01-10-2013, 04:29 PM
I hesitate to jump in on this given my prolonged posting absence and its antecedents in an an earlier thread of similar complexity and ad-hominem nastiness to another concurrent 9/11 one but, since I have read Kevin Ryan's latest book, from which the articles linked at the start of this thread derive and have never lost interest in the 9/11 geo-political game-changer, here goes.
First: Having arrived at a working hypothesis, which until disproved will suffice for me whilst I focus attention on more productive lines of inquiry and evidence, I have all but lost interest in the minutiae of the 3 x WTC towers collapses. That said, my understanding of Jeffrey's position on the twin towers collapses (from that infamous thread a couple of years ago) was that the impacts and fires were insufficient in and of themselves, to be the 'collapse initiating event' and that a quite separate 'initiating event' - presumably involving explosives - must therefore have been employed. I wonder if that understanding was correct and/or I was wrong/he has changed his position since.
Second: Jeffrey's 'connecting the dots' post is fair enough but, as Magda points out, he is as susceptible to the mechanisms described as anyone else; they are pretty much a universal psychological given. However, I found no particular evidence of confirmation bias in Ryan's book. He does not argue or present evidence for any propositions other than:
1. The existing official narrative is riddled with absurdities,
2. A less absurd (ie closer to the truth of the matter) narrative would result from the 19 people he majors on - together with a good few others - being required to submit to rigorous cross examination under oath and on pain of full legal sanction should they either decline or tell demonstrable porkies, and
3. The masses of withheld evidence with no conceivable detriment to so called 'national security interests' (other than the obvious one of damaging the official narrative) should be released to public scrutiny.
I would have thought there was more or less universal agreement on all of those.
In support of them he has collated a vast amount of startling information about all manner of 9/11 related things, things that cannot be explained by mere coincidence and the existence of an old-boy network for career insiders. He does not say 'look at this as evidence for x's involvement in an inside job'; he simply says 'look at this as demonstrable, verifiable fact' and suggests that it is clearly relevant to ANY genuine investigation aimed a discovering what really happened.
He does indeed go on to say that failure to question these people or reveal these facts or release withheld evidence (like the suppression of all the Pentagon video tapes and the refusal of the Washington DC authorities to release recordings of telephoned info provided by real-time eye-witnesses when the NYC authorities did release theirs + masses of other obstructive actions) is indeed prima-facie evidence of an official determination to hide evidence damaging to the official narrative. But he does so in a forensic manner consistent with genuine investigation, with no 'confirmation bias' that I (with my own recognised propensity to confirmations bias
) can see.
I regard the book as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise moribund and self-absorbed 'Truth Movement' and hope that it may spur further work. My only minor criticism is that it does not do much digging into Israeli connections per se, although several intriguing ones are mentioned. In that respect I personally find Christopher Bollyn's work to be invaluable.
First: Having arrived at a working hypothesis, which until disproved will suffice for me whilst I focus attention on more productive lines of inquiry and evidence, I have all but lost interest in the minutiae of the 3 x WTC towers collapses. That said, my understanding of Jeffrey's position on the twin towers collapses (from that infamous thread a couple of years ago) was that the impacts and fires were insufficient in and of themselves, to be the 'collapse initiating event' and that a quite separate 'initiating event' - presumably involving explosives - must therefore have been employed. I wonder if that understanding was correct and/or I was wrong/he has changed his position since.
Second: Jeffrey's 'connecting the dots' post is fair enough but, as Magda points out, he is as susceptible to the mechanisms described as anyone else; they are pretty much a universal psychological given. However, I found no particular evidence of confirmation bias in Ryan's book. He does not argue or present evidence for any propositions other than:
1. The existing official narrative is riddled with absurdities,
2. A less absurd (ie closer to the truth of the matter) narrative would result from the 19 people he majors on - together with a good few others - being required to submit to rigorous cross examination under oath and on pain of full legal sanction should they either decline or tell demonstrable porkies, and
3. The masses of withheld evidence with no conceivable detriment to so called 'national security interests' (other than the obvious one of damaging the official narrative) should be released to public scrutiny.
I would have thought there was more or less universal agreement on all of those.
In support of them he has collated a vast amount of startling information about all manner of 9/11 related things, things that cannot be explained by mere coincidence and the existence of an old-boy network for career insiders. He does not say 'look at this as evidence for x's involvement in an inside job'; he simply says 'look at this as demonstrable, verifiable fact' and suggests that it is clearly relevant to ANY genuine investigation aimed a discovering what really happened.
He does indeed go on to say that failure to question these people or reveal these facts or release withheld evidence (like the suppression of all the Pentagon video tapes and the refusal of the Washington DC authorities to release recordings of telephoned info provided by real-time eye-witnesses when the NYC authorities did release theirs + masses of other obstructive actions) is indeed prima-facie evidence of an official determination to hide evidence damaging to the official narrative. But he does so in a forensic manner consistent with genuine investigation, with no 'confirmation bias' that I (with my own recognised propensity to confirmations bias
) can see.I regard the book as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise moribund and self-absorbed 'Truth Movement' and hope that it may spur further work. My only minor criticism is that it does not do much digging into Israeli connections per se, although several intriguing ones are mentioned. In that respect I personally find Christopher Bollyn's work to be invaluable.
Peter Presland
".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn
[/SIZE][/SIZE]