Serious Challenge?

[pomeroo]

Our old friend Andrew Lowe-Watson holds court on 911blooger.com. I have been reminding him of his promise, issued months ago, to present a detailed critique of Brent Blanchard's paper. I was callous enough to point out that he had been laughed off Smasher's blog for his continual tap dancing. Now, he has challenged me to find a way for him to open my eyes. Gee, I wonder where this will go.

"Something You Said in Your last Post Interests Me"

Let me say firstIy I am impressed by your dogged persistence in the face of fierce opposition. I think you are totally wrong in your opinions, and are making a disastrous mistake trying to justify the greatest crime cover-up in history. Whether or not you are being employed or not to do this, it requires a degree of nerve, as I know from my experiences both here and on anti-911 Truth sites like www.broadwayworld.com (http://www.broadwayworld.com/) where I have been savagely attacked by ignorant Truth deniers.
Going back to your last post, you say,
''But there is something I NEVER hear about:
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT COULD PERSUADE A SANE PERSON TO TAKE ANY OF THIS NONSENSE SERIOUSLY.''
Well, that is a challenge! Maybe you could be kind enough to give me an idea of what WOULD make you - or people in general - believe 911 was an inside job.
I hope you will give this some serious thought . Thank you.
Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson (http://www.911blogger.com/user/122) on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 2:01pm.

» edit (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/edit/104109) | reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5327/104109) | 0 points
Challenge Accepted--Too Bad You'll Decline (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-104109)


Gee, Andrew, you sound so sincere. And you are so good at presenting the real Twoof. Let's see, now:
You could start by showing us a few errors in the Protec paper. You've been promising us for months. That should be simple enough. Brent Blanchard is merely a demolition expert, while you are a universal genius. Tell us where he goes wrong.
Here's another easy one: The avionics tech who writes as "Apathoid" has written paper (available on 911myths.com, in "Investigations, more") explaining why Boeing 767s and 757s are not wire-to-wire planes and cannot be flown by remote control. Now, we will agree that the reality of actual hijackers flying actual planes into buildings is, shall we say, somewhat inconvenient to the fantasy movement. Show us what Apathoid gets wrong. Hint: a conspiracy liar who calls himself "Remove_Bush" is currently taking a shot at this on JREF (see the thread, "How Loony are the Loons?"). He is not doing too well. To be more precise, the avionics techs, flight computer specialists, and NASA engineers are, frankly, tearing him a new one. I guess they're all shills, right. Why not drop in and show them what they're missing? Should be easy for you to put these dummies in their place, no?
You might want to warm up on this one: Dr. Frank Greening, a mere molecular chemist with a side of radiation physics, has written a paper demolishing Jim Hoffman's bogus science (again available on 911myths.com, in "Investigations, more"). Greening, a Welshman now living in Canada, doesn't think very highly of George Bush, but we'll pretend that he's another shill (defined as someone whose arguments can't be refuted). I think that if you rescued Hoffman and exposed Greening as a know-nothing, you would go a long way toward changing my belief that conspiracy liars are ignorant frauds.
Here's one off the top of my head: Jim Fetzer suffered a humiliating beating at the hands of J.R. Dunn in their debate on americanthinker.com. Dunn made it appear as though poor Fetzer didn't have the slightest idea of what the hell he was talking about--that old Jim couldn't distinguish an A-3 from an A-4. I think you should set the record straight. Show us why the military historian Dunn is all wet when he tries to discuss military aircraft.
You might want to look into Bernacchia's paper on the Flight 77 hijackers. He's a longtime pilot and flight instructor who wrote a paper (see 911myths.com) explaining in great detail how Hanjour, et al., accomplished their mission. One of the frauds on this blog has already announced that he wouldn't even consider attempting to refute Bernacchia. Why not display some cajones and tell us where this misguided shill goes wrong?
Well, I gave the matter some serious thought. You won't give it any thought at all. Aren't you lucky that the people here don't care and will refuse to draw any conclusions?

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 2:42pm.

[Horatius]

Well, that is a challenge! Maybe you could be kind enough to give me an idea of what WOULD make you - or people in general - believe 911 was an inside job. I hope you will give this some serious thought . Thank you.


You could also point him to the various answers we gave 28th Kingdom when he made the same challenge.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167477#post2167477

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167446#post2167446

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167529#post2167529

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167735#post2167735

[T.A.M.]

Here is one thing that would get me, perhaps not convinced, but at least curious.

Truthers one and all, please find me one scientific article written that supports the "truth" theory on the collapse of the WTCs. Now not just any article. this article MUST BE PUBLISHED IN A WELL RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, and the article must have been PEER REVIEWED prior to publishing.

This would go a long way in making me take a second look at the WOOWOO.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

Well Ron as I am sure that you are already aware, your Challenge is actually sort of a "Trick Challenge" in that, it is not possible for him to complete! Then again when you live in fantasy world like Watson, anything is possible.

[chippy]

How do those points work on 911blogger? All of my posts always end up with like -8 points. Those bastards.

[Architect]

Well, in addition to a strictly "scientific" article/journal, I'd be interested to see a structural engineering one regarding the collapse. Same condition regarding the integrity of the publishing body and peer review process.

[Brainster]

This is the flip side of the coin about falsifiability, and at this point it would have to be something very new; I've heard and seen almost all of the arguments and nothing's been very convincing once I poked at it. Maybe if a whole bunch of structural engineers said that WTC 7 really could not have come down the way it did without controlled demolition?

[pomeroo]

Chippy, I'm told that I've set a record. I think I'm currently at minus-175 and climbing.
Top that!

[Kage]

Any proof would have to come after these questions were answered:

Why were the majority of hijackers from saudi arabia?

Why were no WMDs planted or faked in Iraq?

How many Osamas are there and how does this make sense with his evading capture?

Proof for a narrative is one thing, that narrative's being cogent is another. I have yet to see a CT theory that makes sense from these macro levels. As much as the minute details of each theory are proofless, that matters less to me as much as the failure of these minutiae to coalesce into a story that makes any sense. Answer these questions and then we will talk about how my understanding of 9/11 is falsifiable.

[jhunter1163]

Chippy, I'm told that I've set a record. I think I'm currently at minus-175 and climbing.
Top that!

Wouldn't that be -175 and digging?

[rjh01]

Wouldn't that be -175 and digging?

I make that -175 and rising at a negative velocity.

[Big Al]

Any proof would have to come after these questions were answered:

Why were the majority of hijackers from saudi arabia?

Why were no WMDs planted or faked in Iraq?

How many Osamas are there and how does this make sense with his evading capture?


All good 'uns, Kage. I'd add:

Why bother to separately demolish both towers, at ENORMOUS cost to the state and national coffers and increasing the risk that the deception would be exposed? Wasn't a single tower shocking enough?

If the idea was to stump up support for the upcoming war in Iraq, couldn't these master deceivers fiddle things to show that all the (non-existent) hijackers were from Iraq? (This is what I think you're saying, Kore,but a little more explicit)

To look good, wouldn't they have scrambled fighters, only just to get there too late? Of course, they'd THEN have violated to no-shoot-down zone rules that even I know about, but so what?

How did they vet the THOUSANDS of people who'd have to be involved in such a conspiracy, KNOWING that not a single one would blab?

[Big Les]

I hadn't seen those americanthinker articles before; bloody excellent stuff! Hard to suppress a little cheer when you read things like this, (http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/911_a_hoax_scholar_for_911_tru.html) and this. (http://americanthinker.com/2006/09/the_911_pentagon_conspiracy_th.html)

[pomeroo]

Here's where we stand after the posting of my acceptance of Andrew's "challenge":


Having some experience with Andrew’s tactics, I decided not to wait breathlessly for his presentation of the real Twoof, so I extended the offer to anyone listening in:


Let's See Some BALLZ (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-104192)

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment (javascript:dztoggle('comment_collapse_104192'))]
One of the resident frauds, Andrew Lowe-Watson, is in full flight, headed for the hills. I accepted his "challenge," so he, characteristically, is history. When he re-surfaces, it will be to say something irrelevant.
How about it, twoofers? Anybody out there with the stones to pick up Andy-boy's challenge? You read my response. Anybody care to tackle one or more of the specific points I raised?
Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 6:03pm.


Lo and behold, Andrew responded…sort of:

Some of us have lives Ron. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-104276)

I can't be at your beck and call, you know.
Now, you have not answered my simple question. It is no good trying to cover your exit with a smokescreen of questions for me. I could be here all night.
Please answer my simple question or you will show youself to be nothing but a bag of hot air.
My question - what evidence would convince you that 911 was an inside job?
Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson (http://www.911blogger.com/user/122) on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 9:10pm.



Huh? Say, what?? Is he really acting as though I didn’t respond? Impossible, but maybe he didn’t notice:


» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5327/104370) | 1 point
You promised to answer my question, Ronnie (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-104370)

but as usual you vanished into a puff of smoke with a twirl of your red-lined cape.
I must get some garlic in.
A truthteller finds the doors closed against him Danish Proverb
Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson (http://www.911blogger.com/user/122) on Tue, 01/02/2007 - 5:37am.


Nope, he’s serious—I think. All right, you tell me: What’s going on here? How is this trick supposed to work? Granted that he‘s playing to a gallery of some of the dumbest, most ignorant saps on the planet, doesn’t he imagine that at least A FEW of them might notice something?

I pointed out, incredulously:

» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5327/104427) | -2 points
Haven't You Overlooked Something? (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-104427)

Uh, Andrew, you've kind of overlooked the fact that the lengthy reply I gave you HAS NOT been removed. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but IT'S STILL THERE. Now, unless the suspicion is true that you enjoy being laughed at, you can either respond to the SPECIFIC suggestions I made or continue your headlong flight.
Remember, the people here are on your side. I have accepted your "challenge" and demand, as usual, that you put up or shut up. The people here want to see you put me in my place. Show all of us that you are not the mindless fraud I portray you as.
Your audience is upset that you are pleading insanity. I have thrown down the gauntlet. Respond, or keep running.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Tue, 01/02/2007 - 2:22pm.


Next, I re-posted my original acceptance of his challenge. Andrew was last seen complaining that none of the big guns of the tinfoil-hat brigade were rising to refute me.
Honestly, does it get any better than this?

[T.A.M.]

pea shooter or Bazooka, if they're shooting crap...they're shooting crap...the size of the gun is of no concern.

TAM:)