Monday, November 30, 2015

The Trump Video 9/11 Claim

Donald Trump said that he saw a video of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attack on television.  

Since that time, media has said it is a lie and no such video exists. To this CAIR and other Muslim groups agree:  Donald Trump is lying.  

Since that time, many people have come forward to say that they saw the same video.  


Then, media reported that in Patterson, NJ, a few "children" celebrated in a street, but there was no large celebration. 

My question for readers is this:

When someone asserts to have seen the video, how would you, the reader, know if the person is telling the truth?

*Consider that "reliable" may not be accurate.   This is very important in analysis.  In context, if media showed a video of Muslims celebrating on 9/11 from Pakistan, but the print on the video visible on TV showed "New Jersey Community Celebrates 9/11", the one who saw this would be incorrect, but the language would show "reliable", that is, no lying.  We can be wrong and not be lying.  

Consider the formula for reliability in context of emotion associated with the terror of the day.  

The formula for commitment is the pronoun "I" and past tense verbs.  This should be done without sensitivity indicator, nor need to persuade, except need to persuade is now "on the table" contextually, since "lie!" has been overwhelming alleged. 

There should be a strong commitment to what one saw, and given the passage of years, some form of memory or emotion now processed.  This can include memory of the emotion at the time, but it should be closely associated, linguistically, to what one alleges to have seen.  

Here is an actual statement for analysis about the 9/11 video.  

Is it true?

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.  I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.  Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.  
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down.  I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."  

48 comments:

SSSSS said...

Seems to pass the test of being true. Yes?

BallBounces said...

Straightforward declarative sentences followed by appropriate emotional reactions. Rings true throughout.

GeekRad said...

Yes, it is a reliable denial. He me be in error about the video being from NJ but he believed it was and is telling the truth about what he thought he saw.

GeekRad said...

**may be, not me be. Sorry!

Trigger said...

first person singular

past tense verb

subject specific

not in negative

straight forward

sounds right

John mcgowan said...

Ditto "Trigger"

GetThem said...



The statement seems reliable. There was the equivalent of a reliable denial, but instead it was a "reliable response" because they stated what they did, which was "saw the video" and it was spoken in past tense -- as was the entire statement.

The person (Trump I guess) is then confused by the hate and can't understand why there wasn't more coverage because "back then" the stations replayed everything and were on "constant alert." He is remembering what he felt at the time, and you can't remember what didn't happen.

The statement continues with a personal contradiction on how many people were in the video. Not thousands, but hundreds. Unnecessary info to include if not true and also making it an outright lie if not true. If it were an outright lie, that goes against SA in that people are telling the truth, just not exactly the full truth because they are leaving out information. An outright lie is not leaving out info. Does that make sense the way I'm saying it?

The last statement he says he is "uncertain" but still shares what he heard from others about the flag being stomped on. If his above comments were a lie, why not lie about this too? It's a much easier place to insert a false claim by including others in his lie. He could have simply said "we" saw American flags being stepped on, but instead he says he can't definitely recall seeing it.

He also says "I" several times making it stronger than if he dropped the "I" pronouns.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Trump is telling truthfully about what he thinks he saw at the time.

Really, all any of us knows about the day of 9-11 is what we thought we saw on the mass media presentation of the supposed facts.

It was all such a shock and we were all emotional, so perception and memory could certainly be affected.


+Interesting to note that Bush also had a false recollection of 9-11.


"A similar pattern emerged from George W. Bush’s mistaken recollection of having seen the first plane hit the World Trade Center (footage of that plane hitting the towers didn’t exist at the time.)"


(from the Invisible gorilla)

GetThem said...

An outright lie is not leaving out info.

I'm saying An outright lie is not equal to "leaving out info." They are two separate things.

Sus said...

He seems to be telling the truth about what he thinks he saw. Past tense. Use of "I".

I have a question. So after the passage of time, emotions can be stated with the action, not after?

Peter Hyatt said...

GetThem said...


The statement seems reliable. There was the equivalent of a reliable denial, but instead it was a "reliable response" because they stated what they did, which was "saw the video" and it was spoken in past tense -- as was the entire statement.

The person (Trump I guess) is then confused by the hate and can't understand why there wasn't more coverage because "back then" the stations replayed everything and were on "constant alert." He is remembering what he felt at the time, and you can't remember what didn't happen.

The statement continues with a personal contradiction on how many people were in the video. Not thousands, but hundreds. Unnecessary info to include if not true and also making it an outright lie if not true. If it were an outright lie, that goes against SA in that people are telling the truth, just not exactly the full truth because they are leaving out information. An outright lie is not leaving out info. Does that make sense the way I'm saying it?

The last statement he says he is "uncertain" but still shares what he heard from others about the flag being stomped on. If his above comments were a lie, why not lie about this too? It's a much easier place to insert a false claim by including others in his lie. He could have simply said "we" saw American flags being stepped on, but instead he says he can't definitely recall seeing it.

He also says "I" several times making it stronger than if he dropped the "I" pronouns.



Get Them,

..are you thinking this statement is Donald Trump?

Also, is "hundreds" as a referral to Trump's "thousands" statement?

Lastly, Truthful, Deceptive, or Inconclusive?

Peter

Horse Chestnut said...

Here's my guess (fwiw, probably not much):
Deception indicated

I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.
My first problem. If it happened during 9/11 you would refer to it as a news clip or a clip not a video, which suggests after the fact. Also the 9/11 video suggests after the fact. If I had seen this on tv, I would say, I saw a clip of Muslims celebrating right after 9/11 or after 9/11 I saw on tv a clip of some Muslims celebrating the attack. I wouldn't refer to it as the 9/11 video of Muslims, which (whether intentionally misleading or not) could mean that he had seen some propaganda.

My other concern is "I was surprised when it didnt' play over and over."
Okay, so at what point after it DIDN'T play, were you surprised? How do you feel something when nothing never happened? Does that make sense, what I am trying to say? Something didn't happen, yet he felt surprised when that thing didn't occur. When?

Am I even close?

Horse Chestnut said...

This makes me laugh:

Google,

are you saying "deception indicted" based upon inability to locate statement?

If so, this would be a new principle.

Anonymous said...

I agree if I saw something on TV, I'd say "I saw them celebrating on TV, on 9/11" instead of "I saw the video".

And where's the video? There are tons of videos on internet, from 9/11. Surely, if the "video" exists, people out there would have downloaded it, uploaded it, so if it exists, seems someone could find it.

Seems a good question is: Does anyone else remember seeing video.

Luckily we don't have to rely on statement analysis of one person's assertion, in order to determine whether or not Muslims celebrated in the streets of New Jersey on 9/11!

rob said...

I remember seeing those clips, but I admit, I don't know where the people celebrating were. But I also thought, why do they hate us? Why do they all want to come here? Maybe we should cut them off.

I still feel that way.

Anonymous said...

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey."

He is telling truth if he watch the video in New Jersey. It doesn't mater where the video was from.













Anonymous said...

https://mobile.twitter.com/umpire43/status/670025091804217344

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus,

search the blog for "artificial placement of emotions" for more.

Anonymous 2:32, you do not understand. You don't understand the analysis point, nor what was written. After Trump made the statement, he was ridiculed by media, but many people have claimed to have seen it. You see "rob" on the post is one of them.

The question to you was if the subject was truthful or deceptive.



Anonymous 3:34pm: sarcasm? "in New Jersey"?

As to another, "see the Muslims celebrate" versus "seeing the video" the QUESTION has been about seeing the video.

Several professionals have recently pointed out to me that formal training helped "temper" their viewpoints and made them more broad minded, as well as being comfortable saying, "this person is telling the truth."

John, you agreed with someone who said it was truthful, correct? (you know I like putting opinions ON the line!)

Thus far, no "inconclusive" results, only a few who have simply made statements without a conclusion.


Peter

Anonymous said...

The Twitter link above shows Trump may have been right.

Anonymous said...

https://mobile.twitter.com/umpire43/status/670025091804217344

Take a look at this. Trump may have been right.

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

"I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over."

He/she overemphasises the fact the video did not repeat. And feels the need to explain why.

"Back then"

Passage of time. The video came later. Did he see it that day?

John mcgowan said...

Yes, Peter, I believe it is true. Strong pronoun usage "I," past tense. When was the statement made, as emotions are placed in the right part of the statement, and used for impact. Does the passage of time allow for this?

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

"I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."

Either you remember or you don't. There's nothing in between?! Using anything to convince people he/she saw the video?

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

Note the change from "Muslims" to "people". Why did it change?

GetThem said...

Peter,

..are you thinking this statement is Donald Trump?
--- I don't know for sure. The article itself is referencing DT, but you never said exactly who gave the statement, so I did my analysis based on the fact it could have been said by anyone, including DT.


Also, is "hundreds" as a referral to Trump's "thousands" statement?
--- Hmm... that changes things. I suppose if it were a Trump statement then it would appear he has said two different things which is a flag. If it was not Trump, and it is someone disagreeing about the number of people celebrating then it is likely to be truthful because he is not trying to embellish his story. Also, he is speaking in past tense of a memory.


Lastly, Truthful, Deceptive, or Inconclusive?
----Truthful. (Yikes)

Peter

Horse chestnut said...

You say inconclusives or comments w/out a conclusion, but I did make comments and a conclusion Peter. Ithe is above.

Peter Hyatt said...

Bas,

It is good to note the change. Ask if there is anything that might cause the change?

Note the video is about "Muslims" and when it is "people" there is a description of actual celebration. This means that the change of language is a very strong indicator that memory is in play.

When language changes, it is a strong signal that memory is in play. If there is nothing to justify the change, we ask. If there is still nothing to justify the change, it is likely made up and not truthful.

"the car engine stopped and the vehicle was left on the parkway" has "car" while driving, but when completely dead and abandoned, "vehicle." This is a very strong signal of truth in experiential memory at work.

Others: context:

The poster said this in response to the media statement that Trump made it up. Many people have publicly said, "I saw that video too!" it is in this context.


Anyone else want to weigh in before I post the analysis and identity of the subject?

Peter

Bas (The Netherlands) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LisaB said...

http://wkrg.com/2015/11/25/credible-source-on-9-11-muslim-celebrations-fbi/

LisaB said...

from the Washington Post dated September 18, 2001:

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

OPN said...

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.  I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.  Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.  
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down.  I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."  

That's Ben Carson's statement. Although he stated he saw a video of Muslims celebrating in NJ, his language shows he doubted or logically knew that the video wasn't celebrating NJ Muslims.
(I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.)

The sentence "Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on" seems out of place in his narrative.  

OPN said...

This is a change, but does it mean anything? First he stated that he "saw". Later he stated that he "read" details about the alleged celebrating NJ Muslims.
"Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."

Then he expresses doubt in his memory which makes his entire statement questionable.

OPN said...

It's inconclusive?
The person who made this statement used pronoun 'I' and past tense verb 'saw'. (reliable)

But the accuracy of what his memory can recall from 14 years ago should be questioned (he 'thinks' he recalled/is not certain about another related event).

If this is neurosurgeon Ben Carson's statement, he has the IQ to discern that the video couldn't have been NJ Muslims celebrating because CNN/FOX didn't repeatedly replay it, yet he gave reliable SA evidence that he saw it.

Peter Hyatt said...

First: The statement is reliable. It is truthful, and the audio showed he spoke freely and the change of language is justified.

I am glad to see how many did not read "into it" what did not exist.

Therefore, next step: It is short, and I have disclosed that it was on a recording so it was not a written statement:


Does a profile emerge?

We know, for example two things:

The subject had to be old enough to be an adult or late teen on 9/11
There is subtle distancing language from Donald Trump


Gender:

Age:

Education level:

Intelligence level:

Background, Interests (see subtle distancing from DT)

Personality:


Is there anything we can glean?

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

I have the feeling it's a woman who has kids.

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

Aged 35-45. Education above average. Same goes for intelligence level. Emphatic and caring personality.

Anonymous said...

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over. Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down. I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."

Male
55-65
middle class educated professional in a field like science or business

intelligent and thoughtful but not well read, so not highly intelligent in terms of reading/writing level

First generation college educated in his family, was not raised by college educated parents

The sentence structure is simple, multiclausal sentences awkwardly combined or simple clauses then evolves to listing

vocabulary not complex- description reliable but simplistic “…the towers, people running and so on” (Nothing more graphic than “the towers”?)

Wants to come across as educated and enunciates words carefully “but I am not certain” (no “I’m” contraction, ‘recall’ instead of ‘remember’)

Calm, patient, not prone to anger (older)

Does not commit to seeing it on 9/11 only that he saw THE video in question (Does he believe there is only one video?)

“American flags were stepped on”- passive voice. Who stepped on American flags?

Anonymous said...

https://readability-score.com/

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over. Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down. I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain

"Average Grade Level 6.7"

OPN said...

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over. Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down. I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."

Age -a young adult (over 24) who has limited knowledge of fanatical Islam's hatred of the USA and who has a simple vocabulary
Educational level- jr high-high school
Intelligence level- IQ =90-100
Background-"the towers" might showing familiarity=Manhattan resident
Personality- shocked at signs of hatred=simple nature and compassionate. Is also a truthful person

Peter Hyatt said...

Bart,

great find!

Peter

(reposted soon)

Bart said...

Thanks. The person who wrote the statement I found seems much more intelligent than the one above in the original post.

Bart said...

And more personally and emotionally vested in the memory.

Peter Hyatt said...

Bart,

interesting observations.

It is interesting reading the profiles.

With analysis, our profile of, for example, a threat, must be precise.

Bart said...

I don't understand. What do you mean by "threat"?

Peter Hyatt said...

I have worked, specifically, on anonymous threats, for law enforcement.

This is doe to learn

a. Is the threat real?

b. the identity of the one making the threat

this means that the one who made the threat must be identified. The profile cannot be vague, if we want him or her caught.

When the threat is real, the stakes are high and precision is needed. This is why it is done with other professionals, both genders, and a variety within the group's background.

Peter

OPN said...



Hmm. Why did the person state that "RECENTLY he/she had read that American flags were stepped on"? Where and why were they reading about 9/11? Person must be someone who enjoys reading about American history or perhaps has to study American history (but wouldn't find flag stepping info in a liberal college's curriculum). Person must have normal IQ.

Final answer: ;) Female (mentions her emotional connection-"why do they hate us") young adult with normal IQ enrolled in a NON-liberal college or one who reads as a hobby and has interest in American history, honest, kind (shocked by extreme hatred), may have familiarity with Twin Towers as she called them "the towers".

Anon "I" said...

I'll take a swipe at it... but please be kind as I still feel like a newbie at this. :)

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. (I, first person, saw, past tense, what was seen, but it does not clearly delineate when the video was seen ie, the day of, a few days later, months later, etc. New Jersey may be the wrong location, but it is what the person believes was the case at the time. I am thinking that the use of the word video might be the vocabulary of an older person before the rush of the internet overtook slower technology, like a history with VCR use.)

I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" (I, first person, was shocked, past tense and wondered by asking himself/herself why do they hate us? I think by 2001, many adults knew that we were unpopular with many in the middle east and the fact that there had been an attack on the WTC in 1993, made it known that far back. Now, why? I guess there could be room to wonder what they were thinking and shock at the severity of the hate? Also, could this person not be totally up to date on ongoing history to a huge degree if they were actively involved in work that would limit their exposure to the news cycles daily?)

I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over. (I, first person, was surprised, past tense, when the video, in the negative did not replay over and over. Sensitive in the negative sense? Or, practical in the unrelenting, unrelenting, unrelenting coverage on TV at that time?)

Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on. (Am I delirious because its so late or is there a contrast between news and video?)

The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down. (Somewhere thousands was introduced and this is a correction to hundreds. It could be someone contradicting an original statement of someone else's thousands, or someone correcting their personal misspoken impression at the time. Celebrating has now become people dancing, singing, jumping up and down.)

I saw men, women and children celebrating. (I, first person, saw, past tense, and what was seen. It does not say for sure what was being celebrated and the details of the celebration have vanished and celebration as a more general word is being used.)

Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain." (This is someone who has recently read about history. He/she leaves room that their memory may not be entirely accurate as to the American flags being stepped on as related to this event, but will not commit 100% to it because it may have related to an entirely different event. The person seems truthful and honest about doubts of what he/she believed they witnessed at one time.)

BingBangBong said...

Interesting indeed

+Interesting to note that Bush also had a false recollection of 9-11.
"A similar pattern emerged from George W. Bush’s mistaken recollection of having seen the first plane hit the World Trade Center (footage of that plane hitting the towers didn’t exist at the time.)"

(from the Invisible gorilla)

-

It is iteresting to note that Larry Silverstein also had a "mistaken recollection" of having seen the first plane hit the WTC on the morning of the attacks.

Interesting to note also that certain people allegedly appeared on foreign TV and allegedly let slip that they were in New York to "document the event". (I cannot say with certainty that this is correct as I do not understand Hebrew).

The general public only saw the footage of the first plane hitting after 9.11.