Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jewell's avatar

Interesting conversation - I think ego has a lot to do with it - but there is also people who have bought in to an idea and their entire professional and social career is based on it. Vaccine science is an example two of the largest voices in the field (Hotez and Goff) have children with autism. How likely are they to admit that the vaccines they have spent their life developing and pushing may be linked to their own child's condition. Another one is Alison Singer who has a child with Autism and is the head of Autism Science Foundation - which supports research into Autism but states emphatically on their site that vaccinations do not cause autism. Then you have a heavily funded physician whose child died after c-19 vax and is denying any link but is rewarded with grants. I think in all those cases funding has been forthcoming from NIH and CDC at the price of silence. Money speaks to many. and others just sell their soul.

With 9/11 I think the biggest barrier to recognizing the truth is the implications. How many folks in congress do you think question the terrorist story. Hell they can't even mention 9/11 without terrorist - you have a whole industry built around wounded warriors and tunnel to tower and so many more - try telling them that what happened to them, their friends and relatives could only have been possible through a DEW or black budget operation which only their government had access to. You can go through history and find so many of these examples. Oil is called fossil fuel - but we have known since the end of WWII that it is abiotic - but with fossil fuel you can claim peak oil theory (which was developed by a Rockefeller/Shell Oil scientist) and scarcity and that is what drives prices up and can provide wealth. Even the oil embargo in the 70s was designed by Kissinger. Look at the attack on Israel - best defense in the world and they did not know - no wonder they are calling it their 9/11.

Wahidullah Noorzai | NIDA's avatar

This discussion caught my attention because it touches something I learned from years of working in the field: what a person hears, sees, and believes during a critical event are not always the same thing.

The first report from the field is important, but it is only the beginning of the assessment. Under extreme stress, people describe events through what they understand at that moment. A loud boom may be called an explosion, a collapse may sound like a blast, and a sudden pressure wave may be understood as something else.

This does not mean that the testimony should be ignored. Quite the opposite. It should be preserved, compared, and studied carefully.

From a military field perspective, I would separate three things: what the person experienced, what the person believed happened, and what the available evidence can actually establish.

That distinction is very important when reviewing the 9/11 testimonies.

In my own field experience, I learned that a good assessment does not stop with the first report. We collect different observations, compare them, look for contradictions, and then reassess the situation as more information becomes available.

That is why I find this approach worth discussing. The real value of field testimony is not that it gives us an immediate answer. Its value is that it gives us another piece of the situation that must be tested against the wider evidence.

I would be very interested in continuing this kind of discussion from the perspective of field assessment, especially where first-hand observation, operational experience, and the later analysis of an event meet.

There is much more that field experience can contribute to this discussion.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?