Debunking and dogmatism

[blndrhed]

I honestly can't understand people who consider themselves "debunkers" of conspiracy theories. I honestly believe that if you're willing to write anything off as a conspiracy, then you are not a skeptic, but a dogmatist. A true skeptic would not even take a position because to do so would be absolutism. If you believe that the official story is the absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.

[ElMondoHummus]

That's true if that's your starting position, but what of the people who've weighed the arguments and come to conclusions? Are they dogmaticists too?

[Dave Rogers]

I think you'd be well advised to check the definition of the word "skeptic". It doesn't require one to suspend judgement on a theory that is unsupported by any evidence and generally contradictory to all the evidence that is available. If new evidence arises that changes that, then skepticism requires that it be honestly evaluated. However, debunking is actually a vital part of skepticism, because it is simply skepticism of the claims made by others. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, but you choose not to take them seriously because there's no evidence for them, then you are being rationally skeptical.

Dave

[CurtC]

What is this, an exercise in Name That Fallacy? Can I play?

[twinstead]

blndrhed the same could be said for truthers. If you believe that an inside job is an absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist.

ElMondoHummus's point is a good one. A true skeptic starts with belief there may be alternate aspects, but doesn't suddenly become dogmatic when satisfied that one of the aspects has more evidence to support it than the others.

So, what you consider a 'belief that the official story is the absolute truth' is actually by most if not all here a 'belief that the official story fits the available evidence the best, so I'm comfortable with it for now until compelling evidence of something that makes more sense comes along'.

2 different things.

[David Wong]

Can you point to a specific claim that you feel has not been researched sufficiently before being dismissed here?

I suspect you will point to a thread where you feel like the debunkers here were dogmatic and dismissed the claims without first reviewing the evidence, there are some of those that appear that way if you're new to the forum.

What you will find is every time that has happened, it's because the claim being raised had been brought up in a previous threads from weeks ago, at which time it was researched and proven incorrect. Then when the same claim is brought up repeatedly by separate people (or even the same people) eventually the debunkers will simply mock them.

But if you can truly find a claim of conspiracy (or the paranormal or whatever) that has not been researched and has been too quickly dismissed, we would gladly welcome it. This forum area in particular is starving for new claims to investigate. Unfortunately what it gets instead are the same claims from 5 years ago, rehashed again and again.

[twinstead]

Dupe

[CurtC]

What is this, an exercise in Name That Fallacy? Can I play?

[Gravy]

Can you point to a specific claim that you feel has not been researched sufficiently before being dismissed here?Exactly what I was about post, David. Call me a cynic, but if there's a response at all I predict it'll be more empty :words:.

[blndrhed]

That's true if that's your starting position, but what of the people who've weighed the arguments and come to conclusions? Are they dogmaticists too?
Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable. Each side could be seen as promoting an agenda, and could create evidence to support their position. The Government could honestly have an agenda to promote interventionism in the Middle East, or on the other hand, people wishing to implicate the Government would have an agenda to destroy the Governments credibility. Either side could easily make false assertions to support their agenda.

[geggy]

I've been following the pattern of several debunkers' behavoir for some time now...

Here are several examples...

1. Debunkers (before) "not one structural engineer supports your fantasy"
several structural engineers have come forward expressing doubts, ie AE for 9/11 truth...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars..."

2. Debunkers (before) "not one whistle blowers have come forward..."
several whistleblowers from norad, faa*, fbi, cia have come forward...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars, scapegoating or politicizing..."

3. Debunkers (before) "9/11 investigation was thorough, complete and adequete."
9/11 commission "9/11 report was a first draft. We havent been told the full story."
Debunkers (after) "9/11 happened the way as it is."

Unfortunately for the debunkers, the time is with the truthers and not them.

*One of the more provocative statements in "Inside 9/11," an ambitious four-hour miniseries on the National Geographic Channel (Aug. 21, 22), comes from an FAA whistle-blower named Bogdan Dzakovic: "What happened on Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure in the system; it was a system that was deliberately designed to fail. And the 9/11 Commission failed in not documenting why that was allowed to happen."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p12s05-altv.htm

[twinstead]

I've been following the pattern of several debunkers' behavoir for some time now...

Here are several examples...

1. Debunkers (before) "not one structural engineer supports your fantasy"
several structural engineers have come forward expressing doubts, ie AE for 9/11 truth...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars..."

2. Debunkers (before) "not one whistle blowers have come forward..."
several whistleblowers from norad, faa, fbi, cia have come forward...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars, scapegoating or politicizing..."

3. Debunkers (before) "9/11 investigation was thorough, complete and adequete."
9/11 commission "9/11 report was a first draft. We havent been told the full story."
Debunkers (after) "9/11 happened the way as it is."

Unfortunately for the debunkers, the time is with the truthers and not them.

All we are asking is for you folks to get off your frickin' butts and present your smoking-gun evidence to somebody who can do something about it instead of spewing crap on an internet forum. This is Earth-shattering stuff, the stuff of Pulitzer prizes and Medals of Freedom, the stuff of some foreign engineering community with a bone to pick with the US to finally make it suffer.

People can and do risk their very lives for a cause. Find somebody who is willing to take the chance and GIVE THEM YOUR SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE.

What the hell is wrong with that?

[twinstead]

Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable. Each side could be seen as promoting an agenda, and could create evidence to support their position. The Government could honestly have an agenda to promote interventionism in the Middle East, or on the other hand, people wishing to implicate the Government would have an agenda to destroy the Governments credibility. Either side could easily make false assertions to support their agenda.

You are implying that when the science of 911 is concerned somebody could make false assertions that couldn't be verified by other experts?

This is what peer review is all about, and the majority of arguments coming from truthers is that the collapses were IMPOSSIBLE without CD. Most experts disagree.

[Drudgewire]

Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable.
"Science," "Youtube"... same difference. Great point. :rolleyes:

[DGM]

I've been following the pattern of several debunkers' behavoir for some time now...

Here are several examples...

1. Debunkers (before) "not one structural engineer supports your fantasy"
several structural engineers have come forward expressing doubts, ie AE for 9/11 truth...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars..."

2. Debunkers (before) "not one whistle blowers have come forward..."
several whistleblowers from norad, faa*, fbi, cia have come forward...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars, scapegoating or politicizing..."

3. Debunkers (before) "9/11 investigation was thorough, complete and adequete."
9/11 commission "9/11 report was a first draft. We havent been told the full story."
Debunkers (after) "9/11 happened the way as it is."

Unfortunately for the debunkers, the time is with the truthers and not them.

*One of the more provocative statements in "Inside 9/11," an ambitious four-hour miniseries on the National Geographic Channel (Aug. 21, 22), comes from an FAA whistle-blower named Bogdan Dzakovic: "What happened on Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure in the system; it was a system that was deliberately designed to fail. And the 9/11 Commission failed in not documenting why that was allowed to happen."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p12s05-altv.htm
Why don't your "whistle blowers" actually blow the whistle? I'm waiting to be convinced yet you keep disappointing me. Why are you letting me down like this?

[geggy]

All we are asking is for you folks to get off your frickin' butts and present your smoking-gun evidence to somebody who can do something about it instead of spewing crap on an internet forum. This is Earth-shattering stuff, the stuff of Pulitzer prizes and Medals of Freedom, the stuff of some foreign engineering community with a bone to pick with the US to finally make it suffer.

it would be a lot easier to do that if it werent for the debunkers who are slowing us down. :(

[Pardalis]

I've been following geggy's thought pattern for a while. He's been wrong 412 times.

[blndrhed]

This is what I come up with from Google. Notice the second definition.



"Definitions of Skeptic on the Web:

* One of the seven attitudes. Its positive pole is investigation; its negative pole is suspicion. Skeptics view the world with doubt.
www.summerjoy.com/Glossary.html

* A philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge
www.iheu.org/glossary

* An individual who holds that true knowledge, or knowledge in a particular area, is uncertain. Often incorrectly used as a synonym for "debunker." See also, "debunker."
hissofasp.com/glossary.htm

* someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to # an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object, # the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

* Skeptic is a quarterly science education and science advocacy magazine published internationally by The Skeptics Society, a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic (magazine)"

[Gravy]

I've been following the pattern of several debunkers' behavoir for some time now...

Here are several examples...

1. Debunkers (before) "not one structural engineer supports your fantasy"
several structural engineers have come forward expressing doubts, ie AE for 9/11 truth...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars..."Yes, some have expressed doubts. Yet almost none have written anything of a technical nature, and none have written a paper supporting controlled demolition conspiracy theories that could pass peer review in a respectable engineering journal. Further, none are capable of defending their ideas when confronted with the withering cross-examination of a tour guide. That's as good as you can do?

It's 2008. What are you people waiting for?

2. Debunkers (before) "not one whistle blowers have come forward..."
several whistleblowers from norad, faa, fbi, cia have come forward...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars, scapegoating or politicizing..."See above. Where's the beef, geggy? These whistleblowers seem to have lost their cork balls.

3. Debunkers (before) "9/11 investigation was thorough, complete and adequete."
9/11 commission "9/11 report was a first draft. We havent been told the full story."
Debunkers (after) "9/11 happened the way as it is."Please don't make things up.

Unfortunately for the debunkers, the time is with the truthers and not them.It is? Then why has your membership and interest in your ideas been declining, geggy?

And please list the ways in which your movement is closer to achieving its goals than it was a year ago.

45. How do see your future involvement with the TM?
1) I'll probably be more involved 9%
2) About the same 38%
3) I'll probably be less involved 49%
4) I'm no longer involved with the TM but think this survey may be useful to those who are 4%
Source (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80%3Ayouandthe911truthmove)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904785563261814.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790472cf48df01de.jpg

[David Wong]

Can you cite a specific claim that you feel has not been adequately addressed here?

[Pardalis]

This is not about philosophical skepticism, but scientific skepticism.

[Billdave2]

it would be a lot easier to do that if it werent for the debunkers who are slowing us down. :(

Yes, all those evil debunkers with their facts and evidence just get in the way of the truthers and their youtube videos. I mean come on people they have youtube videos! We are wasting our time trying to compete with that!:)

[Gravy]

Can you point to a specific claim that you feel has not been researched sufficiently before being dismissed here?

Third time, blndhred. Please answer the question. Otherwise it's just :words:

Edit: I see David has re-asked this as well. I've asked the same question several times in the past, and no critic has ever answered it.

[Par]

A true skeptic would not even take a position because to do so would be absolutism. If you believe that the official story is the absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.


Yeah. That’s probably right. However, I don’t think anyone here actually does that. I don’t. It’s a bit of a straw man, or perhaps merely a genuine misunderstanding. If you can present any evidence to suggest that the prosaic explanations of the 9/11 attacks are appreciably in error, then please do so. I’m into that evidence junk.

[Gravy]

it would be a lot easier to do that if it werent for the debunkers who are slowing us down. :(Please explain how we have prevented you from presenting your compelling evidence in relevant venues, from writing technical papers, or from having your startling revelations picked up and investigated by the media. Please explain how we have prevented you from raising money from your millions of followers in order to hire a top independent engineering firm to analyze the collapses. Please tell us who has blocked your path to the DA's door.

Or are you just fantasizing to justify your incompetence?

[twinstead]

it would be a lot easier to do that if it werent for the debunkers who are slowing us down. :(

Frankly, it's the lack of solid, compelling evidence that would sway people who can make a difference that is slowing you down. All we're doing is pointing this out to you, but you can blame us if you wish.

[blndrhed]

Third time, blndhred. Please answer the question. Otherwise it's just :words:

Edit: I see David has re-asked this as well. I've asked the same question several times in the past, and no critic has ever answered it.
I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash. Like I said before, there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm not about to believe that any evidence is the least bit "verifiable". I'm staying completely neutral. I don't support anyone's position.

[MaGZ]

Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable. Each side could be seen as promoting an agenda, and could create evidence to support their position. The Government could honestly have an agenda to promote interventionism in the Middle East, or on the other hand, people wishing to implicate the Government would have an agenda to destroy the Governments credibility. Either side could easily make false assertions to support their agenda.

I think the 9/11 report can be used here as a case study. The "debunkers" accept it as absolute truth without question. They seem to reject the idea that the government may have an agenda in their conclusions in the report.

[David Wong]

So blndrhed started this exact same conversation in August:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90827

Got 96 replies that time, and through it all never got around to expressing specifically what actions by debunkers he disapproved of, just seemed to be a general bad feeling he had about the subject.

I'm not hopeful for this one.

[David Wong]

I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash. Like I said before, there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm not about to believe that any evidence is the least bit "verifiable". I'm staying completely neutral. I don't support anyone's position.

Wow.

I seriously don't know what to say to that.

[DGM]

I think the 9/11 report can be used here as a case study. The "debunkers" accept it as absolute truth without question. They seem to reject the idea that the government may have an agenda in their conclusions in the report.
Could you show an example of this behavior?

[Par]

I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash...


What if that claim is supported by overwhelming evidence? (It doesn’t seem that you’re talking about scepticism. Rather, you’re referring to contrariness.)

[Pardalis]

So blndrhed started this exact same conversation in August:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90827

Got 96 replies that time, and through it all never got around to expressing specifically what actions by debunkers he disapproved of, just seemed to be a general bad feeling he had about the subject.

I'm not hopeful for this one.

Not much progress in six months.

One would think he would have learned a thing or two by now.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable. Each side could be seen as promoting an agenda, and could create evidence to support their position. The Government could honestly have an agenda to promote interventionism in the Middle East, or on the other hand, people wishing to implicate the Government would have an agenda to destroy the Governments credibility. Either side could easily make false assertions to support their agenda.

But you're assuming the "government" evidence is all we're leaning on. While firefighters in New York are indeed employed by the city government, I'd hardly call them shills for the federal government. And their testimony on the extent of the fire and the (at the time) potential for the building collapses are also what I base my conclusions on.

Plus, the news videos of the planes hitting comprise a major portion of the evidence. Those weren't government cameras recording the impacts.

And there are many witnesses to both events. To be blunt, they're not controlled by the government.

What of the articles in Engineering News-Record? Or iCivilEngineer? Those weren't written by the government.

What about the Purdue simulations? Are the results of those tainted by Purdue's association as a state university (hint to those who do not know Purdue's status as public or private: Look up the term "Land grant university")?

You see, it's a fallacy to state that our opposition to the conspiracy theories are relying on the "government's" version of the story. To be blunt, the NIST report was only concerned with getting info applicable to the review of building codes. Other reports have similarly limited objectives. None seek to construct a comprehensive narrative. Therefore, the government's information is insufficient to tell the whole story. It tells us enough for us to judge the accuracy of various other component claims, but it's not the whole story. And no one interested in the truth pretends it is.

On top of that, we view the "alternate" hypotheses with an analytical and critical eye. It can't be helped that, upon investigation, silly claims like Terral's "painted plane" fail utterly. It can't be helped that, once many other claims are run down - like MaGZ's silly and perpetual "Dancing Israelis" claim, or Terrals revisit of "the AA flights were cancelled that day" - they end up being debunked by the very sources making the original report. And it can not be helped that, once the entire context of various other claims are taken into account - from Silverstein's "Pull it" comment, to the various twists on witness testimony - that it's obvious the reality of the statement is at odds with the conspiracy claims being based on them. So many conspiracy claims fail, and while many components of the "official story" also are found lacking - for example, the early hypothesis about pancake collapse - they 1. Do not fail in a way that defeats their basic premise, like claims of demolitions do, and 2. Are corrected in a way that shows the initial error to be one of lack of knowledge, as opposed to being unrelated to reality, as again, demolitions claims continually work out to be. Pancaking was shown to not be a correct argument, and upon further review, it was modified to progressive collapse. How have hypotheses of explosives progressed, given new knowledge? All I see is that most experienced truthers no longer try to claim that every floor was wired, and that's it. And that's only the experienced truthers.

At any rate, just casting the debate as "pro" vs "anti" government is a fallacy. Right there, because of that, I would advise correcting your conceptions. You're right about the government being a player with a vested interest, but you gloss over the reality of how that applies in this instance, and you completely miss what we base our conclusions on when you make that mistake.

[blndrhed]

So blndrhed started this exact same conversation in August:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90827

Got 96 replies that time, and through it all never got around to expressing specifically what actions by debunkers he disapproved of, just seemed to be a general bad feeling he had about the subject.

I'm not hopeful for this one.
My claim is that debunkers are not skeptics. They are dogmatists. I personally believe that the official story has plenty of holes in it, and that the real truth will never be known. I can see that 9-11 has been used far to much by the Government to promote militarization, such as full spectrum dominance, and an agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, such as "The War on Terrorism".

[Pardalis]

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Just so that these last six months won't have been for nothing.

[blndrhed]

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Just so that these last six months won't have been for nothing.
Definition of skeptic: "An individual who holds that true knowledge, or knowledge in a particular area, is uncertain. Often incorrectly used as a synonym for "debunker." See also, "debunker."
hissofasp.com/glossary.htm"

It has been six months of dogmatism by "debunkers".

[gumboot]

I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash. Like I said before, there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm not about to believe that any evidence is the least bit "verifiable". I'm staying completely neutral. I don't support anyone's position.


That sounds a bit dogmatic if you ask me.

[Dave_46]

it would be a lot easier to do that if it werent for the debunkers who are slowing us down. :(

So, all these people sitting in front of their computers are really slowing you down?

Is geggy's post Stundie-worthy?

Dave

[blndrhed]

That sounds a bit dogmatic if you ask me.
How so?

[SDC]

My claim is that debunkers are not skeptics. They are dogmatists. I personally believe that the official story has plenty of holes in it, and that the real truth will never be known. I can see that 9-11 has been used far to much by the Government to promote militarization, such as full spectrum dominance, and an agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, such as "The War on Terrorism".

Those are separate issues, as follows: 1/ the "official story" is incomplete (or inaccurate); 2/ 911 has been used politically.

I think everyone could agree on #2 with very little hesitation. (Though its power is fading, at least for now; see Giuliani). As for #1, well, it's a long way from "Bush was asleep at the wheel while Rome burned" (love those metaphors) to "evil Bush/ Cheney were the perps." No agreement there.

[Pardalis]

Definition of skeptic: "An individual who holds that true knowledge, or knowledge in a particular area, is uncertain. Often incorrectly used as a synonym for "debunker." See also, "debunker."
hissofasp.com/glossary.htm"

You didn't read the link, oh well...

See you in six months.

[twinstead]

My claim is that debunkers are not skeptics. They are dogmatists. I personally believe that the official story has plenty of holes in it, and that the real truth will never be known. I can see that 9-11 has been used far to much by the Government to promote militarization, such as full spectrum dominance, and an agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, such as "The War on Terrorism".

But, you don't respond to the many people who have explained to you, in this very thread, exactly why they believe what they do. The only reason why you claim debunkers aren't skeptics is because you personally believe the official story has plenty of holes.

Maybe it has holes, maybe not. And yea, we can never know anything 100%, but this is all about the MOST likely explanation. If you suspect that the official story is not the most likely explanation then you are more than welcome to present an alternative scenario that fits the available evidence better.

We aren't some kind of redneck jingoist believing whatever the government tells them no questions asked. Many here actually understand the relevant science involved in the debate and can articulate EXACTLY why they think the 'official story' fits the evidence the best.

As far as your issues with 911 being used by the government, you are right. But you should be real careful about basing what you believe about 911 being an inside job on things like this, because the government would be using 911 regardless of inside job or not.

[SDC]

So, all these people sitting in front of their computers are really slowing you down?

Is geggy's post Stundie-worthy?

Dave

It's a darned good one. Not spectacular, though. Could we get Malcolm Kirkman in here to juice it up?

[twinstead]

God forbid geggy ever admit there's a chance much of his evidence would be considered tenuous by somebody who might risk jail or death by exposing it, and thus avoided like the plague.

[bofors]

I honestly can't understand people who consider themselves "debunkers" of conspiracy theories. I honestly believe that if you're willing to write anything off as a conspiracy, then you are not a skeptic, but a dogmatist. A true skeptic would not even take a position because to do so would be absolutism. If you believe that the official story is the absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.

Well put.

"Dogmatism" is a choice description of what goes on here, it certainly is not critical thinking and skepticism.

These "debunkers" go well beyond simply being dupes, rather they deny reality and promote nonsense like religious zealots.

[HereticHulk]

Yes because you are weighing arguments that are backed by evidence that could be questionable. Each side could be seen as promoting an agenda, and could create evidence to support their position. The Government could honestly have an agenda to promote interventionism in the Middle East, or on the other hand, people wishing to implicate the Government would have an agenda to destroy the Governments credibility. Either side could easily make false assertions to support their agenda.
Well said!

Also, a lot of the so called 'debunkers' here are also ex-military and have somewhat of a bias on their blind loyalty to their leaders.

I remember this fact from the stroking of the ego's 'credentials thread' that was posted awhile back.

[Pardalis]

Go Ron Paul!

[HereticHulk]

Go Ron Paul!

Again, well said!

[blndrhed]

You didn't read the link, oh well...

See you in six months.
I know what scientific skepticism is. I just don't think it is considered as debunking every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, as much as arguing against pseudoscience.

[SDC]

Well said!

Also, a lot of the so called 'debunkers' here are also ex-military and have somewhat bias on there blind loyalty to their leaders.

Hey, come on! I'm a non-veteran from a family with a long tradition of finding civilian work during wartime (my last direct ancestor to serve was my great-great-great-grandfather, in the Civil War, and he was expelled from the Union army after 6 months probably for drunkenness), and I resent your implication that I am insufficiently biased!

Gosh darn it.

[Pardalis]

Again, well said!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joke

I know what scientific skepticism is. I just don't think it is considered as debunking every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, as much as arguing against pseudoscience.

Yes it is.

[Viper Daimao]

I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash. Like I said before, there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm not about to believe that any evidence is the least bit "verifiable". I'm staying completely neutral. I don't support anyone's position.

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! [Rule 10] me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[Gravy]

I honestly think that everybody who makes any claim is full of hogwash.Stundied!

Like I said before, there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm not about to believe that any evidence is the least bit "verifiable". I'm staying completely neutral. I don't support anyone's position.I see. So, for example, you're not going to take a position on whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon because the enormous mountain of evidence that it did might be outweighed by some supernatural, as-yet unrevealed evidence that it didn't.

How about the Moon? Is it real?

Is the U.S. president named George W. Bush? How can you be sure?

What if the company you work for is actually a front for the sex slave trade?

Did Islamist Jihadists declare holy war on "Jews and crusaders" in 1996 and 1998, and proceed to prosecute that war? Let's not go out on a limb about that one...might all be a false flag op.

How do you get out of bed in the morning, my friend? The world must be a horribly confusing place for you to navigate.

[bofors]

Also, a lot of the so called 'debunkers' here are also ex-military and have somewhat of a bias on their blind loyalty to their leaders.

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.

[bofors]

Stundied!

I see. So, for example, you're not going to take a position on whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon because the enormous mountain of evidence that it did might be outweighed by some supernatural, as-yet unrevealed evidence that it didn't.

How about the Moon? Is it real?

Is the U.S. president named George W. Bush? How can you be sure?

What if the company you work for is actually a front for the sex slave trade?

Did Islamist Jihadists declare holy war on "Jews and crusaders" in 1996 and 1998, and proceed to prosecute that war? Let's not go out on a limb about that one...might all be a false flag op.

How do you get out of bed in the morning, my friend? The world must be a horribly confusing place for you to navigate.

Here, we see yet another example of the "Gravy-pattern".

[Gravy]

I know what scientific skepticism is. I just don't think it is considered as debunking every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, as much as arguing against pseudoscience.So you can't point out anything we get wrong, but you think what we're doing is bad. And when we present overwhelming evidence that refutes truther claims, it should be dismissed. Have a nice stay in Christopheraville, blndrhed. We'll keep a lookout for prescription lenses that work with your kaleidoscope eyes.

[bofors]

So you can't point out anything we get wrong, but you think what we're doing is bad. And when we present overwhelming evidence that refutes truther claims, it should be dismissed. Have a nice stay in Christopheraville, blndrhed. We'll keep a lookout for prescription lenses that work with your kaleidoscope eyes.

Again, Gravy avoiding the real subject of debate by substitution.

[Pardalis]

Here, we see yet another example of the "Gravy-pattern".

As opposed to the Bofors pattern (i.e. being consistently wrong)?

[HereticHulk]

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! [Rule 10] me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Donny: ....your phone is ringing dude.

[blndrhed]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joke



Yes it is.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia's "Debunkers" page:

"....some debunkers are excessively and dishonestly skeptical, and thus not true skeptics but "pseudoskeptics". According to Truzzi, genuine skeptics are neutral or agnostic, often critical of new claims, but not vehemently opposed to them. They want better evidence. In contrast, pseudoskeptics are simply deniers with an agenda and often use unscientific arguments to debunk what they oppose. According to Truzzi, true skepticism would recognize the need for better evidence, but not actively oppose, ridicule, or discourage further investigation into any subject by serious and qualified researchers.[3][4]"

I think "debunker" applies better than "scientific skepticism".

[HereticHulk]

So you can't point out anything we get wrong, but you think what we're doing is bad. And when we present overwhelming evidence that refutes truther claims, it should be dismissed. Have a nice stay in Christopheraville, blndrhed. We'll keep a lookout for prescription lenses that work with your kaleidoscope eyes.

The point is, who is supplying the 'evidence'?

[Pardalis]

Damn, learn some English Hulk.

[DGM]

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.
Why have I not seen your face on the evening news? You talk the big game but when it hits the fan where would you be. I suspect like most truthers you would be hiding trying to covering your own butt. You tell us that you know that this was an inside job. Why don't you have the gut's to stand up for what you believe?

I can honestly say if I felt like you supposedly do my butt would be in jail by now. Where is you conviction?

SHOW US YOUR PROOF........ NOW!

[dudalb]

Well said!

Also, a lot of the so called 'debunkers' here are also ex-military and have somewhat of a bias on their blind loyalty to their leaders.

I remember this fact from the stroking of the ego's 'credentials thread' that was posted awhile back.

I am ex Military, and have a huge dislike for Dubya.
And I resent your insult to those who have served in the Military.
BTW you have not yet responded to my challenge to give a realistic scenario whereby your Beloved Leader Ron actually wins the White House.

[HereticHulk]

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's "Debunkers" page:

"....some debunkers are excessively and dishonestly skeptical, and thus not true skeptics but "pseudoskeptics". According to Truzzi, genuine skeptics are neutral or agnostic, often critical of new claims, but not vehemently opposed to them. They want better evidence. In contrast, pseudoskeptics are simply deniers with an agenda and often use unscientific arguments to debunk what they oppose. According to Truzzi, true skepticism would recognize the need for better evidence, but not actively oppose, ridicule, or discourage further investigation into any subject by serious and qualified researchers.[3][4]"

I think "debunker" applies better than "scientific skepticism".

So 95% of JREF debunkers are pseudoskeptics. Sounds about right with the definition you posted.

[peteweaver]

I honestly can't understand people who consider themselves "debunkers" of conspiracy theories. I honestly believe that if you're willing to write anything off as a conspiracy, then you are not a skeptic, but a dogmatist. A true skeptic would not even take a position because to do so would be absolutism. If you believe that the official story is the absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.

Its very simple really, a popular theory that is based on flawed logic, and lies, deserves criticism. Debunkers are people who give up their time to argue against what is wrong thinking.

The conspiracy theory people aka "Truthers" claim to know exactly what happened and claim "Inside Job". If you actually poke around, look at the mechanics of what occurred, their "controlled demolitions" claims are very obviously false.

They seem to think that, it would be possible to go into a working office building, full of thousands of people, unnoticed, and rig not one of these working office complexes, not two, but three, for controlled demolitions, without anyone noticing, and then to add extra complexity, crash blimmin big jets into two of those buildings, and add fire to the mix.

Its ridiculous.

[blndrhed]

"How do you get out of bed in the morning, my friend? The world must be a horribly confusing place for you to navigate."

--Oh, hells yes!

[HereticHulk]

Why have I not seen your face on the evening news? You talk the big game but when it hits the fan where would you be. I suspect like most truthers you would be hiding trying to covering your own butt. You tell us that you know that this was an inside job. Why don't you have the gut's to stand up for what you believe?

I can honestly say if I felt like you supposedly do my butt would be in jail by now. Where is you conviction?

SHOW US YOUR PROOF........ NOW!

OP of this thread is lost on you huh?

[dudalb]

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.

Thanks for insulting Lefty Sergeant,Me, and a lot of other people on the board.
I am getting so freaking tired of a bunch of morons who have never been in the Military acting like they actually know something about it.
Nice Psycho Babble,also.

[Pardalis]

Hey twoofer guys, just get one thing right and we'll talk.

[Par]

The point is, who is supplying the 'evidence'?


Seemingly, not yourself.

[gumboot]

How so?

You're refusing to examine any evidence, instead blindly maintaining your neutrality and declaring all evidence worthless. That's dogmatism if I ever saw it.

[DGM]

OP of this thread is lost on you huh?
So your government killing and covering up the deaths afterward is no big deal? It's just stay on the OP and keep it on the internet.

I'll put you down as a hide your butt no strenght in your convictions kind of guy. Hope you can live that way.

[blndrhed]

Its very simple really, a popular theory that is based on flawed logic, and lies, deserves criticism. Debunkers are people who give up their time to argue against what is wrong thinking.

The conspiracy theory people aka "Truthers" claim to know exactly what happened and claim "Inside Job". If you actually poke around, look at the mechanics of what occurred, their "controlled demolitions" claims are very obviously false.

They seem to think that, it would be possible to go into a working office building, full of thousands of people, unnoticed, and rig not one of these working office complexes, not two, but three, for controlled demolitions, without anyone noticing, and then to add extra complexity, crash blimmin big jets into two of those buildings, and add fire to the mix.

Its ridiculous.
I would agree that seems hard to believe. I am somewhat familiar in the construction of skyscrapers though, and they do consist of a hollow core that is used for support that is countersunk far into the ground. This is the location of the elevators and would not only be accessible through underground infrastructure of Manhattan, but a crew could conceivably plant explosives throughout this support "core" that might cause collapse. I'm not saying it happened that way, but I have wondered about it myself.

[David Wong]

I would agree that seems hard to believe. I am somewhat familiar in the construction of skyscrapers though, and they do consist of a hollow core that is used for support that is countersunk far into the ground. This is the location of the elevators and would not only be accessible through underground infrastructure of Manhattan, but a crew could conceivably plant explosives throughout this support "core" that might cause collapse. I'm not saying it happened that way, but I have wondered about it myself.

Yeah, it stinks that no one has ever examined that possibility in the last 75 months.

[Par]

...This is the location of the elevators and would not only be accessible through underground infrastructure of Manhattan, but a crew could conceivably plant explosives throughout this support "core" that might cause collapse. I'm not saying it happened that way, but I have wondered about it myself.


Did the fact that the collapses initiated from the crash-sites down not disabuse you of such a notion?

[David Wong]

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.

I am most certainly not ex-military. CIA field operatives are not considered military.

Plus, much of the time I was actually paid through a front corporation, so technically I didn't work for the government at all.

[Gravy]

I do hope that blndrhed takes a step back and considers why a legendary assortment of irrational people – at least one of whom has confessed to suffering from mental illness – has joined in to agree with his premise.

[blndrhed]

I do hope that blndrhed takes a step back and considers why a legendary assortment of irrational people – at least one of whom has confessed to suffering from mental illness – has joined in to agree with his premise.
I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.

[dudalb]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

I admit,that explains a lot of Truther Logic.

[Pardalis]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.

Either 9/11 happened the way we know or it was an inside job, it can and should be explainable rationally.

It's not like something supernatural happened, right? Right?

[DGM]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.
It would certainly make living with what you "know to be true" easier.

[T.A.M.]

my dogma...do not believe anything anyone tells me no matter what!!!

TAM;)

[A W Smith]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.
stundied

[bofors]

Thanks for insulting Lefty Sergeant,Me, and a lot of other people on the board.
I am getting so freaking tired of a bunch of morons who have never been in the Military acting like they actually know something about it.
Nice Psycho Babble,also.

What really cracks me up about brain-washed military types is that the fact that they actually believe they are defending "our" freedom by going to Iraq.

[Gravy]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.I'm sure the mentally ill will be pleased to hear that. You seem to have taken such a liking to Christopheraville that you've purchased property there. What sort of edifice you be building on it?

blndrhed, you don't see that we distinguish between sometimes-useful unconventional thought, and irrationality. An unconventional idea isn't automatically superior to a conventional one, but may make sense on examination. But when discussing these subjects, irrationality is never good. We fight like hell against it and will continue to do so. Likewise with plain-old incompetence.

[David Wong]

What really cracks me up about brain-washed military types is that the fact that they actually believe they are defending "our" freedom by going to Iraq.

Hey I think you accidentally replied to the wrong thread. This one is about debunking and dogmatism.

You must have had two windows open, with the other displaying some Iraq thread in the politics section.

[Slayhamlet]

What really cracks me up about brain-dead conspiracist types is that they actually believe they are defending our freedom by posting nonsense on the Internet.

[blndrhed]

I'm sure the mentally ill will be pleased to hear that. You seem to have taken such a liking to Christopheraville that you've purchased property there. What sort of edifice you be building on it?

blndrhed, you don't see that we distinguish between sometimes-useful unconventional thought, and irrationality. An unconventional idea isn't automatically superior to a conventional one, but may make sense on examination. But when discussing these subjects, irrationality is never good. We fight like hell against it and will continue to do so. Likewise with plain-old incompetence.
"The Genius Disorder: Recent Theories That Mental Illness Causes Genius Explored"

link:
http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2001/11/06/Business/The-Genius.Disorder.Recent.Theories.That.Mental.Illnes s.Causes.Genius.Explored-140299.shtml


btw, I have schizophrenia

[Pardalis]

"The Genius Disorder: Recent Theories That Mental Illness Causes Genius Explored"

Yeah but these are scientific theories regarding phenomena, not actual events that happened, man-made events that have definite ways it could have been executed.

It's not about coming up with a theory just for the sake of having a theory, you got to explain what was done, by people.

You're doing it backwards. You got to use somekind of Ockham's razor here, you don't need extravagant explanations unless you have no longer simple and rational explanations available.

You assume the perpetrators have used somekind of never-before used techniques and technology. That's a heck of a claim that you have to back up with somekind of evidence.

ETA: in other words, nature is complex and we have only slightly begun to understand it, but people on the other hand we know very well, and we know our limitations and capabilities, what we can and cannot do. 9/11 was done by humans. Now of course the phenomenon of the towers collapsing is quite surprising, if it can not be explained naturally, therefore something unnatural happened (humans were behind it). If that is so, something explanable within our own human capacities and knowledge was used. So there is no need for unconventional thinking here, unless you think the perpetrators have means that are unknown to us.

[twinstead]

Well, it appears blndrhed's karma just ran over our dogma.

Seriously though, blndrhed. You simply are on the wrong forum if you wish to claim that only crazy people have the genius to see the 'real' story behind 911, and we skeptics are simply wallowing in blind dogma.

We actually would want you to provide some kind of compelling empirical evidence that what you call the official story is NOT the most rational narrative of what happened that day; this isn't some kind of high school club.

And for your information, sometimes mentally ill people are simply crazy.

[Gravy]

"The Genius Disorder: Recent Theories That Mental Illness Causes Genius Explored"
link:
http://media.www.dailyfreepress (http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2001/11/06/Business/The-Genius.Disorder.Recent.Theories.That.Mental.Illnes s.Causes.Genius.Explored-140299.shtml)Genius has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, although mental illness unfortunately often enters into it.

btw, I have schizophreniaI'm sorry to hear that.

[bofors]

Hey I think you accidentally replied to the wrong thread. This one is about debunking and dogmatism.

Are you sure? This "Gravy" keeps bringing up unrelated subjects.

[beachnut]

My claim is that debunkers are not skeptics. They are dogmatists. I personally believe that the official story has plenty of holes in it, and that the real truth will never be known. I can see that 9-11 has been used far to much by the Government to promote militarization, such as full spectrum dominance, and an agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, such as "The War on Terrorism".
Wrong

Politics forum

If you have something to debunk 9/11 truth please share it. The rest of your post is wrong and political junk.

Facts are the coin of the realm for discussing 9/11; 9/11 truth is bankrupt!

[twinstead]

I agree with beachnut, blndrhed--'full spectrum dominance' and 'agenda of interventionism in the Middle East' are subjects for the politics forum.

I'm sure you'll get a lively discussion there.

[ElMondoHummus]

I believe mental illness can be considered a gift, when it comes to unconventional thinking.


Believe it or not, I agree. Art demonstrates this; some of the worlds best artists have had some degree of mental instability. Look at Van Gogh.

However, when we're talking about physical phenomena, the products of unconventional thinking must still meet certain criteria. Namely, they must conform to reality.

Speculating about other objects that might have hit the Pentagon is truly thinking outside the box, I'll admit. But, holding onto theories about missiles and repainted jets is being painfully ignorant about reality when physical evidence plus witness testimony shows that a 757 really did impact the building. No matter how unconventional the thinking is there, if it does not conform to reality, if evidence shows that the alternative ideas are not correct, the result is nothing more than speculative fiction.

Likewise, the arrival at thermite/mate as the cause of the Twin Tower's fall is truly inspired. It allows the theory to account for the fact there were no loud detonations. But, again, in the face of physical reality, there's only one piece of evidence out there that may remotely support this - the iron spherules being discussed in the other thread - and much evidence rebutting it (the lack of signature melting characteristics on structural members, the lack of opportunity to emplace it, etc.), not to mention many far more likely explanations of the one piece of evidence that is out there (Chainsaw here discusses the ability to create such spheres at much lower temperatures, and Dr. Greening's lists various problems with how Jones represents his data). So regardless of the originality of the thinking, if it doesn't conform to reality, then again, it is nothing more than the product of imagination.

Look, evidence based analysis of reality can be boring at times. Trust me, I know; I well remember the organic chem labs in my undergrad life that, while probably basic to others like CC here and ridiculously elementary to professionals like Dr. Greening, was challenging to me (that's why I didn't grow up to be a chemist). Running a blot or standing in line to inject into the CG machine was definitely a trial for wakefullness. But what I took from that was an appreciation for evaluating physical phenomena according to reality and evidence, and that boundless speculation is okay, justified, and even something to be valued BUT when used in science must conform to reality and be a slave to empirical observation and rational judgement of evidence no matter what. Boundless speculation without an appreciation for reality can produce some incredibly spectacular art, but we're discussing the events of 9/11 here, not painting or fiction. In science, even Einstein, with his thought experiments and ability to transcend the physics conventions in force at his time relentlessly subjected his theories to the realities of the universe and the authority of experimentation. If his ideas were false, then the gathering of evidence would show that they're false in due time, and if they're true, then that same gathering of evidence would demonstrate that as well. That applies here. You'll no longer see anyone aquainted with the NIST report describing a pancaking collapse, because the evidence has caused investigators to refine their thinking towards progressive collapse. As knowledge progresses, so does the theory.

Now, can anyone show me any equivalent progression of conspiracy theories in response to new data? All I see are attempts to rejustify old theories; this latest paper from Jones demonstrates that. The implications of the theory are that the spheres formed due to high temperature events. The insinuation by too many conspiracy addicts is that the fires didn't burn hot enough, therefore thermite must have been used. But that ignores the fact that one series of high temperature events - weldings done during construction - are also viable sources of these spheres, and that other, still high but lower temperature events could have occured (re: Chainsaw's and other posters contributions to this topic). In spite of the lack of attribution as to the source of the spheres, and the lack of any mechanism by which they were formed, thermite or thermate, in the absence of any other supporting evidence is taken as gospel by conrpiracy theorists.

And the conspiracy debunkers are the dogmatic ones?

Even if progressive research demonstrates that the spherules could not have formed in the WTC - and I've yet to see anything other than the temperature argument from Jones - what does that demonstrate, other than the presence of some high temperatures? And how does the thermite hypothesis get strengthened by this, considering all the other evidence already arguing against it? No matter what the source of the spheres turn out to be, Jones's research does not address the opportunity for emplacement, for example. It can't. Again, at most, it demonstrates the presence of higher temperatures, or the presence of alternate chemical reactions not posited by either NIST or Jones. That's it. Are members of the 9/11 Truth Movement ready to accept that? Because it actually doesn't take unconventional thinking to realize what the limits of a discovery are; it only takes a rational analysis of what the discovery really reveals.

True unconventional thinking requires the ability to comprehend nature and the universe. It requires realizing that a damaged tower does not, in fact, act like a stack of Jenga pieces, but rather does fall where gravity pulls it. And gravity does not pull it in a manner that makes a building topple sideways!


"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."


No matter how "beautifully" all the conspiracy appears to fit together, no matter how much "sense" it appears to make that WTC 7 was demolished because of Enron documents, no matter how obvious the juxtaposition of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are to the events of 9/11, the "beautiful theory" that is at the core of the 9/11 "Truth" movement - that the government did it - must either be proven by evidence, or be falsified by it. And so far, all the ones presented, from the mistakes regarding the size of the hole in the Pentagon, to the misunderstandings of how controlled demolitions work, from the attempts to link files regarding investigations to the WTC complex to the attempts to link relatives to members of government, none of these prove any case against the government. What is left that is ambiguous - Chertoff's familial relationships, for example - are far from smoking guns, and at best affect only small portions of the truth. The lack of evidence for explosives, the current weakness of the "thermite" theories, the utter misrepresentations behind all other points presented, from the "Stand down" order to the aeronautic qualifications of one of the hijackers, all represent nothing more than unconventional thinking not bound by reality. And that, in the end, is simply fiction, no matter how entertaining or desireable the narrative may be.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Definition of skeptic: "An individual who holds that true knowledge, or knowledge in a particular area, is uncertain. Often incorrectly used as a synonym for "debunker." See also, "debunker."
hissofasp.com/glossary.htm"

It has been six months of dogmatism by "debunkers".

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

It is not forever withholding conclusions.

[blndrhed]

Well, it appears blndrhed's karma just ran over our dogma.

Seriously though, blndrhed. You simply are on the wrong forum if you wish to claim that only crazy people have the genius to see the 'real' story behind 911, and we skeptics are simply wallowing in blind dogma.

We actually would want you to provide some kind of compelling empirical evidence that what you call the official story is NOT the most rational narrative of what happened that day; this isn't some kind of high school club.

And for your information, sometimes mentally ill people are simply crazy.
I never made any statements about crazy people and 911. I simply was refuting someone who spoke of a certain "truther" as a person who was admittedly mentally ill, as if that would have any relevance at all.

[Alareth]

These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.


Wow.

Just ... Wow

I'm nearly speechless except to say:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[beachnut]

I never made any statements about crazy people and 911. I simply was refuting someone who spoke of a certain "truther" as a person who was admittedly mentally ill, as if that would have any relevance at all.
Is the reason you welcome insane people into 9/11 truth, because 9/11 truth's entire foundation is made up of insane ideas? Are you right, insane people are perfect for the insane ideas of 9/11 truth? Is it a match made perfect by nature, or brain injury? Do you think the insane chant, "9/11 is an inside job" is perfect and easy to remember for those who are mentally challenged? Do you have an explanation for perfectly sane people falling for the ideas that make you "look like idiots" as you chant, "9/11 was an inside job"? Is the real problem you are in a cult with the strict Dogma, and this is why you posted a false OP?

[eeyore1954]

If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.

First of all do most debunkers claim to know exaclty what happened. That is a pretty big word.

So if I believe it is conceivable(not likely , not probable, not even remotely probable)that rogue forces from the Royal Canadian Mounties infiltrated Al Queda used brain washing and mind control tricks to influence the 19 hijackers to do what they most certainly did. I am irrational to believe that it was not caused by the mounties.

[blndrhed]

Is the reason you welcome insane people into 9/11 truth, because 9/11 truth's entire foundation is made up of insane ideas? Are you right, insane people are perfect for the insane ideas of 9/11 truth? Is it a match made perfect by nature, or brain injury? Do you think the insane chant, "9/11 is an inside job" is perfect and easy to remember for those who are mentally challenged? Do you have an explanation for perfectly sane people falling for the ideas that make you "look like idiots" as you chant, "9/11 was an inside job"? Is the real problem you are in a cult with the strict Dogma, and this is why you posted a false OP?
As I said before, I don't support the "911 truth" movement. To do so would be to say I know the truth of 911. I originally posted that those who claim to know what happened, are being irrational. I don't support "truthers", or "debunkers", because to do so would be absolutism.

[Mince]

To do so would be to say I know the truth of 911. I originally posted that those who claim to know what happened, are being irrational.


And that's my position. Don't label me as anything. I'm just a guy who is unmoved by the movements pseudo and junk science---if even they understand science. That makes me neither a skeptic, a debunker or a dogmatist.

[Myriad]

This is very simple.

Debunking is the result of evaluating the quality of evidence, when the quality of evidence happens to be poor.

Skepticism is basing conclusions on the quality of the evidence.

Two completely different things, but obviously they work together.

For instance: Uri Geller claims to have psychic powers. He offers as evidence, demonstrations that he can bend spoons.

Investigators videotape Uri Geller's demonstrations and find that he has, in some of these demonstrations, used sleight of hand to bend spoons.

This does not prove that Uri Geller has no psychic powers. Maybe he has psychic powers, but enjoys fooling people by using sleight of hand. Maybe he has psychic powers that can cause cheese go moldy in 10% less time, but people don't find that convincing, so he fakes psychic spoon-bending instead. Maybe he only uses sleight of hand when skeptics are watching, because he regards skeptics as undeserving of the privilege of witnessing his true powers in action.

What it does prove is that his demonstrations of spoon-bending are not good evidence that he has psychic powers.

From there, skepticism takes over. A skeptic will conclude that without good evidence, there's no reason to believe that Uri Geller has psychic powers. Whereas a non-skeptic might conclude something else, like: "I feel in my heart that everyone has psychic powers, so I believe Uri Geller has psychic powers, even though he uses sleight of hand to bend spoons."

In looking at 9/11 conspiracies, a debunker is what a person evaluating the evidence becomes, when he or she points out that the way the towers fell is not evidence of any kind of internal sabotage, because what experts know of physics, fire science, structural engineering, materials science, and mathematics is all completely consistent with the buildings collapsing the way they did under the known conditions of collision damage and fire. At that point one can either think as a skeptic and conclude that there is no need to posit internal sabotage when assembling a complete narrative of events that day, or one can think as a conspiracy theorist and conclude that either the debunkers or the experts they cite, or both, must be deluded or lying even though the mistakes in their reasoning cannot be found, or one can think like Max Photon and conclude that an undetectable sabotage that made no difference in the course of events was performed for reasons we are inherently incapable of comprehending.

Max is a debunker but not a skeptic (a rare type, generally speaking, though in certain matters of personal religious faith I fit that same description). This makes him (or me, on the Religion forum, but I haven't posted there much recently) a good example to look at to understand the distinction between the two.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JAStewart]

As I said before, I don't support the "911 truth" movement. To do so would be to say I know the truth of 911. I originally posted that those who claim to know what happened, are being irrational. I don't support "truthers", or "debunkers", because to do so would be absolutism.

I don't know if you are male or female, because to guess would be absolutism. However, I could deduct, from say, a photo, what your gender is. Therefore, I will have made a statement based on evidence. And this is what we do. We weight up the evidence and decide.

[blndrhed]

I don't know if you are male or female, because to guess would be absolutism. However, I could deduct, from say, a photo, what your gender is. Therefore, I will have made a statement based on evidence. And this is what we do. We weight up the evidence and decide.
But say if a third party gave you a photo, and claimed it was of me, you still couldn't know that this person isn't trying to mislead you. Even if a person claiming to be me would introduce themselves as me with ulterior motives, you couldn't have absolute knowledge of my gender. I might even be transgendered.

I'm only here to make a point, and people have already treated me with hostility, and tried to make attacks on my credibility. I am not making spurious claims, only ideas to be considered.

[twinstead]

I'm only here to make a point, and people have already treated me with hostility, and tried to make attacks on my credibility. I am not making spurious claims, only ideas to be considered.

This is a very emotional issue for some of us, and sometimes this gets in the way of good manners. It helps to have a thick skin.

[Wildy]

I'm only here to make a point, and people have already treated me with hostility, and tried to make attacks on my credibility. I am not making spurious claims, only ideas to be considered.

You are trying to make a point? I haven't noticed that in this thread unless your point is that us debunkers are a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalists.

Some of your ideas have already been considered, and others have been shown to have been wrong to begin with. Really you have jumped in the deep end here, most of us are "battle-hardened" if you'll pardon the expression. Facing the same, or very similar, arguments gets to a person and you slowly get harder and harder on people who use them.

That being said if anyone is truly dogmatic it has to be the 9/11 "truthers". Many of these people have their own personal theory or subscribe to one of the other theories and they grasp on to it fanatically. They create their own dogmata and argue using it.

Just like Fundies...

[Walter Ego]

No matter how "beautifully" all the conspiracy appears to fit together, no matter how much "sense" it appears to make that WTC 7 was demolished because of Enron documents, no matter how obvious the juxtaposition of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are to the events of 9/11, the "beautiful theory" that is at the core of the 9/11 "Truth" movement - that the government did it - must either be proven by evidence, or be falsified by it. And so far, all the ones presented, from the mistakes regarding the size of the hole in the Pentagon, to the misunderstandings of how controlled demolitions work, from the attempts to link files regarding investigations to the WTC complex to the attempts to link relatives to members of government, none of these prove any case against the government. What is left that is ambiguous - Chertoff's familial relationships, for example - are far from smoking guns, and at best affect only small portions of the truth. The lack of evidence for explosives, the current weakness of the "thermite" theories, the utter misrepresentations behind all other points presented, from the "Stand down" order to the aeronautic qualifications of one of the hijackers, all represent nothing more than unconventional thinking not bound by reality. And that, in the end, is simply fiction, no matter how entertaining or desireable the narrative may be.


Great post (which I have nominated in its entirety for the Language Award) and a good reason we don’t need to get bogged down in minutiae about thermite/mate or iron spherules and the thousand and one other factoids the CT types bring up (unless those kinds of thing ring your chimes of course). Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone made the same point.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/print


So, truthers, put up or shut up. What is your theory of the crime in a single logical narrative based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person? (As the late Mr. Kaufmann might put it.)

[blndrhed]

"You are trying to make a point? I haven't noticed that in this thread unless your point is that us debunkers are a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalists."

Congradulations! That is exactly my point!

Not only that but I do consider "Truthers" to be dogmatists, too.

You could propose an alternative theory, but to make claims as to what happened would oppose what is considered "scientific method".

[twinstead]

"You are trying to make a point? I haven't noticed that in this thread unless your point is that us debunkers are a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalists."

Congradulations! That is exactly my point!

Not only that but I do consider "Truthers" to be dogmatists, too.

Now you've got me confused. Are you saying that the ONLY legitimate position on 911 is to throw up your hands and say "I have no idea what really happened", and anybody who has looked at ALL the available evidence in an unbiased way and decides to believe that one theory is more likely than another is a dogmatist?.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"You are trying to make a point? I haven't noticed that in this thread unless your point is that us debunkers are a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalists."

Congradulations! That is exactly my point!

Not only that but I do consider "Truthers" to be dogmatists, too.

You could propose an alternative theory, but to make claims as to what happened would oppose what is considered "scientific method".
What is your definition of the "scientific method"?

[Brainache]

What is your definition of the "scientific method"?

I predict some form of solipsism will be offered in response to this question.

[twinstead]

I predict some form of solipsism will be offered in response to this question.

I get the same impression, but I am curious how he defines the scientific method nonetheless; it would help me figure out what the hell he's talking about.

[Brainache]

I get the same impression, but I am curious how he defines the scientific method nonetheless; it would help me figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Me too. It seems to be a strange kind of science which weighs all the evidence and draws no conclusions.

[blndrhed]

Now you've got me confused. Are you saying that the ONLY legitimate position on 911 is to throw up your hands and say "I have no idea what really happened", and anybody who has looked at ALL the available evidence in an unbiased way and decides to believe that one theory is more likely than another is a dogmatist?.
Pretty much, yes. I can only point out that you would have to accept that all your evidence could be considered questionable, because all of the apparent sources of data could be considered to be supporting an agenda.
Complicity is another factor. The "truthers" could have some kind of complicity (unlikely), or those proposing an official story could have complicity, hence a "cover up" would exist. These things have been known to happen quite frequently.

Things like 911 have happened all throughout history. My advice is that you can't get too obsessed about what happened and argue the rest of your life about it. I think people are probably best off to put it behind them, and always realize that you can't go through your life blaming every Muslim on the planet, or every Government Official, because that's not such a great way to live.

[twinstead]

Me too. It seems to be a strange kind of science which weighs all the evidence and draws no conclusions.

And I assume it does so because nothing can ever be shown to be 100% true or even shown to really exist, so no evidence is to be trusted on either side.

Interesting

[twinstead]

Things like 911 have happened all throughout history. My advice is that you can't get too obsessed about what happened and argue the rest of your life about it. I think people are probably best off to put it behind them, and always realize that you can't go through your life blaming every Muslim on the planet, or every Government Official, because that's not such a great way to live.

Frankly, and with all due respect, I think never taking a stand and never deciding to believe something even if the evidence points to it because 'nothing can be trusted' is not such a great way to live.

This forum isn't about arguing, it's about learning.

[blndrhed]

And I assume it does so because nothing can ever be shown to be 100% true or even shown to really exist, so no evidence is to be trusted on either side.

Interesting
I'm only stating that nothing is factual in science, only theoretic.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm only stating that nothing is factual in science, only theoretic.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

[FactCheck]

I honestly can't understand people who consider themselves "debunkers" of conspiracy theories. I honestly believe that if you're willing to write anything off as a conspiracy, then you are not a skeptic, but a dogmatist. A true skeptic would not even take a position because to do so would be absolutism. If you believe that the official story is the absolute truth, then you are a dogmatist. If you believe that there could conceivably be alternative aspects to the issue, then you are being skeptical. If you believe you know exactly what happened, you are being irrational.

You're suggesting that the points which I debunk aren't bunk.

A true skeptic doesn't stay skeptic after being shown evidence which points to one side. You're suggesting that a true skeptic can't conclude the earth is a sphere because if he does he doesn't have an open mind. That's pure idiocy.

They hate when they are "Debunked" because it makes it sound like what they are saying is BUNK. Since it IS bunk and I have proven it, I am PROUD to call bunk, bunk when I find it.

Show me something that isn't conspiracy "BUNK" that I have "DEBUNKED" on my site...

debunking911.com

[beachnut]

I'm only stating that nothing is factual in science, only theoretic.
Oh; please expound on this theory you have on science. Explain why water freezing is a theory. Explain why the chemical reaction know as fire is just a theory.

This is why you have a problem understanding 9/11. You are clueless on science and reality.

[Walter Ego]

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html



From the same page:

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.


In other words, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim or proposing the theory not the other way around, a point often missed by the CT crowd. Any claims thus made are then subject to debunking based on the evidence given in support of the theory. If when examined the bulk of the evidence does not stand up, a reasonable person can then dismiss the proposed theory in spite of any ‘unanswered questions’ remaining.

[EventHorizon]

I think this thread might set a record for the number of irony meters it has caused to explode!

[twinstead]

I'm only stating that nothing is factual in science, only theoretic.

No, you are saying that why believe in anything because one can't prove anything beyond ones self 100%.

This is philosophy, not science.

[blndrhed]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.

[Brainache]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.

I don't have any kind of military background. I played paintball once, that's as close as I've ever gotten to being in the military. I don't blindly accept everything people in authority say (and I very much doubt that anyone else here does), but I don't blindly reject everything they say either.

There is a mountain of evidence for the "Official" version of events and zero evidence for any of the conspiracies.

[Drudgewire]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted.
Welcome to the world of everyone outside their circle ever quoted by the twoof movement. :p

[Hokulele]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.


So, would you ignore a tornado warning?

[Drudgewire]

So, would you ignore a tornado warning?

False flags created by neocon weather-forecasting corporations. Wake up, sheep.

[Hokulele]

False flags created by neocon weather-forecasting corporations. Wake up, sheep.


Right, right, silly me. I never really understood why those neocon weather-forecasting corporations hated Nebraska and Oklahoma so much. :confused:

[The Almond]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers.

So, because we have not accepted your point of view as truth, we're the ones who are wrong?

It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority.

Again, why do you assume that there is something wrong with us?

I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact.

Let's stop and look at your logic for a moment:
1) Most here at JREF disagree with me
2) Because they disagree with me, they must all have something in common
3) Military people all have something in common (they are all in the military)
4) Therefore, the people here on JREF are all in the military.

Is that logical?

You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me.

This is a fallacious appeal to intelligence. Nice try slipping that one by, though.

Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.
Appeal to patriotism.

Let me be honest with you Edx, I've looked over this entire thread and I've noticed a pattern in your thinking that's detrimental to your argument. You seem to believe that, if someone does not accept your argument, there is something wrong with them. Further, if a group of diverse people don't accept your argument, there's something wrong with all of them. Strangely, you seem to conclude that everyone has the same thing wrong with them. Thus, you have concluded (and quite without evidence, I might add) that everyone here is or was in the military. Outsiders like myself read such writing and conclude that there is something wrong with the writer.

My strong suggestion to you is that you learn how to argue. Your started off by attempting to define "Debunkers" using a definition that no one here accepts. Indeed, it's not a definition accepted by the majority of skeptics. If you want to prove your conclusion, you first need to argue from a definition agreed upon by the arguers.

[ElMondoHummus]

Funny how nationalism gets blamed... and folks like TAM and Gumboot aren't even American.

That, my friends, is what we call a "strawman".

[Redtail]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.

So all of us who served in the military will just believe whatever the government tells us?That's funny. A cop out but funny.

[FactCheck]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.
When the authority says the earth is a sphere, and I double check the evidence and I find it IS a sphere, I don't give a rats arus what you call me. If I DEBUNK flat earth BUNK I'm a PROUD DEBUNKER.

YOU will continue to be a marketing tool for David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones. They LIE and you say their lies are not lies but just questions. Without people like YOU they can't make money off LIES. You're just a tool.

These are the types of lies you're being told...

http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm

It's the same difference. You're being told half the truth then asked questions on that half. The other half they don't tell you has the answer.

Again, What conspiracy story on my site is not DEBUNKED...

You're just part of the conspiracy industry and don't know it. A walking, talking advertisement.

[beachnut]

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted. There is no getting through to debunkers. It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background. I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority. I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me. Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic. Can you bottle this nonsense?

I'm so pissed at having everything I say completely twisted.
You twisted the logic and fail to understand 9/11 debunking. One side has facts which many times go unsaid because the other side has crap; pure BS from 9/11 truth. This is why you are fooled, you do not understand facts are on one side, even when the discussion lack facts, it is due to the doltish 9/11 truth side not having a single fact. Therefore you see arguments without facts, it is hard to use facts to attack delusions so far removed from reality they are identified on sight as pure stupid.
There is no getting through to debunkers.
How wrong can you get; bring facts, you will get through. Bring junk like you have on a side issue of bs and you get debunked yourself. Your work is self debunking.

It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority.
It seems that you all have an unshakable loyalty to what is proposed by what is perceive as authority. WRONG; I doubt the debunkers have loyalty to anyone or thing that is not earned by that "authority". The truth is the main point of most debunkers I feel is not to blindly follow authority let alone anyone! Trust is earned. You are mistaking facts used as being from some authority. The facts on 9/11 are based on events and evidence; not due to hearsay claptrap you imply! You are full of crap on this one; I respect authority if they or "it" earn it. The events of 9/11 are not based on authority hearsay. Wrong again.

I'm starting to realize that there is definitely people here who have a military background.
Oh great; slight the military. I spent 28 years serving the country, and have seen the most talented people. What a dolt statement. The best leaders in the military instill respect and want to be surrounded by people who can think for themselves and if the leader goes down, function effectively to win. Sorry you failed to study WWII, your lack of knowledge expands to more topics as you post! You lack of knowledge is massive on the military. Thanks for the slight! Why not expand on this?
I hate to sound disrespectful, but you guys need to realize that part of military indoctrination is to accept absolute authority.
WRONG; I must have been the only exception or else all those other guys better than I are robots? WRONG. You are looking like a dolt with this idea! You never read our oath! Read it and stop making stupid statements. Thanks for trashing the military again.
I don't think any military leaders could possibly deny this fact. You guys have done your service, so it's time to realize that the rest of society haven't gone through similar indoctrination. Oops, you have never studied military studies. My dad dropped into France on June 6th 1944. Just his stories and advice alone make your ideas pure stupid on the military. Thanks dad.
It seems logical thinking and good judgment are displayed here, except for you, and those are the same great attributes the military has and wants. Judgment, Knowledge, the list is long. You need to wake up, there are thousands and thousands of people in the military who transcend your lack of judgment and knowledge. Joining the military can enhance your ability to avoid being like you. Most people in the military are like the people who debunk 9/11 truth. They are smart and can think for themselves without being told how to think, or what to think! Failure is yours.
The military does not want people who can take orders it wants people who can learn how to give orders and win. You lost this one; you are compiling a perfect record of failure.
I have read enough Orwell to realize that I must be loyal to myself, over being loyal to anybody who claims to have authority over me.
I think fiction is you forte. Good job. Looks like you failed to see how complicated it gets being a military man and living up to our OATH! Look it up. I like how fiction guides your life. Perfect
Nationalism and exceptionalism have shown to be the most dangerous beliefs throughout history. Vigilance is the sign of a true patriot, because vigilance is the only hope for our Republic.
Did you mess this up? Do you know what you just said? Knowledge and Judgment are the things you need to work on. I want my country to be unique, we should work to be better. Think you are thinking about NAZIs or some other failed society paradigm.

[FactCheck]

BTW, the people coming out in government to expose a coverup are for the rush to war and incompetence. NOT ONE is an actor in your massive conspiracy. Something I point out on my site. So I guess I don't fit so neatly in your world view...

http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

And I hate Bush, now what rationalization do you have for me...

[blndrhed]

I don't have any kind of military background. I played paintball once, that's as close as I've ever gotten to being in the military. I don't blindly accept everything people in authority say (and I very much doubt that anyone else here does), but I don't blindly reject everything they say either.

There is a mountain of evidence for the "Official" version of events and zero evidence for any of the conspiracies.
There is no evidence that contradicts the official story? I call total ******** on that statement. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

See what you've done? Now I'm getting hostile!

Do not circumvent the autocensor.

[blndrhed]

So, would you ignore a tornado warning?
Wow, another completely idiotic statement! Keep'em coming guys.

[Drudgewire]

There is no evidence that contradicts the official story? I call total ***** on that statement. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.
Good thing he didn't say that then. He said there's mountains of evidence for what you dolts call "the official story" and none for any of the dumb theories.

But nice try... well, not really. :p

[blndrhed]

[edited]

And remember to attack the argument, not the arguer. It might be a good idea to go back and read the Membership agreement.

[Drudgewire]

[Edited.]
Someone needs a hug. :(

[blndrhed]

[edited]
[edited again]

See above mod boxes.

[Drudgewire]

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:



\/\/ 16 more for this :D

[blndrhed]

Someone needs a hug. :(
Edited to remove inappropriate content.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[blndrhed]

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:



\/\/ 16 more for this :D
See above. Any further use of profanity or extreme incivility will result in my recommending suspension immediately.

[FactCheck]

There is no evidence that contradicts the official story? I call total ******** on that statement. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

See what you've done? Now I'm getting hostile!

The only evidence people have brought which might be correct is evidence Bush rushed to war and didn't take terrorism seriously when people walked around with their "hair on fire". (Read: incompetent). There is NO EVIDENCE the NIST is lying or even wrong about how the towers collapsed. There is NO evidence a missile hit the pentagon. There is NO evidence the administration knew the time or day of the event. There is NO evidence Cheney told the millitary to standdown.

What you have are quotes taken out of context, and with that you charge us with being dogmatic... Heh! Isn't it YOU who are being dogmatic about the quote mining being evidence of a conspiracy to murder 3000 Americans???

[Drudgewire]

Mods I know it's wrong to keep baiting him but I've never actually been there to watch a twoofer's head asplode first-hand and it's too hard to walk away from.

Please forgive me.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/lolsmilie.gif

[LashL]

[edited]

You may want to rethink your hostility, and you may want to read the membership agreement or your stay here will likely be very short.

Guys, please do not quote obscenities--we just have to go through and edit them all.

[bynmdsue]

[edited]

Wow.
Just...wow.

[FactCheck]

hummm... He seems to be a possible Timothy McVeigh talking about shooting us. I suggest the mod give his IP to the feds before someone gets killed.

[Drudgewire]

hummm... He seems to be a possible Timmothy Mcveigh talking about shooting us. I suggest the mod give his IP to the feds before someone gets killed.
Wildcat and I will protect you guys. We're armed to the freakin' teeth. :)

[Par]

This fellow has already admitted to being severely mentally ill. Give it a rest, I would.

[FactCheck]

This fellow has already admitted to being severely mentally ill. Give it a rest, I would.

Even more reason to call the feds.

[blndrhed]

hummm... He seems to be a possible Timothy McVeigh talking about shooting us. I suggest the mod give his IP to the feds before someone gets killed.
Never ***** with a schizo! I'm just kidding guys. I gots ta blow me off some steam to deal with you people.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[Par]

Even more reason to call the feds.


Yeah, go for it.

[beachnut]

dogma, I like the movie; what to do as I standby for orders from the top...

[blndrhed]

Never ***** with a schizo! I'm just kidding guys. I gots ta blow me off some steam to deal with you people.
oh no! not the feds! those dudes are scarrry! are they going to torturise me? I like being sodomized with glo-sticks!

[Byzantine Magpie]

I'm only stating that nothing is factual in science, only theoretic.

So there are no facts, only opinions? That would be close to the way postmodernists think, wouldn't it?

Would you accept the reality of something like: "Water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level." Or would that be only theoretic?

[Par]

I’ve no idea why people are still talking to him.

[blndrhed]

You guys need to lighten up!

[twinstead]

Wow. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, okay?

[Hokulele]

Wow. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, okay?


Every now and then, crazy people do not rock. :(

[Drudgewire]

Every now and then, crazy people do not rock. :(

This is SO not one of those times. :D

[beachnut]

Why does he love the military so much? All the JREFers, who got credit for military service fighting false ideas, please update your background information as needed.

[Brainache]

After I made that last post, I logged off and watched Borat on DVD. I had no idea that it would make his head explode.

Sorry about that.

I see he has been suspended. Oh well. Maybe he'll come back refreshed.

[1337m4n]

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.

I'm 19, just out of high school, probably the youngest member of these forums, am registered Libertarian, and as recently as two years ago I fit the "rebellious teen" stereotype almost perfectly--despising all authority, going out of my way to break the rules, and supporting anarchy, before got smart and snapped out of it.

I'd like to hear your theory of what motivation I have for defending the "official story".

[twinstead]

Every now and then, crazy people do not rock. :(

Yeppers

[jhunter1163]

I'm 19, just out of high school, probably the youngest member of these forums, am registered Libertarian, and as recently as two years ago I fit the "rebellious teen" stereotype almost perfectly--despising all authority, going out of my way to break the rules, and supporting anarchy, before got smart and snapped out of it.

I'd like to hear your theory of what motivation I have for defending the "official story".

It's either you or David Wong. He's 18 or 19, I think.

[twinstead]

I'm 19, just out of high school, probably the youngest member of these forums, am registered Libertarian, and as recently as two years ago I fit the "rebellious teen" stereotype almost perfectly--despising all authority, going out of my way to break the rules, and supporting anarchy, before got smart and snapped out of it.

I'd like to hear your theory of what motivation I have for defending the "official story".

I didn't realize you're so young. You're a polite and rational young man. What are you, some kind of freak? ;)

Actually, you give me hope that all is not lost with the YouTube generation.

[Garb]

I'm 19, just out of high school, probably the youngest member of these forums, am registered Libertarian, and as recently as two years ago I fit the "rebellious teen" stereotype almost perfectly--despising all authority, going out of my way to break the rules, and supporting anarchy, before got smart and snapped out of it.

I'd like to hear your theory of what motivation I have for defending the "official story".

I beat you by a year.

Either way, what motivation do those of our age have to defend the official story?

[twinstead]

I beat you by a year.

Either way, what motivation do those of our age have to defend the official story?

I suspect you just want a nice corner office at NWO headquarters and the key to the executive washroom like I have. Nothing wrong with that, though; my NWO section chief is always looking for young go-getters to lead the new generation of paid debunker torch bearers into battle against The Truth.

[Garb]

I suspect you just want a nice corner office at NWO headquarters and the key to the executive washroom like I have. Nothing wrong with that, though; my NWO section chief is always looking for young go-getters to lead the new generation of paid debunker torch bearers into battle against The Truth.

Well now that you mention it...

[pomeroo]

I've been following the pattern of several debunkers' behavoir for some time now...

Here are several examples...

1. Debunkers (before) "not one structural engineer supports your fantasy"
several structural engineers have come forward expressing doubts, ie AE for 9/11 truth...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars..."

2. Debunkers (before) "not one whistle blowers have come forward..."
several whistleblowers from norad, faa*, fbi, cia have come forward...
Debunkers (after) "they are liars, scapegoating or politicizing..."

3. Debunkers (before) "9/11 investigation was thorough, complete and adequete."
9/11 commission "9/11 report was a first draft. We havent been told the full story."
Debunkers (after) "9/11 happened the way as it is."

Unfortunately for the debunkers, the time is with the truthers and not them.

*One of the more provocative statements in "Inside 9/11," an ambitious four-hour miniseries on the National Geographic Channel (Aug. 21, 22), comes from an FAA whistle-blower named Bogdan Dzakovic: "What happened on Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure in the system; it was a system that was deliberately designed to fail. And the 9/11 Commission failed in not documenting why that was allowed to happen."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p12s05-altv.htm


Yes, the system was designed to fail, but not in the way your evil movement pretends. Artificial barriers erected to hamper cooperation between intelligence-gathering agencies detracted from this nation's ability to protect itself from the jihadists.

[pomeroo]

I think the 9/11 report can be used here as a case study. The "debunkers" accept it as absolute truth without question. They seem to reject the idea that the government may have an agenda in their conclusions in the report.


Mein Herr, you are lying as usual. Tell us the name of one debunker who accepts the 9/11 Commission Report as "absolute truth."

There aren't any? Then why did you lie?

[twinstead]

I think MaGZ is confusing 'absolute truth' with 'the theory that while not perfect, fits the available evidence the best'.

[pomeroo]

Stundied!

I see. So, for example, you're not going to take a position on whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon because the enormous mountain of evidence that it did might be outweighed by some supernatural, as-yet unrevealed evidence that it didn't.

How about the Moon? Is it real?



An unimaginably stupid conspiracy liar on the Conspiracy Smasher blog who posts as "Patrick" believes that the Moon is man-made.
Reductio ad absurdum is not always possible when dealing with these loons.



Is the U.S. president named George W. Bush? How can you be sure?

What if the company you work for is actually a front for the sex slave trade?

Did Islamist Jihadists declare holy war on "Jews and crusaders" in 1996 and 1998, and proceed to prosecute that war? Let's not go out on a limb about that one...might all be a false flag op.

How do you get out of bed in the morning, my friend? The world must be a horribly confusing place for you to navigate.


I encounter this sort of "reasoning" all the time. It has become fashionable to pretend that everything--literally everything--can be denied. And the morons who promote this idiocy think they're sophisticated!

[pomeroo]

Listen, I know this is a total derail, but something has been really bothering me and I was hoping that some of you people could help me. As I've mentioned several times, the NWO promised to pay me millions of dollars to post insults on tiny blogs. To date, I haven't seen dollar one and there's this wrestler in Mexico...

Yes, I did get some fresh air today. What do you mean? How is it supposed to help? Nothing can help me...

[twinstead]

Listen, I know this is a total derail, but something has been really bothering me and I was hoping that some of you people could help me. As I've mentioned several times, the NWO promised to pay me millions of dollars to post insults on tiny blogs. To date, I haven't seen dollar one and there's this wrestler in Mexico...

Yes, I did get some fresh air today. What do you mean? How is it supposed to help? Nothing can help me...

Due to a budget issue, all payments to post insults on blogs have been delayed by 6 months. We are sincerely sorry for the inconvenience, and sincerely appreciate your patronage. Please stand by

[pomeroo]

Due to a budget issue, all payments to post insults on blogs have been delayed by 6 months. We are sincerely sorry for the inconvenience, and sincerely appreciate your patronage. Please stand by


Six months??? Now it's six months??? Listen to me--listen--that fat masked son-of-a... HE'S receiving checks! MY CHECKS!!!

You people think this is a big joke. Well, we'll see what kind of goddam joke this is!

[twinstead]

Six months??? Now it's six months??? Listen to me--listen--that fat masked son-of-a... HE'S receiving checks! MY CHECKS!!!

You people think this a big joke. Well, we'll see what kind of goddam joke this is!

You have been reported to the NWO section chief.

Are you happy now?

[Brainache]

Yes Ron you realise that here at NWO HQ the squeaky wheel gets the oil... and the funnel... and the bellows. So, just sit tight and a large Mexican operative will be with you shortly....

[pomeroo]

You have been reported to the NWO section chief.

Are you happy now?



Just wait. You people are going to be sorry. You don't know who you're fooling with.

[David Wong]

Before he got suspended did he mention any specific claims that he feels were not sufficiently addressed here before being dismissed?

If so I'd like a separate thread on it.

[pomeroo]

Yes Ron you realise that here at NWO HQ the squeaky wheel gets the oil... and the funnel... and the bellows. So, just sit tight and a large Mexican operative will be with you shortly....


I received another postcard from el luchador. He always writes the same thing: "Hey, a...ole, how you like wether up there? Car run real good."
A comical guy, huh?

[beachnut]

Listen, I know this is a total derail, but something has been really bothering me and I was hoping that some of you people could help me. As I've mentioned several times, the NWO promised to pay me millions of dollars to post insults on tiny blogs. To date, I haven't seen dollar one and there's this wrestler in Mexico...

Yes, I did get some fresh air today. What do you mean? How is it supposed to help? Nothing can help me...
I invested all the funds in ENRON. Ron, I have some bad news.

[Hokulele]

I received another postcard from el luchador. He always writes the same thing: "Hey, a...ole, how you like wether up there? Car run real good."
A comical guy, huh?


And your clarification of last year's expense report is where exactly? 50 boxes of clown noses? Cooking sherry? Shin guards?

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm 19, just out of high school, probably the youngest member of these forums...

It's either you or David Wong. He's 18 or 19, I think.


Good Lord... you frippin' youngsters! I'm in my late 30's, and I think TAM mentioned he was around that age too.

And check out Lefty's picture. That old coot!

Hey, look at what Wikipedia says about how old "Mark Roberts" is... ;)


Mark Roberts (born December 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_12), 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964) in Liverpool, England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool%2C_England)) is a famous British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) streaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaking) who has run naked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked) during several international events.



Oh, that's not Gravy?... What? I'm guilty of libel? Me??... :eek::D

[ElMondoHummus]

I received another postcard from el luchador. He always writes the same thing: "Hey, a...ole, how you like wether up there? Car run real good."
A comical guy, huh?

Yeah, I know who you're talking about. Hired him to break one of those truth teller's kneecaps, 'cept the fat :rule10'er couldn't catch the guy. Because of that, the "squibs" thing got out; now the NWO's gotta bend over backwards to explain all those air ejections in the videos. Anyway, "El Luchador" my :rule10. Not with his belly. Man's never seen a taco he doesn't like; I've taken to calling him "El Chalupador" in honor. You ever seen his kid (http://www.mnsza.hu/images/fat_baby-thumb.jpg)? Chip off the old block, lemme tell ya. Sonuva:rule10 has expanded so fast, he's taken to his gig to the Japanese circuit (http://www.travellerspoint.com/photos/1858/sumo_wrestling_tokyo.jpg).

So what's your problem with him anyway? It's not like he could catch you in a running fight, emphasis on running. Two steps, and the man's screamin' for oxygen, a large Diet Coke, and a Nachos Bel Grande.

[Brainache]

Good Lord... you frippin' youngsters! I'm in my late 30's, and I think TAM mentioned he was around that age too.

And check out Lefty's picture. That old coot!

Hey, look at what Wikipedia says about how old "Mark Roberts" is... ;)




Oh, that's not Gravy?... What? I'm guilty of libel? Me??... :eek::D

That's nothing. I was born the same year as that Mark Roberts and I'm having my eleventh birthday this month. So I'm both older and younger than you lot!

[MarkyX]

The point is, who is supplying the 'evidence'?

ad-hom argument.

[JimBenArm]

Go Ron Paul!
Isn't that a typo? Don't you mean RuPaul?

[JimBenArm]

I also have noticed a military background problem here too. These people are clearly unaware that they have been psychological conditioned and are weak egos being driven by cognitive dissonance.
Oh, but I've been getting treatment for it! The doctor has been giving me shots and everything, but I still am a veteran despite everything he does!

And the fact I've been critical of every administration I ever served under, and actively despise politicians and their self-serving agendas only further proves this cognitive dissonance, obviously.

What a crock! More evidence that you don't know anyone who is or ever has been in the military.

[1337m4n]

I didn't realize you're so young. You're a polite and rational young man. What are you, some kind of freak? ;)


You just haven't met me in person yet. :D:D:D



You know, it's funny; I act like a grouchy 70-year-old sometimes. I look at my generation and I'm like "Tsk, tsk...kids today...back in MY day we didn't have this "Youtube" thing, we blah blah blah..." The weirdest thing is, I can't for the life of me understand these teens who think that "rebelling" has some sort of inherent virtue (that is, it's virtuous even when there's no real cause). Because just two years ago I did that myself. I remember yelling at my scoutmaster during a BSA camping trip because he had some obscure rule about rolling the tent flaps up, and instead of simple asking the reason for the rule I decided to pick a fight. Two years go by, and not only am I a different person, but I've completely forgotten why the last person who went by my name believed the things he did. Had I been introduced to 9/11 CTs as a high-school freshman, I'd probably be in with the Woo crowd today.

I suppose what eventually got to me, is that I would look at my fellow teens, and hate the way that they always wanted immediate gratification and weren't willing to wait for anything, how they made so many rash decisions without taking so much as a minute to think about it, how they REFUSED to be convinced they were wrong about anything, and how they picked fights when they KNEW no good would come of it for anybody. And then I realized: I possessed all those traits myself. I was just as bad, if not worse, than the worst stereotypical teenager you could imagine. When I though long and hard about Life, the Universe, and Everything, I came to the conclusion that had I actually listened to the things my parents told me rather than trying to rebel against them at every opportunity, I'd probably be a lot better off.

Shucks, maybe that's why I have more sympathy for Truthers than most posters here. They're not all stupid...just stubborn and naive--simultaneously and to the extreme. Intelligence isn't even a factor; tell these kids that the sky is green and they'll believe it just so they can "stand out" and attract attention.

A freak? Nah...just a really young grouchy-70-year-old (Who isn't allowed to drink alcohol or carry firearms).

[1337m4n]

I beat you by a year.


Not for long you don't! I've been bribing the NWO head assassin for 6 months now, waiting for just such an occasion!

Muhahahahaha. :)

[CurtC]

Pretty much, yes. I can only point out that you would have to accept that all your evidence could be considered questionable, because all of the apparent sources of data could be considered to be supporting an agenda.

blndrhed, in case you come back, here's a question about your philosophy of science. All the available evidence I'm aware of suggests the Moon is a naturally-occurring body, created billions of years ago. There are people who think that it was man-made.

Of course, all the evidence we have could be considered questionable, according to you, since it supports the natural-moon agenda. So, according to your philosophy of science, is it irrational to accept, even tentatively, that the moon is a natural body, or must we withhold any judgment at all?

[pomeroo]

And your clarification of last year's expense report is where exactly? 50 boxes of clown noses? Cooking sherry? Shin guards?


Hey! Hey! That sherry was for medicinal purposes!

[pomeroo]

Yeah, I know who you're talking about. Hired him to break one of those truth teller's kneecaps, 'cept the fat :rule10'er couldn't catch the guy. Because of that, the "squibs" thing got out; now the NWO's gotta bend over backwards to explain all those air ejections in the videos. Anyway, "El Luchador" my :rule10. Not with his belly. Man's never seen a taco he doesn't like; I've taken to calling him "El Chalupador" in honor. You ever seen his kid (http://www.mnsza.hu/images/fat_baby-thumb.jpg)? Chip off the old block, lemme tell ya. Sonuva:rule10 has expanded so fast, he's taken to his gig to the Japanese circuit (http://www.travellerspoint.com/photos/1858/sumo_wrestling_tokyo.jpg).

So what's your problem with him anyway? It's not like he could catch you in a running fight, emphasis on running. Two steps, and the man's screamin' for oxygen, a large Diet Coke, and a Nachos Bel Grande.


My problem with him? Oh, nothing much. It's just that he cashes MY CHECKS and he drives my [rule 10]ing ITALIAN SPORTS CAR!!

[JimBenArm]

My problem with him? Oh, nothing much. It's just that he cashes MY CHECKS and he drives my [rule 10]ing ITALIAN SPORTS CAR!!But it's only a Fiat X 1/9. Not like it's a Ferrari or something...

[ElMondoHummus]

My problem with him? Oh, nothing much. It's just that he cashes MY CHECKS and he drives my [rule 10]ing ITALIAN SPORTS CAR!!


Oh, bull, he couldn't even fit in your Italian Sports Car. Haven't you seen him trying to hug sumo wrestlers (http://www.willisms.com/archives/sumo.gif) back when he was svelte and slender? You should see him now! His doctor weighed him at the vets office; scale said "Sorry, I don't do livestock". He irons his pants in the driveway. He hitchhikes on dump trucks. He makes Free Willy look like a Tic Tac. He went to the Super Bowl and sat next to everyone.

Oh, don't worry about your checks. The NWO was kiting them anyway.