know could be conducted simply and effectively UN-debunkable.

Also, thanks, GW for your continuing contributions.

The Tao Te Ching encourages us to "see simplicity in the complicated."
Who do you trust? is a very simple response to a very complicated matter. Well Done!
An interested person once asked a dedicated scientist, "How do you decide what to believe?"
The wise scientist answered, "I don't. I let the experiments decide for me."
We have physical evidence that is verifiable and falsifiable by the experimental method. If you want Truth, you really can not do better than repeatable experiments.
Here are what I consider to be "Red Flags" regarding trusting people in this movement. (This does not mean that folks who exhibit these behaviors are not trustworthy. They may come by them honestly, or not. But the fact that they exist is worthy of consideration.)
1) Doomsday Thinking. No Hope. Discouraging comments, attitudes, etc. There is a difference between being a realist and being a pessimist (sp?). That sort of thinking is exactly what "they" (the ubiquitous, evil "they") want people to think. So honest, well intentioned, people should be on the lookout for it. It is possible to be realisitic and optimistic at the same time. The future is unwritten. What we do in the here and now (the only time we actually "have" and the only time in which something can actually be done) directly effects what will happen. Therefore, it is correct to maintain a positive attitude, because that will promote positive actions.
2) Changing the subject when progress is being made. This is a very common tactic. If you are an actual, honest truth seeker and are having some sort of discussion with someone and things are headed in your direction, you feel the tide turn, etc. and the person you are discussing with changes the subject to derail the progress, something is wrong. Either they are more interested in "winning" a conversation (silly notion I think) than learning and growing, or they are fighting against the tide of truth. If the other person can marshal evidence, they should do so. To change the subject is suspect.
3) Failing to consider alternative explainations. If someone is not open minded enough to consider reasonable alternatives, they are not on the side of truth.
4) Being nit picky or arguing for the sake of arguing. Whether they come by it honestly or it has a malicious intent, the result is the same, a waste of time and energy. Steer clear.
Some Green Flags are the opposite of 1, 2, 3, & 4.
my 2 scents (nasty and nice, depending on when I last bathed :-)
Mike

Please be on look out for these (see link).
They will always be used in opposition to the truth.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Mike

"The "big tent" approach is not effective when we have so many enemies and crazies within our midst. If we have damaging people, films, or ideas circulating in our movement, we must weed them out...
The disinformation agents will be calling the authentic truthers "infiltrators" and vice versa."

I agree. Unfortunately, truthmove.org still links to some of the most damaging people and web sites of the 9/11 truth movement, such as

oilempire.us
911research.com

Jim Hoffman at 911research.com and Mark Robinowitz at oilempire.us are using blatent PSYOPS tactics to attack other good researchers in the 9/11 truth movement, and trying to discredit Loose Change - one of the best 9/11 videos that has been the most effective in spreading the truth. Particularly, they try to badjacket (accuse of being disinfo agents) all other 9/11 researchers who point out the the physical evidence disproves the government's claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the cell phone calls were faked.

I've already tried to point this out to you guys at truthmove.org several months ago, but you guys still are apparently duped by these destructive debunkers.

You guys really need to sort this out. Do your homework and understand why most credible 9/11 researchers reject the government's Pentagon flight 77 myth and the cell phone calls myths, because it is scientificly proved that flight 77 could not have crashed at the Pentagon and the cell phone calls had to have been faked, just as much as the controlled demolition of the WTC have been scientificaly proved.

Think about it: David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors, and others are all branded disinfo agents according to Jim Hoffman and Mark Robanowitz because they dispute the Official Government Conspiracy Theory regarding the Pentagon and cell phones! By any fair measure, Jim Hoffman and Mark Robanowitz are the most likely PSYOPS agents in the movement! Sort it out guys! If you need help, I can point you to some good reference material to help you do your home work on the physical evidence. But, at least start with using basic logic and understand that it is preposterous for anyone to badjacket all of the best 9/11 researchers in one swath, as Hoffman and Robinowitz do!

The Pentagon and cell phones are crap arguments. We have so much more solid evidence to promote. And you include Dave Von Kleist in your list of supposedly reputable researchers!?

I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Rabinowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents. Instead they take issue with certain evidence or arguments that certain people are promoting. They both make a good case that some sources should not be trusted as much as others.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the rationality of TruthMove speaks for itself. Like I said before, it's up to the individuals to do the footwork and decide for themselves who to trust.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

"I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Raninowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents."

You are in incredible denial, delver. You need to go to Hoffman's and Rabinowitz's web sites and read their sections on disinfo. More than any of the other 9/11 researchers, it is THEY who are attempting to badjacket everyone. In one broad swath, they smear the majority of 9/11 researchers who dispute the Pentagon and cell phones OGCT.

Again, you need to use your head. Think about it real hard, delver. Who is more likely the disinfo agents? A small minority (Hoffman and Rabinowitz) who loudly uphold parts of the OGCT and smear the majority of the researchers - David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors? Or do you think that David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors and others are all disinfo agents, as Hoffman and Rabinowitz are contending?

Notice that Hoffman and Rabinowitz haven't backed up their arguments on upholding the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phones by writing books or science articles or done any research on those issues, UNLIKE Griffen, Tarpley, Zwicker, and the others who HAVE.

Hoffman and Rabinowitz are acting like disrupters and shills, sitting back and badjacketing the majority of good researchers. I say Hoffman and Rabinowitz should put up or shut up! If they really do genuinely disagree with what the majority of 9/11 researchers have published and presented regarding those issues, then they should bring forward the counter evidence to back it up and stop the attacks!

David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker

Even more importantly, how/why did you edit my quote:

"I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Raninowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents."

to misspell "Rabinowitz" into "Raninowitz?" You have variously spelled that name as "Robinowitz" "Robanowitz," neither being correct.

So, is this a disinfo tactic or what? Please inform us with your deep knowledge of government psyops.

Well Keenan, it's been fun but I think you've wasted enough of my time.

Thanks for the laughs.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

Oh paleeeze!!! All you can do is attack me for mispelling? You have not addressed a single question I have posed to you. In all my exchanges with you, you have consistently ignored my central arguments and points, and instead attack me for irrelevant issues.

By the way, you dishonestly edited your previous posting in which you mispelled Rabinowitz as "Raninowitz", and then falsely accused me of purposely misspelling it and missquoting you. In fact, I had cut and pasted your quote in whole without editing it.

Since you have demonstrated pretty clearly to everyone that you are not willing to engage in honest dialogue, you have no arguments to make, and can only see fit to engage in pathetic and childish distractions, I see no reason to waste any more time with you.

And, these tactics and behaviours provide me with plenty of proof about what is going on with your inability to sort through the 9/11 disinfo from Rabinowitz and Hoffman, and what the agenda of truthmove.org is really about. Thanks for making this crystal clear to me!

Upon further inspection, "Mark Robinowitz" appears to be the correct spelling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Robinowitz

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

Hey Keenan,

Here's some questions you might want to ask yourself.

Are YOU Putting Things in Context?

Are YOU Pulling a Rove?

Are YOU Doing Good In Other Areas?

Are YOU Empowering Others?

Just wondering if you were paying attention. The people you are criticizing deserve respect for having the courage to question everyone's assumptions, something that wins you no contests for popularity. In any active research community, debate is the lifeblood of progress.

Scientists rely upon their peers to question their reasoning, understanding that this could only increase their insight. Many scientific peers have huge disagreements, but work together toward the progress of the whole. In the physics community, when a scientist gets it wrong, they just used up some time or money. In the 9/11 community, when someone gets it wrong, the consequences can have a social impact.

As you know, the people that you are attacking, happen to have provided two of the movement's more valuable resources. I get the sense that both of them are making their best attempt to weed out the crap, something not enough a priority for many in the movement. Whatever your politics, or particular style of logic, it would be healthy for you to recognize the difference between propaganda and the work of those who demonstrate a sincere concern for validity. I don't agree with every assessment, however, I have some humility and respect for the contribution that they have made.

There are, however, some in the movement who do not appear to have very postive answers to the questions above, and those people should be vigorously challenged. We've all got to call it like we see it. But certainly while maintaining a view of our broadest goals. You can call me, delver, or TruthMove, names, but we intend for our actions to speak as loud as our words, and we welcome any informed criticism you have to offer.

You got anything on the table? I'm ready to be wowed!

Ok, I will respond to you guys at truthmove.org one last time here. Delver's assinine attitude in the above exchange really convinced me that you guys are not interested in honest debate, but you appear to be taking a different attitude, so I will give you a chance.

Look, jules, this is really frustrating for me that you and your buddies at truthmove.org are stubbornly sticking to a position and ignoring my questions and points I have already provided to back up the arguments I am making. Your posting above indicates that you have completely missed the points I am raising. I AM PERFECTLY AWARE OF "the difference between propaganda and the work of those who demonstrate a sincere concern for validity". I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE HONESTLY DISAGREEING WITH OTHER 9/11 RESEARCHERS.

If you guys genuinely are supporting the positions of Robinowitz and Hoffman in their attacks on 9/11 researchers/activists who dispute the Pentagon and cell phones myths, and assuming that me and anybody else (like the majority of 9/11 researchers) who dispute the Pentagon and cell phone myths are either engaged in disinfo or are dupes, then I am asking you to dig a little deeper and re-examine the arguments that Hoffman and Robinowitz are making. Please consider the possibility that you have been duped by this small minority, by using both a) logic, and b) examining the evidence.

Let's start with logic. Again, for the 3rd time, I ask you: Who is more likely the disinfo agents? A) The majority of 9/11 researchers - David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors, Eric Hufschmid, and others, which is the accusation of Hoffman and Robinowitz? Or B) A small minority (Hoffman and Rabinowitz) who loudly uphold parts of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory) and smear the majority of the other researchers, accusing them of being disinfo agents?

AND AGAIN, notice that Hoffman and Rabinowitz haven't backed up their arguments on upholding the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phone myths by writing books or science articles or done any research on those issues, UNLIKE Griffen, Tarpley, Zwicker, and the others who HAVE. Instead, Hoffman and Rabinowitz are resorting to Bull Shit PSYOP type of arguments, such as "don't dispute that part of the OGCT because you will offend the victims' family members", or "don't dispute that part of the OGCT because you will discredit the 9/11 truth movement." Where is the beaf?

I have read Webster Tarpley's book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror", David Ray Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor", Eric Hufschmid's book, "Painful Questions", Jim Marr's, "Inside Job", Barrie Zwicker's "Towers of Deception", Laura Knight Jadcyzk's, "911 The Ultimate Truth" (possibly the best), and others. All of these books lay out the convincing case against the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phone calls using evidence and expert opinion.

Here's some more references for you to sort out the disinfo on the Pentagon OGCT:
September 11 Revisited ACT II: ADDENDUM 2 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

If you do nothing else, please read at least these two articles above if you are still not sure about which side is presenting bogus arguments regarding the Pentagon. If you are willing to do a little homework, you can easily understand why Hoffman's and Robinowitz's arguments are bunk on these issues and how they are doing much harm to the movement.

I'll repeat what I said before: Hoffman and Rabinowitz are acting like disrupters and shills, sitting back and badjacketing the majority of good researchers. I say Hoffman and Rabinowitz should put up or shut up! If they really do genuinely disagree with what the majority of 9/11 researchers have published and presented regarding those issues, then they should bring forward the counter evidence to back it up or stop the attacks!

I have to go now, but I challenge you to answer the question I have posed to you above, and to really look at what I and others (like Tarpley, Griffin, et. al.) have put on the table regarding these issues, rather then just stubbornly siding with that small minority who are doing much damage to lots of good 9/11 researchers and activists.

What if the evidence does not support one's beleifs? Then what?

"What if the evidence does not support one's beliefs? Then What?"

Then, the discussion must be to the evidence, not to the messenger. Notice the arguments of people like Hoffman and Robanowitz. They almost never discuss the actual evidence (and when they do they use very selective evidence). Instead, they use a litiney of ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs. Their energy is put to debunking and discrediting many good activists and researchers, not in helping the movement.

And, again, when a small loud minority attampts to uphold part of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy) which the vast majority of credible 9/11 researchers have rejected, and smear all the other researchers as being disinfo agents, you are seeing a classic PSYOPS red flag right in front of your face. Badjacketing has always been a favorite tool of COINTELPRO and PSYOPS. We have to be smart enough to not be duped by them and to watch for the use of those kinds of tactics and notice when claims and arguments are using psycholical and emotional tricks while avoiding the evidence, which Hoffman his ilk use all too frequently (such as "don't dispute that part of the story because you will offend the family members" or "don't dispute that part of the story or you'll discredit the movement", etc.).

"They almost never discuss the actual evidence..."

"you are seeing a classic PSYOPS red flag right in front of your face. Badjacketing has always been a favorite tool of COINTELPRO and PSYOPS."

Hmmmm...

Wow, Keenan, I think I got it.....You're the agent! Thanks for helping me learn to spot classic PSYOPS techniques.

International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org

Huh? How does helping you to spot when someone is using classic PSYOPS techniques...make me the agent? Do you really not understand the difference? I'll try to explain it to you real simple.

Person A attempts to badjacket Person B because Person B disputes part of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory). Person A uses ad hominem attacks and psychological/emotional arguments against Person B, rather than discuss the evidence.

Person C alerts people to the fact that Person A is using classic PSYOPS techniques against Person B, such as badjacketing, and gives evidence to support it.

So, Person A is badjacketing (falsely accusing someone of being an agent to destroy their credibility), while Person C is alerting people to the fact that Person A is badjacketing and showing that it is more likely that it is Person A who is the agent.

Get it? See the difference? Accusing Person C of being the agent makes no sense, unless you can show that Person C falsified the information about Person A, i.e., that Person A was NOT "using ad hominem attacks and psychological/emotional arguments against Person B, rather than discussing the evidence".

Instead of just being an ass and asserting, "Wow, Keenan, I think I got it.....You're the agent!", why don't you discuss which specific evidence and facts I got wrong? If you can't do that then you have no argument.

One problem is that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 doesn't come from the government but from thousands of independent sources and evidence that converge on the most likely conclusion.

Another issue is that scientific truth is blind to "movements." Political movements, like Scholars for 9/11 Truth, are irrelevant in the eyes of science. Scholars does not have the luxury of making scientific claims and holding onto them when they are shown to be wrong, like Jones's thermite/thermate theory has been shown to be.

As long as one chooses to believe the goals of a "movement" and protect those who are wrong but part of that "movement", truth will not be served.

"What if the evidence does not support one's beleifs? Then what?"

You simple change your belief. Easy.

Despite no evidence for "controlled demolition" people still cling to the belief that somehow the towers must have been blown up.

Funny, isn't it?

It being scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for it to be anything but Controlled Demolition idiots like you still spew such drivel.

not funny at all really.

'no evidence for "controlled demolition"'?
How doth thee lie, let me count the ways:

1) Engineers' observations of molten pools of metals.
2) Eyewitness testimony of secondary explosives.
3) Photo evidence of explosions.
4) Video evidence of explosions.
5) Live news reports of secondary explosions.
6) Engineering analyses of the structural "collapses".

All are evidence of controlled demolition.