Sibel, Kean-Hamilton, And Falsifiability

[Fainter]

You allow the existence of a minority of 9/11 Truth Advocates who are not preoccupied with fringe issues. In your mind, who are these serious and credible 9/11 Truth Advocates? Name them. What issues have they advanced that you agree merit further exploration? Name these. How do you propose to explore said issues? Please, do go on. Is Jack Riddler a conspiracist?
_____________________________________________________________________

The question is not whether there was a conspiracy, the question is what was the conspiracy? If there's anyone here who sounds like he has already decided what the conspiracy was, it is you. If there's anyone here whose only interest seems to be in confirming a particular version of events it is you. How do I know this to be the case? Because unlike you I am not here dogmatically promoting a particular version of the events of 9/11. A conspiracist, so I am informed, is one who believes a claim for which evidence is lacking, who holds an unfalsifiable belief. By definition a conspiracist must believe in at least one conspiracy (but probably two or more to be so labeled). A conspiracy is a more or less defined set of unprovable allegations concerning some seminal event. So answer the question, in what particular 9/11 conspiracy do I believe? You have confused dissent from the Official Account with mistaken belief in some other, albeit erroneous, narrative of that tragic day.

I do not nor have I ever claimed to know how the events of that fateful day unfolded. As I do not hold to any version of 9/11 it is not possible that I hew to an unfalsifiable version of those events. Although it is possible I am mistaken about what I consider to be the shortcomings of (the consensus view of) the Official Story, these beliefs are subject to proof. Strictly speaking these doubts of mine concerning key details of the OCT are unproven, not unprovable. The Official Conspiracy Theory, if it is deficient, remains deficient whether or not I offer theory 'Y' or 'Z' in its stead, and let's be honest here, the central front of the war being waged between the "Truthers" and the "OCTers" is if the Official Story is sufficient or not in the face of the undisclosed evidence and undeveloped testimony that we all know is still out there. I say that until we thoroughly explore the sufficiency of the Official Hypothesis by fully testing it against secretly held evidence and the public testimony of key officials given under oath before an independent body with subpoena power (yet to be done and certainly not done by Kean-Hamilton), it is premature to propose or demand that alternative theories 'Y' or 'Z' be brought forward. Until an honest investigation is done 9/11 skepticism will rightfully endure.

You say skeptics' interest in Sibel Edmonds' testimony would end immediately if it was determined that it had nothing to do with 9/11. This is not likely, Sibel gave evidence before the Kean-Hamilton people for at least three hours (what do you suppose they talked about, the Hindenberg Disaster)? I could say but will refrain from saying that your interest in her testimony will never begin even if it is determined to have everything to do with 9/11. I will not say it outright though because on occasion you do show yourself to be a fair if toughminded opponent amenable to persuasive evidence.

In case you don't know, Sibel's testimony before the Omission was completely redacted in the FOIA request that came back. It is distinctly possible, maybe even likely, that what she has to say casts grave doubt on some important conclusion of the Official Story. However, if her testimony is released and it supports the Official View I will accept this defeat for the "Truthers" and win for the American people in good grace. At the same time by pre-judging the reaction of the Truth Community to hypothetical disclosures by Edmonds favoring the Official Story you foreclose the possibility that some at least of your adversaries are honorable people searching for the truth. Again I ask, do you not find at least one honest correspondent on this side of the debate?

Believe it or not I want my doubts about 9/11 put to rest. Let's hear what Ms. Edmonds has to tell us, let's see all the documentary evidence still hidden away, and let's gather some public sworn testimony from Myers and Rice, key agency personnel, Rummy, Dummy, and Vice, etc.

It is precisely because the release of the classified evidence and the development and dissemination of full and candid testimony threatens to falsify some key Tenet (capitalization not a typo) of the Official Story that the defenders of 9/11 Holy Writ fight so desperately to shield it from the public view. Isn't it funny how those who wish to test the existing hypothesis through the release of undisclosed evidence and promulgation of sworn public testimony are alleged to show confirmation bias and to fear falsifiability while those who haunt the precincts of DU's metaphorical dungeon day in and day out mocking this earnest wish for disclosure are not so charged? There is a word for this. These sophists need to turn the lens of their superior understanding of method and inquiry upon themselves. The only people I see trembling before their God of Logic is them because they offend Him.

If you are arguing that the Official Version is conclusively proven with solid evidence then you have nothing to fear from further disclosure and something valuable to gain. That valuable something is the concession of the principled (and, which many on your side pretend not to notice, principal) opposition when the answers to the 9/11 Widows' "Unanswered Questions" are finally delivered and shown to confirm the Official Hypothesis. Or is it the case you do not wish to see an end to contention on the divisive subject of 9/11? It is largely within your power to end the dispute. On the other hand, if you are arguing that the Official Story is merely a plausible hypothesis and not conclusively proven, then rigor not to mention fairness demands full disclosure. What are you afraid of? You might be proven to have been right all along...

[zipplewrath]

1. What is the "official version"

Just curious what you consider to be the document, or set of documents that represent the "offical version".

[Fainter]

2. The Foundational Documents Of The Official Story Would Have To Be The 9/11 Commission Report...

the various reports by NIST and their appendices.

[zipplewrath]

3. What is your primary concern about the NIST reports?

[Fainter]

4. Is Jack Riddler A Conspiracist?

[Fainter]

5. Is rschop A Conspiracist, Is noise A Conspiracist? U Answer Their...

concerns about incredibly suspicious and documented indications of CIA and FBI foreknowledge of the attacks first, then I'll tell you about my concerns about the NIST. I need not propound anymore questions. Jack Riddler, noise, and rschop were there long before me, do a better job, and AFAIK have never been given credible answers to the vital questions they raise.

[zipplewrath]

6. So your concern is foreknowledge

To some extent, foreknowledge is a given. The exact nature of that foreknowledge may never be known. For one thing, no one for what ever reason, is going to particularly acknowledge that they knew but did nothing. We know folks knew various pieces. We also know that this information wasn't paricularly well "shared". In some cases, there appeared to me more concern about protecting sources, than sharing information, even after the fact. Bob Grahm also strongly suspects there was an FBI informant that was working both sides of the street. Also, Saudi has never been publicly held accountable for the various members of the Royal Family that were probably funding some of the infrastructure used to carry out these attacks.

Do you think anything in here changes the basic narrative? Is your primary concern that the governments full incompetence has not yet been exposed or explained?