Ever considered retiring?

[ref]

I’ve just about had it. With debunking the truthers that is. I’ve got nothing to say here anymore. It irritates me to see same old topics debated again and again. WTC 7, Steven Jones, Port Authority white paper claiming 600mph plane speed, etc.

I admit, I first believed in a 9/11 conspiracy. And I consider myself a pretty smart guy (as almost every person does, I know). I have a Master’s degree, high measured IQ, and I speak 4 languages more or less fluently. But those things don’t matter a thing. When I saw the “evidence” I was convinced. Why? Because I was new to this stuff. I thought people really had seen and heard bombs, I thought only explosives could be the cause of the squibs so far below the collapse zone, and so on. At that time I didn’t know the design of the towers, nor the correct accounts of the fire fighters and other people, who were repeatedly misquoted by the truthers. But then I started debating my views and found out, that the other side always had better arguments and evidence. Not a long time passed after that, and I switched sides. I had learnt more about the events and chose to go with the evidence, instead of defending and justifying my initial impression.

But people don’t always follow the evidence. If one comes to their conclusion for the wrong reasons (like me thinking people actually saw bombs, or thinking that squibs can only mean explosives), there is a great chance that one will start justifying the false beliefs to oneself, and after time passes, the possibilities that one would change the initial (and false) beliefs when confronted with contradicting evidence become smaller and smaller.

Smart people can be fooled too. Many really educated people believe strange things. They may have come to their conclusions for wrong reasons, but after they made their conclusion they are very skilled at defending their position, as well as convincing themselves that they are right. They might not even notice this themselves, as they quite possibly are unintentionally blinding themselves of any information that might make them question their beliefs. It’s only human. Unfortunately this topic is serious. It’s more serious than believing in UFO’s or Apollo landings being a hoax. It’s about blaming innocent people of murder.

When truthers are directly confronted by evidence that they are wrong, they do not change they views but justify them even more tenaciously. That’s self-justification. They are convincing themselves they are on the right side. And everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

A good example of self-justification and the ways it can stretch the imagination:

CIT – They believe flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. They think their interviews prove they are right, so they find ways to justify all the other contradicting evidence (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=38099&t=97279). That’s why they claim 77 flew over, even when nobody witnessed anything like that. That’s why they claim the hole was made with explosives, the downed light poles were put there by people on the scene, DNA was faked, the debris was planted and most eyewitnesses are wrong. They always bring up their star eyewitnesses, no matter what the topic is, because that is the single tool they are using when justifying their believes to themselves. Take away their few witnesses, and they have no theory, no way to justify their beliefs, and no comfortable feeling of thinking they are correct

Those much more dedicated to their cause, like Gage, Griffin or Steven Jones, are even deeper in this. They have chosen their sides years ago, risking their professional careers, their educated reputation, everything. Enter dissonance theory and confirmation bias. They need to justify their decisions. It would be awful, if they realized they did it all for nothing. So instead, they take all the information that supports their views with great pleasure, and dismiss everything that doesn’t support them. When they are forced to look at discomforting evidence, they will find ways to criticize, distort and even dismiss it so that they can maintain and even strengthen their existing beliefs. This is why truthers neglect the NIST report, and why they will neglect the upcoming WTC 7 report. A prime example is David Ray Griffin. He thinks he has proven the NIST wrong. When criticized by Ryan Mackey (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey) he avoided the topic, and started writing another book (http://www.amazon.com/11-Contradictions-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567165) instead. Griffin even had Kevin Ryan respond (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf) to Mackey instead of himself. Griffin knows Mackey has many great points that disprove his theories. But Griffin is so deep in self-justification, he cannot face the evidence. Of course, some truther leaders are in it for the money and fame. But that is not the only factor and its not that simple. Some honestly believe, what they have justified to themselves.

Therefore it will be very difficult for anyone to switch sides anymore. It has been such a long time, that most people who are interested in this topic already know all the details. They have justified their beliefs to themselves and made up their minds. It will be very difficult to switch sides after that, even when seeing massive amounts of contradicting evidence. A couple of years ago, when debunkers were still working on the facts, many people would switch sides simply because they found more information and based their decision on the increasing amount of knowledge. This is not the case anymore. Debunkers are pretty much finished, only repeating their earlier (good) work.

But us debunkers are not immune to this either. We have justified to ourselves that we are on the right side and correct. When Russell Pickering challenged the Pentagon collapse time on JREF, some people criticized him (I was one of them), only to find out later, that Russell was actually the one who was correct. It taught me once again, that one should not judge the claims based on who delivers them. One should investigate them. But it’s not always easy. Human brains are tricky. But I try to keep an open mind to new claims, until convincing evidence proves one way or another.

We have also viewed critically the so called official reports. Ryan Mackey has identified problems with NIST, gumboot found a mistake in the Commission report (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113248), and so on. That’s more than the truther side has done. They only look for holes in the official reports. And claim those mistakes disprove the entire “official story”. They try to find ways to justify their beliefs every chance they get. Of course, the findings of Mackey and gumboot are only examples of critical approach by very 9/11-educated people, not evidence of an inside job.

The latest developments are ridiculous. The Steven Jones “I agree with NIST” paper (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/weird-science.html) in a “peer-reviewed” online publication (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/bentham-journals.html). Gage filming a new DVD (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/05/join-ae911truth-infomercial.html)telling the audience how to behave, what to wear and where to sit. Griffin writing another book. Truthers organizing to buy large amounts of a fictional 9/11 book (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/04/troof-week-whimper.html), only to fail in putting the book to any top selling lists.

All this being said, I’ve grown out of this. During my debunking efforts I have spoken to great individuals, including chief Daniel Nigro and “Cheap Shot”, who were deeply involved in the events of 9/11. Speaking with them puts things in perspective. They were there and played a huge part. The truthers have nothing, never had. If they sometimes have something, I will take a look at it. Thus far though, nothing. I won’t debate the old points anymore. But I’m not saying goodbye either. I might still comment once in a while, if feeling so. Because THERE IS NOTHING MORE SATIFYING, THAN KNOWING I AM CORRECT.


These views are inspired by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson book "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)", and Michael Shermer book "Why People Believe Weird Things"

[theauthor]

[QUOTE=ref;3703147] Because THERE IS NOTHING MORE SATIFYING, THAN KNOWING I AM CORRECT.


[QUOTE]


iSN'T IT MORE SATISFYING TO LEARN FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MORE?

[theauthor]

[QUOTE=ref;3703147] Because THERE IS NOTHING MORE SATIFYING, THAN KNOWING I AM CORRECT.


[QUOTE]


iSN'T IT MORE SATISFYING TO LEARN FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MORE?

[boloboffin]

Hey, I'm reading Mistakes Were Made! Awesome book!

[Pardalis]

theauthor, you should learn how to use the quote function for starters.

[ref]

iSN'T IT MORE SATISFYING TO LEARN FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MORE?

In case you missed it, that was sarcasm.

[Pardalis]

It does feel pointless to engage them anymore. I also don't post very often, because there's really nothing to debunk, all the information is readily available, and the twoofers who come here theses days are petulant adolescents who just want to pick a fight, and they end up looking like idiots.

Also, the threads that are relevant and that do engage in a topic that is important (all of them started by resident debunkers) are being totally ignored by the twoofers. They prefer to pick at any small discrepancy or seemingly anomalous details. This shows they simply aren't interested in their own cause, they don't even care to try to think of how a new investigation will look like, and what it implies. I'm still waiting for Sizzler to answer Myriad's suggestion.

[CurtC]

I've pretty much retired, I just pop in here some for the entertainment value. It's a lot more enjoyable when you don't get wound up about them and just laugh at them instead.

[Blender Head]

Quitter.

[CurtC]

I've pretty much retired, I just pop in here some for the entertainment value. It's a lot more enjoyable when you don't get wound up about them and just laugh at them instead.

[I Ratant]

45 years after JFK, there's 2 generations of the ignorant that bring up the same debunked scary things.
45 years, 450 years, after 9/11, it will be the same.
It does get tiresome.

[Miragememories]

Don't forget to close the door on your way out ref.

MM

[T.A.M.]

I've pretty much retired, I just pop in here some for the entertainment value. It's a lot more enjoyable when you don't get wound up about them and just laugh at them instead.

ditto

TAM:)

[mrbaracuda]

Good post. Appreciated. Also good is to see you'll still be around! :)

[parky76]

Maybe...just maybe...if we all retire and give up on communicating with the 9-11 Denial Club, they will declare victory....and go away.

Is it possible?

[Drudgewire]

I've pretty much retired, I just pop in here some for the entertainment value. It's a lot more enjoyable when you don't get wound up about them and just laugh at them instead.

I was never a pro, but this is what keeps me keeps me coming back. :D

[DavidJames]

I stopped "debunking" quite a while ago. I was never as good as many here, but I tried. In the two or three years since then, I've come to realize 9/11 CTists fall mostly into four categories. Trolls, charlatans, the disenfranchised and those with, shall I say, limited mental capacity to understand logic and reason, be it through illness or willingly.

I no longer seriously debunk, I mostly take pot shots. Well, what about the lurkers? What about them? In the past few years I've seen a small (very small) handful, to small to even consider worthwhile. I think most of those, a huge majority, who will accept the 9/11 crap will fall into one of the categories above and are beyond hope and help, at least from external influences. Yes, some will "see the light, see reason and logic", but not until they're willing to take that step on their own. Like substance abuse (not that far off of an analogy), they need to accept the fact that they have a problem. It can't be forced upon them.

I contend for those that get "converted", they did so mostly because they opened up their minds, not because of some brilliant logic portrayed here or the other debunking sites (sorry). Sorry again, but I think arguing with the CTists on this board (it's not debating), is more self serving then providing a service. In fact it actually feeds the trolls, reinforces the feelings of those disenfranchised and has no affect what so ever on the charlatans or those with limited mental capacity. There are some brilliant people contributing to these threads and I don't mean to trivialize their efforts. It's great work and helps develop a wonderful "encyclopedia" of intelligence to counter the 9/11 CT Crap. I just don't think LC, DC, MM, TC, RedIbis and 99.9% of the others give a damn about it (even if they could understand it).

How many readers of JREF have been "converted" to reason and logic (as opposed to growing up on their own)? Does feeding the trolls and reinforcing those already disenfranchised make it worthwhile? Maybe. Maybe I'm just not seeing the great hordes of the converted.

[GlennB]

....

I admit, I first believed in a 9/11 conspiracy. And I consider myself a pretty smart guy (as almost every person does, I know). I have a Master’s degree, high measured IQ, and I speak 4 languages more or less fluently. But those things don’t matter a thing. When I saw the “evidence” I was convinced. Why? Because I was new to this stuff. I thought people really had seen and heard bombs, I thought only explosives could be the cause of the squibs so far below the collapse zone, and so on. At that time I didn’t know the design of the towers, nor the correct accounts of the fire fighters and other people, who were repeatedly misquoted by the truthers. But then I started debating my views and found out, that the other side always had better arguments and evidence. Not a long time passed after that, and I switched sides. I had learnt more about the events and chose to go with the evidence, instead of defending and justifying my initial impression.

I was in exactly the same boat as a 'recovering' twoofer. It was proper evidence and counter-argument put to me on this very forum that began to set me straight. (though, I only speak 3 other languages, and pretty damn poorly at that ;) )

I totally agree with your analysis, and I really don't know why I persevere in the debunking world. The returns are paltry and possibly even negative, considering the time and effort. A parallel - I used to be fairly obsessed with internet poker (in a small-stakes way) and thought I was a winning player, but eventually evidence taught me that I couldn't beat the card room's commission (rake). But I still play small games from time to time. It's hard to let an obsession go. Same with 9/11 debunking?

All the best,

Glenn

[theauthor]

Don't forget to close the door on your way out ref.

MM

Don't you just love these "announce and flounce" attention seeking threads?

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

[Drudgewire]

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

Boredom. Bring something new to the table to debunk. Until you idiots who are "just asking questions" ask some that haven't been answered a hundred times already the number of people who do anything more than point and laugh at you will continue to dwindle.

Face it, you're a non-entity. Even the legitimate movements whose rallies you crash are embarrassed to be on the same street as you. You lost. At this point you should just be grateful some of us get such a twisted pleasure out of kicking corpses.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I stopped "debunking" quite a while ago. I was never as good as many here, but I tried. In the two or three years since then, I've come to realize 9/11 CTists fall mostly into four categories. Trolls, charlatans, the disenfranchised and those with, shall I say, limited mental capacity to understand logic and reason, be it through illness or willingly.

I no longer seriously debunk, I mostly take pot shots. Well, what about the lurkers? What about them? In the past few years I've seen a small (very small) handful, to small to even consider worthwhile. I think most of those, a huge majority, who will accept the 9/11 crap will fall into one of the categories above and are beyond hope and help, at least from external influences. Yes, some will "see the light, see reason and logic", but not until they're willing to take that step on their own. Like substance abuse (not that far off of an analogy), they need to accept the fact that they have a problem. It can't be forced upon them.

I contend for those that get "converted", they did so mostly because they opened up their minds, not because of some brilliant logic portrayed here or the other debunking sites (sorry). Sorry again, but I think arguing with the CTists on this board (it's not debating), is more self serving then providing a service. In fact it actually feeds the trolls, reinforces the feelings of those disenfranchised and has no affect what so ever on the charlatans or those with limited mental capacity. There are some brilliant people contributing to these threads and I don't mean to trivialize their efforts. It's great work and helps develop a wonderful "encyclopedia" of intelligence to counter the 9/11 CT Crap. I just don't think LC, DC, MM, TC, RedIbis and 99.9% of the others give a damn about it (even if they could understand it).

How many readers of JREF have been "converted" to reason and logic (as opposed to growing up on their own)? Does feeding the trolls and reinforcing those already disenfranchised make it worthwhile? Maybe. Maybe I'm just not seeing the great hordes of the converted.

My thoughts exactly.

[Brainster]

I am going to wait until after the election, at least, and see if that has the devastating effect I anticipate on the traffic to Troofer websites. As I commented on the Rob Breakenridge show a couple of weeks ago, this year has already seen a dramatic drop. Traffic at 9-11 Blogger, which ran about 10,000 per day in March and April 2007, is down to about 6,300 per day this year.

I'm not doing much real debunking these days; there truly is very little new under the sun. Instead I've been focusing more on the personalities (and the police blotter). I love linking to the work of others, like Henry62, and the videos that Walter Ego has been churning out.

[mrbaracuda]

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

Well since you apparently can't read nor comprehend written texts, you might never know! :(

[beachnut]

I... 9/11 CTists fall mostly into four categories. Trolls, charlatans, the disenfranchised and those with, shall I say, limited mental capacity to understand logic and reason, be it through illness or willingly.
...
..., some will "see the light, see reason and logic", but not until they're willing to take that step on their own. Like substance abuse (not that far off of an analogy), they need to accept the fact that they have a problem. It can't be forced upon them.

I contend for those that get "converted", they did so mostly because they opened up their minds, not because of some brilliant logic portrayed here or the other debunking sites ...
... It's great work and helps develop a wonderful "encyclopedia" of intelligence to counter the 9/11 CT Crap. I just don't think LC, DC, MM, TC, RedIbis and 99.9% of the others give a damn about it (even if they could understand it).

I agree, the 9/11 truth believers (showing how great they are at thinking for themselves by spewing 9/11 truth junk) have to make that step to maturity and understanding on their own, when they finally see they are not thinking for themselves as they claim.

9/11 truth is a like an illusion. When will those fooled by the illusion, wake up. A few will see the lies when they or their ideas become targets of fraud like 9/11 truth is.

[Miragememories]

Don't you just love these "announce and flounce" attention seeking threads?

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

Maybe, because they aren't totally attached to a single belief, but they hate facing animosity from those whose company and opinions, they otherwise enjoy.

MM

[GlennB]

9/11 truth is a like an illusion. When will those fooled by the illusion, wake up. A few will see the lies when they or their ideal become targets of fraud like 9/11 truth is.

A work friend of mine (prone to obsessions, by his own admission) became a Jehovah's Witness. We used to have office debates about Noah, the Flood, evolution, the geological record and all that stuff. No logic or science would budge him.

He got concerned about the 'tithe' that his local church was expecting from his income, and eventually realised he was being taken for a ride, being manipulated. Good for him.

It doesn't always involve money, although some of the 9/11 shucksters are probably motivated that way. Gaining attention is also a big motivation for slimeballs.

[GlennB]

Maybe, because they aren't totally attached to a single belief, but they hate facing animosity from those whose company and opinions, they otherwise enjoy.

MM

MM I'm having trouble deciphering your post. But on a related note - if the sceptics abandoned the 9/11 "Truth" boards, the boards would die for lack of traffic (plus infighting, of course) in a week.

Truth be told, if we sceptics wanted to see the "Truth" movement die, we'd all give up the good fight and just stop posting "over there". But I suspect it's too hard to organise such a group-abandonment.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

I wonder why so many twoofers go on vacations paid for by the NWO.
seen lastchild lately? tell him i need my book back he borrowed from me!

[Alt+F4]

Therefore it will be very difficult for anyone to switch sides anymore. It has been such a long time, that most people who are interested in this topic already know all the details. They have justified their beliefs to themselves and made up their minds. It will be very difficult to switch sides after that, even when seeing massive amounts of contradicting evidence.


I agree that the current leaders and followers of the "truth" movement won't ever be convinced that their delusions are wrong. It's for the young, uninformed folks that debunking is still important. There are many more lurkers who read these posts than you might think and I know for a fact that at least several teenagers I know have been enlightened by what they have read here.

I do most of my debunking in real life and I'm never going to stop, and not just because it's the nature of my profession. The conspiracy liars want to take responsibility away from those who murdered so many, I can't stay silent on that.

[Par]

Don't you just love these "announce and flounce" attention seeking threads? i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?


I thought you were banned yesterday?

[beachnut]

Don't you just love these "announce and flounce" attention seeking threads?

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?
9/11 truth got us beat will all their "ample evidence". Funny stuff; 9/11 truth is like bigfoot, after you learn they have never found bigfoot scat or DNA, you have learned it all.

After looking into every single stupid 9/11 truth idea, they have all been found to be junk.

They have graduated, not quit. They have learned about 9/11 and seen 9/11 truth to be populated with people who lack knowledge and totally screw up conclusion based on just about any thing.

No one needs to give up, it is just a learning process. When will 9/11 truth believers gain knowledge and stop spewing false conclusion based on hearsay?

9/11 truth lost when they first showed up. Forfeit due to lack of knowledge. Those who understand 9/11 won 6 years ago after suffering a bitter defeat and death. 9/11 truth is replaying a game they can't get to come out the way they want; and they use faulty logic to mess up everything. They are not losers of a game, they are the peanut gallery at an event that ended over 6 years ago. They lost then, and now they are trying harder to loose again. They are stuck in the dark due to lack of knowledge and tripping over the tools needed to understand.

[gumboot]

For me it has never been about proving Conspiracy Theorists wrong. It's about understanding what happened on 9/11. As you point out, Ref, those who get sucked into the 9/11 CT typically fall for it because they're ignorant of what actually happened, and on the surface much of the 9/11 CT "evidence" is compelling.

I don't think it's pointless to keep educating people about 9/11 because the simple fact is that the vast majority of people are still ignorant of what happened. While Conspiracy Theorists are still actively engaging the ignorant, there will continue to be new converts to their theories.

Just last week we had a "truther" declare that they had changed their mind and rejected the 9/11 CTs - they cited some of my work as one of the factors, and that's a great feeling.

I will always be willing to offer knowledge to people willing to listen to it. When they won't listen, I'll stop wasting my time. It makes things a lot easier. People like Swing Dangler, A-Train, MirageMemories, LastChild - they've been here long enough. They've been shown the evidence. They don't want to learn. I don't waste my time on them.

But occasionally we get someone who does want to learn and is willing to learn, and there's always the odd new arrival.

[applecorped]

Don't you just love these "announce and flounce" attention seeking threads?

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?

Because there is nothing to debunk. You lost years ago but never knew enough to leave the field.

[Confuseling]

Interesting post ref.

I do feel for you guys. I'm a latecomer to this debate, but slightly less so in real life - I have some friends who are truthers, and I've debated them for a few years.

But I guess my interest in this is very different to most of yours - I'm seeing this more in sociological and psychological terms than engineering, physics or military ones, and that really reflects on the fact that those questions have been long settled, in significant part by many of you.

I wonder whether this board, if it continues to exist, will undergo something of a changing of the guard. As time draws on, the character of the people drawn to (or entrenched in) the conspiracy theory changes, and it becomes more a question of post-modern epistemology than natural scientific enquiry. Perhaps that change will be reflected in the active debunkers. I suppose first we would need some significant opposition - and in all honesty, it doesn't look hopeful. :)

But it does raise the question: if the quality of debate here remains this low (which isn't to suggest there aren't interesting questions, it's just they're often overwhelmed by the fluff), what should be done? Should you declare victory, and shut the board to new posts, keeping it just as a reference archive? Should the moderators clamp down a little, and we accept that this place has served its purpose, and will slow to a comparative crawl?

[mrbaracuda]

shut the board to new posts

This isn't called "the 9/11 twoofer board" as far as I know but "Conspiracy Theories".

[Björn Toulouse]

i wonder why so many debunkers are giving up?



Because the fight was over and won a long time ago and now it has become ridiculous for the vanquished to continue.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12890482c1d1138748.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12211)

[ref]

Don't forget to close the door on your way out ref.

MM

As I said, I'm not going to be totally out.

Speaking of you, MM. Like CIT without their eyewitnesses, What happens to your theories without your favorite man Danny Jowenko? Would you have any? Imagine Jowenko never said anything. How would you rationalize your belief that WTC 7 was a demolition without having his, what you call professional speculation supporting you?

[The Doc]

I've considered retiring from it. I even wrote the thread up.

In the end though, there's no point ruling yourself out completely from jumping into a thread and debating someone. I've just really slowed down my posting.

[sts60]

I've largely confined my 9/11 posts to firefighting-related issues. But, as I mentioned before, I'm pretty much done creating any new posts, because there are simply no new claims from 9/11 conspiracists... just the same misunderstandings, tap-dancing attempts at casting FUD, and flat-out lies. I may provide links to some of my earlier posts as responses for any new conspiracists, or as an occasional reminder to the periodic recycling of claims by the regular conspiracists who act as if they had never been rebutted. (The latter is particularly annoying and particularly dishonest.) But that's about it.

On the other hand, if you give me a good moon landing hoax thread... but even those have largely faded away on apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) and Bad Astronomy (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/).

Have no fear. I do have other things to occupy my time. :)

[DavidJames]

But I guess my interest in this is very different to most of yours - I'm seeing this more in sociological and psychological terms than engineering, physics or military ones, and that really reflects on the fact that those questions have been long settled, in significant part by many of you.That's why I continue to hang out. I'm not a professional in those fields but I am fascinated what makes humans think and act the way they do.

I wonder whether this board, if it continues to exist, will undergo something of a changing of the guard. As time draws on, the character of the people drawn to (or entrenched in) the conspiracy theory changes, and it becomes more a question of post-modern epistemology than natural scientific enquiry. Perhaps that change will be reflected in the active debunkers. I suppose first we would need some significant opposition - and in all honesty, it doesn't look hopeful. :)I don't think anything will change for a while. CT's have a very long shelf life. Remember, CT are based on peoples beliefs and not facts, consequently the proponents can never be proved wrong. Facts can be shown to be incorrect, beliefs, not so much.
But it does raise the question: if the quality of debate here remains this low (which isn't to suggest there aren't interesting questions, it's just they're often overwhelmed by the fluff), what should be done? Should you declare victory, and shut the board to new posts, keeping it just as a reference archive? Should the moderators clamp down a little, and we accept that this place has served its purpose, and will slow to a comparative crawl?There are a few, Greg Urich (sp?) comes to mind, who bring (what I believe to be) honest attempts at debate and honest analysis. He deserves honest debate and the good people here have provided it. I would like to see a lot more of that, but the fact is most of the CTists are are incapable (or in many cases, unwilling).

[Miragememories]

As I said, I'm not going to be totally out.

Speaking of you, MM. Like CIT without their eyewitnesses, What happens to your theories without your favorite man Danny Jowenko? Would you have any? Imagine Jowenko never said anything. How would you rationalize your belief that WTC 7 was a demolition without having his, what you call professional speculation supporting you?

Life is full of "what ifs".

My views about WTC 7 were not formed by, nor dependent on, the existence of Danny Jowenko.

If I'm proven wrong, that's great news.

The fact remains, Danny Jowenko did say something. Something that contradicts your chosen beliefs and that of most of this forum's members.

Maybe you can sleep well at night convinced that all the important questions have been adequately dealt with, I don't share your certainty and I've never held much respect for those members who feel they can use bully tactics (I don't include you in that group) to intimidate others into accepting the Official Story point of view.

All I want is a proper investigation.

For some reason, many here have invested an incredible amount of time and effort passionately attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen.

MM

[1337m4n]

For some reason, many here have invested an incredible amount of time and effort passionately attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen.


Have we?

What, pray tell, have any of us done to stop you from collecting up all your evidence and presenting it to media groups, police departments, detective agencies, and lawyers?

You are just making excuses for why your Movement has accomplished nothing in 7 years.

Where is this new investigation? We've not done a thing to stop you. Get to it.

[uk_dave]

No MM, you and the 'truth' movement made the embarrassing mistake of believing that the wtc towers couldn't have collapsed due to plane impacts and fires because you failed to understand the vulnerability of steel to fire or understand how aluminium could cut through steel.

After being comprehensively schooled on that subject (and the squibs and the 'booms') you turned your attention to wtc7 as a last ditch effort to prove a conspiracy.

This time you trusted to the lack of a NIST report and a scarcity of good documentary evidence available to debunkers to give you enough leeway to make a case that WTC7 could have been a controlled demolition, and you hoped that enough people would say "Yeah, so what?" for you to be able to jump up and say "But they denied it, so they're covering it up and if they're covering up wtc7 then they must be covering everything else up too" and you could then go back to obsessing over the wtc towers and the pentagon and shanksville as if your arguments had never been successfully countered.

Aint that right?

[Pardalis]

All I want is a proper investigation.

Please define it, how will it work?

and please respond to this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3677685&postcount=126

[Horatius]

All I want is a proper investigation.

For some reason, many here have invested an incredible amount of time and effort passionately attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen.




And this is where you see how your bias affects your understanding. We aren't "attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen", we believe that a quality investigation has already happened.

Feel free not to agree with us on that point, but please, don't go around acting as if we're doing something we're not. That gets us into strawman territory.

[Confuseling]

This isn't called "the 9/11 twoofer board" as far as I know but "Conspiracy Theories".

As far as I understand it was separated out from the general scepticism board because it was being inundated by truthers. It will continue to be so for some time, unless the moderation policy changes.

...For some reason, many here have invested an incredible amount of time and effort passionately attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen.
...

I actually want an investigation - an investigation by the West generally into why our geopolitical iniquities and myopic realpolitik lead to radicalisation of the disenfranchised the world over.

Your movement is one of the main things making that politically impossible in the US.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ref, just remember, this isn't about the crazy twoofers, it's about the people they prey on and try to con. That's why you do it over and over. Had it not bee for such people, people like you and I might still be falling for the twoofer nonsense.

[Miragememories]

Please define it, how will it work?

and please respond to this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3677685&postcount=126

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

MM

[Horatius]

As to the, "To debunk, or not to debunk?" question, I'm reminded of something my Iaido teacher once said. In the sword arts, you often come across people with weird beliefs they've picked up from movies and what not, and we're faced with the same issue - what to say to the 10000th kid who asks about ninja-to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjato) or sakabatō (http://www.trueswords.com/kenshin-reverse-blade-p-2081.html).

His theory was, "Good information drives out bad." Put out the best info you can, and over time it will make its way into the common conciousness, as it is shown over and over again to be better than the nonsense out there. It's a slow process, but it does work. When was the last time we saw anyone take "pods" seriously? No-planers are marginalized even by other twoofers. Other examples could be found.

So we have made progress, and even if we may never get to a point where all the CTs have been swept away, we can get rid of a lot of them. But once the good info is out there, we don't really need to take as large a role in promoting it - as others ask these questions, and find the answers we've put out there, they will act to keep those answers in circulation. Unless a new CT pops up, we're mostly done.

So at this point, all we really need is a few "caretaker" debunkers, to make sure places like JREF and other sites are always available, and who can call in others if needed by new developments.

[1337m4n]

Because the fight was over and won a long time ago and now it has become ridiculous for the vanquished to continue.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12890482c1d1138748.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12211)

The Truth Movement is like the Black Knight, standing on one leg with both his arms chopped off, yet pretending he is still capable of putting up a fight.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/jpgs/bknight3.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

The fact remains, Danny Jowenko did say something. Something that contradicts your chosen beliefs and that of most of this forum's members.

Do you not acknowledge, though, that it also contradicts your chosen beliefs? Because it quite clearly does. You believe that the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosives, something Danny Jowenko categorically states is impossible.

For some reason, many here have invested an incredible amount of time and effort passionately attempting to make sure a quality investigation is never allowed to happen.

I suspect that one of the greatest problems faced by the truth movement is that its members are unable to distinguish between passionately attempting to bring about (or prevent) an investigation, and wasting time in debating minutiae on internet forums. This would be a charge equally to be levelled at some debunkers were it not for the fact that the status quo favours what you see as our main aim, in that the extremely comprehensive and costly investigation that has already been carried out is unlikely to be repeated.

Dave

[bje]

Life is full of "what ifs".

My views about WTC 7 were not formed by, nor dependent on, the existence of Danny Jowenko.

If I'm proven wrong, that's great news.

You have been proven wrong. You just don't want to be and deny it.

Maybe you can sleep well at night convinced that all the important questions have been adequately dealt with, I don't share your certainty and I've never held much respect for those members who feel they can use bully tactics (I don't include you in that group) to intimidate others into accepting the Official Story point of view.

All I want is a proper investigation. That tactic never worked for Holocaust Deniers. Neither will it work for 9/11 Truthers. Stop the silliness and join the rational world.

You can start by dropping the "Official Story" canard.

[theprestige]

Personally, I've never bought into the whole "no real experts disagree with the mainstream theory" argument. Of course there's bound to be some experts, somewhere, who take a contrarian view for whatever reason.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they're only justified when that authority is real and relevant to the question--i.e., when the authority can make a successful appeal to some other, more fundamental reasoning on which to base his conclusion.

We don't appeal to structural engineers because they are titled "structural engineers", but because they can reason properly from the fundamental principles of structural engineering to rational conclusions about engineered structures.

When we ask a structural engineer for his expert opinion, we don't expect him to simply say "because I'm a structural engineer, and that's all you need to know". We expect him to actually demonstrate his expertise by giving a rational structural engineering explanation.

(Of course, if we are pressed for time, or lack the necessary technical grounding in the subject matter, or we are following a formal protocol such as the American judiciary conventions for expert witnesses, we may allow a reputable certification of his authority as a stand-in for a proper demonstration of his authority, but generally speaking we are better off to require the demonstration itself.)

Which brings us back to Jowenko. What, exactly, is the nature of Jowenko's demonstration of expertise? What, exactly, is his reasoning from the fundamental principles of controlled demolition to a rational conclusion about controlled demolition in a specific case?

The first thing we notice about Jowenko's initial conclusion is that it is very unprofessional. Instead of taking the time to fully inform himself about the scenario in front of him, he risks his reputation as an "expert" on an uninformed opinion about a scenario the details of which are completely unknown to him.

This is not what we expect of an expert acting in an expert capacity. It's not what the courts expect of an expert. It's not what clients of a demolition firm expect of that firm's experts.

We see the problem with Jowenko's reply right away: The moment he is told about the details of the scenario, his expertise forces him to withdraw his original opinion. He says it looks like a controlled demolition, but when he is told the details, he says that he cannot explain it--he cannot reason to a CD conclusion from the fundamental principles of CD, in which he is an expert.

When pressed for such a conclusion, his reasoning is based not on his expertise in demolitions, but on his inexpert opinion that it must be a CD because that's just how the U.S. government does things. There are all kinds of problems with this line of reasoning. The one we're concerned with here is that Jowenko is not actually an expert in the covert operations of a corrupt faction of the U.S. government. So when he says that it must be a CD because that's how the U.S. government operates, he's not reaching that conclusion as an expert, but as an amateur.

And this is why I don't buy into the argument that the title of expert is, by itself, worthy support for this or that claim. It's the actual demonstration of expertise that I care about. If an expert dissents from the mainstream opinion, I expect him to support that dissent with a rational explanation based entirely on the fundamental principles of his expertise.

In Jowenko's case, I expect him to explain the collapse of WT7 in expert terms, starting from the fundamental principles of controlled demolition and reasoning his way, step by expert step, to an expert conclusion one way or the other.

But this has not happened. Jowenko refuses to demonstrate his expertise in this matter. Meanwhile, hundreds of other relevant experts have painstakingly demonstrated their expertise, in support of their expert conclusions. The contributors to the NIST report(s) have not simply said, "we're experts, and that's all you need to know". They actually demonstrated their expertise at great length. They actually wrote down, in detail, the steps of their reasoning, from the fundamental principles of their knowledge to the rational conclusions they based on those principles. Are they really experts? Read their report. Judge for yourself.

Is Jowenko really an expert? Who knows? He certainly has an expert's title. But where is the demonstration of expertise? Where is the expert reasoning from fundamentals, publically displayed for everyone to see and judge? Maybe his opinion is right, and maybe it's wrong. But it's not an expert opinion until we see the demonstration of it.

Meanwhile, we have plenty of expert opinions, demonstrated at length, and they all contradict Jowenko.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Hey all,
I'm still kinda new here and was reading a post on a thread that conveyed the same sense of frustration I feel sometimes. I hope nobody posted this one already, if so.....my bad:o

Okay, It's obvious that talking to truthers is like talking to a brick wall. Most of the time it gets me nowhere even when I am polite. I have heard several "prominent truthers" go so far as to say that NO evidence could convince them, no matter what. So I was just wondering why the people here think that 8 years after the fact it is still important to humor these people by debating them? Has anyone noticed any changes (in their numbers/arguments etc...) as a result of open debates?

[DavidJames]

Some conversation about that going on here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113684)

[beachnut]

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

MM Your ideas were proven wrong on 9/11. You missed it.
That is funny. Watergate; bring up Watergate makes 9/11 truth the biggest failure in history. They had evidence, you have hearsay; do you understand the difference? You will wake up one day and figure this out. Do like the guys who broke Watergate, find some evidence.

So far you have zero evidence. But you sure love hearsay and the guys who got 9/11 wrong. Like DJ. He is wrong, you support wrong, and you bring up Watergate. Could not be more ironic if you were trying.

You are proof 9/11 truth died 6 years ago when they failed to find evidence. No one has to quit debunking 9/11 truth, 9/11 truth is self debunking.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Some conversation about that going on here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113684)

Ah ha, well it figures. That one's wayyy better too...lol. Can I just delete this post?

[Drudgewire]

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

MM

It involved a double digit number of people, was a simple break-in that didn't require any outsiders to pull off, and it stayed secret for less than a year.

That can be compared to 9/11 in any way other than jokingly how?

[Björn Toulouse]

The Truth Movement is like the Black Knight, standing on one leg with both his arms chopped off, yet pretending he is still capable of putting up a fight.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/jpgs/bknight3.jpg


That was a far better image you posted because it is more representative of "ridiculousness" than mine was. Kudos.

[GlennB]

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

MM

Any 9/11 MIHOP CT would involve at least a thousand times more people than the (failed) Watergate CT.

And yet .. so far not one person had raised their voice about being involved.

In all this time , not one person who :

is terminally ill and wanting to make peace for their misdoings
has changed their minds about the ethos of the whole thing
is bribed to tell the truth
has been let down badly by the NWO and now bears a grudge
wants to earn a Pulitzer Prize
etc
etc
etc
<add your own reason>

Not one person. And that doesn't even include the countless operatives who have to cover the movements and tendencies of all those who might fit one of the categories above.

Plus all their secretaries, IT technicians, archivists, security staff, family, friends, drinking buddies, MiB to check the drinking buddies , Mi<double>B to check the MiB...

The list expands exponentially. The whole of the USA (and many beyond) would have to be involved except you, MM. Feeling left out, are you? Hmm?

[Brainster]

Hey all,
I'm still kinda new here and was reading a post on a thread that conveyed the same sense of frustration I feel sometimes. I hope nobody posted this one already, if so.....my bad:o

Okay, It's obvious that talking to truthers is like talking to a brick wall. Most of the time it gets me nowhere even when I am polite. I have heard several "prominent truthers" go so far as to say that NO evidence could convince them, no matter what. So I was just wondering why the people here think that 8 years after the fact it is still important to humor these people by debating them? Has anyone noticed any changes (in their numbers/arguments etc...) as a result of open debates?

We don't do it for the "Truthers" themselves; as you point out, they're mostly a hopeless cause (with a few exceptions like Mikey Metz). It's for the friends/relatives/coworkers of "Truthers" who are being bombarded with this nonsense and are wondering if there's anything to the conspiracy theories.

[stateofgrace]

If I'm proven wrong, that's great news.

MM

Are you having a laugh or what ? Here is some of your rubbish..............

speculate = to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
I never said all speculation was of equal value.

Otherwise, I have to assume I'm mostly dealing with children here who have convinced themselves they can 'fake' adult behavior.WILD SPECULATION WARNING

It does not mean that the perpetrators expected aircraft crashes were going to bring about the collapses of the Twin Towers. The aircraft attacks served the primary purpose of "shock and awe" and they succeeded brilliantly. They also provided a cover story for the demolition of the Twin Towers. They had to be certain the Twin Towers would collapse and they had no reasonable expectation to base a belief that the aircraft impacts would achieve that result. The plan called for certainty, and not "let's see what happens." Therefore, it's logical to assume that if the WTC 7 collapse was a CD, then so were the Twin Towers collapses. The perpetrators planned the future in advance and they obviously did so in great detail. I don't understand why you would expect them not to?it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.
But you finally managed something remotely non speculative.

I'm not so foolish as to expect my responses to carry any weight No MM they do not, YOUR wild,evidence free speculation and childish whinging when you are mocking is now becoming boring. It is infests each thread you post in and is the same evidence free speculation you offered up sometime again.

It is boring and repetitive. You will continue to be mocked so long as you offer up your wild speculation; you will continue to be called out when you refer to those who cannot be bothered to waste a moment on you as children. You dear boy are the child, you are the one offering up wild speculation and asking everybody to take you all seriously. You really are having a laugh, I stopping taking anything you posted seriously a long time ago. And as for your whinging about the lack of maturity on this forum. You receive what are due you when you offer evidence free speculation, zero, zero respect, and zero time.

”If I am proven wrong”, dear God grow up MM,nobody needs to disprove your wild speculation, stop living in a dream world where anybody owes to respect, let alone take your complete unfounded, ridiculous wild speculation seriously.

But , based on your speculation here are a few questions for you, I trust you will act in a mature fashion and answer them honestly.I also trust you have some form of evidence to back up you speculation, please include it in your honest, mature answers.


How did the perps know the planes would hit each tower?
How did they know they would not miss?
What would have happened if any one of the planes had missed?
How did they know the planes would not cause the towers to collapse?
How did they know the fires along with the damage would not cause the towers to collapse?
How did they know the towers, when they collapsed would produce a massive cloud dust to disguise the demolition of WTC 7?
How did they know the collapsing towers would not damage WTC 7 enought to result in total structural failure?
How did they know that the pre planted explosives inside each tower would survive the plane crashes?
How did they know they would survive the fires?
How did they know the associated triggering devices would survive both plane crashes and fires?
What went wrong with the demolition WTC 7?
Can you name a single controlled demolition that as resulted in none of the replaced explosives going off?
Can you please tell me exactly the steps require in the event of a total failure of all the preplanted demolition charges that are required to fix it?
Please tell me how the preplanted explosives inside WTC 7 survived fires that were not fought for six hours? Fires that it was impossible to have taken into account because according you WTC 7 should not have been there, right?
Please tell me how the triggering mechanisms for the preplanted explosives inside WRC 7 survived these fires?You being so mature would have thought out these questions before you posted your specualtion.I would like to ask you more when you offer your further speculation.

[DavidJames]

”If I am proven wrong”, dear God grow up MM,nobody needs to disprove your wild speculation, stop living in a dream world where anybody owes to respect, let alone take your complete unfounded, ridiculous wild speculation seriously.Such is the beauty of life these days. Ignorance and arrogance. People, ignorant of the technology, science and engineering behind a catastrophe like 9/11 get to make **** up about it and arrogantly puff out their chest and demand others prove them wrong. In the old days, these guys were left to mumble to themselves on street corners and in their cellars. Now they get a world wide stage to showcase their insanity.

[Pardalis]

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

MM

Could you answer my post please?

[Miragememories]

Did you ever follow the Watergate Hearings?

Could you answer my post please?

I did.

MM

[Jonnyclueless]

I did.

MM

No. You didn't.

[peteweaver]

I've come across something called 'truth'watch.

http://truthwatchuk.wordpress.com/about/

Instead of trying to reason with the “Truth” Movement and explain how they draw attention away from serious issues (how many of us have already tried this to no avail?), this web site will show you exactly how idiotic this movement can be.

[Mr X]

Dear ref


"We have also viewed critically the so called official reports. Ryan Mackey has identified problems with NIST, gumboot found a mistake in the Commission report, and so on..."

er no.... I don't think so. I think you'll find you all acted like aspiring NIST cheerleaders.... and still are. 10 points for the comedy though.

Anyway, at last someone who has seen them squibs. Come on dude lets have your explanation for them. You know with your high IQ, Masters and many languages you'd have no problem explaining it.

Look forward to it.

[stateofgrace]

Dear ref


"We have also viewed critically the so called official reports. Ryan Mackey has identified problems with NIST, gumboot found a mistake in the Commission report, and so on..."

er no.... I don't think so. I think you'll find you all acted like aspiring NIST cheerleaders.... and still are. 10 points for the comedy though.

Anyway, at last someone who has seen them squibs. Come on dude lets have your explanation for them. You know with your high IQ, Masters and many languages you'd have no problem explaining it.

Look forward to it .

No , you explain them. You expalin why they are so important.Can you do that ?

Look forward to it.

[Mr X]

Dear Statoface,

No........... and If I could I wouldn't need to as 'ref'. Now would I?

[stateofgrace]

Dear Statoface,

No........... and If I could I wouldn't need to as 'ref'. Now would I?

Changing user names to insult is childish, refrain from doing so in future and act with some level of maturity.

Are you incapable of answering your own question? If so why should anybody else waste their time doing so for you?

Go on give it a shot, why are the "squibs” so important?

[Mr X]

Changing user names to insult is childish, refrain from doing so in future and act with some level of maturity.

Are you incapable of answering your own question? If so why should anybody else waste their time doing so for you?

Go on give it a shot, why are the "squibs” so important?


I believe I have answered your question.


ps squibs aren't important.... well not as important as haggis. I think you'll agree.

[stateofgrace]

I believe I have answered your question.

ps squibs aren't important.... well not as important as haggis. I think you'll agree.

Did you? Well thank you then, you have cleared it all up. Do keep posting,your marvellous insight; clearly worded, mature posts are a pleasure to read.

Thank you for your input, thank you from showing everybody how you have really got something worth while to say. I look forward to further highly informative and stimulating debate with you.

Once again Mr X, thank you so much for posting your thoughts on the matter but for now I have to do something really important, feed my cat. I really look forward to you illuminating the entire forum further with your marvellous posts.

Ps Haggis is disgusting but I am sure a man of the world like yourself would know all about it.

PPs. I would also like to thank you for illustrating why people are getting completely fed up with trying to reason and debate the truth movement. It is completely and utterly pointless.

[uk_dave]

Even the 'truth' movement finds the 'truth' funny.

Go figure.

[ref]

er no.... I don't think so. I think you'll find you all acted like aspiring NIST cheerleaders.... and still are. 10 points for the comedy though.

I suppose you have not read Mackey's paper.


Anyway, at last someone who has seen them squibs. Come on dude lets have your explanation for them. You know with your high IQ, Masters and many languages you'd have no problem explaining it.

Look forward to it.

An explanation is offered here:

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

or here

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

[Mr X]

I suppose you have not read Mackey's paper.




An explanation is offered here:

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

or here

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)




So this is what is boils down to.

Your original statement said 'hey I'm so god damn clever, I've seen the 'truth' and because I'm so god damn clever the rest you (who no doubt have a lower IQ) should follow suit.

And when you're asked what it is that you know.... you have to make references to other people's work.

Maybe you're so god damn clever, you've lost the ability to articulate what you know.

[Mr X]

Dear uk dave


Are you just trying to 'bump up' your posts

[GlennB]

So this is what is boils down to.

....
And when you're asked what it is that you know.... you have to make references to other people's work....

I know some gravitational theory. It's the work of Sir Isaac Newton.
Is my knowledge invalid because it's not my own work? Before I answer your (theoretically posed) questions about fall times should I go away and conduct my own experiments, just to confirm Newton was right all along?

Silly boy.

[Confuseling]

Why do the least civil ones always presume to tell us how arrogant we are?

Is it conducive to gainful discussion to storm into a thread, indiscriminately tell everyone what fools you think they are, then advise them on their social conduct? Or do you, perhaps, just like being rude to strangers?

[Drudgewire]

And here I was just yesterday looking at my ignore list and thinking "who is this Mr. X and how did he get on there?"

Thanks for the reminder. :p

[Mr X]

So what's happened to the 'oh so clever' ref.

Maybe he saw the truth....... that he wasn't all that clever.




Hey GlennB, did you ever have to quibble over Newton's work?

[GlennB]

...
If I'm proven wrong, that's great news.
...

MM

The point you miss is that you have to prove your case, not the other way round. One that improves on the currently and widely accepted theory. That's how the scientific method works, and it's one that most "truthers" cannot seem to comprehend. Clearly that category of "most truthers" includes you.

[gumboot]

This is a waste of time.

Enough dancing around being polite, enough considering Conspiracy Theorist claims with consideration. They're stupid. Their claims are stupid. And they're too stupid to realise it.

It can take substantial time to craft together a thorough and well-sourced post that utterly and completely demolishes a Conspiracy Theorist's claims. Do they care? No. They will never care. They will continue with their dumb, dumb claims, throwing out ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion, for all eternity.

We've seen posts of phenomenal depth, logical rigour, and solidly supported. Do they make any difference? Well read any of the threads going on at the moment, and you'll see how pathetic the claims are that Conspiracy Theorists are making.

No more. Not for me. I'm far too talented, and my time is far too valuable to waste on these ignorant morons any longer. I'll post when and what I choose to post, and I'll put as little effort into it as required. No sources. No carefully crafted replies. There's no point. It's wasted effort.

I'll continue with my own research when I feel like it, and feel certain that will be thoroughly sourced and carefully produced as always. But expect my posts on these threads to offer less and less in the way of substance.

To any conspiracy theorists who might be reading this, in anticipation of any future request you or your friends might make for me to back up a claim with evidence that you deem acceptable, the answer is "No". I know, and you know, that you'd ignore it anyway.

[ref]

Wise decision, gumboot.

[stateofgrace]

This is a waste of time.

Enough dancing around being polite, enough considering Conspiracy Theorist claims with consideration. They're stupid. Their claims are stupid. And they're too stupid to realise it.

It can take substantial time to craft together a thorough and well-sourced post that utterly and completely demolishes a Conspiracy Theorist's claims. Do they care? No. They will never care. They will continue with their dumb, dumb claims, throwing out ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion, for all eternity.

We've seen posts of phenomenal depth, logical rigour, and solidly supported. Do they make any difference? Well read any of the threads going on at the moment, and you'll see how pathetic the claims are that Conspiracy Theorists are making.

No more. Not for me. I'm far too talented, and my time is far too valuable to waste on these ignorant morons any longer. I'll post when and what I choose to post, and I'll put as little effort into it as required. No sources. No carefully crafted replies. There's no point. It's wasted effort.

I'll continue with my own research when I feel like it, and feel certain that will be thoroughly sourced and carefully produced as always. But expect my posts on these threads to offer less and less in the way of substance.

To any conspiracy theorists who might be reading this, in anticipation of any future request you or your friends might make for me to back up a claim with evidence that you deem acceptable, the answer is "No". I know, and you know, that you'd ignore it anyway.

I agree with you 100%. It is a complete waste of time.

The only time I even bother with these guys now is when I have had that extra glass of wine and wish to kill a bit a time. For me personally I could not care less what these people believe any longer. I have long ago abandoned any belief that any of these guys can be rationalised with, can be debated with and can in any shape form or manner accept what is put to them.

I will join you and the rest of the people that are exiting this debate and waste my time no further on this topic.

I will also echo what you say, to any truthers out there. It is pointless, it is now boring. Nobody cares what you think; nobody gives a dam about your pointless theories. Any further posts from me now will be nothing more than a Mickey take, to mock your pitiful theories.