Reply #214: Overloading on Secondary Evidence

[Informed Citizen]

Christophera,

What drives you to this calling? Why is the demolition of the Twin Towers so specifically compelling to you? Do you ever contribute to other debates unrelated to your hypothesis? Do you have an area of expertise that might contextualize your promotion of the "Russian Missle Silo" hypothesis?

I have some critical remarks. I wish I could separate you from your theory in critiquing your work, but your active promotion makes that difficult. I'm going to be pretty hard hitting, but I want you to know that I respect your effort, and apparent committment to the issue of 9/11 truth.

These pictures do not PROVE anything. PERIOD. You might want to stop portraying these pictures as hard evidence that your hypothesis is well founded. It makes you sound like someone with no understanding of the scientific method, or how valid theory is derived. It makes you look ignorant of rational protocol. I'm suggesting here that you change the language that you use when presenting and representing your evidence.

You present linguistically inexact, and therefore unspecific, confusing, and diverting interpretations of the photos and supporting evidence. The way that you present the evidence, and the manner in which you interpret that evidence are simply not specific enough. I'm talking about the words you use, and what they imply. Your ability to 'objectively' analyze evidence must improve. I think many people agree that your theory is worth pursuing, but that you are not so willing to practically engage in that task. And the truth is supposed to be the easiest sell. If you feel strongly that this theory is valid, and I if don't agree, then possibly you must improve in your ability to make your argument, or maybe you are just wrong.

Many people have challenged the fundamental premises of your hypothesis, and yet you do not adequately address the significance of these contradictions. You have developed an interesting hypothesis that promotes further inquiry. Great job. But it is not yet a solid theory. It is not yet primary evidence for the 9/11 truth movement. It seems like you are in a hurry to convince people, and yet the inquiry is unlikely to expand with new evidence any time soon. Unfortunately, I think that your case will only be made with more evidence. I hope to see it just as much as you. But in the mean time, your hypothesis would be best served by getting more people interested in interpreting the data for themselves, and having open conversations with those people in which you are willing to question the validity of your assumptions. You might be wrong, and there are so many more important things to discuss in the present.

This is not yet even secondary evidence for the 9/11 truth movement, only being an interesting hypothesis. This information should therefore never be shared with anyone newly exploring the issue, as it will suggest that the movement is founded upon weakly supported evidence. I can only wish you luck in developing the hypothesis and hope for breaks in the story. But until this story has moved a bit farther, you should take care in how you represent its significance, and place it within the movement. Speak clearly and deliberately. And most of all, remember that scientist and jurors don't get to decide the truth by themselves.

- I.C.