Truthers at the JREF, learned anything yet?

[Pardalis]

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

[DC]

Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.

[Mobyseven]

The scary part is that these people will one day have to function in society somehow...

[Pardalis]

Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.

A dishonest answer to start, what a surprise.

I mean seriously. Has anything, even small, changed in your views about 9/11 since you first got here?

[bio]

sometimes it is interesting. i learn, that there may be other explanations, too. in rare cases, you really manage to "debunk". Often you just work with semantic tricks or insults.

[Magenta]

What did you learn so far?


Sock-puppetry? :)

[DC]

A dishonest answer to start, what a surprise.

I mean seriously. Has anything, even small, changed in your views about 9/11 since you first got here?

yes, some things i saw as a strong indication for a conspiracy / cover up, i dont see as indications anymore, but in overall. i still belive in a CD of the tower and oc WTC7, im still agnostic about flight 77, but im still sure we didnt get presented the real impact place of flight 93.

i still belive Cheney played a major criminal roles in the atack.

[Pardalis]

yes, some things i saw as a strong indication for a conspiracy / cover up,

Such as?

This is the point of the thread, you can't just say "some things". What?

[DC]

Such as?

This is the point of the thread, you can't just say "some things". What?

just resently, the cuts of the remaining steel columns.

and i underestimated the damage of WTC7 (while this improved my oppinion about WTC7 to be a CD)

[Jonnyclueless]

just resently, the cuts of the remaining steel columns.

and i underestimated the damage of WTC7 (while this improved my oppinion about WTC7 to be a CD)

So have you found any physical evidence of a CD yet?

[DC]

So have you found any physical evidence of a CD yet?

no, and never claimed to have.

[dtugg]

no, and never claimed to have.

So you believe theories that have, even according to you, zero evidence supporting them. At least you are honest about it. But how do you think that makes you look?

[DC]

So you believe theories that have, even according to you, zero evidence supporting them. At least you are honest about it. But how do you think that makes you look?

i dont care how it makes me look :)

is there anything you belive without having hard evidence?

[dtugg]

is there anything you belive without having hard evidence?

Nothing that comes to mind.

[Alex Libman]

I've learned that logical reasoning skills and moral integrity are even less commonly combined within one person than I previously thought.

[chillzero]

One off topic split to AAH, another to a new CT thread. Please try to address the topic defined in the OP.

[DC]

One off topic split to AAH, another to a new CT thread. Please try to address the topic defined in the OP.

:hbd2:

[funk de fino]

I've learned that logical reasoning skills and moral integrity are even less commonly combined within one person than I previously thought.

I've learned there are a lot more paranoid people and trolls than I ever imagined possible.

[Mark Felt]

I've learned that coming to a conclusion, then looking for evidence that supports that conclusion and ignoring all the evidence that contradicts that conclusion is common to fanatics in all their various forms: the fundamentalist, the conspiracy theorist, the racist bigot...

[RedIbis]

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

[Pardalis]

So you learned absolutely nothing new, Red? Nothing changed in your mind after all these months of debating here? Not even a small thing?

May I ask then why do you keep posting here? What's the purpose of starting "debunk alert" threads, exactly, if you know nothing we say will change your mind?

Aren't you supposed to be "agnostic"?

[funk de fino]

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

Says a whole lot more about you than anything else you have ever posted.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

Using facts to counter lies is not honest research? Claiming fires in WTC7 were not large fires despite all the evidence to the contrary is how honest?

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

Even so, if they are anyways intelligent they will realise that the incomplete or inaccurate explanations still do not equal inside job. Something you have hilariously failed to realise.

[mrbaracuda]

Even so, if they are anyways intelligent they will realise that the incomplete or inaccurate explanations still do not equal inside job. Something you have hilariously failed to realise.

And that, my funky friend, is the crux of the matter. ;)

Although I have never considered myself a twoofer, I've learnt a great deal and cannot stress how much I appreciate every effort in this forum. Fortuneately it seems I joined at just about the right time before the 'debate culture' went a little downhill. But you're all forgiven; I wouldn't want to and couldn't repeat myself over and over again just to see the other end being banned for being a sock puppet. :p

[notheist]

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

Well Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was not entirely accurate or complete, and yet it has proven to be true. All these years have only strengthened the fact of evolution in spite of "creation truth" people desperate attempts to poke holes. It's survival of the fittest idea.

The truth of evolution would have come out in spite of Darwin, reality has a way of doing that. Bunk, on the other hand tends to sinks to the bottom and trutherism has hit bottom, and is showing signs of digging.

With seven years to come up with one solid piece of evidence that 9/11 was and inside job the truthers have become nothing but jokes. I know of three persons personally who made 'truther" sounds a few years ago and NOW! tell me they never REALLY believed in that ****.

So enjoy it while you can, either you guys will abandon the 9/11 conspiracy or end up being old crackpots, good for laughs.

[RedIbis]

So you learned absolutely nothing new, Red? Nothing changed in your mind after all these months of debating here? Not even a small thing?

May I ask then why do you keep posting here? What's the purpose of starting "debunk alert" threads, exactly, if you know nothing we say will change your mind?

Aren't you supposed to be "agnostic"?

The question you ask in the thread title is not the same as the question you ask in the OP. Have I learned something by reading and participating in the jref forum? Absolutely. In the 9/11 forum I learn a great deal. I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

If by agnostic you mean that I don't proclaim my beliefs as the absolute truth, than yes, I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know 'what really happened". I came to this forum because I was interested in the best debunking of conspiracy theories.

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.

[SDC]

Red I., your last sentence should end, "to confirm the official story for me" (or words to that effect). It is apparent that you made up your mind some time ago, and that your profession of "agnosticism" is false. You have made it clear over and over again that you believe it was some sort of "inside job" by the present administration.

I'm sad to say that your sham agnosticism, well, it gives agnosticism a bad name.

[Pardalis]

I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed? :confused:

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?

[Myriad]

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.


Congratulations, you've realized something about debunking that most people, including most debunkers here, never quite get straight. Debunking has nothing to do with confirming any particular story.

Debunking is finding fault with the evidence offered in support of a story. Completely successful debunking -- that is, demonstrating that there is no valid evidence in favor of a story, as is the case here with 9/11 inside job theories -- means there is no reason to believe that story.

Naturally, if there's no reason to believe a particular story, it makes sense to turn instead to other explanations of the event that do have evidence supporting them. But that's irrelevant as far as debunking is concerned. If it were a total mystery how 9/11 happened, the 9/11 conspiracy theories would still be debunked. For instance, controlled demolition via explosives and/or incendiaries would still suck as a theory for why the towers collapsed, even if their collapses had not been immediately preceded by airplane impacts and large intense fires. The possibility would be considered and quickly rejected due to the lack of observed blast shocks, no overpressure waves, no shrapnel, no evidence of explosive or incendiary distortion of the column ends, no remains of demolition apparatus, and collapse dynamics inconsistent with pre-weakening of the structure except at the collapse initiation zones. Suspicion would probably fall (as it has in other cases of accidental structural failure) on design and construction errors, flaws in material quality, extensive corrosion or fatiguing of members or fasteners, brittle fracture or other mechanical damage from usage or modification, and overloading. (Perhaps that's why NIST investigated many of those possibilities, despite the obvious evidence of collision damage and fire also having occurred! For example, if NIST had found evidence of substandard steel, or of chronic leaks having caused extensive corrosion, the narrative would have been quite different: rather than "the towers were doomed once the collisions took place," we'd all be seeing the big picture of the tower collapses as "substandard materials/practices made the towers more vulnerable than they should have been."

Not everything presented or discussed here is limited to debunking alone. Evidence in favor of the consensus narrative has emerged from research under discussion here including work by Gregory Urich, Crazy Chainsaw, and Frank Greening. Other such work published by journalists, scientists, engineers, and prosecutors in their respective milieux have also been discussed. But if you're looking for "debunking that confirms the official story," that's a contradiction in terms. Sorry if you were led to think otherwise.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[tanabear]

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

Discussing ideas is not the same as showing that certain claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement are false, or that certain claims made by the defenders of the official story are true. Debunking, JREF style, when it comes to 9/11 usually means coming up with alternative scenarios to explain an event. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Any explanation will do as long as it agrees with the official story(i.e. Flight 77's impact into the E-ring). How did WTC1 and 2 collapse? Maybe it was a pile-driver effect, a pancake collapse, a shockwave, a cushion of debris etc. Any theory is okay as long as you conclude the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire led to the tower's demise.

What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking.

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

[Pardalis]

Discussing ideas is not the same as showing that certain claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement are false, or that certain claims made by the defenders of the official story are true. Debunking, JREF style, when it comes to 9/11 usually means coming up with alternative scenarios to explain an event. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Any explanation will do as long as it agrees with the official story(i.e. Flight 77's impact into the E-ring). How did WTC1 and 2 collapse? Maybe it was a pile-driver effect, a pancake collapse, a shockwave, a cushion of debris etc. Any theory is okay as long as you conclude the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire led to the tower's demise.

And what is your overall theory regarding 9/11? Is it consistent?

What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking.

Now that's not really an answer to my OP is it? Please try again, honestly this time.

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

I think this speaks for itself. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

...
What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking. ...
This is the problem! Truthers think someone is supporting the "official story" when they debunk everything 9/11 truth comes up. 9/11 truth is fantasy and junk. Truthers are only against the "official story" and fail to see how stupid all the conclusions (when the truth movement decides to make one) of 9/11 truth are. Thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and explosives are all the same, fantasy ideas not supported by evidence.

It is debunking, you just think you have something, you don't, and you can't produce evidence of what you think you have. Does your failure to understand 9/11 mean you lack knowledge in fields related to 9/11, or are you ignoring evidence on purpose? The debunking works like this, you make a claim about something; take the stupid idea a plane can't hit the ground going 400 mph due to ground effect! A stupid idea and clearly any pilot can see is false! It is not false because it does not agree with the "official story", it is due to physics and it is pure stupidity. It is so stupid I can't believe a pilot made it up! You clearly lack knowledge and are unable to gather the correct evidence to make rational conclusions.

If you understood physics you will see WTC7, 1, and 2 all fell in a time consistent with a gravity collapse. Simple momentum models show this to be the case. If you can't handle NIST, and the dozens of other studies with explanations for the WTC collapse, you lack the knowledge. There has been many opportunities for you to learn what most take for granted due to their study of 9/11, or engineering background, or cause they are smart, or they have experience, or they are true skeptics who don't take what Jones says to be gospel, but check it out and find him to be a liar due or ignorance or on purpose.

Your failure to learn is proven in your post dedicated to only deny the "official story". You are not a skeptic, you act like a cult member who ignores reason, logic and facts to believe in your fantasy of 9/11.
Why can't you try to learn about 9/11? It has been 6 years, many people can figure out 9/11 in minutes using a very small amount of evidence.

[leonAzul]

I understand much evidence for science, when considering the scope of the various reports, and little evidence for conspiracy, when considering the lack of evidence among the various reports.

Without exemption, "truthers" appeal to something that is not falsifiable.

[tanabear]

I understand much evidence for science, when considering the scope of the various reports, and little evidence for conspiracy, when considering the lack of evidence among the various reports.

Without exemption, "truthers" appeal to something that is not falsifiable.

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

[Pardalis]

Are you serious? You're pulling our leg right?

[WildCat]

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?
Stundied!

[Newtons Bit]

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

Too rigorous? It's too expensive.

[tanabear]

Too rigorous? It's too expensive.

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html), which was based on lies; the Olympic Games (http://english.pravda.ru/sports/games/06-08-2008/106003-beijing_olympics-0)in Beijing; the budget (http://www.fletc.gov/news/press-clips/fact-sheet-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-announces-6-8-percent-increase-in-fiscal-year-2009-budget-request.html) for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

[Smackety]

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html), which was based on lies; the Olympic Games (http://english.pravda.ru/sports/games/06-08-2008/106003-beijing_olympics-0)in Beijing; the budget (http://www.fletc.gov/news/press-clips/fact-sheet-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-announces-6-8-percent-increase-in-fiscal-year-2009-budget-request.html) for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

How much are you willing to contribute to the experiment? How about we go 50/50?

[Travis]

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html), which was based on lies;

First off, the relevance to 9/11 is?

Second off, oh those lies. Saddam really wasn't a murdering madman you know, in fact he single handed cured Polio then went back in time in a time machine he invented. I heard he also made puppies cute. What a guy.

the Olympic Games (http://english.pravda.ru/sports/games/06-08-2008/106003-beijing_olympics-0)in Beijing;

Relevance to 9/11?


the budget (http://www.fletc.gov/news/press-clips/fact-sheet-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-announces-6-8-percent-increase-in-fiscal-year-2009-budget-request.html) for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Your budget for Homeland Security would be what? Some Doritos and sodas for super google sleuths who validate their own paranoid beliefs?

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated.

Just because it could be doesn't mean it should be. I suppose we could shuttle Apollo Hoax Believers to the moon to show them the flags etc but would that be a wise expenditure just to dissuade some deluded folk of their fantasies?

Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

You find a steel tube in a tube building we can destroy and a Boeing 767 to crash into it and we're on.

[leonAzul]

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

Wrong.

No one needs to demolish anything in order to demonstrate the known vulnerability of light-weight trusses when applied as joists to heat. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that demolition is involved, why not accept the verifiable fact that a fire was involved and then inquire among those who are most competent to give an informed opinion about how fire behaves? Not because fire fighters have authority, but rather because they have competency ;)

[MIKILLINI]

Are you serious? You're pulling our leg right?

He may not be pulling your leg, he just may never be convinced...unless someone, somewhere, somehow, will purchase a high rise building and a big 'ol jet airliner for the purpose of destroying them both in order to conduct an experiment.

Which means there has to be some possible truthers out there with some very deep pockets willing to do this. Ain't gonna happen.:rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html), which was based on lies; the Olympic Games (http://english.pravda.ru/sports/games/06-08-2008/106003-beijing_olympics-0)in Beijing; the budget (http://www.fletc.gov/news/press-clips/fact-sheet-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-announces-6-8-percent-increase-in-fiscal-year-2009-budget-request.html) for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but quite frankly I think you're mad.

[uk_dave]

On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should

[RedIbis]

On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should

So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.

[TheDaver]

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.
But the same can be said for anything. There’s no such thing as perfect.

Heinlein’s Razor says it well, if a little harshly:
“Don’t assume malice when stupidity will suffice.”

[TheDaver]

So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.
So you think that just because something is missing from his post, he’s deliberately ignoring it?

I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. What kind of rationalist would you be?

[RedIbis]

So you think that just because something is missing from his post, he’s deliberately ignoring it?

I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. What kind of rationalist would you be?

I don't affix labels to myself. I just see the irony in some of the most irrational posters here calling themselves rationalists.

[TheDaver]

Show me where UK_Dave has been irrational. So far the only one shown to be irrational by your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3948033&postcount=44) is you.

[WildCat]

Show me where UK_Dave has been irrational. So far the only one shown to be irrational by your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3948033&postcount=44) is you.
What, you think that someone who disregards all the eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, forensic evidence, etc etc is irrational? ;)

[RedIbis]

Show me where UK_Dave has been irrational. So far the only one shown to be irrational by your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3948033&postcount=44) is you.

What was irrational about my post? Both time and steel temperature are factors in their weakening.

[Mobyseven]

What was irrational about my post? Both time and steel temperature are factors in their weakening.

So is crashing a *********** jet into them.

[Pardalis]

Bump for RedIbis:

So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed? :confused:

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?

[1337m4n]

RedIbis, you can drop the phony "agnosticism" now; just come out and admit that you believe there were magic explosives planted in the towers. You've all but given yourself away already.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, you can drop the phony "agnosticism" now; just come out and admit that you believe there were magic explosives planted in the towers. You've all but given yourself away already.

There's no such thing as magic.

[TheRedWorm]

So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed? :confused:

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?


Just in case you are on ignore, Pard.

[RedIbis]

Just in case you are on ignore, Pard.

I don't put people on ignore. I just don't answer ridiculous questions. The extent of my knowledge on 9/11 is not something I'm going to post on an internet forum. Sorry, but I won't be playing along with the little monkey show, here.

[TheRedWorm]

Then leave. If you are too dishonest to answer a simple and straightforward question, then completely ignore it and run from the thread. Just like you did with the Flight 93 one.

[RedIbis]

Then leave. If you are too dishonest to answer a simple and straightforward question, then completely ignore it and run from the thread. Just like you did with the Flight 93 one.

You sound like a two year old. There is nothing simple and straightforward about asking someone the extent of their 9/11 knowledge. Had you known better you'd recognize it as one of the sillier debunking strategies.

[chillzero]

Please let's stop the bickering. Respond to the topic, without turning on each other.

[T.A.M.]

On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should

So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.

The temperature of the fires has been discussed ad nauseum. The temperatures were estimated (there was noone alive in the areas in question recording it with a thermometer) to be hot enough to compromise the steel through significant weakening.

NIST has gone over this in fine detail, as all parties here know.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.


Ah, that must mean that you America-hating liars will at long last show us some actual evidence.

You won't? You don't actually have any evidence? How did the mainstream account (there is, as you know, no "official" theory) get debunked? Surely someone must have proved that something was wrong with it?

Speak up.

[pomeroo]

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.



Have you learned that no demolition professionals use the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building with explosives"?

Why not?

[pomeroo]

So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.


Stop lying.

[pomeroo]

I don't put people on ignore. I just don't answer ridiculous questions. The extent of my knowledge on 9/11 is not something I'm going to post on an internet forum. Sorry, but I won't be playing along with the little monkey show, here.


Edited for civility and ignoring moderator instructions in post #59

[T.A.M.]

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

The question you ask in the thread title is not the same as the question you ask in the OP. Have I learned something by reading and participating in the jref forum? Absolutely. In the 9/11 forum I learn a great deal. I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

If by agnostic you mean that I don't proclaim my beliefs as the absolute truth, than yes, I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know 'what really happened". I came to this forum because I was interested in the best debunking of conspiracy theories.

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.

1. Given you have, in the past, seemed to fall into the LIHOP category (even if you hate to be categorized), it does not surprise me that you have not changed your mind much. It is hard for anyone to prove to you that someone DIDN'T intentionally NOT act. The old expression "you can't prove a negative" comes to mind.

2. Debunking has never claimed to be "research". Debunking is using fact, evidence, logic, and where applicable, common sense, to argue against a Conspiracy theory or other myth.

3. The truth movement has few if any HONEST researchers. Cherry Picking quotes, writing misleading and confabulating texts (ala DRG), and trying to swindle publishers into publishing your dimwitted, barely scientific paper through deception is far from "Honest" research.

4. This forum has not tried to change the inaccuracies or "missing pieces" in existing research, investigations, or accounts of the day. No one here has said any element of the investigation (FBI, NIST, FEMA, etc...) is PERFECT. Far from it. As one of the co-authors of the 9/11 commission has admitted, the early version of history are almost always not the full and true story. I accept that. What I do know, however, is as of now there has been not a shred of compelling evidence that anyone but Al-Qaeda had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

5. I am glad you have come to this forum, if for nothing more than to learn. Even if it has not changed your mind, something has still been gained. Agnostic, to me, is someone who will not commit to a particular stance or view point. Someone who sits the fence. You seem pretty sure the govt allowed 9/11 to happen. That is not agnostic. To MIHOP you seem perhaps a little more so.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

The temperature of the fires has been discussed ad nauseum. The temperatures were estimated (there was noone alive in the areas in question recording it with a thermometer) to be hot enough to compromise the steel through significant weakening.

NIST has gone over this in fine detail, as all parties here know.

TAM:)

The temperature of the fire, air and steel are all separate issues.

[RedIbis]

1. Given you have, in the past, seemed to fall into the LIHOP category (even if you hate to be categorized), it does not surprise me that you have not changed your mind much. It is hard for anyone to prove to you that someone DIDN'T intentionally NOT act. The old expression "you can't prove a negative" comes to mind.

2. Debunking has never claimed to be "research". Debunking is using fact, evidence, logic, and where applicable, common sense, to argue against a Conspiracy theory or other myth.

3. The truth movement has few if any HONEST researchers. Cherry Picking quotes, writing misleading and confabulating texts (ala DRG), and trying to swindle publishers into publishing your dimwitted, barely scientific paper through deception is far from "Honest" research.

4. This forum has not tried to change the inaccuracies or "missing pieces" in existing research, investigations, or accounts of the day. No one here has said any element of the investigation (FBI, NIST, FEMA, etc...) is PERFECT. Far from it. As one of the co-authors of the 9/11 commission has admitted, the early version of history are almost always not the full and true story. I accept that. What I do know, however, is as of now there has been not a shred of compelling evidence that anyone but Al-Qaeda had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

5. I am glad you have come to this forum, if for nothing more than to learn. Even if it has not changed your mind, something has still been gained. Agnostic, to me, is someone who will not commit to a particular stance or view point. Someone who sits the fence. You seem pretty sure the govt allowed 9/11 to happen. That is not agnostic. To MIHOP you seem perhaps a little more so.

TAM:)

This forum can be such a flood of semantics and contrarian argumentation it can be difficult to cut the crap and just talk straight. What is this obsession with labels and pigeonholing people, LIHOP, MIHOP, truther, rationalist, believer, agnostic, ad nauseum?

Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point? I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector. Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.

[johnny karate]

Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point?

You should "conform" to the "ideology" that is supported by the evidence. It's called rational thinking.

I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector.

But when you're "bs detector" is out of synch with every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet, (individuals who tend to be expert bs detectors), it might be time to reassess just how good that "bs detector" or yours actually is.

Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.

You'll have to define "conclusive" in this context and explain why what the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates isn't sufficient to meet that standard.

[Alt+F4]

Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.

19 suicidal jihadists hijack four planes and murder many people. It's not complex at all. Now D-day, I'd call that complex.

[T.A.M.]

This forum can be such a flood of semantics and contrarian argumentation it can be difficult to cut the crap and just talk straight. What is this obsession with labels and pigeonholing people, LIHOP, MIHOP, truther, rationalist, believer, agnostic, ad nauseum?

Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point? I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector. Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.

1. Personally when I label people, it is so I can know how to approach, and what to expect. Yah, it can prohibit or impede "straight talk" but you find so little of that online anyway...

2. It is not an obsession, for me. Lighten up...it is done all the time. Conservative, Liberal, Rebel, Nerd, Jock, the list goes on. It is human nature to pigeon hole things...helps make things a little more manageable.

3. I am not asking you to conform to anything. My assessment of you that rendered me LABELING you as an LIHOPer, is based on what I have read from you, and our discussions.

4. As I said earlier, I have no reservations with calling the investigation, AS A WHOLE, incomplete. Facts and evidence will continue to filter in as time goes on. However, as of today, and as far as I can tell for the foreseeable future, there is/will be no evidence that convinces me that the govt orchestrated, or allowed intentionally, the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

it can be difficult to cut the crap and just talk straight.

OK, could you answer my questions then, here and in the other thread?

[RedIbis]

OK, could you answer my questions then, here and in the other thread?

Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.

[RedIbis]

1. Personally when I label people, it is so I can know how to approach, and what to expect. Yah, it can prohibit or impede "straight talk" but you find so little of that online anyway...

2. It is not an obsession, for me. Lighten up...it is done all the time. Conservative, Liberal, Rebel, Nerd, Jock, the list goes on. It is human nature to pigeon hole things...helps make things a little more manageable.

3. I am not asking you to conform to anything. My assessment of you that rendered me LABELING you as an LIHOPer, is based on what I have read from you, and our discussions.

4. As I said earlier, I have no reservations with calling the investigation, AS A WHOLE, incomplete. Facts and evidence will continue to filter in as time goes on. However, as of today, and as far as I can tell for the foreseeable future, there is/will be no evidence that convinces me that the govt orchestrated, or allowed intentionally, the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)

1. At least you're honest.
2. Human nature? For you maybe.
3. That's not so strange to me, but at least leave room for the possibility that my perspective and opinion is flexible. I maintain that the official story requires a kind of inflexibility because if any crack in the facade appears, it has the potential to bring down the entire fabrication.
4. That's what I mean by requiring inflexibility.

[TheRedWorm]

Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.


That's understandable. How about, instead of that, you briefly list 5 or so theories that you weren't aware of before you started posting here, and if at all possible, where you heard/read them.

For example:

1. Space Beams brought WTC 1 & 2
2. Thermite used in CD of WTC 7
...

BTW: Sorry for being a dick earlier

[RedIbis]

That's understandable. How about, instead of that, you briefly list 5 or so theories that you weren't aware of before you started posting here, and if at all possible, where you heard/read them.

For example:

1. Space Beams brought WTC 1 & 2
2. Thermite used in CD of WTC 7
...

BTW: Sorry for being a dick earlier

You're hardly the worst around here. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. There are tons of theories that I first heard in this forum. Certainly, space beams comes to mind, as does the very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower, video fakery, no planes, the jooz did it, etc.

[TheRedWorm]

Good, that is what I was asking for. So there is:

1. space beams
2. very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower
3. video fakery
4. no planes
5. the jooz did it


Now, of those, is there any that you have researched enough to come to a conclusion as to the veracity of? For instance, have you found that there is no evidence that in any way points to weapons from outer space, and thus discard it as a possibility, at least until some compelling evidence comes along?

[uk_dave]

Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.

Do you consider yourself to be a rational person?

[RedIbis]

Good, that is what I was asking for. So there is:

1. space beams
2. very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower
3. video fakery
4. no planes
5. the jooz did it


Now, of those, is there any that you have researched enough to come to a conclusion as to the veracity of? For instance, have you found that there is no evidence that in any way points to weapons from outer space, and thus discard it as a possibility, at least until some compelling evidence comes along?

I don't believe in any of those. Please add, 100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch. The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon. Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse. As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.

[Pardalis]

Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.

You've started many threads here, asking people to debunk things. Have you learned anything in those threads so far, in an entire year of doing this, new things you didn't know about? Has anything people like Mangoose, RMackey, Gravy and the others have said sunk in yet?

[Mark Felt]

Please add, 100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but you're aware that there were crashes with similar results before 9/11, right?

[uk_dave]

....100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch.
The use of 'disappearing' and 'empty ditch' indicates that you are not a rational person.

The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon.
This statement indicates that you're not a rational person.

Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse.
You mean it didn't collapse like what you imagined it should? :cool:
As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.
You mean the events of that day didn't happen like what how you fink they should've, innit?

[tanabear]

First off, the relevance to 9/11 is?

Second off, oh those lies. Saddam really wasn't a murdering madman you know, in fact he single handed cured Polio then went back in time in a time machine he invented. I heard he also made puppies cute. What a guy.

Relevance to 9/11?

We supposedly invaded Iraq due to the traumatic effects of 9/11. Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda and he was producing and stockpiling large amounts of WMD. On any given day he could have given these weapons to Al-Qaeda to use against us. All of these claims were false. So all of the money we've spent and the lives we have lost have been due to neo-con conspiracy theories. The Department of Homeland Security was created also due to 9/11. The Olympics are a "bread and circus" event. Well, not entirely, but the point is that the United States and other nations spend an awful lot of money and much of it is wasted. What is wrong with spending some money to test the validity of NIST's hypothesis?

Wrong.

No one needs to demolish anything in order to demonstrate the known vulnerability of light-weight trusses when applied as joists to heat. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that demolition is involved, why not accept the verifiable fact that a fire was involved and then inquire among those who are most competent to give an informed opinion about how fire behaves? Not because fire fighters have authority, but rather because they have competency ;)

The vulnerability of the light-weight trusses to fire is not what I was referring to. I was talking about Bazant's crush-down/crush-up theory. The upper block crushes the lower block with negligible damage to itself, then when the upper block hits the rubble pile, it self-destructs via the crush-up effect. The other experiment would be demolishing a steel-frame high-rise with structural damage and fire and have its destruction mirror the collapse of WTC7. What has NIST or any other engineering group done to test the validity of these assumptions?

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but quite frankly I think you're mad.

I think Orwell summed it up best, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Nevertheless, mentioning the experimental method to a JREF'er is like mentioning the name Prince Humperdinck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRI0NtQ1DU)to Miracle Max.

[johnny karate]

Nevertheless, mentioning the experimental method to a JREF'er is like mentioning the name Prince Humperdinck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRI0NtQ1DU)to Miracle Max.

Perhaps we are not best judge of such things.

I strongly suggest you take your notion of the experimental method as it relates to the collapse of the twin towers to a scientist and see what that person has to say.

Please let us know how it turns out.

[MIKILLINI]

I don't believe in any of those. Please add, 100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch. The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon. Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse. As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.

Red you haven't learned anything if you can mention the nosecone of flight 77 as making the exit hole in the Pentagon.

I haven't come across anything logical portraying the nosecone as the section of the plane credited for creating the exit hole.
How could you have reached that conclusion?

[SYLVESTER1592]

It's such a shame that people make up their minds first and then come here to battle out their differences. It's sometimes hard to change your point of view. Changing your mind is often regarded as defeat, but requests for evidence or information are only useful when willing to accept the meaning of the received information. The goal should be to gain a better understanding of what you study. The question whether thruthers have learned anything is therefore a matter of acceptance which can only lead to a flame war when the gained information is not weighed in an honest manner.

SYL :)

[papasmurf]

This is the problem! Truthers think someone is supporting the "official story" when they debunk everything 9/11 truth comes up. 9/11 truth is fantasy and junk. Truthers are only against the "official story" and fail to see how stupid all the conclusions (when the truth movement decides to make one) of 9/11 truth are. Thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and explosives are all the same, fantasy ideas not supported by evidence.

It is debunking, you just think you have something, you don't, and you can't produce evidence of what you think you have. Does your failure to understand 9/11 mean you lack knowledge in fields related to 9/11, or are you ignoring evidence on purpose? The debunking works like this, you make a claim about something; take the stupid idea a plane can't hit the ground going 400 mph due to ground effect! A stupid idea and clearly any pilot can see is false! It is not false because it does not agree with the "official story", it is due to physics and it is pure stupidity. It is so stupid I can't believe a pilot made it up! You clearly lack knowledge and are unable to gather the correct evidence to make rational conclusions.

If you understood physics you will see WTC7, 1, and 2 all fell in a time consistent with a gravity collapse. Simple momentum models show this to be the case. If you can't handle NIST, and the dozens of other studies with explanations for the WTC collapse, you lack the knowledge. There has been many opportunities for you to learn what most take for granted due to their study of 9/11, or engineering background, or cause they are smart, or they have experience, or they are true skeptics who don't take what Jones says to be gospel, but check it out and find him to be a liar due or ignorance or on purpose.

Your failure to learn is proven in your post dedicated to only deny the "official story". You are not a skeptic, you act like a cult member who ignores reason, logic and facts to believe in your fantasy of 9/11.
Why can't you try to learn about 9/11? It has been 6 years, many people can figure out 9/11 in minutes using a very small amount of evidence.


Simple momentum models show this to be the case?

I smell *****.


btw, where is the "hard evidence" that supports the official story?

Just curious.

Maybe the passport or the flight manuals?

Perhaps the Koran and the cockpit recordings?

Riiiggghht.

[MIKILLINI]

Simple momentum models show this to be the case?

I smell *****.


btw, where is the "hard evidence" that supports the official story?

Just curious.

Maybe the passport or the flight manuals?

Perhaps the Koran and the cockpit recordings?

Riiiggghht.

Perhaps you have solid, tangible evidence that overshadows the evidence already collected and researched?

[Travis]

We supposedly invaded Iraq due to the traumatic effects of 9/11.

Really, I had been agitating for an invasion or Iraq since 1998. I guess I had a time machine.

Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda and he was producing and stockpiling large amounts of WMD.

Secular Saddam cooperating with uber-religious Osama is something I never thought probable. I still wanted Saddam taken out since a secular murdering madman is still just as deadly to his people as a religious one.

On any given day he could have given these weapons to Al-Qaeda to use against us. All of these claims were false.

True, but Saddam was still a genocidal madman.

So all of the money we've spent and the lives we have lost have been due to neo-con conspiracy theories.

Nope, what we did was forcefully remove one of the deadliest and most oppressive dictators in history that probably wasn't a thread to the US, I never really thought he was, but was a huge threat to his own people.....and then we screwed up the rebuilding phase.

The Department of Homeland Security was created also due to 9/11.

True, but is your argument that the Department of Homeland Security is mismanaged, over funded or unnecessary?

The Olympics are a "bread and circus" event. Well, not entirely, but the point is that the United States and other nations spend an awful lot of money and much of it is wasted.

You might be interested then in this fact:

America's Olympic effort is coordinated by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Unlike most national Olympic committees, USOC receives no continuous federal government subsidy, relying instead on corporate and individual contributions and on the proceeds of its direct marketing program.

Courtesy of this (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/February/20060209164553jmnamdeirf0.9387018.html) website.

What is wrong with spending some money to test the validity of NIST's hypothesis?

What's wrong with sending a rocket to the moon to make sure it isn't made of cheese? Perhaps, the problem is, spending a lot of money to satisfy the fantasy of a select minority. If you want to make a case for redoing the NIST investigation you are going to have to come up with a more persuasive case than "I just don't trust the government."

[thesyntaxera]

I think I do agree a bit with RedIbis when it comes to the statements they made about "debunking". I think, personally speaking, it isn't a very honest way to investigate claims. Unfortunately, the only way to test any claims in this situation to the satisfaction of those sympathetic to "Truth Movement" claims would involve reconstructing and reenacting the entire incident precisely as it was said to have happened, and to have absolutely full and free access to all the evidence and information that they may so chose to seek.

Even then I have my doubts. I doubt that the most vocal proponents of these idea's would act honestly if they were to suddenly have every available resource. If it was found that the Official account was totally accurate, I still think some in the Truth community who are so attached mentally and egoistically with being the valiant whistleblowers would still cry conspiracy, because without one they have no real self defined purpose for living. Perhaps their heads would explode...who knows?

So what have I learned...?

1. It's a cult of personality in most cases. In this case you have several personalities trying to gain attention for their own agenda by capitalizing on the deaths of thousands. Take that "who stands to benefit" crap and aim it straight at those who are leading this "movement".

2. Dude, come on! This whole phenomena started as internet movies. I am sorry, but my faith in the scientific and logical rigor of these films is lacking. Seriously...come on. Quit letting others think for you. Anyone can cut and paste clips together. Just because it's compelling doesn't mean it's true.

3. Remember to take stock of what is actually being said. A evening spent reviewing statements by supposed truth seekers should reveal them to be engaging in the same thing they complain about. Debunking. It's a semantic game that never ends. One side states they have evidence, and arguments. The other side retorts with arguments but no actual evidence....ad nauseum.

At some point, you actually have to consider the evidence, and take note of the fact that the side you are supporting as a "truther" has nothing but rhetoric, loud voices, and emotive music set to traumatizing video collages.

By now, hopefully, one should see the house of cards teetering.

4. This is a good one, though I can't remember who told it to me;)

Correlation does NOT automatically equal causation. Peoples ignorance of this simple idea is what allows these truth spreaders to proliferate idea's and get more attention drawn to themselves.



So, in conclusion...you are either A: Willing to base your beliefs about this event on a cadre of halfwitted media whores whose sole sources of evidence lies in the reediting of video clips over and over, cherry picking quotes and evidence, not to mention outright dishonesty, questionable motives, and an overt lack of expertise....OR...You are going to B: Follow the evidence that has been reviewed by peers with relevant expertise.

It's pretty simple really.