Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
I'm probably gonna get an award for longest post again.
Uninteded consequences. My apologies. :(
The upper section "A Little Bit of Theory" is only a 19 min video, so I don't think that's so bad. The rest if you want to read it is a little longer because it is my attempt to apply the techniques from the TED video. If you decide you want to read on, awesome. If not, you will still become a trained lie spotter. Equally awesome.
A Little Bit of Theory
http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.html (~ 19min)
According to Pamela Meyer, we are all liars and there are no original liars. She gives suggestions and techniques which are armed with scientific knowledge so that this doesn't turn into a game of "gotcha".
"A lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance; its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie." (Pamela Meyer)
Practical Application (I welcome comments on the above video, but I mostly would like your opinions on the videos below where I attempt to spot lies)
I'm one who likes to apply knowledge (theory is cool....but if I can't use it, then I start to lose interest). And when I try to make stuff "break", I break the biggest most complex things I can find. If you can't tell, I started out majoring in engineering, almost turned computer scientist, and ended up as a mathemagician. Here's your sign.
I have been practicing the techniques (ESPN has lots of lying athletes…steroids, bounties, etc)…but for me, this was just to get some practice for bigger stuff…and I think I've found some big ones.
If you haven't seen Solarize's post on the latest 9-11 documentary put together by architects and engineers for 9-11 truth, here's the link. It is quite informative and leaves little doubt in my mind.
New Documentary about 911 (~ 1 hour)
Besides their excellent use of physics, the scientific method, and professional expertise, I believe these people are telling the truth according to Pamela Meyer's lie spotting techniques. They show deep concern for human life and are fully cooperative. They are willing and helpful in getting to the truth. They could use a little less dramatic music for my taste, but that does nothing to the validity of their arguments. (If you disagree with any of this, please say so)
The question for me for 9-11 has now become: "Who knew what and when?" This is not easy to answer, and from pure speculation, I suspect a relatively small group of people and not the entire government. Secrecy is important to be able to pull something off like this and the size of the group is only as big as needed to accomplish the task. I don't know who and when (I can't prove it), but I would think it would be someone(s) near the top. You’ve got to have enough power to hold it over the people underneath you. There were rumors that President Bush and various people knew ahead of time about the attacks and he was asked about it in a press conference. You can see it here:
In my opinion, he’s dodgy, ends up dismissing the question while making no eye contact, and shows no anger at the question. I would think that someone whose highest goal is the protection and well being of his citizens would be pretty upset at a question like that, maybe even infuriated… but I won’t speculate. This video only has one question, and is relatively short in length. Pamela Meyer says we should be looking for clues in bunches and while I think there are 3 clues packed into these 44 seconds, I’d like your opinions. I considered it a starting point for further investigation and not immediate condemnation.
Here is the first part of his speech to a joint session of congress shortly after the attacks.
My opinion: Fake smiles in all the wrong places (practically the entire clip). His lips are up, but the crows feet of his eyes are down. Several times, we see the shoulder movement (like with Sen. John Kerry). When compared to everyone else in the crowd, he is sticking out like a sore thumb. Everyone else in large part (most of the senators, specifically Hilary Clinton and the senator on her left) are completely shell shocked (as they should be if their country was hit with a surprise attack)…and then he’s standing up there with a fake smile and shoulder movement like Sen. John Kerry. Highly suspicious if you ask me, especially in combination with the previous video. Also in the crowd: Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. The few times Rumsfeld is in view, he looks strangely happy when the speech is talking about things which should not make a person smile. At the very end of the clip, I’m pretty sure Condoleezza Rice has the duping effect and appears to give the president a nod. (I’d really like your opinions on all 3 of them and any others in the video)
Based on this video, I can only find the 3 of them (and maybe Tony Blair?) and this is out of well over 100 of the top officials. This (though not actual proof) does not seem to discredit my theory on it being a small group and maybe even supports it. There could be more (and would have to be if you consider a demolition team, but I won't go there as I have no good information on that.)
I’ve been hearing a lot of rumors and conspiracies on the Illuminati and how they hand-pick presidents and this and that, and from what I’ve seen the jury is still out on that one. I would suggest a lot of that is b.s., though I do think that money is a powerful influence and that many wars are started either for profit or for the strategic resources involved (oil, opium, etc). I don’t think we need to have the Illuminati to be real to believe that someone would be willing to go to war for profits and resources. History class tells us that. I wouldn’t count them out though either. I’ll just go with “maybe” and wait for more credible information than videos with comment sections disabled.
Interested in knowing if the president is actually handpicked by some shadowy group of elites, I decided to check out President Obama. He’s the latest guy, and if there is some giant conspiracy, I think we should be able to tell. Seemed logical to me to use the CBS news special where he describes the killing of Osama Bin Laden. If he’s lying about the killing or the events surrounding 9-11, he should stick out like I think President Bush did.
If President Obama is lying in this video, he doesn't show any of the signs from Pamela Meyer’s TED video. President Clinton was supposedly a world class liar and if President Obama is lying, he just beat President Clinton by a mile. Calm, cool, collected. No duping effect, no fake smile, upper body movement looks natural, etc. Which is +1 for all that is good in the world.
I would also like to point out that they talk of Bin Laden’s complex. To me, it sounds like a payoff for taking the heat of 9-11 (when he and the 19 hijackers may have had nothing to do with it. Those planes (especially the one that hit the Pentagon…don’t remember that one do you?...no good videos of it…) flew like they were remote controlled.). He gets an incredible place worth millions and gets to hide out in plain sight. (I also find it interesting how relatively quickly we found him after Bush got out and Obama got in.)
I don’t know your opinions of President Obama’s policies or even of him personally, but I would like to state my opinion and you can quote me on this: “This man is a man who has said that we should be 'restoring science to its rightful place' rather than using it for political agendas. He has character and integrity, and does what he thinks is best for the people (even though he’s not perfect). While he may be in the dark about the events of 9-11, he may also be the man who would be willing to reopen the investigation if he saw the evidence from the professional engineers and architects and I hope he gets re-elected."
I think we should make sending him the engineers’ video Solarize posted one of our activist events. We need to do something and I can't think of a better thing to do right now.
Thoughts, questions, suggestions? This is a long post, but I needed to present everything that I’ve found.
Personnally i have always taken issue with discussion of lies and truth, because realistically you run into a problem, which i would keep in mind whenever someone claims to have a method of lie spotting.
One of the biggest problem of lie detection is that you can't test it, or rather it lacks the falsifiability criterium. When you're testing a theory on lie detection you can only get a positive answer. Because you only know about the lies that you did detect. So if i listen to someone talk for ten minutes and pick out ten lies, I could claim that I'm a good lie detector. But if that person then tells me he's been lying the entire ten minutes I'm suddenly very bad at it. So for all intents and purposes, the art of lie detection is often considered pseudo-science at best.
With regard to 9-11, i would only say this. can we drop it already. We can theorize for days, months or years, but unless someone who was involved is willing to tell the whole story we won't ever know. The whole constant arguing about facts that are shifty at best is getting somewhat tiring but it doesn't help at all. My point is this - accept that we don't exactly know what happened and move on. Obviously the public story is shady, but that doesn't mean another theory is better. 9-11 is simply a big question mark in global history.
thanks for the response. I guess I don't understand what you mean by lacking falsifiability. When I watched the TED video, they also suggested how to spot someone telling the truth, which I would consider to be a false lie. Should I not do this?
As for 9-11, I only saw the video very recently. I did not realize it had been out that long. Is the evidence from the video really that unconvincing? I'm pretty sure that 3 buildings each with asymmetric damage couldn't fall symmetrically while violating Newton's 3rd Law...I would think if that's true, then it would have to be a better theory than the public story. Maybe it's easier for you to drop it since you've heard lots of debates that went nowhere, but after less than a week, I'm not quite ready.