(Ed) Recovering Truther Jeff Hill Repents For His Sins In The Name Of The Truth Movement

[T.A.M.]

The following email exchange is posted with permission from both correspondents. I have gotten rid of the email addresses for the sake of the two, though neither asked me to do so. It is the only edit I have done to the original exchange. I am posting it, not FOR someone, but because I felt it needed to be posted. The emails are in reverse order, so read them from bottom to top.

Quote:

From: SHURE Dj [mailto:*****]
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: RE: I have a qestion!



Hey Ron,

Post whatever you want.

Take care,
Jeff


From: ******
To: ******
Subject: RE: I have a qestion!
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:51:24 -0400

Dear Jeff,



Would you grant me permission to have your e-mail posted on the JREF? I have two purposes: to confound the idiot “bill smith” who persists in citing you as a no-planer and to show that you are serious about learning the truth about the 9/11 attacks.



Best,

Ron



From: SHURE Dj [mailto:*****]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 5:22 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: RE: I have a qestion!



Hey Ron,

Thanks for the response!

I believe a plane hit the Pentagon because I have recenlty talked to many witnesses that saw it hit with their own eyes.

Since I started talking to Pentagon witnesses I have been getting attacked by Craig and his flyover followers who are babbling NOC is scientifically proven fact that a plane did not hit.

I am also being attacked by Rob Balsamo for the same thing. I also called him out on the "impossible speed" garbage telling him he misrepresented it as I did.

I just can't understand how these people can be so stupid to believe the stuff they are pushing because they come across as pretty smart people. I admit I was stupid for believing the stuff I did, but at least I have admitted I was wrong. I don't think they can use stupidity as an excuse!

Sorry for the arguments we had in the past. You were right and I was wrong, but I still don't believe the official story. Who knows, maybe someday I will, but I doubt it.

Take care,
Jeff


From: *****
To: *****
Subject: RE: I have a qestion!
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:35:47 -0400

Jeff,



Ranke’s flyover nonsense does not rise to the level of a theory as it fails on every level.



First, imagine someone proposing the plan to the council of super-villains:



“We aim the Boeing 757 straight at the Pentagon, then pull up at the last second and fly over the building.”



“How many G’s would the pilot be pulling?”



“Uh, how should I know?”



“Is this maneuver aerodynamically possible?”



“Beats the hell out of me.”



“I’ve got a better question. Wouldn’t EVERYBODY notice a plane just missing the Pentagon? How could we possibly sell the idea that the plane crashed when hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have seen with their own eyes that it didn’t, that it flew over the building instead?”



“That part of the plan needs some work.”



“Back up for a moment. Isn’t the idea to make it appear as though a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon?”



Yeah, that’s the idea.”



“So, you’re saying that we DON’T crash a commercial airliner into the Pentagon??”



“Um….”



The second stumbling block is that absolutely NOBODY phoned a call-in radio show or wrote a letter-to-the-editor to protest that the plane didn’t crash. NOBODY actually saw a flyover.



That brings us to the biggest stumbling block—the statistical improbability.



On September 11, 2001, events in NYC and Washington, D.C. were unfolding during rush hour. Thousands of people were on their way to work. How many witnesses do you suppose there were to the final moments of AA77? Three thousand? Two thousand? Only a thousand? Pick the lowest estimate you’re comfortable with. Then visualize the flight path of the plane, as determined by the FAA and the NTSB, as an arrow on a map. Finally, imagine that each witness represents a dot on that map and ask yourself what you’d expect to see. I’ll help: you would expect to see a cluster of a few hundred dots surrounding the arrow describing the actual flight path, with dots diminishing in volume as they spread out in either direction. At the two extremes to the right and left of the arrow, we’d see a handful of outliers.



What do Ranke and Marquis show us? BINGO! They show us one set of outliers. By concentrating entirely on the nine or ten outliers who describe an impossible north-of-CITGO path, they leave out EVERYBODY ELSE. The reason nobody takes the CIT-heads seriously is that they are incapable of figuring out what is wrong with their fantasy. They always tell you about the ten people whose accounts fit their pre-conceived hypothesis (note that NONE of their own witnesses observed a flyover), but they simply ignore everybody else.



Why don’t they have five hundred north-of-CITGO witnesses? Why do they have ZERO flyover witnesses? Visualizing their theory, the map shows ten outliers and NOTHING ELSE. Where did everybody go?



No, they will never get it. How about you?



Ron

























From: SHURE Dj [mailto:******]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:18 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: I have a qestion!



Hey Ronaldo,

What do you think about Craig Ranke and his flyover theory at the Pentagon on 9/11?

Thanks,
Jeff

The exchange, obviously, is between former JREF member Ron Wieck, and Former Truther (likely still to some degree...as he admits) Jeff Hill.

Any comments, debunkers, truthers?

TAM

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

The following email exchange is posted with permission from both correspondents. I have gotten rid of the email addresses for the sake of the two, though neither asked me to do so. It is the only edit I have done to the original exchange. I am posting it, not FOR someone, but because I felt it needed to be posted. The emails are in reverse order, so read them from bottom to top.



The exchange, obviously, is between former JREF member Ron Wieck, and Former Truther (likely still to some degree...as he admits) Jeff Hill.

Any comments, debunkers, truthers?

TAM

Originally Posted by Jeff Hill

"I still don't believe the official story. Who knows, maybe someday I will, but I doubt it."

MM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

MM

where is your commentary? I indicated that he was likely still a truther, and that is why...he admits to not still believing the official story. Is that the only rebuttal you can come up with? Weak. Almost as weak as CIT theory.

TAM

[ElMondoHummus]

The actually relevant quote to highlight is:

Quote:

I just can't understand how these people can be so stupid to believe the stuff they are pushing...

So he's less a Ranke believer and more towards Gregory Urich's evidence-based thought process. That's a good thing, because say what you will, Gregory lets evidence form his conclusions, not the other way around.

Just because someone hasn't let go of a delusion yet, despite admitting it's flaws, it doesn't mean that the delusion is validated. It just means the person is still making the journey. That's all it means.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

where is your commentary? I indicated that he was likely still a truther, and that is why...he admits to not still believing the official story. Is that the only rebuttal you can come up with? Weak. Almost as weak as CIT theory.

TAM

I want to hear more from Jeff and less from his private email exchange.

My response will be honest and not a kneejerk reaction like most people
produce here.

MM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I want to hear more from Jeff and less from his private email exchange.

My response will be honest and not a kneejerk reaction like most people
produce here.

MM

WHy? You do not believe he is telling the truth in his email? Why would he lie to such a debunkr as Ron Wieck?

That is SUCH, SUCH a dodge.

TAM

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

WHy? You do not believe he is telling the truth in his email? Why would he lie to such a debunkr as Ron Wieck?

That is SUCH, SUCH a dodge.

TAM

Ron Wieck is the last worm I would speak openly to.

MM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Ron Wieck is the last worm I would speak openly to.

MM

dig the hole deeper MM. If Ron was such a "worm" and to be abhored, Jeff could have simply responded with a "go **** yourself" and that would have been that.

Read the details...he is quite explicit.

TAM

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Ron Wieck is the last worm I would speak openly to.

MM

Any other people you'd like to note that you wouldn't tell the truth to? It might make your posts in this forum suddenly make more sense.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Jeff Hill - if you are lurking here and reading this - from another ex-CTer, well done.

[DC]

sounds like he is slowly recovering.

[Horatius]

Quote:

Since I started talking to Pentagon witnesses I have been getting attacked by Craig and his flyover followers who are babbling NOC is scientifically proven fact that a plane did not hit.

I am also being attacked by Rob Balsamo for the same thing. I also called him out on the "impossible speed" garbage telling him he misrepresented it as I did.

Once again, we have someone who actually looks for evidence, and lets that evidence persuade him being attacked by the truthers for doing exactly that.

Typical.

Quote:

I just can't understand how these people can be so stupid to believe the stuff they are pushing because they come across as pretty smart people. I admit I was stupid for believing the stuff I did, but at least I have admitted I was wrong. I don't think they can use stupidity as an excuse!

I don't know if Shure will read this, but hey:

Being willing to admit you've been wrong, is a pretty good thing. Being stupid is not the worst thing in the world, being aggressively stupid and continuing to defend a wrong belief in the face of compelling evidence, as CIT and PfT do, is far far worse.

And if you can admit that you've been stupid, you're probably not quite as stupid as you think.


Unlike CIT.


And PfT.






P.S. to DC: nice sig! "It's time! It's time! It's time to hate the Swiss!"

[Childlike Empress]

Listen to the "debate" between Craig and Jeff and you know what's up.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Jeff Hill - if you are lurking here and reading this - from another ex-CTer, well done.

SOT, I didn't know you were an Ex-truther!! Holy ****!! Learn something new every day here at the JREF!!

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

SOT, I didn't know you were an Ex-truther!! Holy ****!! Learn something new every day here at the JREF!!

I was as well. Briefly, after watching LC for the first time, before I actually started looking at the evidence. I think that applies to plenty of people.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

SOT, I didn't know you were an Ex-truther!! Holy ****!! Learn something new every day here at the JREF!!

I was a pre-9/11 truther, actually. Take everything that spews from Alex Jones pie-hole and subtract anything about 9/11 and that was my political philosophy of the mid-1990s.

I described the events leading to my awakening here before. And, ironically, how I returned to where it all happened years before and met the then president of JREF, Dr Phil "The Bad Astronomer" Plait.

Jeff Hill is notorious for his behavior in his phone ambushes of people linked to the events of 9/11. But I sense in his e-mail the start of growth similar to what I have gone through. I hope he carries on with that.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Listen to the "debate" between Craig and Jeff and you know what's up.

why not save us some agony and ear bleeding, and just tell us. I could guess what is on it, but I will refrain.

TAM

[TexasJack]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

why not save us some agony and ear bleeding, and just tell us. I could guess what is on it, but I will refrain.

TAM

I read some of the comments, and it appears to be a reflection of his e-mail to Ron.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by TexasJack

I read some of the comments, and it appears to be a reflection of his e-mail to Ron.

really, so why would CLE present it as something to explain the email, or put it in context.

I thought it was going to reveal some falling out between Jeff and Craig, and then CLE was gonna proclaim...see, see, he is just disgruntled...

Oh well, I await further clarification.

TAM

[TexasJack]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

really, so why would CLE present it as something to explain the email, or put it in context.

I thought it was going to reveal some falling out between Jeff and Rob, and then CLE was gonna proclaim...see, see, he is just disgruntled...

Oh well, I await further clarification.

TAM

I assume you mean Ron, and not Rob. I listened to a little bit (it's a podcast between Jeff and Craig), it sounds like, in a nutshell, Jeff is telling Craig that the fly-over is stupid.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by TexasJack

I assume you mean Ron, and not Rob. I listened to a little bit (it's a podcast between Jeff and Craig), it sounds like, in a nutshell, Jeff is telling Craig that the fly-over is stupid.

Fixed it...

I was referring to the audio debate link that CLE presented as rebuttal.

TAM

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

why not save us some agony and ear bleeding, and just tell us.

Why should i? You wouldn't believe me anyway. Take it or leave it. It's your topic - and not news at all.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Fixed it...

I was referring to the audio debate link that CLE presented as rebuttal.

TAM

How do you know a rebuttal is in the offing?
CE refuses to commit...

[TexasJack]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Fixed it...

I was referring to the audio debate link that CLE presented as rebuttal.

TAM

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. It's a link to Jeff's site and has the podcast there and posters commenting on it.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Why should i? You wouldn't believe me anyway. Take it or leave it. It's your topic - and not news at all.

Well people who I trust more then you are telling me it is essentially nothing, in terms of explaining why Jeff is recanting, so I guess unless you can prove different, I will take their word.

So I guess that is the best you've got. No news at all.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

really, so why would CLE present it as something to explain the email, or put it in context.

I thought it was going to reveal some falling out between Jeff and Craig, and then CLE was gonna proclaim...see, see, he is just disgruntled...

Oh well, I await further clarification.

TAM

Having listened to about 30 minutes of it, it sounds an awful lot like our debates with CIT, with Shure in the JREF role. That is, pointing out to CIT that they have no witnesses to a flyover, and that they have lots of witnesses to a plane crashing into the Pentagon.


Oh, and at one point Craig asserts that the Truth Movement doesn't believe any crazy ideas.


I'll keep listening, and see if it gets better. I can sleep in tomorrow, and am drinking beer tonight....

[Horatius]

"We don't have a theory, what we've done is provide enough evidence to prove it..." -Craig


Prove what, exactly?

[Childlike Empress]

Funny thing is that Jeff tried to disprove CIT by phoning the witnesses. Turned out that he obtained more NoC evidence, just like that other Larson guy. No surprise he is a little bit pissed, especially after that "debate" (from May btw), which was not fair at all. Nothing against Jeff, but he's a simpleton compared to Craig.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Nothing against Jeff, but he's a simpleton compared to Craig.

I'd agree that Craig is much more adept at slinging the BS than Jeff, but the "simpleton" question is still open....



"That's 100% scientifically proven" -Craig, completely ignoring everything anyone else has ever said about the levels of certainty in "science".



Oh, and Craig implies he doesn't believe there was a plane at Shanksville.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'd agree that Craig is much more adept at slinging the BS than Jeff, but the "simpleton" question is still open...

IIRC, that audio is loooong and redundant. But have fun!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

IIRC, that audio is loooong and redundant. But have fun!

Oh, yeah, redundant as all hell!


Not so much on the "fun"part,m but TAM need smy help. And I'm alittle drunk by now.......Chefck out he typos....

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Funny thing is that Jeff tried to disprove CIT by phoning the witnesses. Turned out that he obtained more NoC evidence, just like that other Larson guy. No surprise he is a little bit pissed, especially after that "debate" (from May btw), which was not fair at all. Nothing against Jeff, but he's a simpleton compared to Craig.

I have listened to the first 31 minutes so far.
Yes, Jeff is a simpleton so far compared to cunning and manipulative Craig.
No wonder Jeff was a Truther so long.
No wonder Craig got the witness testimonies he craved for.

Jeff remains a simpleton because he lets Craig make him agree to the NOC proposition, when he should see that cherry-picked eye-witnesses don't prove much.

I should have no trouble finding people here in Erkelenz who would testify today that out 1992 earthquake shook a minute or longer, if I just ask them cunningly. I can surely make some tell me all the things they did during that minute, to corroborate that minute.
Wasn't a minute. Was 14 seconds at most
(I overheard one man the day after who was sure it was 2 minutes)


The handful of witnesses Craig relies on is refuted by the overwhelming majority of witnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.
That majority is corroborated by ALL the physical evicence. Craig's cherry-picked witnesses are corroborated my NONE of the physical evidence.

[Thunder]

what would be the point of actually flying a 757 towards the Pentagon, but then avoiding an impact at the last moment?

if you want to convince the world that a 757 crashed into the Pentago, wouldn't you just...err...um....CRASH into the Pentagon?

this whole fly-over idea makes no sense. it defies logic and common sense.

if you DON'T crash it into the Pentagon, then you have to plant lots of plane parts and passenger pieces.

CRASH into the Pentagon, and this is all taken care of.

this fly-over idea is just plain stupid.

[Childlike Empress]

@Horatius: No worries, i don't plan on "rebutting" anything here. Allow me just the remark that the thread title is complete BS. TAM was a little overexcited when he wrote that, i suspect.

Originally Posted by Jeff Hill

Sorry for the arguments we had in the past. You were right and I was wrong, but I still don't believe the official story. Who knows, maybe someday I will, but I doubt it.

[Horatius]

He (Being Craig!) whines about how his pilot experts have proven that it's impossible for the plane flying NoC to hit the lightpoles &c, and yet he fails to mention that other experts have calculated that any flight path consistent with their NoC claims is also physically impossible.


ETA; and there's a long awkward pause. Not that means much beyond a symbolic thingamajig.....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I want to hear more from Jeff and less from his private email exchange.

Ummm... what?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

@Horatius: No worries, i don't plan on "rebutting" anything here. Allow me just the remark that the thread title is complete BS. TAM was a little overexcited when he wrote that, i suspect.

Well, one can repent sins while still believing that 9/11 was an inside job.


I'm sure even you could agree that there's an awful lot of BS being promoted as "proof" of an inside job. Being willing to reject the BS is an important first step in establishing the real truth of 9/11 - whatever it is.

That Shure has shown a willingness to reject obvious BS is a sign that he'll (hopefully) come to reject the less obvious BS.

I'm betting that, at that point, he'll support the "OCT".


But that's just me.

[Childlike Empress]

Did you miss the "Former Truther" thingy in the title? Nevermind, cheers!

[Horatius]

"Nobody has contested it!"


"It" being their completely ridiculous flight path that no one actually believes actually occurred.

Wow, that's some great science, right there!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Did you miss the "Former Truther" thingy in the title? Nevermind, cheers!

Kanpai!


+1 CE