Support 911Blogger


9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

Updated: 03/17/2007. Revisions (including expanded commentary) and examples

Updated: 03/14/2007. Substantial revisions and added examples

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

By Arabesque[1]

In this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation.[2]

Jim Fetzer, Disinformation: The Use of False Information

“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true…

I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. That creates an exaggerated version of the situation as I see it that makes it easy to satirize. I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. But there are ample grounds based upon past experience to believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research...

On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate. Their function appears to me to be obfuscation...

There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. Disinformation… is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.” [3]

Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation

How can we discover the truth about 9/11? Is it possible to be led astray by misleading and incomplete interpretations of evidence? What is disinformation and how does it affect 9/11 research? For those interested in the truth about 9/11, evaluating evidence and explanations are essential considerations.

Disinformation is commonly defined as “deliberately misleading information”.[4] According to Jim Fetzer, “disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise.[5]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice defines a concept similar to disinformation called misinformation:

Misinformation is information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.[6]

While disinformation requires motive and intent; misinformation does not. Jim Fetzer explains:

While ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.[7]

The result is the same: the truth is obstructed with “misleading” information. How can we tell if someone is intentionally trying to mislead us? Is intent an important concern? No—what is relevant is that the truth about 9/11 can be obfuscated by any misleading arguments. Intent is an irrelevant consideration if we accept that the truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. We do not need to distinguish intent to show that misinformation and disinformation can both harm our ability to discern the truth. Therefore, we should understand and combat misinformation and disinformation equally.

When relevant facts are ignored they often result in misleading conclusions. For this reason, 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that official reports are misleading. David Ray Griffin has argued that the 9/11 commission report[8] was an intentional attempt to mislead the public about what really happened on 9/11 by ignoring many relevant facts.[9] The 9/11 Family Steering Committee asked 400 questions and got 30% of the answers.[10] Many of their questions remain unanswered to this day. Consequently, this means that many believe that the 9/11 “official story” is disinformation.

How can we be misled about the truth? The most common technique is the Straw-man fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position [and their evidence] and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.[11]

The straw-man fallacy is an effective technique for disinformation because it is used to ignore relevant evidence and reach false conclusions. However, this fallacy can also be used unintentionally, resulting in misinformation. Revealingly, most types of disinformation and misinformation ignore relevant evidence. In contrast, the scientific method does not ignore evidence when a conclusion is reached.

Straw-man example:

“The World Trade Center Towers were hit by planes. The planes damaged the buildings and created fires. The World Trade Center towers collapsed. Therefore, the towers collapsed because of the damage from planes and jet fuel fires.”

Many accept this explanation without hesitating to question it. However, this explanation is a straw-man fallacy because it ignores a substantial amount of relevant evidence, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the actual events of 9/11. This explanation assumes that a plane crash could cause the almost total destruction of the Twin Towers[12]—and that it was the actual cause of the collapse. This is a misleading conclusion for the following reasons:

1. It ignores the fact that the buildings were specifically designed to survive plane crashes—and jet fuel fires.[13]

2. It ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fires of any kind.[14]

3. It ignores the fact that jet fuels are incapable of melting steel[15]—which is used for structural support of modern buildings.

4. It ignores the fact that there was molten steel at ground zero for months after 9/11.[16] NIST called the presence of molten steel “irrelevant” to their investigation.[17] Jet fuel fires could not have caused this.

5. Lastly and most importantly, this explanation ignores eleven combined features of controlled demolition that were observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers as well as corroborating physical evidence of thermate.[18]

The official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers is a straw-man fallacy because it ignores all of these facts, resulting in a misleading conclusion.

But is the “official story” the only “disinformation” promoted about 9/11? According to 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman:

Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account… One need look no further than the attack pieces by Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions are not supported by the facts.[19]

Hoffman argues that one purpose of disinformation could be to “discredit” other 9/11 research through the promotion of theories that are easily debunked or disproved. This strategy is used to suggest “guilt by association”—if some theories are disproved, the incorrect conclusion could be implied that all alternative hypotheses are false.[20]

A second function of disinformation is suggested by Victoria Ashley:

One purpose of such disinformation is the bundling of bogus and real information to weigh down any serious questioning of the official story in nonsense.[21]

Yet another purpose is the promotion of unsupported “conspiracy theories[22] to distract attention away from more compelling alternative explanations:

positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence... We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists—the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.[23]

Aside from the plane damage and jet fuel hypothesis, there are two “competing” alternative theories that attempt to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. One of which is a “directed energy weapon” hypothesis, which happens to be one of the aforementioned theories “disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences”.

[Dr. Greg Jenkins discussing the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis:]

The energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds... is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss… If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection by aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required swells to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionization energies required would add massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies… The power output of the mammoth size MIRACL laser is 106 Watts... This means that we would need 57 million MIRACL lasers of power![24]

Dr. Greg Jenkins interviews Dr. Judy Wood:

[Judy Wood:] “This is a game you’re playing.

[Greg Jenkins:] “I’m really not playing a game. I’m just trying to figure out what you have on your website. I’m asking questions regarding it.” … [Jenkins commenting after the interview:] “I was just trying to see what kind of scientific basis this was in... and I think I found out.”[25]

[James Gourley:] Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, the [Wood/Reynolds] paper [The Star Wars Beam Weapon] [26] forges ahead with a ‘scientific’ analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. The WR paper acknowledges it is using faulty (even possibly manufactured) data, yet presses ahead with the comparison to the Kingdome and asserts that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of the WR paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this admittedly corrupted data have no scientific value because reliable data is the foundation of any sound scientific analysis.[27]

[Tony Szamboti:] “[To] Jim [Fetzer], I listened to your Jan. 17th interview of Professor Jones over the weekend. I have to say I wish you would slow down and just think through what you are saying. There are many reasons why the use of a beam weapon does not provide an adequate explanation for how the Twin Towers were brought down. It seems your main reasons for considering the beam weapon are the dustification of the concrete and furnishings in the Twin Towers, the large slash through Bldg. 3, the hole in Bldg. 6, the burned out cars, and the damage or lack of it to the bathtub. In looking at the slash through Bldg. 3 it is very rough and jagged. Would a beam weapon do that? I seriously doubt it. The conjecture for the use of a beam weapon seems to be just that. Nobody has explained how it performed the damage to Bldg.'s 3 and 6 other than for Judy Wood to say they were missing the towers and getting the hang of it when they did that damage. That just isn't a very solid explanation.[28]

The evidence used to support a directed energy hypothesis appears to be contentious at best. In contrast, the theory that controlled demolition destroyed the World Trade Centers is supported by 11 observable features combined as well as corroborating physical evidence.[29]

According to Jim Fetzer there are five types of disinformation. After each type is defined, accompanying examples relevant to 9/11 will be examined.

DISINFORMATION and its Five Types by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.[30]

Fifth Type of Disinformation:

[Jim Fetzer:] “The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating—usually by writing—entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.[31]

Disinformation and misinformation fall into two main categories:

1. A misleading interpretation of evidence, or

2. A conclusion derived from misinterpretations of evidence.

If a conclusion is not supported with misleading evidence it is not disinformation:

· Misleading interpretations of evidence are the cause of disinformation

· Misleading conclusions are the result of disinformation

Therefore, it is not enough to simply call a conclusion “disinformation”—it must first be shown that the conclusion is supported by misleading arguments. Consequently, describing a conclusion as “disinformation” without proving that it is supported by misleading arguments is a kind of disinformation or misinformation.

The following are examples of the “fifth type of disinformation” used as illegitimate evidence to support misleading or false conclusions. Many of these examples do not even require commentary.

Example #1

[Brian Vasquez:] “So, I decided to contact Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book ‘Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace’ and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy [Wood] claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron[32]

[Jim Fetzer:] “Judy, Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org. Thank you. Jim”[33]

[Brian Vasquez:] Just a few months later, in December [2006], Judy published a new paper named ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis[34] and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around…[35]

[Judy Wood:] “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace. We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.[36]

[Brian Vasquez:] This is very misleading! I have to consider it deliberate disinformation. Especially when I know that she is fully aware, that those 2 pictures are of iron! Despite knowing this information, Jim Fetzer recently re-posted the Judy Wood papers on his new website http://www.911scholars.org/ . If you were the webmaster of one of the most popular 9/11 sites in the WORLD, would you post papers that contained false/misleading information? Is Judy Wood spreading disinformation with the help of other scholars?[37]

Example #2

[Dr Greg Jenkins:] “Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood continue to promote the magical 'dustification' of large amounts of steel in the towers even though no significant amount of steel dust was found in dust samples).[38] They both promote a video clip from '911 eyewitness' which, they say, proves that the steel core spires from the North Tower turn to dust. However, multiple camera angles clearly show the spires merely falling. Either Dr. Fetzer's analytical abilities are inept or his motives are unprincipled since he was aware of the other video perspectives in early December, 2006.[39]

Example #3

[Judy Wood/Morgan Reynolds:] “He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538 °C).[40]

Wood and Reynolds neglect to mention that the necessary temperatures needed are impossible to reach with jet fuel fires as seen in the World Trade Center.[41] The maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire is 1000 °C, far below the temperature that Wood and Reynolds say is required to get aluminum to turn orange. In fact, jet fuel fires are not even capable of melting steel.[42] It is therefore very misleading to say that Steven Jones had not considered these temperatures (1538°C)—why would he when they are impossible to reach with temperatures from a jet fuel fire? As well, the NIST report indicates that the jet fuel fire temperatures were significantly lower than 1000 °C.[43] Wood and Reynolds also neglect to mention that a thermite reaction could reach the temperatures necessary to create the observed molten iron that Jones argues is falling outside of the South Tower, just before its collapse.[44]

Fourth Type of Disinformation:

[Jim Fetzer:] The fourth level of disinformation appears to occur, not when a work (a book or an article) is being written from scratch, but in creating a highly biased impression of a study by simply IGNORING its most significant, important, or relevant features to mislead others about the contents of the work, which is another form of SPECIAL PLEADING.[45]

This definition is similar to the concept of the straw-man fallacy discussed earlier.

Example #4

[Wood/Reynolds:] “Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses ‘the scientific method’ after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?”[46]

[Frank Legge:]Jones has never claimed that thermite or its variants account alone for all the observations. There is obvious evidence that incendiary thermite was used and there is evidence that the towers exploded which may have been caused by nanothermite or may have been caused by something else, such as conventional demolition explosives.[47]

[Steven Jones:] “I maintain that these observations [of molten steel] are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.[48]

From an interview by Jim Fetzer (January 17, 2007):

Jim Fetzer: Q: are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?

Steven Jones: A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives[49]

Steven Jones’ hypothesis about the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 involves thermite and/or its variants used in combination with other explosives. It is therefore a misrepresentation of his position to argue that he believes only variants of thermite were used. Indeed, it is common for controlled demolitions to use explosives in combination.[50]

Third Type of Disinformation:

[Jim Fetzer:] The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.[51]

[Jim Hoffman:] “One of the telltale signs of disinformation is that the people promoting it engage in personal attacks. Such attacks have been effectively used to intimidate logical critiques of nonsensical theories.”[52]

[Victoria Ashley:] “Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people—professionals, academics and average people—can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas[53]

The truth is arrived at by examining ideas—not the individuals promoting them. Ad-hominem fallacies[54] could be used to in an attempt to bait a response from the intended target. Effectively, this creates a divisive environment in which scientific debates are ignored and instead replaced with irrelevant personal insults and commentary. This could be an effective strategy to avoid discussing the relevant scientific issues of 9/11. An ad-hominem is not necessarily an insult—it could simply be irrelevant commentary about an individual that distracts attention away from his/her theory.

Examples #5-11

5. We gasp at [his] “analysis” of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?[55]

6. ______ attacks Dr. Wood’s Billiard Ball Example (BBE)—a clear explanation of why the government’s gravitational collapse WTC story is impossible—because people, even _____, can understand it.[56]

7. ______ gives experimentalists a bad name.[57]

8. Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11.[58]

9. Perhaps our critique will lead him to conduct psychological experiments at BYU.[59]

10. _______ has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that seems to 'sell' his positions.[60]

11. Given _________’s enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. ________ ‘evokes’ the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery… In effect… ‘Elect _______, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy.’"[61]

[Frank Legge:] And one of the serious chips is the risk of being attacked by supposed fellow workers using untruths, unfounded assertions, illogical arguments and character assassination rather than scientific debate. Even if true, this failing does not warrant the scale of this attack. No failing of any kind could warrant the scurrilous nature of the attack... How the authors could possibly think they were advancing the 9/11 cause by publishing this offensive material is a mystery to me. As a scientist I look at physical evidence and do not attempt to penetrate the workings of the mind, preferring to leave that very important area to others.[62]

Example #12

Commentary in [bold] by Arabesque

[Jim Fetzer:] “And why does he have to persist in misrepresenting the positions of others?[straw-man arguments offered as evidence] He commits straw man fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid. [Straw-man offered as evidence, appeal to authority]

THIS is the sign of a scholar?
[Ad-hominem] No, this is the sign of a FRAUD. [Ad-hominem, straw-man offered as evidence] Neither Judy nor I is "promoting" an energy-beam-from-space theory, other than to advance it as an HYPOTHESIS. [Illogical—an hypothesis is rejected when contradictory evidence is presented] I offered the CONJECTURE that WTC-7 may have been the source of the energy required. [See previous] I was not endorsing a CONCLUSION [irrelevant—the hypothesis must be rejected as well as any conclusions implied] but a theory about the case. Without conjectures and theories, inquiry is impossible. [Straw-man—his position is not that inquiry is wrong—it is that theories that rely on faulty data are wrong,[63] and that non-falsifiable theories are unscientific and can not be tested and/or proved with available evidence[64]] Doesn't he know? [Don’t you know you are committing a straw-man?] This fraud [ad-hominem] talks the talk about science [so do you—but instead of the scientific method, you use a method that ignores or misrepresents data by accident or design (i.e. misinformation/disinformation)], but his understanding of and commitment to genuine science is superficial and incomplete.” [Conclusion based on a straw-man][65]

Although this passage contains straw-men and other logical fallacies, it uses misleading arguments to attack the personal credibility of the subject. Consequently, this entire example functions as an ad-hominem.

This “third type of disinformation” requires intent. After all, “character assassination rather than scientific debate is rarely committed by accident.

A similar type of ad-hominem fallacy is known as poisoning the well:

“The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.[66]

Examples #13-19

13. __________ was involved in controversial research.

14. __________ wrote a religious paper involving controversial ideas.

15. __________ is a member of a secret organization.

16. __________ works for the CIA.

17. __________ wears Star Wars pajamas with the death star on them.

18. __________ is a democrat.

19. __________ voted for George Bush—twice.

Conclusion [for each example]:

Therefore, everything this person says about _______ is false.

These examples are illogical arguments. Theories are proved or disproved on their own merit—they are not “debunked” in reference to other unrelated theories or ideas. They are also not disproved based on which organizations someone may belong in or any unrelated circumstances. Poisoning the well is one of the most popular disinformation tactics. After all, disseminators of disinformation are not interested in an actual debate of the issues at hand; they are interested in destroying the credibility of the person promoting those ideas. As well, these accusations don’t even have to be true to be effective. This results in poisoning the well disinformation. This tactic is hardly surprising considering the fact that disinformation itself “should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying.

Yet another similar type of disinformation is an appeal to authority.[67] It could be considered to be the opposite of an ad-hominem. An appeal to authority suggests that a theory is held to be true because it is believed by an authority.

However, theories are not proved or disproved based on who is promoting them. To believe otherwise would mean that authorities would never lie and that they would never be wrong—ever. In reality, anyone could be coerced, threatened, paid to lie, be forced to make false statements, or even promote misleading arguments (i.e. disinformation) if there was strong enough motive or self interest to do so. Or an authority could simply be wrong. This is why all theories must be examined on their own merit. If authorities were never wrong we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as the “authorities” believed during the time of Galileo.[68]

Second Type of Disinformation:

[Jim Fetzer:] The second level of disinformation occurs when relevant available evidence that ought to make a difference to a conclusion, hypothesis or conjecture under examination is simply dismissed or ignored. EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT when its presence or absence (physical evidence) or its truth or falsity (testimonial) makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the point at issue.[69]

Example #20

[Wood/Reynolds:] “Steven Jones claimed that nano-enhanced thermite or thermate could account for pulverization of the Twin Towers. One difficulty with his hypothesis is that nano-enhanced thermite apparently did not exist in 2001 and only recently has the Department of Defense awarded contracts to prove and develop such a product.[70]

[Frank Legge:] This is incorrect. The history of nanothermite appears to go back far enough to be considered as a possible explosive in 2001.[71]

Example #21

[Wood/Reynolds:] “Thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.”[72]

[Frank Legge:] Note the words here: ‘thermite does not explode’. Jones has never said that it did. It is therefore not logical to ask this question.[73]

Example #22

[Jim Fetzer:]The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.[74]

[Jim Hoffman:] “In fact, photographs clearly show that the region of punctures to the facade extended to a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Thus, the hole was approximately six times as large as Fetzer admits. Fetzer continues to promote the ‘small hole’ fantasy despite the efforts of several people, including Fetzer's colleague Steven Jones, to point out his error.[75]

First Type of Disinformation:

[Jim Fetzer:] The first level of disinformation might equally well be characterized as apparent incompetence by someone who assumes the task of offering criticism but for which he is not well-positioned to provide. This may be due to any number of factors, including lack of mental acumen, specific misunderstandings, or lack of familiarity with relevant evidence (simple ignorance).[76]

Is it possible to tell whether someone is unfamiliar with relevant evidence? This is difficult to determine and this definition implies unintentional ignorance. However, this “first type” of disinformation could be interpreted as the overlooking of obvious explanations—intentional or otherwise.

Example #23:

[James Gourley:] “Judy Wood stated[77] that she believes… [that] space beams [reflected] off the buildings and somehow end up burning the cars on a bridge seven blocks away from the WTC complex… there is a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis that explains the toasted cars present on FDR Drive: they were towed away from Ground Zero and deposited there as a part of the clean-up and rescue effort.[78]

Example #24:

[Jim Fetzer:] …the story is inconsistent with the evidence we had. It’s not even physically possible, given the laws of aerodynamics, that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it, which I assume he confirmed, which was this plane barely skimmed the ground en route to it’s target. That’s not even physically possible.[79]

Amazingly, Jim Fetzer somehow maintains that it is “impossible” to fly a plane into a building at the same time he argues that is “possible” to destroy two 110 floor office buildings with a “space beam”.[80]

[Jim Hoffman:] Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the… [claim that]‘the final approach was impossible due to ground effect’… [This claim] fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack.[81]

Example #25

[Wood/Reynolds:] “Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)?[82]

The first part of the question was answered previously by Frank Legge.[83] The second part about the possibility of thermite to clean up debris appears to be one of great concern to Wood and Reynolds. They ask this question at least six times in the referenced paper as well as elsewhere. Perhaps they are unaware that Steven Jones has answered this question repeatedly in his presentations.

[Steven Jones:] “Researcher Michael Berger checked with a number of steel-cutters and workers at Ground Zero. They reported that oxy-acetylene torches were used to cut the steel members—not thermite. Also, reacting thermite ejects globs of molten white/orange-hot iron – would cause VERY dangerous burns! Therefore, thermite was not used in clean-up.[84]

Jim Fetzer defined 5 levels of disinformation. I propose a sixth type:

Sixth Type of Disinformation:

The sixth level of disinformation is the promotion of theories that are unable to be tested with available evidence. Such theories are called non-falsifiable:

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ‘falsifiable’. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.[85]

If a theory can not be tested or corroborated with any available evidence, it can not be proved or disproved. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories can only function to create a never-ending debate. 9/11 researchers are only able to prove what happened on 9/11 with the available evidence. Although speculation is essential in any line of inquiry, speculation alone is never enough to prove a theory—evidence and/or experiments are also needed.

It is therefore misleading to promote non-falsifiable hypotheses as if they could explain the events of 9/11 for the simple reason that they can not be proven. If something can not be proved, it will not convince a skeptic. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories will never be compelling enough to help force another 9/11 investigation.

[Steven Jones:] “Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.[86]

Examples #26-29:

Non-falsifiable theories include:

26. Directed energy weapons were used to destroy or partially destroy the World Trade Center Buildings.

27. Aliens destroyed the Twin Towers with their directed energy weapons.

28. Holograms were used on 9/11.

29. God destroyed the World Trade Center Towers with his foot.[87]

Those who promote non-falsifiable theories should support the most credible evidence to get another 9/11 investigation.[88] This is the only conceivable way to get definitive answers to un-answerable questions. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which all of the documents in the world involving directed energy weapons were turned over and the theorists could still say: “you haven’t found them yet—they are still hiding the real ones somewhere”. After all, these top secret documents could be hiding right beside the “missing” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This hypothetical example clearly shows that non-falsifiable theories will never lead us to the truth about 9/11. This means that they should be rejected until they are shown to be falsifiable with experiments. Speculation about technology that may or may not exist will likely never be proved unless another 9/11 investigation takes place.

A non-falsifiable theory has no credible evidence to support it. However, they can be “supported” with misinformation and disinformation. In place of real evidence, non-falsifiable theories are given false credibility with misleading arguments. Consequently, if a theory is supported with false evidence (i.e. misinformation or disinformation), it does not count as actual evidence and the theory retains its non-falsifiable status. However, it is usually tenable to prove that these misleading arguments are false (i.e. they are falsifiable)—but the actual theory preserves its non-falsifiable status if it unsubstantiated with credible evidence. As soon as a theory can be tested or validated with legitimate evidence it becomes falsifiable.

This sixth type of disinformation is one of the strongest kinds. Defenders of non-falsifiable theories will believe what they want to believe, and they will never be proved wrong to their satisfaction. This is worsened when their beliefs are supported by disinformation or misinformation.

Conclusions

Those who care about the truth about 9/11 should also care about disinformation and misinformation. All 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that the 9/11 commission report consists of substantial disinformation.

The truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. If we accept this to be true, then it is also true that misleading arguments are harmful to this cause. Therefore, the intent involved in promoting misleading arguments is irrelevant. Arguments based on disinformation/misinformation will almost always result in false/incomplete/misleading conclusions.

The repeated promotion of arguments demonstrated to be misleading are a disservice to all of those who truly care about what really happened on 9/11.

 



[1] Arabesque, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Member and 9/11 researcher: http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877.

[2] Jim Fetzer, Disinformation, the Use of False Information, Minds and Machines, 14: 231–240, 2004.

[3] Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation. http://www.assassinationscience.com/

[4]Disinformation” definition taken from http://www.dictionary.com/

[5] Fetzer, Disinformation, the Use of False Information.

[6] Definition of “Misinformation” taken from Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website. http://stj911.org/.

[7] Jim Fetzer, (2003), Information: Does It Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, pp. 223–229.

[8] 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[9] For discussion of the facts omitted and distorted by the 9/11 commission see David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Here is a list of the omissions and distortions by the 9/11 commission: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm.

[10] Read some of the unanswered questions from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee here: http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

From http://www.911truth.org/: “911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11 Commission which they fought to create.

[11] Definition of Straw-man Fallacy taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

“This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.”

[12] Jim Hoffman, Missing Building Contents: Most Contents of the Towers Were Turned to Dust, http://911research.wtc7.net/.

[13] Ibid.

[14] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says, Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.

Fire Engineering Glover, Norman, Fire Engineering journal, October 2002.

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire

[15]The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C. Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[16] FEMA Report: Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. See also:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[17] NIST calls molten steel “irrelevant” to their investigation. See here:

Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology'sAnswers to Frequently Asked Questions’. August 30, 2006.

[18] David Ray Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True. Authorized Version (with references & notes). See also:

Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[19] Jim Hoffman, ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence, February 19, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html.

[20] Popular Mechanics published an article that discusses 9/11 “conspiracy theories”. See a response to it here:

Jim Hoffman, Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man, February 9, 2005. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/.

[21] Victoria Ashley, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, January 14, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/.

[22] Conspiracy: Definition from http://www.dictionary.com/

1. The act of conspiring.

2. An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

Theory: Definition from http://www.dictionary.com/.

[23] Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other scholars joint statement.

[24] Gregory S. Jenkins, The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center, February 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[25] Taken from: Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood. Published on http://www.911blogger.com/ by Greg Jenkins. See also:

Gregory S. Jenkins, Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, February 9, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[26] Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, The Star Wars Beam Weapons, December 15, 2006. http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/.

[27] James Gourley “Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, January 9, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[28] Tony Szamboti, "The Damage to WTC Bldg's 3 and 6, the debate between the controlled demolition and beam weapons...", January 26, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[29] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.” See also:

Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

[30] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Brian Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation? February 6, 2007. Page 2. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[33] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?

[34] Read a response to The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds here:

Frank Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds, January 11, 2007.

[35] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?

[36] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[37] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?

[38]A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: ‘The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-µmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-µm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-µmdiam) particles that are typically measured.’ http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat%20ure_lioy.html].” Taken from: Steven Jones, Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[39] Greg Jenkins, Jim Fetzer and his “Lying Eyes”, February 27, 2007. Published on http://www.911blogger.com/.

http://911scholars.org/ YouTube link, and http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html, Figures 15, 16, 17a and 17b

Run time is 3.5 minutes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7937273264329816394

Paper Link: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

Google video compression makes the images slightly obscure, so make sure to check out the original video links from reference #41 in the above article: http://st12.startlogic.com/%7Exenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire_clip.avi

And http://public.gregjenkins.promessage.com/911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi

[40] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[41] “In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C. Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[42] Ibid.

[43] Jim Hoffman, Review of ‘A New Standard for Deception’ A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, October 15, 2006. The NIST reports low fire temperatures.

· “Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F [or 280 C]) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

· “Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)” http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

However, these recorded observations by NIST ignore the fact that there was molten steel as reported by the FEMA report: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.” see also:

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’ from:

James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.

More evidence of molten steel listed here:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html.

[44] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? Pages 12-16.

[45] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.

[46] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[47] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds.

[48] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? page 6.

[49] Interview of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo show on gcnlive, January 17, 2007. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3 Listen to about the 83:00 mark and forward for comment about other explosives in combination with thermate/superthermite.

[50] http://www.explosionworld.com/, Did you know? “CONCRETE VS. STEEL: In the United States and Europe, support columns in most buildings are constructed of either steel 'H-beams' or concrete (with steel reinforcing bars). Some buildings actually have both. DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'?”

[51] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.

[52] Hoffman, ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence.

[53] Ashley, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction.

[54] Definition of Ad-hominem fallacy taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[55] Reynolds and Wood, Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones, August 27, 2006. It is unclear who said this statement (Wood or Reynolds). However, as co-authors, they both ultimately take responsibility for it. http://nomoregames.net/.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Reynolds and Wood, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? October 2006. http://nomoregames.net/.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, January 2, 2007. http://www.911scholars.org/070102_transcript.html.

[61] Reynolds and Wood, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

[62] Frank Legge, A Response to Reynolds and Wood. http://stj911.org/

[63] For discussion of Steven Jones’ position on the alternative theories supported by Jim Fetzer: Interview of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo show on gcnlive, January 17, 2007. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3

[64] Steven E. Jones, My Response to "An Open Letter", November 20, 2006.

[65] Jim Fetzer, Why I am now convinced that Steve Jones is untrustworthy, February 3, 2007. Published on http:www.911researchers.com/

[66] Definition of poisoning the well taken from http://www.nizkor.org/

· Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

· Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

“This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious… merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.”

[67] Definition of Appeal to authority taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:

· Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

· Person A makes claim C about subject S.

· Therefore, C is true.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim… even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false.”

[68] The Galileo Project, Galileo and the Inquisition. http://galileo.rice.edu/index.html

[69] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.

[70] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[71] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds

[72] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Jim Fetzer, Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, 2005.

[75] Jim Hoffman, A Critical Review of James Fetzer's Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, February 6, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/.

[76] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.

[77] Gourley, Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”.

Judy Wood stated this during a discussion of the WR paper on Jim Fetzer’s radio show ‘Non-Random Thoughts’” http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0611/20061111_Sat_Fetzer2.mp3.

[78] Gourley, Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”.

[79] Debbie Lewis, The BBC Joins The Ranks Of The Untrustworthy United States Media, February 24, 2007.

[80] Wood and Reynolds, The Star Wars Beam Weapons. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds call their paper: “The Star Wars Beam Weapons”.

[81] Jim Hoffman, The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows, March 28, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

[82] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[83] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynoldsthermite does not explode’. Jones has never said that it did.

[84] Steven Jones, Answers to Objections and Questions, pages 75-76.

[85] Jose Wudka, What is the ``scientific method''? http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[86] Steven Jones, My Response to "An Open Letter".

[87] Rob Rice, NIST and "The Foot Of God" Hypothesis. http://www.911scholars.org/NISTandThe%20FootOfGod.html

[88] Steven Jones, What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice? January 9, 2007.

As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene.

Nice Job

Nice job with this Arabesque.

Very Useful...

You have done a great job cataloging the fraud which Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds inflict upon the movement. I was not aware of many things you highlight here. It took me some time to go through all the links, but proved rewarding.

These people are obviously charlatans, dolts, or both, and their 'ideas' are relatively easy to disprove. The footnotes are invaluable and will be put to good use, I am sure…..

My nightmare: what if the disinformation can not be so easily disproved? The attempts thus far have been lame, but nevertheless they have actually had some degree of success. Imagine if the disinformation was a bit more sophisticated.....

Yes... I agree

However, I believe that we have nothing to worry about when it comes to discovering misleading arguments.

I'm sure you would agree that the scientific method is the best defense against all illogical arguments. The scientific method is the anti-virus to the virus known as disinformation.

I actually think there is some very subtle disinformation that could potentially harm the truth movement. Anything we can't prove with 100% certainty is potentially harmful us. Anything that ignores credible contradictory evidence is suspect.

Un-testable speculation (the 'sixth' level of disinformation) is a major distraction and detriment to the 9/11 truth movement in my opinion.

This article should be core curriculum for newbies.

Apparently, Fetzer used his disinfo paper as a resume when he applied over at the Dark Side of the Force (TM).

The enemy is indeed inside the gates.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

This also has the makings of

This also has the makings of an academic paper or thesis. It's absolutely fascinating (in a sick, perverted sort of way, considering the gravity of the subject). Can it be enshrined in a permanent archive here?

Excellent work, Arabesque! Do you mind if I post parts of it on other message boards swarming with disinfo creeps?

Thanks LEH

You of course have my permission to do with my material as you wish.

Believe it or not, there's even more examples.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Outstanding Work

I am going to have to list you as a research consultant on my film. (if i ever find out your real name)

I'm working on an essay on this phenomenon. This is an early draft:

Identifying the Agent Provocateurs

Its appears that their only loyalty is to whatever disinformation meme of the day is being intentionally foisted on this movement. They consistently fall on the wrong side of the fence on each and every issue of BLATENT disinformation and disruption. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

Their attempts at deliberating the issues reveals positions that are transparently incohesive, revealing instead intellectually dishonest, evasive, circular arguments, indifferent to the truth and apathetic to the real facts.

Seeking only to stir the pot with their felonious claims and socially aberrant accusations, they are agent provocateurs for disruption wrapped up in a faux “ya-done-me-wrong” air of righteous indignation designed to create the false illusion that they are real flesh and blood activists for truth who are being victimized and censored by their peers. Their posts are designed to divide, antisocial in nature and insulting to the intelligence of those of us who seek social justice.

The pursuit of Trojan horse logic and discordant themes is obvious. The researchers they support and defend are immoral, iniquitous, disgusting turncoats for truth.

Thousands of family members and walking victims of 9/11 with lingering wounds that will not heal are watching. The whole world in fact is watching. I think they underestimate the TRUE meaning of what DIRECTED ENERGY means. They are attempting to hold back the ocean with a broom - and risk losing themselves in the process. If it were not for the despicable, contemptible, shameful, disgraceful behavior that they represent and defend - i would actually pity them

Thanks John.

Thank you for your comments.

Everyone is of course free to use my research (and footnotes backing up all of these statements) to their benefit.

Knowledge is power.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You should submit this to

You should submit this to the letters section of journalof911studies.com

Thanks

I have some good news on this... Some of my stuff (plural) is probably going to appear in the Journal in the very near future.  Potentially as many as three things I've done as well as potentially a fourth in progress.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Andrew:

"There are many other possible classified weapons that could have been used, and unfortunately since they are classified they cannot be disproved."

I discussed this. Read the section: "sixth type of disinformation".

Here are my questions for you.

1. Do you consider the truth about 9/11 is of primary importance?

2. If so, do you agree that misleading arguments are harmful to the truth?

3. Do you agree that we should expose misleading arguments that are harmful to the truth?

4. Do you think that exposing misleading arguments constitutes a personal “attack”?

5. Do you agree that we need an investigation to prove exactly what happened on 9/11?

6. Do you agree that we can not prove everything unless we get an investigation?

7. Do you agree that we should stick with the strongest evidence to force this investigation?

8. Do you agree that theories that can't be proven with available evidence will never be enough to force another 9/11 investigation?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Congrats on this. Great

Congrats on this. Great job.

an appeal to authority!

While I would of course argue that your work should be judged on its merits, I would point out that Fetzer himself seems to be one of your main sources, and with good reason--he actually does a decent job of explaining disinfo tactics.

What people, and especially people new to this movement, need to bear in mind is that good disinfo agents HAVE to be able to pass as legitimate truthseekers. As such, one common mistake made by some disinfo agents is that they are so worried about being sussed out that they resort to becoming a disinfo witch hunter. Kind of like republicans who bash gays because they are in fact gay. Never in a million years would their followers suspect the truth, but we who know better never discount the possibility that the most honest-seeming people could be frauds.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

I suppose that could be your theory

It seems much more logical to me that people who want to stop discussions about disinformation (when most of the 9/11 "official story" is disinformation) are agents. But I wouldn’t be so bold as to go around promoting that theory. That would be non-falsifiable speculation. In any case, I care much more about what people like Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan and others think about me.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

again another appeal to authority

What are you going to start dropping names and reprinting emails from KR and SJ telling you what a great truther you are? Your appeal to logic in this reply is baseless--I have never once discouraged people from discussing disinfo--I have always simply pointed out that (logically) a disinfo artist could easily pose as a truther claiming to be interested in pointing out disinfo. In fact it would be illogical for the perps not to be using such tactics, given their effectiveness at sowing discord among activists.

I have always merely pointed out the double standard that the self-appointed disinfo police employ--one standard for easy targets like obvious disinfo agents Fetzer and Haupt and quite another for--see, that's the double standard--as long as the real covert disinfo agents don't cross certain lines (like discussing absurd theories as if they were believable) it is considered inappropriate to level the accusation against them. Accordingly, I have been warned by site admin, or asked, to use a more neutral term, not to reply to a certain other site user's comments.

As well as I think this site normally deals with issues of free speech versus running an efficient site, there is a clear problem whereby certain users are granted a sort of "above suspicion" status that none here can reasonably claim. As such we are left to wonder how honest an assessment of disinfo is that must a priori exclude certain individuals from consideration. This reality rightly or not naturally casts suspicion on anyone using this forum to "expose disinfo". Especially when those choosing to only ever seem to point out the examples that really don't need to be pointed out since they are so blatant.

If this 9/11 coverup has taught us anything it is to never stop questioning and to be particularly wary of artificially created "consensus" or groupthink. Especially in cases when those who like me make an effort to combat it are "made examples of" what happens to those who do. The word sycophant exists for a reason!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Where there's a YIN... Look for a YANG...

I agree RT...

The truth lies in the middle, with manufactured forces both trying to squash the center ground.

Where the YIN is obvious, the YANG is not.

I still believe the proof is in the pudding, and both sides can be seen.

That is why I prefer to stick to physical evidence, science, logic, learning and gut-feeling.

It might sound bizarre, but I believe eventually it is as clear as it was to NEO at the end of the first Matrix film.

It takes time and acceptance.

Best wishes

yin yang - yes!

a great way to put it. two sides of a coin they are, heads or tails. when in fact the truth is that third side of the coin, the thin little edge that is so hard to balance on, which tells you that it's where "they" don't want you to look!

remember that--a coin has THREE sides-- yin, yang, and yes...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

sarcasm detector - severe, or red

my best guess is that Real Truther is a disinfo agent funded in large part by FARC-EP. i mean, come on, this guy promotes crazy ideas like controlled demolition, israel playing a significant role, and disinfo artists dressed as honest truth seekers.
________________________________________
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 89 (1886).
http://anti-neocons.com/

excellent! it shows you're paying attention wolf... :)

As I've said before--you CAN trust me, but you'd be a fool to take my word for it!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Obviously

If disinformation is really so obvious…

Why does your website ("WTCdemolition.com") have many examples of misinformation/disinformation on it?

It is obvious to me that some disinformation is not obvious. It is also obvious to me that understanding disinformation is absolutely central to understanding 9/11 truth. If we can’t tell the difference between what is true and not true, we are hopelessly lost. If the truth about 9/11 was obvious, we wouldn’t need a 9/11 truth movement. If disinfo/misinfo was obvious, you and many others would not be promoting it by “accident” on websites. Conclusions themselves are not “disinformation/misinformation”. There can not be misleading conclusions without misleading interpretations of evidence.

It is not an appeal to authority when I simply state my personal opinion. I am not claiming truth or falsity—I am simply expressing my opinion which I have no pretence of being true or false. For example, when you imply that I am a disinfo agent (an ad-hominem) because I discuss disinfo (a very weak straw-man argument), I am merely replying—that’s fine if that’s your opinion, because it really doesn’t matter to me.

In my opinion it is not a waste of time to discuss disinformation. I hold the opposite view.

Just because you have the opinion that disinformation (or any other subject) is obvious, does not therefore mean it IS obvious, and that we should NOT discuss it or it is NOT worthwhile.

What is obvious to some is not obvious to others.

What is most of all apparent to me is that just having an opinion does not make something true.

Obviously

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

what disinfo is on my site?

please share...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Hey, I went over there to see if you had a new section

where you put this disinfo, but it's not very clearly marked? Do you just have the disinfo mixed in with the rest of the info? I think you should put it all in one section with the heading "Info" -- so we'll all know where it is, but hapless visitors to your site will fall victim to your evil plan, mwahahaha -- I mean, so your site is, like, more organized?

if the truth were NOT obvious

they would hardly have to cover it up now would they? you seriously think the truth about building 7 is not obvious? and again you calim I said things that I have never said--that I don't think disinfo should be discussed, or that those who do are necessarily disinfo themselves--anyone can see that what I said is that we can't discount the possibility. but in your comment you more than imply that I am a disinfo agent (suggesting I print disinfo on my site "by accident") Without actually citing any example to support your accusations--veeeery thorough there!

and your expressing of an opinion is not an appeal to authority--the appeal to authority I'm talking about is how you suggest that if Jones and Ryan publish something you wrote in their journal then you are somehow worthy of credibility for that fact when it just means that they consider your work good enough to be published in a journal that publishes a wide range of viewpoints. You are just being a total hypocrite.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

My mistake

Well, it looks like I made a mistake and for that I apologize. I remembered something from I think three months ago but it appears that it was not specifically your site. It was a link to another site from your site that I assumed was yours. You link to it on the top. If you really wanted me to explain the errors on that site, I would be more than willing to do so.

As for the main page of your site it looks very good. Good for you on that. I was wrong to criticize you on your site specifically and I should have looked at it more carefully again before commenting. Mea Culpa.

And I did not mean to say that you are an agent and nor do I think so. I only meant that (what I thought was your website) had misleading arguments on it. It turns out it was a page you linked to.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

i actually appreciate your clarification

I try to be as fair as possible on my site. While everyone here knows that in discussions I will always aggressively pursue angles of Israeli involvement, for example, on my site I go to great pains to make clear that arguing the merits of an Israeli connection has nothing to do with Jews or even your average Israeli citizen. I do not mention the holocaust on my site and I decided several months back to only link to Eric Hufschmid once--to his (very good) book on 9/11 at Amazon.com, and NOT to his website which I consider to have issues. Finally, I also say this:

"In this sense criticism of Israeli and American actions in this context should be seen as criticism of a global, non-denominational movement that uses Americans and Israelis as pawns in their plans for global military and economic domination. It is, as ever, a matter of all people everywhere versus a few powerful and dangerously corrupt ideological fanatics and control freaks. This reality should never be allowed to be painted as any one people versus any other--that is a tactic of "divide and conquer" that serves only the interests of the actual wrongdoers by allowing them to hide behind legitimate concerns of racial and ethnic tolerance. It should be added that while the circumstancial evidence of involvement by foreign agents in the events of 9/11 is substantial, a real investigation is needed before firm conclusions can be reached."

If anyone ever sees something on my site that is questionable, they just have to point it out and I will be glad to consider the argument...

Anyway, thanks again for the civil tone. I hope we can, for the benefit of our common goals insofar as they exist, tolerate our different approaches. I obviously disagree with you on some things but I appreciate that you can handle those disagreements with considerable decorum.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

"Non-falsifiable"

Non-falsifiable theories include:

26. Directed energy weapons were used to destroy or partially destroy the World Trade Center Buildings.

Isn't Dr. Jenkins saying that the theory is falsified by how much energy would be required and by the lack of iron in the dust?

No

A theory is falsifiable when and only when it can be tested with experiments. And no, forks in microwaves don't qualify as a test to prove DEW.

In other words, Jenkins has shown how much energy would be involved. It is up to Wood to show how this could be accomplished with experiments.

This means that the theory is extremely implausible. Although for the average person this would be enough to decide that DEW were not used, scientific standards of proof remain elusive because if something is extremely implausible, it does not mean that it is "impossible".

Speculation has no limits, after all.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

In other words, yes

The theory is falsifiable. I'm not defending the theory. I'm suggesting that you are giving "non-falsifiable" too broad a definition. And Jenkins' argument is falsifiable, in principle, by experiments. It seems reasonable for her to propose experiments that might show what could be done. These experiments would necessarily have to be closer in scale to the fork in the microwave than to an actual weapon, assuming it even exists.

Your idea of "non-falsifiable" is too limiting

Reading Note 85, I don't think it says that evidence has to be available for a theory to be scientific. "Non-falsifiable" is inherent to the theory. Wudka says:

the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one.

Just because weapons are secret does not mean the potential does not exist to prove the theory wrong by showing that such a weapon does not exist. You seem to be conflating strategy and science, saying we should go with theory A because there is supposedly evidence to support it.

Evidence, Speculation, Experiments, and 9/11 Truth

My argument is not that you need evidence for a theory to be falsifiable. It is that you need at the very least experiments, and possibly evidence. We may not at the moment know what experiments are needed. If we see evidence (i.e. observations), we can then later conclude that we need experiments to explain what has occurred. However, as I have argued disinformation does not qualify as evidence.

In summary, evidence is important but not essential—experiments are.

"Just because weapons are secret does not mean the potential does not exist to prove the theory wrong by showing that such a weapon does not exist. "

I’m not debating that. It still doesn’t change the fact that non-falsifiable theories are non-scientific by definition. As I said, a scientific theory remains non-falsifiable until it becomes supported with credible evidence/experiments. This could happen in the future, but until that time the theory remains non-falsifiable. I explained this point in the essay.

I'm not saying don't speculate. Speculation is fine as long as it is not used to displace more credible hypotheses and evidence that IS falsifiable.

Speculation/Hypothesis/Experiments an Example:

Steven Jones saw molten metal (i.e. evidence/observation) for weeks after 9/11. He speculated thermite. He did experiments. He found a variation called thermate. His theory was testable (i.e. falsifiable). His hypothesis was confirmed. It explains molten metal (evidence).

Now perhaps an advanced version of thermite and or/explosives were used. Perhaps an advanced type of explosives were used that no one knows about. That’s possible. How do we find out what happened?

Answer: We take the credible evidence we have, and get an investigation. It’s not our job to prove exactly what happened on 9/11. It’s our job to get an investigation with the most credible evidence.

How could we ever accomplish this with speculation that can’t be proven at the present time?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Once more

This is getting into semantics, maybe, but I disagree with this:

a scientific theory remains non-falsifiable until it becomes supported with credible evidence/experiments.

Your own source treats non-falsifiability as being inherent to the theory, and not dependent on whether there is now evidence to support the theory. So again, I think you are arguing a strategic point here. That's all I'm saying.

Interesting how I am downrated on this. I'm not arguing in favor of Wood's theory.

Yes!

Jones saw previously molten metal, and he took a picture just for you, Andrew!

 

Let me try again

Ok. This is semantics, so let me explain.

"the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one."

In comparison:

"the theory that there are no DEWS to destroy the WTC is scientific: you can disprove it by finding one."

Question: Have we found any DEW that meet the necessary power requirements (5 earths of power min)? No. So if you hold that theory—it would be disproven until shown otherwise.

These two theories have the same thing in common. They are testable and they can be proven false (and are shown to be false). In contrast, the theory that DEW beams destroyed the towers is not falsifiable because there is no way to test the theory.

The theory that there are DEWs to destroy the WTC is not scientific because there is no reasonable test to prove that they do not exist. This theory starts with the premise that it IS true. How can I reasonably prove to you that it is NOT true?

You could probably come with a partial answer, but as a devils advocate I could say, well even if I accomplished all that you asked for, the evidence of DEW could still be hidden. They found a really good hiding place that you just haven't found yet.

After all, is often very difficult to prove a negative. Sometimes it’s even impossible.

Lastly, Dr. Wood’s theory is too vague to test. The EVIDENCE for the DEW theory (as promoted by Wood) has pretty much been completely debunked (notice I said evidence—not theory). Every single piece of evidence used to support DEW has been proven to be a misleading argument or misrepresentation. I encourage you to read this analysis of Wood’s interview if you doubt this statement:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8110

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Arabesque...

You are a talented researcher.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Thanks

Thanks Jon.