National 911 Debate

[jessicarabbit]

I am loathe to start a thread in case the trolling accusations surface. I just wanted thought on the 911 debate.

Heres a list of people who wont take part:

9/11 Commission Members
Thomas H. Kean
Lee H. Hamilton
Richard Ben-Veniste
Bob Kerrey
Fred F. Fielding
John F. Lehman
Jamie S. Gorelick
Timothy J. Roemer
Slade Gorton
James R. Thompson

Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Steven Kirkpatrick

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Zdenek P. Bazant, Northwestern University
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Berkeley

Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Peter Barrett


Popular Mechanics

James Meigs
David Dunbar
Brad Reagan
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Scientists
World Trade Center Collapse Investigators
S. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Project 5 Leader
William Grosshandler, Project 4 Leader
H.S. Lew, Project 1 Co-Leader
Richard W. Bukowski, Project 1 Co-Leader
Fahim Sadek, Project 2 Leader
Frank W. Gayle, Project 3 Leader
John L. Gross, Project 6 Co-Leader
Therese P. McAllister, Project 6 Co-Leader
Jason D. Averill, Project 7 Leader
J. Randall Lawson, Project 8 Leader
Harold E. Nelson, Fire Protection Expert
Stephen A. Cauffman, Program Manager

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Philip Zelikow

Securacom (WTC Security Provider)
Barry McDaniel



Only Frank Greening has agreed

If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?

[quixotecoyote]

There's a bum on broadway that thinks he's jesus. How come the pope won't debate him?

[Anti-sophist]

If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?

There have been plenty of volunteers. All of the people above have already shown that the CTers are wrong. Professionals don't get paid to repeat themselves to the deaf.

[LashL]

Tsk tsk. You are sooooo behind the times, little rabbit. Thought you said you knew how to use the search function here, "hun".

[jessicarabbit]

There's a bum on broadway that thinks he's jesus. How come the pope won't debate him?

But Frank Greening has agreed. & people are willing to debate for the CTs. One has come forward for the skeptics.

[quixotecoyote]

all hail Pope Greening, then.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Argumentum ad populum. Next.

[jessicarabbit]

Argumentum ad populum. Next.

What do they fear though. If they hate the CTs unfounded accusations, why don't they turn up and humiate them and then the problem is solved. I admire frank greening, at least he is prepared to stand by his work.

All costs and expenses will be paid for so whats the problem?

I mean PM debated LC on democracy now. Why do they suddenly get scared when scientists are in the debate?

[Anti-sophist]

Why don't they turn up and humiate them and then the problem is solved.

This is such a lie. We humiliate you in every single thread you make. The problem is yet to be solved.

[jessicarabbit]

This is such a lie. We humiliate you in every single thread you make. The problem is yet to be solved.

Anser my question:

IF PM WOULD DEBATE SOME YOUNG BOYS ON DEMOCRACY NOW, WHY DO THEY FEAR DEBATING SCIENTISTS IN A NATIONAL DEBATE??

[Anti-sophist]

Anser my question:

IF PM WOULD DEBATE SOME YOUNG BOYS ON DEMOCRACY NOW, WHY DO THEY FEAR DEBATING SCIENTISTS IN A NATIONAL DEBATE??

They don't, at all. I see no scientists. I see crackpots and kooks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What do they fear though. If they hate the CTs unfounded accusations, why don't they turn up and humiate them and then the problem is solved. I admire frank greening, at least he is prepared to stand by his work.

All costs and expenses will be paid for so whats the problem?

I mean PM debated LC on democracy now. Why do they suddenly get scared when scientists are in the debate?

False choice fallacy. You are presenting it as either they debate the CTist or they are scared to do so.

However, I would like to provide a quote here that describes with great accuracy what is going on in this thread:
"9/11 Truth" - The use of this by CTists must be corrected. They have consistently shown observational and confirmational bias; and make it clear that they are working from their conclusion backwards. Every time this term is used it plants a subconscious seed; people remember the word "truth" without necessarily remembering it context. Therefore, when debating/discussing/etc the CTists movement, we should always use the terms "9/11 Denier/Denial", and/or "9/11 Revisionism/Revisionist". They act like Holocaust deniers and they should be labeled the same way.

The more important one is as follows:
Original/Official Version or Official Conspiracy Theory (OV, OCT) - I'm going to quote PM here as they summed it up best; from the Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, pgs 94 & 95

Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, include the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests ..."
The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. by presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.
I would add to this, that by doing so, they are also able to implant the idea that their ideas are on equal footing, have equal value, and are in similar standing in the relevant fields of expertise. This behavior was summed up nicely in Daniel C. Dennett's essay The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated in the book Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement pgs 39-41
The campaigners for intelligent design have become adept at feeding off the difficulty of this idea, by starting with a straightforward counterclaim and then retreating into the fog of technical confusion when their counterclaims are refuted. For instance, the philosopher William Dembski, one of the two most prominent ideologues of the ID movement, has attempted to argue that a particular sort of design product does require an intelligent designer, and that the designs found in nature include such products, but his various expressions of the argument to date, which depend on some rather abstruse mathematical formulations, have been show to be technically flawed. Few, if any, theoreticians give his project any hope of success, since the flaws they have uncovered are central to his thesis.
...
How can non-scientists assess their own judgement in this case? Not by trusting wishful thinking. If you can just see that Dembski must be onto something even thought you can't follow the mathematics, you are falling right into the trap. ... Perhaps, then, you should wait with bated breath on the sidelines while the experts duke it out in the scientific arena. This would be fine, except that Dembski has left the playing field and is appealing directly to the spectators, instead of contending with the scientists on their own terms.
In his trade books, magazine articles, and popular lectures, Dembski makes it appear that there is scientific controversy - but there isn't, as we can see by comparing his path with others. ... Instead, he and his cohorts use a ploy that works like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work, provoking an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence there is a "controversy" to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. ... And here is the delicious part:You can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point amid all the difficult details. ... Clever! What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to almost everyone else as ridiculous hairsplitting. source (http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-61915.html)

[jessicarabbit]

They don't, at all. I see no scientists. I see crackpots and kooks.

Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.

[Anti-sophist]

Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.

Academics? Who? And at what Universities?

[jessicarabbit]

Academics? Who? And at what Universities?

Stop side stepping.

Why would PM debate film makers but not scientists?

[Anti-sophist]

Stop side stepping.

Why would PM debate film makers but not scientists?

WHAT scientists? I see no scientists. I see kooks and crackpots.

[jessicarabbit]

WHAT scientists? I see no scientists. I see kooks and crackpots.

So you can't answer. You could have just said that.

[realitybites]

Bermas said he'd debate Mark in October, which is over in about 45 minutes.

Just sayin'.

[Anti-sophist]

So you can't answer. You could have just said that.

I've already answered your stupid question 4 times. There is no one to debate. Popular mechanics has won. All the scientists and academics agree. All that is left is kooks and crackpots.

Name me a scientist or academic who wants to debate PM, and we'll discuss the issue further.

It seems you can't name a single scientist or academic who agrees with you.

[jessicarabbit]

Bermas said he'd debate Mark in October, which is over in about 45 minutes.

Just sayin'.

So will mark volunteer for this debate?

It isn't just scientists, they got a lawyer too.

[CptColumbo]

Many experts are leery of being drawn into debates or interviews with CTers. Some who have become targets of accusations and misquotes, Van Romero of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for example is sited by many Internet investigators as saying that he thought it was explosives that brought down the towers. What he said is that it looked like it at the time, having seen the evidence he has tried to corrected this. He was then called a government shill and received threatening e-mails. Ben Chertoff was accused of complicity in the death of three thousand people, because he helped write an article for Popular Mechanics and has the same last name as the Secretary of Homeland Security. As far as he knows, he's not closely related to Sec. Michael Chertoff or met him.

There's not much incentive for an expert, who published his findings, to engage in a face-to-face meeting with a CTer.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So will mark volunteer for this debate?

It isn't just scientists, they got a lawyer too.

What are the rules for the debate?
What is the format for the debate?
What is the forum?
Who will be moderating?
Who will cover travel and accomodation costs?
etc

[crucial_fiction]

Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.

You know, most people here would say 2 of the 7. Reading your posts you continually misrepresent EVERYTHING. You know, leaving information out intentionally just makes you a LIAR.


ETA: Too late...

[Gravy]

Only Frank Greening has agreed

If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?I already did agree to the debate, and the last word is that it is to be moved to my alma mater in New Hampshire. I mentioned this to you in another thread, and there's a thread about it in this subforum. Search for "Guess who's agreed to debate me?"

How's the humble pie today?

[realitybites]

Honestly Jessica, what is there to debate? It won't solve a damn thing. You think you're right, we think we're right... Debates don't mean crap. Look at the last election. Kerry vs. Bush. 3 nationally televised debates. 3 pretty solid ass-whoppin's for Bush.

And yet... he was still elected.

A debate will do nothing except feed the ego of whoever "wins". It will do nothing for the victims of 9/11. Why, why, WHY are you people so reluctant to stand behind your convictions and do something with your evidence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As expected, jessicarabbit was a sock of pdoherty/docker/laith (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2058716#post2058716)

[Gravy]

Honestly Jessica, what is there to debate? It won't solve a damn thing. You think you're right, we think we're right... Debates don't mean crap. Look at the last election. Kerry vs. Bush. 3 nationally televised debates. 3 pretty solid ass-whoppin's for Bush.

And yet... he was still elected.

A debate will do nothing except feed the ego of whoever "wins". It will do nothing for the victims of 9/11. Why, why, WHY are you people so reluctant to stand behind your convictions and do something with your evidence?I disagree somewhat. I think that having the debate available for all to see on google, etc., can be a good way to show the intellectual bankruptcy of the CT side.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I disagree somewhat. I think that having the debate available for all to see on google, etc., can be a good way to show the intellectual bankruptcy of the CT side.

On the other hand you can also end up with a scenario like the slick, intellectually bankrupt Hovind, debating Shermer.

[realitybites]

I disagree somewhat. I think that having the debate available for all to see on google, etc., can be a good way to show the intellectual bankruptcy of the CT side.
Again.... I refer to the '04 presidential debates. All a debate would do is give the general 9/11 conspiracy/debunking thing a brighter spotlight. People would be convinced on both sides of the fight. (There are probably a bunch of closet nutters out there who just need that last little bit of affirmation to start wearing their tin-hats full-time.)

At the end of the debate, we're still right here, doing the same thing, only in larger numbers. It's old, it's tiring, it's done.

The truthers claim they have all they need. Why waste time debating? Go for the jugular and end the New World Order. I honestly do not understand what they're waiting for.

[uk_dave]

Jessica,

I do actually think your question is valid, but your assumption is not.

To me it is a similar situation to that which existed in the Evolution vs Creation/I.D conflict in the US.

The Creationists would claim that the evolutionists were afraid to debate them, and the evolution scientists would counter by saying that creationism wasn't a science and to debate with them would be to give them credibility they do not deserve.

I feel that the scientific community take the same stance with CT'ers over 9/11.

What is there to debate? The science is worked out, the events of the day are known, the culprits are known, the mechanism for collapse of the buildings is known. Life goes on and just because a handful of academics start to promote theories based upon half truths or spin why should the greater scientific and professional communities spend the time debating these theories?

I can just imagine the look on the faces of structural engineers or demolition experts if they were challenged to debate judy wood's star wars beam weapon scenario.

You know, some people do have real work to do.

However, as I say, unfortunately declining to get drawn into debating someone elses fantasies then leads the professional open to the accusation of running away.

And of course, as we experience on this website, even if you post countless factual responses to the CT claims, the CT themselves will discount those responses because in CT land ANYTHING is possible.

[LashL]

I already did agree to the debate, and the last word is that it is to be moved to my alma mater in New Hampshire. I mentioned this to you in another thread, and there's a thread about it in this subforum. Search for "Guess who's agreed to debate me?"

How's the humble pie today?

Yes, that's what I was referring to in my #4 above - your having agreed to the debate and the "troofers" moving the debate to a new venue as a result - but the little rabbit sockpuppet failed to acknowledge it and failed to realize how wrong it/he/she was.

No surprise there.

[Mince]

I am loathe to start a thread in case the trolling accusations surface. I just wanted thought on the 911 debate.

Heres a list of people who wont take part:

<snip>



Only Frank Greening has agreed

If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?


Maybe, as expert professionals, and mature individuals, they have neither the desire nor the time to reassert their findings. Maybe they think they stand accused, by some, of lying. Maybe they feel they don't have to justify their findings to a film school student wannabe and economic and philosophy professors.



Here's the SFT roster, with disciplines emphasized:



Paul W. Rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_W._Rea&action=edit)humanities lecturer at St. Mary's College in Moraga

Stephen LeRoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_LeRoy&action=edit)an economics professor at UC Santa Barbara who has been a visiting economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

Tracy Belvins (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tracy_Belvins&action=edit)a research scientist in bioengineering at Rice University

David Gabbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Gabbard_%28911%29&action=edit)an education professor at East Carolina.

Daniel Orr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Orr)retired economics chair at the University of Illinois

Kevin Barrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett)adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin) on the subject of Islam: Religion and Culture.

Robert M. Bowman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman)Former director of the US Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter) and Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford) administrations, former Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) Lieutenant Colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Colonel) with 101 combat missions. Bowman also holds a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, and is currently attempting to run for Congress in Florida. Bowman has never held an academic position at any university.

Daniele Ganser (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniele_Ganser&action=edit)ETH Zurich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich)

David Ray Griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin)Professor of philosophy of religion and theology emeritus at the Claremont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_College) School of Theology.

Wayne Madsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen)investigative journalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalist), author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author), and syndicated columnist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist).

John McMurtry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McMurtry)FRSC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Canada), moral philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy), ethicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicist), and author of six books on public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy) issues, who works at the University of Guelph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Guelph) in Ontario, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario%2C_Canada).

Don Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Paul&action=edit)American peace movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_movement)activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist), writer, musician, and poet.

Kevin Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Ryan&action=edit)former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bend%2C_Indiana), Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana), a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Labs)(UL) responsible for water testing. He was fired after writing a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology), the government agency investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center), claiming that, among other things, UL had certified the steel used in the Twin Towers to survive temperatures far hotter than those that were actually reached on 9/11. However, Underwriter Labs never certified the steel used in World Trade Center. Both UL and NIST completely reject Ryan's allegations.

Webster G. Tarpley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_G._Tarpley)author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism expert.

Andreas von Bülow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_von_B%C3%BClow)former state-secretary in the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)Defense Ministry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Ministry), minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

William Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Woodward_%28psychologist%2 9&action=edit)Professor of psychology

and, of course

Steven E. Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones): Professor of physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), Brigham Young University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University), co-chair of S9/11T, and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies.


James H. Fetzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer):
McKnight Professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) of Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)at the University of Minnesota, Duluth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota%2C_Duluth), and co-chair of S9/11T.




They have only one scientist even capable of carrying on such a debate as you're suggesting; and even that's suspect.

So then, who to carry the CT torch? Avery? Burmas? No suprise here why most declined to debate. I'm quite certain they have more relevant issues to conquer.

[Mince]

As expected, jessicarabbit was a sock of pdoherty/docker/laith (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2058716#post2058716)


Oops. Just found out about the banning. Guess I wasted a post.

123 posts/day. Yep, that's our pdoherty.

He'll be back though.

[JamesB]

Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.

PhDs in engineering and physics? Their physicist is Steven Jones, their engineer was Judy Wood, but she quit the group claiming that Jones was a fraud, and that there was no plane and the world trade centers were destroyed by the Death Star. I think Wood and Jones should debate each other before they start debating other people.

Why would a respected scientist want to get involved with these loons? For any legitimate academic it is a no win situation, if you lose you look like an idiot, if you win, you look like a jerk for picking on the retarded.

[uk_dave]

I think Wood and Jones should debate each other before they start debating other people.



Now I'd PAY to watch that one!

:D

[qarnos]

As expected, jessicarabbit was a sock of pdoherty/docker/laith (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2058716#post2058716)

Does this guy even care about how often he's forcing Bell to update his signature?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As expected, jessicarabbit was a sock of pdoherty/docker/laith (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2058716#post2058716)

Holy pathological compulsions, Batman!

Ya know.... it just occurred to me that Pdo'h would make great fodder for a debate on the existance of free will. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to choose not to post here.

[W6102LA]

and that there was no plane and the world trade centers were destroyed by the Death Star.

No wonder they wont debate, i mean what chance does someone have of debunking a theory like that ?

:rolleyes:

[defaultdotxbe]

No wonder they wont debate, i mean what chance does someone have of debunking a theory like that ?

:rolleyes:
oddly enough, you actually dont stand much of a chance of debunking that, at least not as far the folks who believe it are concerned, they have clearly chosen to live by adam savage's rules
http://www.girlalive.com/tshirts/images/myth1thumb.jpg

[MRC_Hans]

As expected, jessicarabbit was a sock of pdoherty/docker/laith (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2058716#post2058716)Still, I think the question can be answered: The people who want to debate CTers are scarce because most people have learned this: Don't wrestle with pigs; you'll both get muddy, but the pig will enjoy it.

Fortunately, a few brave people like Gravy still venture into the pigsty to ensure that casual observers can still recognize the pigs by their squeals.

Hans