Morgan Reynolds says "other side" is afraid to debate

[Roger_Harris]

I'm not sure when this video was made, but near the end of this rambling, um, discourse, Reynolds mentions a debate coming up on September 16, and says he expected no one would show up to defend the "other side," so they were planning to sit up some manekins with speech balloons saying "See 9/11 Commission report." What debate is he talking about, and what happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&mode=related&search=

Ironically, he says that the "Scholars" can't lose the debate because of the "philosophical principle" that "you cannot prove a lie." (A little insight into why you can't convince a CTer of anything, eh?)

[Kent1]

I'm not sure when this video was made, but near the end of this rambling, um, discourse, Reynolds mentions a debate coming up on September 16, and says he expected no one would show up to defend the "other side," so they were planning to sit up some manekins with speech balloons saying "See 9/11 Commission report." What debate is he talking about, and what happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&mode=related&search=

Ironically, he says that the "Scholars" can't lose the debate because of the "philosophical principle" that "you cannot prove a lie." (A little insight into why you can't convince a CTer of anything, eh?)
Morgan has his own problems. The latest entry in the Journal for 9/11 was attacking no planers by Eric Salter. http://www.st911.org/
I honestly can't think of a nutty CT theory other than flat earth. But does anyone really subscribe to the flat earth idea anymore?

[TruthSeeker1234]

That's the National 9/11 debate that had to be rescheduled to March 2007 due to inability to find anyone to defend the official story. Now Greening has agreed to debate. Gravy says he's in there too, but I have yet to see Gravy's name added to Ed Haas' site. Gravy also says it's been moved to New Hampshire.

[JamesB]

I'm not sure when this video was made, but near the end of this rambling, um, discourse, Reynolds mentions a debate coming up on September 16, and says he expected no one would show up to defend the "other side," so they were planning to sit up some manekins with speech balloons saying "See 9/11 Commission report." What debate is he talking about, and what happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&mode=related&search=

Ironically, he says that the "Scholars" can't lose the debate because of the "philosophical principle" that "you cannot prove a lie." (A little insight into why you can't convince a CTer of anything, eh?)


He wants to debate Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer, because of their ridiculous belief that actual physical objects hit the WTC?

[stateofgrace]

“I put the television on, I saw black smoke billowing out of the Tower and I pointed a finger at it and I said “That building will not fall”, count on an economist for a quick and easy prediction.”

“When I learnt that both Towers had fallen, had turned to dust, I said “How can that happen? I was wrong, how can that be?”

“And then when they invaded Iraq, I knew it was on big lies, everybody in town meaning Washington, known it was big lies. They won’t do anything about it, they’re either cowards or traitors or both”

“By the time I read David Griffins book, the new Pearl harbour, I said WOW David’s done it right, he's put it together in a way that appealed to me”

I stopped after 4 minutes.

Bla ,bla,bla conspiracy, conspiracy and more.

What’s to debate? he’s a fruitcake.

[geni]

I honestly can't think of a nutty CT theory other than flat earth. But does anyone really subscribe to the flat earth idea anymore?


I think the nuclear weapons hoax thoery is nuttyer

[defaultdotxbe]

I honestly can't think of a nutty CT theory other than flat earth. But does anyone really subscribe to the flat earth idea anymore?
www.theflatearthsociety.org (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)

yes, the site is for real

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They are implanting 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.

[Redtail]

www.theflatearthsociety.org (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)

yes, the site is for real

I met one of those guys when I was an undergrad. All I can say about it is... Wow.

[defaultdotxbe]

They are implanting 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
these debates are lose-lose

we debate them, and it appears we recognize them as legitimate science, or at least "a threat"

we ignore them, and we're afraid to debate them

[Abbyas]

You know, I'm sick of this.

The 9/11 truth movement and their scholars have no cohesive stance on anything. How in the world can you debate that?

[Alt+F4]

How do kooks like Reynolds explain people like myself who actually saw the second plane hit the WTC with MY OWN EYES (not on the TV)?

Has CNN taken control of my optic nerves without my knowledge or consent?!

[StoneWT]

Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews (http://youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8) http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/dance004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

As cablecast live on 9/10/2006. Note that FoxNews is too chicken-s to show the cartoon videos while Reynolds exposes them, opting only to show stills.

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

9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/3/) http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/rolleyes003.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)


But Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist, also is a "no-planer."

"There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is."

But what about all those New Yorkers who saw airplanes hitting the twin towers? A chuckle rumbles down the phone line. "I don't believe anyone in Lower Manhattan," he says. "You hire three dozen Actors' Equity dudes and they'll say anything."

[Horatius]

How do kooks like Reynolds explain people like myself who actually saw the second plane hit the WTC with MY OWN EYES (not on the TV)?

Has CNN taken control of my optic nerves without my knowledge or consent?!

Shill!


This message brought to you by our friends the CT movement.

Really, that just about sums it all up. They think you're in on it, along with everyone else in New York, I guess.

[defaultdotxbe]

Shill!


This message brought to you by our friends the CT movement.

Really, that just about sums it all up. They think you're in on it, along with everyone else in New York, I guess.
i hear "brainwashed by MSM" alot

like no one in the entire city of new york really know what they saw, until CNN started sayin git was a plane, then they all said "oh, so it was a plane"

[Bubbers]

You know, I'm sick of this.

The 9/11 truth movement and their scholars have no cohesive stance on anything. How in the world can you debate that?


Cheers. If such a debate is to occur there needs to be a rule that only ONE UNIFIED THEORY can be discussed. I know it would be easy to shoot down every one of their theories, but that would be pointless and would require an incredible amount of time.

[scepticat]

Morgan is clearly a nut. Did any of you guys read the comments on the video? 80+ comments and not a single opposing viewpoint.

[Gravy]

(Gravy whistles tunefully)

[CurtC]

How do kooks like Reynolds explain people like myself who actually saw the second plane hit the WTC with MY OWN EYES (not on the TV)?

Has CNN taken control of my optic nerves without my knowledge or consent?!
You saw holograms.

No, I'm not kidding, that's actually what they believe.

[Alt+F4]

i hear "brainwashed by MSM" alot

like no one in the entire city of new york really know what they saw, until CNN started sayin git was a plane, then they all said "oh, so it was a plane"

I'm a teacher and glanced out my classroom window to see the smoke pouring out of the north tower. Without thinking I said to the kids, "the World Trade Center is on fire". We looked, there was no P.A. announcement, we went on with the lesson though no one could stop looking at the smoke rising. When we all saw the second plane hit the south tower, everyone ran to the windows.

First words from one of my 9th graders, "Miss, my mom is a flight attendent". Five, ten more minutes go by....still, no announcement from the principal's office.

Bell rings. We watch. The Towers fell. I didn't have a cell phone then but for those that did, I didn't come across anyone that got a connection until around 11am. Most land-line phones got a busy signal until about 11am as well. Isolated (we never got broadcast TV reception in school even before 9/11), everyone kept saying, "who would crash an airliner into a building?". Not one person who witnessed it at my school ever suggested it was anything other than a passenger jet.

[W6102LA]

How do kooks like Reynolds explain people like myself who actually saw the second plane hit the WTC with MY OWN EYES (not on the TV)?

Has CNN taken control of my optic nerves without my knowledge or consent?!

What do ya think the chemtrails are for..huh ?

[T.A.M.]

I think we should be praising all of them.

The more we praise them all, the wider there own devide, and the closer to self destruct their movement becomes.

Pit J. Woods versus S. Jones and you wind up with destruction of both. Two "academics" with semi valid credentials who believe very different things, but claim the same overall view - BUSH/PNAC bad, Conspiracies good. In fact, we are the ones that cannot lose, as these guys are destroying their own movement through their division.

For all the CTers can say about us, they cannot say that we don't have a unified view of the 9/11 attacks.

TAM

[Kent1]

Thought this was interesting, here's a video with 44 plane impacts caught on tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPTduiA5jI&mode=related&search=

[Kent1]

Thought this was interesting, here's a video with 44 plane impacts caught on tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPTduiA5jI&mode=related&search=
Just today:
Remains of two 9/11 victims identified
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/02/wtc.remains.reut/index.html

The New York medical examiner's office said in a statement that it had now identified remains of Karen Ann Martin, the 40-year-old head flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed into the trade center's north tower. Remains of Douglas Joel Stone, 54, who was a passenger on the same flight as Martin, were also identified.

[Gravy]

Just today:
Remains of two 9/11 victims identified
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/02/wtc.remains.reut/index.html

The New York medical examiner's office said in a statement that it had now identified remains of Karen Ann Martin, the 40-year-old head flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed into the trade center's north tower. Remains of Douglas Joel Stone, 54, who was a passenger on the same flight as Martin, were also identified.Wow. Thanks, Kent1.

[twinstead]

Thought this was interesting, here's a video with 44 plane impacts caught on tape.


Yup. Obvious holograms