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

[R.Mackey]

...in the Battle for September 11th Conspiracies. Simply put, we've run out of opponents and we've run out of arguments. Let me briefly consider what we've seen here.

Still posting here, we have TruthSeeker1234, who is still banging on (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2027088#post2027088) about "mushroom clouds" and "99.99% concrete turned to dust," and insisting this means untoward quantities of explosives (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026234#post2026234) must have been used. This is despite having started this way from his very first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908831#post1908831), being repeatedly (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909088#post1909088) called (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996282#post1996282) out (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2025928#post2025928) on the issue, and never backing it up -- other than to say it's his own personal estimate, which we should accept because it's "generous." And being lectured on the non-issue of his "mushroom cloud (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1923575#post1923575)." And being shown that the explosives hypothesis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000094#post2000094) is utterly absurd.

Then we have einsteen, who seems to think WTC 1 and 2 came down too fast solely on the basis of his misunderstanding (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2010922#post2010922) -- frequently corrected (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2013122#post2013122) -- of Greening's paper. And he keeps returning to the notion that an off-hand comment by a firefighter (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2024375#post2024375) is proof that WTC 7 was demolished, despite the fact that he conceded (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1973739#post1973739), only three weeks ago, that the same video and same argument were not proof at all.

We have newcomer Docker, a rather curious study in aggression as an evasive stratagem in debate, recycling oft-quoted canards, such as extrapolating the two hoseline request on the 78th floor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2033906#post2033906) or the jet fuel burn time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2033709#post2033709) as "proof" that the WTC fires were small -- thousands of tons of other combustibles and giant column of smoke notwithstanding -- and then turning around and accusing others of lying on the mere suspicion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034001#post2034001) that they haven't read every single page of the NIST report. He picks and chooses, we can't, therefore he must be right? what?

Finally, we have Russell Pickering, by far the more reasonable, but still uninspiring. His arguments seem to based not on evidence, but on its absence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2032757#post2032757). These arguments are inherently unprovable by their nature. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the saying goes.

In the KIA and walking wounded column, we have Christophera, who by his own admission has mental health concerns (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1915819#post1915819). We have weedwacker, a front for the notorious John Doe X, who has yet to even faintly challenge the thorough refutation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047) of his argument. And we have Killtown, who isn't so much a Sept. 11th conspiracy theorist as he is a punk with an inexplicable grudge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2018197#post2018197) against an individual he's never met (I hope).

This is not an impressive resume for the side of Sept. 11th Denial.

Frankly, there isn't a single thing to be gained here. They are bringing us nothing new, just recycling the same old arguments and mistakes, so we have nothing to learn from them. On the other side, they either refuse to learn, as in TruthSeeker1234's tired reptetition without ever reading the answers, or in Christopera's case where learning appears to be medically impossible.

So therefore, on that basis, I tentatively declare victory.

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!

[Donal]

You forgot geggy. The guy posts things as "proof" without actually reading them himself.

[Overman]

:medalofho


Nominated.

[Senor_Pointy]

What's an OG?

[R.Mackey]

What's an OG?
If you have to ask, you ain't.

Original Gangster. Term from rap music. I just find the labels and acronyms amusing, e.g. LIHOP / MIHOP, that's all.

[Arus808]

What's an OG?

haha, yeah if you have to ask. you are not

OG = original gangsta, yo!

[beachnut]

SH post

Setting the bar as high as you have in 1 and 2 will not stop those who think they qualify as is.

[R.Mackey]

SH post

Setting the bar as high as you have in 1 and 2 will not stop those who think they qualify as is.
Maybe, maybe not.

Surely those who post here have others in the "Truth Movement" that they look up to and gather information from. I'd like to know who they are. However, self-nominations are also accepted. I'm interested in all submissions, and I don't think there is any one correct answer to either question. I'm particularly interested if the CT's discuss this and come to a consensus, that might be quite valuable and rapidly lead to a better discussion.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[alexg]

Rmac, you're right. There's nothing out there. Seriously what is the best CT out there? MYHOP is pretty much dead. Theu got no smoking gun, nothing hard, just a bunch of theories.

Maybe we could find some LIHOP stuff but that's all so circumstantial. Did they let it happen on purpose, let it happen by laziness, or what.

[qarnos]

I think the troofers are in disarray at the moment following the LC Forum implosion, Wing TV vs. Alex Jones, Commander Pod vs. Everyone and the constant delay of LC: Final.

It seems the whole movement is really starting to factionalize, with about 5-6 competing groups.

It will be interesting to see if they re-group at some point.

[qarnos]

Rmac, you're right. There's nothing out there. Seriously what is the best CT out there? MYHOP is pretty much dead. Theu got no smoking gun, nothing hard, just a bunch of theories.

Maybe we could find some LIHOP stuff but that's all so circumstantial. Did they let it happen on purpose, let it happen by laziness, or what.

I go by the SBTH theory: Sometimes Bad Things Happen.

[StoneWT]

I think the troofers are in disarray at the moment following the LC Forum implosion, Wing TV vs. Alex Jones, Commander Pod vs. Everyone and the constant delay of LC: Final.

It seems the whole movement is really starting to factionalize, with about 5-6 competing groups.

It will be interesting to see if they re-group at some point.


They'll rejoin if they can make more money as part of a group or if their efforts utterly fail. The implosion of the LC forum was due to JDX and others trying to swipe members, mods, and admins for his TROOF forum and new 9/11 Mysteries DVD. They realize that the most money is made during the initial release. With Dylan hiring a salesman as a new admin, JDX and crew had to hotfoot it out of there before everyone was indoctrinated for other products.

[Metullus]

So you're saying that there were not 17 foot thick concrete cores in WTC1 & WTC2? And that WTC7 was not brought down by CD? And that it was indeed flight 93 that crashed in PA? But those guys were so convincing...

[David Wong]

The new breed of CT posters, the ones who have come in over the last couple of weeks, aren't here to talk about the conspiracy theory. They're here to attack the posters here. They name names, they sling insults the SECOND they are questioned. Killtown did it, Docker does it, that kid who couldn't spell did it.

For those people, it's not about advancing a theory, it's about winning a "flame war" on the internet with an opposing team. We could switch sides, they wouldn't care. It's a pure "mine's bigger than yours" contest at this point and the topic is secondary.

You can see it in the way they won't go even one inch deep in examining the facts they themselves post. They just fling out the factoids as weapons, then move on. Start a thread, fire off a few factoids, insult those who debunk them, run away and start a new thread. Rinse, repeat.
That's not how the truth is arrived at. It's now internet spam campaigns are conducted. It's an insult contest. It's useless, it's boring. And I suspect it's a byproduct of all of the level-headed CT types having quietly shuffled out of the movement in embarrassment, once they dug deeper and saw their heroes talking about photon lasers and quiet nukes and reptillian overlords.

[Oliver]

Victory? :eye-poppi While Chris is alive AND posting? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif


:D

[R.Mackey]

Yes, yes. All true. But please, I was serious about my two questions.

Who are leading this mob? Who are their intellectual leaders, and what are the best arguments? Opinions, please.

[Oliver]

Yes, yes. All true. But please, I was serious about my two questions.

Who are leading this mob? Who are their intellectual leaders, and what are the best arguments? Opinions, please.

They don´t have leaders beside massmedia like internet and radio.
So the leaders seem to be the forum-, cool 9/11 movie- and radiostation-originators.
ETA: Oh, and the Scholars...

Best argument? "Hate the Government!"

[Anti-sophist]

I'm glad to have helped.

I will take a stab at these questions


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.Me when I'm playing devil's advocate? Beyond that, that's really an impossible question to answer. They have so few that are "scientifically capable" to begin with, that tacking on "logical" really makes it difficult to have anyone survive the elimination process.


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.
This depends on how you define conspiracy. MIHOP is full of science holes. LIHOP is full of proof-by-coincindence. An even lighter form of CT is that the Bush administration and the underlying agencies was incompetant and may have covered up mistakes they made innocently, in an attempt to not look bad, after the fact. I don't know if this qualifies as CT, but I believe this is the "official story" doubts that most Americans have.

PS, this post was well put together, so this is also just :bump4

[gumboot]

Who are leading this mob? Who are their intellectual leaders, and what are the best arguments? Opinions, please.


I think I have a theory here.

People like Alex Jones are the leaders. Take note of his actions on 9/11 this year, and how eagerly he was followed.

But what are his theories? Ah. See that's how it works. He doesn't HAVE any theories. Seriously.

Alex Jones' 9/11 theory is "the government did it". He has nothing more than that. He allowes others to present their multitude of theories.

This works three ways in his favour. You can't refute him, because he presents nothing to refute. This makes him invincible.

If you refute a given theory, it doesn't hurt him, because you cannot pin that theory to him.

And lastly, he can be a leader to ALL CTers, because the ONLY thing they agree on is the government did 9/11. If Jones took a particular theory, he'd immediately lose the support of anyone who believed a different theory.

The leaders of their movement have NO theory.

-Gumboot

[Calcas]

This thread pretty much says it all.

R. Mackey hit the nail on the head.

Gumboot sums up their lack of leadership nicely.

[R.Mackey]

Welcome back, Andrew.

If you're right, then it means no debunking or even consideration of the "Truth Movement" is even needed. Instead, it would suggest that Alex Jones et. al. have merely created a framework, a role-playing milieu of sorts, and are merely watching their adherents attempt to rationalize their statements without assistance.

Interesting if true.

When I started this post, I considered the likes of Gordon Ross to be at the forefront of the "Truther" wave. Not that his arguments are correct, far from it, but at least he has heard of Physics and can apply it to simple problems. His arguments are not instantly laughable and do not fail on inspection, but require a few minutes study to find where he's either tricked himself or trying to trick you. Certainly a cut above the intellectual vandals we've had around here lately.

[W6102LA]

rite ur all on my ignore list now




;)

[Docker]

1) Webster Tarpley

2) The cover up

[Oliver]

1) Webster Tarpley

Who is Webster Tarpley?

2) The cover up

Means: "I hate the Government!"

[R.Mackey]

1) Webster Tarpley

2) The cover up

Thank you. I've never heard of Webster Tarpley, but I will look him up.

Also, could you be a little more specific? Why him, and what exactly do you mean with your second point?

Oh, also, if you don't want to be confused with Killtown, this post of yours is exactly out of his playbook. The #) headings, and the brief and incomplete answers. You may want to change your posting style if those comparisons bother you. Entirely your choice. Thanks!

[Docker]

Who is Webster Tarpley?



Means: "I hate the Government!"

So you have never heard of Tarpley? What extensive reasearch you have done.

They have covered things up, hence a conspiracy.

[beachnut]

Who is Webster Tarpley?



Means: "I hate the Government!"


a dolt with CT quotes

[Oliver]

So you have never heard of Tarpley? What extensive reasearch you have done.

They have covered things up, hence a conspiracy.

Means: "I hate the Government!"

[Docker]

Thank you. I've never heard of Webster Tarpley, but I will look him up.

Also, could you be a little more specific? Why him, and what exactly do you mean with your second point?

Oh, also, if you don't want to be confused with Killtown, this post of yours is exactly out of his playbook. The #) headings, and the brief and incomplete answers. You may want to change your posting style if those comparisons bother you. Entirely your choice. Thanks!

Please watch Tarpleys lecture or read his book "Synthetic Terror".

He doesn't really bother with demolition etc, but he describes in detail the Able Danger scenario and the way moles and patsies are used by the CIA. It's very very convincing.

There is a cover up, the fact that Rice claimed they never imagined planes flying into buildings is a complete lie. They lied about the August 8th briefing.

I would say they are the best proponents of at least the LIHOP scenario.

[beachnut]

Thank you. I've never heard of Webster Tarpley, but I will look him up.

Also, could you be a little more specific? Why him, and what exactly do you mean with your second point?

Oh, also, if you don't want to be confused with Killtown, this post of yours is exactly out of his playbook. The #) headings, and the brief and incomplete answers. You may want to change your posting style if those comparisons bother you. Entirely your choice. Thanks!

he has lost is what he has said

the WT guy is nuts

The cover up is his attempt at say there is a 9/11 cover up, yet it seems he failed to make it air tight, it has holes in it

good luck with mr question!

[Oliver]

Please watch Tarpleys lecture or read his book "Synthetic Terror".

He doesn't really bother with demolition etc, but he describes in detail the Able Danger scenario and the way moles and patsies are used by the CIA. It's very very convincing.

There is a cover up, the fact that Rice claimed they never imagined planes flying into buildings is a complete lie. They lied about the August 8th briefing.

I would say they are the best proponents of at least the LIHOP scenario.

Means: "I hate the Government!"

And i agree with you. :D Even if i´m not on the Liar-Side...

[beachnut]

Please watch Tarpleys lecture or read his book "Synthetic Terror".

He doesn't really bother with demolition etc, but he describes in detail the Able Danger scenario and the way moles and patsies are used by the CIA. It's very very convincing.

There is a cover up, the fact that Rice claimed they never imagined planes flying into buildings is a complete lie. They lied about the August 8th briefing.

I would say they are the best proponents of at least the LIHOP scenario.

hearsay, good enough for you

but no Pulitzer Prize for this.

Now all you need, Facts! good luck mr question

[Gravy]

Great post, R. Mackey.

I've been wondering about this since the first time I went to Ground Zero with Abby and Chad. Since some of our opponents had been "studying" the issues for years, and were very practiced at presenting their claims to the public, I expected, at least, something challenging to deal with. They had nothing. The same tired, debunked foolishness. I kept saying to myself, "Is this it? This is all they have?" It is.

I'd say Alex Jones is the movement's spiritual (cheer)leader. But he's got so many conspiracies on his plate that he doesn't have time to specialize in one.

A few months ago CTs were looking to Steven Jones as their intellectual leader, but his work since then hasn't panned out, he still apparently won't submit to proper peer review, his "Journal" is laughable, former "Scholars" have turned on him and accused him of wrongdoing, and his forced retirement isn't going to give him credibility beyond CT circles.

The Loose Change guys show such poor judgment that I don't see them advancing the movement. They raised high expectations that the Sept. 11 protest was going to vault the movement into the national consciousness. It flopped. It doesn't sound as if the Final Cut will be bringing anything significant to the table. Fewer specifics, more insinuations, more questions.

In terms of specific theories, Russell's Pentagon work is the only thing that stands out. If I understand his current position, flight 77 did hit the Pentagon but he thinks it may have been remotely piloted. I guess that's progress.

So, no, I don't see anyone reasonable and knowledgeable stepping up to the plate with something new. People like Killtown and JDX are terrified of even having their identities known, much less of promoting their theories publicly. And since the "movement" is so factionalized, I don't see any great uniter coming along.

Helloooooo? Anyone out there? Have we seen the best from your brightest?

[Docker]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

[dirtywick]

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.


It's hard to find anything since any keywords you'd use that relate to WTC or 9/11 instantly pull up hundreds of pages of crap.

I have heard that the '93 attacks damaged the structure irreperably and the buildings were worthless, which, if true (I have no idea), could be a bit negligent of anyone who knew that. But, that's doesn't relate to staging the attacks or anything like that, so it's not really a conspiracy. But, I do find it reasonable that the buildings weren't quite what they were before '93.

[Oliver]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

You mean as rich as Jones and his Comedies? :eek:

[Anti-sophist]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

Why are you under the delusion that it's up to us to go out and disprove every single human being on the planet who has made a unproven claim, in order to "win"?

[Docker]

For the 17th time I am not a jones fan. I'll become one if thats convenient for you.

I have so far been accused of being killtown, pdoherty, and alex jones. I reckon i'll be told i'm Dylan next.

[Oliver]

For the 17th time I am not a jones fan. I'll become one if thats convenient for you.

I have so far been accused of being killtown, pdoherty, and alex jones. I reckon i'll be told i'm Dylan next.

He is DYLAN! :boggled:

[Pardalis]

I have so far been accused of being killtown, pdoherty, and alex jones. I reckon i'll be told i'm Dylan next.

Listen, you come here, start threads making wild claims, you bring no evidence to back them up, nothing, then you leave it and start over again in another thread. 300 + posts in two days and still you have brought nothing of substance to this issue.

What do you want us to do? Can you blame us for at least trying to figure you out?

[Oliver]

For the 17th time I am not a jones fan. I'll become one if thats convenient for you.

I have so far been accused of being killtown, pdoherty, and alex jones. I reckon i'll be told i'm Dylan next.

Brian: I'm not the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are, lord, and I should know... I've followed a few.
Followers: Hail Messiah!
Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity!
Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right... I AM THE MESSIAH!
Followers: HE IS! HE IS THE MESSIAH!
Brian: NOW, F*** OFF!!!!
[there is a long awkward silence.]
Arthur: How shall we F*** off, oh Lord?
Brian: Oh, just go away! Leave me alone.

Simon: You told these people to eat my juniper berries. You break my bloody foot. You break my vow of silence, and then you try and clean up on my juniper bushes!
Brian: Oh, lay off!
Arthur: This is the Messiah, the Chosen One!
Simon: No, he's not.
Brian: Aaaagh!
Arthur: An unbeliever!
Followers: An unbeliever!
Arthur: Persecute! Kill the heretic!
Followers: Kill the heretic! Kill him! Persecute! Kill!...
Brian: Leave him alone! Leave him alone! Leave him alone. Put him down. Please!

Mandy: There's no Messiah in here. There's a mess, all right, but no messiah.

Mandy: Now, you listen here! He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy! Now, go away!

Brian: You are all individuals!
Crowd: YES, YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Brian: You are all different!
Crowd: YES, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!
Lone Voice: I'm not.
Person next to him: SHH!

[R.Mackey]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

I research facts, not people, and I evaluate arguments when they are presented here. Since Mr. Tarpley has been mentioned very sparsely (check the Search function if you don't believe me), I had no reason to consider him important.

However, this is why I asked. I'm sure there are others I haven't heard of. I'm not afraid to admit that, nor afraid to learn. So thank you for your contribution. I am, however, disappointed that you still haven't explained anything about the guy, just that you find it amusing that I don't know him.

Oh, by the way, the "comedy" argument is also highly reminiscent of Killtown. He resorted to such crude insults often when trying to think of excuses. Again, you may want to modify your increasingly insulting behavior if you don't want to be confused with him. Thanks!

[Loss Leader]

Frankly, there isn't a single thing to be gained here. They are bringing us nothing new, just recycling the same old arguments and mistakes, so we have nothing to learn from them.

...

So therefore, on that basis, I tentatively declare victory.


I've been thinking about this very thing recently and I think that the real storm is still coming. The midterm elections look like they're going to turn one or both houses over to the Democrats. While I will weap tears of joy and hug strangers on that day, there might be one small complication ...

They're going to hold hearings.

They're going to hold lots of hearings. About everything. They're going to grill Rumsfeld and Rice and everybody they can find for as long as they can about whatever they can. Payback's a bitch and the Dems want payback.

Now, there was no conspiracy. There was no LIHOP. There was some attempt to minimize how badly the administration had misread the terrorist threat. Clinton actually left Clark there with a fully fleshed-out plan which they ignored for eight months. And they are incompetent jerks and warmongers who deserve to be turned out into the street. But there was no pre-9/11 conspiracy.

That, however, won't matter. All those hearings are going to create quotes. They're going to creat pundits. And they're going to create evidence.

And the entire CT movement will get its second wind.

Storm's coming. At least, that's what I think.

[R.Mackey]

You can read some of his ramblings here: http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2005/11/story-of-webster-griffin-tarpley.html

You'll note a startling lack of evidence, even in this friendly interview. If that's the best he's got, I confidently state that he wouldn't last five minutes under critical scrutiny.

As Andrew says, "he has no theory." Nothing but innuendo... Oh, and special mention for his early days as a LaRouche aide, though rumour has it the relationship ended badly (http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=11446&bheaders=1).

Any more nominees?

[LashL]

I've been thinking about this very thing recently and I think that the real storm is still coming. The midterm elections look like they're going to turn one or both houses over to the Democrats. While I will weap tears of joy and hug strangers on that day, there might be one small complication ...

They're going to hold hearings.

They're going to hold lots of hearings. About everything. They're going to grill Rumsfeld and Rice and everybody they can find for as long as they can about whatever they can. Payback's a bitch and the Dems want payback.

Now, there was no conspiracy. There was no LIHOP. There was some attempt to minimize how badly the administration had misread the terrorist threat. Clinton actually left Clark there with a fully fleshed-out plan which they ignored for eight months. And they are incompetent jerks and warmongers who deserve to be turned out into the street. But there was no pre-9/11 conspiracy.

That, however, won't matter. All those hearings are going to create quotes. They're going to creat pundits. And they're going to create evidence.

And the entire CT movement will get its second wind.

Storm's coming. At least, that's what I think.

That's an interesting take on things, Loss Leader. Thanks. I agree with you about the administration's incompetency, about their attempts to minimize their failure to recognize the extent of the terrorist threat, and that they have been incompetent jerks and warmongers. However, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the Democrats will be terribly anxious to delve too deeply into hearings about 9/11, considering their own complacency in the several years leading up to it, but it will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

[G-K-4]

They're going to hold hearings. ...Payback's a bitch and the Dems want payback.
If the Democrats win control of even just the House of Representitives, I agree that there will be hearings and investigations. In fact, one of the Democrats' most active investigators is Henry Waxman, the "Elliot Ness of the Democrats". (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/corn/) He is currently the senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, and would probably go on to chair tat committee if his party wins control.

Waxman does not strike me as the kind of guy to fall for 9/11 conspiracy fantasies. Besides, he and the others will be too busy looking into the real scandals.

And the entire CT movement will get its second wind.
The fantasists might be hoping for this, but I think they will be disappointed.

[Loss Leader]

However, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the Democrats will be terribly anxious to delve too deeply into hearings about 9/11, considering their own complacency in the several years leading up to it, but it will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

Actually, I think they'll be happy to get the mike. They'll point out that the entire plan to reorganize our intelligence services and to bring down the "Chinese walls" that prevented the sharing of information was cribbed from the plan devised by Clinton and repeatedly reccomended by his aides during the handover. I think they'll be very happy to disabuse people of the notion that Clinton was "complacent" or "distracted," especially as a lead-up to the '08 Presidential election.

[Docker]

I've been thinking about this very thing recently and I think that the real storm is still coming. The midterm elections look like they're going to turn one or both houses over to the Democrats. While I will weap tears of joy and hug strangers on that day, there might be one small complication ...

They're going to hold hearings.

They're going to hold lots of hearings. About everything. They're going to grill Rumsfeld and Rice and everybody they can find for as long as they can about whatever they can. Payback's a bitch and the Dems want payback.

Now, there was no conspiracy. There was no LIHOP. There was some attempt to minimize how badly the administration had misread the terrorist threat. Clinton actually left Clark there with a fully fleshed-out plan which they ignored for eight months. And they are incompetent jerks and warmongers who deserve to be turned out into the street. But there was no pre-9/11 conspiracy.

That, however, won't matter. All those hearings are going to create quotes. They're going to creat pundits. And they're going to create evidence.

And the entire CT movement will get its second wind.

Storm's coming. At least, that's what I think.

I know what will happen. Members of the EPA will be in serious trouble over the GZ air. People could end up in jail.

[Docker]

You can read some of his ramblings here: http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2005/11/story-of-webster-griffin-tarpley.html

You'll note a startling lack of evidence, even in this friendly interview. If that's the best he's got, I confidently state that he wouldn't last five minutes under critical scrutiny.

As Andrew says, "he has no theory." Nothing but innuendo... Oh, and special mention for his early days as a LaRouche aide, though rumour has it the relationship ended badly (http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=11446&bheaders=1).

Any more nominees?

Put your money where your mouth is. Contact Tarpley and offer to debate him publicly. Put up or shut up.

The throng is growing, Apparently a former CIA main man has come forward saying he believes the CIA were involved. I suppose you will just call him mental and discount his opinion.

[maccy]

I know what will happen. Members of the EPA will be in serious trouble over the GZ air. People could end up in jail.

Will you be campaiging for the Democrats between now and November then? Making a donation?

[DavidJames]

Apparently a former CIA main man has come forward saying he believes the CIA were involved. I suppose you will just call him mental and discount his opinion.Yes, I'm going to call him right now, I'm going to use the evidence you supplied naming the person and, wait, this was Docker, he who since he provides zero supporting evidence, pulls doo doo out of his butt. link - no, source - no, evidence - no. Total BS - like everything else, you betcha.

[Docker]

Will you be campaiging for the Democrats between now and November then? Making a donation?

I dont live in America.

[LashL]

Actually, I think they'll be happy to get the mike. They'll point out that the entire plan to reorganize our intelligence services and to bring down the "Chinese walls" that prevented the sharing of information was cribbed from the plan devised by Clinton and repeatedly reccomended by his aides during the handover. I think they'll be very happy to disabuse people of the notion that Clinton was "complacent" or "distracted," especially as a lead-up to the '08 Presidential election.

Oh, I agree with you entirely that they'd be very happy to disabuse people of the notion that Clinton was complacent or distracted if they can, particularly in the lead up to the 2008 election. And I have no doubt that if they think they make it fly, they will try it. But I'm not sure that they can. Their failure to say much of anything at all for the past five years since the events leads me to believe that they have their own reasons for being quiet about it. Thus, my thinking that they aren't going to be terribly anxious to open a can of worms that might hurt them as much as help them.

ETA: Sorry about the side conversation here, R. Mackey.

[Oliver]

I dont live in America.

But?

[R.Mackey]

Put your money where your mouth is. Contact Tarpley and offer to debate him publicly. Put up or shut up.
What a foolish thing to say. It'd be equally if not more valid for me to say to Mr. Tarpley: "Put your money where your mouth is. Submit your findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Put up or shut up."

Besides, he hasn't yet presented any theory, so there's nothing to debate.

Anyway, I've already thanked you for your contribution, meager though it may be. If you are just going to cause trouble, then please vacate my thread. I am still asking a serious question, and it seems I've already seen all that you have to offer in that regard.

The throng is growing, Apparently a former CIA main man has come forward saying he believes the CIA were involved. I suppose you will just call him mental and discount his opinion.
Subject for another thread, if and only if you have some support for this. But I know you don't, so don't get all excited.

I mean, seriously. "A former CIA main man has come forward" saying that he "believes the CIA were involved"?? He doesn't know? How "main" a man could he be?

See what I mean? Now run along.

[Docker]

Yes, I'm going to call him right now, I'm going to use the evidence you supplied naming the person and, wait, this was Docker, he who since he provides zero supporting evidence, pulls doo doo out of his butt. link - no, source - no, evidence - no. Total BS - like everything else, you betcha.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Steele):
Robert David Steele Vivas (b. July 16, 1952 New York City), is a former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer Central Intelligence Agency.[1] He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. as well as the Golden Candle Society.[2] Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990's.
From Strategic Strategy Research Military site (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=105):
ROBERT D. STEELE is a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Mr. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.
From Steele's Amazon review (http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_st_rd/002-6919675-8200042?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0930852370&store=yourstore&cdThread=Tx2ZU8WJJKCVSEV&reviewID=R1LNNW9GMEILN5&iid=0930852370&displayType=ReviewDetail):
It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction. I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford's "Pretext for War"), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of "Crossing the Rubicon" as well as "State of Denial"). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of "Clash of Civilizations" with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.

[Docker]

What a foolish thing to say. It'd be equally if not more valid for me to say to Mr. Tarpley: "Put your money where your mouth is. Submit your findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Put up or shut up."

Besides, he hasn't yet presented any theory, so there's nothing to debate.

Anyway, I've already thanked you for your contribution, meager though it may be. If you are just going to cause trouble, then please vacate my thread. I am still asking a serious question, and it seems I've already seen all that you have to offer in that regard.


Subject for another thread, if and only if you have some support for this. But I know you don't, so don't get all excited.

I mean, seriously. "A former CIA main man has come forward" saying that he "believes the CIA were involved"?? He doesn't know? How "main" a man could he be?

See what I mean? Now run along.

You invited me to this thread. A thread in which you claimed to have beaten all the CTs and were looking for more competition. You would have a great time beating Tarpley.

[R.Mackey]

You invited me to this thread. A thread in which you claimed to have beaten all the CTs and were looking for more competition. You would have a great time beating Tarpley.
Yes, I did. I invited you here for a specific purpose. That is now fulfilled. You would know this if you had read my opening post.

So why are you still here? You are not addressing my question any longer.

[Docker]

Yes, I did. I invited you here for a specific purpose. That is now fulfilled. You would know this if you had read my opening post.

So why are you still here? You are not addressing my question any longer.

Because this is an open forum and you cannot influence me. Please get over that.

[R.Mackey]

Because this is an open forum and you cannot influence me. Please get over that.
Ever hear of common courtesy?

I am formally inviting you out of my thread, since you only seem to wish trouble. Please do me the honor of understanding that. As you have no doubt noticed, this is an open forum, and you may continue your tangential discussions in other threads. Be a pal, and do so now, please.

[DavidJames]

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Steele):
Robert David Steele Vivas (b. July 16, 1952 New York City), is a former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer Central Intelligence Agency.[1] He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. as well as the Golden Candle Society.[2] Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990's.
From Strategic Strategy Research Military site (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=105):
ROBERT D. STEELE is a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Mr. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.
From Steele's Amazon review (http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_st_rd/002-6919675-8200042?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0930852370&store=yourstore&cdThread=Tx2ZU8WJJKCVSEV&reviewID=R1LNNW9GMEILN5&iid=0930852370&displayType=ReviewDetail):
It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction. I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford's "Pretext for War"), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of "Crossing the Rubicon" as well as "State of Denial"). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of "Clash of Civilizations" with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.
Thank you for providing sources for this issue. I will look into this further.

[Docker]

Ever hear of common courtesy?

I am formally inviting you out of my thread, since you only seem to wish trouble. Please do me the honor of understanding that. As you have no doubt noticed, this is an open forum, and you may continue your tangential discussions in other threads. Be a pal, and do so now, please.

I would love to see one example of you or anybody else here being courteous to me.

[Pardalis]

You're such a nice guy Docker.

[Docker]

Thank you for providing sources for this issue. I will look into this further.


You are welcome. The people that say I never cite sources are liars. I do if I can and if I can't I make clear it's an opinion.

[Pardalis]

I would love to see one example of you or anybody else here being courteous to me.

You're such a nice guy Docker.

There you go.

[R.Mackey]

I would love to see one example of you or anybody else here being courteous to me.
You just did, in my post that you quoted... ;)

[David Wong]

These are excellent of examples of what I was talking about, by the way. The conversation isn't about 9/11. It's about Docker and who's being mean to Docker and who has defeated who in the flame war. It's an argument about an argument and the arguers.

[Pardalis]

You're such a nice guy Docker.

NOTE: being courteous doesn't necesserally mean being honest.

[W6102LA]

Thank you for providing sources for this issue. I will look into this further.

Anyone going to start a thread about this, it looks interesting

:)The author draws on historical examples of US fabrication of threats (e.g. the bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor) and many others (Jim Bamford publicized Operation Northwoods). It is an undeniable fact that the U.S. Government has been willing to kill its own citizens and fabricate attacks as part of moving the public.

The author is compelling in his review of the conflicts of interest for each of the 9/11 Commissioners and key staff; he is conclusive in his damnation of their performance and their refusal to be tough with NORAD, the FAA, and many other Executive organizations that refused to cooperate; and he is conclusive on his suggestion that all actual evidence points to the Pentagon being hit by a missile rather than an airplane.

It looks like he has drawn his conclusion from a book that promotes the idea that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane :boggled:

[Muckar-duva]

There's been much hoopla about Tarpley as of late. I'm going to order the book and have a look at it myself.

[CptColumbo]

I've noticed that most of the CTers feel it is our job to prove all other theories and possibilities (no matter how outrageous) wrong before they will accept the theory based that is generally accepted by the scientific community.

[Docker]

Mackey said: "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"

So I found an opponent for him, one he had never heard of.

He totally bottled out of a debate with him.

Enough said.

[qarnos]

I've noticed that most of the CTers feel it is our job to prove all other theories and possibilities (no matter how outrageous) wrong before they will accept the theory based that is generally accepted by the scientific community.

You mean like... prove there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns orbiting Pluto?

[Childlike Empress]

There is a cover up, the fact that Rice claimed they never imagined planes flying into buildings is a complete lie. They lied about the August 8th briefing.
When we heard about the first plane crashing into the north tower, most of us thought it might be an accident. NSA Rice should have known better. The buildings should have been immediately evacuated. No one should have died in the south tower. She is secretary of state today.

[Oliver]

When we heard about the first plane crashing into the north tower, most of us thought it might be an accident. NSA Rice should have known better. The buildings should have been immediately evacuated. No one should have died in the south tower. She is secretary of state today.



This was "their" first reactions...

oxWuApjie24

BTW: There is a thread waiting for you at politics:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66815

[Gravy]

So I found an opponent for him, one he had never heard of.

He totally bottled out of a debate with him.

Enough said.You set up a debate between Webster Tarpley and R.Mackey? How did I miss that news? When was it to be? How do you know Tarpley?

[Docker]

You set up a debate between Webster Tarpley and R.Mackey? How did I miss that news? When was it to be? How do you know Tarpley?

I did not set it up. I revealed Tarpley's existence to a very uninformed Mackey.

I then suggested Mackey could sate his desire for CT opponents by contacting Tarpley. Mackey then did a 180 degree turn, quicker than hani hanjour on flight 77, andclaimed it wasn't his job to debate CTs!

Amazing

[Loss Leader]

.Their failure to say much of anything at all for the past five years since the events leads me to believe that they have their own reasons for being quiet about it. .

I think they have been talking. But, because the Dems have been irrelevant for five and a half years, people just haven't been listening. Clinton went batguano loony at several public forums when someone insinuated that his administration was too distracted to properly deal with the threat or that they let OBL "slip through their fingers." And, since everybody in Congress except one lady was NOT part of the White House during Clinton's presidency, I can't see why they would be personally afraid to rehash the Clinton response.

That one lady, by the way, has more reason than anyone to rehabilitate Clinton's reputation. Especially because they have a child together.

[Calcas]

I did not set it up. I revealed Tarpley's existence to a very uninformed Mackey.

I then suggested Mackey could sate his desire for CT opponents by contacting Tarpley. Mackey then did a 180 degree turn, quicker than hani hanjour on flight 77, andclaimed it wasn't his job to debate CTs!

Amazing

No, you "challenged" him to debate the guy. BFD. You don't even know the guy.

I challenge you to debate Bush on 9/11.

Oh, you REFUSE to do so? You won't contact him and set it up!

There you go.

BTW, in what Country do you reside that emphasizes such bizarre and illogical thinking skills?

[Docker]

No, you "challenged" him to debate the guy. BFD. You don't even know the guy.

I challenge you to debate Bush on 9/11.

Oh, you REFUSE to do so? You won't contact him and set it up!

There you go.

BTW, in what Country do you reside that emphasizes such bizarre and illogical thinking skills?

Could you let me answer before you answer for me? I'd happily debate Bush, theres just no way he would agree to it. If you know a way to set it up i'll do it.

[Skibum]

Could you let me answer before you answer for me? I'd happily debate Bush, theres just no way he would agree to it. If you know a way to set it up i'll do it.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[Gravy]

I did not set it up. I revealed Tarpley's existence to a very uninformed Mackey.

I then suggested Mackey could sate his desire for CT opponents by contacting Tarpley. Mackey then did a 180 degree turn, quicker than hani hanjour on flight 77, andclaimed it wasn't his job to debate CTs!

AmazingGot it. You accused him of refusing a nonexistent debate with someone he knows nothing about.

At least you believe Hanjour piloted flight 77!

Calcas, you beat me to it. Okay, Docker, I challenge you to debate me, in New York, next week. Agreed?

[Docker]

Got it. You accused him of refusing a nonexistent debate with someone he knows nothing about.

At least you believe Hanjour piloted flight 77!

Calcas, you beat me to it. Okay, Docker, I challenge you to debate me, in New York, next week. Agreed?

After the quiz incident in the OKC thread I would rather debate a crocodile that hasn't been fed.

This entire thread is about Mackey looking for new CT blood to debate, I found one and he legged it.

[Gravy]

After the quiz incident in the OKC thread I would rather debate a crocodile that hasn't been fed.

This entire thread is about Mackey looking for new CT blood to debate, I found one and he legged it.Well there we have it. I'm sorry that you are unable to answer questions, but you have refused a direct challenge to debate someone who's actually willing to debate you. Unlike you accusing R.Mackey of refusing your challenge to debate someone who did not offer to debate him. That's double cowardice!

[Docker]

Well there we have it. You refused a direct challenge to debate someone who's actually willing to debate you. Unlike you accusing R.Mackey of refusing your challenge to debate someone who did not offer to debate him. That's double cowardice!

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

[MikeW]

Tarpley is as deceptive, misleading and poor at research as any 9/11 author. Just picking an example at random:

According to one of Bin Laden’s handlers by the name of Beardman, during the Afghan years Bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of Bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): “neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.” (Meyssan 2002 7)
Gasp! Does he really have a quote from one of bin Laden's CIA handlers?

Well...

No.

Take a look at this:

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
This is Michel Chossudovsky stretching the truth past breaking point. He wants to believe bin Laden was supported by the CIA, so the "neither I, nor my brothers" quote (which didn't come via "Beardman") doesn't disprove this, and instead indicates that, uh, he just didn't know about it. Also "Beardman" has consistently said that the CIA had nothing to do with bin Ladin or al Qaeda for years, however Chossudovsky also throws that away because it's inconvenient.

What Chossudovsky did do, though, was get this in very early, this article appearing on September 12 2001. It was then almost certainly the source for Meyssan and Tarpley, as the articles contain the same mis-spelling of the "handler" (Beardman is actually Milt Bearden, Google him and see if you think Tarpley has fairly represented his views). Neither bothered looking into it, of course, because what's the point of that when there's money to be made? So Chossudovsky's garbage lives again.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

I would say that statement is a form of Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_ignorantiam)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

See, now this quote illustrates a straw man logical fallacy. Mackey stated that there have been no new arguments brought to the table, by existing, or recently new, posters that he has seen; and, barring this occurring, he would consider it a dead issue and not spend his time re-debunking the same recycled arguments. He did not state he was looking for new blood to debate, and he certainly didn't state he was looking to set up a formal debate with some new (to Mackey) proponent of a CT.

Additionally, he did not definitively declare victory, as you implied he did; but rather stated, "I tentatively declare victory."

Now, Docker, do you see the difference between what you have been claiming to have been straw men arguments, and the straw man you have actually committed here? If not, I shall spell it out, you are committing the straw man fallacy because you are misrepresenting your opponents statements and then using those intentional misrepresentations as the basis for your counter-arguments.

[Horatius]

Mackey said: "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"

So I found an opponent for him, one he had never heard of.

He totally bottled out of a debate with him.

Enough said.

Mackey was quite clear that he was looking for "worthy" opponents, not ones who would just parrot the same old BS, with no evidence, just like all the earlier CTists he listed. You suggested one, and on examining your candidate, what did Mackey find?



You can read some of his ramblings here: http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2005/11/story-of-webster-griffin-tarpley.html

You'll note a startling lack of evidence, even in this friendly interview. If that's the best he's got, I confidently state that he wouldn't last five minutes under critical scrutiny.

As Andrew says, "he has no theory." Nothing but innuendo... Oh, and special mention for his early days as a LaRouche aide, though rumour has it the relationship ended badly (http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=11446&bheaders=1).

Any more nominees?

So, not worthy. You're free to disagree with his conclusions, and I have no doubt you will, but your implication that he is ingoring a "worthy" opponent simply won't hold water.

[MikeW]

Oh, forgot to say, anyone who wants to see what Tarpley has to offer should try http://rapidshare.de/files/15543831/Tarpley-_911_synthetic_terror_made_in_USA.pdf.html

[Gravy]

Mackey was quite clear that he was looking for "worthy" opponents, not ones who would just parrot the same old BS, with no evidence, just like all the earlier CTists he listed.Yes, he was clear:

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.

[Horatius]

I think we also need to make clear that it's not just the particular claims we're tired of seeing, but the whole methodology of how they make their arguments.

Compare Christophera, TruthSeeker1234, PDoherty, Killtown, and all the others. They each have a few particular claims they liked to harp on (Concrete core, How much dust?, Who the hell knows, and that Picture of the smoke, respectively), but they all argue in exactly the same manner:

Assertion without evidence
Refusal to provide evidence
Reluctantly provide "evidence" that doesn't hold up under inspection
Ignore or belittle debunkings
Make same assertion again, probably in new thread, while ignoring the earlier discussions.


What we'd really like to find is someone who doesn't play the same old BS games. What we expect to find is nothing, as people who are capable of constructing good arguments will usually end up convincing themselves that the CT position is crap.

[tsig]

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

Why don't you just cut and paste the parts of Tarply "you" think are important and we'll try those?

[MikeW]

Why don't you just cut and paste the parts of Tarply "you" think are important and we'll try those?
Perhaps I can help...

Similarly, any Arab who feels sympathy for al Qaeda needs to be forcefully reminded that al Qaeda was created by the CIA and continues to be steered by the CIA, through various cut-outs and mediations
Oops, no, that's not true. Let's try this:

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz later reported that, about two hours before American 11 hit the North Tower, two employees of the Israeli company Odigo who worked in Herzliya, Israel, had received an email message warning that terror attacks in New York City were imminent.
False. The company said it was a general message that didn't specify the WTC and could easily be a convenience. Maybe if we look over here...

Professor Michel Chossudovsky contends that “ given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8,000 feet.
Perhaps not. Another?

the two American 11 flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney allegedly each made a separate phone call to report the ongoing hijacking. Ms. Ong talked about hijackers spraying mace, but Ms. Sweeny did not. Ms. Sweeny reported seeing a bomb with yellow wires, which Ms. Ong did not mention. Are the two flight attendants reporting events as seen in different parts of the plane, or are the calls fakes, simulated by well-trained imposters working for intelligence agencies as part of the general orchestration of 9/11?
I'd go with option a)

The alleged Barbara Olsen telephone call, which loomed so large during the first week after 9/11, presents many contradictions
Such as those demolished by LashL in an earlier post?

The US Securities and Exchange Commission pledged to get to the bottom of this question, and so did the German Bundesbank, the central banking authority of that country. But all references to 9/11 insider trading soon disappeared from the press. The finance oligarchs were not interested in pursuing this investigation, which appeared by its very nature to undercut the official version of 9/11.
Actually foreign investigations revealed no evidence of insider trading, but Tarpley appears to want to believe that the Bundesbank etc are "in on it", too.

[Horatius]

the two American 11 flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney allegedly each made a separate phone call to report the ongoing hijacking. Ms. Ong talked about hijackers spraying mace, but Ms. Sweeny did not. Ms. Sweeny reported seeing a bomb with yellow wires, which Ms. Ong did not mention. Are the two flight attendants reporting events as seen in different parts of the plane, or are the calls fakes, simulated by well-trained imposters working for intelligence agencies as part of the general orchestration of 9/11?

This is what really annoys me about these guys. I can understand not knowing much about physics or structural engineering, but this?

Why would "well-trained" "imposters" make such an obvious error in reporting different versions of the attacks? If you were making up a story to be used in a conspiracy, wouldn't you make sure to have some internal consistency?

Why anyone not completely insane would interpret this to be anything other than two people seeing an event (or more than one event) from different perspectives, and subsequently reporting what they thought was the most important part, is simply beyond me.

Unless he's just deliberately lying, of course.

And this is supposed to be a "worthy" opponent?

[tsig]

Perhaps I can help...


Oops, no, that's not true. Let's try this:


False. The company said it was a general message that didn't specify the WTC and could easily be a convenience. Maybe if we look over here...


Perhaps not. Another?


I'd go with option a)


Such as those demolished by LashL in an earlier post?


Actually foreign investigations revealed no evidence of insider trading, but Tarpley appears to want to believe that the Bundesbank etc are "in on it", too.



Maybe it woud be better to say the things Tarpley got right.

I'l start the list:

1. He spelled his own name right.

2....

[tsig]

This is what really annoys me about these guys. I can understand not knowing much about physics or structural engineering, but this?

Why would "well-trained" "imposters" make such an obvious error in reporting different versions of the attacks? If you were making up a story to be used in a conspiracy, wouldn't you make sure to have some internal consistency?

Why anyone not completely insane would interpret this to be anything other than two people seeing an event (or more than one event) from different perspectives, and subsequently reporting what they thought was the most
important part, is simply beyond me.

Unless he's just deliberately lying, of course.

And this is supposed to be a "worthy" opponent?

Quite worthy for Docker.

[MikeW]

Maybe it woud be better to say the things Tarpley got right.

I'l start the list:

1. He spelled his own name right.

2....
Heh. To be fair, I was just posting bits that I found most laughable, you should really download the file from the link I posted above to get a true picture. But for those who aren't interested, here's a summary of what he thinks later on:

CONCLUSIONS
So far we have come to the following conclusions:
1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself. The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more bluntly, patsies.
2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote control.
3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles operating inside the government.
4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must therefore be considered.
5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible, given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.
8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US government and establishment.

[bob_kark]

...in the Battle for September 11th Conspiracies.
I think your victory is a bit premature. While I know what you mean in your statement. I think you might be fighting the wrong battle. While it is true that each of the posters you mentioned are unable to prove their case, their ability or inability to prove their case in its own right has a greater depth to it.

The attacks on September 11th, 2001 were committed by agents of Al Qaeda. Victory is achieved simply by realizing this. The problem we have as skeptics is that these people we are debating against do not understand the scientific method or even simple logic for that matter. They fail to realize when their beliefs have been disproven because they're unable to grasp the reasoning behind your statements.

So, when you disprove their argument, you do not achieve victory, you simply prove their ignorance. While this is still a victory of sorts, people sitting on the fence surely see your efforts and hopefully see the errors in logic that the Truth movment hold so dear, it does nothing to change the mind of the person you are debating. The only way to claim victory is to combat their ignorance and the only way to achieve that is through education.

Unfortunately, an internet forum isn't the best place to educate an unwilling student, especially when the student is as insulting as many you mentioned have been. Of course this becomes even more difficult with other people posting that are more interested in berating than educating, something I've been guilty of on occation...

However, when it really comes down to it, you have to ask yourself if it's worth the effort. Why educate someone who is unwilling to educate themself? Personally, I believe it can be worth the effort, depending on the "student."

A prime example of this would be RandFan, who is a greatly respected member on this forum, well by myself at least. However, when he first joined the website, he was a proponent of Intelligent Design. I won't go into great detail, since he already has here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2024314#post2024314) and here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2031941#post2031941) RandFan's conversion demonstrates the power this forum has and what we can accomplish if we try. Not only were we able to help RandFan make some discoveries about himself and his beliefs, we were able to add a greatly valued member to the JREF team.

Realistically speaking, I'm certain that the majority of the people you listed in your OP are likely beyond hope. They're simply too driven by their beliefs to be able to consider another point of view. However, we do have other CT believers for which there is hope. With time, perhaps they'll simply prove no better than their bretheren, perhaps they'll show themselves to be another RandFan, who can say?

I want to make clear, I'm not posting this to call on everyone to work together, make nicey-nice and help these people to understand. I realize that none of us has made a commitment to become educators of the ignorant. Also, I certainly do not want to point fingers, make judgements, or berate anyone. However, I wanted to provide some perspective to hopefully show that the victory you speak of is simply too hollow to be worth the effort. That being said, perhaps we can work together to achieve more.

IMHO, as always.

[R.Mackey]

I think your victory is a bit premature. While I know what you mean in your statement. I think you might be fighting the wrong battle. [...] The problem we have as skeptics is that these people we are debating against do not understand the scientific method or even simple logic for that matter. [...] The only way to claim victory is to combat their ignorance and the only way to achieve that is through education.

[...]

I want to make clear, I'm not posting this to call on everyone to work together, make nicey-nice and help these people to understand. I realize that none of us has made a commitment to become educators of the ignorant. Also, I certainly do not want to point fingers, make judgements, or berate anyone. However, I wanted to provide some perspective to hopefully show that the victory you speak of is simply too hollow to be worth the effort. That being said, perhaps we can work together to achieve more.

Hi bob_kark, your points are well taken. However, let me try to explain my rationale a bit further.

I agree completely that the ultimate goal and the only end to the war, such as it is, is education. I've tried to follow that model in my own posts. In my discussions here I've done my best to answer reasonable questions -- at least those I have a good answer for -- regardless of their source. Some of my better explanations have been to the likes of Killtown and TruthSeeker1234. I have little confidence that they attempted to learn anything from them, but if the question was asked in good faith, all are welcome.

But there is another enemy of education, one that is again ravaging the forum. Education gets lost in the noise when we get distracted, fixated on the ravings of just another malcontent yokel who wants to rack up his post count and act like a tough guy. We're experiencing another episode right now. How can we educate if we can't get in a word edgewise?

Some of this is our own fault, of course. Ideally we as a collective would not rise to the bait, but all of us are guilty of it now and then. I'm certainly no angel. The other approach is to simply separate the leaders from the spam fodder, and improve signal to noise by bypassing the noise.

That was my intent here. I wanted to avoid getting into mindless, recycled, contentious discussions fueled by pure ignorance and testosterone with yet another wave of Troothers. I wanted instead, rather than challenging their beliefs head-on, to simply ask where they came from. By taking it to the source rather than beating them up directly, I was hoping to reduce the antagonism and posturing. Eventually, this will lead them to start asking questions -- really asking, not the farcical Troother variant where the question is a thinly veiled statement, phrased as a question to prevent them from having to take a firm position. I mean the question that demands an answer, the type where one admits one doesn't know. Once that happens, one is ready to learn.

With rare exceptions, everyone learns from someone else. Let's work our way up the food chain. The "victory" I describe is simply an acknowledgement that we've been in the trenches with the common Troothers, we've seen all that there is, and it's time to acknowledge that further bickering and repeating ourselves is pointless. We've made progress. We've answered pretty much every challenge that we're likely to face at this point and still have a solid theory. We could compile a ruddy huge volume of information right now, using only what's contained in this forum, and simply direct new Deniers to the appropriate page if we wished. Gravy, for one, is already well on his way to having such a volume.

In closing, the war is not over, and I agree with you on the ultimate goal of the campaign. But I still believe that the battle is won. I will be shocked indeed if the Deniers who post here manage to construct an original, coherent argument, even a wrong one, so it's time to close that chapter.

[gumboot]

We could compile a ruddy huge volume of information right now, using only what's contained in this forum, and simply direct new Deniers to the appropriate page if we wished. Gravy, for one, is already well on his way to having such a volume.


Actually,

Has anyone here considered such an idea? I know PM have done one, but I suspect this forum, collectively, has more 9/11 knowledge than any other collective group on the planet.

The idea of actually putting together and publishing a sort of "laymans guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories" sounds kinda cool.

-Gumboot

[R.Mackey]

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.
Hello again Docker. You seem to have completely misunderstood my intent here, so let me try to explain.

I also did not start a thread saying "I wanted new people to debate." Nowhere will you find that in this thread. The reason is simple: I'm not after "debate," I'm after fact.

Debate is a useful tool of investigation only where opinion is significant. In Politics, debate is highly useful, but in science, it is rare. The only value of debate in science is when two incompatible viewpoints both appear correct, and the normal process of peer review and experimental validation is inconclusive, at which time it makes sense to debate the merits of theory. I use the Einstein-Bohr debates at the dawn of Quantum Mechanics as an example.

The September 11th attacks, at least with respect to the mechanics of what happened, are not such a topic. There is no duality of scientific viewpoints. Evidence and scientific investigation are virtually unanimous (although I invite anyone to bring dissenting evidence, not opinion, to the table). As for the politics, that's a different matter, and I'm not considering it here.

What this means is that I have very little to gain from "debating" anyone, although I haven't ruled it out. It's far too early for that. Before we even consider a debate, we must first complete our fact-finding and study each others' analyses. That's what I'm interested in.

I note you didn't answer the second question I posed, namely "what is the most airtight argument in favor of a conspiracy theory." Without an argument, there is nothing to consider, regardless of how well accomplished or known any popular figure among the conspiracy movement might be.

To summarize, I did not call for a debate, my thread has not "backfired," and your claim that I've "done a 180" is mistaken. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read more into my words than I intended.

So, Docker, if you have anything further to add, I trust you will offer a retraction. Thanks!

[Docker]

Actually,

Has anyone here considered such an idea? I know PM have done one, but I suspect this forum, collectively, has more 9/11 knowledge than any other collective group on the planet.

The idea of actually putting together and publishing a sort of "laymans guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories" sounds kinda cool.

-Gumboot

If this is a war then its like the war on terror, never ending against enemies you won't always find.

[realitybites]

If this is a war then its like the war on terror, never ending against enemies you won't always find.
Good God in Heaven!

The first remotely sensible thing you've ever typed.

[Loss Leader]

Debate is a useful tool of investigation only where opinion is significant. In Politics, debate is highly useful, but in science, it is rare. The only value of debate in science is when two incompatible viewpoints both appear correct, and the normal process of peer review and experimental validation is inconclusive, at which time it makes sense to debate the merits of theory.

Mackey, I had very similar thoughts back when TS1234 was blithering on about wanting to debate. The best topics to debate are ones where the truth is not just difficult to see but impossible to make out through the distortions of subjectivity and time. It is very difficult to tell what the consequences of a social policy or political decision should be, how it will affect a broad spectrum of people, what its real costs will be, whether it is morally good, etc. Even then, a debate is onely useful as a tool to help interested people think through the issues.

Whether there was any sort of conspiracy in the past regarding the incidents of 9/11 does not fit that mold. It either happened or it didn't. There's nothing to debate.

Luckily, we have a very well developed system for figuring out whether some humans took some acts in the past - a trial. In that case, the proponent of the criminal act would be required to present evidence which the oponent would examine and question. The trier of fact would need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would very much like to see the CT movement put on that trial. They could start by offering to defend the insurance companies (as a false-flag operation would certainly be an uncovered act of war). In that case, they'd only have to prove their case to a preponderence of the evidence.

That's the proper way to resolve these types of issues (IMHO, as always).

[Abbyas]

Who is Webster Tarpley?

Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey.

[Docker]

Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey.

At least you have heard of him. Have you never made an error? Should we discount all your furure work due to that error?

I notice the only thing you can refute in his 9/11 work is the location of a landfill. Care to refute something a little more difficult?

[Abbyas]

At least you have heard of him. Have you never made an error? Should we discount all your furure work due to that error?

I notice the only thing you can refute in his 9/11 work is the location of a landfill. Care to refute something a little more difficult?

I apologize in that I've never read the entirety of his book. But don't you think that that is one hell of a glaring error for a researcher to make? Doesn't he edit?

My question when reading such things, is "My God, what other large, LARGE errors has this man made in research?" Wouldn't you have a similar reaction?

[Docker]

[QUOTE]I apologize in that I've never read the entirety of his book.
Nice to see you have looked at all the CTs work before calling them all nuts
But don't you think that that is one hell of a glaring error for a researcher to make?

Maybe he has a researcher. He's a busy manDoesn't he edit?Maybe he doesn't think the location of freshkills is crucial to proving a conspiracy

My question when reading such things, is "My God, what other large, LARGE errors has this man made in research?" Wouldn't you have a similar reaction?Ok you asked this question but then didnt bother reading the book to get the answer???

Typical example of "thorough" research

[Augustine]

Docker, is it really taking you 30+ minutes to formulate a response to specifically what element of "the OKC thing" you disbelieve?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nice to see you have looked at all the CTs work before calling them all nuts

Where does she call him "nuts" in this statement? "Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey."


Maybe he has a researcher. He's a busy man
Maybe he doesn't think the location of freshkills is crucial to proving a conspiracy

Stop making excuses, it's just poor post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If you are going to go off making a claim that runs counter to the evidence based conclusion that the mainstream of science, industry, and media accept as the story you better have your ducks in a row and quacking in key.


Ok you asked this question but then didnt bother reading the book to get the answer???

It's a rhetorical question.


Typical example of "thorough" research
Where in her post, ""Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey." does she claimed to have researched him? She stated she was familiar with the name and provided a context from whence she knew it.

[Docker]

Docker, is it really taking you 30+ minutes to formulate a response to specifically what element of "the OKC thing" you disbelieve?


I am involved in other threads. Whats the rush?

[Abbyas]

No, I didn't read his book (although I have read others). And that error makes me believe that there are probably other very, very large errors.

The location of Fresh Kills would be very important in a historical piece about 9/11.

I have a feeling that you understand this.

[Docker]

Where does she call him "nuts" in this statement? "Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey."


Stop making excuses, it's just poor post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If you are going to go off making a claim that runs counter to the evidence based conclusion that the mainstream of science, industry, and media accept as the story you better have your ducks in a row and quacking in key.


It's a rhetorical question.


Where in her post, ""Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey." does she claimed to have researched him? She stated she was familiar with the name and provided a context from whence she knew it.

Abby is well known fo characterising all CTs as nuts. I've seen her video.

If she wants to do that then she should read all their work.

P.S. why does she need you to respond for her. I was addressing her. Please don't do that again or it's ignoreville for you.

[Augustine]

I am involved in other threads. Whats the rush?

No rush. I just think you may find it helpful to actually pursue one line of reasoning at a time. In your case, it may help you achieve greater rigor in your critical thinking as opposed to skimming the surface of several threads. It may help you to post more substantive arguments in the future.

[Docker]

No, I didn't read his book (although I have read others). And that error makes me believe that there are probably other very, very large errors.

The location of Fresh Kills would be very important in a historical piece about 9/11.

I have a feeling that you understand this.

So if you haven't read the books of all CTs why do you say they are all nuts?

Freshkills is irrelevant.

[Pardalis]

or it's ignoreville for you.

It's better than Killtown...:rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

C'mon, you guys, go find your own thread. Shoo!

[gumboot]

I am involved in other threads. Whats the rush?

:id:

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

It's better than Killtown...:rolleyes:


Killtown was kind enough to list those on ignore in his signature line, so we all knew where we stood.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

WT, oops Mackey is now a winner, bigger winner

Wait till he has time to read WT, old WT and nuts of 9/11 junk,

WT does not meet any of the parameters

It is best he has not heard of WT, he may die laughing at even thinking WT is worthy of 1 or 2

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Abby is well known fo characterising all CTs as nuts. I've seen her video.
Further post hoc ergo promptor hoc. You did not make any such statement in your post and your post was in direct reply to her statements.

If she wants to do that then she should read all their work.
I'm sure she'll take your opinion into account, or not.

P.S. why does she need you to respond for her.
Never said she did. You made a fallacious statement; I pointed it out.

I was addressing her.
Then PM her if you don't want people to respond.

Please don't do that again or it's ignoreville for you.
Cry more n00b.

[Abbyas]

So if you haven't read the books of all CTs why do you say they are all nuts?

Freshkills is irrelevant.

The hell it is. It's where the evidence was sifted through. You know that.

Whilest making the video, I was showing every conspiracy theorist that I've met. They were all very uninformed and unexcited by actual research.

I have since met through my online and personal experiences only one person that is suspicious of "the official story" has been respectful and articulate. And that person is frustrated by the various ground zero nutters and internet tough guys that make up the movement.

[Childlike Empress]

Luckily, we have a very well developed system for figuring out whether some humans took some acts in the past - a trial. In that case, the proponent of the criminal act would be required to present evidence which the oponent would examine and question. The trier of fact would need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, fine. Where is the trial against KSM and Binalshibh? We have a huge farce here in Germany atm with the second revision of the Motassadeq-Trial, the first trial against a suspect in the 911-attacks. Our problem is that the US doesn't allow us to question these people. As the principle of "innocent untill proven guilty" is, unlike in the US, still part of our legal system, we can't put him in jail because they have to testify in front of our court.

Perhaps the Einstein-Rosen debate is a bit far fetched but if i try to break it down, the problem is that we know what we perceived but we don't know why because the source of information is shady and we are not objective.

[Docker]

The hell it is. It's where the evidence was sifted through. You know that.

Whilest making the video, I was showing every conspiracy theorist that I've met. They were all very uninformed and unexcited by actual research.

I have since met through my online and personal experiences only one person that is suspicious of "the official story" has been respectful and articulate. And that person is frustrated by the various ground zero nutters and internet tough guys that make up the movement.

So in short you do assert that some are not nuts. May I suggest in the sequel to the video you include some of these for a little bit of journalistic balance?

I did notice your insinuation that I am an internet hardman. I am not. I can't talk to debunkers any other way since I am not in america.

[Abbyas]

May I suggest in the sequel to the video you include some of these for a little bit of journalistic balance?

I'm not a journalist. And that sequel would be about 6 seconds long: "I've met one respectful and bright, but sometimes misled person. The end."

And from your posts, I can certainly see that yes, you are an internet tough guy.

I am not. I can't talk to debunkers any other way since I am not in america.

I'm sorry. I really don't understand the above at all.

[Loss Leader]

Typical example of "thorough" research

As Abby has not written a book on the subject, I'm not sure why you would hold her to the same standard.

[stateofgrace]

I am not. I can't talk to debunkers any other way since I am not in america.

Just testing out my new signature.

[Docker]

I'm not a journalist. And that sequel would be about 6 seconds long: "I've met one respectful and bright, but sometimes misled person. The end."

And from your posts, I can certainly see that yes, you are an internet tough guy.



I'm sorry. I really don't understand the above at all.

How am I an internet tough guy? If I was able I would go to ground zero and thrash it out. If your not a journalist, stop banging out biased videos as you accuse loose change of.

Who you have met is not a representative sample. I know many reasonable intelligent people that have those awful things you don't like....questions.

[realitybites]

No, I didn't read his book (although I have read others). And that error makes me believe that there are probably other very, very large errors.

The location of Fresh Kills would be very important in a historical piece about 9/11.

I have a feeling that you understand this.
Unfortunately Abby, I sincerely doubt he does.

[Abbyas]

If I was able I would go to ground zero and thrash it out. If your not a journalist, stop banging out biased videos as you accuse loose change of.

At what point did you think my mini-movie was a documentary?

[RandFan]

Who you have met is not a representative sample. I know many reasonable intelligent people that have those awful things you don't like....questions. Oh yes, those dreaded "questions". There is a problem though. That's what the ID proponents use against evolution, "awful questions". The Holocaust deniers use against the Holocaust, "awful questions". CT nuts the world over have those awful questions. And they are all reasonable to someone. A lot of people thought that the witnesses for the defense who testified in the Dover School Board case were reasonable intelligent people. They had "awful questions" also. What is your criteria for "reasonable intelligent people"?

[Docker]

At what point did you think my mini-movie was a documentary?

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

[Docker]

Oh yes, those dreaded "questions". There is a problem though. That's what the ID proponents use against evolution, "awful questions". The Holocaust deniers use against the Holocaust, "awful questions". CT nuts the world over have those awful questions. And they are all reasonable to someone. A lot of people thought that the witnesses for the defense who testified in the Dover School Board case were reasonable intelligent people. They had "awful questions" also. What is your criteria for "reasonable intelligent people"?

So in short asking questions is wrong because some anti-semites also ask questions. erm yes that makes sense...

The jersey girls gave 400 questions to the 911 commission. Most weren't addressed. Do you deny these widows the right to ask questions?

[gumboot]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?


Actually I would classify her films as mocumentary, which is a sub-genre of the drama/comedy genre hybrid.

-Gumboot

[Redtail]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

It was as much of a documentary and Best in Show.

[Docker]

Actually I would classify her films as mocumentary, which is a sub-genre of the drama/comedy genre hybrid.

-Gumboot

Mocumentaries are acted. It was a documentary.

[Abbyas]

Mocumentaries are acted. It was a documentary.

No it wasn't. I don't really think I was responsible for 9/11.

[gumboot]

Mocumentaries are acted. It was a documentary.


That shows just how little you know about the genre.

-Gumboot

[Redtail]

Mocumentaries are acted. It was a documentary.

Mocumentaies can be only partialy acted which would have been the wisecracks from her.

[RandFan]

So in short asking questions is wrong because some anti-semites also ask questions. erm yes that makes sense... If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not. You are saying that the simple act of asking questions is somehow significant. Here's a hint, it's not and you agree with me.

The jersey girls gave 400 questions to the 911 commission. Most weren't addressed. Do you deny these widows the right to ask questions? Oh hell no, let them ask all the questions they want. In the end they are just questions just like all of the other questions from all of the other conspiracy theories. They don't prove anything.

[CptColumbo]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

That would also fit "the Jamie Kennedy Experiment," "Viva La Bam," Borat, Jackass (both the movie and TV series), "Candid Camera," and most Game Shows.

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

[Docker]

If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not. You are saying that the simple act of asking questions is somehow significant. Here's a hint, it's not and you agree with me.

Oh hell no, let them ask all the questions they want. In the end they are just questions just like all of the other questions from all of the other conspiracy theories. They don't prove anything.

Well the commission should have at least tried to answer them. Agreed?

[Dazed]

Nothing's enough when you've already made up your mind.

[Loss Leader]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional
2) It documented your visits to ground zero
3) It had narrative
4) It had interviews
5) It was on video and distributed

I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

I guess in the sense that it answered the question, "Here are some people I filmed at Ground Zero," it's kind of a documentary.

In the sense of being an unbiased presentation of fact allowing the viewer to draw her own conclusions, it fails miserably. Which is the real definition? Well, neither. According to this source ( http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EMA01/Huffman/Frontier/define.html), there really is no good single definition of a documentary film. From the journalistic endeavors of PBS all the way to Real World/Road Rules Challenge IV, they all fit under that same documentary umbrella.

Abby and her ex-boyfriend (I think) created a video political essay. Since they never claimed to have done anything more, I think it's a little unfair to demand journalistic accuracy from them. It's like complaining that the X-Ray is backwards in the opening credits of Scrubs. They never claimed to be showing us th x-ray the right way.

[Dazed]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

[Pardalis]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

:dl:

[Calcas]

Docker, I NOTICED YOUR SIG.

Is it true the NIST report is 10,000 pages. Because I think not...

And, how much have you read of it...?

[Docker]

Docker, I NOTICED YOUR SIG.

Is it true the NIST report is 10,000 pages. Because I think not...

And, how much have you read of it...?

"
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a total of 43 draft reports documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. These reports include the draft summary report on the Investigation of the WTC Towers, 8 project reports, and 34 supporting technical topic reports. Fifteen reports, including three project reports, were released on April 5, 2005.
These reports are being issued in draft form with a six-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing June 23rd and ending at 5 p.m. EDT on August 4th.
The public is welcome to comment on any of the 43 draft reports issued by NIST, totaling about 10,000 pages. NIST especially encourages public comment on the approximately 200-page draft summary report, which contains the principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. NIST will consider all comments received from the public on the 43 draft reports before they are issued in final form."



Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm

[Docker]

Averaging 235 posts a day.. This is some new breed of supertroll.

I'm actually a team of 4 people working shifts apparently.

[RandFan]

Well the commission should have at least tried to answer them. Agreed? I have no idea. I'm not the commission, I don't know what they knew and I don't know what there reasons were.

This throwing mud against the wall in the hopes that some will stick isn't proof of anything.

[Belz...]

Aw, Docker's been banned ?

We always lose the fun ones.

[Belz...]

No it wasn't. I don't really think I was responsible for 9/11.

WHAT ?

And here I thought it was one of your most impressive accomplishments.

Ah! The dissapointment.

[kookbreaker]

Erm the following reasons:

1) it wasn't fictional

2) It documented your visits to ground zero

3) It had narrative

4) It had interviews

5) It was on video and distributed


I would say all criterion for a documentary were met, wouldn't you?

Does that mean this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=U_Wno_2-NOg) is a documentary?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, now that we are done with that passing moment of stupid we can get back to discussions of value.

Going back to Mackey's point of this thread; I think one possible way of seperating the wheat from the chaff would be to start any discussion with a CTist that brings something to the table, especially if they reference an outside source, is to ask directly whether they feel that they have sufficient understanding of the topic, and referenced materials, to defend it when it is placed under scrutiny. So many of the CTists that come here are just regurgitating what others have said/written without understanding it. If they do not understand it, and therefore can not defend it, it is not worth discussing with them.

The JAQing needs to stop. Especially the open ended questions. T'ai Chi, although continuing to do so, isn't "allowed" to get away with it elsewhere on the forums. CTists shouldn't be "allowed" to get away with it here. Respond to open ended questions with questions that force the CTist to make a claim. Then, make them defend that claim.

Yes/No questions are our friend. They help to clarify what the CTist is claiming and they focus the topic on to an issue that can be resolved.

Topic jumping. Doing our best to ignore attempts to change topics, within the context of a given thread, and help keep the thread focused on the OP and subsequent related claims.

Thread gulling. Force them to pick one topic, or a set of tightly related topics to discuss; don't let them get away with spewing xteen different topics and then picking and choosing which to defend.

My US$0.02

[Horatius]

Going back to Mackey's point of this thread; I think one possible way of seperating the wheat from the chaff would be to start any discussion with a CTist that brings something to the table, especially if they reference an outside source, is to ask directly whether they feel that they have sufficient understanding of the topic, and referenced materials, to defend it when it is placed under scrutiny. So many of the CTists that come here are just regurgitating what others have said/written without understanding it. If they do not understand it, and therefore can not defend it, it is not worth discussing with them.

Part of the problem is most of them seem to think they do understand the issues. In fact, they often claim to understand them better than any of us.

I think we should demand a clear statement of their beliefs on the topic, so we at least know where they're coming from. Without that, they can just bounce back and forth, saying "I never said I believed that! It's just an interesting question" sorts of things. If they're not willing to give some sort of list of what they consider to be the truth, we should just ignore them.

Perhaps we need a standard questionaire we can cut-n-paste as the first response in any thread, which we can then refer back to if they try to waffle. We can also use it to track any changes of heart they have, so we know if we're getting anywhere.

I've seen someone post a "form" here like that, but it's clearly written in a sarcastic manner. I understand why that's so, but I think we need a neutrally-worded version, so they don't get all defensive right out of the gate.

[T.A.M.]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

Good answers, and thanks. I'm quite familiar with David Ray Griffin and Hoffman, but I will investigate Paul Thompson.

Of course, LIHOP basically boils down to "he said-she said" and unsourced statements, so certain variants of it are inherently unproveable. Perfect for the conspiracy set.

[gumboot]

Good answers, and thanks. I'm quite familiar with David Ray Griffin and Hoffman, but I will investigate Paul Thompson.

Of course, LIHOP basically boils down to "he said-she said" and unsourced statements, so certain variants of it are inherently unproveable. Perfect for the conspiracy set.


Paul Thompson did the "Complete 9/11 Timeline"

Though on the surface it seems to be an impressive piece of work, frankly after having read it, I find it to be fairly weak. Subjects I'm fairly savvy with (such as NORAD) are full of false statements and errors.

And the entire thing is riddled with innuendo. Comments like "There's no collaborating source for this rumour, and nothing came of it, but if it is true, it suggests...."

Frankly, I think the most interesting thing it demonstrates is just how bad the media is at getting basic facts right (for example he cites NORAD's "Operation Northern Vigilance" as an exercise, because multiple news articles did, even though the name itself clearly informs anyone with a brain that it's not an exercise at all.

I can't judge the vast majority of its content because it's historic US politics and economics related stuff (the first entry is 1979) which bores me stupid. But the stuff I *do* know a bit about seems very lacklustre. Hence I had to laugh when the CTers paraded him as their secret weapon in that "Press For Truth" doco.

-Gumboot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

R. Mackey:

I can see the thread is leaning considerably (though not as much as WTC7 was).

My opinion, is that the two people I would consider the most knowledgable on the issues, from the CT side, would be David Griffin, and Jim Hoffman. A close runner up, though he mainly stays on the LIHOP side of things, is Paul Thompson.

TAM

Is Hoffman's other work as thorough as his concrete dust analysis?

[R.Mackey]

Paul Thompson did the "Complete 9/11 Timeline"

Though on the surface it seems to be an impressive piece of work, frankly after having read it, I find it to be fairly weak. Subjects I'm fairly savvy with (such as NORAD) are full of false statements and errors.

Since when did "researcher" become a dirty word?

I don't know this Paul Thompson, so I look to see if he's got a Wikipedia entry. Not that I consider Wikipedia the best source around, but it's a reasonable place to look for a popular estimation of the man.

Look up that name, and you find three Paul Thompsons, and three more with middle initials. The three without are a hockey player, a musician, and a "researcher."

Guess which one is the Conspiracy Theorist?

Does that imply that Paul Thompson doesn't have a real job..? Perhaps not, but I guess the standards for "research" are vanishingly low these days.

sigh.

[LashL]

Since when did "researcher" become a dirty word?

I don't know this Paul Thompson, so I look to see if he's got a Wikipedia entry. Not that I consider Wikipedia the best source around, but it's a reasonable place to look for a popular estimation of the man.

Look up that name, and you find three Paul Thompsons, and three more with middle initials. The three without are a hockey player, a musician, and a "researcher."

Guess which one is the Conspiracy Theorist?

Does that imply that Paul Thompson doesn't have a real job..? Perhaps not, but I guess the standards for "research" are vanishingly low these days.

sigh.

I'm not terribly impressed with Thompson, the "researcher". He's featured in the 9/11 Press for Truth video, which, although released in 2006 is rife with outdated crap going back to 2001 which has been thoroughly debunked a thousand times over since then but which was never corrected or even commented upon in the 2006 version. So, they leave a lot of old, stale, long-debunked drivel in place when they know full well that it is crap. That kind of intentional dishonesty turns me off from the start so I tend to view the whole thing with a jaundiced eye after that.

Plus, not that this should matter but somehow it does, his body language drives me crazy. He shakes his head all the time even when he's trying to say something of a positive nature rather than a negative nature. Perhaps that's just a nervous habit of his but it is not photogenic, and a good producer would have cut it out of the video. He exhibits no "presence" whatsoever throughout the entire thing.

He derives his entire "timeline" from the mainstream media while simultaneously complaining and arguing throughout the video that the mainstream media doesn't report upon the very things he is quoting from.

No, really.

Yes, really.

The timeline itself (on the website) is reaonably good, but the editorializing is often biased in accordance with his CT mindset. Overall, not as bad as most, but the bias is still there, and the overall result is often zzzzzzzzz material for the well informed.

That said, it's a good source to quote to CTers sometimes because they're stupid enough to believe everything they read on a fellow CTer site :)

[T.A.M.]

I agree, Thompson is not the "Greatest" researcher, by a shot, but when asked for the "best" or "most knowledgable" in a group that is weak to start, these three seem to come to the top of the gruel pot.

TAM

[twinstead]

That said, it's a good source to quote to CTers sometimes because they're stupid enough to believe everything they read on a fellow CTer site :)

No...they would't do THAT, would they? ;)

[beachnut]

Is Hoffman's other work as thorough as his concrete dust analysis?

I thought his dust analysis was superficial.

I can check it again but I felt he ignored the tons of spray on fireproofing, wallboard and ceiling tile that would not take much energy to become dust.

In additon he used the PE of somebody else. I calculated him to be 2.5 times sort on the total Potential energy in the building.

It is easy to make up gobs of stuff and his web site is just that. Also, he says hijackers are alive, found that Hoffman was killed in Iraq but he still keeps up his web page. Not sure how dead people can do this. I tried to tell him he is dead he will not return my emails.

I do not trust people with numbers if they can not show all the calculations. Since he used numbers from the very source he calls a coverup how can you trust or believe his extensive paper.

[Oliver]

Paul Thompson did the "Complete 9/11 Timeline"

Though on the surface it seems to be an impressive piece of work, frankly after having read it, I find it to be fairly weak. Subjects I'm fairly savvy with (such as NORAD) are full of false statements and errors.

And the entire thing is riddled with innuendo. Comments like "There's no collaborating source for this rumour, and nothing came of it, but if it is true, it suggests...."

Frankly, I think the most interesting thing it demonstrates is just how bad the media is at getting basic facts right (for example he cites NORAD's "Operation Northern Vigilance" as an exercise, because multiple news articles did, even though the name itself clearly informs anyone with a brain that it's not an exercise at all.

I can't judge the vast majority of its content because it's historic US politics and economics related stuff (the first entry is 1979) which bores me stupid. But the stuff I *do* know a bit about seems very lacklustre. Hence I had to laugh when the CTers paraded him as their secret weapon in that "Press For Truth" doco.

-Gumboot

By the way: How accurate is Thompsons timeline?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nothing new?? Why just today, Mackey, I suggested that we estimate the density of the "dust" by considering its fall-time, and estimate its volume in comparison to the buildings. From that we could estimate the amount of mass outside the towers.

This is brand new.

[Gravy]

Nothing new?? Why just today, Mackey, I suggested that we estimate the density of the "dust" by considering its fall-time, and estimate its volume in comparison to the buildings. From that we could estimate the amount of mass outside the towers.

This is brand new.And in that thread R.Mackey explained to you why that's not possible. So why have you brought it up here, TS?

[R.Mackey]

Just to clarify, I think it's impossible to get any decent accuracy... but I'm not an atmospheric scientist. I could be wrong.

I'm also not sure what value that calculation would be. Again, I could be wrong.

Always open to new ideas. Please, if you want to spearhead some real research, get a team on it, be my guest. I can even think of a couple of individuals you might want to contact to see if there's any interest in the idea.

Also to clarify, just having the idea is not enough. If you actually do the work, that's different.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Just to clarify, I think it's impossible to get any decent accuracy... but I'm not an atmospheric scientist. I could be wrong.

I'm also not sure what value that calculation would be. Again, I could be wrong.

Always open to new ideas. Please, if you want to spearhead some real research, get a team on it, be my guest. I can even think of a couple of individuals you might want to contact to see if there's any interest in the idea.

Also to clarify, just having the idea is not enough. If you actually do the work, that's different.

Listen Carefully, the value of calculating the density of the rapidly falling "dust" is as follows. Knowing the density will allow us to know its mass. Knowing its mass will allow us know how much of the tower was disintegrated and thrust outside the footprint. This will be just one more way of demonstrating how utterly specious it is to contend that the towers "collapsed" and "fell down" into themselves.

[Anti-sophist]

Listen Carefully, the value of calculating the density of the rapidly falling "dust" is as follows. Knowing the density will allow us to know its mass. Knowing its mass will allow us know how much of the tower was disintegrated and thrust outside the footprint. This will be just one more way of demonstrating how utterly specious it is to contend that the towers "collapsed" and "fell down" into themselves.

I agree that knowing the density of the dust would help us learn its mass. Your attempts to estimate the density, though, are flawed to the point of silliness, unfortunately.

[R.Mackey]

Listen Carefully, the value of calculating the density of the rapidly falling "dust" is as follows. Knowing the density will allow us to know its mass. Knowing its mass will allow us know how much of the tower was disintegrated and thrust outside the footprint. This will be just one more way of demonstrating how utterly specious it is to contend that the towers "collapsed" and "fell down" into themselves.

uh, yeah.

Your turn to Listen Carefully:

1. You're assuming the answer before you've done the experiment. Tsk, tsk.

2. I don't know any way to estimate the density of that dust cloud. It's opaque!

Your off-the-cuff estimate was that the dust cloud -- while floating in the air -- was denser than concrete cinder blocks. So, obviously, it's not as easy as you think.

I already explained this to you in the other thread.

[LashL]

uh, yeah.

Your turn to Listen Carefully:

1. You're assuming the answer before you've done the experiment. Tsk, tsk.

2. I don't know any way to estimate the density of that dust cloud. It's opaque!

Your off-the-cuff estimate was that the dust cloud -- while floating in the air -- was denser than concrete cinder blocks. So, obviously, it's not as easy as you think.

I already explained this to you in the other thread.

BS1234 just likes to repeat herself on as many threads as possible because she thinks it boosts her rep among the tinhat crowd. Sad, but true.

[gumboot]

By the way: How accurate is Thompsons timeline?


Well it depends how you define "accurate".

It is mainly sourced from the media, so that's fairly accurate. And he's careful to use a lot of "ifs" and "suggests" and "mights".

Of course all this is worthless, because he's merely collating sources and then making vague and weak speculative suggestions.

His speculations are more often than not way off base, and he he repeatedly cites media reports that are quite clearly incorrect.

I think I mentioned, his timeline's primary usefulness is in demonstrating just how bad the media is at "getting the facts".

(If I see one more mention of the exercise "Operation Northern Vigilance" I'm, going to pull my hair out!)

-Gumboot

[R.Mackey]

It's been two weeks since I issued my original challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175).

The response from the 9/11 Deniers has been pretty feeble, as you can read here.

Our own assessment of the opposition was more thorough. Presented were the names David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson, and Jim Hoffmann, with passing mention of the Joneses, Alex and Steven. I will postulate that every one of these folks have been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere.

If you disagree with the above statement, pick up that torch and let's talk about it. I'm ready for you.

How about our own proteges -- how are they doing? Not so well, I'm afraid.

TruthSeeker1234 is still locked in the same endless do-loop. As recently as noon today (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2073814#post2073814) he was still spouting unsubstantiated claims of the WTC towers being "Blown to Kingdom Come (http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html)," i.e. near total (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2016897#post2016897) conversion of the entire structure to dust and even steel vapor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026292#post2026292), despite being corrected yet again in every possible way (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026380#post2026380). But he has brought something new, in that now he ever more forcefully argues for Star Wars weapons (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070743#post2070743), just because he doesn't understand localized building collapse -- which is almost too stupid to refute, but we did (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2020936#post2020936) anyway (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070782#post2070782).

Incidentally, we have positively identified (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066987#post2066987) him in real life, although I personally have no problem whatsoever with his day job -- I merely point out that it isn't science. Big surprise.

Briefly, we consider Docker again, who despite his protestations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2035181#post2035181), was in fact exposed as the malicious return of alleged mathematical physics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2011751#post2011751) degree holder (from Crazy Go Nuts U (http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Crazy_Go_Nuts_University), perhaps) pdoherty76 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2040441#post2040441), and has since reappeared and been rebanned not once (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67186), but twice (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2058716#post2058716). The arguments of such a disingenuous person were, naturally, not impressive. However, I do give him partial credit for at least attempting to answer my challenge -- coming up with the name of Webster Tarpley. Having reviewed Mr. Tarpley, I add him to the roll of those I consider trivially debunked above.

User einsteen is still here, and still mystifying over Dr. Greening's paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2072646#post2072646). And yes, I answered (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908739#post1908739) that problem for him already, as have others... months ago. Still, at least he's not insisting on beam weapons.

Finally, we turn to Russell Pickering, experiencing something akin to a fall from grace. Such a gentleman (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2008890#post2008890) when he first arrived, he has utterly failed to live up to his own requests, posting incendiary cartoons (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2060422#post2060422) or simple rants (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2050995#post2050995) as a way of deflecting questions. While Russell has brought up some new arguments, none of them hold together -- and upon being criticized (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2061604#post2061604), Russell doesn't even attempt to defend or improve them, but merely attacks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064828#post2064828) his opponent. Most damning, he now defends his theory that WTC 7 wasn't even on fire (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2065838#post2065838) by insisting that it looked similar to a wind tunnel test (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070894#post2070894) that he apparently hasn't even read about (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070911#post2070911) -- all the while ignoring eyewitness accounts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066708#post2066708), video (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066251#post2066251) refuting his assertions, and the statements of dozens of firefighters (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2065115#post2065115)... those he claims are his fellows. Based on his performance to date, I expect nothing further useful from him. The man doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

So there it stands. Two weeks have gone by since my tentative declaration of victory, and nothing since then has changed that. But I still leave the offer open:

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.
Thanks again.

[LashL]

It's been two weeks since I issued my original challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175).

The response from the 9/11 Deniers has been pretty feeble, as you can read here.

Our own assessment of the opposition was more thorough. Presented were the names David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson, and Jim Hoffmann, with passing mention of the Joneses, Alex and Steven. I will postulate that every one of these folks have been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere.

If you disagree with the above statement, pick up that torch and let's talk about it. I'm ready for you.

How about our own proteges -- how are they doing? Not so well, I'm afraid.

TruthSeeker1234 is still locked in the same endless do-loop. As recently as noon today (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2073814#post2073814) he was still spouting unsubstantiated claims of the WTC towers being "Blown to Kingdom Come (http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html)," i.e. near total (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2016897#post2016897) conversion of the entire structure to dust and even steel vapor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026292#post2026292), despite being corrected yet again in every possible way (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026380#post2026380). But he has brought something new, in that now he ever more forcefully argues for Star Wars weapons (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070743#post2070743), just because he doesn't understand localized building collapse -- which is almost too stupid to refute, but we did (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2020936#post2020936) anyway (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070782#post2070782).

Incidentally, we have positively identified (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066987#post2066987) him in real life, although I personally have no problem whatsoever with his day job -- I merely point out that it isn't science. Big surprise.

Briefly, we consider Docker again, who despite his protestations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2035181#post2035181), was in fact exposed as the malicious return of alleged mathematical physics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2011751#post2011751) degree holder (from Crazy Go Nuts U (http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Crazy_Go_Nuts_University), perhaps) pdoherty76 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2040441#post2040441), and has since reappeared and been rebanned not once (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67186), but twice (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2058716#post2058716). The arguments of such a disingenuous person were, naturally, not impressive. However, I do give him partial credit for at least attempting to answer my challenge -- coming up with the name of Webster Tarpley. Having reviewed Mr. Tarpley, I add him to the roll of those I consider trivially debunked above.

User einsteen is still here, and still mystifying over Dr. Greening's paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2072646#post2072646). And yes, I answered (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908739#post1908739) that problem for him already, as have others... months ago. Still, at least he's not insisting on beam weapons.

Finally, we turn to Russell Pickering, experiencing something akin to a fall from grace. Such a gentleman (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2008890#post2008890) when he first arrived, he has utterly failed to live up to his own requests, posting incendiary cartoons (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2060422#post2060422) or simple rants (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2050995#post2050995) as a way of deflecting questions. While Russell has brought up some new arguments, none of them hold together -- and upon being criticized (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2061604#post2061604), Russell doesn't even attempt to defend or improve them, but merely attacks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064828#post2064828) his opponent. Most damning, he now defends his theory that WTC 7 wasn't even on fire (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2065838#post2065838) by insisting that it looked similar to a wind tunnel test (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070894#post2070894) that he apparently hasn't even read about (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2070911#post2070911) -- all the while ignoring eyewitness accounts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066708#post2066708), video (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2066251#post2066251) refuting his assertions, and the statements of dozens of firefighters (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2065115#post2065115)... those he claims are his fellows. Based on his performance to date, I expect nothing further useful from him. The man doesn't even know when he's been beaten.

So there it stands. Two weeks have gone by since my tentative declaration of victory, and nothing since then has changed that. But I still leave the offer open:


Thanks again.

Nicely summarized, R. Mackey. I think your claim to victory is well substantiated, personally. None of the resident or itinerant troofers has managed a single rational refutation to anything that you've posted, and I doubt that any of them can or ever will.

[JanH]

Then again, on merits the orgins debate (to use one example I know well) was pretty much settled decades ago. Not that there aren't many unknowns, but any reasonable person taking the time to look at the arguments will conclude that yes, all species on this planet share common descent, and Darwin came up with a darned good explanation for how this came about.

But creationism has not gone away.

For that matter, astrology, IMNSHO one of the most stupid irrationalities out there, is not going away any time soon.

It is important there are places to go for honest people, like this board, and see the debate played out for the nine zillionth time, and observe what side has the arguments and the facts, and which is blowing hot air.

[gumboot]

For that matter, astrology, IMNSHO one of the most stupid irrationalities out there, is not going away any time soon.


It always astounds me how many otherwise sensible intelligent people can believe that enormous balls of burning gas billions and billions of light years and billions and billions of years away can have any influence on what happens to them this week.

It's utterly weird.

-Gumboot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:bump2 to remind us the best ways to stay focused in our discussions with the new wave.

[R.Mackey]

It's now been a month and a half since I issued my preliminary declaration.

Hear that? That's the sound of crickets chirping where the CT's position should be.

Once again, let's review the field of Sept. 11th deniers and forum malefactors. The list is a familiar one.

First, the ever-persistent TruthSeeker1234, who broke his vow of silence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69055) mere hours ago, only to resurrect (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2154545#post2154545) his idiotic, ever (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1939704#post1939704) shifting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64540) farcical debate / TV appearance / book deal. Keep in mind that I started a bet (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947085#post1947085) that he'd never follow through with it -- and then won that bet (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2149811#post2149811) when he went hors de combat. Yet before the echo had even faded, he was back again, crying that he had "destroyed" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2154545#post2154545) all comers here, and that we'd collectively backed out, though this is verifiably false (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2154602#post2154602). Add the fact that he had already admitted to being a liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1932579#post1932579), indeed is even proud of the fact, and I ask you all: Given this history, would you trust this man to tell the truth about Sept. 11th? I wouldn't trust him to water my plants.

Oh, and Ace, since I know you're still reading, and you get all huffy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2113188#post2113188) when people give you bad advice, here's some: Go rob a bank. You have my permission. (You may not have the bank's permission, but that's your problem.) Now please run along.

---

Next, we have the two Killclones, Skeptic4Sure and Lyte Trip. The former has been around for some time, often confused (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1966160#post1966160) with John Doe X, owing to his spirited (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1966205#post1966205) if sophomoric defense of JDX in person and his flawed Flight 77 FDR analysis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1972315#post1972315), along with the simultaneous breakup between JDX and Loose Change (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1876275#post1876275) and the appearance of confirmed JDX sockpuppet (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2008094#post2008094) weedwacker. In light of later evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152040#post2152040), however, it appears that Skeptic4Sure is not John Doe X, but merely a veritable "yes-man" among the Troothers whose potential for sycophancy borders on schizoid. Currently, he and the flamboyantly public (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2114440&highlight=lyte+trip+stemz#post2114440) Lyte Trip have engaged in two (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2108050#post2108050) identical (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2148645#post2148645), coordinated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2105849#post2105849) threads, each touting their supposed "tidal wave" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2147902#post2147902) of evidence that they still haven't (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2148676#post2148676) even released (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2106340#post2106340) yet.

As of this writing, 68 pages of such baiting... and still no evidence, presumably so they can sell it in the form of another scurrilous DVD (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152174#post2152174).

There is one major difference between Skeptic4Sure and Lyte Trip, though -- whether through bravado or stupidity, Lyte Trip is prone to more frank and damaging admissions. In particular, he admits (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152520#post2152520) that he won't answer questions just to be difficult, and he actually put forth an alternate theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2150403#post2150403) of the Pentagon attack. Naturally, there are more problems with this theory than the number of words it contains... here's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152102#post2152102) the angle that I like, as it succinctly illustrates its self-inconsistency. Yet these obvious flaws don't stop them from libeling an innocent victim, a senior citizen who made the mistake of granting them an interview (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2151761#post2151761) only to have his words twisted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2150932#post2150932) by these delusional maniacs.

---

We revisit Russell Pickering, returned to these forums specifically to repudiate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152266#post2152266) the actions of Lyte Trip and Skeptic4Sure. This is progress for him, although I am still disappointed that he still clings to his own theories (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064828#post2064828) while discounting others that are, in reality, no worse than his -- he still feels it is valid to accuse the FBI, among others, but not valid to accuse motorists in front of the Pentagon. Still, it is heartening to see him take on Lyte Trip just like (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152166#post2152166) one of us (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2152169#post2152169), so perhaps he will eventually get his act fully together.

It is also telling that this debate is taking place here, rather than at his own Loose Change forum -- proof, as if any was needed, of where honest debate can and cannot be found.

---

Finally, we have something very special: An appearance courtesy of "Scholar" Gordon Ross. Some time ago I criticized (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1822297#post1822297) his paper claiming that the World Trade Center collapses would have halted rather than fully collapsed, along with a critique (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829989#post1829989) of a rebuttal he penned after being slammed by Dr. Greening on many of the same issues. These were forwarded to him, but no reply -- until now. And not here, either, not anywhere I would see it, but in his own little blog (http://gordonssite.com/id4.html):

Back at the JREF forum we have R. Mackey providing a wealth of entertainment. He seems to assume that involvement in the discussion requires both a supercillious attitude and a modicum of relevant knowledge. This is not an unusual or unfounded assumption given the prevalence of these characteristics among the supporters of the official conspiracy theory, but although he has got the attitude off pat, he does fall down a little on the second stricture, the modicum of knowledge. According to him the towers' cores had no horizontal or diagonal bracing. Flying in the face of the available historical photographs of the build, and the videographic evidence of the collapse, R. Mackey maligns the ability and expertise of the original designers. This careful selection of some facts while ignoring others is not confined to this JREF contributor however, but rather seems to flow throughout the thinking of all the NIST cheerleaders.
This, more than anything else, proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that victory is secure:


I do know what "supercilious" means, and I make no apologies. It's difficult to discuss charlatans, frauds, profiteers, and liars without disdain. Ad hominem attack noted and ignored. By the way, it's spelled with one L, Gordon.
I said that the Towers had no bracing? Really? No. Look at my critiques, Gordon. You're lying.
Where did you get that idea? Well, that's a mistake that TruthSeeker1234 made here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908927#post1908927), and I corrected (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908939#post1908939) several (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1910290#post1910290) times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911727#post1911727). Again, I was reviewing your paper, Gordon, and I included no discussion about bracing because you didn't either. Apparently it's not relevant to this problem, or else you would have brought it up.
Besides this strawman, Gordon, you haven't even addressed a single criticism in either of my critiques. There's some "careful selection of facts" for you.

Indeed, the only attempted refutation of my critiques to date hasn't come from Gordon, hasn't come from TruthSeeker1234, but in fact came anonymously through Abby Scott's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1910723#post1910723) 9/11 blog. And it was trivial to dispatch (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911440#post1911440).

Furthermore, this isn't the only paper of Gordon's that we destroyed here. He doesn't even mention his disastrous seismic paper with Craig Furlong (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917271#post1917271), wherein it turns out that the timing anomaly -- that he and Furlong considered proof of bombs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1949451#post1949451) going off prior to the plane impacts -- was in fact nothing more than the two of them reading the wrong time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1962535#post1962535) off of the seismic traces.

This is significant. What we've learned is this: To take on the very best leaders of the Truth Movement, we don't have to take to the streets, publish journal papers, or go to court -- even sparring here at the JREF is enough to bring down their house of cards. And they know it, too, because rather than publish themselves, Troothers like Gordon Ross are reduced to sniveling on their own websites. Russell Pickering is resigned to argue his case here, because there's no sign of intelligent life at Loose Change. And TruthSeeker1234 visits anonymously, hanging on our every word, even after promising to never come back.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a "movement" without teeth.

Victory is ours. All that remains now is to sort out the salvageable from the clinically insane.

[uk_dave]

:alien011:

Your work here is done

[Brainache]

Nice work Mr Mackey.
I hope that new guy Se7enSnakes reads this thread and realises just how gullible he has been. This should wake him up.

[david carmichael]

Gordon Ross made the claim that you advanced an "intelligent thermite" thesis....

You must have read the article so further explanation about the seminal points of his discussion on this point should be necessary.

If no "thermite residue" has been acknowledged by the US government NOR by consensus among the Cters and OCTers....

...why would the discussion of the genesis of "thermite" have even been raised?

[PerryLogan]

Let me guess: the bad guys were trying to leave clues?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Gordon Ross made the claim that you advanced an "intelligent thermite" thesis....

You must have read the article so further explanation about the seminal points of his discussion on this point should be necessary.

If no "thermite residue" has been acknowledged by the US government NOR by consensus among the Cters and OCTers....

...why would the discussion of the genesis of "thermite" have even been raised?
OCT EBC please.

[chipmunk stew]

Gordon Ross made the claim that you advanced an "intelligent thermite" thesis....

You must have read the article so further explanation about the seminal points of his discussion on this point should be necessary.

If no "thermite residue" has been acknowledged by the US government NOR by consensus among the Cters and OCTers....

...why would the discussion of the genesis of "thermite" have even been raised?
Whom are you addressing?

[Kent1]

Whom are you addressing?

He comes from the sci forums under the name kahlmyishmael. I'm not sure if he understands the debate. We are talking about gordons new paper.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=8985

[R.Mackey]

Gordon Ross made the claim that you advanced an "intelligent thermite" thesis....

You must have read the article so further explanation about the seminal points of his discussion on this point should be necessary.

If no "thermite residue" has been acknowledged by the US government NOR by consensus among the Cters and OCTers....

...why would the discussion of the genesis of "thermite" have even been raised?
No, he did not. Gordon Ross attributed those claims to Dr. F. R. Greening, not me. I have made no claims regarding thermite in the WTC towers, other than to dispute whether any evidence of thermite reactions exists.

As Dr. Greening has ably defended himself against Ross before, I am confident that he will be able to do so again, and leave the matter to him.

Thank you for adding still more confirmation, in the form of your poor reading comprehension and leading questions, that we have you routed. :)

[stupidenglishgit]

(cough cough) can hardly breathe... the air is sulfurous down here...
how do you guys survive... let me take a closer look at you....OMG!!!
Reptiles! Hundreds of giant reptiles! Icke was right after all (cough cough)

[beachnut]

victory

welcome to hell for you

[chipmunk stew]

(cough cough) can hardly breathe... the air is sulfurous down here...
how do you guys survive... let me take a closer look at you....OMG!!!
Reptiles! Hundreds of giant reptiles! Icke was right after all (cough cough)
Resistance is futile! Bow before your lizard overlords! :Dancing_growl:
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and welcome! :w2:

[PerryLogan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/122334566f03db22e4.jpg

Meet the New Boss...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/122334566f03db22e4.jpg

Meet the New Boss...

Same as the old boss?


Man, that pic caught me off guard. Got a definite laugh out loud in the office this morning from me.

[uk_dave]

Same as the old boss?


Man, that pic caught me off guard. Got a definite laugh out loud in the office this morning from me.


Me too.

At first I thought perry had posted his official seekrit bohemian grove / sam's club ID....then I realised the red horns and obligatory 'baby's arm hanging out of mouth' were missing and realised it was just another human photoshop effort

[david carmichael]

No, he did not. Gordon Ross attributed those claims to Dr. F. R. Greening, not me. I have made no claims regarding thermite in the WTC towers, other than to dispute whether any evidence of thermite reactions exists.

As Dr. Greening has ably defended himself against Ross before, I am confident that he will be able to do so again, and leave the matter to him.

Thank you for adding still more confirmation, in the form of your poor reading comprehension and leading questions, that we have you routed. :)

You are perhaps correct.... I after all, believe that the USS Liberty was attacked NOT on June 8, 1967 in the Eastern Mediterranean by Israeli Jet Fighters....

I have photographic proof that it was attacked a few months later in the Norfolk Naval Yards by tugboat-shaped sea serpents.


Also, the USS Liberty MUST HAVE had a transparent mast, since any gun camera photo would show a portion of the wheelhouse/superstructure that would NORMALLY be obscured by a mast.


I've witnessed the "intellectual dishonesty" of our government, the government of Israel, and shills for those who would support the murderers of their fellow Americans and Britons...

I'm just wondering, to what extent(if any), I'm in the presence of such people here.



So did Dr. Greening advance an "intelligent thermate/thermite" thesis?

Why would he advance such a thesis if no residue were found...

...I too am about ready to declare.....ahem...victorrrrrry

[david carmichael]

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


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



Of course, the US Government wouldn't cover up the murder of their own countrymen on 9/11.


Nor would the US Government and our....ahemm.... valuuuuuuuuuuuable ....ahemmmm...allyyyyyyy in the war on terror......

...... DOCTOR EVIDENCE surrounding the murder of 34 US servicemen in the USS Liberty attack....


Again, if someone is taking a photographic snapshot of James Randi standing in front of a pepsi machine.... the resulting developed snapshot will not show thePepsi machine...

...because James Randi is NOT transparent.

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


Then there should be a portion of the wheelhouse/superstructure in the photo below that would be obscured by USS Liberty's Mast...

It is OBVIOUS Jehovah God himself intervened and miraculously made the ship's mast transparent during the attack....



It is either a "miracle" by Jehovah orrrrr...

...the murderers doctored evidence.





MIRACLE #2

The other photo below proves...

The USS Liberty was not attacked on June 8, 1967 in the Eastern Mediterranean... Jehovah God teleported the USS Liberty through both "time" and "space"...

...to a couple of months later AND at Norfolk, Virginia where the attacking Miirage Jet Fighters(note the starry-shaped gun sight reticule superimposed/doctored)...

...where a flotilla of toot-toot little tugboats joined in the attack...



Otherwise Israel doctored a SECOND photo...

...never mind the doctored IDF Ground Controller transcripts.





So... having stated the above... we'll get back to the topic of why it was felt necessary to introduce the topic of "intelligent thermite" creation in the first place

[Oliver]

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

Bwaaaahaaa! They're fleeing. LOL! *snip*


:confused: Happy new Year, too. :D And welcome on board...

[PerryLogan]

Logan's Law: The dumber the conspiracy guy, the smarter he thinks he is. This works with neocons as well.

[uk_dave]

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


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



Of course, the US Government wouldn't cover up the murder of their own countrymen on 9/11.


Nor would the US Government and our....ahemm.... valuuuuuuuuuuuable ....ahemmmm...allyyyyyyy in the war on terror......

...... DOCTOR EVIDENCE surrounding the murder of 34 US servicemen in the USS Liberty attack....




I suggest taking a drop more water with it.

[Horatius]

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

Bwaaaahaaa! They're fleeing. LOL!



Well, first off, R.Mackey was actually talking about 9/11 whackos (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175), not your sort.

Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory...
...in the Battle for September 11th Conspiracies. Simply put, we've run out of opponents and we've run out of arguments. Let me briefly consider what we've seen here.


So why would you expect him to comment on this stuff?


..... DOCTOR EVIDENCE surrounding the murder of 34 US servicemen in the USS Liberty attack....


Again, if someone is taking a photographic snapshot of James Randi standing in front of a pepsi machine.... the resulting developed snapshot will not show thePepsi machine...

...because James Randi is NOT transparent.

MIRACLE #1

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

.....

Then there should be a portion of the wheelhouse/superstructure in the photo below that would be obscured by USS Liberty's Mast...


Unless the camera was mounted on a fast moving, vibrating paltform, that blurred the mast, making it "translucent" in that image.

It is OBVIOUS Jehovah God himself intervened and miraculously made the ship's mast transparent during the attack....



It is either a "miracle" by Jehovah orrrrr...

...the murderers doctored evidence.

Or, alternatively, God created the same miracle on my lathe the other day...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904596af4a05de6.jpg

Please come back when you understand how the real world works.

[westprog]

So why, when victory is so obvious, will it make little difference?

The answer is that it is not a matter of evaluating evidence, sifting facts and arriving at a likely conclusion. The CT guys are not people with a different viewpoint or opinion. They have a different way of thinking. They trust their intuition about such things as falling buildings far more than they trust what somebody tells them. They want it to be impossible that arabs with boxcutters can take over an aircraft, so it is impossible.

What appears to be a rational argument never is. It may seem that they are presenting evidence, but in their eyes it is something quite different. The evidence is wholly subservient to the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit the theory is bad evidence.

The victory has been obvious from day one. Rational argument will never convince them. Is there a way to do it?

[david carmichael]

So why, when victory is so obvious, will it make little difference?

The answer is that it is not a matter of evaluating evidence, sifting facts and arriving at a likely conclusion. The CT guys are not people with a different viewpoint or opinion. They have a different way of thinking. They trust their intuition about such things as falling buildings far more than they trust what somebody tells them. They want it to be impossible that arabs with boxcutters can take over an aircraft, so it is impossible.

What appears to be a rational argument never is. It may seem that they are presenting evidence, but in their eyes it is something quite different. The evidence is wholly subservient to the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit the theory is bad evidence.

The victory has been obvious from day one. Rational argument will never convince them. Is there a way to do it?


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

[Bell]

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

Which evidence is that exactly and why do you want it?

[david carmichael]

[QUOTE=Horatius who wrote in part....;2219317]



Unless the camera was mounted on a fast moving, vibrating paltform, that blurred the mast, making it "translucent" in that image.



....what??? From those who claim to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories ...WE GET THAT EXPLANATION from one of you OCTs?????

By extending your thesis, why are any of the smaller details showing without any difficulty?

Why did Israel blur the photo?

What photographic technique would be more enhanced that would justify them showing it with the contrast setting turned up to "high maximum"?.... None!

They wanted to make those appear like photographic negatives


LOL!

BwaaaHAaaaaaaa! LOL! ROTFLMAO.... that mast was huge...and the missing deckhouse was even bigger?


In no way shape or form, would the wheelhouse fail to be obscured....

Again...look at the HUGE area that would be obscure by the deckhouse!!!

ROTFLMAO...you are a great "debunkerrrrr"!

''''ahmmmmm' gettin' ready t'declare victoryyyyyy!!!"



...and you never answered to the second photo either.... is that a tugboat-shaped sea serpent?

The crew was standing at the fore of the boat during a strafing run????

Bwaaaahaaaa! LOL! ROTFLMAO!!!




Okay...back to the "intelligent thermite" of the 9/11 WTC attack.


What necessitated the advancement of the "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place???

[uk_dave]

What necessitated the advancement of the "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place???


I didn't know there was one.

Sure you don't mean "Intelligent Termites" ?

[david carmichael]

Which evidence is that exactly and why do you want it?

Well, with...
1)Our government lying about the murder of the crew of 34 American soldiers aboard the USS Liberty

and

2)the "Operation:Northwoods" documents stating the Joint Chiefs of Staff UNANIMOUSLY signed off on the idea of terror attacks against US cities in a "false flag" ops

and

3)with the Israeli firm ODIGO receiving two hours advanced notice to evacuate

and with

4)Israeli firm, Zim Navigational moving out of WTC #5 ...

...not a year bfore the attack...

...not a month before the attack

..but the SAME WEEK as the attack


and with

5)the dancing Israeli MOSSAD agents, one of whom stood in front of the camera with a cigarette lighter flicked as the WTC was burning in the background....


and with Israel's history of "false flag" ops against US and British interests(Lavon Affair, King David Hotel bombing)

...and with

6) the NYPD bomb-sniffing dogs setting to barking when they sniffed the MOSSAD agents White Van

...and with these guys in jail for 70+ days

and with

7) $5 million in unclaimed "put" calls existing

and with

8) the US News Media covering up an easily bustable lie like the USS Liberty



I'd wonder why the WTC steel was sold overseas for scrap instead of being tested publicly for explosive residue or ...ahem.... "intelligennnnnnnnt thernite"

We could start off with that NIST meteorite and then see what other evidence the families of the firefighters would want seized.

i'd also want to see the transcribed testimony of that maintenance man before the 9/11 commission....

Lloyd Painter's testimony about Israelis firing upon lowered life rafts was excluded from the USS Liberty NCOI transcripts....


...and that "maintenance man's" testimony was not included either.


Did Israel TWICE doctor photographic evidence in the USS Liberty attack, old chum???

[Arus808]

wow, in one post all ct theories that have been debunked. Same tired stories that have been proven false.

Can you at least try a new theory that we haven't heard before. We already have a star wars beam weapon theory, so you need to try somehting more outlandish than that.

[david carmichael]

I didn't know there was one.


Yes...R. Mackey addressed the issue in his first reply to my first post


Sure you don't mean "Intelligent Termites" ?


I just saw your TLA award-winning post.



You stated the news media, democrats and republicans, entertainment media would ALL have had to be in on the 9/11 coverup.

....and found it the basis for a humorous post ridiculing the WTC CTers...


Okay...your thesis is that like Watergate... if it was TRULY an "inside job"...

....the opposing political party AND the news media WOULD HAVE exposed the republicans...



But now you've seen the USS Liberty was "murder" and was covered up by...
1) US/UK/DOC News Media
2) Entetainment Media
3) Democrats
4) Republicans

The USS Liberty "accidental attack" theory STUNK right from the get-go...

...when one even begins to scratch the surface of the story...does it TEND TO support the "mistaken identity" thesis....

...or does it even get stinkier and stinkier?

The doctored photos

The doctored IDF Ground Controller transcripts

The fantasy "30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing" munition...
...for which no military necessity existed
...and whose existence in 1967 was a "technological impossibility"


The thesis/motif behind the ridicule in your TLA winning post...on a forum of DEBUNKERZZZZZ...has just been annihilated by me...

...and those TWO doctored photos..

Correct?


The US News Media, Entertainment Media, Democrats, Republicans all covered up the murder of 34 American soldiers.


Speak, debunker! speak!!

[david carmichael]

wow, in one post all ct theories that have been debunked. Same tired stories that have been proven false.

Can you at least try a new theory that we haven't heard before. We already have a star wars beam weapon theory, so you need to try somehting more outlandish than that.



Okay... I see the Sherlock Holmes quote.

Those 2 USS Liberty photos...were they BOTH doctored by the Government of Israel?

[Arus808]

again, we're not your dogs that will bark when you command. When you come up with something new that hasn't been debunked over a 100 times here on this board, then we will , if we want to, debunk that as well.

other than, you're still spouting tired old theories that have been put through the test here before , and found that there was nothing substantiative about them.

So, try something new.

[Firestone]

Reading this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2219470&postcount=206), I understand why R.Mackey was ready to declare victory. :)

I do have a question about this claim, however.

3)with the Israeli firm ODIGO receiving two hours advanced notice to evacuateWhat building was the "Israeli firm ODIGO" given "two hours advanced notice to evacuate"?

Of course you will give the source for this claim, will you?

[uk_dave]

The US News Media, Entertainment Media, Democrats, Republicans all covered up the murder of 34 American soldiers.

Speak, debunker! speak!!

So we have two options:

1. Everyone in the world involved in politics, news media and entertainment media, regardless of their stated political position or their apparent track record for exposing govt misdeeds, is in on it, for some unexplained reason (though I suspect reptoids may have something to do with it)

or

2. Your 'evidence' is so weak that no one in the world involved in politics, news media and entertainment media, regardless of their stated political position or their apparent track record for exposing govt misdeeds, believes it is worth investigating.

hmmmmmmm the agony of choice......

[Gravy]

Well, with...
1)Our government lying about the murder of the crew of 34 American soldiers aboard the USS LibertyHow many threads are you going to spam with this nonsense?

2)the "Operation:Northwoods" documents stating the Joint Chiefs of Staff UNANIMOUSLY signed off on the idea of terror attacks against US cities in a "false flag" opsThe Northwoods idea was summarily squashed by the civilian officials. It did not call for anyone to be killed.

3)with the Israeli firm ODIGO receiving two hours advanced notice to evacuateFalse. Odigo "Vice President of Sales and Marketing... Alex Diamandis today in a telephone interview also said the warning message did not identify the World Trade Center as the attack target."
http://amenusa.org/prior.htm

See more at 911myths.com

4)Israeli firm, Zim Navigational moving out of WTC #5 ...

...not a year bfore the attack...

...not a month before the attack

..but the SAME WEEK as the attackFalse. They occupied one part of the 17th floor of tower 1, and moved to new headquarters in Newport News, Virginia a couple of weeks before the attacks.

5)the dancing Israeli MOSSAD agents, one of whom stood in front of the camera with a cigarette lighter flicked as the WTC was burning in the background....There is no evidence that these men were Mossad agents.

6) the NYPD bomb-sniffing dogs setting to barking when they sniffed the MOSSAD agents White VanWhat Mossad agents?

...and with these guys in jail for 70+ daysYep. They were investigated. No evidence of intelligence activity or connection to the attacks was found.


7) $5 million in unclaimed "put" calls existingFalse.

8) the US News Media covering up an easily bustable lie like the USS Liberty
Spam nonsense.

I'd wonder why the WTC steel was sold overseas for scrap instead of being tested publicly for explosive residue or ...ahem.... "intelligennnnnnnnt thernite"Even had all the steel been kept, it wouldn't have been tested for thermite, because there was zero reason to believe any such thing was used.

i'd also want to see the transcribed testimony of that maintenance man before the 9/11 commission....His account is consistent with the other accounts of events in the north tower. It's simply his interpretation that differs from other people's.

Lloyd Painter's testimony about Israelis firing upon lowered life rafts was excluded from the USS Liberty NCOI transcripts....What's the USS Liberty? :rolleyes:

...and that "maintenance man's" testimony was not included either.Gee, you didn't mention that. Oh, yes you did. Two sentences ago. Are you not feeling well, David?

Did Israel TWICE doctor photographic evidence in the USS Liberty attack, old chum???Please explain more about this Liberty thing. You mean that big statue in the harbor, right?

[david carmichael]

again, we're not your dogs that will bark when you command. When you come up with something new that hasn't been debunked over a 100 times here on this board, then we will , if we want to, debunk that as well.

other than, you're still spouting tired old theories that have been put through the test here before , and found that there was nothing substantiative about them.

So, try something new.


so are the 2 photos doctored?

[Gravy]

so are the 2 photos doctored?No, you're just a garden-variety crackpot. Why can't we get some exotic crackpots around here? I wonder what Nico Haupt is doing today. I would like him to write a weekly column here.

[T.A.M.]

please keep your comments on teh USS Liberty Conspiracy to the thread made for it. Spamming and clogging the forums with the same arguments and topics is considered poor form.

TAM

[david carmichael]

please keep your comments on teh USS Liberty Conspiracy to the thread made for it. Spamming and clogging the forums with the same arguments and topics is considered poor form.

TAM

This is your forum... you make the rules; I follow them

The TAL award-winning post ridicules the CTers specifically due to the motif that

1)The News Media
2)Democrats &
3)Republicans

...would all join in on a coverup....


My USS Liberty postings annihilate that thesis.


If you as a MOD want to establish that the USS Liberty was indeed MURDER and COVERED UP by
1)the news media
2)the democrats &
3) the republicans

...and that it was an easily-bustable lie


Then certainly...we can move on to the WTC attack.

I'd appreciate MORE guidance configured against the TLA Award winner

[WildCat]

This is your forum... you make the rules; I follow them

The TAL award-winning post ridicules the CTers specifically due to the motif that

1)The News Media
2)Democrats &
3)Republicans

...would all join in on a coverup....


My USS Liberty postings annihilate that thesis.
Explain again how the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was covered up? Because everyone seems to know about it...


If you as a MOD
T.A.M is not a mod.

[T.A.M.]

This is your forum... you make the rules; I follow them

The TAL award-winning post ridicules the CTers specifically due to the motif that

1)The News Media
2)Democrats &
3)Republicans

...would all join in on a coverup....


My USS Liberty postings annihilate that thesis.


If you as a MOD want to establish that the USS Liberty was indeed MURDER and COVERED UP by
1)the news media
2)the democrats &
3) the republicans

...and that it was an easily-bustable lie


Then certainly...we can move on to the WTC attack.

I'd appreciate MORE guidance configured against the TLA Award winner


I am not a mod, just a Forum member making a request (you notice the please). Personally your attitude is juvenile and typical of teh CTers who come here, which is why everyone is finding your comments so droll and boring. On a personal note, I am ASKING you to please keep your sarcasm to yourself, or atleast do not direct it at me PLEASE!!

I am not a mod.

TAM

[david carmichael]

Zim moved out the week of the attack.

September 6, 2001

htt p://ww w.bible-light. c om/JPM/2001-10. h tm

[Gravy]

Zim moved out the week of the attack.

September 6, 2001

htt p://ww w.bible-light. c om/JPM/2001-10. h tmThat's weird. I thought the attack was on September 11th. ZIM's lease was up on the first. They had moved to Virginia, a move that was planned, of course, for months. A few employees remained behind with computer equipment and were in the north tower when it was hit. ZIM's operations were down for a time because of that. Where did I get this information? 911myths.com, where I asked you to go. Why didn't you? Here's the direct link: http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html

911myths raises another good point, which is that at least one other Israeli company didn't get the "warning."

We get it, David. You don't like Jews. Stop making things up about them.

[david carmichael]

I am not a mod, just a Forum member making a request (you notice the please). Personally your attitude is juvenile and typical of teh CTers who come here, which is why everyone is finding your comments so droll and boring. On a personal note, I am ASKING you to please keep your sarcasm to yourself, or atleast do not direct it at me PLEASE!!

I am not a mod.

TAM

The OCTers are the juvenile ones,chum.

But let's move the discussion forward.

The first DOCTORED photo of the USS Liberty's transparent mast is included in the 1982 IDF History Report.

The
second DOCTORED photo was provided by the IDF to Cristol(p. 79 ..The Liberty Incident) and Thames Television.



Let's just establish that the USS Liberty was dusted off from "operation:northwoods" by the JCS who all thought it was a good idea...

..and modified for an attack in the Eastern Med.


So our government WOULD cover up the murder of 34 American soldiers...


Against that backdrop... we can proceed to a discussion of 9/11...

...first topic is how that TLA Award winner that juvenile-ly ridicules the CTers...

..has now had its foundational thesis annihilated.


The CTers have legitimate questions/complaints....

..and when the US Government seizes and destroys evidence, IT CAN'T be marginalized by saying "you CTers are just a bunch of kooks"

Operation: Northwoods and the USS Liberty immediately return to play when that "crackpot" motif is advanced....

advanced by who????


...by a forum of people who claim to be "debunkerzzzzzz"

[david carmichael]

That's weird. I thought the attack was on September 11th. ZIM's lease was up on the first. They had moved to Virginia, a move that was planned, of course, for months. A few employees remained behind with computer equipment and were in the north tower when it was hit. ZIM's operations were down for a time because of that. Where did I get this information? 911myths.com, where I asked you to go. Why didn't you? Here's the direct link: http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html

911myths raises another good point, which is that at least one other Israeli company didn't get the "warning."

We get it, David. You don't like Jews. Stop making things up about them.


No... I don't like criminals.

I distinguish a criminal political movement like "Zionism" from Judaism

....just as I would a criminal movement like the Mafioso and not blame Italians.

But you stated those photos were NOT doctored?

...and you're a "debunker"????

[Gravy]

No... I don't like criminals.

I distinguish a criminal political movement like "Zionism" from Judaism Horsecrap. You just named several Israeli companies and individuals as if they had foreknowledge of the attacks. There is zero evidence to support your claims. You don't like Jews. Be a man and face your prejudice.

[david carmichael]

They were MOSSAD Agents.

The pro-Zionist FORWARD published it...



The hyperlink is now broken....


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israelis_9-11.html






so it all comes down to whether this is a true reproduction of the article...





By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF

Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.

However, far from pointing to Israeli spying against U.S. government and military facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.

In particular, a group of five Israelis arrested in New Jersey shortly after the September 11 attacks and held for more than two months was subjected to an unusual number of polygraph tests and interrogated by a series of government agencies including the FBI's counterintelligence division, which by some reports remains convinced that Israel was conducting an intelligence operation. The five
Israelis worked for a moving company with few discernable assets that closed up shop immediately afterward and whose owner fled to Israel.

Other allegations involved Israelis claiming to be art students who had backgrounds in signal interception and ordnance. (See related story, Page 8.)

Sources emphasized that the release of all the Israelis under investigation indicates that they were cleared of any suspicion that they had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks, as some anti-Israel media outlets have suggested.

The resulting tensions between Washington and Jerusalem, sources told the Forward, arose not because of the operations' targets but because Israel reportedly violated a secret gentlemen's agreement between the two countries under which espionage on each other's soil is
to be coordinated in advance.

Most experts and former officials interviewed for this article said that such so-called unilateral or uncoordinated Israeli monitoring of radical Muslims in America would not be surprising.

In fact, they said, Israeli intelligence played a key role in helping the Bush administration to crack down on Islamic charities suspected of funneling money to terrorist groups, most notably the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation last December.

"I have no doubt Israel has an interest in spying on those groups," said Peter Unsinger, an intelligence expert who teaches justice administration at San Jose University. "The Israelis give us good stuff, like on the Hamas charities."

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.

After their arrest, the men were held in detention for two-and-a-half months and were deported at the end of November, officially for visa violations.

However, a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.

"The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it," he said. "The conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs but that they could leave because they did not know anything about 9/11."

However, he added, the bureau was "very irritated because it was a case of so-called unilateral espionage, meaning they didn't know about it."

Spokesmen for the FBI, the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to discuss the case. Israeli officials flatly dismissed the allegations as untrue.

However, the former American official said that after American authorities confronted Jerusalem on the issue at the end of last year, the Israeli government acknowledged the operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington.

The five men — Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel — were arrested eight hours after the attacks by the Bergen County, N.J., police while driving in an Urban Moving Systems van. The police acted on an FBI alert after the men allegedly were seen acting strangely while watching the events from the roof of their warehouse and the roof of their van.

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports and another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.

The Bergen County police immediately handed the suspects to the INS, which turned them over to a joint police-FBI terrorism task force set up after September 11 to deal with all possible links with the attacks.

The five Israelis were detained in the high-security Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn in solitary confinement until mid-October.

On September 25, they all signed papers acknowledging violations of Uimmigration law. At the end of October, the INS issued a deportation order which was enforced a month later after a review by the Justice Department and prodding by Jewish and Israeli officials.

However, the former official said, this is just the official story.

In fact, he said, the nature of the investigation changed after the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, he said. At that point, he said, the bureau took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign Counterintelligence Investigation, or FCI.

FBI investigations into possible links to the September 11 attacks are usually carried by the bureau's counterterrorism division, not its counterintelligence division.

"An FCI means not only that it was serious but also that it was handled at a very high level and very tightly," the former official said. That view was echoed by several former FBI officials interviewed.
Steven Gordon, an American lawyer hired by the families to help secure their release, said he could not confirm which FBI division was in charge of the investigation. However, he acknowledged that "there were a lot of people involved, including counterintelligence officials from the FBI."

The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts interviewed by the Forward.

After the men were arrested, FBI agents searched the warehouse of Urban Moving Systems in Weehawken, N.J., seizing computer hard drives and documents. The warehouse was closed on September 14, said Ron George, a spokesman for the New Jersey State Division of Consumer Affairs.

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen.

The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for this article.
Earlier this year, the New York State Department of Transportation revoked Urban Moving System's license after discovering that the company's midtown Manhattan base was only a mailing address.

After they returned to Israel at the end of November, the five men told local media that they were kept in solitary confinement, beaten, deprived of food and questioned while blindfolded and in their underwear.

Mr. Ellner, one of the five Israelis, said on two occasions in recent weeks that the five men had decided not to grant any interviews right now "because we went through a very difficult period and we are not ready for this."

Their Israeli lawyer, Ram Horwitz, told the Forward he was still waiting for the results of the medical tests undertaken by the men in Israel to make a decision on an eventual lawsuit in the United States for mistreatment.

Mr. Horwitz insisted the men were not intelligence officers.

Irit Stoffer, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said the allegations were "completely untrue" and that there were "only visa violations."

"The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11," Ms. Stoffer said.

Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York.

One leading expert in American intelligence operations, Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at the Boston-based Political Research Associates, explained that there "is a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn't do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always a visa violation."

[david carmichael]

Horsecrap. You just named several Israeli companies and individuals as if they had foreknowledge of the attacks. There is zero evidence to support your claims. You don't like Jews. Be a man and face your prejudice.


Manhood has NOTHING to do with it.

I could just as easily say you be a man and admit those 2 photos were doctored by the Government of Israel.


You should be able to point the readership to where the portion of the wheelhouse/superstructure is obscured by the mast....


...but let's repeat...are those 2 photos doctored?

Then point out what the tugboat shape is in the first photo AND where the mast is in the second photo.

speak, debunker... speak

[Arus808]

Whatreally(didnot)happened.com isn't a credible website. Please cite using credible resources, like a FBI document or CIA report stating they were agents.

IF you have to resort to using conspiracy sites as your only means of proof, you should stop now.

[WildCat]

Explain again how the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was covered up? Because everyone seems to know about it...
Bump.

[Gravy]

They were MOSSAD Agents.

The pro-Zionist FORWARD published it...No, you don't know that. Neither did the author of the Forward article.

Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.

However, far from pointing to Israeli spying against U.S. government and military facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.As I've said several times in this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if those men were spies, except that for some reason they made themselves quite noticeable...just like the Israeli "art students." Okay, Mossad hires cut-rate spies. I can accept that. What we don't have is PROOF. And what we especially don't have is proof of foreknowledge.

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," [former CIA counterterrorism chief] Cannistraro noted (http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html).

[david carmichael]

Whatreally(didnot)happened.com isn't a credible website. Please cite using credible resources, like a FBI document or CIA report stating they were agents.

IF you have to resort to using conspiracy sites as your only means of proof, you should stop now.


the seminal issue is whether that article is a true reproduction of what appeared in The Forward which WRH hyperlinked to.

I do not trust WRH....

I do not trust Alex Jones or "Terrorstorm"(too many unvetted claims that did NOT pan out)

I love my government; but I won't pretend I don't know what they're attempting to do in my name...

I hate no individual nor groups of people....

I saw the article in The Forward myself....



Now... did the government of israel doctor 2 photos to explain away the murder of 34 Americans?

None of you debunkerrrzzzz has answered thatn yet... yes, the WTC attacks were known about months ahead of time.


We have Zim and Odigo AGAINST Clear Forest staying.

I'm interested in vetting everything.. I want the truth... I avoid no topics

So.... to deal with UK_Dave's TLA award-winning post and annihilate the ridicule of the news media/democrat/republican collusion....

Did Israel doctor 2 photos to explain away the murder of 34 American soldiers?

[uk_dave]

So.... to deal with UK_Dave's TLA award-winning post and annihilate the ridicule of the news media/democrat/republican collusion....



Please don't labour that too much...it was a quiet month.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

2)the "Operation:Northwoods" documents stating the Joint Chiefs of Staff UNANIMOUSLY signed off on the idea of terror attacks against US cities in a "false flag" ops
The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes.

[...]

# Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[david carmichael]

Bump.

My apologies, old sport.

Are the US(CIA Director, Stansfeld Turner) and GOI(182 IDF History Report; GOI spokesman, Mark Regv) and US news media(ABC 20/20) saying "mistaken identity" or "intentional attack" on what they knew to be Americans(CIA Director Richard Helms p.300/301)

When Helms's memoirs appeared...the evidence the US and GOI allowed to be released began to be poured over...


These 2 doctored photos surfaced

The IDF Ground controller transcripts have been doctored

The Us Government and Israel are stating "mistaken identity"

As stated by another, "Innocent people don't need to doctor evidence(in this case...multiple times)"

Coverup

[Gravy]

Did Israel doctor 2 photos to explain away the murder of 34 American soldiers?This is a thread about 9/11. Please use your active USS Liberty thread to discuss this topic.

[Horatius]

Did Israel doctor 2 photos to explain away the murder of 34 American soldiers?

No. How would "doctoring" gun camera footage that they admit was of an attack on the ship in question "explain away" anything?

[david carmichael]

This is a thread about 9/11. Please use your active USS Liberty thread to discuss this topic.

The USS Liberty murders annihilates the foundational thesis/motif of UK_Dave's TLA Award-Winning post;to wit,....

...that it is crackpot to believe the Democrats/Republicans and News Media would ALL conspire to cover up the murder of Americans.


False Flag Ops are not easy to bust when the Governments in charge of investigating/preserving evidence ARE THEMSELVES the perpetrators...

The US Government has engaged in "intellectual dishonesty" on the USS Liberty as late as 5/15/2006(DoD War Crimes Complaint denial)

In light of UK_Dave's posting....the USS Liberty attack should be thrown in your face till you all admit the US Government would help cover up the murder of its own citizens.


So...

1)were those 2 photos doctored by the GOI?...

2)...and what necessitated Greening advancing an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place?


speak, debunkers...speak

[Bell]

David, take it back to your own thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71596). Thanks much.

[babazaroni]

deleted as off topic.

[david carmichael]

No. How would "doctoring" gun camera footage that they admit was of an attack on the ship in question "explain away" anything?


used in support of the "mistaken identity" thesis...

...innocent people don't need to doctor evidence... the 2 doctored photos were evidence that was used to buttress a "mistaken identity" thesis...


...as was the doctored IDF ground Controller transcripts(4 lies)....

...and the fantasy munition(30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing)


Why did Greening feel the advancement of the "intelligent thermite" thesis was necessitated?

[david carmichael]

David, take it back to your own thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71596). Thanks much.

the rationale for it being included in this thread has specifically pointed out a couple of times now...


...it annihilates the foundational thesis of UK_Dave's TLA Award-Winning post ridiculing the CTers.


The instant we come to the consensus that the Democrats/Republicans/News Media would cover up the murder of 34 American soldiers...

...we can return to the topic of "why greening felt it necessary to advance an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place.


speak, debunkers... speak


From a forum that crows with laughter about debunking conspiracy theories...

...you ALL have ...on multiple occasions...refused to answer TWO simple questions on ...

1) what necessitated the advancement of an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place

and

2)did the Governmetn of Israel doctor two photos used to explain away the murders of 34 American soldiers...


speak, debunkers... speak

[babazaroni]

We will talk about the USS Liberty, in the USS LIberty thread you started.

[WildCat]

My apologies, old sport.

Are the US(CIA Director, Stansfeld Turner) and GOI(182 IDF History Report; GOI spokesman, Mark Regv) and US news media(ABC 20/20) saying "mistaken identity" or "intentional attack" on what they knew to be Americans(CIA Director Richard Helms p.300/301)

When Helms's memoirs appeared...the evidence the US and GOI allowed to be released began to be poured over...


These 2 doctored photos surfaced

The IDF Ground controller transcripts have been doctored

The Us Government and Israel are stating "mistaken identity"

As stated by another, "Innocent people don't need to doctor evidence(in this case...multiple times)"

Coverup
I think it is obvious that the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional, and not a mistake. I also think that the official position is that it was a mistake for purely diplomatic reasons.

However, this is not similar at all to the 9/11 attacks. In the 9/11 attacks, the evidence is overwhelming that it was carried out by 19 members of al Qaeda under the direction of KSM and OBL. There is not one scrap of evidence for involvement by anyone else.

And you have no case at all about a media cover-up. There's books and web sites devoted to the USS Liberty. But as the incident was almost 40 years ago, no it will not be a topic in today's newspapers or broadcast news.

[beachnut]

used in support of the "mistaken identity" thesis...

...innocent people don't need to doctor evidence... the 2 doctored photos were evidence that was used to buttress a "mistaken identity" thesis...


...as was the doctored IDF ground Controller transcripts(4 lies)....

...and the fantasy munition(30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing)


Why did Greening feel the advancement of the "intelligent thermite" thesis was necessitated?

Liberty has what to do with 9/11.?1!??!?!?!

A false flag Liberty was not; The Israeli guys shot our guys; our ship was spy ship! It was shot up. You have messed up and made up junk from other not so smart CT cult members and now you have stuff from way back when I was a kid.

The news said some Israeli guys shot up our ship! Oh no, bet the news messed up all the facts. So take the facts and sort them better than you have! (still what is the 9/11 connection?)

So you come up with this junk about a spy boat! Why would stuff be all messed up about a spy boat? Why would our government be kind of fussy on the facts about a spy ship shot up by the Israelis? Could it be we pissed off Israel and they accidentally shot too close; were we pissed too; would you be pissed. Oops do you guys know it was a spy boat???? If not please remove this post and all existence of me! Bye

Find some real facts; Then; a 15 year old kid busted your post, 40 years ago! You are BUSTED; I declare victory over you 40 years ago!!!!

I was smarter than I thought.

[hurdygurdy]

the seminal issue is whether that article is a true reproduction of what appeared in The Forward which WRH hyperlinked to.

WRH hyperlink (http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html/):
Page Not Found

[Firestone]

Reminder (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2219498&postcount=211). :)

3)with the Israeli firm ODIGO receiving two hours advanced notice to evacuate

What building was the "Israeli firm ODIGO" given "two hours advanced notice to evacuate"?

Of course you will give the source for this claim, will you?

[T.A.M.]

The instant we come to the consensus that the Democrats/Republicans/News Media would cover up the murder of 34 American soldiers...

...we can return to the topic of "why greening felt it necessary to advance an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place.


speak, debunkers... speak


From a forum that crows with laughter about debunking conspiracy theories...

...you ALL have ...on multiple occasions...refused to answer TWO simple questions on ...

1) what necessitated the advancement of an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place

and

2)did the Governmetn of Israel doctor two photos used to explain away the murders of 34 American soldiers...


speak, debunkers... speak

So you are running the Forum now...It is yours, and we should do as YOU say now??

TAM

[david carmichael]

I think it is obvious that the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional, and not a mistake. I also think that the official position is that it was a mistake for purely diplomatic reasons.

Then it was an act of war...

With the news media coverup and the NCOI coverup---the American people no longer were able to make an "informed choice" at the ballot box


However, this is not similar at all to the 9/11 attacks. In the 9/11 attacks, the evidence is overwhelming that it was carried out by 19 members of al Qaeda under the direction of KSM and OBL. There is not one scrap of evidence for involvement by anyone else.

Well...you would be feigning ignorance that those who are responsible for investigating/preserving the evidence could quite possibly be the criminals themselves.

This is why when you DO have the government busted in a "false flag" op... it is significant--- it shows first of all, a willingness to lie...

..and secondly... a refusal to come clean.


We then go to the post-WWI Nye committees , "merchants of death" and Eisenhower's warning about the "miltary-industrial complex".

Did the destruction of the steel in the WTC occur over the objections of the firefighting community and families of the victims?

If what Bush/Blair talked about in the Downing Street Memos occurred...then they would have shown absolutely no hesitation to lie.

... a subsequent talk about painting a US plane in UN colors and sending it over Iraqi airspace in hopes it would be shot down???



And you have no case at all about a media cover-up. There's books and web sites devoted to the USS Liberty. But as the incident was almost 40 years ago, no it will not be a topic in today's newspapers or broadcast news.

..and the intellectual dishonesty in your reply is that it should have been a topic of great concern back then.

..and the Government was still telling lies as late as 5/15/2006 on this matter.

The News Media and US Government have been AND STILL ARE covering up the murders of Americans.

Therefore the foundational thesis of UK_Dave's TLA Award winning post has been annihilated.

[david carmichael]

Liberty has what to do with 9/11.?1!??!?!?!

A false flag Liberty was not; The Israeli guys shot our guys; our ship was spy ship! It was shot up. You have messed up and made up junk from other not so smart CT cult members and now you have stuff from way back when I was a kid.

The news said some Israeli guys shot up our ship! Oh no, bet the news messed up all the facts. So take the facts and sort them better than you have! (still what is the 9/11 connection?)

So you come up with this junk about a spy boat! Why would stuff be all messed up about a spy boat? Why would our government be kind of fussy on the facts about a spy ship shot up by the Israelis? Could it be we pissed off Israel and they accidentally shot too close; were we pissed too; would you be pissed. Oops do you guys know it was a spy boat???? If not please remove this post and all existence of me! Bye

Find some real facts; Then; a 15 year old kid busted your post, 40 years ago! You are BUSTED; I declare victory over you 40 years ago!!!!

I was smarter than I thought.


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.

[david carmichael]

Reminder (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2219498&postcount=211). :)



What building was the "Israeli firm ODIGO" given "two hours advanced notice to evacuate"?

Of course you will give the source for this claim, will you?

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.


What necessitated Greening finding it necessary to advance an intelligent thermite thesis in the first place?

Still no answers from you debunkers

[david carmichael]

So you are running the Forum now...It is yours, and we should do as YOU say now??

TAM

Absolutely not!

Why would you engage in such an "intellectually dishonest" argument?

Ahhhh... because you don't want the Government/News media collusion on the USS Liberty murders next to the WTC attacks...which annihilated the foundational thesis of UK_Dave's TLA Award-winning post


You were the ones crowing with laughter as R. mackey was declaring victory... speak, debunkers--- speak!

.

What was it that necessitated Greening advancing an "intelligent thermite" thesis in the first place?


speak, debunker TAM---- speak!!!