Responding to CTers

[bignickel]

I've been thinking about making this thread for awhile, but R. Mackey's recent 'victory' thread got me off my butt.

I've noticed that we've had an awful lot (in both senses of the word) of CTers come in here over the last year, post their attacks on this or that WTC related business, and then get 10 pages out of any given thread (not to mention the 150 page "Christophera Show")

Is this really what we want to do from here to eternity? Is this really what we're here for? They come in, post the usual junk, and skeptics have to debate them for 10 pages, for each thread; is this really productive?

Honestly: isn't the onus for proof on them at this point? I was thinking that it at this point of time, we're done all this stuff to death, and it's time to demand something else from the CTers. Perhaps, since the burden of proof is on them, everytime they open yet another "what about this..?! And this...?!" thread, we should say:
"All the evidence points to a collapse caused by structural failure due to fire and damage weakening the buildings so much that their structural elements failed. Therefore, if it your claim that something differant happened, the burden of proof is on you to provide an alternate theory. Present it, and we will examine it."

Thoughts?

[PerryLogan]

I'm simply amusing myself. I've known conspiracy folks all my life and find them a fascinating tribe. I know I won't change any CT minds.

Not to suck up, but I really think the JREF folks deserve a healthy pat on the back for nailing the CTs, in no uncertain terms, over and over again. This place is a cornucopia of debunkings--and you can quote me on that.

Since the mainstream media has until recently never discussed the CT universe, it's important to have accurate debunkings available. There are people who, through no fault of their own, have heard only the CT side of the story. That's not so rare. It can easily happen here in Austin, where CTs blather on the airwaves night and day. So the JREF forum is useful to them, if to no one else.

Plus, like I say, it's an interesting topic. It's fun to debate. Yatta yatta.

[Anti-sophist]

I think you make a critical oversight when you assume that the only people involved in a debate thread are the people debating.

For every CTer who refuses to be convinced, there are 10 lurkers who can be.

That's why this tripe needs to be opposed, so the people who are trying to get answers can find them.

[chipmunk stew]

Casually surveying the Truthiness Movement landscape from time to time, it seems pretty obvious to me that all this debunking has had a dramatic effect. It appears to me that the center of the movement has been rapidly retreating from the more outlandish claims and positioning itself as probably LIHOP / possibly MIHOP / definitely need a new investigation. The Pentagon and Shanksville claims are generally not taken very seriously anymore. The controlled demolition arguments are relying more and more on trying to falsify the NIST account and presenting the false dichotomy that if NIST is wrong, then it must have been a CD. The torchbearers of the movement are fighting amongst themselves and have been shown to lack credibility.

It's a movement imploding, and I give a large portion of the credit to the debunking effort.

[G-K-4]

The conspiracists keep bringing out the same arguments again and again. That's certainly annoying, but it also makes our job easier.

What about having a FAQ? 911myths.com (http://911myths.com) is great, but I don't know if it's organized in a useful way as a reference. Imagine doing this:

CTer: "What about the holographic planes?"
JREFer: "We already answered that in the 9/11 FAQ, Section A, Part 7."I think a reference would be good if it can be organized by letters and numbers. Ten years ago, a group of anarchists put together "An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)" because they tired of answering the same questions and misconceptions again and again on the Internet. Even if you don't agree with their politics, you might find the structure of such a FAQ really handy. Once it's written, everyone doesn't have to keep reinventing the wheel. It's also a handy introduction for newbies, and it catches them up more quickly to the current level of debate.

If you all would like to do something similar, maybe you could organize a basic reference-usable structure. Then someone could set up a wiki with editting access given only to demonstratedly trustworthy JREFers. Maybe you could have a small body of editors to keep it organized and integrate new contributions into the structure. One key goal should be to make it easy to dip in and find a specific answer, without having to wade through everything else. But if they want more, a reader also has everything else before them in one document.

Every few months, a list of the latest additions could be announced, to get people reading them (especially newbies) and to encourage more contributions. And when it reaches a certain point, it can be published, with sales going to support this website. Or something.

And why stop at 9/11? Why not have a FAQ for all of the conspiracies that didn't happen, and for other unsupportable claims?

[JackPT]

...

Is this really what we want to do from here to eternity? Is this really what we're here for? They come in, post the usual junk, and skeptics have to debate them for 10 pages, for each thread; is this really productive?

...

Thoughts?

I suspect, because there are no figures, that many of the woo-woos that come on a site like this want their beliefs challenged, which could be their first step on the road to recovery. There are some true believers who are evangelical in their beliefs, and it is frustrating wasting time on them. Despite of this I still think it is worth responding to evangelical believers in the hope that people sitting on the fence will read it. In practical terms a few prominent Scientologists left their religion in part because they were exposed to views on the Internet. I don't think people immediately change their mind, but they may walk away from their keyboard and eventually change their mind. Sure, there are sites that already debunk many of the subjects discussed, but a forum is much more personal. Sceptical catechism can be more effective than just putting the information out there. Tedious as it is.

[MikeW]

What about having a FAQ? 911myths.com (http://911myths.com) is great, but I don't know if it's organized in a useful way as a reference.
It isn't organised at all. :)

Okay, maybe not quite true, but I know it's rubbish right now. If it's any help, I plan to have it in a much more usable, searchable wiki-type format some time next year, maybe by the spring. (Which isn't to say similar, or even larger projects to cover everything aren't a good idea, too -- the more sites we have, the better.)

[Docker]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/

[Docker]

It isn't organised at all. :)

Okay, maybe not quite true, but I know it's rubbish right now. If it's any help, I plan to have it in a much more usable, searchable wiki-type format some time next year, maybe by the spring. (Which isn't to say similar, or even larger projects to cover everything aren't a good idea, too -- the more sites we have, the better.)

Are you the guy that does 911myths? Why don't you debate?

[Bell]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/

3/4th against 1/4th? I'd say there's enough.

[Bell]

Are you the guy that does 911myths? Why don't you debate?

LOL. Asks the Ducker.

[Docker]

3/4th against 1/4th? I'd say there's enough.

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?

[Bell]

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?

Do you?

[Docker]

Do you?

Not a chance. I'm sure you do a good job giving people you talk to facts and i'm sure your doing it for the right reasons. But there arent enough of you

[bignickel]

I can understand providing information to all the lurkers out there, but do we really have to re-invent the wheel with each new 'Docker' and 'BS1234'?

I would think "This was covered in (Randi forum post link) before. And that was covered in (Randi forum post link) as well. Now, what's your alternate theory for what happened?" would be sufficient. And readers out there could check out the links, see the information, and know that the CTer still hasn't provided any alternate theories.

I think this would free up alot of time for Marky, Gravy, Abby et al to work more on side projects, instead of wasting time of stuff that's been done to death previously, typing typing typing the same answers. The magic of "Click & Paste" isn't only for CTers, you know! :)

[Wowbagger]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/
If that were true (and I don't think it is), that would be Argumentum ad Populum; and not evidence to support your case.

Example:
There are more creationists than evolutionary biologists in the US. And, they are swamping science with examples of "special design". That does not mean the scientists won't eventually publish how those "designs" evolved.

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?Appeal to Authority, etc. Still not evidence to support your claim.
Example: No one stopped the momentum of the Red Scare for a while. That does not mean all those accusations of communism were accurate.

At least most JREFers appeal to empirical evidence.


I can understand providing information to all the lurkers out there, but do we really have to re-invent the wheel with each new 'Docker' and 'BS1234'?

I would think "This was covered in (Randi forum post link) before. And that was covered in (Randi forum post link) as well. Now, what's your alternate theory for what happened?" would be sufficient. And readers out there could check out the links, see the information, and know that the CTer still hasn't provided any alternate theories.

I think this would free up alot of time for Marky, Gravy, Abby et al to work more on side projects, instead of wasting time of stuff that's been done to death previously, typing typing typing the same answers. The magic of "Click & Paste" isn't only for CTers, you know! :)The only problem is that the CTers are not likely to put much effort into following the links. You can lead a horse to water...

[Housefly]

I think you make a critical oversight when you assume that the only people involved in a debate thread are the people debating.

For every CTer who refuses to be convinced, there are 10 lurkers who can be.

That's why this tripe needs to be opposed, so the people who are trying to get answers can find them.Well said. The average person doesn't know much about a lot of the things CTs claim to be experts in. The CT himself is almost always beyond hope but there are lots of people reading who could be swayed, both by the hardcore knowledge of the skeptics and the sidestepping of posters like Docker.

[hellaeon]

Docker, this is the issue where it fails. Your movement is based on numbers and momentum, Questions are encouraged, answers are not. To be part of the 'truth movement' is a 'cool' thing. What happens when the next generation thinks your a bunch of idiots and dont want to be in the cool club? Instead they jump on some other CT.

Its just another trend.

[milesalpha]

You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?


I don't generally reply to your posts but this one really stands out. Two points to make. One, that it is obvious to any first year poli sci student that Chavez will side with any kind of anti-Bush movement no matter how foolish it is. This is a common political tactic that has existed for as long as mass media has existed. Quaddafi, Khomeinei, Hussein, and Hitler are just a few examples of leaders who have done the exact same thing. Their effect...zero.

Second, a little over a year ago, the leader of Iran called for a new investigation into the Holocaust. Revisionists, sounding very much like you do in their arguments, supported this call for a "definitive" report on the Holocaust. The trouble is/was, the only people who believe there is any need for a comprehensive study is that tiny minority of wackos that support the revisionist stance (aka racists). The net effect on historical academia...zero.

The Cts would do well to learn something. No change will come from convincing the common rabble of anything (sorry if that sounds elitist but I am trying to be direct). The United States ranks behind only Turkey (among 16 major nations) in their denial of the theory of evolution, yet this has not affected the advancement of this science, simply because it is backed by the people who know and understand the science. The rejection of CT claims among academia is similar to the support of evolution, pretty much total. This will not change until you can actually put together some scientific evidence and present it in an appropriate forum (this does not include the internet in any way). CTs avoid this because, like the intelligent design fellows, they know they would be eaten alive.

I could, of course, quibble, about the numbers you present, I know of no poll that properly backs them. I won't because it might draw us into a debate about the infamous Zogby poll, and I am not sure if I am in the mood for comedy tonight.

[Docker]

Docker, this is the issue where it fails. Your movement is based on numbers and momentum, Questions are encouraged, answers are not. To be part of the 'truth movement' is a 'cool' thing. What happens when the next generation thinks your a bunch of idiots and dont want to be in the cool club? Instead they jump on some other CT.

Its just another trend.

Yeah world leaders, politicians and ex CIA dudes are known for being trendy people.

[firecoins]

Yeah world leaders, politicians and ex CIA dudes are known for being trendy people.
Of course Bush Sr and Bush Jr are trendy. The Bush twins got them IPods!:rolleyes:

9/11 truth movement like previous conspiract theories allow politics to paint previous world events instead of facts. It makes them feel important like they have a secret knowledge.

[Docker]

Of course Bush Sr and Bush Jr are trendy. The Bush twins got them IPods!:rolleyes:

9/11 truth movement like previous conspiract theories allow politics to paint previous world events instead of facts. It makes them feel important like they have a secret knowledge.


I never knew economics and psychology were interchangable. I am not a CT. I am a CR, a conspiracy realist. Do you think I want 911 to be a conspiracy? I'd much rather think governments were good.

I think skeptics are just head buryers. They want order.

[chipmunk stew]

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?
Chavez is also waving around Noam Chomsky books and equating Bush to Satan at the UN. The sane world is laughing at him.

Fox was putting Troothers on around the 9/11 anniversary to laugh at them or yell at them.

The fifth anniversary raised the Truthiness Movement's profile as high as it's ever going to get. Anyone intrigued enough to find out more encounters a widespread debunking effort. JREF forum members are a small (though exemplary) part of that.

Your movement has peaked. That momentum you feel is gravitational acceleration. Don't worry, though. The movement is also falling to pieces, and according to CT logic, that means you'll have no more energy left when you land, so you don't have to worry about a hard and painful impact.

[chipmunk stew]

I never knew economics and psychology were interchangable. I am not a CT. I am a CR, a conspiracy realist. Do you think I want 911 to be a conspiracy?
Yes.

I'd much rather think governments were good.

I think skeptics are just head buryers. They want order.
No, we embrace chaos and complexity and the reality that no great and powerful Oz is in control.

[beachnut]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/

it may be very self critiquing for you

but the rest of us do make a difference

I am an expert, I am the source, this is a fact, you can settle for your statement, you are one of us

how can you be wrong all of the time (lll)

[Housefly]

I think skeptics are just head buryers. They want order.I'd say it's CTs who want order. Something shocking and brutal, like 9/11, can't have been planned by a few people from foreign parts, for no other reason than they think we deserve it. No, it must have been pulled off by the US government, using the most sophisticated equipment they could lay their hands on, all as a pretext to go to war, thousands of conspirators working in harmony, all completely loyal to the plan.

Does that really sound less like "order" than a score of fanatics catching a complacent nation completely unprepared?

Also, every conspiracy theorist at some point says "I don't believe it; I knwo* it." You're now part of the club.


*I spelled it wrong but left it like that as I find the reference to the NWO funny.

[chipmunk stew]

*I spelled it wrong but left it like that as I find the reference to the NWO funny.
Heh. Welcome to our little club, Housefly.

Your check's in the mail.

[JackPT]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/

I guess that makes us the minority of people searching for the truth, and conspiracy theorists the conformist oppressors. As for making a difference I think anyone reading your evasive responses to straight questions will be an instant sceptic.

[beachnut]

I never knew economics and psychology were interchangable. I am not a CT. I am a CR, a conspiracy realist. Do you think I want 911 to be a conspiracy? I'd much rather think governments were good.

I think skeptics are just head buryers. They want order.

how can skeptics be head buryers, are not ct dolts skeptics, or claim to be skeptical of the "official story", how can you have it both ways unless you are a ct dolt, why dolt, I have found the entire truth movement to be junk, not a single thing has come out, nor anything new, just the same old stuff, I agree with the first post ( you act like a CT guy, or alex jones)


You act like a CT truther tin foil hat Alex Jones want to be, you also sound like, you are acting like, and you act like you are wrong just

But that is just my opinion, you are trying to be vague so and abrasive so you can be treated as a CT, then are you going to run back to LC and tell how you fooled the jref, who with bignickel's post show more maturity and intelligence that you or I

[Piggy]

Not a chance. I'm sure you do a good job giving people you talk to facts and i'm sure your doing it for the right reasons. But there arent enough of you

Of course there are enough of us.

Even if you are "growing in numbers" -- which I suspect is a lie -- there are still more of us.

And I don't mean just JREF posters. I mean people with enough sense to tell your b**ls**t from shinola.

Who in the world is going to believe you, for example, when you spend page after page refusing to answer 3 simple questions I put to you? Anyone and everyone who reads that thread will immediately see that you are simply ignoring 3 points which toss your theory into a cocked hat once and for all.

If you think you're a force to be reckoned with, you're deluding yourself. Which isn't surprising because only someone able to do that, in spades, could believe the nonsense you're peddling.

[Piggy]

I think skeptics are just head buryers.
Interesting. Is that why, Mr. I Hate Head Buryers, you have refused, page after page after page, to answer my simple questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2034692#post2034692) on your "Look at this collapse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66977)" thread, when everybody and his grandmother can see that you're burying your head?

Why do you ignore my questions, post after post after post?

Do you think no one sees this?

It's you who believes that everyone is as gullible as you are.

Fortunately, very few people actually are.

[beachnut]

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum?


.00067 percent of all engineers in the united states are troofers, or nut cases for 9/11 lies,

looks like 90 percent of high school dropouts believe anything they can find on the internet, your lemmings for CT on 9/11

Fox news called them idiots, doltish, worthless

Hugo Chavez, nut case, CTs are nut cases, who think Hugo Chavez is their hero,

Now if Hugo would give me some free fuel I can be bought, and I will march with the CT movement, yes that is me throwing up on Alex Jones, but I am marching, oops, I can help these guys

Hugo Chavez = CT nutcase = AlexJones = Docker ? what do you think

Hugo wants investigate nut job theories, OBL wants Kerry, what is new

Yes the nut cases could take over, it will not be the first time idiots have screwed up everything, NAZIs, and the CT guys act the part, (NAZI burned books, CT guys fail to use real science and research, they use hearsay, just comments, no facts; like NAZIs burning books)

Are you a CT NAZI spy? only a CT NAZI would use credible and Hugo in the same posting! (proof of your true LC nature)

[LashL]

Very good points, bignickel, Jack, GK4 and others.

I think it would very useful to develop either an FAQ or to keep track of threads where the same old CTs have been thoroughly debunked and then point to those rather than rehashing the same things over and over again.

That said, it is also sometimes very useful to engage directly with the newest (or most recently recycled) johnny come lately tinhatter, by repeating the facts and evidence in detail and taking on their stupid claims yet again.

But, I would also add - and I think this is just as important as the points above - I think that JREFers collectively should not allow idiots like Docker, for instance, to disrupt every thread on the forum with nonsense. For instance, he (or one of his cohorts) posts something stupid and unrelated to the topic in the middle of a rational discussion about topic X, someone responds to his stupid post, he responds with another stupid post while changing the subject entirely to topic Y, someone else responds because it's just so tempting, and before you know it, it's just another BS thread of the same crap over and over again in which people like Docker and BS1234 and their other incarnations and predecessors continuously post nonsense, ignore facts and reality, never read a thing, and turn nearly every thread about a specific topic into just another flamefest of a hundred topics as they bob and weave and act like morons.

I think that we, collectively, should make an effort not to allow them to disrupt numerous threads using these juvenile tactics.

In my view, when the nutjobs attempt to derail a thread that has nothing to do with whatever their latest attempted derail is, it would make sense to either ignore the attempted derail or, better, to post something to the effect of "this particular thread is about X. There are numerous threads to discuss your points Y, Z, A, B, C here:..." and then for the rest of the participants in the thread to ignore the derailer's further attempts to derail by either ignoring the further attempts to derail or by responding only to the effect that there are threads here, here and here, to discuss this topic, as noted above, etc.

I grow weary of seeing so many threads about good topics get turned into just another blah blah blah blah tinhatter-throwing-every-stupid-long debunked-nonsensical-theory-and-nonsensical-post-at-the-wall kind of thread.

There, that was my $0.02 worth.

[Docker]

.[QUOTE]00067 percent of all engineers in the united states are troofers, or nut cases for 9/11 lies,
Have you spoken to every engineer?

looks like 90 percent of high school dropouts believe anything they can find on the internet, your lemmings for CT on 9/11
Source?
Fox news called them idiots, doltish, worthless
Shows why CTs won't come forward
Hugo Chavez, nut case, CTs are nut cases, who think Hugo Chavez is their hero, How many countries do you run?



Are you a CT NAZI spy? only a CT NAZI would use credible and Hugo in the same posting! (proof of your true LC nature)

Erm enough said

[qarnos]

JREFers are not making the slightest bit of difference. There simply isn't enough of you/

Oh bugger! Why didn't someone tell us this earlier?

O.K. guys - you heard him. We may as well all go home, now.

Last one out, get the lights, will you?

[Piggy]

I'm going to take an unusual-for-me middle of the road position here and agree with LashL, bignickel, and the naysayers.

When CTs go trolling on non-CT threads, they should be starved, not fed.

It would be helpful to have a sticky thread where definitive 9/11 debunks are posted (perhaps admins could help with this?).

But on CT threads, I reserve the right to hound an evasive CTer to the virtual grave, just so no matter what page a searcher lands on, they'll be certain to see that these evasive liars are exactly that.

What these people are doing is not just some childish exercise. They are leveling horrendous charges of conspiracy, treason, and murder against dozens, even hundreds, of real people. They deserve to be exposed.

[Piggy]

Still avoiding me, Docker?

You still won't answer my 3 little questions?

For all your bluster, you have the spine of a paperdoll.

[JackPT]

In my view, when the nutjobs attempt to derail a thread that has nothing to do with whatever their latest attempted derail is, would be to either ignore the attempted derail or, better, to post something to the effect of "this particular thread is about X. There are numerous threads to discuss your points Y, Z, A, B, C here:..." and then for the rest of the participants in the thread to ignore their further attempts at derail by either ignoring the further attempts to derail or by responding only to the effect that there are threads here, here and here, to discuss this topic, etc.

This sounds like a healthy balance. It seems Docker wants to force people into ad-hominem positions by evading any effective counterarguments. I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis because it is possible to express the same argument with different connotations and in different contexts. For those reasons a comment or synopsis may be required with a post that has links to older threads of their nonsense.

[stateofgrace]

I think skeptics are just head buryers. They want order.

I think it's you that wants order dicker.

Unable to believe that anybody other than the US and the mighty military machine could pull off something as dreadful as 911. Unable to accept the fact that beyond the shores there is genuine hatred of the US and her allies. This hatred spilled over on 911 and produced the most horrific act of terrorism ever. Through no fault of their own innocent people paid the price, the horrific price for politicians doing exactly what you are doing. Burying their heads in the sand and pretending it isn't there.

The truth dicker is far more horrific that any of you and your fellow conspirators could ever dream up. That being a small minority of people can be radicalized so much and filled with so much hatred they will hijack four planes. They will kill all in their paths and fly them into buildings full of innocent people.

I wish you were right and I wish it was just Bush and a few nutty neocons because your option is by far the more pleasant one. It is by far the easier option. Your option means we are not hated, it means that dreadful terrorist actions carried out by hated filled extremists will never happen again.

Your simple and naive believe in the James Bond style bad guy is your undoing. It simply shows the absolute simplistic way you view this entire world. In your world everything is controlled, there is always somebody planning and covering it all up. In reality the world is full of diversity, differing opinions and unfortunately hatred.

I'd like to join you in your fairy tale with Gold Finger and his dastardly plan for world domination but unfortunately reality intervenes.

[Crungy]

00067 percent of all engineers in the united states are troofers, or nut cases for 9/11 lies


I work in the design and construction industry. From my experience in discussing 9/11 Keebler Kookiness with structural engineers who design high rises, .00067 percent is a gross overestimate.

[RandFan]

But it was never more than a quarter. The truthers are still growing in numbers. More and more credible people are coming out. Even Fox news is allowing truthers to get some tv coverage and put website names out. You even have Hugo Chavez, a leader of a country demanding an international investigation. Do you think JREF is going to stop that momentum? Right, a significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush made up a story about some Saudis to start a war in... wait for it, yep, IRAQ.

It's his conspiracy. His story. He could have blamed anyone and he chose Saudis?

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush had innocent passengers taken out and shot.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that explosives were planted in the twin towers and planes were diverted into the towers to cover-up the explosives.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that all of the participants of this very large conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans all kept silent.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I often get dispirited by the dumb things Americans believe in but I truly doubt that they are that stupid.

Oh, and if you are going to suggest alternate theories then you've just blasted another great big hole in your theory. If the CT nuts can't figure out a cogent theory then why the hell should anyone else care?

[Pardalis]

I'm simply amusing myself. I've known conspiracy folks all my life and find them a fascinating tribe. I know I won't change any CT minds.

Did you notice any change with this 9/11 crowd? Do you think they are more pernicious, more dangerous, in your experience?

[Piggy]

What makes it even more insane is that 9/11 was not the justification for invading Iraq -- WMD was.

[Crungy]

Did you notice any change with this 9/11 crowd? Do you think they are more pernicious, more dangerous, in your experience?

Before 9/11, my main experience was with JFKers. They were mostly baby boomers. Are the 9/11 dockers, are they mostly teens?

[Docker]

Right, a significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush made up a story about some Saudis to start a war in... wait for it, yep, IRAQ.

It's his conspiracy. His story. He could have blamed anyone and he chose Saudis?

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush had innocent passengers taken out and shot.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that explosives were planted in the twin towers and planes were diverted into the towers to cover-up the explosives.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that all of the participants of this very large conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans all kept silent.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I often get dispirited by the dumb things Americans believe in but I truly doubt that they are that stupid.

Oh, and if you are going to suggest alternate theories then you've just blasted another great big hole in your theory. If the CT nuts can't figure out a cogent theory then why the hell should anyone else care?

When did I suggest gearge bush was involved? Well done, your my 100th straw man builder of the day. You win a prize

[stateofgrace]

When did I suggest gearge bush was involved? Well done, your my 100th straw man builder of the day. You win a prize

Actually you have been busy telling us isn't involved.

So Dicker who is behind 911? simple question.

[gumboot]

What makes it even more insane is that 9/11 was not the justification for invading Iraq -- WMD was.


This is something I have wondered about.

I have often heard the 9/11 Iraq connection argument raised (CTers seem to conveniently forget Afghanistan) in that 9/11 was the thing that the admin used to justify going into Iraq.

As a foreigner, I never saw this argument. The argument I saw was always WMD. This was the argument the US so painstakingly presented to the UN.

Is there any basis to this CT claim? Did the US admin actually use a 9/11-Iraq link as their primary point to sell the war to the American people? Or is this just more CT la-la land?

-Gumboot

[RandFan]

When did I suggest gearge bush was involved? Well done, your my 100th straw man builder of the day. You win a prizeSorry dude, you missed the last paragraph. Damn, you must hate it when that happens.

[Piggy]

Did the US admin actually use a 9/11-Iraq link as their primary point to sell the war to the American people? Or is this just more CT la-la land?
Never as their primary justification. It would not have sold the show.

Cheney (and others) did make the connection on several occasions (Cheney made a big deal out of the alleged Atta meeting in Prague, for instance, even after he'd been advised that the intelligence was fabricated).

I can give you some specifics -- dates, venues, and language -- if you like.

But although they loved to insinuate an Iraq-9/11 connection, and repeatedly claimed that Saddam was supporting terrorism and was likely to arm terrorists (incredibly, Cheney even made this last claim on the day when the definitive intelligence report was filed which ended any claims of Iraqi WMD), 9/11 was never the justification for war.

Just take a look at Powell's UN speech, and at Bush's addresses leading up to the invasion. Invariably, the "money shot" was the allegation that Saddam possessed WMD and intended to use them against the West.

[RandFan]

Right, a significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush made up a story about some Saudis to start a war in... wait for it, yep, IRAQ.

It's his conspiracy. His story. He could have blamed anyone and he chose Saudis?

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush had innocent passengers taken out and shot.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that explosives were planted in the twin towers and planes were diverted into the towers to cover-up the explosives.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that all of the participants of this very large conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans all kept silent.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I often get dispirited by the dumb things Americans believe in but I truly doubt that they are that stupid.

Oh, and if you are going to suggest alternate theories then you've just blasted another great big hole in your theory. If the CT nuts can't figure out a cogent theory then why the hell should anyone else care? For Docker.

You've got a problem with that growing movement thing. What the hell is the movement going to base it's theory on?

Good luck with all that.

[Redtail]

This is something I have wondered about.

I have often heard the 9/11 Iraq connection argument raised (CTers seem to conveniently forget Afghanistan) in that 9/11 was the thing that the admin used to justify going into Iraq.

As a foreigner, I never saw this argument. The argument I saw was always WMD. This was the argument the US so painstakingly presented to the UN.

Is there any basis to this CT claim? Did the US admin actually use a 9/11-Iraq link as their primary point to sell the war to the American people? Or is this just more CT la-la land?

-Gumboot

Well some tried to add it as a reason to invade Iraq. If someone would speakout against the war in Iraq they would say "WE WERE ATTACKED!!!!" And they WMD threat was sometimes followed with "Saddam has connections with terroist!" I don't rember higherups in the andmin saying flat out "Iraq is connected" (Then I was in Grad School so my news watching time was limited to say the least) but some did allude to it.

[LashL]

I'm going to take an unusual-for-me middle of the road position here and agree with LashL, bignickel, and the naysayers.

When CTs go trolling on non-CT threads, they should be starved, not fed.

It would be helpful to have a sticky thread where definitive 9/11 debunks are posted (perhaps admins could help with this?).

But on CT threads, I reserve the right to hound an evasive CTer to the virtual grave, just so no matter what page a searcher lands on, they'll be certain to see that these evasive liars are exactly that.

What these people are doing is not just some childish exercise. They are leveling horrendous charges of conspiracy, treason, and murder against dozens, even hundreds, of real people. They deserve to be exposed.

I agree with what you posted above, Piggy. I get tired of the same old CTers (and their sockpuppets and their progeny) spouting the same old CT nonsense and disrupting any and every unrelated thread merely by virtue of them appearing on it and spouting crap. While we cannot, and should not, stop them from posting on any thread they wish, we, collectively, could do more to stop them from derailing every thread that they choose to post on. If we, collectively, do not allow them to derail an unrelated thread, they will quickly grow tired of that particular game.

I also agree that hounding evasive tinhatters to the virtual grave is absolutely warranted in most instances. They deserve to be smacked down all over the place. But it would be nice if it weren't a hollow victory because they managed to derail and entirely obliterate a rational thread in the process.

I'm not at all suggesting that they be censored in any manner. I think they should be free to post wherever they want. But that doesn't mean that we should all respond to their off topic, deflecting BS on every thread where they pop up. My point is only that they shouldn't be allowed (by us, as members) to disrupt every thread that they happen to post on. It's nice to be able to visit threads on other topics and not have them all turn into trollfests with the same lame tinhatters spouting the same old crap fifty times a day on numerous threads.

I absolutely agree that they are despicable for levelling wholly unfounded and unsupported accusations of multiple heinous crimes against numerous people without even a scintilla of evidence, and they most certainly deserve to be exposed for what they are.

I just think that we shouldn't let the trolls set the agenda. To paraphrase what you said above, there are times to feed the trolls and times to starve them.

I think we should feed them on on-topic threads and starve them on off-topic threads, rather than allow them what they perceive (and what they, no doubt, rave about to their nutjob pals on their nutjob conspiracy sites) to be personal victories for having derailed legitimate threads here.

ETA: This thread is, itself, a good example. Look at the subject matter set out in the opening post and look at what the current resident tinhatter has been permitted by fellow posters to derail it to throughout several permutations of the usual old BS tinhat crap.

[Docker]

For Docker.

You've got a problem with that growing movement thing. What the hell is the movement going to base it's theory on?

Good luck with all that.

Most americans believe in god, they are that stupid.

Most americans, in fact, believe oswald was not a lone assassin. The 9/11 stuff will end up the same.

You can shill all you like, but for every person you bring to the neocon bootlicking fold, another 10 fresh young open minds are shown the truth.

Deal with it.

[gumboot]

Thanks to both Piggy and Redtail. Sounds pretty much like I'd expect. 9/11 used more for a bit of emotive bludgeoning than serious supporting argument.

(Actually in my own suggested theories for understanding US action against Iraq I have incorporated 9/11 in some form, so there you are :))

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

You can shill all you like, but for every person you bring to the neocon bootlicking fold, another 10 immature young gullible minds are shown the truth.

Fixed it.

[gumboot]

Most americans believe in god, they are that stupid.

Most americans, in fact, believe oswald was not a lone assassin. The 9/11 stuff will end up the same.

You can shill all you like, but for every person you bring to the neocon bootlicking fold, another 10 fresh young open minds are shown the truth.


You mean 10 fresh young open minds, most of whom "believe in god, they are that stupid"?

-Gumboot

[RandFan]

Most Americans believe in god, they are that stupid.Believing in god is stupid. But one can't prove there is no god and it is so comforting.

Most Americans, in fact, believe oswald was not a lone assassin. The 9/11 stuff will end up the same. Really, I don't think so but even assuming that is true what did it accomplish?

You can shill all you like, but for every person you bring to the neocon bootlicking fold, another 10 fresh young open minds are shown the truth. Ah yes, the ad hominem. I don't agree with you so I'm a shill...

Deal with it.:D There is nothing cogent for them to believe. You can't even put forward anything other your own doubt. You have nothing to offer a reasonable person but rhetoric.

Even if a majority of Americans believe the government somehow was involved they will never agree how or how much.

Oh, and BTW, most of the people who are debating you would love to see George Bush impeached and then prosecuted for lying about WMD and getting us into a war that has cost 3,000 American lives so calling everyone who disagrees with you a shill is intellectually dishonest because you know that.

[hellaeon]

A quote from Dawkins comes to mind...like the creationists...someone can correct me on it..something like.."The only people Intelligent Design(*ahem* - 9/11) is having an impact on is people who know absolutely nothing"
Said with his steely face and piercing eyes.

[Redtail]

Believing in god is stupid. But one can't prove there is no god and it is so comforting.

Not so fast, the duck billed platypus not only proves God/ess's exsistance but that he/she has a sense of humor!

[Pardalis]

Let's just leave god out of this. Believing in god is a personal thing.

ETA: I don't believe in it BTW, I just respect that some do.

[Redtail]

Let's just leave god out of this. Believing in god is a personal thing.

ETA: I don't believe in it BTW, I just respect that some do.

Cool, I believe in God/ess, but respect those that don't.

[Pardalis]

Cool, I believe in God/ess, but respect those that don't.

You believe in Godesses? Get out of here! Me too! :D

[Docker]

Cool, I believe in God/ess, but respect those that don't.

So let me get this straight. Believing the government might be involved in terrorism makes you a nut, but believing in a spiritual being that created the universe despite total scientific evidence to the contrary is ok???

[Redtail]

You believe in Godesses? Get out of here! Me too! :D

Heck I've seen those who if they aren't goddesses they've been blessed by one.:eye-poppi

[Redtail]

So let me get this straight. Believing the government might be involved in terrorism makes you a nut, but believing in a spiritual being that created the universe despite total scientific evidence to the contrary is ok???

When did I say they were nuts?

ETA: What's you Proof that no supreme being exists?

[Pardalis]

So let me get this straight. Believing the government might be involved in terrorism makes you a nut, but believing in a spiritual being that created the universe despite total scientific evidence to the contrary is ok???

One can be proven.

[solidslade]

Originally Posted by RandFan http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2040022#post2040022)
Right, a significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush made up a story about some Saudis to start a war in... wait for it, yep, IRAQ.

It's his conspiracy. His story. He could have blamed anyone and he chose Saudis?

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that George Bush had innocent passengers taken out and shot.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that explosives were planted in the twin towers and planes were diverted into the towers to cover-up the explosives.

:rolleyes:

A significant number of Americans are going to believe that all of the participants of this very large conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans all kept silent.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I often get dispirited by the dumb things Americans believe in but I truly doubt that they are that stupid.

Oh, and if you are going to suggest alternate theories then you've just blasted another great big hole in your theory. If the CT nuts can't figure out a cogent theory then why the hell should anyone else care?


When did I suggest gearge bush was involved? Well done, your my 100th straw man builder of the day. You win a prize


RandFan wasn't even addressing YOU. he was addressing the movement as a whole.

YHBT YHL HAND.

[Docker]

Believing in god is stupid. But one can't prove there is no god and it is so comforting.

Really, I don't think so but even assuming that is true what did it accomplish?

Ah yes, the ad hominem. I don't agree with you so I'm a shill...

:D There is nothing cogent for them to believe. You can't even put forward anything other your own doubt. You have nothing to offer a reasonable person but rhetoric.

Even if a majority of Americans believe the government somehow was involved they will never agree how or how much.

Oh, and BTW, most of the people who are debating you would love to see George Bush impeached and then prosecuted for lying about WMD and getting us into a war that has cost 3,000 American lives so calling everyone who disagrees with you a shill is intellectually dishonest because you know that.

It's early doors. Only five years later.

So if Bush would lie to get in a war, why do you find it so hard to believe his minions might aid the terrorists to start it. Ex CIA people are now coming out and saying it's got their fingerprints on it.

[solidslade]

Originally Posted by Redtail http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2040207#post2040207)
Cool, I believe in God/ess, but respect those that don't.
So let me get this straight. Believing the government might be involved in terrorism makes you a nut, but believing in a spiritual being that created the universe despite total scientific evidence to the contrary is ok???


No one was talking to you.

[gumboot]

It's early doors. Only five years later.

So if Bush would lie to get in a war, why do you find it so hard to believe his minions might aid the terrorists to start it. Ex CIA people are now coming out and saying it's got their fingerprints on it.


Because lying an committing mass murder are not the same thing.

-Gumboot

[Docker]

No one was talking to you.

Rough translation: Oh dear, docker has a point

[solidslade]

It's early doors. Only five years later.

So if Bush would lie to get in a war, why do you find it so hard to believe his minions might aid the terrorists to start it. Ex CIA people are now coming out and saying it's got their fingerprints on it.


Source?

[Docker]

Because lying an committing mass murder are not the same thing.

-Gumboot

But his iraq lies have killed 3000 soldiers, why should he care any more about civilians. Your president is a liar, why should I nelieve him about 9/11?

[solidslade]

Rough translation: Oh dear, docker has a point

Rough Translation : Oh Dear, I WANNA make a point.

/brings in the Hardly Boys : Oh, I'm having a raging clue. ^_^

[Pardalis]

But his iraq lies have killed 3000 soldiers, why should he care any more about civilians. Your president is a liar, why should I nelieve him about 9/11?

So don't. Trust the facts tho.

[Docker]

Source?

I wasn't talking to you.

[Docker]

When did I say they were nuts?

ETA: What's you Proof that no supreme being exists?

The burden of proof is on the believer not me. Science has debunked god a million times

[gumboot]

But his iraq lies have killed 3000 soldiers, why should he care any more about civilians.

You're implying he doesn't care about the soldiers who are killed in Iraq.




Your president is a liar, why should I nelieve him about 9/11?


He's not my president. See that flag at the bottom of my signature?

-Gumboot

[Redtail]

Rough translation: Oh dear, docker has a point

That finger doesn't count.

But his iraq lies have killed 3000 soldiers, why should he care any more about civilians. Your president is a liar, why should I nelieve him about 9/11?

No reason. Now what is your reason for not believing all of the engineers, physicists, and other people who understand the science behind what happened?

[solidslade]

But his iraq lies have killed 3000 soldiers, why should he care any more about civilians. Your president is a liar, why should I nelieve him about 9/11?


Finally. Something worth talking about.

There's hope for you yet.


I think a lot of people here do agree that the Iraq Fiasco was a big mistake on US Foreign Policy, but does that necessarily equate them to being "perpetrators" of the 9/11 Conspiracy? (LIHOP, MIHOP, IHOP Whatever.)

I find that as some form of doublethink : we screw up Iraqs tactical ground combat and spawn a rampant insurgency, yet, our government was capable of perpetrating a "false flag" operation on our own soil?

[Docker]

[QUOTE]You're implying he doesn't care about the soldiers who are killed in Iraq.

I know he doesn't. Remember when he said "bring on" the suicide attacks in iraq?






He's not my president. See that flag at the bottom of my signature?

Sorry, meant for everyone anyway

[Redtail]

The burden of proof is on the believer not me. Science has debunked god a million times

I noticed you ignored the "when did I say that" question.

ETA: Wait a minute a "million"? Provide one time when God was absolutely, 100%, "debunked".

[Docker]

Finally. Something worth talking about.

There's hope for you yet.


I think a lot of people here do agree that the Iraq Fiasco was a big mistake on US Foreign Policy, but does that necessarily equate them to being "perpetrators" of the 9/11 Conspiracy? (LIHOP, MIHOP, IHOP Whatever.)

I find that as some form of doublethink : we screw up Iraqs tactical ground combat and spawn a rampant insurgency, yet, our government was capable of perpetrating a "false flag" operation on our own soil?

But go back to before 9/11, Bush wanted Iraq from the minute he was sworn in.

Incidentally, he had to swear to uphold the constitution, why is he now signing laws that go against it.

[Redtail]

But go back to before 9/11, Bush wanted Iraq from the minute he was sworn in.

Incidentally, he had to swear to uphold the constitution, why is he now signing laws that go against it.

Which law is that?

[solidslade]

But go back to before 9/11, Bush wanted Iraq from the minute he was sworn in.

Incidentally, he had to swear to uphold the constitution, why is he now signing laws that go against it.

No, I ain't going back for Red Herrings.


what in the **** has that got to do with this question?


"How can you hold these two premises at the same time? :

1. The Bush Administration invading Iraq on the pretext off WMDs, causing an insurgency, failed on foreign policy.

2. The Bush Administration being "key" figures in an elaborate false flag attack that took down buildings in New York, that somehow, convinced Americans to justify War abroad."

[stateofgrace]

So let me get this straight. Believing the government might be involved in terrorism makes you a nut, but believing in a spiritual being that created the universe despite total scientific evidence to the contrary is ok???

So let me get this straight. Believing the US Government is involved in mass murder of 3000 of their own countryman makes you sane.

Believing crack pot theories doesn’t make you a nutcase?

Don't believe me dicker? Answer this question.

Do you believe that people really are being abducted by aliens from other worlds, sometimes for kinky sexual experiments?

Poll results.

Yes - people report it and are sincere and I believe it has happened. (63) 23%

No - there are other explanations which fit the evidence and make more sense. (123) 46%

I haven't heard anything to convince me, but I won't rule out the possibility. (71) 26%

I don't know / don't care. (10) 3%


http://atheism.about.com/b/a/068797.htm

WOW Dicker only 46% said no. That means that over half the planet thinks it's possible we get may get abducted by aliens sometimes for kinky sex.

What do you think dicker are you a nutcase that likes to accuse perfectly innocent people of being involved in mass murder? Or are you sane and agree with over half the planet that we may get abducted by aliens for kinky sex?

Just asking questions.

(I know he's ignoring me, so I can call him silly also).

[beachnut]

I work in the design and construction industry. From my experience in discussing 9/11 Keebler Kookiness with structural engineers who design high rises, .00067 percent is a gross overestimate.

I was using all engineers. EE, ME, CE, software, etc when counting, i may have allowed Physics in too,

even though DR Jones is not an engineer, I think i counted him

I tried not to list poets and theologians as engineers.

I could be off an order of magnitude or so, I have to go find my numbers

Plus I think i used 1.7 million engineers...

could be, and the CT guy, who claims he is not asked for my source, it is an estimate

no I did not count Charlie Sheen as anything but a comedian lately (always need a court jester)

[RandFan]

It's early doors. Only five years later.

So if Bush would lie to get in a war, why do you find it so hard to believe his minions might aid the terrorists to start it. Ex CIA people are now coming out and saying it's got their fingerprints on it. I don't know that he did lie. But let's assume that he did. There's a huge difference between lying about WMD and aiding terrorists to directly kill Americans. Such a proposition is fraught with so much risk and so little return especially considering that Bush could have gotten everything he got with war without going to war. Hell, he could have had much more with no down sides. He could have cut the French and Germans out of the contracts, put Haliburton in charge of everything, called a press conference and declared peace with Saddam and ensured his legacy with no down side. And you want me to believe that he would risk everything, I mean EVERYTHING even his own freedom and the reputation of his family and father for a possible quagmire that his father predicted? (I never got this Bush is evil brillant and also a moron stuff).

It just doesn't fly. At all. Oh, and I hear there are Ex CIA people who know who killed Nichole Brown Simpson (OJ's wife) and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. There's an MIT professor who says we didn't go to the moon and an Ex FBI guy that says we are infecting African-Americans with aids. That crap will always be around. It sells big time.

[RandFan]

Fair enough. I'll leave god out of the discussion. My apologies.

[MikeW]

Are you the guy that does 911myths? Why don't you debate?
Heh. I tried to do that with you on the ISI thread and you disappeared...

If you mean do formal debates with people, I don't share the same enthusiasm for them that others do. I hope that Gravy v Fetzer & Frank Greening v Everyone Else goes well, for instance, & applaud them for standing up, but I don't see either debate actually achieving anything. People won't stop believing "the hijackers are alive" just because Gravy makes Fetzer look stupid if he brings that up: they'll just say it's Fetzer's fault, and if Gravy had debated David Ray Griffin/ Alex Jones/ whoever it'd have been different.

And anyway, an hour of sound bites isn't the way you establish "truth". I've already put my thoughts & observations (with hundreds of referenced sources) online in extreme detail, for tens of thousands of words. That's what matters, not how I might summarise 5 or 6 bits of it in response to someone else.

[Piggy]

Docker's been banned! :jaw-dropp

Now I'll never know how the CIA engineered the silent explosions that cause walls to implode and create debris patterns consistent with collapse. :(

Dang! :mad:

[G-K-4]

Docker's been banned!
Good.

Now, where were we? Oh, right: What do people think of setting up some kind of FAQ or other reference tool debunking common claims of 9/11 conspiracy speculation?

MikeW has his 911myths.com website, but says it could use a bit more organizing. Maybe that's a good place to start.

LashL seems to be for something like a reference, possibly refering to select threads here at JREF. I could see that only if the initial posting has the answer to the claim. I think that forcing people to wade through an entire thread would defeat the purpose of having a concise yet complete answer.

A FAQ could link to threads that contain debates. That lets the reader see the answer and then choose to delve further.

[JackPT]

Docker's been banned! :jaw-dropp

What was he banned for?

[Bell]

What was he banned for?

For what we knew all along, he was a sock puppet of P D'oh.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67121

[Piggy]

What do people think of setting up some kind of FAQ or other reference tool debunking common claims of 9/11 conspiracy speculation?

<snip>

LashL seems to be for something like a reference, possibly refering to select threads here at JREF. I could see that only if the initial posting has the answer to the claim. I think that forcing people to wade through an entire thread would defeat the purpose of having a concise yet complete answer.

A FAQ could link to threads that contain debates. That lets the reader see the answer and then choose to delve further.
I think a FAQ thread would only work if it were restricted, and I don't know if the admins/mods here are willing to go to that effort.

[chipmunk stew]

A wiki is probably the most convenient way to go. Easy to update and collaborate and could be published immediately as a work in progress starting with a single article.

Several people from here contribute to the SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/). I think Dr Adequate has something to do with maintaining it? The authors can be restricted to invitation only.

MarkyX created a PDF at http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ that's a good collection of frequent CT claims. That, MikeW's 911myths.com, debunking911.com, Gravy's several documents, and information culled from these threads would make a comprehensive starting point.

[JackPT]

For what we knew all along, he was a sock puppet of P D'oh.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67121

I don't have permission to access that thread. I'm conflicted about the issue of banning someone like PDoherty76/Docker. They were clearly here to cause trouble, in Docker's case using a very simple strategy, but people could have just ignored him. I felt he was doing a very good job of undermining himself. But I can also see that forums such as this should maintain a degree of adult debate, and banning someone like Docker may be a practical necessity. A libertarian and pragmatist are duking it out in my head ;-).

No doubt Docker will now say that he was banned because we can't handle the truth, rather than his strategy of avoiding questions to the point people feel like insulting him. I suppose that is trolling. But what was strange about Docker was that he didn't appear to believe half of his own nonsense. Almost as if he was here just to cause trouble, which makes me wonder if PDoherty76 put him up to it, or whether he was actually PDoherty76 furthering his grudge. No doubt if PDoherty76/Docker are in cahoots or are the same person, they'll be back with more rubbish under a different nickname.

[W6102LA]

What about a video ?

hey, it works for the CT's :D

[Piggy]

No doubt Docker will now say that he was banned because we can't handle the truth, rather than his strategy of avoiding questions to the point people feel like insulting him.

He wasn't banned for either of these reasons. He was banned for being a sock puppet, joining the board under a false ID.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I, for one, have been making sure to take down all there names and report them to my NWO master in commander, Gravy.

[G-K-4]

I think a FAQ thread would only work if it were restricted, and I don't know if the admins/mods here are willing to go to that effort.
To clarify my proposal, I was suggesting a seperate document, not a thread. It could certainly be a wiki.

[JackPT]

He wasn't banned for either of these reasons. He was banned for being a sock puppet, joining the board under a false ID.

But how do you prove someone is a sock-puppet? Unless they post from the same IP address, browser, or admit it, being a sock puppet seems a very difficult thing to prove. Please note: this is not a defence of people like Docker/PDoherty76, it's just I'm anal retentive.

[The_Fire]

But how do you prove someone is a sock-puppet? Unless they post from the same IP address, browser, or admit it, being a sock puppet seems a very difficult thing to prove. Please note: this is not a defence of people like Docker/PDoherty76, it's just I'm anal retentive.

Lets see: Ip. Email. Style. Possibly even MAC adress of the hardware connected to the web. And let's not forget the oldie, but goodie: Duplicate posts under different alias' on two different boards or other similar screwups.

[Moochie]

I've been thinking about making this thread for awhile, but R. Mackey's recent 'victory' thread got me off my butt.

I've noticed that we've had an awful lot (in both senses of the word) of CTers come in here over the last year, post their attacks on this or that WTC related business, and then get 10 pages out of any given thread (not to mention the 150 page "Christophera Show")

Is this really what we want to do from here to eternity? Is this really what we're here for? They come in, post the usual junk, and skeptics have to debate them for 10 pages, for each thread; is this really productive?

Honestly: isn't the onus for proof on them at this point? I was thinking that it at this point of time, we're done all this stuff to death, and it's time to demand something else from the CTers. Perhaps, since the burden of proof is on them, everytime they open yet another "what about this..?! And this...?!" thread, we should say:
"All the evidence points to a collapse caused by structural failure due to fire and damage weakening the buildings so much that their structural elements failed. Therefore, if it your claim that something differant happened, the burden of proof is on you to provide an alternate theory. Present it, and we will examine it."

Thoughts?

I might post the occasional remark in answer to these a-holes, but generally will leave them alone.

Frankly, I don't know why so many apparently "intelligent" denizens of these forums engage these people in continued debates -- as if that would serve any useful purpose.

Gravy and others here have the courage to meet these idiots out in the open, where they might affect the thought processes of the afflicted. There is generally an audience of fence-sitters when they do this, and some of those may be encouraged to rethink the idiocy of the CT brigade. Gravy and Co. are to be congratulated for their courage and convictions.

M.

[JackPT]

Lets see: Ip. Email. Style. Possibly even MAC adress of the hardware connected to the web. And let's not forget the oldie, but goodie: Duplicate posts under different alias' on two different boards or other similar screwups.

The IP address and email address being good indicators. Duplicate posts with different IDs are a slam-dunk. Remote MAC addresses can't be obtained outside of the subnet a device is connected to, unless there's jiggery pokery involved. There are plenty of ways around revealing your IP address, and email accounts are two a penny. If Docker/PDoherty76 came in from the same IP address, or used the same email accounts, or duplicated posts, and can be shown to be the same person, fine.

If not he should have been banned on point six of the registration agreement, because he admitted to knowing PDoherty76 and was repeating himself. I think his volume of posts qualifies as flooding the forum. I strongly suspect he was a sock-puppet but I can't see hard evidence that he was.

[Bell]

The IP address and email address being good indicators. Duplicate posts with different IDs are a slam-dunk. Remote MAC addresses can't be obtained outside of the subnet a device is connected to, unless there's jiggery pokery involved. There are plenty of ways around revealing your IP address, and email accounts are two a penny. If Docker/PDoherty76 came in from the same IP address, or used the same email accounts, or duplicated posts, and can be shown to be the same person, fine.

If not he should have been banned on point six of the registration agreement, because he admitted to knowing PDoherty76 and was repeating himself. I think his volume of posts qualifies as flooding the forum. I strongly suspect he was a sock-puppet but I can't see hard evidence that he was.

JackPT, here's Darat's message (which I linked to above, but you can't access):

Docker has been banned (was a sock puppet of pdoherty76)

Docker has been banned we have enough information that we are quite confident about the match. However as is always the case in these determinations we can never be 100% certain. If new information comes to light that indicates we are mistaken we will reverse our decision.

[JackPT]

JackPT, here's Darat's message (which I linked to above, but you can't access):

I didn't want to be a pain about it or make a fuss. So thank you for posting Darat's rationale - all is now clear.

[Bell]

I didn't want to be a pain about it or make a fuss. So thank you for posting Darat's rationale - all is now clear.

No sweat :)

[Muckar-duva]

Is there a 9/11 book review thread of some sort? I, for one, have been stocking up on books related to the subject lately (and was thinking about how I got 9/11 an oral history because someone mentioned it in a thread here). It would be neat to have some kind of place to go to in regards to this, be it conspiracy pro or con books.