Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory...

[Firestone]

Odigo was at #11 Wall Street maybe... it was not in the WTC buildings proper.

The hyperlink to the FindArticles and NewsBytes original article are no longer active.Actually, Odigo was at 11 Broadway. (Source (http://www.odigo.org/adkit/legalnotices.html) + source (http://www.islamawareness.net/Terrorist/Wtc/whowarned.html).)

On this map (courtesy of Google maps), the green arrow indicates 11 Broadway.

4852

Now, your claim was:

3)with the Israeli firm ODIGO receiving two hours advanced notice to evacuateGiven that the warning was received at Odigo's Israeli office, that the warning was not specific (http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851) (it didn't specify that the terrorist attack would be in New York), that Odigo's New York office was in no danger, how on earth can you claim that "Odigo received a two hours advanced notice to evacuate"? :confused:
Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

[T.A.M.]

1. I do not debate in an argument unless I feel I have either (i) good sources to back me up (I am sure there are, but I have not researched them personally), or (ii) I am an expert in said field of concern. In this case neither is true, so for the argument you speak, I am merely an observer. I wish to learn from the debate, and hence, would like to keep the debate on topic (the reason for my request, in addition to my other reason, that being that it is common courtesy to try to keep posts on a topic limited to the thread set up for daid topic).

2. If I wanted to engage you in a debate about the USS Liberty, I would have done so in that thread. Personally I really do not care for the topic. You can throw it, and Northwoods into my face all day, it does not make 9/11 an inside job...

3. Like most CTers of late, you have so little in the way of proof or evidence for almost every claim you make wrt MIHOP arguments, that you now reach further and further out for connections to the conspiracy...USS Liberty, The Pakistani Connection. Where next, the North Korean Connection perhaps?


TAM

[JimBenArm]

I need some updating here; what the devil is "intelligent thermite" supposed to be?

[T.A.M.]

I need some updating here; what the devil is "intelligent thermite" supposed to be?

Thermite that is able to think and feel on its own of course...lol

TAM:)

[Bell]

Thermite that is able to think and feel on its own of course...lol

TAM:)

Intelligent thermite 1: "Can I start cutting the beam now?"
Intelligent thermite 2: "No, wait until AFTER the plane hit. Jeezzz, how often do I have to tell you this? You're nog very bright, are you?"

[T.A.M.]

Intelligent thermite 1: Oh yah, well this is the last time I share a steel column with you. Next time try cutting it yourself.

Intelligent thermite 2: I'm sorry...come on, lets cuddle.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

Intelligent thermite 2: I'm sorry...come on, lets cuddle.

TAM:)

That would be "Sensitive Thermite"

:D

[MikeW]

Given that the warning was received at Odigo's Israeli office, that the warning was not specific (http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851) (it didn't specify that the terrorist attack would be in New York), that Odigo's New York office was in no danger, how on earth can you claim that "Odigo received a two hours advanced notice to evacuate"? :confused:
Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
The word "warning" appears to be inappropriate, too, as Odigo officials later said that it wasn't specific, or regarded as important until after the attacks, and may well have been a coincidence.

We may finally be about to get somewhere with this story, though. I (at 911myths.com) sent an FOIA application to the FBI for Odigo-related documents in October 2005; they said they didn't have any a couple of months later; and I appealed immediately afterwards. I finally heard that my appeal had been turned down last month, but the Justice Department did say they believed two FBI field offices had "records responsive to my request". I sent in FOIA applications to both of them last week. It could be this is a false dawn, they'll turn me down, I'll appeal, then have to wait another year... But as the DoJ tipped me off that seems unlikely. So maybe, just maybe, in a couple of months we'll finally understand what the Odigo message was all about.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks to Dogtown for pointing this out. I hadn't seen this polling question, or if I had, I had forgotten it. The truthers are always pulling polls out of the sky, so I though these two questions from a July 2006 SH Poll (http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=717), were cool...



Question/VAR 28:

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%

Or this one


Question/VAR 29:

The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%

Yes, this surely shows, as the CTers say, that the majority of the USA is waking up to the "inside job" theory...lol

TAM

[Horatius]

I need some updating here; what the devil is "intelligent thermite" supposed to be?

From his other thread:

ETA: It seems like that link doesn't want to work today. Sorry!

You do realize the "intelligent thermite" was a strawman argument created by a CTist, right? (http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html)

So why should we address this? It's your team that's making the ridiculous claim.



It's a mocking version of something Dr. Greening mentions. Typical strawman thing.

[JimBenArm]

From his other thread:

ETA: It seems like that link doesn't want to work today. Sorry!



It's a mocking version of something Dr. Greening mentions. Typical strawman thing.

OK, missed that. Thought it was some new woo-woo thing, like the beam weapon. I've learned not to think anything is too ridiculous for these loons!

[beachnut]

Well, I don't have a million dollars like James Randi...but point out the portion of the wheelhouse/superstructure that
is obscured by the mast...and I'll offer a free $500.

...or A. Jay Cristol states that CIA Director Helms stated in his memoirs that his opinions were not the official position of the CIA...

...another free $500 to the person who can produce that page number from Helms's book.

Still your post must prove victory over CT 9/11 nuts cases; you seem to be on a whole different level bringing up something from the 60s.

If you are trying to tie something in the 60s to 9/11; you have failed.

I asked what does the liberty have to do with 9/111?

I get some junk about???

[david carmichael]

Actually, Odigo was at 11 Broadway. (Source (http://www.odigo.org/adkit/legalnotices.html) + source (http://www.islamawareness.net/Terrorist/Wtc/whowarned.html).)

On this map (courtesy of Google maps), the green arrow indicates 11 Broadway.

4852

Now, your claim was:

Given that the warning was received at Odigo's Israeli office, that the warning was not specific (http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851) (it didn't specify that the terrorist attack would be in New York), that Odigo's New York office was in no danger, how on earth can you claim that "Odigo received a two hours advanced notice to evacuate"? :confused:
Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?


Okay...#11 Broadway...thank you.

Did they evacuate?

The NewsBytes article, to the best of my recollection, stated they received two messages... did not say anything, as best as I recall, that the NY office ws not in danger.

[david carmichael]

From his other thread:

ETA: It seems like that link doesn't want to work today. Sorry!



It's a mocking version of something Dr. Greening mentions. Typical strawman thing.

Splendid...could you please hyperlink me to the "mocking version" then authored by Greening?

[maccy]

Splendid...could you please hyperlink me to the "mocking version" then authored by Greening?

You keep on going on about some "intelligent thermite" thesis, for example:


What was it that necessitated Greening feeling he had to advance an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place?


2) The "intelligent thermite" thesis

You're not doing a good job.... or you're avoiding issues that need to serve as the seed upon which future discussions pertaining to public policy formation will be based upon

Both quotes from the USS Liberty (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71596) thread - so I've edited out stuff to do with that.

David, can you provide a link to where Greening advances an intelligent thermite thesis?

[Firestone]

Okay...#11 Broadway...thank you.

Did they evacuate?

The NewsBytes article, to the best of my recollection, stated they received two messages... did not say anything, as best as I recall, that the NY office ws not in danger.No, they did not evacuate.

Why would they evacuate, and what facility should they evacuate? :confused:

Again, the unspecific warning (as MikeW correctly observed, even the term warning is not really correct) was received in Israel, not in New York. The two guys who read the thing only notified their management after they heard about the attacks in New York:

He said the employees who received the IM messages were not familiar with the sender. After the attacks, the employees notified Odigo management, who turned the information over to Israeli law enforcement authorities.

Source (http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Splendid...could you please hyperlink me to the "mocking version" then authored by Greening?
Dr. Greening did not author a "mocking version" of intelligent thermite. The "mocking version" is the strawman argument built by CTists onto Dr. Greening's paper.

[R.Mackey]

Hey!!! Where are the guys who were ready to declare victory????

Bwaaaahaaa! They're fleeing. LOL!

On a message board that ...ahem..."debunkkkkkks" so many things
Geez. I go on vacation for a week, and when I come back, my beautiful thread has been vandalized with this tripe??


The "intelligent thermite" guys.... We need to know why someone felt the need to advance the "intelligent thermite" thesis IN THE FIRST PLACE as regards the 9/11 WTC attack
Easy. One of you nuts didn't understand what we were talking about and came up with the idea of "intelligent thermite." Nobody on our team has ever suggested such a thing.

MIRACLE #1

a)Since the USS Liberty did NOT have a transparent mast when it left Rota, Spain...

b)...and since our valuable ally in the war on terror would never lie... just like 9/11 WTC attacks

c)..and since our government would not lie about the murders of Americans... just like the 9/11 WTC attacks
This is just plain stupid.

You want to talk about USS Liberty, do it elsewhere. Spamming threads is a bannable offense.

Better yet, don't bother. Your "Evidence" is also "transparent," as is any vacuum.

[maccy]

To answer my own question, "intelligent thermite" is derisory term coined by mystery man Gordon Ross on his resolutely non peer-reviewed website.

Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place.and
It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.source: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html

As far as I'm aware, neither Greening nor Garcia are arguing that thermite caused the collapse. Instead they are simply stating that a natural thermite reaction could have occurred as part of the collapse, therefore evidence of a thermite reaction does not necessarily indicate that thermite was used to cut the columns.

In other words, Intelligent Thermite is a strawman dreamed up by Gordon Ross.

It's worth reading the whole of Ross' article for its amusement value.

For reference, here is what Garcia had to say:

Did patches of thermite form naturally, by chance, in the WTC Towers fires? Could there really have been small bits of melted steel in the debris as a result? Could there have been "thermite residues" on pieces of steel dug out of the debris months later? Maybe, but none of this leads to a conspiracy. If the post-mortem "thermite signature" suggested that a mass of thermite comparable to the quantities shown in Table 3 was involved, then further investigation would be reasonable. The first task of such an investigation would be to produce a "chemical kinetics" model of the oxidation of the fragmented aluminum airframe, in some degree of contact to the steel framing, in the hot atmosphere of hydrocarbon fires in the impact zone. Once Nature had been eliminated as a suspect, one could proceed to consider Human Malevolence.

source: http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

Also, Dr Greening's papers:
on thermite: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
on sulfur: http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

[uk_dave]

Geez. I go on vacation for a week, and when I come back, my beautiful thread has been vandalized with this tripe??


Hey, it could have been worse, he could have started posting this crap on my award winning thread! :D

Oh the horror....the horror

[david carmichael]

No, they did not evacuate.

Why would they evacuate, and what facility should they evacuate? :confused:

Again, the unspecific warning (as MikeW correctly observed, even the term warning is not really correct) was received in Israel, not in New York. The two guys who read the thing only notified their management after they heard about the attacks in New York:

That's not what I recall from reading the newsbytes article.. it was a long time ago, but its not what I recall.


NOTE ON ANTISEMITISM:
On the USS Liberty thread, you're "intellectually outmatched" pro-Zionist shills have called in for reinforcements; to wit,

Pro-Zionist, Mike Weeks

and
Pro-Zionist, Theodore Bell


They will both tell you there is not an anti-semitic bone in my body...

...and they've BOTH known me alot longer than any of you.

[david carmichael]

To answer my own question, "intelligent thermite" is derisory term coined by mystery man Gordon Ross on his resolutely non peer-reviewed website.

and
source: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html

As far as I'm aware, neither Greening nor Garcia are arguing that thermite caused the collapse. Instead they are simply stating that a natural thermite reaction could have occurred as part of the collapse, therefore evidence of a thermite reaction does not necessarily indicate that thermite was used to cut the columns.

In other words, Intelligent Thermite is a strawman dreamed up by Gordon Ross.

It's worth reading the whole of Ross' article for its amusement value.

For reference, here is what Garcia had to say:



source: http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

Also, Dr Greening's papers:
on thermite: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
on sulfur: http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf




Thank you, Maccy...that's all I wanted

I'll read the hyperlinked text and get back to you....

If it doesn't pan out as a lie told by our government...we'll then move on to that pyroclastic thingamajig.

But thank you once more.

[david carmichael]

That's not what I recall from reading the newsbytes article.. it was a long time ago, but its not what I recall.


NOTE ON ANTISEMITISM:
On the USS Liberty thread, you're "intellectually outmatched" pro-Zionist shills have called in for reinforcements; to wit,

Pro-Zionist, Mike Weeks

and
Pro-Zionist, Theodore Bell


They will both tell you there is not an anti-semitic bone in my body...

...and they've BOTH known me alot longer than any of you.


.....and they'll both ALSO tell you that I don't "cheat"

No "cheating" with a doctored War Crimes Complaint and no "cheating" with me refusing to engage in "intellectual dishonesty"

[maccy]

Thank you, Maccy...that's all I wanted

I'll read the hyperlinked text and get back to you....

If it doesn't pan out as a lie told by our government...we'll then move on to that pyroclastic thingamajig.

But thank you once more.

No problems. Although it still strikes me as odd that you came to this board making claims about "intelligent thermite" proving something without knowing what "intelligent thermite" meant or who coined the phrase or why they did it.

As for pyroclastic flows I think you'll find that there are already threads about this subject in this forum. I suggest you post your thoughts in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70639

I also suggest you read the thread before posting.

This current thread is off topic enough without you moving onto a new subject. So, please don't post about pyroclastic anything here.

[Horatius]

Thank you, Maccy...that's all I wanted

I'll read the hyperlinked text and get back to you....

And that's what you would have gotten if you'd read the links in my post. Do try and pay attention to what people write, okay?



If it doesn't pan out as a lie told by our government...we'll then move on to that pyroclastic thingamajig.

But thank you once more.


And you do know that the whole "pyroclastic thingamjig" was another strawman dreamed up by the CTists, right? Don't expect us to go defending it.

[westprog]

Oh, no...old chum....

"intellectual dishonesty"... the CTs like me are saying, "why was the evidence seized and destroyed?"

No..we want the evidence...the evidence the government will not release...

...just as they seized the USS Liberty evidence... CRITTCOM transcripts...photographic evidence from crewmembers


This is one of the fallback positions. The material from 911 was extensively analysed. Obviously it wasn't all analysed. The cost involved in analysing every piece of debris from the collapse is unimaginable. It would probably cost more than rebuilding the towers. And it would not tell us anything. The sensible thing to do - and what is always done at a crime scene - is to sample randomly, and to carefully examine anything that seems anomalous.

The enormous amount of waste produced in the disaster had to be disposed of. It was never going to be kept in a museum for later reference. This is obvious for most people. The CT's see it as clear evidence of a cover up.

[westprog]

They were MOSSAD Agents.

The pro-Zionist FORWARD published it...

...


Is there anything remotely surprising in the idea that Israel would have spies in New York? Or that following 911, they would be picked up?

In the CT world, being present in New York proves that they were involved in planting the thermite in the WTC.

It's a way of thinking. The government LIED about something. So they must have LIED about 911. So it has to be a government plot.

[CurtC]

Logan's Law: The dumber the conspiracy guy, the smarter he thinks he is. This works with neocons as well.There was a news story I heard ten or more years ago, that people tend to judge their own competence about the same, regardless of how competent they actually are. The problem is that the incompetent ones are incompetent at evaluating their competence.

[CurtC]

the seminal issue is whether that article is a true reproduction of what appeared in The Forward which WRH hyperlinked to.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[R.Mackey]

There was a news story I heard ten or more years ago, that people tend to judge their own competence about the same, regardless of how competent they actually are. The problem is that the incompetent ones are incompetent at evaluating their competence.

Indeed. Rather like how 85% of motorists (http://www.satcarracing.com/tips.htm) consider their driving skills "above average."

Not on the roads I drive.... and certainly not the barnacles of humanity that come over here posting nonsense.

[Firestone]

If at all needed, a new illustration of how correct the OP was.

After being trashed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73622) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73713), kameelyun has given up all pretense and has started a number of empty propaganda threads.

ETA: damn, the mods are fast here! :eye-poppi

The four threads have been consolidated into one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73797). :)

[SkepticGuy]

1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.
While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), so how do I collect those bonus points?

2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.
The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.


I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.
I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there's no point in trying.

[busherie]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

Of course, you'll say that Mineta confused his timeline, that he was talking about F93... Etc.

But now that the neo-cons are starting to be rebuffed... (has anybody read what brzezinski recely declared in public? I recommend it, it's... strange) everywhere, that Libby & co 's honesty is questionned in a court of law, well, we'll see what happens.

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Enjoy!

Busherie

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), so how do I collect those bonus points?


The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.



I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there's no point in trying.
While applying a range of value assignments to different criteria, evidence, etc ranging from .01 to .99 is good for evaluating some things it does nothing to address the crux of R. Mackey's 2nd point.

Just as all it would take is one human fossil bone found in the same strata of rock as a T-rex bone to call in to question the theory of evolution, it only takes one objective, verifiable, testable claim from the other side of the wall, that directly conflicts with the EBC for the EBC to be called in to question.

Plausibility of motives is subjective by its very nature. Interpretting actions in a manner that is not consistent with the entirety of evidence does not generate evidence. Yes, someone could put forward a logically consistent argument that al Qaeda's actions were directed by some power outside of al Qaeda, but unless objective, verifiable evidence is put forward to support that claim, then it has no value.

[R.Mackey]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), so how do I collect those bonus points?
You do it by having something worth talking about. So let's see what you bring to the table:


The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:
Ummm... this is not an argument. All you've done is complain about me.

When you actually have an argument, let's hear it. As I remarked above, I don't care who came up with the idea. I want to hear the best arguments. You haven't brought any. Until then, no bonus points for you.

[R.Mackey]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.
You and your stupid Mineta argument were defeated in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60315) and again here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2089929#post2089929).

Not my fault if you can't follow the progress in your own discussions.

Next!

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Now that's just sad.

[SkepticGuy]

You haven't brought any. Until then, no bonus points for you.
I appreciate that, but the important question at the end of my post hasn't been answered. Until then, nothing on the table for you. :p

[R.Mackey]

That's not the way it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you must produce.

Proceed.

[SkepticGuy]

That's not the way it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you must produce.

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?

Sorry.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?

Sorry.
Do you think that these ideas and/or claims are going to be received and treated with kids gloves by professional fields, professional journals, or the general public? If what is being presented is logically consistent, and scientifically valid, then its merits will be discussed as such. Trying to make sure it doesn't receive a hostile reception is not what science is about.

[The Almond]

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?


If respect is offered prior to action, rather than earned through it, what value does respect have?

[R.Mackey]

"Respect and decorum?"

Did you not finish reading my original post?


But before retiring the field, I will seek to re-engage, if there are any worthy opponents to be found. Please help me find them by considering the questions below:

1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.

2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.

I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.

Thanks!

Now, then, you claim to have an argument, and you claim you won't share it with me because you're worried about "lack of respect and decorum."

That's an excuse. I'm not interested in those.

Any time you feel like presenting an argument, you go right ahead. Until then, stop complaining about things I haven't even done yet. I believe I've addressed you a total of three times, including this post.

So, once again, what have you got?

[Pardalis]

SkepticGuy, it's OK to consider conspiracy theories, if that's your thing. But now is the time to test these theories and try and see if they work, if they are actually real.

Please start here. http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

[JimBenArm]

You know, this is a lot like when my kids are going to say something really stupid, and they know it. Basically, it's "Promise you won't laugh at me!"

[chipmunk stew]

I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there's no point in trying.
Sorry? I just read through the first two pages of that thread, and your reception was overwhelmingly courteous. What kind of experience are you looking for?

edit: There is also an Ignore function for those you feel are being unproductive.

[aggle-rithm]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.



And what of the SQUIRRELS? Has anyone accounted for the activity of the SQUIRRELS that day?!?

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry? I just read through the first two pages of that thread, and your reception was overwhelmingly courteous. What kind of experience are you looking for?

Something along these lines:

"My God, you're RIGHT! I have never thought of this, nor had any sort of brainwave activity at all, before this moment!! Allow me to radically change my belief system IMMEDIATELY to correspond with yours!!!"

[ConspiRaider]

And what of the SQUIRRELS? Has anyone accounted for the activity of the SQUIRRELS that day?!?
Duh. The flying squirrels were launching an aerial attack on the Keebler Elves who had been selling tree branch property below market value and were squeezing out the squirrels into high-branch, high-crime neighborhoods. The fur was flying that day, I can tell you. Some people near the Pentagon mistook the flying squirrels for...

[beachnut]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), so how do I collect those bonus points?

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.

I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there's no point in trying.

Seeing as he presents mountains of talk instead of evidence; victory is declared.

I officially declare victory over SkepticGuy, who will never present facts. He has yet to find a fact to support any CT on 9/11.

Victory over SG is quick and easy; talk does not equal facts.

Here are SG best junk with no facts to make 9/11 the CT.

So far his ratio of talk to facts is near infinity; undefined; a really big number; too big to define.

The following is more talk he tried to pass as facts or something. (his top posts approaching what he think are facts)

It seems you're blurring the lines between conspiracy theorists and "9/11 activists"... if not tossing the lines out altogether.

Top "conspiracies" I feel have merrit:
1- The Roswell UFO incident was a cold-war propaganda campaign
2- Regan did negotiate with Iranian terrorists
3- Northwoods would have gone forward if not for Kennedy
4- Gulf of Tonkin was fabricated
5- Perl Harbor was "allowed" to be attacked
6- My socks are being stolen by intelligent dust bunnies in the dryer

Top "conspiracies" I feel have no merrit:
1- I think a passenger airline struck the Pentagon on 9/11
2- I don't think we invaded Afghanistan for oil
3- I don't think Elvis or Hitler is still alive
4- I think the vast majority of UFO sightings are tests of advanced aircraft
5- I think John Titor was a hoax
6- I think we landed on the moon

The two three that continue to stand out in my mind, specific to the collapse are:


1) The "squibs" at the sky-lobby level preceding the collapse by several floors... there are lots of explanations for these anomalies, but if you've ever been in the sky lobbies, the air-pressure explanation doesn't make sense... especially as the collapse is happening above.

2) The speed of the collapse... while not as fast as free fall, it's not much slower either.

3) The multi-source reports of explosions in the basement levels moments before the collapse started. At first I dismissed these, but the more I looked into it, the more it adds to a disturbing data set.

And a further point... I was in a pool league with several construction workers who were clearing out the debris. Even then, with little or no online "conspiracy theory" madness, these "regular Joes" were amazed at how there was no attempt to preserve that they felt was important evidence... even if it was to simply understand what failed and how. (I didn't pester them with conspiracy theories, after all we were drinking beers and shooting pool).


Perhaps by my saying "I also feel there is compelling information related to some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure" you extended that to "wired to blow". Maybe I wasn't clear... let me be clear now, I think it remains a possibility, but is an avenue of pursuit that is fruitless and fraught a mountain of highly distracting crap data (in favor of "wired to blow") online.


This is his best; I assume he is all talk and no facts; victory is officially pronouced complete; SG has failed to present anything except regergitated CTer junk. .

Victory - why wait for him to dump junk and declare first.

[Pardalis]

I prefer the Feng Shui Overload (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1612304&postcount=2329) theory myself, but I would have to look further into that Flying Squirrel theory...

[ConspiRaider]

I prefer the Feng Shui Overload (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1612304&postcount=2329) theory myself, but I would have to look further into that Flying Squirrel theory...
That's a good one, Pard :)

I now predict a split not dissimilar to the Jones / Fetzer / Woods / Reynolds split in the Movement.

I wonder if flying squirrels employ Feng Shui in their nest-building and interior design?

Flyeng Shuiquirrels?

It's a PLOT!!!!1111ONE!!!!111one!!!SAM!!KINISON!!!11ONE!

[aggle-rithm]

That's a good one, Pard :)

I now predict a split not dissimilar to the Jones / Fetzer / Woods / Reynolds split in the Movement.

I wonder if flying squirrels employ Feng Shui in their nest-building and interior design?

Flyeng Shuiquirrels?

It's a PLOT!!!!1111ONE!!!!111one!!!SAM!!KINISON!!!11ONE!

Don't forget those of us who don't believe the squirrels fly at all (an unnecessary complication!) but are deployed through a vast network of secret tunnels.

[PerryLogan]

This is the Thread Police.

There will be no more talk about squirrels.

[beachnut]

.....and they'll both ALSO tell you that I don't "cheat"

No "cheating" with a doctored War Crimes Complaint and no "cheating" with me refusing to engage in "intellectual dishonesty"

How long have you suffered from depression?

[twinstead]

The scrutiny of their theories the truthers would receive from legitimate scientific organizations will make what we do here to them seem pleasant. I suspect that's why they eschew them. Having a paper that suggests the official story is less plausible than CD published in a REAL scientific journal, or be embraced by a reputable scientific organization just about anywhere in the world would be an unimaginable coup for the truth movement and they know it.

Yet it hasn't happened. To this layman, this is incredibly telling.

I also agree that we do indeed get a high percentage of crazies here whose theories are easy to debunk. IMO a lot of that is because the relatively more rational ones aren't crazy enough to debate those who know what they are talking about.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

Of course, you'll say that Mineta confused his timeline, that he was talking about F93... Etc.

But now that the neo-cons are starting to be rebuffed... (has anybody read what brzezinski recely declared in public? I recommend it, it's... strange) everywhere, that Libby & co 's honesty is questionned in a court of law, well, we'll see what happens.

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Enjoy!

Busherie
bolding mine.
it figures......

[Kenose]

I honestly hesitate to associate his name with the truth movement, which has clearly become a derogatory term over time - but I believe the answer to this question is Peter Dale Scott. Yes, he contributed to and helped edit a DRG book, but they do not believe the same things.

Scott does not claim that 9/11 was a false-flag outright by any means, but certainly believes there are problems with the situation. He appears to have an absolutely spotless reputation concerning his research and insights as an author. I know these topics may raise red flags with many of you, but he has written on Vietnam, CIA drug trade, JFK (extensively), and now 9/11. Scott is known for his use of "deep politics" or the "deep state" as opposed to the "public state" terminologically.

With that said, I am new to his writing. But for what it's worth, he appears to be hands and feet above the names we're all familiar with. I have listened to a couple of lengthy interviews and recently bought "The Road to 9/11" which I should be getting to in the next couple of days as I finish Tarpley's mixed bag of insight, errors, and assumptions.

I'm told that the UC Press did a very thorough investigation of Scott's sourcing before publishing such a polemic. Interesting to say the least.

The book is on amazon. I can't post a link yet.

--------------

Another note, since this is my first real post here:

This forum along with Mark's 9/11 links have helped me develop an understanding of the truth movement that is much more clear now than it was a few months ago. Although I have not come to conclusions, and likely won't in the near future, I now wince at the sight or sound of truthers continuously pushing their point of view, while it seems as though they are unable and unwilling to reconcile their position with those who disagree with them.

[R.Mackey]

I honestly hesitate to associate his name with the truth movement, which has clearly become a derogatory term over time - but I believe the answer to this question is Peter Dale Scott. Yes, he contributed to and helped edit a DRG book, but they do not believe the same things.

Scott does not claim that 9/11 was a false-flag outright by any means, but certainly believes there are problems with the situation. He appears to have an absolutely spotless reputation concerning his research and insights as an author. I know these topics may raise red flags with many of you, but he has written on Vietnam, CIA drug trade, JFK (extensively), and now 9/11. Scott is known for his use of "deep politics" or the "deep state" as opposed to the "public state" terminologically.


Welcome to the forum, Kenose, and welcome to my very old thread. Well stated. I too have only passing familiarity with Peter Dale Scott. From your description, it doesn't appear that he is part of the Truth Movement at all -- he doesn't seem to deal in any of the false evidence coming from folks like Dr. Griffin or Dr. Jones.

Instead, his whole notion of "deep politics" appears much too vague and poorly phrased to make any firm conclusions one way or the other. I accept, of course, that any political organization will have secrets and will attempt to spin information. But I do not accept that this tendency is evidence of wrongdoing or of any major conspiracy. There's a grain of truth in his writings, but nothing definitive enough to support the Truth Movement.

Again, I am only barely familiar with his works; this is a suitable topic for a follow-up thread if anyone wants to pursue it.