Someone Please Define "Inside Job"...

[Astute Perspicuous]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...

[funk de fino]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...

Your lot shout it all the time, you bring it.

[Astute Perspicuous]

Your lot shout it all the time, you bring it.

What, don't want to go on record?

[funk de fino]

What, don't want to go on record?

You seem to like making definitions going by your other fail thread. Try this one, see what you come up with.

Its not my claim.

[johnny karate]

Seems like a fairly self-explanatory term. Which word don't you understand?

[funk de fino]

Why not ask this lot?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_182444ab7b67977290.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17635)

[Astute Perspicuous]

This is funny...

[johnny karate]

Will you be posing basic math problems in your next thread?

[funk de fino]

This is funny...

They have the answer. They should have, they have asked enough questions.

Scared to try it yourself?

[Astute Perspicuous]

Will you be posing basic math problems in your next thread?

For such an easy question, I see 6 replies, but yet, not 1 answer.

Interesting...

[funk de fino]

For such an easy question, I see 6 replies, but yet, not 1 answer.

Interesting...

Scared? Its your lot who claim it not us. If its so easy why do you have to ask. I can see from the other thread you are slow, but really?

[johnny karate]

Words mean what they mean. Why are you asking us what these particular words mean, and why do assume the answer you will be given would be any different than the standard definition?

[16.5]

Here you go snookums:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=+Define+%22Inside+Job%22...+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Now, can someone please define Inside Jobby Job?

[Horatius]

Now, can someone please define Inside Jobby Job?



It's what Nobby Nobs does on a rainy day.


Sorry man, had to say it!

[T.A.M.]

"Inside job" = People within the USG either allowed 9/11 to happen ON purpose, or actually Orchestrated the events.

Not an "Inside job" = Allowing it to happen out of ignorance, incompetence, or arrogance (blinded to the truth). Also, COVERING YOUR ASS is not an inside job.

CLEAR ENOUGH???

TAM:)

[CHF]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...

When I think of an "inside job" I think of the authorities staging the event itself and blaming someone else.

The Russian apartment bombings of 1999 (if they were in fact staged by the FSB) would be prime examples of this.

I'm not so sure how truthers define the term, given that many of you think Pearl Habour was an "inside job" as well.

[Astute Perspicuous]

"Inside job" = People within the USG either allowed 9/11 to happen ON purpose, or actually Orchestrated the events.

Not an "Inside job" = Allowing it to happen out of ignorance, incompetence, or arrogance (blinded to the truth). Also, COVERING YOUR ASS is not an inside job.

CLEAR ENOUGH???

TAM:)

Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?

[Redtail]

Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?

No.

ETA: Elaboration, granted "corporations could try to pull off an inside job but there's even less evidence of them doing it instead of the government.

[CHF]

Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?

I look forward to your narrative.

[Astute Perspicuous]

No.

OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?

[16.5]

OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?

A Corporate Inside Jobby Job.

[CHF]

OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?

Please name these corporations.

Remember....no FBI, no CIA, no NTSB, no NORAD, no USAF, no NIST.

Good luck.

[Astute Perspicuous]

Please name these corporations.

Remember....no FBI, no CIA, no NTSB, no NORAD, no USAF, no NIST.

Good luck.


Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

[Redtail]

OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?

The same thing it would be called if we were attacked by an alien race of humanoid chipmunks.

[Astute Perspicuous]

The same thing it would be called if we were attacked by an alien race of humanoid chipmunks.

What are you, like 6?

Please remember to attack the argument and be civil. Thank you.

[BigAl]

Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

It's also considered good form to listen to answers and ask relevant followup questions as necessary instead of changing the topic.

[SpitfireIX]

Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.


Another Truther JAQing off. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Redtail]

What are you, like 6?

Oh I'm sorry, from your posts I thought we were just throwing theories around for the hell of it. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

[CHF]

Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

So you're just another intellectual coward like the rest of your follow JAQ-offs who slander people with inuendo and accusations only be hide behind "questions" when challenged.

I figured as much.

[16.5]

Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

Just Askin Questions about the inside jobby job!

Cripes.

[HeyLeroy]

The same thing it would be called if we were attacked by an alien race of humanoid chipmunks.

We welcome the yoke of our New Masters' reign!

[ElMondoHummus]

Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?

In relation to September 11th, no. Zero evidence.

[T.A.M.]

Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?

I suppose in theory it could represent any group with the power to do so, and having the USA (in the case on 9/11) as their "home".

The USG is the one the truth movement tends to blame, and it is they (the USG) that the TM claims (falsely) to have evidence against.

If you've got any evidence that certain corporations helped aid in the attacks, now would be the time.

TAM

[Astute Perspicuous]

It's also considered good form to listen to answers and ask relevant followup questions as necessary instead of changing the topic.

Seriously you're going to try to say I am changing the topic

Below is the topic and my posts...show me where I have switched the subject.

Lame attempt but credit for trying.



Someone Please Define "Inside Job"...

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...
==============================================
Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?
===============================================
OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?
================================================== ====
Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

[johnny karate]

A corporation attacking America (*snicker*) would not be an inside job, unless said corporation had some official affiliation with the government, which would kind of undercut whatever point you're trying to make. It would just be an act of domestic terrorism (assuming the corporation was American-based).

[CHF]

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

Indeed it is.

Just as it's OK to ignore answers or pretend to have any interest in them to begin with.

There's no law against any of this behavior. If there were all truthers would be in jail.

[funk de fino]

Seriously you're going to try to say I am changing the topic

Below is the topic and my posts...show me where I have switched the subject.

Lame attempt but credit for trying.



Someone Please Define "Inside Job"...

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...
==============================================
Finally...someone with a brain.

Could inside job be "corporations" instead of USG?
===============================================
OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?
================================================== ====
Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?

An honest person would have given us a definition and asked for comments. A grown up may also have gone this route.

[Astute Perspicuous]

Anyway... I try my best not to put forth any "theories" because I don't have answers and there is quite enough "fact" to warrant questions.

So, I don't think Bush had any idea...you could see the look on his face. That's obvious. Nobody would have trusted that bumbling drunk with that info...he was too stupid to be in the know.

I pose the question did "corporations" have something to do with 9/11?

Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

[funk de fino]

Anyway... I try my best not to put forth any "theories" because I don't have answers and there is quite enough "fact" to warrant questions.

So, I don't think Bush had any idea...you could see the look on his face. That's obvious. Nobody would have trusted that bumbling drunk with that info...he was too stupid to be in the know.

I pose the question did "corporations" have something to do with 9/11?

Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

Whats an inside job?

[ElMondoHummus]

Anyway... I try my best not to put forth any "theories" because I don't have answers and there is quite enough "fact" to warrant questions.


Actually, no. There is enough fact to understand that the events of 9/11 do not in any way, shape, or form even suggest the possibility of an inside job. We've seen the "facts" that people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, and other truthers have forwarded, and believe me, the scare quotes are warranted.

Actual study of the facts of the event shows that the facts point away from conspiratorial hypotheses. Any conclusion short of that demonstrates that the person suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy has not studied the facts.


I pose the question did "corporations" have something to do with 9/11?


No.


Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

No.

[Astute Perspicuous]

Whats an inside job?


That's what I am trying to find out here slick.

[Astute Perspicuous]

Actually, no. There is enough fact to understand that the events of 9/11 do not in any way, shape, or form even suggest the possibility of an inside job. We've seen the "facts" that people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, and other truthers have forwarded, and believe me, the scare quotes are warranted.

Actual study of the facts of the event shows that the facts point away from conspiratorial hypotheses. Any conclusion short of that demonstrates that the person suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy has not studied the facts.



No.



No.


Wow...now that's dedication. Just deny everything.

[16.5]

Wow...now that's dedication. Just deny everything.

Holy cripes, are you trolling or just irretrievably dim?

Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous
I pose the question did "corporations" have something to do with 9/11?

Answer No.


Originally Posted by Astute Perspicuous
Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

Answer No.

Do you know what an "answer" is ya goof?

AP is Jest Askin Questions, and just ignoring answers!

It is an international corporation style Inside/outside Jobby Job!

[johnny karate]

Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

Are you seriously asking if an entity that exists outside of America took part in the 9/11 attacks would it constitute an inside job?

[T.A.M.]

Simple;

If Bank of America, Blackwater, or some other AMERICAN BASED companies, helped orchestrate the attacks, or had knowledge they were going to happen, the where when and why, and did nothing to stop them, then YES, in MY OPINION, that would also constitute an INSIDE JOB.

TAM:)

[Astute Perspicuous]

Are you seriously asking if an entity that exists outside of America took part in the 9/11 attacks would it constitute an inside job?

Finally, someone else with a brain.

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow...now that's dedication. Just deny everything.

That is not denial. That is the inevitable conclusion from study of the facts.

[CHF]

Anyway... I try my best not to put forth any "theories" because I don't have answers and there is quite enough "fact" to warrant questions.

At least you acknowledge that truther "facts" require quotation marks around them.

[ElMondoHummus]

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?


No, it cannot be respected. It fails to acknowledge the known facts of the day. The "story" has been built from evidence; counterproposals fall flat when they do not cite evidence, or are built on misperceptions or outright distortions, such as the ones that form the canon of conspiracy peddler's beliefs.

The only thing that can be "respected" is a narrative constructed by facts. The indeed ironically named "Truth" movement has failed to construct any such narrative. And in fact, their level of knowledge is so poor, most of the anomalies or contradictions they cite aren't even correct.

[T.A.M.]

Finally, someone else with a brain.

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?

I can respect anything that has EVIDENCE behind it.

I cannot respect false accusations, whether they are against the USG, or even big bad corporations if they do not have evidence to back it up.

Of course respecting it, and accepting it are two different things. I can accept that EVERYONE is entitled to an OPINION. It just carries very little weight when that is all it is.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

Finally, someone else with a brain.

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?

Your questions presume that debunkers defend the official narrative to the letter unquestioningly, and have taken the position that the U.S. government has been 100% honest and open in that narrative.

In my experience, this is simply not the case.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

[Astute Perspicuous]

No, it cannot be respected. It fails to acknowledge the known facts of the day. The "story" has been built from evidence; counterproposals fall flat when they do not cite evidence, or are built on misperceptions or outright distortions, such as the ones that form the canon of conspiracy peddler's beliefs.

The only thing that can be "respected" is a narrative constructed by facts. The indeed ironically named "Truth" movement has failed to construct any such narrative. And in fact, their level of knowledge is so poor, most of the anomalies or contradictions they cite aren't even correct.


Hahaha...I have met the Czar of Truth.

Wow...I feel enthralled.

[Redtail]

Finally, someone else with a brain.

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?

No... Not until you bring some proof that the story was different from what we were told. (Also, told when?)

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?
No more than I would stand up for those alien humanoid chipmunks. (I have only a bit less proof for them as the the truthers have for pretty much anything they propose.)

[Myriad]

OK...then what would it be called if we were attacked by "Corporations" on 9/11 instead of the "Official" story?


Some good names would be "Dr. No," "Goldfinger," "Thunderball," "You Only Live Twice," "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," "The Spy Who Loved Me," "Moonraker," "Never Say Never Again," and "Tomorrow Never Dies."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ElMondoHummus]

Hahaha...I have met the Czar of Truth.

Wow...I feel enthralled.

Try creating an argument instead of affecting a pose. You'll get more respect if you take that route.

[Redtail]

Some good names would be "Dr. No," "Goldfinger," "Thunderball," "You Only Live Twice," "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," "The Spy Who Loved Me," "Moonraker," "Never Say Never Again," and "Tomorrow Never Dies."

Respectfully,
Myriad

You left out Pootie Tang...:boxedin:

[Astute Perspicuous]

Try creating an argument instead of affecting a pose. You'll get more respect if you take that route.


You seem to think I feel the need to be respected by you?

[T.A.M.]

You seem to think I feel the need to be respected by you?

You were the one that brought up respect.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

You seem to think I feel the need to be respected by you?


You seem to think we feel the need to think your opinions are relevant to the reality of 9/11 in any way, shape, or form.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?

If an innocent party is unjustly accused of a crime, you stand up for them. If "coporations" are accused of a crime they didn't commit based on flimsy, crappy evidence, then you stand up for them too. The "US citizen" doesn't enter the equation.

[beachnut]

That's what I am trying to find out here slick.
"Inside Job" is part of a chant people with no evidence or ability to understand 911 repeat since they can't do much more than chant and spew lies.

"inside job" is what those who can't understand 911 chant. It is the smoking gun of anti-intellectualism for those people you want to support so bad but fail to have evidence.

[HyJinX]

In the immortal words of my good friend, Unsecured Coins....

http://engr.oregonstate.edu/news/annual_report2001/images/photos/inset-ball-of-string.jpg

[Mr.Herbert]

Someone Please Define "Inside Job"...

Allow me to give it a shot:

in⋅side  /prep. ˌɪnˈsaɪd, ˈɪnˌsaɪd; adv. ˌɪnˈsaɪd; n. ˈɪnˈsaɪd; adj. ˌɪnˈsaɪd, ˈɪn-, ˈɪnˌsaɪd/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [prep. in-sahyd, in-sahyd; adv. in-sahyd; n. in-sahyd; adj. in-sahyd, in-, in-sahyd] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA

–preposition 1.on the inner side or part of; within: inside the circle


job1  /http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngdʒɒb/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngjob] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, verb, jobbed, job⋅bing, adjective

2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.

Simply put... Inside Job = A prostitute.

[RedIbis]

"inside job" is what those who can't understand 911 chant.

What's there to understand? If your house is burning down, you dial 911.

[Horatius]

The same thing it would be called if we were attacked by an alien race of humanoid chipmunks.

We welcome the yoke of our New Masters' reign!

I don't!

Click here for image in bad taste. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/3622711944_f40d950e30.jpg)

[JohnG]

Once again...I pose no "Theory"...only questions.

It's still ok to ask questions in Amerika right?


Would it be reasonable to suspect that someone who is just asking questions after 8 years spent studying well, anything might be suffering from some sort of learning disability?

8 years and you don't have even a tentative theory you'd be willing to put forward to explain what really happened on 9/11?

It's still OK to question Truthers, right?

[JohnG]

Some good names would be "Dr. No," "Goldfinger," "Thunderball," "You Only Live Twice," "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," "The Spy Who Loved Me," "Moonraker," "Never Say Never Again," and "Tomorrow Never Dies."

Respectfully,
Myriad


Where is the love for On Her Majesty's Secret Service?:(

Now that movie had a conspiracy to get a Truther's juices flowing.

[Comsat Angel]

"Someone Please Define "Inside Job"...
What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job"."

Wow, someone created a Turing Machine!

Let er' rip...

[ElMondoHummus]

You seem to think I feel the need to be respected by you?

You're hellbent on bending things to your interpretation to the exclusion of the obvious. Reread my comment. If I had cared about what you feel, I would've displayed signs of it by now. Rather, I'm telling you to stop acting like a petulant adolescent and start actually discussing the facts about 9/11. Not mere charges, not vague assertions, but the actual FACTS. FACTS which you yourself keep referring to but sadly enough never actually cite.

It's sad that I even have to explain this. And it reflects badly upon you and your behavior.

[RedIbis]

Would it be reasonable to suspect that someone who is just asking questions after 8 years spent studying well, anything might be suffering from some sort of learning disability?

8 years and you don't have even a tentative theory you'd be willing to put forward to explain what really happened on 9/11?

It's still OK to question Truthers, right?

Isn't that the point of the OP? An Inside Job is the alternative theory.

[DGM]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...
What I wish I had during a NewEngland winter. I hope this helps

[JohnG]

Isn't that the point of the OP? An Inside Job is the alternative theory.


Call me a pedantic bore, but I don't think simply saying "9/11 was an inside job" qualifies on its own as a "theory".

[Matthew Cline]

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Yes, but it's the Truth Movement that came up with the term "inside job" in relation to 9/11, so why ask us what it means? If you want to say "claiming that 9/11 was either done by Al Qaeda or the USG is a false dichotomy", then just say that.

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?

If we thought that corporations were behind 9/11 then we'd be condemning them.

[RedIbis]

Call me a pedantic bore, but I don't think simply saying "9/11 was an inside job" qualifies on its own as a "theory".

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.

[JohnG]

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.


You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[johnny karate]

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.

Yeah, except for all that pesky evidence.

[Myriad]

Call me a pedantic bore, but I don't think simply saying "9/11 was an inside job" qualifies on its own as a "theory".

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.


Right. There is no "official theory" and there is no complete and coherent alternative theory offered by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so both are equally nonexistent.

What does exist is the historical narrative of 9/11, resulting from the accounts of witnesses and participants, examinations by forensic experts, public and private criminal investigations, research by journalists and historians, and ample material and documentary evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Hokulele]

Isn't that the point of the OP? An Inside Job is the alternative theory.


False dichotomy.

[Rogue1stclass]

the same thing it would be called if we were attacked by an alien race of humanoid chipmunks.

alllviiiiin!

[RedIbis]

Right. There is no "official theory" and there is no complete and coherent alternative theory offered by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so both are equally nonexistent.

What does exist is the historical narrative of 9/11, resulting from the accounts of witnesses and participants, examinations by forensic experts, public and private criminal investigations, research by journalists and historians, and ample material and documentary evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

For which there is an enormous variety of opinion.

[T.A.M.]

For which there is an enormous variety of opinion.

yes, and we all know how valuable OPINION is.

TAM:rolleyes:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.


Right. A non-trivial number of them believe the Jews had something to do with the whole thing...

[RedIbis]

yes, and we all know how valuable OPINION is.

TAM:rolleyes:

Well the legal system is based on it.

[beachnut]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...lol, it is what you think 911 was. Too easy
I never said I was a 911 truther.

Just been studying this from a third person perspective and truth be told the truthers are kicking your butts. You failed then, you are failing again. What woke you up to post more lies about 911?

You messed up! You came to JREF faking you were looking for knowledge; forgot you were faking it came out full of poppycock like this I never said I was a 911 truther.

Just been studying this from a third person perspective and truth be told the truthers are kicking your butts. Two lies for one. 2 years and no progress with your knowledge on 911. Why can't you answer your own question?

"inside job" is what you think 911 was as you ignore reality and spew delusions.

You been studying since 2007? No

When will you make the big post claiming victory (you already did) and then this is my favorite THAT'S IT!! I'm done posting here.
You could bring evidence next time. Yes, bring some evidence next time. That would be different.

[Myriad]

For which there is an enormous variety of opinion.


But opinion about facts is irrelevant. Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun was not the slightest bit affected by the opinions of kings, peasants, or Galileo, and is equally unaffected by the opinions of modern astronomers. Where modern astronomers differ from paleolithic cave men is in the evidence they can present to support their respective notions of how the heavens move. Similarly, no one's opinion about whether or not there were demolition charges, nanothermite, or sinister elevator repair commandos in the Twin Towers has the slightest effect on whether or not they were actually there. What matters, for anyone seeking to shape the historical narrative to accord with their own thoughts about what happened, is the evidence they can offer.

Opinion is important when the debate is about choices being made or to be made by people. But...

If it's not about choices ("my opinion is that the weather should be mild next winter") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to farmers and travel agents, among others.)

If it's not about people acting ("my opinion is that Yellowstone will erupt next year") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to geologists and disaster management organizations, among others.)

If it's not about the present or future ("my opinion is that 9/11 was an inside job") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to historians, politicians, and prosecutors, among others.)

So, can you express your opinion about 9/11 in terms of present or future actions to be taken by people? "There should be a new investigation" or "Dick Cheney should go to prison" is not sufficient, because "should be" is not an action, it's a wish. See if you can phrase it in the form of, "Because of what I think about 9/11, [specific person, people or organization] should do [specific action]."

Once you do that, a debate can begin, based on whatever evidence you can show to support that opinion.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[rwguinn]

Troofers now admit that they are using terms they don't know the meaning of?

What's ther world coming too. Perhaps they are right! Rapture is due any time!

[RedIbis]

But opinion about facts is irrelevant. Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun was not the slightest bit affected by the opinions of kings, peasants, or Galileo, and is equally unaffected by the opinions of modern astronomers. Where modern astronomers differ from paleolithic cave men is in the evidence they can present to support their respective notions of how the heavens move. Similarly, no one's opinion about whether or not there were demolition charges, nanothermite, or sinister elevator repair commandos in the Twin Towers has the slightest effect on whether or not they were actually there. What matters, for anyone seeking to shape the historical narrative to accord with their own thoughts about what happened, is the evidence they can offer.

Opinion is important when the debate is about choices being made or to be made by people. But...

If it's not about choices ("my opinion is that the weather should be mild next winter") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to farmers and travel agents, among others.)

If it's not about people acting ("my opinion is that Yellowstone will erupt next year") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to geologists and disaster management organizations, among others.)

If it's not about the present or future ("my opinion is that 9/11 was an inside job") an opinion is of no value. (However, evidence to that effect might be very useful to historians, politicians, and prosecutors, among others.)

So, can you express your opinion about 9/11 in terms of present or future actions to be taken by people? "There should be a new investigation" or "Dick Cheney should go to prison" is not sufficient, because "should be" is not an action, it's a wish. See if you can phrase it in the form of, "Because of what I think about 9/11, [specific person, people or organization] should do [specific action]."

Once you do that, a debate can begin, based on whatever evidence you can show to support that opinion.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I'm not looking for a protracted parsing session, so I'll just try to give an example. Before NIST concluded its WTC 7 report, some believed that the diesel fuel stored in the bldg fed the fires which led to its collapse. In its report, NIST dismissed this. It was merely an opinion, much like their Column 79 theory.

So you can see that there are various and competing theories about a whole host of things. The biggest mistake I see made here is the assumption that these issues are decided, conclusive, and the official story has been thoroughly and transparently substantiated. To think so, is also an opinion.

[TjW]

Right. There is no "official theory" and there is no complete and coherent alternative theory offered by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so both are equally nonexistent.

What does exist is the historical narrative of 9/11, resulting from the accounts of witnesses and participants, examinations by forensic experts, public and private criminal investigations, research by journalists and historians, and ample material and documentary evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

For which there is an enormous variety of opinion.

And of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.
The verifiable facts support the historical narrative.
It may be, of course, that additional verifiable facts could modify the current historical narrative, much as Einstein's theories modified the physics of Newton.
But Einstein's theories still had to fit the verifiable facts that Newton dealt with, coming up with the same answers under the same conditions.

[tsig]

Finally, someone else with a brain.

Many people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement don't think the US Gov was behind then attacks, but, also don't think the story was what we were told.

Can that be respected?

You would honestly stand up for the corporations rather than the US citizen?


I was never told a story but reached my own conclusions. You really don't have to take someone's word for this. Why not get some education and quit listening to others stories?

[tsig]

I'm not looking for a protracted parsing session, so I'll just try to give an example. Before NIST concluded its WTC 7 report, some believed that the diesel fuel stored in the bldg fed the fires which led to its collapse. In its report, NIST dismissed this. It was merely an opinion, much like their Column 79 theory.

So you can see that there are various and competing theories about a whole host of things. The biggest mistake I see made here is the assumption that these issues are decided, conclusive, and the official story has been thoroughly and transparently substantiated. To think so, is also an opinion.

Some opinions are more in line with reality than others.

[Astute Perspicuous]

So, for the record, if 9/11 was orchestrated by a few International Corporations working together, would it be called an Inside Job?

Yes or No

[CHF]

So, for the record, if 9/11 was orchestrated by a few International Corporations working together, would it be called an Inside Job?

Yes or No

Define "a few."

And how would they succeed without the CIA, FBI, NORAD, etc?

For any sort of inside job you'd need US government involvement, both by definition and by necessity.

[Reactor drone]

So, for the record, if 9/11 was orchestrated by a few International Corporations working together, would it be called an Inside Job?

Yes or No

No

9/11 conspiracies invariably involve government agencies covering up or planting evidence so an inside job would need to involve those agencies.An attack orchestrated by international corporations would just be an attack, in the same way that an attack by Al Qaeda is just an attack, rather than an inside job.

[LashL]

Happy birthday, CHF!

:hbd::wave1:bcake::wave1:hbd:

[Astute Perspicuous]

No

9/11 conspiracies invariably involve government agencies covering up or planting evidence so an inside job would need to involve those agencies.An attack orchestrated by international corporations would just be an attack, in the same way that an attack by Al Qaeda is just an attack, rather than an inside job.


So, some truthers may not think that 9/11 was an inside job then?

[CHF]

So, some truthers may not think that 9/11 was an inside job then?

There was a sect of truthers known as the LIHOPers at one time, but most of them were hunted down with dogs by the MIHOPers who didn't think "let it happen" was exciting enough.

Shame you guys didn't go with LIHOP - it's false, but far more believable.

The notion that some neo-cons sat back and allowed an Islamic terror attack to take place doesn't insult one's intelligence to the same degree as super-stealth ninjas planting CD charges in buildings, or shooting a missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight or accusing the FDNY of blowing up WTC7.

[CHF]

Happy birthday, CHF!

:hbd::wave1:bcake::wave1:hbd:

Thanks LashL! :D

[Bobert]

What, don't want to go on record?

Ok I did it!
Me and a team of JOOOOOS!

[Brainster]

Has anybody given the obvious punch line to the OP?

"Something no "Truther" will ever have."

Thank you, thank you, try the veal cutlets, they melt in your mouth!

[Sam.I.Am]

Thank you, thank you, try the veal cutlets, they melt in your mouth!

And please tip the wait staff...

[funk de fino]

What's there to understand? If your house is burning down, you dial 911.

No, I do not.

[funk de fino]

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.

You lie!

[Lupie]

Inside Job is one of Don Henley's best solo albums...

L.

[Dave Rogers]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

My personal opinion, which I see is not shared by all here (so much for the rigidly enforced JREF groupthink; according to standard truther orthodoxy I am now about to get thrown out of the debunker cult and banned from the forum) is that "Inside Job" is a crime whose commission is assisted by a member of a group that would normally be considered victims of that crime. For example, a bank robbery assisted by an employee of the bank is an inside job.

I pose the question did "corporations" have something to do with 9/11?

Is it called "inside job" if it was done by international corporations?

Since many international corporations suffered major losses as a result of 9/11, they must be included among the victims, and therefore, if the attacks had been carried out by those same international corporations, the attack could resonably be described as an inside job. If it were a different group of international corporations, then it couldn't.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical question concerning linguistics, as there is a large body of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda unaided by any other body, and no credible evidence for any other scenario. Perhaps a different forum would be more appropriate?

So, some truthers may not think that 9/11 was an inside job then?

It appears to me that some truthers may not think at all.

Dave

[Wildy]

What some people might call an inside job, others may not. I want to gauge what you call "Inside Job".

Let er' rip...

There you go. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Definition+of+%22inside+job%22)

[NutCracker]

Well the legal system is based on it.

That may or may not be so. In any case, irrelevant. Dermining what caused a disaster is a process of fact and science, not a matter of non-expert opinion.

[Drudgewire]

It's raining cats and dogs today. So glad I have an inside job. :p

[TexasJack]

Well the legal system is based on it.


A court opinion is based on the facts presented from a particular case, and applying the appropriate law. It it is not based on cherry-picking quotes from testimony, innuendo, anomalies, or other nonsense.

[triforcharity]

It's about as equally justifiable as the official one.


Ok, except for the fact that we have evidence, tons and tons of evidence. 10,000 pages just on the collapse, millions of pictures, thousands of hours of footage from the MSM, and also from civilian recording devices.

And you guys have.....Paint and rust.

Oh, and QUOTEMINED statements!! WOO HOOO!!!!

[triforcharity]

Well the legal system is based on it.

Stundied!! Thank you sir!!

[RedIbis]

Ok, except for the fact that we have evidence, tons and tons of evidence. 10,000 pages just on the collapse, millions of pictures, thousands of hours of footage from the MSM, and also from civilian recording devices.

And you guys have.....Paint and rust.

Oh, and QUOTEMINED statements!! WOO HOOO!!!!

After bailing on your false imprisonment thread, I wouldn't think you'd want to get yourself tangled up with me again, but here goes:

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion, as is CYA, incompetence, and the so called lack of imagination theory.

[RedIbis]

Stundied!! Thank you sir!!

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

[johnny karate]

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion, as is CYA, incompetence, and the so called lack of imagination theory.

"I don't understand how science works" would have been far more succinct.

[triforcharity]

So, for the record, if 9/11 was orchestrated by a few International Corporations working together, would it be called an Inside Job?

Yes or No

No.

9/11 was an AMERICAN event. If INTERNATIONAL corps did it, it would be an international terrorist attack.....oh ****, wait, it WAS.

AQ et al. could be called a corperation right?? In the loosest way possible though.

[johnny karate]

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

Please quote the part that says the legal system is based on opinion.

[TexasJack]

This whole thread is moot. In order to have an inside job, by virtually anyone's interpretation, you must have evidence of one.

[16.5]

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

You got a GED in law too? I mean: Wikipedia, wow.

[BigAl]

Please quote the part that says the legal system is based on opinion.

IANAL, but I would say that precedent is the foundation of the US legal system.

[DavidJames]

"I don't understand how science works" would have been far more succinct."I'm willfully ignorant of how science works" slightly less succinct but more accurate.

[triforcharity]

After bailing on your false imprisonment thread, I wouldn't think you'd want to get yourself tangled up with me again, but here goes:

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion, as is CYA, incompetence, and the so called lack of imagination theory.

Red Red red, your day will be coming soon as far as that thread is concerned.
I have the documents, and will be sending them to my lawyer for redaction.
Now, on to the topic at hand.

So, you are saying that the FEMA tests on the WTC 7 steel did not exist??
Are you saying that building a complete working model of WTC 7 does not exist?
Are you saying that the thousands of videos and pictures of WTC 7 do not exist?
They do not have to use imagination to understand that the WTC 7 waas on fire, and had sustained structural damage from the collapse of the towers, and that there were no firefighting efforts in the WTC 7, and that they do not have a huge report on it.

You see, this is where Twoofies like yourself go so terribly wrong.

In an investigation, you start with a hypothesis. FEMA presented the diesel fuel furthered the collapse of WTC 7.

Then NIST took it further, and stated with that.

They then do experiments, and run models, and look at evidence, and other things of that nature. They then put this all together, and see if it works with the evidence.

Diesel fuel did not further the collapse of the building, as it would only have provided little help in fueling the fires, as NIST has stated.

So, they come up with another hypothesis. Then they look at the evidence, and see if THAT works.

Suprise suprise, it did.

See your problem here Red?? You don't look at the evidence. Your side has misidentified paint chips, and we have scientific proof, and evidence.

[Dave Rogers]

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion,

I think he's incapable of learning that physical evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

Dave

[johnny karate]

IANAL, but I would say that precedent is the foundation of the US legal system.

Wouldn't "law" be the foundation of the U.S. legal system?

[triforcharity]

After bailing on your false imprisonment thread, I wouldn't think you'd want to get yourself tangled up with me again, but here goes:

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion, as is CYA, incompetence, and the so called lack of imagination theory.

BTW, I never bailed on it. In fact, you flew away from it quite a few times.

Liar.

[triforcharity]

Where does all this law stuff come from??

Facts and evidence would be my guess. But hey, I have been wrong in the past.


How do we form those opinions?? From our dog's intuition?? Hardly.

*Bows 3 times in the direction of Toronto*

[RedIbis]

You got a GED in law too? I mean: Wikipedia, wow.

Do you want me to provide another source which will basically say the exact same thing, or do you want to continue to be obstinate?

[Myriad]

I'm not looking for a protracted parsing session, so I'll just try to give an example. Before NIST concluded its WTC 7 report, some believed that the diesel fuel stored in the bldg fed the fires which led to its collapse. In its report, NIST dismissed this. It was merely an opinion, much like their Column 79 theory.


Exactly. What the fuel did and didn't do is not the slightest bit affected by anyone's opinion on anything. Lots of people speculating that maybe it contributed to the collapse did not cause it to contribute to the collapse. All that can change is our understanding of the event, and for our understanding to become more correct it must be based on evidence, not opinions.

So you can see that there are various and competing theories about a whole host of things. The biggest mistake I see made here is the assumption that these issues are decided, conclusive, and the official story has been thoroughly and transparently substantiated. To think so, is also an opinion.


As is, of course, thinking otherwise.

So, I ask again, can you express your opinion in terms of present or future actions to be taken by people? "There should be a new investigation" or "Dick Cheney should go to prison" is not sufficient, because "should be" is not an action, it's a wish. See if you can phrase it in the form of, "Because of what I think about 9/11, [specific person, people or organization] should do [specific action]."

Once you do that, a debate can begin, based on whatever evidence you can show to support that opinion.

Discussing conflicting ideas about "what really happened" is not really worthy of being called a debate, because no one can change what really happened. Real debates are about what to do. An actual debate on 9/11 has not begun and cannot begin until different courses of action are proposed.

My proposed course of action is, "The U.S. government should remain vigilant against future terrorist attacks, historians and scientists should continue ongoing historical and scientific study of the events, and everyone should otherwise get on with more pressing matters." What is your counter-proposal for a course of action? Debate can begin when we have at least one contrary proposal for a course of action.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[VespaGuy]

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

Oh, I see! The phrase "Legal Opinion" contains the word "opinion", therefore our legal system is based on opinions.

You so smaht!

[16.5]

Did Lucus ever come to a god damn point, or is he still JAQ'ing off?

[Dave Rogers]

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

Not every case decided by a higher court results in the publication of an opinion; in fact most cases do not, since an opinion is usually only published when the law is being interpreted in a novel way, or the case is a high-profile matter of general public interest and the court wishes to make the details of its ruling public.

So the legal system is based on something that only happens when a law is being interpreted in a novel way. That's certainly a novel way of interpreting "based on".

Dave

[Matthew Cline]

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory is an opinion without any physical evidence for support, not tons of it, not pounds of it, not ounces, nothing. Much like pancakes and diesel, this is just an opinion, as is CYA, incompetence, and the so called lack of imagination theory.

How should NIST have gone about analyzing the WTC 7 collapse? Or did the collapse leave behind so little evidence that NIST should have said "No one on Earth can properly analyze this, the cause of the collapse will have to remain a mystery"?

So, some truthers may not think that 9/11 was an inside job then?

What relevance does that have? It has no relevance to the John Farmer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154486) thread you started, since he was talking about what the government did, and if that was indication of leading-up-to-9/11 conspiracy the government being involved would make it an inside job.

[Dumb All Over]

Good bye, Astute Perspicuous. Don't let the door smack you in the butt.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154577

[Björn Toulouse]

Did Lucus ever come to a god damn point, or is he still JAQ'ing off?


Nope. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5052862&postcount=8)

[RedIbis]

How should NIST have gone about analyzing the WTC 7 collapse? Or did the collapse leave behind so little evidence that NIST should have said "No one on Earth can properly analyze this, the cause of the collapse will have to remain a mystery"?


The collapse left behind all of the evidence. Why the steel was shipped off before the proper agencies had an opportunity to examine it, is the mystery. As I'm sure you know, NIST admits (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf),

"In addition, the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered."

My bold.

[beachnut]

The collapse left behind all of the evidence. Why the steel was shipped off before the proper agencies had an opportunity to examine it, is the mystery. As I'm sure you know, NIST admits (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf),



My bold.
So this is an "inside job"?
NIST says WTC7 fell due to fire and you have some inside job definition coming from that truth?

What does WTC7 falling from fire have to do with the definition of inside job? Failed 911 truth doltish idea of inside job are proved wrong by WTC7 gravity collapse which seems you are unable to understand. And of course this has something to do with defining "inside job" for a sock puppet who can't understand 911.

[Macgyver1968]

"Inside Job" = Something you have to pay a hooker $20 extra for. :)

[RedIbis]

Real debates are about what to do.

According to whom? Real debates present a question that allows for a pro/con or positive/negative position.

For example: Did members of the US gov't facilitate or allow the attacks of 9/11 to occur, thus enabling an "Inside Job"?

One side would argue yes, one would argue no. I don't see anywhere in the definition of debate that requires future action.

Now, the true skill of the debator is to take the position opposite of personal belief and maintain ambivalence. I doubt that would ever occur here.

[beachnut]

According to whom? Real debates present a question that allows for a pro/con or positive/negative position.

For example: Did members of the US gov't facilitate or allow the attacks of 9/11 to occur, thus enabling an "Inside Job"?

One side would argue yes, one would argue no. I don't see anywhere in the definition of debate that requires future action.

Now, the true skill of the debator is to take the position opposite of personal belief and maintain ambivalence. I doubt that would ever occur here.
You are willing to take the "inside job" moronic delusions of 911 and debate them? How do you debate a factual event with idiotic opinions to prove your "inside job" junk? How are you able to believe in the paranoid delusions which are the basis for the failed chant of "inside job"?

[Furcifer]

The collapse left behind all of the evidence. Why the steel was shipped off before the proper agencies had an opportunity to examine it, is the mystery. As I'm sure you know, NIST admits (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf),


What a stupid thing to say. It's such a massive fail to confuse NIST's desire for more material to analyze as some sort of cover-up. If there was a CD it would have been as evident in the debris they had access to as the material they didn't.

Keep grasping.

[johnny karate]

The collapse left behind all of the evidence. Why the steel was shipped off before the proper agencies had an opportunity to examine it, is the mystery.

Your willful ignorance no falls headlong into blatant dishonesty.

You know there is no mystery because you've had this explained to you ad nauseam.

WTC7 was not a crime scene, and absolutely no one who witnessed or investigated its collapse thinks it should have been treated like one. Therefore, the clearance of the wreckage of a 47-story building in the middle of Manhattan took precedence over the investigation of an imaginary crime.

Furthermore, the steel components of WTC7 were not labelled in such a way to make them indistiguishable from each other, so any sort of on-site investigation would have been pointless anyway.

Your ridiculous denialism is that of a petulant child, and flies in the face of all eyewitness testimony and all expert investigation.

You have nothing.

[funk de fino]

The collapse left behind all of the evidence. Why the steel was shipped off before the proper agencies had an opportunity to examine it, is the mystery. As I'm sure you know, NIST admits (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf),

My bold.

None was recovered for NIST but it was inspected prior to this anyway. The very few pieces that were found with unusual damage, were kept and inspected, and only one piece like this was found from WTC7.

Only one.

Ask Brent Blanchard. You have been shown it before.

[funk de fino]

According to whom? Real debates present a question that allows for a pro/con or positive/negative position.

For example: Did members of the US gov't facilitate or allow the attacks of 9/11 to occur, thus enabling an "Inside Job"?

One side would argue yes, one would argue no. I don't see anywhere in the definition of debate that requires future action.

Now, the true skill of the debator is to take the position opposite of personal belief and maintain ambivalence. I doubt that would ever occur here.

No mention of evidence in your statement. Very telling.

You have one of the most pathetic debating techniques I have ever seen for one with the decent level of intelligence you display.

[A W Smith]

Well the legal system is based on it.

Stundied!! Thank you sir!!

You're very welcome. With any luck, I'll bring home the big prize. You of all people should be familiar with the legal system, considering your elaborate tale of twoofer harrassment, but now I have to burst your bubble and diminish my chances at the illustrious prize:

Legal opinion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

Please quote the part that says the legal system is based on opinion.

Originally Posted by The Wikipedia article cited by RedIbis
Not every case decided by a higher court results in the publication of an opinion; in fact most cases do not, since an opinion is usually only published when the law is being interpreted in a novel way, or the case is a high-profile matter of general public interest and the court wishes to make the details of its ruling public.

So the legal system is based on something that only happens when a law is being interpreted in a novel way. That's certainly a novel way of interpreting "based on".

Dave

care to comment on this dirty bird?

[Myriad]

According to whom? Real debates present a question that allows for a pro/con or positive/negative position.

For example: Did members of the US gov't facilitate or allow the attacks of 9/11 to occur, thus enabling an "Inside Job"?

One side would argue yes, one would argue no. I don't see anywhere in the definition of debate that requires future action.

Now, the true skill of the debator is to take the position opposite of personal belief and maintain ambivalence. I doubt that would ever occur here.


It's not a question of definition, it's a question of purpose.

There's nothing in the definition of "driving a car" that requires actually going somewhere. If you wanted to you could drive back and forth in your driveway or even sit there in Park revving the engine and turning the steering wheel if you want to, and I suppose it could still be called "driving."

But, the fact remains that the purpose of driving is to go somewhere, and when you speak of driving (as opposed to, say, "moving the car out of the way" or "testing the brakes"), it will be assumed that such a purpose is in effect.

Similarly, you can debate all you want about questions that debate cannot possibly affect, such as how past events happened or what dark matter is, and I suppose you can still call it "debate" if you want to. But doing so accomplishes precisely nothing, while the purpose of debate is to make decisions. Shall W project be funded? Shall X new law be passed? Shall Y be taught in the public schools? Shall Z be subject to punishment for a crime, or go free? Such questions don't just get argued, they get resolved, by action or inaction. Debate is an important part of that process.

By refusing to offer a proposed course of action to debate, you appear determined to debate for no purpose.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of a scientific or historical question that has been resolved by debate? Would the sun be revolving around the earth today if the heliocentrists had been more skillful debaters? If a brilliant debater convinced every historian on earth to come to the wrong conclusion about who Jack the Ripper was, would it change whose hand was actually holding the knife in 1888?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[twinstead]

Now, the true skill of the debator is to take the position opposite of personal belief and maintain ambivalence. I doubt that would ever occur here.

In debate class maybe, but on a skeptics forum it's about backing up what you believe with compelling facts and evidence, or changing your belief accordingly when they don't exist.

[RedIbis]

Are eight consecutive responses to one poster some sort of record? How is one expected to proceed? I appreciate most of what is being said, especially by Myriad and the discussion of what constitutes a debate, but be assured I will not address the obnoxious ones. I simply don't have the time to address every one of these.

[Furcifer]

Are eight consecutive responses to one poster some sort of record? How is one expected to proceed? I appreciate most of what is being said, especially by Myriad and the discussion of what constitutes a debate, but be assured I will not address the obnoxious ones. I simply don't have the time to address every one of these.

Please don't. Any intelligent response from you would suggest you have a pulse and actually care for what's being said. Your denial speaks volumes. Speak only to the weakest and ignore the rest.

[MIKILLINI]

Are eight consecutive responses to one poster some sort of record? How is one expected to proceed? I appreciate most of what is being said, especially by Myriad and the discussion of what constitutes a debate, but be assured I will not address the obnoxious ones. I simply don't have the time to address every one of these.

Sure Red, have another drink of Guinness and just ignore them. You've done it before, so why stop now?

[RedIbis]

Sure Red, have another drink of Guinness and just ignore them. You've done it before, so why stop now?

True, I do enjoy Guinness.