Dial 911 for Evidence

1. Dial 911 for Evidence What did or didn’t happen, and (how) can we know?

2. WTC2: South Tower

3. WTC1: North Tower

4. WTC7: Salomon Brothers

5. ‘Twould be nice to get into the juicy part immediately . . .but we really need to establish some basics about evidence and the working environment of looking at 9/11.

6. What about you? • What do you think happened before, on, and after September 11, 2001 • Where did you get the information that led you to think that?

7. What’s this about? • Thinking about theories • Thinking about evidence • Basics: flights, agencies • The Argument: debunkers vs doubters • U.S. involvement impossible? • (in)Capability of the press

8. Thinking about theories

9. What is a myth?(David Ray Griffin) • A narrative that is • Widely believed • Does not correspond to reality

10. What is a Myth?(David Ray Griffin) • A narrative that • orients & mobilizes people: • “Who am I?” • “Why do I do what I do?” • is taken on faith • is not subject to discussion

11. What is a theory? A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)

12. A good theory . . . • Does not contain internal contradictions • Corresponds to observed data • Is not inconsistent with observed data • Does not ignore observed data • May predict not-yet-known data

13. 3 ways to challenge a theory(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown) • Show that the evidence supporting it does not withstand scrutiny • Show evidence that appears to contradict it • Show evidence that it can’t possibly be true

14. What is a “conspiracy?” • Cabal -- an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue • Conspiracy (civil) (US) -- an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage • Conspiracy (crime) (US) -- an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement • Conspiracy (political) -- a plot to overthrow a governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

15. Problem with“Conspiracy Theory” • Used to patronizingly explain away evidence, as in “America’s traditional love-affair with conspiracy theories.” • Has come to be an instantaneous turn-off of people’s analytical willingness or abilities. • 9/11 -- used in a one-sided perjorative sense, when in fact there are two competing conspiracy theories • Apparently started with the CIA’s 1967 “Instructions to Media Assets”

16. 9/11: Conspiracy theory #1 The Official Story With no prior warning, Arab Muslim fundamentalists hijacked airliners, evaded a massive interception capability, and flew them into (a) two skyscrapers that collapsed in an unprecedented fashion, and (b) the most heavily constructed and least strategic part of the Pentagon.

17. 9/11: Conspiracy theory #2The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement” • The Official Story is false because it is contains many contradictions, as well as inconsistencies with physical and forensic evidence. • The official defenses of the Official Story contain so many omissions, distortions, and apparently deliberate lies that they constitute a coverup of whatever did happen. • Although much evidence for an alternative story is available, many aspects are inconsistent or lacking positive proof, and the real story cannot be known until there is a new, truly independent investigation with subpoena powers.

18. 9/11: Conspiracy theory #2The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”WHAT? NO THEORY???? • See item 3 on previous slide • QUESTION: Is it necessary, in proving that a theory is wrong, to • Offer a fully-fledged, or even partial, alternative theory? • Account for all the implications of evidence brought forward?http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/implications.htmlRipple Effect, ch. 17: http://thepowerhour.com/news2/analogy.htm

19. 9/11: Conspiracy theory #2The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement” To the extent that there is a theory: • Arab individuals may or may not have hijacked jetliners • World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by something other than impact/fire • The Pentagon was damaged, but by what? • Something crashed or was shot down in Pennsylvania, not necessarily where specified • Some elements of the U.S. government were involved to one of the following degrees . . .

20. Degrees of “Official Complicity”(David Ray Griffin, in The New Pearl Harbor) • Construction of false account • No knowledge on part of White House, but... • Expected by intelligence agencies (in general) • Expected by intelligence agencies (specifics) • Intelligence agencies involved in planning • Pentagon involved in planning • White House involved • No specific knowledge, general expectation • Specific advance knowledge • Involved in planning

21. What is “impossible?”(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown) • Logical -- a round square • Metaphysical -- going back in time and killing your grandfather • Physical -- violation of physical laws

22. Was U.S. involvement impossible? A history of real, provoked, or fictional attacks on Americans or allies as pretexts for wars... later

23. The link betweenTheory and Evidence

24. Types of ReasoningDavid Ray Griffin • Deductive (defending official story):Step by step -- each depends on previous, if one is false, all fails • Cumulative (questioning official story):Series of independent observations -- if one fails, weakens argument but doesn’t kill it

25. Thinking about thinking

26. A priori thinking • Incompetence much more likely • Someone would have talked • It’s obvious that al Qaeda did it Mind made up before looking at evidence

27. Types of thinking Seeing isn’t necessarily believing • Paradigmatic -- believing only what fits the held world view: “I refuse to believe you because I don’t want to live in a country whose leaders would do such a thing.” • Wishful/Fearful -- believing what one wants to be true, or disbelieving what one doesn’t want to be true: “9/11 was due to incompetence (like Katrina)” as if well-planned actions never went awry. • Empirical -- believing what evidence shows, regardless of how it fits emotionally.

28. Difficulty with Empiricality • The neurons that go from the eye to the visual cortex of the brain aren’t the only ones. • Others connect the eye to the emotional center of the brain. • Which center gets the message first is not a given; frequently it’s the emotional one, disabling rational thought about evidence.

29. Difficulty with Empiricality • Experiments show that people confronted with identical behavior or thinking will judge it in opposite ways depending on their perception of the behaver. • Example: In 2008, the CIA issued a secret report stating that the best way to prevent the spread of anti-war sentiment was to elect Obama. In fact, since his election, the active objection to war and the erosion of civil liberties has almost vanished from the Left.

30. Fact of Life People look at the same piece of evidence and draw totally different conclusions The Soviet sub and the Queen

31. What you see... “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out....” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtDIOS8-EM How did Rudy Giuliani’s people know? OS-ers: he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say something incriminating 9T-ers: most wouldn’t notice, only those who know the lack of precedent for steel frame buildings collapsing from fire

32. What you see... Dust -- from air push or explosions? North Tower http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#northtower South Tower http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#southtower

33. Propaganda • Not absolute lies, rather different truths • Half truths • incomplete truths • limited truths • out of context truths • Reinforce -- not change -- existing opinions, prejudices, attitudes • Vulnerability of intellectuals & educated • absorb a lot of (not necessarily good) info • compelled to have opinion, so absorb propaganda • feel they are immune to propaganda • WE do truth, THEY do propaganda

34. Thinking about evidence

35. Types of evidence • Physical • Objects • Observations of phenomena • Analysis of objects or phenomena • Behavior • Actions • Consistency

36. Evidence relates to • Events • Relationships • Events to events • People to events • People to People

37. Evidence sources • Primary • Primary documents (government, private) • Video/audio (news footage, individuals) • Statements by directly involved individuals • Eye-witness statements • Empirical physical research • Secondary (report on Primaries) • News analysis articles/broadcasts • Investigative researchers • Tertiary (assemble Secondaries) • Books and produced videos • Blogs

38. Evidence/testimony credibility • Correspondence to physical reality • Changes in story • Inherent predisposition • Nature of expert • Reputation of source • Technical issues • Quotation issues • Contradicting evidence • Misleading What else??

39. Evidence/testimony credibilityRelation to physical reality • Claim (based in NIST report evidence): The WTC towers collapsed because of truss failures, lower floors crushed by structure above falling on them. • Observation: If this were true, then at least the top portions of the buildings would be in recognizable pieces. • Physical reality: all three buildings were turned into structural steel and small-particle dust.

40. Evidence/testimony credibilityRelation to physical reality WTC Building 7 Reality (from North) NIST Model

41. Evidence/testimony credibility • Correspondence to physical reality • Changes in story • Inherent predisposition • Nature of expert • Reputation of source • Technical issues • Quotation issues • Contradicting evidence • Misleading What else??

42. Evidence/testimony credibilityStory changes • Where were you the night of the crime? • I was at the theater. • The theater was closed. • Oh, that’s right, I was with my girlfriend. • She says she was with her husband. • Oh, yeah, I was home reading the Bible. -- from David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Myth and Reality

43. Official story changesto handle objections • (9/11-12/01)Joint Chiefs head & NORAD spokesman: Didn’t get interceptors into air until after Pentagon hit (sounds like stand down? 9/14: CBS says fighters were up) • (9/18/01)NORAD timeline: up, but too late due to FAA failure to provide timely notification (hmm -- there still was time) • (7/04)9/11 Commission -- FAA never notified military of any of the planes, except a phantom Flight 11 (which had never been previously mentioned)

44. Evidence/testimony credibility • Correspondence to physical reality • Changes in story • Inherent predisposition • Nature of expert • Reputation of source • Technical issues • Quotation issues • Contradicting evidence • Misleading What else??

45. Evidence/testimony credibilityInherent predisposition • A person is known, through prior statements or association, to have a certain predisposition. • Two possibilities: s/he claims to have witnessed -- or discovered -- something • that is congruent with that predisposition • that contradicts that predisposition • Which of these is likely to be more reliable?

46. Pentagon reportersDavid Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ Showdown • Of 7 who say they saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon • 5 worked for Gannet (USA Today) • one described wing dragging the ground (but no scar) • Those who arrived immediately after: • CNN: “very small pieces you can pick up with your hand, nothing large” • ABC (early close look inside): “could not see any plane wreckage”

47. Pentagon policeFlight 77: Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (DVD) • Filling their cars at “the Citgo station” • They say (on camera, in uniform) that they saw the plane go by north of the station • The alleged flight data recorder (and apparent damage path) says it went south of the station. • Real, or a byzantine straw-man plot to discredit the 9T movement? (Hmm, this begins to get strange)

48. Evidence/testimony credibility • Correspondence to physical reality • Changes in story • Inherent predisposition • Nature of expert • Reputation of source • Technical issues • Quotation issues • Contradicting evidence • Misleading What else??

49. Evidence/testimony credibilityNature of expert • Professional qualifications • Relevance of these to evidence/testimony • Free from potential conflict of interest or duress? • Relevant previous performance? • Story changes (what context)?

50. Evidence/testimony credibility • Correspondence to physical reality • Changes in story • Inherent predisposition • Nature of expert • Reputation of source • Technical issues • Quotation issues • Contradicting evidence • Misleading What else??