« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
They Put it Out on the Wire Before it Happened
I've told several of my friends and confirmed with a co-worker at the time that on the morning of 9/11, just before starting time at 7:20 am central time, I was sitting in my truck sipping my coffee and smoking a final cig when the local rock DJ came on and said, "It has just came over the wire that a 'small plane' has hit one of the WTC towers in New York....." I remember getting out of my truck after that and asking Scott who was also heading in to the shop if he heard the report on the radio and he confirmed that he did. Of course we both shrugged it off as a freak accident and proceeded to work.
The significance of what I heard on the radio did not hit me until 2 years later when reading a book that revealed the time-line of when the first plane hit the north tower. Remembering that I told you the DJ reported at 7:20 central time that a "small plane hit the north tower." That is 8:20 eastern time and to my shock, as I read the official time that the first plane hit, it revealed that it wasn't until 8:45 eastern time which would of course be 7:45 central when I was already in the shop working.
My gut tells me that they sent the "news" out on the wire early to get as many people in front of their T.V.s as possible to witness the second plane live indeed as a gigantic psychological operation.
In light of the BBC and now FOX 5 out of Washington D.C. reporting the collapse of building 7 before it happened, I now realize my recollection of that morning is correct. - michael144
Comments (29)
Not to discount what to you seems a valid, real experience, but as someone with a background in neuroscience do you have any idea how malleable human memory is? People begin restructuring their memories almost as soon as the original event occurs. The problem of course is that once a memory is "overwritten" there is no way to distinguish the new memory from the original. Memories, unlike computer files, do not have time stamps.
Hell, we'll even try an example now. Here is a memory I have, the actual facts are no doubt published in a journal somewhere and available on the internet. Someone can fact check and see how close (or far off) I am:
I remember (wait, do I?) reading years ago of a teacher (professor, I assume) who, on the day of the Challenger accident, had his class (I believe they were Freshmen) write down what they were doing the moment they heard about the accident, and their reactions to the news. Then, four years later, as Seniors, asked them again to write down their memories of the day. The two narratives were vastly different, but the "new" memories were just as vividly described as the original. Instead of saying "Oh, right. I forgot." when presented with their original statements, many of the students argued THAT THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT WAS FALSE.
There are many, many other published studies on the flexibility of memory. Don't feel bad, we all do it.
October 2, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, I was on travel on September 10th, listening the local radio in California, when I heard a report of 10,000 California guard members being called up for a potential terrorist threat.
That is a huge number and is reflected by other such reports around the country. It is pretty clear that something was at least suspected to be in the works and they didn't stop it.
October 2, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, as far as I'm concerned, that is precisely what happened. They knew an attack was imminent, and they did nothing to prevent it. Osama bin Laden is a useful boogieman, which is why he's still alive. 9/11 happened because it was allowed to happen. Via the Project for a New American Century:
"the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."
October 3, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you do have a background in neuroscience, you've shown that you can't adequately discuss the very medical issues you would have the public believe you have some credibility. Congratualations on destroying your argument.
Your analysis is flawed. This is not supported, nor relevant to the situation:
In this situation, you've not adequately explained nor justified that the 7:20-claim was or was not "overwritten". You're starting from a flawed premise. even if it were overwritten, you've failed to address the reserach which concludes teh opposite: That the original memory is still there. You're making a circular argument, which you would have recognized if you had a law degree . . .
You've neglegted the McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985 study which includes the factors of "forced choice": If there is a forced choice, then you cannot argue that memory is necessarily impaired.
If someone cannot distinguish the misleading information from real information, then the issue is whether the misleading information was before or after the accurate information. In this case, its clear that someone had a specific memory, noted the time; and the subsequent information (yours) is misleading.
You also haven't established that the memory was necessarily overwritten by something different, inaccurate, or incredible. You've not adequately discussed why "new" information -- that there was no difference between the media time and the events -- should be believed, given your failure to address the similar problem with the BBC.
You're also confusing whether something is an account of something else; a report of someone else's event; or whether they are retelling the experience through soemone else. Baddeley, 1990 found that passage of time does not automatically degrade a memory:
Let's review some of the summary points:
We have no information that the "correct timeline" changed their view of the original memory: That the event occurred at 7:20, thus your argument fails;
You've reversed the argument, and failed to explain why "later information" is or isn't more reliable. Once the memory is there, it doesn't mean that new information will cloud that memory; or make the memory inaccurate:
Here, we've got a specific reference to a specific time. If your version of the research were true, then they should have had a vague recollection of the time. That is not what is being said.
You've not adequately explained why they still have a specific memory of 7:20 despite the "new" information; again, your agument is backwards and fails. New information should have made them less specific about the time. This did not occur.
The objective evidence is consistent with the BBC-advance-reporting: there is an uexplained 20-minute lead time in the information provided to the media:
Other than "asserting" you have a background in neuroscience, you've failed to explain why someone should or shouldn't have a distinction problem; nor have you provided any objective evidence to explain away the BBC-time, which is consistent with the 7:20-story.
Credibility Problem
For someone who has a "background" in neuroscience, what are we supposed to make of this:
- Why did you "forget" to hold down the shift key when pressing the exclamation point?
You said you're not a lawyer:
Unfortuantely, ewe said the opposite, that she did not have a law degree:
- Why are you discussing whether someone making a comment about Rove does or doesn't have a law degree in the context of intelligence: Ewe never said they had one.
October 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Ewe said they did have a law degree:
October 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes exactly "testing" it was the new information of the official time the first plane hit that triggered my memory of the report I heard on the radio and exactly what time and where I was...The excellent anchor point for my memory was a day in and day out start time at work of 7:30 central time. As we now know the first plane did not strike until I was inside working. And you for sure know it was a preliminary report because the DJ stated it was a "small plane" causing the listener to think of a Cessna type craft.
October 6, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a (unverified) version of this report:
Note the original information request relates to collecting information about the time they noted the information. Random would have us believe that Michael's original notation -- that the time was 7:20 -- was inaccurate. This isn't what the Challenger-analogy is saying. There's more to the story: The issue isn't whether the original information was accurage; but how the passage of time affects our memory of that original information. Random ignores this aspect, is only focusing on the original data collection. Random is arguing, unlike the Challenger analogy, that the originally-collected information (7:20-time) was inaccurate. Even if that were Random's claim, it's unrelated to the Challenger analogy.
Note, they were asked many questions. The issue wasn't that their original memories were wrong; but their subsequent recollections of those details were inaccurate.
However, this doesn't apply in this case. In this example on TPMM, we have the opposite: Someone who claims to very specfically remember -- from the outset of the event -- a memory of a specific time; and subsequently confirmed. In this case, we're not dealing with a later-recalled memory of an event; but a contemporaenous memoy of the event, confirmed by others:
They jointly recall the 7:20-time. The example of the Challenger does not adequately explain the 10% who accurately provided the information; nor has there been any discussion of why we should or should not believe that this information is an accurate memory.
The Challenger example does not adequately contribute to explaining the 7:20. The more reasonable explanation is consistent with the BBC-WTC7 report: It was also ahead of schedule, before the WTC7 collapsed. The Challenger example fails to explain the objective evidence of the BBC earlier report, and must be rejected as a plausible explanation for the problems with the media-timeline. if the Challenger example were relevant, then it would (which it does not) explain as a "false memory" something physically recorded before the event occurred. That is sophistry, and unrelated to the Challenger analogy.
October 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what you are forgetting is that I know I started word every day at 7:30 am central time...Not 8:30, not 9:30. If my memory would have been off and say maybe I heard the DJ say this at my first break at 9:30 central time (10:30 eastern time) then his reporting a "small plane" would have made absolutely no sense because that would have been after the towers already collapsed. He would have been reporting a much different story....At 7:20 central time the DJ reported a small plane hit one of the towers which would have been 8:20 eastern time. 25 minutes before the first plane hit the north tower....As i said it could not have been 2 hours later @ break time as the first tower had already collapsed.
"Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 9:59 a.m., the south tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck. The north tower, struck at 8:46 a.m., collapsed at 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after .........."
Collapse of the towers (Wiki)
October 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what you are forgetting is that I know I started word every day at 7:30 am central time...Not 8:30, not 9:30. If my memory would have been off and say maybe I heard the DJ say this at my first break at 9:30 central time (10:30 eastern time) then his reporting a "small plane" would have made absolutely no sense because that would have been after the towers already collapsed. He would have been reporting a much different story....At 7:20 central time the DJ reported a small plane hit one of the towers which would have been 8:20 eastern time. 25 minutes before the first plane hit the north tower....As i said it could not have been 2 hours later @ break time as the first tower had already collapsed.
"Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 9:59 a.m., the south tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck. The north tower, struck at 8:46 a.m., collapsed at 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after .........."
Collapse of the towers (Wiki)
October 6, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Common Error: Twenty Minutes Ahead
It's interesting Michael's time (7:20) is about 20 minutes before the event. Random's excuses fail to address the BBC video "sharing" the news of the WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before WTC collapsed.
Recall, no plane hit the WTC7 building, raising the question:
- What event was supposed to have happened that would "justify" the collapse?
- Did someone working on the "9-11 attack timeline" underestimate the time it would take to feed information to the media, and have it broadcast?
October 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention I would not have been sitting in my truck smoking my last cig at 7:50 because I would have been 20 minutes late. When i got out of my truck to go into work the buddy I confirmed it with was also exiting his vehicle and i asked him if he heard the same report as we were walking in to work...He said yes he did and we thought nothing more about it because we assumed it was an accidental impact of a "small plane" It wasn't until a couple of hours into the work day we began hearing the reports of the "terror attack."
October 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight: "They" engineered this supernaturally efficient conspiracy to create a faux terror attack on 9/11, then blew it by releasing the news too soon?
Is there anything to confirm your memory? Anyone at the radio station remember such a time discrepancy? Any record of news text - undoubtedly from Associated Press - transmitted at an earlier time? Any other media that may have received such bulletins? Anything at all? This would be useful to check out. I'm genuinely curious.
I think the real conspiracy happened in the weeks and months after 9/11, and was executed in front of our eyes, when a pointless war was launched and the Constitution shredded.
There are tantalizing hints that intelligence agencies here and abroad may have had some foreknowledge of an attack - and did nothing. But hysterical fairy tales about a "false flag" operation by the U.S. government do nothing but destroy their proponents' credibility.
October 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an example of something sent before the event occurred.
October 3, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what Palin would sound like if she had a Ph.D.
October 2, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO.
October 3, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Project for a New American Century quote is laughable - I'd urge you to check out Taibbi's recent book where he spends a few pages working it over.
Who is "they" anyway?
October 3, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know there are the conspiracy nutcases out there... but why is this on the rec'ed list?
Is someone in need of a publisher for their fiction?
Why is it we believe the Bush Administration can't get a single things correct -- unless it is to ensure a terrorist attack?
October 3, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn I love conspiracy nutcases. I'm bored, suffering from (what I hope is a temporary) case of insomnia, it's 5am, so here goes nothing . . .
Testing: A couple of things. First of all, my comments in other posts have NOTHING to do with my comment in this one. Apparently you failed so hard to understand my original argument that you felt it necessary to attack me on other grounds. Very mature. I do so love ad hominem attacks. Particularly the comment in the GOOOOOO SARAH post. The post was satirical, the comment was too. Had you read the post, maybe you would have gotten that. Duh. I didn't "forget" to hold down the shift key. That's a running internet joke, some people here maybe got it, others, yourself obviously, will not. In the case of eze, again if you had read the original post and the link he/she provided, you would have understood the comment. Maybe. My point was that, despite eze's arrogant snark about how great he/she is with that law degree and all, he/she was completely and obviously wrong in the content of his/her post. The point, in case you missed it again, is that if you are going to be snarky, at least be right. Doesn't matter, it's not of consequence to the issue at hand, so let's get back to that, eh?
My comment on this thread, and I'll rehash it because you obviously missed it, is that memory is malleable. 'K, got that? So, after all your blathering about the intricacies of research, you completely failed to address that point. I never contradicted myself, you, however, did. For example, you found the study I commented on, and posted this:
You then had this to say:
Testing, please, go back and read that again. Both blocks. Did you catch it? In case you didn't, here it is: The Challenger study collected several pieces of info, one of them being the time the participants heard the news. It goes on to say that three years later at least 25% of respondents were wrong about every major detail. Time, of course, being one of those major details. 25%. No, at least 25% on every major detail. That means that more than 25% were wrong on some (but not all) of the major details, and that, of course, includes time. So, contrary to your comment that "this isn't what the Challenger-analogy is saying", it is, in fact, exactly what the Challenger-analogy is saying. You get that yet? Or are you still discarding the misses?
The point being, memory is malleable. You, instead of contradicting me, provided a host of research that proves my point (my point being, again, that memory is malleable). michael144 (the guy who started this post, if anyone still gives a sh*t) does not have a specific memory of the time. He said, quite clearly, and I qoute, "The significance of what I heard on the radio did not hit me until 2 years later . . .". In other words, he didn't think about his version events until two years later!. Oh, yeah, and keep in mind those were two years when it was virtually impossible, unless you lived in a cave, to NOT read or hear one or more of the numerous conspiracy theories (that have now ALL been thoroughly debunked).
FACT: Memory is malleable
FACT: Recollection of even important events is subject to vast revision
FACT: This includes time AND place (as testing demonstrated yet failed to acknowledge)
FACT: michaell44 did not think about his "memory" until two years after the event
Now seriously, which is more likely: That michaell44's memory is 100% accurate in both time and place, and there is a giant conspiracy, grand and vast, that he was the first to hear about? Or that he mis-recalled, after two years, either the time or place, or both, and rearranged his "memories" to "fit-the-data" his erroneous recall? Dare I invoke the all-mighty Occam?
One would think, if indeed one does think, that the guys who f'ed up so bad as to release information 20 minutes too early would have a hard time keeping such a giant conspiracy, grand and vast, under wraps for so long. One would also think that, seeing how the news came "over the wire" (i.e., most likely the AP wire), that it would have been reported on more than just one local station, by more than one local DJ, and heard by more than one local guy. Either nobody reports on the AP wire anymore, or . . .wait, what's that you say Occam?
October 3, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And "they" would have to conceal the gargantuan, magical cover-up that followed, as well. After all, no grand conspiracy can be executed without a subsequent, mind-bogglingly complicated cover-up to keep both dire schemes secret. Or, at least, far from the prying eyes of delusional know-it-alls absolutely convinced that they are in possession of clandestine knowledge not bestowed on mere morals.
That the BBC reported early the collapse of the smaller World Trade Center building proves absolutely nothing. It had been burning all day and was expected to fall. Somebody jumped the gun and called in the news too soon. Big deal.
Conspiracy theories become accepted because, in a perverse way, they are the most comfortable scenarios to explain vast tragedies or atrocities. Big, dark forces effect big, dark plots in secret. There are good guys, and bad guys. We can understand that - once it's put on such an elemental level.
The idea 19 guys armed with box-cutters, blinded by thanatos - or a megalomaniac with a cheap rifle - can change fundamentally the course of history is close to the very definition of chaos. And terrifying.
October 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comments above ignore the public discussion of:
- The speed the buildings collapsed (faster than freefall, which would have been slower with the pancaking of the floors)
- The reports of basement explosions (heard, and consistent with the seismic information)
- The physical evidence in the rubble (after adding water, the metal continued to burn: Specific explosives are designed to use water to fuel the fire as a means to destroy evidence)
- The video images showing explosions from the side of the building (Someone placed the explosives)
This is circular:
The problem is their cover-up hasn't worked. FAA tapes are not available, have been destroyed.
This is defective:
The BBC report is about WTC7, which had no fire. It had not been "burning all day" and it was not "expected to" do anything. out of the blue, the BBC announced WTC7 collapsed; but WTC7 was still standing in the BBC video.
- How did the BBC know to report the collapse of WTC7?
- What information did the BBC get from whom to tell it that WTC was going to collapse?
- Why did the BBC report the collapse of WTC, yet there had been no attack, was not on fire?
- Did the original 9-11 timeline/plan include the assumption that a third plane would collide with WTC7, and "trigger" WTC7 collapse when the BBC announced it?
- How does anyone explain WTC7 collapse without any collision, no fire: Who placed the explosives in WTC7?
October 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Div. 1, NYFD:
"...We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13... It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose..."
No need to reply, I'm way ahead of you here: This 33-year veteran of the New York Fire Department is part of the conspiracy, too... right?
October 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fire doesn't cause re-enforced concrete and heavy steel beams to ALL completely fail at the same time but I'm speaking to people here who have absolutely no critical thinking skills so it is wasted breath on my part.
What you are believing is that the "fires" were spread out so geometrically perfect that it caused the building to collapse in ballet fashion, perfectly straight down leaving nothing but a small pile from a random collapse....Thousands of cubic yards of concrete do NOT "burn." In other words to explain to the non critical thinking ability of the dumbed down...It was more than just steel beams holding this building together....Thousands of cubic yards of re enforced concrete!
October 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
9 second video of the collapse of tower 7(Wiki)
October 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fire needed only to weaken the structure. High-temperature fires - like those caused by high-octane jet fuel, for instance - can affect the integrity of both steel and concrete. Once those components were sufficiently weakened - not melted or destroyed - the immense weight of structure itself, and gravity, would do the rest. You should work on improving your own critical-thinking abilities. And stop believing silly fairy tales, Einstein.
October 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I didn't think anyone would make it all the way through my comment except testing (who must also be an insomniac with nothing else to do). Thanks for the read-through and informed comment, San Fernando Curt.
Testing, get a life. Seriously, you're off your rocker. If you go back and read my original comment, you will see (if you look hard enough, maybe, and stop being such a blinded-by-faith dipshit) the word malleable. Hint: it's in the first sentence, just before the words 'human memory'.
Being serious on one subject yet joking around on another (it was, btw, a satirical comment to a satirical post) damages my credibility? What? Really? Does it damage my credibility as much as you being a quack damages yours?
K, done. No more pandering to trolls.
October 5, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't asserting that information was malleable; you were emphatically stating, from a false premise, that memory had been overwritten, and was not recoverable.
You're showing you're being intellectually dishonest in your arguments. You're changing your argument. First you say,
The research does not support your assertion. Braddely 1999 concludes the opposite:
Then you changed it to this:
New information "can" affect a memory; but this does not mean, with the passage of time and new information, that all memory is malleable. "Can" is not the same as "must" or "will". Not all memory is malleable.
The problem is your argument -- and your representation of your argument -- is that your statements are unreliable, defective, inconsistent, and fleeting.
It does not follow that Michael's memories are unreliable, especially when there is objective evidence in the BBC video supporting the assertion that there was a timeline outside the BBC which was not consistent with the real events on the ground.
Not only have you contradicted yourself, you've shown that -- supposedly relying on your education -- that you have failed to distinguish between the research which supports the opposite conclusion: Not all memory is malleable.
- How do you know that Michael's memory has been overwritten?
- Why is "your point" not consistent?
- Why are you starting from a premise that memory has or hasn't been overwritten?
- What information do you have or research showing that memory "When overwritten" cannot be recovered?
Random has failedto explain, address, or discuss the BBC video which is consistent with Michael's report: Reporting events related to WTC7 far in advance of what was foreseeable -- no fire, no collision; and no reason to believe it was about to collapse, or had collapsed.
October 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What random is failing to see here is that my memory was triggered not over written...hahah...."small plane." They sent it out on the wire early to get as many people in front of their television sets and to get the media cameras there to create the biggest psychological operation since pearl harbor....The sad thing is that Random is convinced that our Government could not possibly try to perform a psy op on their own people....He is also convinced that the hijackers names not being on any flight manifest is "normal." Oh! you didn't know that Random? I'm confused because you talk like you've researched every corner of every official claim about 9/11.....How can you speak on the subject intelligently if you don't "remember" that fleeting report?
October 6, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you remember exactly where you were when Reagan was shot? I do.
October 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be useful if Michael were to comment further on the points raised. As to whether there is a "fact" that memory is malleable, that is interesting, but fails to address the research related to "forced choice".
Random has failed to adequately discuss the BBC article. Michael will need to clarify whether he noted the time at the time of the event; and whether the BBC article prompted him to reconsider information.
Whether memory is or isn't malleable has not relationship to explaining the objective evidence in the BBC video. Moreover, not all the research supports the assertion that memory is necessarily malleable, unless there are conditions which have not been yet raised in this discussion.
It may be true that some events can be revised, or memory is subject to revision, but this is unrelated to whether or not someone has a specific record -- as the BBC does -- of a specific time. Rather, some would have us -- in hindsight -- to pretend that our memory might be malleable, as an excuse to continue with non-sense after the fact with the hopes of adjusting our memory. That is brain washing.
Challenger Analogy Cannot Be Broadly Applied to Michael
The difference between the Challenger and Michael's stories (pending Michael's clarification) is that there were two different recordings in the Challenger: One right away, and another later.
This means there were two data collections. Michael didn't do that: He personally experienced the event. That was it. There was no formal data collection of Michael's data by an outside person during the event or later.
It may be interesting that Challenger is "like" what Michael is talking about, but it is distinguished because the data collection methods are different. The study cited does not adequately discuss situations like Michaels where they have others corroborating memories. It's an error to broadly use the Challenger analogy to say that Michael's recollections have been adjusted.
Rather, considering the BBC information, it is possible that Michael has correctly recollected something. Conversely, it could be argued that some have an interest -- today, in 2008 -- to induce people like Micheal to ignore the real times in 2001 (7:20) and fit their observations into the current mythology.
Regardless what Michael does or doesn't say, there is no dispute the BBC presentation is outside the Challenger analogy: It is not a recollection, but objective evidence. Whether Michael and others have or haven't thought about this is unrelated to the BBC article which has not been adequately discussed:
- Where did the BBC get the information to broadcast this event before it occurred;
- How many other people noticed similar things to Michael, but have been dissuaded from coming forward;
Credibility Problems, Defects in Arguments
Putting aside the information in the BBC article, let's get back to the Random comments. First, they would have us believe that there is a sweeping conclusion to be made about memory. The research does not support their assertions in all cases. They've taken a broadbrush approach to memory, distracted attention from the BBC issues, and would have us believe that Michael mis-remembered something.
I'm not convinced Michael has misremembered anything, especially given the following 10 points which are nothing but a smokescreen from the BBC video, and Michael's single account:
1. Inadequate discussion of other views on Memory: Random's approach is to claim they have a background/experience/education in neuroscience, but they fail to adequately incorporate the other information which contradicts their assertions about memory;
2. Misdirection: Random has failed to address the key issue of the BBC video: Why was there a time difference; what would explain his; who else noticed other things consistent with the BBC early reporting.
3. Double Standard on Civility: Random would have us believe that they should be taken seriously, yet their postings have shown a lack of respect for people who have law degrees. They appear to be using the argument, "If you're educated, you should not be taken seriously."
4. Smokescreen: Random has broadly asserted "facts" which fail to adequately incorporate what Michael said and could very well stand by: That the time, as Michael recalled during the event and later was 7:20.
5. Inapposite: Random has failed to distinguish between the Challenger and Michale analogies. Challenger reied on individual recollections, used a scientific collection of information, and compared two sets of data. Michael's situation, by contrast, involves other people who have independently confirmed to Michael what Michael suggested.
6. Overgeneralizing: Random would have us believe that memory is malleable; and that because it is malleable, then Michael's memory is questionable. The BBC information supports the opposite conclusion: Random appears to be making excuses to ignore what could be important information substantially consistent with the BBC.
7. Misdirection: Random is changing the subject from "memory" to whether or not the news has or hasn't been widely understood. That's a different issue.
8. Pressure to Dissuade Discussion on Recollections: Random has substantially shown they might use the same methods they claim others might use: To attempt to do things after the fact to adjust Michael's confidence in his recollections. Let's let Michael take his time, and discuss his reactions to the information he has read; and discuss, if he chooses, other information he may have that is also consistent with the BBC report.
9. Alleged Misrepresentation: Random appears to be mischaracterizing what Michael has said. Consider the following:
It cannot be said, based on Random's assertions alone, that Michael "did not think about his version" until two years later. That may have happened; but that is not clear. Recall, when Michael noted the events, he did -- at the time of the event not two years later -- think to note the time. Random is confusing (paraphrasing) "thinking of the significance after the fact" with "thinking about the event, and thinking about the time during the event".
10. Impermissible Double Standard on Incorporating Other Information: Random would have us believe the following, which cannot be embraced. It is not for Random to assert, or for us to accept, that someone's comments elsewhere have "no" relationship to what they are talking here:
Consider what Random said: That they had experience in neuroscience. Notice the double standard: Random wants to be able to bring into the conversation things from his experience; but he would not allow others to bring into the conversation their views on Random's credibilty. Random has no reasonable foundation to assert that others cannot do what Random has done: Introduce other views from different sources and forum to test the claims made.
On the contrary, one someone like Random says (to get credibility about memory) that they took a class in neuroscience, and uses their experience to give "weight" to their argument, it's permissible and reasonable to consider whether their language, thinking, and presentation should or should not be taken seriously. This does not mean that they are lying. Rather, if someone is going to -- on one board -- act "one way", then here act another way, that is an issue for fair comment.
Moreover, the comments on the other board relate to whether someone is or isn't able to have a coherent discussion about issues of contention. Again, this does not mean that they are intellectually lazy, or show contempt for fair discourse; rather, the issue is whether they consistently demonstrate a level of intellectual sophistication that warrants belief; or, on the contrary, whether their actions warrant heightened scrutiny. With a quick view of the neuroscience literature on memory, it's clear Random has made some sweeping (unsupported) assertions about memory; has not included relevant details; and (appears to) have mischaracterized what Michael has said.
Overall, Random hasn't adequately justified belief that Michael has mis-remembered anything. Rather, his comments appear to have ignored the key differences between the Challenger and 9-11/Michael situation; and fail to adequately address the topic: The BBC's early reporting of what appears to have been a larger timeline. Nothing Random has said adequately addresses what the BBC did.
Michael should be commended for raising this issue, and (indirectly) calling attention to the BBC early reporting and video available: The video shows the BBC reporting the building had collapsed; but the building -- visible on the BBC video -- was still standing. That defies reason.
Perhaps there are others like Michael who have information that is consistent with the BBC early reporting, and would like to share their views and anecdotes. Regardless the memory issues and BBC, we still don't have a straight story of who placed the explosives in the buildings.
This has not been adequately discussed:
Specifics
The above has broadly addressed issues related to memory. Let's consider the specific statments Random made which deserve special attention.
A. Nobody is "obviously" wrong
This is an absurd statement:
If it were obvious, then there would be no discussion. Why are you arguing with someone you say is "obviously" anything. It should be self-evident. You've contradicted yourself.
B. This defies reason:
Michael must have "thought" about the event at 7:20, otherwise he would not have noted the time. Whether Michael did or didn't think about the "meory of that time" at another time is for Michale discuss, but irrelevant to whether Michael has information consistent with the BBC's early-reporting timeline.
C. This is unrelated to the BBC:
Facts, if true, must be relevant to the point. If you were a lawyer, you would know this.
D. This ignores the point
You've mischaracterized the research provided: The reserach, contrary to your assertion, does not support the sweeping assertion that memory is always malleable.
There are memories, even despite pressure and efforts to change, that will not change. Regardless memory, the BBC early reporting is not a memory.
E. This is a statement contrary to interests
Random has openly admitted they have suffered from lack of sleep. It's reasonable to understand why they may not understand the defects in their argument; nor why they are failing to address the key issues in the BBC video.
F. Selectively Ignoring Points
This comment is evidence that someone would like to pretend that their points are or are not relevant based on criteria they haven't necessarily shared with others; and others are not bound by this rule.
It is up to the readers on TPM to decide whether your comments are or are not relevant to reviewing your information. If the comments were 'not' relevant, then TPM should be advised not to permit tracking of comments "because nothing else is relevant".
G. You Haven't Convinced The Readers
This point would ask that you're a victim:
The issue isn't the argument attacking a person; but whether your (meaningless) argument can withstand a cursory challenge via other medical reserach. Your argument collapses. If you want to take this as a personal attack, that's your issue. TPM doesn't agree that it is a personal attack. If they did, they would have banned someone. You're not adequately staying on topic, but asking for personal sympathy because of an inherently defective argument. This doesn't mean that you're retarded, a criminal, or a bad person. It merely means that your style of presenting an argument is wholly inadequate to be taken seriously.
H. Inconsistencies
This kind of comment really doesn't speak well of the effort to discredit Michael or the BBC video:
One day you're serious (with inadequate arguments); and another day you're goofing around. Fine. Don't ask the TPM community to take you seriously all the time. Again, your argument isn't solid. The joke is that you're digging yourself into a hole. Keep it up.
October 3, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment