It's Over!

[bonavada]

Seems the game is up. Twoof is a doomed concept. Expect your redundancy cheque from NWO control soon. A backpat for everybody. I could do with a holiday. I hear Barbados is lovely this time of year.

LINK (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/)


Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/) and debunking911.com (http://debunking911.com/) are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.


BV

[theauthor]

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

[jhunter1163]

Debunkers assume that Truther claims are false because the overwhelming majority of them are demonstrably false. When the evidence pro and con is presented in context and objectively evaluated, no Truther theory has yet been shown to be true.

[Reheat]

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

Source?

[theauthor]

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

[theauthor]

Source?

Source for what?

[beachnut]

Source for what?
9/11 truth has no sources! Cool, you live up to what is expected! Zero evidence. Got evidence? Not if you are 9/11 truth, and you have failed to post one piece ever. Perfect record of pure hearsay.

[technoextreme]

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.
There is a difference between believing something that may have some basis in reality and believing in something that is so absurdly stupid you shouldn't have to use much time to think about the topic.

[bonavada]

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0


Who cares what your interpretation of anything is. Your time is up. You are a twoofer, tWOOf ist kaput, end of story g'night.

BV

[~enigma~]

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.If you got that out of an article written in eskeptic...you really have some majorly skewed perspective. Now an open mind is fine but not as open as your truther friends because their minds are so open their brains fell out a few years ago.

[Jonnyclueless]

So let's get this right. The 9/11 woo movement makes up a term to call people who point out their lack of sources and their fabrication of facts or complete lack of them. So they then use that definition to claim it then proves that people under that term don't use any scientific process or investigate. And then that claim itself is based on absolutely nothing.

Ah, stupidity rears it's ugly head...

[Drudgewire]

Is this ignored buffoon really claiming that Randi would prefer to explore the same oft-trodded out and demonstrably false claims every single time a new yutz makes them rather than mock the 15,000th idiot who peddles the same lie either out of ignorance or out of willful fraud?

Has he ever even read a Randi commentary?

Civility, civility. Thank you.

[Horatius]

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.




Evidence?

[fullflavormenthol]

Is this ignored buffoon really claiming that Randi would prefer to explore the same oft-trodded out and demonstrably false claims every single time a new yutz makes them rather than mock the 15,000th idiot who peddles the same lie either out of ignorance or out of willful fraud?

Has he ever even read a Randi commentary?
No. I mean honestly he has proven himself a troll who will make any statement just to pick a fight. His favorite seems to be stating that skeptics are not really skeptic if they are not troofers. He also likes to pretend that the world is laughing at the "debunkers" and not the troofers.

[Dog Town]

So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft...

-A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious.

-As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproving a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2036135#post2036135

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2043341#post2043341


The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs.

[dudalb]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2036135#post2036135

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2043341#post2043341


The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs.

Seems pretty anti CT to me.

[Drudgewire]

Evidence?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67015&page=5

You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I…

I do not discuss conspiracy theories.

James Randi.

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

[bonavada]

So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft...



Judging by another definition below (at this LINK (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debunked)) and with all respect to Mr Randi, I have no problem being labelled with the tag. I notice too that theauthor has no real response to the thrust of the OP. What's new?

BV
de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug

Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.

[Drudgewire]

Civility, civility. Thank you.

Very sorry, days of pent-up snottiness all came out at once. :o

[stevenwarran]

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!

[Magenta]

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!


Uh, weren't you banned?

[Loss Leader]

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific.


I doubt Radi holds the position you are ascribing to him. IIRC, Ace Baker had sent him an email full of tr00ther "evidence" to which he then posted Mr. Randi's reply. The words "you" and "are" and "wrong" featured prominently.

ETA: Yup! I remembered correctly. Here's the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2043341#post2043341).

[RedIbis]

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!

100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile.

[Bobert]

oops double post

[Bobert]

Very sorry, days of pent-up snottiness all came out at once. :o

Funny I have a cold so the same thing is happening to me!

[jhunter1163]

From the horse's mouth:

Yes, I knew Willy Rodriguez well for many years. He worked many shows with me, but there was never an employer/employee relationship. We have visited often since, and we met recently in NYC. He has now joined the WTC conspiracy crowd, and we disagree on his observations and his conclusions on that matter. I value Willy as a good friend.

[Gazpacho]

Your comments might be better received, theauthor, if not for the troofers' lengthy record of wanting to revise, not just the explanation of 9/11, but basic concepts of engineering and epistemology.

[MIKILLINI]

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

Why would you admit to being a part of a non-movement that relies on non-evidence speculation?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

[gtc]

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

That is a terrible thing to say about MIKILLINI.

/sarcasm.

[leftysergeant]

Uh, weren't you banned?

Hmmm....

The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink?

Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here?

[kookbreaker]

100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile.

"We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense"

-James Randi, TAM 5.5

[Cl1mh4224rd]

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?


Oh, don't worry. You're not alone in that...

[Horatius]

From the horse's mouth:

"We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense"

-James Randi, TAM 5.5



Damn, forgot about those two.

So, even more evidence that Randi is more like us than some people here would like to admit.

[FactCheck]

I took this a while ago but it shows the deniers losing steam when I came on the scene.

http://www.debunking911.com/graph.png

I'm not the only one who had an effect but I will have to take a little credit. :)

[Debunking911 takes a bow...]

There are so many others picking up the slack. I think most are on my links page.

[Magenta]

Hmmm....

The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink?

Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here?


Well, I'm picturing a conga line of zombie posters emerging from the forum's containment facility which was compromised during the shutdown. :D

[SpitfireIX]

I took this a while ago but it shows the deniers losing steam when I came on the scene.

http://www.debunking911.com/graph.png




The reason for the huge spike in September 2006 is obvious, but what caused the one the next month?

[leftysergeant]

The twoofers got their hopes up that there would be a new investigation and were all over the boards gloating.

[nicepants]

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false

That's because most claims made by truthers are false.

The boy who cried "smoking gun" one too many times is suffering the fate of his repeated dishonesty.

I've always been fascinated that a movement that calls itself "truth" spends most of its time lying.

[Brainster]

It was nice to receive a shout-out in that article, although I will be the first to admit that the "Truther" cause was bound to crest and subside for the simple reason that they have nothing. As I've often commented, defeating the "Truthers" is like slam-dunking on an eight-foot basket.

Against a guy in a wheelchair.

[CptColumbo]

It was nice to receive a shout-out in that article, although I will be the first to admit that the "Truther" cause was bound to crest and subside for the simple reason that they have nothing. As I've often commented, defeating the "Truthers" is like slam-dunking on an eight-foot basket.

Against a guy in a wheelchair.Or picking a fight with a girl with cerebal palsey in a wheelchair at a children's book store.

But then, what kinda cowardly scumbag would do something like that?

[Oliver]

The reason for the huge spike in September 2006 is obvious, but what caused the one the next month?


The second spike could have been the second Loose Change Forum meltdown ... being watched by thousands of Skeptics around the world:

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/firstnew.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=66146) The Admin-Tragedy "over there"... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=3) 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=4) 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=5) 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=6) 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=7) 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=8) 9 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=9) 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146&page=10))

Boy, that was some funny *beep*.

[gdnp]

regarding skeptics vs. debunkers:

I think it is reasonable to be a skeptic when dealing with claims of conspiracy theories that however improbable are possible.

I think it is reasonable to be a debunker when dealing with claims that violate well established physical laws. There is no reason one should maintain an "open mind" (that is, go in with the idea that it is just as likely true as false) when presented with a claim that is patently absurd.

So when someone makes a claim that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy, they should be treated skeptically.

When someone claims 9/11 was caused by ghosts from the future entering through a tear in the space-time continuum and that they predicted just such an occurrence a year before it happened, just buy my video which proves it, they should be debunked.

[Viper Daimao]

The reason for the huge spike in September 2006 is obvious, but what caused the one the next month?

I've got a raging clue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce)...

[Drudgewire]

regarding skeptics vs. debunkers:

I think it is reasonable to be a skeptic when dealing with claims of conspiracy theories that however improbable are possible.

I think it is reasonable to be a debunker when dealing with claims that violate well established physical laws. There is no reason one should maintain an "open mind" (that is, go in with the idea that it is just as likely true as false) when presented with a claim that is patently absurd.

So when someone makes a claim that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy, they should be treated skeptically.

When someone claims 9/11 was caused by ghosts from the future entering through a tear in the space-time continuum and that they predicted just such an occurrence a year before it happened, just buy my video which proves it, they should be debunked.

OK, let's see if I can make my point with a little less vitriol today:

The common "misconception" (read that: "delusion") the twoofers have about us here at JREF is that we've got the same emotional attachment to this subject they do, and/or use the same tactics to make our arguments they do.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We ARE skeptics here. The "debunking movement," far from being stocked with NWO agents or close-minded sheep, is made up of people who first looked at the claims which make up the phantom "official story" and weighed it against the evidence put up by the twoofers. It wasn't done with an agenda, and in many instances studied by people who went into it thinking there was a good chance not everything was on the up-and-up.

If we come off as arrogant or "unwilling to hear the other side," it's because so very, very little of what has been presented over the last couple of years is anything more than a rehashing of what WAS scrutinized when the issue was first raised. So by the 50th time a well-debunked theory is presented with no new evidence to support it, it no longer is a lack of skepticism which keeps us from taking the theory seriously... it's the fact it was already put through the ringer and didn't pass the muster then.

Once a theory has reached that level, and once it is brought up here AGAIN (and again and again and again) by someone who doesn't want to utilize the search feature, or by someone who just wants to troll for the sake of argument to convince themselves we don't take their "evidence" seriously, skepticism doesn't come into the picture anymore. Been there, done that, and the inability to grasp that because of paranoia or pre-conceived, agenda-driven ignorance isn't a shortcoming on our parts.

No matter how many times someone new wants to prove one plus one doesn't equal two, unless they have brand new and provably legitimate data to bring to the table to prove it, it doesn't mean mathmeticians worldwide are in on some great conspiracy for laughing at or ignoring them, it makes the person making the claim a dunce. And no amount of name-calling or circle-jerking with fellow dunces is ever going to change reality... even if they REALLY, REALLY want it to.

In short, we're 9/11 debunkers because every shred of "truther evidence" presented so far has been proven to be bunk. Bring ANYTHING new to the table, and it will be pored over with the same respectful tools of skepticism as any other scientific puzzle. Until then, the movement is doing nothing but promoting basic misunderstandings, proven lies and paranoid fantasy and getting mad at those who dare to apply real science to it.

Sorry to them, but that doesn't make them deep or more open-minded or more able to think outside the box than the rest of us. It makes them stupid... and sorry if proven stupidity (whether willful or not) is given no more respect than it deserves on an educational forum.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious. Topics that many debunkers focus on include U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, research outside mainstream science or pseudoscientific subjects. The term debunker is applied when a person functions as an activist and performs research, writes articles, gives speeches, conducts seminars, or engages in other activities with the specific intent of discounting the validity of a dubious, bizarre, or abnormal claim.

As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproving a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that about do it for ya?

[SpitfireIX]

I've got a raging clue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce)...


Oh, yes, excellent catch. That was one of the few South Park episodes I actually enjoyed. (All right, stop with the rotten tomatoes already, and knock off the melting tar and collecting feathers. :mad:) I wish it had been more like "Trapped in the Closet," though, and had the ending reveal that all the prominent truthers are just in it for the Four P's: paranoia, publicity, profit, and politics.

[gdnp]

OK, let's see if I can make my point with a little less vitriol today:

The common "misconception" (read that: "delusion") the twoofers have about us here at JREF is that we've got the same emotional attachment to this subject they do, and/or use the same tactics to make our arguments they do.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We ARE skeptics here. The "debunking movement," far from being stocked with NWO agents or close-minded sheep, is made up of people who first looked at the claims which make up the phantom "official story" and weighed it against the evidence put up by the twoofers. It wasn't done with an agenda, and in many instances studied by people who went into it thinking there was a good chance not everything was on the up-and-up.

Sorry, I hope my comments were not taken as an attack on those who have taken the time to debunk the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I have no desire to force you to rehash previously disproved points. What I was arguing, which is really pretty simple, is that plausible claims need to be disproved through critical examination--which has certainly been done to my satisfaction here--whereas implausible claims such as those of psychics, spoon benders, and ghost hunters can be dismissed a priori unless those making the claims wish to submit evidence to scientific examination.

If you want to claim that there were 17 hijackers, not 19: fine, I will examine your evidence and determine if it seems to be valid. Once. Then go away unless you have other new evidence.

If you want to claim you have psychic abilities and predicted the 9/11 attacks: not interested. I will not waste my time checking the veracity of your prior claims or the testimonials of your followers. No one has ever successfully demonstrated psychic abilities in a well controlled fashion, so I reject your claim out of hand until you agree to be tested in the million dollar challenge, or similar controlled setting.

[Drudgewire]

Sorry, I hope my comments were not taken as an attack on those who have taken the time to debunk the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Anything but. I was using your quote to expand upon something I said back on page one but was sort of an ass about the way I presented it. I think we're pretty much on the same page, your words just happened to be a good springboard for saying something the way I wanted to say it. :)