We Still Don't Know What Happened On 9-11 & Can't Agree

[Christophera]

as the people who might hope to re establish democracy in America, or BE SURE a legitimate government, fully complying to the Constitution in its operation, is in charge of our present and future.

This is because of sabotage to our communications.

Sabotage is effected in 2 basic ways.

First, distraction, then confusion.

Group focus is what MUST be prevented. The first level of that is the actual gathering. Although we are all here by our posting, we have not arrived at a collectively accepted issue with 9-11 that absolutely warrants our fellow Americans attention, or, ........... that appeal to government agency is a waste of time making our fellow American the only ally we might hope to find. Or, that the issue of discussion of information that DEPENDS on accountable government IS a distraction.

Q: Why is distraction so effective?

A: Distraction easily has an acceptable, normal daily appearance and is easily explained, over and over again. Even if its the same information!!! This means that the "landscape" of our communications can be filled with distractions that simply look like obsessive, compulsive expression. It does however make the interment research on 9-11 appear to be filled with bad science and absurd conjecture, and, finding information that actually makes sense, because no focus develops as does in a face to face discussion, no can even tell which information is actually useful.

Q: When does confusion work and why is it not so effective?

A: People develop a sense that they, or someone else are the target of an intent to confuse with deception and manipulation after a series of exchanges. To the viewr, one of those people is sincere and the other is not, deciding which has the possible reward of refined information. The sincere person most often is honest and straightforward with their information and the opposition must say NO, that their information is in error. What is innately communicated here is a message like this, "I'm not really here doing anything like I say I'm doing".
It doesn't take too long before the posters position who is saying "NO" is marginalized as an effective confusor of information in the process of reasoning out the issue logically. To do that specific factors and details to the argument must be discussed and equitably, reasonably accounted for within the establishing framework of experience and knowledge of the parties. This takes time and, expertise. Most people are easily made a afraid to base opinions on information that is being questioned when they themselves do not have the expertise to know for certain the quality of the information. The process of a poster who has the intent of confusing can be observed fairly easily but, a viewer must follow the developing thread to see it, and care enough to analyze both sides of the discussion to see which is most reasonable, if the viewer has enough experience and knowledge to understand the issue.

Added to this is the fact that the media has spent the last 25 years actively working to disable us from making meaningful agreements. This appears sometimes easily seen as corporate manipulation of consumer attitudes towards political issues that effect business.

The above activities of sabotage and the general psychological environment of the paragraph above, now that the sabotage has been identified or described, should hampered by the greater understanding of those, Americans, that ARE willing and desire to use reason to see the US Consitution reign as the supreme law of the land. Those people will no longer allow/entertain distractions and always seek to dispel confusion by solid, meaningful agreement, over and over on what makes sense, and uniform rejection.

How many 9-11 researchers does it take to find the truth?

Only a few, but they have to understand.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[petgoat]

1. Good Point, Chris

A couple of thoughts: the claim that "I've already debunked that
theory and I'm not going to discuss it anymore" is one of the most
damnable lies there is.

Somebody on these threads was claiming that the seismographic evidence
was useless because superimposed s and p waves make it unintelligible.
Later discussion suggests that the WTC collapse data did not involve s
and p waves such as an earthquake would.

I would submit that shooting your mouth off to submit an admittedly
speculative theory is no sin when you admit you don't know what you're
talking about

BUT....

Shooting down someone else's theory when you lack the expertise you're
claiming is.

[LARED]

2. Excuse me for a moment

Jeez take a few days off and I come back to this.

Somebody on these threads was claiming that the seismographic evidence was useless because superimposed s and p waves make it unintelligible. Later discussion suggests that the WTC collapse data did not involve s and p waves such as an earthquake would.

If I'm not mistaken that someone was was me, and you are completely mis-characterizing what I said;

I did not say the seismographic evidence was useless or that s and p waves make it unintelligible, Quite the contrary. I said you need to understand how to read the graphs in order to determine what the time axis was telling us.

I also clearly stated I'm not a seismologist, and would not attempt to determine collapse times by looking at the data, whereas many CT'ers, whom lack the expertize to read the graphs, speculate to theirs hearts content that the graph are evidence bolstering their position.

As for there not being s or p waves, I missed that discussion and as you state it was only a suggestion by some other poster. Was the poster a seismologist? I doubt it. What gives them more credibility than anyone else? Also, based on my "Goggle seismologist degree" if there are no s or p waves, I don't see how there would any data on the graph. But I freely admit I only have a Goggle degree, so I'd love to hear from a someone that actually understands seismic graphs.

Shooting down someone else's theory when you lack the expertise you're claiming is.

It is interesting the you do not have any problems shooting down my theory that the data is not useful without genuine knowledge, when you do not have the expertise. Also you seem to have no problem mis-stating what I said.

The irony of this place is what keeps me smiling :)

[Christophera]

3. As If "QUALIFICATION" Of Information Doesn't Exist.

yes, petgoat, it's Ironic, typical confusor type tactic of diverting discussion away from meaningful points. The seismic issue is decided way before that wave matter by the shape of the reading. A peak in the beginning is not indicative of a collapse but is of an explosion. Magnitude is moot because the USGS never released date with enough resolution to perform the fast fourier transform to compare the frequency domain of the WTC event to that of high texplosives.

Yes petgoat, there is that element that actively works to make a big deal out of nothing and insist it's rational to do so just to confuse the priorities of the various information to serve functional focus, because they never state another purpose, even when asked.

Posted by petgoat

"Good Point, Chris" A couple of thoughts: the claim that "I've already debunked that
theory and I'm not going to discuss it anymore" is one of the most
damnable lies there is.
Somebody on these threads was claiming that the seismographic evidence
was useless because superimposed s and p waves make it unintelligible.
Later discussion suggests that the WTC collapse data did not involve s
and p waves such as an earthquake would.
I would submit that shooting your mouth off to submit an admittedly
speculative theory is no sin when you admit you don't know what you're
talking about
BUT....
Shooting down someone else's theory when you lack the expertise you're
claiming is.

[MrSammo1]

4. Good points and rocks!

===============================================================
When you throw a rock in a pen full of pigs. The one that squeals, is the one you hit!
===============================================================
;o)

[janedoe]

5. Excellent aim! :-) (n/t)