| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Victoria Ashley's critique of CIT | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 13 2009, 08:12 PM (1,353 Views) | |
| scott75 | Sep 13 2009, 08:12 PM Post #1 |
|
Over at AboveTopSecret.com, someone mentioned Victoria Ashley's critique of CIT's work. I seriously doubt that Victoria Ashley can persuade me that CIT is mistaken, and I've just found one point I can rebut (concerning the DNA; SPreston, over at ATS mentioned where they allegedly found it) but I was wondering if a rebuttal of some or all of her points had already been made? It'd be nice to simply rebut his link with a link of my own, but if not I guess I'll have to do the rebutting myself ;-).
Edited by scott75, Sep 13 2009, 08:17 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 13 2009, 09:17 PM Post #2 |
|
1) who is victoria ashley? 2) what has she done for 9/11 truth? 3) why should anyone care what she says about cit? |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Sep 13 2009, 09:19 PM Post #3 |
|
Who We Are 9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are: * Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor * Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor * Victoria Ashley, Research Consultant * Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman is a research scientist and software engineer. His scientific visualizations have been widely published in journals including Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest, and Nature; and he co-authored papers in Science and Macromolecules. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website. That Hoffman has been targeted by a campaign of harassment and defamation is evidence of the importance of his work. Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences. Victoria Ashley has been researching the attack since 2003, and has contributed unique insights into the modes and methods of misinformation used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement. Ashley highlighted the importance of Steven Jones' work in the essay A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, and helped to organize the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice group. Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia. Research History Hoffman began development on the prototype for this website in March of 2003, shortly after discovering problems with the physics of the official explanation of the Twin Tower collapses. "Stumbled upon" is probably more accurate than "discovering," since others had already pointed out problems. In the process of researching the building collapses and other events of the September 11th attack, and the vast body of conflicting reports surrounding them, Hoffman began assembling a collection of original hypertext pages. In order to keep track of the details of this complex story, Hoffman developed a tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, allowing quick navigation to any of its many pages with only two or three clicks. Originally developed as a research tool, the system doubled as a means of communicating our findings to others. It evolved into the comprehensive and popular website that 911Research is today. Website History We first posted the 9-11 Research website on the World Wide Web at the URL 911research.wtc7.net in mid-2003, within weeks of the rollout of wtc7.net. The content of the much smaller wtc7.net website was derived from the research described on the 9-11 Research website. We decided to install the front door (wtc7.net) before even half-way finishing the house (911Research). By August of 2004 we had established a mirror of the 9-11 Research website on 911research.com. 9-11 Research currently has these mirrors: * 911research.wtc7.net * 911research.com We provide the 911research.com mirror mainly as a backup, and do not update it as frequently as the original mirror on wtc7.net. Therefore you may notice a mismatch between the version numbers on the two mirrors. Although 911research.com is easier to write than 911research.wtc7.net, we ask that you only publicize and link to 911research.wtc7.net. Linking to 911research.com instead of 911research.wtc7.net will hurt our search engine ranking. Edited by noeffects, Sep 13 2009, 09:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 13 2009, 11:27 PM Post #4 |
|
That isn't really a critique of CIT is it? It is a rambling incoherent piece which is much longer than it needs to be and doesn't appear to contradict the actual eye-witness statements. It just uses the usual "100s of eye-witnesses" line, and the horror of the treatment of Lloyd England without of course invoking a single witness to the light-poles being struck. So there's your first question of Ms Ashley :- How come with all those 100s of eye-witnesses, not a single one (bar cab driver) claims to have seen the poles being struck? The rest of it is just waffle. PS Right at the end she even uses "jthomas" to make a point - is it now considered scientific to use anonymous screen personages as evidence. How remarkably sad. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 13 2009, 11:42 PM Post #5 |
|
which to me translates to "nothing"......... quoting jthomas? lol maybe she can reference mark roberts website too? or i have an even better idea.....how about she picks up her phone and calls the anc employees, terry morin, and the pentagon police officers and explain to them that they're wrong? oh i know. that sounds like work. she might be allergic to it. i guess its easy to write tripe and source anonymous bozos..... |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Sep 13 2009, 11:48 PM Post #6 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Sep 14 2009, 12:25 AM Post #7 |
|
Correction: Obscured by fireball that reportedly shot straight up, instead of out from the building, and then subsequent column of smoke. Now this is not to say that nobody would have seen the plane after it passed over, but, one thing you should keep in mind is that are flying in this area every one or two minutes. Planes are a very common site there. And I'm not just parroting what I've heard from others. I went to Arlington myself. I was sitting at that memorial they built between the Annex the station that used to be called the CITGO. Tourists and whatnot go there and on the weekends some military band or another plays for the crowd. That evening the theme was Duke Ellington hits. Did pretty good, too. But, anyway, every minute or two (always less than three from my recollection) a plane would appear from the north or west and seem to fly over the area of the Pentagon. How close they were to the Pentagon, I couldn't say. You look at pictures from an aerial view and these places look like a hop, skip, and a jump away ,but they're not. You need to go there if you've never been. You'll get a totally different perspective. It's not nearly as simple as these aerial-view pictures make it seem.
A select group? What select group? Whom they BELIEVE indicate a different flightpath?? What is so hard to understand about north of CITGO? That is what the witnesses said. Are they liars or are they crazy? And, anyway, isn't she supposed to be making CIT out to be liars? The title of her essay is To Con a Movement. If they "believe" the witnesses indicate a different flightpath (which the witnesses obviously do) then they would not be con artists, but honest researchers with a different view than hers. But, that is not the angle she has chosen. She has chosen to attack them as con artists. I think it's interesting that they say when people attack Hoffman, that indicates the importance of his work. So what does it mean when Hoffman (and Victoria) attack CIT?
Hoffman has the plane crashing into the building level, instead of banking left. He should know that that is not possible. There was a generator in the way. So, anyway, I'll get back to dissecting this article, tomorrow. I'll be off from my second job tuesday. Hopefully, I'll be finished by then. Edit: Or maybe not Tuesday. Good God that is a long-@ss article.  Does it really take all that??  CIT must have a lot of people nervous. Still this stuff needs to be thoroughly rebutted.
Edited by Avenger, Sep 19 2009, 03:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 14 2009, 08:30 AM Post #8 |
|
To everyone who commented, thanks for your time. Avenger, given what everyone else has said, I'm wondering if all of it really needs to be dealt with. I strongly respect Jim Hoffman's site, 9/11 Research, but -not- when it comes to the pentagon attack. The site url has wtc7 in its name, and I believe that wtc7 and the Twin Towers is where they shine most. I -did- an article wherein Jim Hoffman provides many links that allegedly debunk the flyover theory, but when even one of Hoffman's own makes such embarassing mistakes, I think there's no need to look at the aforementioned links. |
|
|
|
| Woody Box | Sep 14 2009, 02:18 PM Post #9 |
|
Well...I also have the honour of having been attacked by Victoria Ashley/"Victronix" multiple times. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x259241 One common technique of hers is to mix up Operation Northwoods/plane swap research with Noplane theories to discredit it. Like Mark Robinowitz, Russell Pickering, Jim Hoffman, and many others. Because the Operation Northwoods approach is a very fruitful one, I consider this behavior as being intentional sabotage. Sorry to say that. |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 14 2009, 03:13 PM Post #10 |
|
I have frequently found that it's much easier to know whether something is correct or not then it is to know what the motives of others are. For this reason, I like giving people who disagree with me the benefit of the doubt. Because of the fact that Victoria is associated with Jim Hoffman, and I -do- respect Jim Hoffman's information on the Twin Towers and WTC 7, this would reinforce my feelings that Victoria is not a disinformation agent, but simply not informed enough to understand that CIT's arguments are valid. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 14 2009, 03:50 PM Post #11 |
|
and you are a well respected member of the movement who has done a lot more than just "contribute unique insights into the modes and methods of misinformation used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement." |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Sep 14 2009, 04:29 PM Post #12 |
|
Doesn't this belong in the skeptic section? Scott75 is quite the mysterious character. Scott75 how come all you do is float from forum to forum posting BS dis/misinfo from CIT detractors? Then you feign an innocent inquisitive nature about their arguments, then you go so far as to defend them and give them some sort of credibility as just normal truthseekers. I think Scott is merely trying to circumvent our work by flooding the forums with anti-CIT garbage. He did it on PFT and our forums and was banned for it. He seems to use these moments as a platform to promote anti-CIT/PFT info by proxy, while acting as a truth seeker. In this instance, he seems to use the DNA argument and float it in here. By him posting it, and it being left here, it is simply another advertisement for Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman etc. Right now, they are playing on any doubt they can come up with. His threads literally lead nowhere except to a debate on another forum about CIT and our evidence. Which in turn, leave an impression of there ACTUALLY being something to debate about. Sorry Scott, I don't trust you. At all. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Sep 14 2009, 05:49 PM Post #13 |
|
Interesting, since you are the one who posted her work, supposedly looking for a rebuttal. You asked for one and you will get one. But, not on this thread. I'll create my own thread just for that purpose. I agree with Aldo that you do belong in the skeptics section. |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 15 2009, 12:08 AM Post #14 |
|
My only "skepticism" is in how questions here and elsewhere are answered. A rather narrow form of skepticism, and most of the time, I don't even bring this element up.
To whom? You? Yes, I can believe that. There -are- some people who know me relatively well, atleast within the truth movement. I've been posting for over a year concerning 9/11, although mainly concerning the Twin Towers and WTC 7, over at sciforums.com, before alternate theories concerning 9/11 were banned. Dmole, over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, posted with me there for a time, and there were others there as well; one of them is a poster who I originally found here, in fact, Headspin.
What do you mean by "float"? I've been in this forum before I joined CIT. Honestly, I liked Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT because, in my view, you guys have done the most research concerning what happened at the pentagon. I still hold this, -despite- the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave me a 3 month or so ban, and CIT banned me shortly thereafter without any explanation given. Yes, you guys can certainly be prickly and, like you say, not trust me. But despite my rough treatment, I still believe the essence of your theories. As to the "BS dis/misinfo from CIT detractors", I think you're assuming that I know not only that what they say is false, but that I know the correct way to counter what they're saying. As a general rule, however, this simply isn't the case. In the case of Victoria, she wrote a lot of material and since I have seen debunkings of essay length articles in the past, I thought that perhaps one had already been written up in her case. Apparently this isn't the case; that's fine, it just means that I'd have to have a go at it myself, perhaps bringing up particular points mentioned in a truther forum if I wasn't sure how to respond to some points.
This, Aldo, is the weak point that both you and Pilots for 9/11 Truth share; you assume motives. I wish you wouldn't. Since you are currently speaking of me, I can state for the record that your assumption is false. My innocence is not "feigned". Ofcourse, you may believe that I'm lying and I really can't stop your suppositions from going whever you want them to. But as I said over at ATS concerning PFT, all you guys end up doing is shooting yourself in the foot, as you're trying to take down someone who believes in the flyover theory, which is not a uniform belief, even in the truth movement. And yes, clearly I believe that people like Hoffman are "normal" truthseekers. They even have a term for those in the truth movement who don't believe in the flyover theory; Hoffmanites. You banned one of them before you banned me at CIT, Q24. Judging from how things are going over at ATS, however, the no-flyover Hoffmanites are a dying breed; there has been speculation as to what happened, but I have seen nothing like Q24's performance there from a truther type.
I assume that by "anti-CIT garbage", you're referring to arguments I've brought up from people who disagree with you guys. You -say- that you want to respond to detractors, but your tolerance for someone even bringing up detractors' points is dissapointingly marginal.
If I wanted to -promote- anti-CIT/PFT info, I certainly wouldn't bring it up the way I do.
The DNA argument has been shown to be false by SPreston. That's what I was bringing up.
I have frequently said that I consider Hoffman's strong point to be his articles concerning the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I have said nothing positive of Jim Hoffman and company's views concerning their no-flyover theory.
I do believe there are things to debate about, if not everyone is persuaded of the claims of CIT and PFT. As I've mentioned in the past, I was persuaded a while back, but for those who haven't been, I've tried to get as much information as possible to back up the flyover theory. I'm still doing it over at ATS, as you may be aware.
I've noticed. |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 15 2009, 12:14 AM Post #15 |
|
I was. But then I got the comments I did, which generally seemed to suggest that it wasn't worth the effort.
If you think it's worth the time, I'd be glad to see it.
That's fine with me.
What do you think I'm skeptical of? |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Sep 15 2009, 10:29 PM Post #16 |
|
You were looking for a rebuttal of some or all of her points. You said it would be nice to be able to rebut a detractor's link with a link of your own. So that's what I'm going to do for you. And then I'm going to see if you actually use it. I don't expect much. You have a strange habit of expressing respect and admiration for people who attack CIT. That is, when you're not posting their links. I suspect you'll do the same thing with the next thread you create. And the next, and the next. It'll be some time before I create that thread I promised you. I want it to be a strong rebuttal. My goal is to thoroughly dissect her article. In the meantime, I'll need to stop responding to you on THIS thread. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Sep 15 2009, 10:42 PM Post #17 |
|
The inherent contradictory nature of Ashley and Hoffman's his-n-her hit-pieces against CIT exposes their desperation and dishonesty. They are married. They released their articles simultaneously. He characterizes us as lunatic fools while she characterizes us as diabolical genius con-men. Obviously they can't both be correct when of course the reality is that neither are. What's really interesting is how Hoffman goes so far as to accuse anyone who even begins to "seriously" consider the notion of a flyover as comparable to a junkie on PCP:
Their bloated out yet utterly vacuous attack articles are not worth responding to in detail but we will be formally replying to the somewhat vague yet completely unfounded mischaracterizations of our position by Frank Legge who gratuitously referenced the article with the above quote in an opinion piece published in J.O.N.E.S. regarding the Pentagon attack. Conveniently first released only days after the Hoffman-Ashley pieces. We have been informed that our rebuttal will be published in J.O.N.E.S. as well so we'll see if they hold true to that. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Sep 15 2009, 10:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Sep 15 2009, 10:46 PM Post #18 |
|
What is J.O.N.E.S.? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Sep 15 2009, 10:49 PM Post #19 |
|
journal of nine eleven studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com I originally thought it was intended to be a scientific journal but they have no problem publishing opinion pieces. In fact they have sunken so low as to publish opinion pieces by anonymous non-credentialed bloggers such as Arabesque. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Sep 15 2009, 10:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Sep 15 2009, 11:00 PM Post #20 |
|
Arabesque?? I remember he promised to update his site because you guys called him out on something. From my recollection, he never did. Just kept pushing the same stuff that he knew was wrong. I guess we'll find out what this supposed scientific journal is all about. If they don't publish your rebuttal, then something is definitely wrong. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 15 2009, 11:31 PM Post #21 |
|
he must have caught that farmpickeringitis disease......don't be surprised if his page suddenly dies and fades away into obscurity. |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 16 2009, 07:27 AM Post #22 |
|
Yes, I did.
Thanks :-).
You're too pessimistic :-p. As a matter of fact, on Sunday, in response to someone bringing up Victoria's linked article, I stated over at ATS that I'd look in this forum to see if a link was available for this information. So even if I didn't follow up (noting that to not do so would hurt my credibility), you could do so yourself.
I respect Hoffman's work, but I primarily used his work regarding the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I never found his work on the pentagon attack to be satisfactory. When I learned of CIT's work, I was somewhat skeptical at first, but that changed after some time studying it. By the time I'd joined their forum, I was already strongly persuaded. The main problem is that others aren't and people fairly frequently come up with issues that I don't know how to respond to. I -could- just stick to what we might call the 'strong points', but I personally think that if strong arguments can be buttressed with perhaps not as strong arguments, but good ones nonetheless, the result is a stronger theory.
Due to the fact that my relationship with JFK has gotten fairly rocky, I've decided not to create any further threads here for the indefinite future.
Alright. Edited by scott75, Sep 16 2009, 07:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 16 2009, 07:37 AM Post #23 |
|
I agree that they're wrong about you guys. Kind of like how some at PFT and CIT are wrong about me. When it comes to determining motivation for people holding various theories, jumping to conclusions seems to be rather common.
I'm glad to hear that you'll get published over at the Journal. I do believe what I've said before, that you guys have already eclipsed the "Hoffmanites" in forums, and once you rebut them in the Journal, I think this eclipse will become even more pronounced. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Sep 16 2009, 11:57 AM Post #24 |
|
No they are not merely "wrong" about us and it is not "kind of like" our opinions concerning you in the least. Hoffman and Ashley have put out contradictory hit-pieces against us that misrepresent our claims and the evidence while working as hard as they can to impugn us personally. That is blatantly deceptive and a direct attack and is FAR different from merely being "wrong". We have not done that to you. Furthermore we are not "wrong" about you as is further evidenced by this last post of yours. We don't like you because while claiming you support our work, you insist on spreading the false arguments and personal attacks of others against us while very blatantly minimizing the clear and obvious malice within them by suggesting they are honest attempts by honest people who are merely "wrong" as you just did in this last post. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Sep 16 2009, 11:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
| scott75 | Sep 16 2009, 04:28 PM Post #25 |
|
I don't really see much difference between that and the treatment I received at both PFT as well as CIT and to a lesser extent here by some members, albeit not initially. Rob Balsamo, founder of P4T, accused me of lying, called me a troll and then banned me. He was wrong. I was banned from CIT without even being given an explanation as to why. Personally, I preferred Rob Balsamo's approach; atleast he explained why he banned me.
There comes a point in time where I just don't have the energy to argue anymore. If you want to believe that Aldo and Rob are right, go ahead.
Looked up "malice". This is what I got over at dictionary.com:
I haven't seen any evidence that Hoffman or his wife, or Q24 for that matter, desired to harm you. Similarly, I haven't seen any evidence that P4T and CIT desired to harm me. The harm happens anyway, though. Craig, I have often felt that you are less quick to judge then the people I have mentioned. I ask you to consider my words, not just for my sake, but for healing a rift in the truth movement that has gone on for some time. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
7:57 PM Nov 27
