"You guys obviously haven't done your research"

[CHF]

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

[fullflavormenthol]

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?
It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".

Incidently this is the same circular argument you will get from Christians regarding the Bible.

[WildCat]

"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.

[twinstead]

WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!

[WildCat]

WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006112580409.gif

[mrbaracuda]

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006112580409.gif

Now that you mention it.. they don't most of the time! Shocking discovery! ;)

[mrbaracuda]

"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.

You forgot videos.google. You know, for the hardcore researchers who can endure more than 15 minutes tops. :p

[milesalpha]

Just wanted to point out that Youtube has been declared "The Root of All Evil" by Lewis Black, joining beer and Trump.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=7618

Should I be worried that I agree with all of his assessments?

[WildCat]

Hey, my Steve Earle video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As0XCEjFxpQ) on youtube has 12,600 views! And the top linking site is Steve Earle's myspace page! ;)

[MikeW]

Most truthers seem to believe the "inside job" case is so blindingly obvious, that anyone who gets to see the details will immediately be converted. When they encounter someone who isn't a true believer, then, they see only two alternatives.

a) "you haven't done the research"
b) you have seen the "research" and know it's an "inside job" but are intentionally covering it up

The third possibility, that you've done the reseach and found flaws in their phony "evidence", is so damaging to their world view that they won't even dare consider it. They just "know" 9/11 "was an inside job", so people saying otherwise must simply be wrong. No doubt must be allowed to slip in, otherwise the whole facade will begin to crumble.

[Dave Rogers]

It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, don't we all feel the same way about them?

Dave

[DC]

when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides :)

[padragan]

when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides :)

After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.

[DC]

After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers :)

[padragan]

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers :)

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

[DC]

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side :)

[deep]

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?


Questions like that are highly contextual - perhaps you could provide a few examples? Or have you not done your research?

[deep]

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.


Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?

[Dave Rogers]

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers :)

Is there an echo in here?

And back to reality: the big difference is that we, as debunkers, tend to look at the totality of the evidence and reconcile our understanding to a best fit to it, whereas conspiracy theorists invariably take a position where a significant proportion of the evidence is claimed, either without proof or with highly dubious proof, to have been fabricated. A possible exception is instances like the faked explosions on the Trinity Church video, but even there proof exists of fabrication, in the form of (a) two versions of the video being available and (b) Mark De Martini's stereo separation analysis.

So the difference is, we adjust our perceptions to fit the evidence, and truthers adjust the evidence to fit their perceptions.

Dave

[padragan]

Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?

Yes I mean peer-reviewed. Many researchers/engineers/scientists from different parts of the world have done analysis and calculations on the events that day and published them for peer-review. And that is on top of the work done by NIST. Gravy have alist that can be found here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts%2Cfi

Where are the peer-reviewed papers from the twoof movement?

[padragan]

oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side :)

Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.

[JamesB]

You wouldn't believe how many times I have heard this line, even after I explain to truthers that I write for a blog on truthers (currently approaching 3000 posts) and have probably read and watched 10 times as much of this crap as they have. Sad, I know.

[Hyperviolet]

They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!


Groundbreaking and shocking.




zomg.

[Pardalis]

They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!


Groundbreaking and shocking.


Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.

[DC]

Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

[DC]

Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.

its more about, who is peer reviewing :)

[Sporanox]

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

Yes, and I hope you don't think that.

Instead of trying to come up with a more general summary of the argument, as other have done above, I'll just cite the various verbal acrobatics truthers have been forced to do over the years with their "science." If you point out that traditional explosives were impossible to use, they claim thermite. If you point out there is no evidence of thermite and it wouldn't fulfill their "too fast collapse scenario," they go back to the exploding windows. If you point out the same thing you did the first time, they claim "smart air."

It's rich. Now when have you seen debunkers jump around the place?

[Pardalis]

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

Yeah, they knew the collapse was imminent, kind of goes against the CD theory doesn't it?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75768

[twinstead]

its more about, who is peer reviewing :)

That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?

[padragan]

its more about, who is peer reviewing :)

No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.

[twinstead]

Maybe the establishment is in on it? Down with The Man! Power to the People!!

[DC]

That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?

i gues the neonazis would claim it is peer reviewed, and somehow they would be right. while somehow they would be wrong :)

[DC]

No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?

[defaultdotxbe]

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?
its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy

[Pardalis]

Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.

[padragan]

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?

Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.

[DC]

Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.

well i dont represent the truth movement or any other group :)

i never liked AJ nor LC :)

[DC]

Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.

a massive massive critique?
no

[DC]

its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy

AQ is NWO? :eye-poppi

[defaultdotxbe]

AQ is NWO? :eye-poppi
what outlandish conspiracy are they behind?

oh wait, truthers think outlandish means the opposite of outlandish

[twinstead]

AQ is NWO? :eye-poppi

They would have to be, since they admitted to 911, and you think it was an inside job. It's the only explanation, right? I mean, there's no WAY that they could be exactly what all the rational people in the world think they are, could they?

That settles it. AQ IS the NWO! Gold star for you!

[DC]

They would have to be, since they admitted to 911, and you think it was an inside job. It's the only explanation, right? I mean, there's no WAY that they could be exactly what all the rational people in the world think they are, could they?

That settles it. AQ IS the NWO! Gold star for you!

when will you skeptics finally learn that mindreading is not working.

and no, i dont wear a tinfoilhat, so its not that what hinders you.

[DC]

when will you skeptics finally learn that mindreading is not working.

and no, i dont wear a tinfoilhat, so its not that what hinders you.

OMG
i claimed something, and i fear i cannot back it up.
i hope you all agree that mindreading is not working.

[Pardalis]

I'm reading on many of JREFers' minds right now the word "troll" while reading your posts, DC.

[applecorped]

Accusing JREFers of mindreading is like accusing trooothers of being truthful.

[DC]

Accusing JREFers of mindreading is like accusing trooothers of being truthful.

why do so many JREFers belive they can mindread?

[Jonnyclueless]

There seems to be a misunderstanding between research and woo.

[Jonnyclueless]

why do so many JREFers belive they can mindread?

and why do trolls troll?

[defaultdotxbe]

and why do trolls troll?
ask not for whom the troll trolls...

[DC]

and why do trolls troll?

dunno, never talked to a troll. i usualy ignore them :)

[applecorped]

You ignore yourself?

[DC]

You ignore yourself?

i dont think that i am a troll, while i troll sometimes, maybe.
but i devo dunnot talk withmyself, yet :(

[Jonnyclueless]

dunno, never talked to a troll. i usualy ignore them :)

then you have your answer. I never talked to a Jrefer who thought they could read minds.

[padragan]

a massive massive critique?
no


Any critique worth mentioning at all? Anyone that actually managed to publish any refutations of any sort in a scientific paper?

If not, could it perhaps be because those articles are correct?

[TjW]

when will you skeptics finally learn that mindreading is not working.

and no, i dont wear a tinfoilhat, so its not that what hinders you.

Well of course mindreading is not working. There's no target.

[twinstead]

I heard that if you ignore yourself you'll go blind. It's best to be ignored by others...