9/11 — The Myth & the Reality

[OMGturt1es]

SO, fun times! my quant little town has a TROOF GROUP. yeah! and, lo and behold, they have announced that they will be showing "9/11 — The Myth & the Reality" in a local theatre in one week.

so, fellow debukers, because my time is somewhat limited, i was hoping i could get a few of you to help me debunk this thing completely within one week. as it's griffin, i'm sure it's just the regular debunked crap, so it shouldn't really take that much time.

if i can get a good debunking ready, in a simple format:

[TIME] CLAIM
DEBUNK
sources

then i'll happily make dozens of coppies, and distruibute 'em at the entrance of the movie house.

anyone interested? for those that don't know, chico is a university town, and these kids-- ok, i'm still a stundent-- seem especially proned to getting sucked into this crap. i wanna do what i can to counter the insanity.

thanks all,
anthony.

[orphia nay]

Good plan, omgturtles. I haven't seen the movie, though. Have you got a link, perhaps?

[OMGturt1es]

here you go!

PART ONE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ADP0mjX9tY

PART TWO:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tKMRKSw2Hrs

quite boring thus far, actually. unfortunantly, i was forced into drinking a few beers, partially due to the boring nature of these videos. i don't think i have it in me to finish watching this crap tonite. i just can't do it.

[Gravy]

Ah, so you request that we review an unwatchable video. Feeling particularly sadistic today, The Inscrutable Doctor turt1es? :p

Assuming this video doesn't present any novel arguments, the easiest thing to do is to print up some flyers for moviegoers that list links to accurate sources of 9/11 information. I'll be glad to provide such a list if you like. There's no sense in you wasting time rebutting claims that have been thoroughly trashed.

Actually, the easiest thing to do is drink enough beer that you forget about the video entirely. Don't dismiss that option.

[Architect]

Actually, the easiest thing to do is drink enough beer that you forget about the video entirely. Don't dismiss that option.


This is particularly good advice, and I commend it to you.

[sleahead]

Rather than spend time watching Griffin, it would be better to work from a transcript, which can be found here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

It is indeed the usual nonsense and so the beer option looks more and more appropriate.

[MikeW]

Rather than spend time watching Griffin, it would be better to work from a transcript, which can be found here:
Oh, that speech? It's got one of my personal favourite deceptions, because I never saw it coming. Griffin tells us, in defence of the idea that interceptions were routine and speedy:

But an Air Traffic Control document put out in 1998 warned pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes."52

But the document is actually talking about a different situation:

The U.S. military has their own network of radars looking over the U.S. borders, and out over the ocean (NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer to be able to get information on incoming flights from overseas, but if they see a target over international waters headed toward the U.S., without flight plan information, they will call on the "shout" line to the appropriate Center sector for an ID. Sector 66 might get a call to ID a radar target, and if 66 has no datablock or other information on it, the military will usually scramble an intercept flight. Essentially always they turn out to be private pilots ("VFR") not talking to anybody, who stray too far outside the boundary, then get picked up on their way back in. But, procedures are procedures, and they will likely find two F-18's on their tail within 10 or so minutes.
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

Hmm, Griffin's actually found a document illustrating something he says isn't true, that NORAD primarily looked outwards. Oddly he "forgot" to tell us that.

Better still, while DRG calls this an "Air Traffic Control" document to make it sound official, it's actually just the documentation for a PC simulation game called Air Traffic Control Center. Doesn't carry quite the same weight when you know that, somehow.

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, that speech? It's got one of my personal favourite deceptions, because I never saw it coming. Griffin tells us, in defence of the idea that interceptions were routine and speedy:



But the document is actually talking about a different situation:



Hmm, Griffin's actually found a document illustrating something he says isn't true, that NORAD primarily looked outwards. Oddly he "forgot" to tell us that.

Better still, while DRG calls this an "Air Traffic Control" document to make it sound official, it's actually just the documentation for a PC simulation game called Air Traffic Control Center. Doesn't carry quite the same weight when you know that, somehow.

Mike,
That's frakkin' hysterical! Griffin is pulling "documentary evidence" from a computer game?

[sleahead]

Better still, while DRG calls this an "Air Traffic Control" document to make it sound official, it's actually just the documentation for a PC simulation game called Air Traffic Control Center. Doesn't carry quite the same weight when you know that, somehow.

Wow. Good stuff, DRG. And I note that he conceals the deception by quoting his own book as the source!

[MikeW]

Mike,
That's frakkin' hysterical! Griffin is pulling "documentary evidence" from a computer game?
Good, isn't it? :D Nafeez Ahmed used it as well so I guess he got it from there. I'm not quite sure whether DRG realised what it was and covered it up, or was so lazy he never bothered to check out the link, but either way it's very deceptive.

[OMGturt1es]

Rather than spend time watching Griffin, it would be better to work from a transcript, which can be found here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

It is indeed the usual nonsense and so the beer option looks more and more appropriate.

oh, thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank you soooooooooooo much. that's going to remove at least 4 hours of complete boredom from my life.

gravy, all i really need is a list of his arguments. i'm guessing 95% of 'em are ones that i've already debunked, and have already been debunked by 3253251235312 other people. i think it'd be best to have some flier that warns people of his specific lies ahead of time, so that the viewers never have the chance to think that he makes a strong case.

then again, i may be gone during this showing. i need to find out exactly what my plans will be.

and yeah, i think i may need a lot more beer to get through this, even if i can get by without watching the video. this stuff makes my head hurt.

take care all,
anthony.

[The Almond]

I'll see what I can do about the NIST related arguments turtle man. DRG's old crap about how the NCSTAR is false, misleading and such is largely derived from strawmen, misquotes or complete fabrications.

It occurs to me that DRG may be trying to preach to soft audiences. College students are not necessarily educated on all of the events and theories behind 9/11, and many of them have yet to be exposed to this kind of garbage.

[scooby]

SO, fun times! my quant little town has a TROOF GROUP. yeah! and, lo and behold, they have announced that they will be showing "9/11 — The Myth & the Reality" in a local theatre in one week.

so, fellow debukers, because my time is somewhat limited, i was hoping i could get a few of you to help me debunk this thing completely within one week. as it's griffin, i'm sure it's just the regular debunked crap, so it shouldn't really take that much time.

if i can get a good debunking ready, in a simple format:

[TIME] CLAIM
DEBUNK
sources

then i'll happily make dozens of coppies, and distruibute 'em at the entrance of the movie house.

anyone interested? for those that don't know, chico is a university town, and these kids-- ok, i'm still a stundent-- seem especially proned to getting sucked into this crap. i wanna do what i can to counter the insanity.

thanks all,
anthony.

Ha ha - good luck, Bush twoofer.

[Horatius]

Ha ha - good luck, Bush twoofer.



Did you read the bit about him citing a video game (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2433855#post2433855)?

Okay, I know, silly question......

[The Doc]

Ha ha - good luck, Bush twoofer.

The level of maturity amongst the truth movement is so high.
[/sarcasm]

[scooby]

The level of maturity amongst the truth movement is so high.
[/sarcasm]

I thought I'd have a brief dip into the pool of OCT's tactics.
Ooops, there I go again.

[DavidJames]

The level of maturity amongst the truth movement is so high.
[/sarcasm]Not to mention intellectually provocative retort. Tell me scooby how do you come up with such witty comebacks

[Alareth]

Not to mention intellectually provocative retort. Tell me scooby how do you come up with such witty comebacks

The first step is disconnecting the communication center from any part of the brain involved with thinking.

[beachnut]

here you go!

PART ONE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ADP0mjX9tY

PART TWO:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tKMRKSw2Hrs

quite boring thus far, actually. unfortunantly, i was forced into drinking a few beers, partially due to the boring nature of these videos. i don't think i have it in me to finish watching this crap tonite. i just can't do it.
The myth 9 about the terrorist pilot. Any kid off the street could have flown the maneuvers done on 9/11. Hitting a building is easy. I have 33 years of flying experience in supersonic jets and heavy jets. I have flown the 707 equal in the air force. I have talked to many pilots, some of them 767/757 pilots. We all agree 9/11 flying was simple stuff. Throw in the fact the terrorist pilots all had FAA license to fly and they studied the systems of the planes they hijacked. This is why they knew how to turn off the transponders and how to set the Navigation frequencies to find the DC area. The little box they could tune in the radio beacon at the airport next to the Pentagon and see how far and an arrow pointing to the exact position, just head for the arrow and you are there. Griffins flying junk is that, total junk.

Remember the instructor that turned down Hanjour from renting a Cessna, also said he would have no problem flying and hitting a building. Believe it or not I think flying the Cessna is harder than the jet. What the instructor did was refuse to let the terrorist rent the plane based on the flight he had with Hanjour. After a few flight or some more training they may have let him rent the plane. This could happen to a real pilot. Griffin will tell them the terrorist was not allowed to rent a plane but not that the same instructor said flying into the Pentagon was in the terrorist capabilities. This Is Super Debunked! The flying was easy!: if you have a clear day and great weather. If there had been clouds that day these idiot pilots would have failed. The things they did required clear weather.

I think you should save your time. Anyone who believes the stuff Griffin says deserves to be that dumb and act on it. I watched the video and I could not believe anything he said.

I think some people may fall for the NORAD stuff since it is hard to explain all the intercepts took place over the Ocean. And the rest of the claims about NORAD are based on concepts Griffin did not mention. I have to see if he mentions Payne Stewart's interception which took 80 minutes not 20 minutes. I do not know of any NORAD plans to shot down airliners ever. 9/11 was a surprise attack, and Griffin is a just a Bush hater, so those inclined to hope Bush did it will gladly be lemmings with Griffin passing out the Kool-Aid. It is hard to talk to those who have drank the Kool-Aid like Scooby, Pagan, TS1234, et al.

[The Doc]

I thought I'd have a brief dip into the pool of OCT's tactics.
Ooops, there I go again.

Thank you for backing up my statement.

[T.A.M.]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

The above will take you to the 115. Errors Griffin finds with the 9/11 Commission. If you take them one by one and demolish them, you will cover everything that could possibly be thrown at you.

TAM:)

[scooby]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

The above will take you to the 115. Errors Griffin finds with the 9/11 Commission. If you take them one by one and demolish them, you will cover everything that could possibly be thrown at you.

TAM:)

Yeah but how exactly is this going to work?

A group of interested people turn up to watch a film highlighting important civic issues of worldwide import, and some joker at the back stands up and says "Excuse me twoofers! I have 115 points of rebuttal which I will read to you now ..."

I'd love to be there.

[beachnut]

Yeah but how exactly is this going to work?

A group of interested people turn up to watch a film highlighting important civic issues of worldwide import, and some joker at the back stands up and says "Excuse me twoofers! I have 115 points of rebuttal which I will read to you now ..."

I'd love to be there.
Are you truthers challenged to find facts and why do you always lie with your labeling?

You should have said, "...watch a film full of lies and false information about 9/11 from a liar."

How are CTers so consistently wrong about everything 9/11?

Is there a special 9/11 school for nuts and dolts? Did you get your degree at that school Pdoh?

[OMGturt1es]

I thought I'd have a brief dip into the pool of OCT's tactics.
Ooops, there I go again.

scooby, my "tactics" are simple: i will research the claims, and if they are demonstratably false, i will document such. if, on the other hand, the claims are not false, i will have to concede that the fellow has a point.

my "tactics" simply involve treating all evidences as either verified, non verified or debunked.

admittedly, i'm using the powers of induction to predict that the claims being presented will lie within the "debunked" catagory, as i've watched many 911 CT vids now, and they've all presented the same claims that are demonstratably false.

as i research the claims made in the film, i can post any debunkings i may find, or create, if you are intersted, so that you can offer counter argument. i'm always open to the possibility that i'm wrong.

but, honestly, i expect the film to fail, as every 911 CT video i've seen has relied on the same evidence pile, which is festering with dishonesty and inaccuracy.

Yeah but how exactly is this going to work?

A group of interested people turn up to watch a film highlighting important civic issues of worldwide import, and some joker at the back stands up and says "Excuse me twoofers! I have 115 points of rebuttal which I will read to you now ..."

I'd love to be there.

i'd simply stand at the entrance of the theatre, and hand out pamphlets, which would contain a list of claims made by the film, followed by proper, cited debunkings.

if the film meets my expectations, and relies on debunked claims, i'll not be spending the money to watch the film myself.

[tacodaemon]

i'd simply stand at the entrance of the theatre, and hand out pamphlets, which would contain a list of claims made by the film, followed by proper, cited debunkings.



Remember, if any of the theatergoers try to question you, you can quickly retort with scooby's all-purpose "Oh yeah? Well, I had sex with hookers in Amsterdam!" counterargument.

[OMGturt1es]

so, quickly scanning over the "myths" presented, here's what we have:

Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing. - for the sake of argument, we can let him have this one. i don't care.

Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. - again, for the sake of argument, we can let him have this one as well. i care about evidence, not conjecture.

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now. - as with the first two, while i don't agree, this isn't really much a claim. again, the argument thus far is simply trying to prove that the government *could* have carried out the 911 attacks, which is something i'm willing to consider, at the very least for the sake of argument.

Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed. - another watered down myth that doesn't prove anything. obviously, he ignroes the fact that the all the work of scientists in the NIST report and such is supported by virtually 100% of the scientific community, and should therefore be trusted, but he also fails to present any failings within the 9/11 commission report, which begs the question: why would we agree that the 9/11 commission report can be doubted, when we can find no instance of it failing to stand to scrutiny?

Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden. - ahhh hah! now we have some real claims, FINALLY. from brushing through this dialogue, i can see the same, tired, debunked claims. but, this is good, because he's actually making claims, which can easlity be demonstrated to be false. his first four "myths" were mainly just speculative crap that really doesn't prove anything.

Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration. - um, what? i mean, kinda, i'm sure, but the government knew the WTC buildings were the targets of terrorist plots for a long while now. hell, they'd be attacked prior to 9/11! but, at least he cites some specific claims here-- amoung them the notorious "stock put" claims.

Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted. - this has all been done to death. i didn't read his supporting dialogue here, but i'd be surprised if it wasn't the same old crap we've all read ten thousand times before. i glanced quickly through a few paragraphs, and it seemed that there were specific claims.

Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. - ahhhh hah! i'm saving this one. i don't want to ruin this. i want to have some good food and drink to enojy the dialogue here. i'm putting 74% confidence in the prediction that steel's melting point WILL come into play!

Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon. - more specific claims. excellent. these will, i'm quite certain, simple be the same crap we've all seen. this should be another instance where evidence can be summarily debunked quickly and concisely.

SO, of these nine "myths", only 5 really rely on real claims that support the 911 CT. 3 rely on conjecture, attempting to prove that a 911 CT could exist, and one attempts to argue against the fundamental problems that most understand regarding CTs involving vast numbers of participants.

i'd love to have a debunking of all nine myths, but really, i just don't care about a few of 'em at all, and generally, when i debate this stuff, i always just give motivation and oppurtunity to the CTer, so that we can just get to the real evidence.

if i don't address all nine myths, perhaps a reader might be given the impression that i was unable to address those that i did not. but if i address the myths that are rather pety, and rely completely on conjecture, the debunking may seem a bit trite and pety itself. what should i do?

[OMGturt1es]

Remember, if any of the theatergoers try to question you, you can quickly retort with scooby's all-purpose "Oh yeah? Well, I had sex with hookers in Amsterdam!" counterargument.

that's an awesome retort. i think i may start using that in real life. seriously.

[gumboot]

i'd love to have a debunking of all nine myths, but really, i just don't care about a few of 'em at all, and generally, when i debate this stuff, i always just give motivation and oppurtunity to the CTer, so that we can just get to the real evidence.


The funny thing is, of the real myths with specific claims, half of them involve "Officials have proved X". This is what's so laughable. People think we believe the "official story" just because we have been told it. I honestly don't know what the "official" stance on some of these issues are. I don't care. I did my own research.

Did the US Government explain why the aircraft weren't intercepted? I have no idea. But I know EXACTLY why they weren't intercepted. I didn't sit around and wait for some official to tell me. I found out for myself.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SO, fun times! my quant little town has a TROOF GROUP. yeah! and, lo and behold, they have announced that they will be showing "9/11 — The Myth & the Reality" in a local theatre in one week.

so, fellow debukers, because my time is somewhat limited, i was hoping i could get a few of you to help me debunk this thing completely within one week. as it's griffin, i'm sure it's just the regular debunked crap, so it shouldn't really take that much time.

if i can get a good debunking ready, in a simple format:

[TIME] CLAIM
DEBUNK
sources

then i'll happily make dozens of coppies, and distruibute 'em at the entrance of the movie house.

anyone interested? for those that don't know, chico is a university town, and these kids-- ok, i'm still a stundent-- seem especially proned to getting sucked into this crap. i wanna do what i can to counter the insanity.

thanks all,
anthony.

This thread is disturbing. People, help me debunk something I haven't seen, and that none of you have seen either, because it's junk!

(Sounds like the way the Christian conservatives handled the release of The Last Temptation of Christ).

[Gravy]

The myth 9 about the terrorist pilot. Any kid off the street could have flown the maneuvers done on 9/11. Hitting a building is easy. I have 33 years of flying experience in supersonic jets and heavy jets. I have flown the 707 equal in the air force. If hitting a building is so easy, then how many buildings did you hit in your 33 years as a pilot?

Answer that, flyboy!

[Gravy]

This thread is disturbing. People, help me debunk something I haven't seen, and that none of you have seen either, because it's junk!

(Sounds like the way the Christian conservatives handled the release of The Last Temptation of Christ).Allow me to refer you to post #26. Correct me of I'm wrong, but he seems to be in the process of looking at Griffin's actual arguments!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Allow me to refer you to post #26. Correct me of I'm wrong, but he seems to be looking at Griffin's actual arguments!

Allow me to refer you to post #1-25.

[kookbreaker]

This thread is disturbing. People, help me debunk something I haven't seen, and that none of you have seen either, because it's junk!


Its closer to not falling for the same practical joke for the umpteenth time. None of the troother films have produced anything resembling evidence to date and saying 'This time for sure!' isn't going to get much more of a reaction.

Even so, we'll still get around to it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Its closer to not falling for the same practical joke for the umpteenth time. None of the troother films have produced anything resembling evidence to date and saying 'This time for sure!' isn't going to get much more of a reaction.

Even so, we'll still get around to it.

Why bother? Why not just let Twoofers have their little hobby? What harm can come of it?

[WildCat]

Allow me to refer you to post #1-25.
Allow me to refer you to the fact that after 460 posts here you've brought zero evidence in support of your CT.

[Gravy]

Allow me to refer you to post #1-25.I'm confused. Are you citing those posts as evidence that OMGturt1es is NOT examining Griffin's claims?

:confused:

[scooby]

Are you truthers challenged to find facts and why do you always lie with your labeling?

You should have said, "...watch a film full of lies and false information about 9/11 from a liar."

How are CTers so consistently wrong about everything 9/11?

Is there a special 9/11 school for nuts and dolts? Did you get your degree at that school Pdoh?

See call me a good old fashioned skeptic - but I thought this judgement would be up to the people watching the film - one for them to make for themselves?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Allow me to refer you to the fact that after 460 posts here you've brought zero evidence in support of your CT.

Define "evidence." One man's evidence is another man's "meh." (See OJ trial).

[Gravy]

See call me a good old fashioned skeptic - but I thought this judgement would be up to the people watching the film - one for them to make for themselves?Explain your disagreement with providing a convenient source of fact-based rebuttals to Griffin's argument.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'm confused. Are you citing those posts as evidence that OMGturt1es is NOT examining Griffin's claims?

:confused:

No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."

[kookbreaker]

Why bother? Why not just let Twoofers have their little hobby? What harm can come of it?

Conspiracy theories are like cancer.They spread, they infest other parts of culture, they insult the intelligence and skills of our world's professionals. Start with one nonsense conspiracy and soon you have people pulling stupid crap out of their butts like 'Vaccines kill you! The government said they were good for fighting disease but they orchestrated 911'. Troother's already demonstrated they are more than willing to crap on the work of hundreds of thousands not only with 911 but also with the Moon Landing.

Conspiracy theories also substitute legitimate government participation with indifference and nonsense. After all, why bother to vote when the illuminati and Bushco are fixing the election? Instead, public participation becomes limited to marching once a year in an event closer to a pot party than anything truly political. Those in the mindset are never going to be likely to take any real steps to better our world.

Or worse, they do participate in the worst possible way: Conspiracy theories lead to racism: Jews were targeted as 'the cause' of 911 by some and that mindset spread like disease. In between two certain global conflicts would you have said of the National Socialists: "Let them think that the Jews betrayed the German Empire, what harm can come of it". Or perhaps you would have said in post-Antebellum south: "Let those folks think that Catholics and blacks are conspiring to make a Papist/Black run government, what harm can come of it? Let them have their little hobby." Would you have said these things?

Conspiracy theories are a dangerous religion, not a hobby. They claim to be asking question, but have you ever seen such cultish resistance to getting answers? I haven't, not outside Sylvia Brown fans and Scientologists, at least.

We are a forum for critical thinking, not just letting people hang onto their delusions just because some flat-minded dolts think that its just a bit of fun.

[WildCat]

Define "evidence." One man's evidence is another man's "meh." (See OJ trial).
Evidence - facts supporting your hypothesis. Got any?

[beachnut]

No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."
Every siinge point of Griffin is BS. Just junk.

Please you start and show me on point he makes that is fact based and no facts left out please.

This is simple you can not show me one fact to prove Griffin's points. Are you able to do any thing?


Yep all you have is debunked cause you are too challenged to find facts. try a fact, notice you are still not about to post one fact yet. Facts?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Evidence - facts supporting your hypothesis. Got any?

None that you would accept. You'd sling a link at me and say "debunked. NEXT!"

[WildCat]

None that you would accept. You'd sling a link at me and say "debunked. NEXT!"
Because a lie is not a fact. Facts cannot be debunked, lies can. Do you have any facts?

[scooby]

Explain your disagreement with providing a convenient source of fact-based rebuttals to Griffin's argument.

If you want to organise your own public meeting in support of your theories - go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend interrupting somebody else's. Though again, I'd love to be there to see it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Why not go in and watch the movie, and then participate in the Q&A session after? You'd have more cridibility than you will just handing out a leaflet.

Are there going to be any speakers there, too? Or just the film?

[Gravy]

If you want to organise your own public meeting in support of your theories - go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend interrupting somebody else's. Though again, I'd love to be there to see it.Please point out where OMGturt1es plans to interrupt a meeting.

Thanks.

[Gravy]

Why not go in and watch the movie, and then participate in the Q&A session after? You'd have more cridibility than you will just handing out a leaflet.Sounds like a good idea to participate in the Q&A. OMG will have already seen the movie. You don't actually have an issue with handing out a leaflet, though, do you?

[Arus808]

If you want to organise your own public meeting in support of your theories - go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend interrupting somebody else's. Though again, I'd love to be there to see it.

so the "truthers" can do this, but we can't? - they dont mind interrupting non-9/11 related gatherings with their tripe and of course many camped out in front of theaters for the showing of World Trade Center and United 93.

how hypocritical.

[tacodaemon]

No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."


Psssst, skepticalcriticalguy: if Gravy's questioning gets to be too much for you, just remember the magic words: "Listen, you, I had sex with hookers in Amsterdam!"

[Gravy]

Why bother? Why not just let Twoofers have their little hobby? What harm can come of it?Turn that around: what harm can come from presenting facts that counter conspiracist claims? Most of the regular posters here have been banned from conspiracist sites for doing nothing more than presenting arguments that disagree with truther claims.

Do you have any thoughts or observations about why the conspiracists so often choose censorship over open debate?

[A W Smith]

Psssst, skepticalcriticalguy: if Gravy's questioning gets to be too much for you, just remember the magic words: "Listen, you, I had sex with hookers in Amsterdam!"


now in truth he never said that. he said (in as many words) after visiting Amsterdam he had trouble achieving an erection. which could mean hes still recovering from a sex change operation.

[Gravy]

No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."I agree that the OP makes hasty generalizations. However, since Griffin has produced a large body of laughably bad work, it's not unreasonable to expect more of the same. I think we would have heard about it if he had suddenly produced something accurate and compelling. Still, I would hope that OMG would be on the lookout for new arguments and information from Griffin.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Sounds like a good idea to participate in the Q&A. OMG will have already seen the movie. You don't actually have an issue with handing out a leaflet, though, do you?

Of course not! But if the person handing out the leaflet has actually watched the film, I'd give them more credibility.

[Arus808]

Of course not! But if the person handing out the leaflet has actually watched the film, I'd give them more credibility.

did you miss the part where OMGturtles was watching the film, so he was able to address the claims there

and then given a link to the ENTIRE transcript of said film?

[WildCat]

Still no facts skepticalcriticalguy? Not even one? Is "looky at teh vid" or "lookit teh site" all you've got?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Turn that around: what harm can come from presenting facts that counter conspiracist claims?

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

[T.A.M.]

Yeah but how exactly is this going to work?

A group of interested people turn up to watch a film highlighting important civic issues of worldwide import, and some joker at the back stands up and says "Excuse me twoofers! I have 115 points of rebuttal which I will read to you now ..."

I'd love to be there.

My point was to show OMG the large list of Griffins "Arguments", knowing the video will likely only cover some of them, but the after discussion will likely bring up many more. If OMG knows all 115 he will likely not encounter anything new thrown around.

If you want to organise your own public meeting in support of your theories - go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend interrupting somebody else's. Though again, I'd love to be there to see it.

This from someone who aligns himself with the "truth" movement, a group that openly tells fellow members to "cyberbomb" CNN polls, whose leader walks up to military men in the middle of a store in New York, and harrasses them, not even knowing them (Alex Jones). The truthers have turned obnoxious behavior into an artform.

Why not go in and watch the movie, and then participate in the Q&A session after? You'd have more cridibility than you will just handing out a leaflet.

Are there going to be any speakers there, too? Or just the film?


I think he'll have little credibility amongst that crowd regardless. 99.9% will be fellow truthers, with the odd curious person for good measure. I'd say do both.


I agree that the OP makes hasty generalizations. However, since Griffin has produced a large body of laughably bad work, it's not unreasonable to expect more of the same. I think we would have heard about it if he had suddenly produced something accurate and compelling. Still, I would hope that OMG would be on the lookout for new arguments and information from Griffin.

Yes, and hence the reason why I pointed OMG to Griffin's 115 Points...it covers almost all of his body of nonsense.

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Still no facts skepticalcriticalguy? Not even one? Is "looky at teh vid" or "lookit teh site" all you've got?

That's what I see most of you here do. And I rarely post links to any vids or sites (for this very reason).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I think he'll have little credibility amongst that crowd regardless. 99.9% will be fellow truthers, with the odd curious person for good measure. I'd say do both.

TAM:)

You might be surprised. I was at a conference yesterday, and several of the people were there out of curiosity. Popping in to see what it's all about.

But they will ask you what your motive, or agenda, is.

[Arus808]

That's what I see most of you here do. And I rarely post links to any vids or sites (for this very reason).

well that a lie (no surprise). we've posted links. and video do not prove anything at all (sorry but in REAL science, the experts do not rely soley on videos to help them investigate). Just because you ignore the replies that contain these links doesn't mean that we haven't provided them.

Ignorance is not a form of defense, and you can't defend yourself by saying that we haven't provided links to papers that specifically debunk your "claims", when we have. Numerous times.

[A W Smith]

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[T.A.M.]

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?


Easy...the power of the internet, and trusting human nature.

For me, if I let the truth movement go about its business, it will be free and unhampered to spue falsehoods and speculation to those who want to know the real truth...who want the FACTS and EVIDENCE on 9/11. Call me a guardian against the snake oil salesmen, if you will. That is the ONLY reason I do this, and will continue to do so.

Every time one of the truthers says something unproven or false, I will be there, if I can, to try to set them straight, or to atleast provide other, more reliable and respected sources on the given point or topic.

TAM:)

[Arus808]

You might be surprised. I was at a conference yesterday, and several of the people were there out of curiosity. Popping in to see what it's all about.

and people rubberneck on the freeway after a big accident because they are curious; curiosity doesn't mean they'll accept anything that is being claimed.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

Who are the "evil" that will triumph?

[Gravy]

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

...I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

Read kookbreaker's first post on this page. We don't consider countering ignorance about such a serious topic to be a waste of time. In addition, here are some reasons I gave in September to a debunker who was wondering if it was worth confronting the truthers at Ground Zero on Saturdays:

"Why We Fight"

– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."

– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."

– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.

– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.

– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.

– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maw of hell to save them.

– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.

– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.

– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Easy...the power of the internet, and trusting human nature.

For me, if I let the truth movement go about its business, it will be free and unhampered to spue falsehoods and speculation to those who want to know the real truth...who want the FACTS and EVIDENCE on 9/11. Call me a guardian against the snake oil salesmen, if you will. That is the ONLY reason I do this, and will continue to do so.

Every time one of the truthers says something unproven or false, I will be there, if I can, to try to set them straight, or to atleast provide other, more reliable and respected sources on the given point or topic.

TAM:)

OK, but if it's all a pack of lies, then nothing will ever come of it, anyway. Meanwhile, you are spending a LOT of time you could be enjoying a nice day, going to the beach, etc.

You seem to have so much bitter disdain for anybody who would even open their mind to the possibility of something other than 19 Moslem hijackers/OBL. You aren't out to "help them." Or save them from snake oil salesmen. You are out to ridicule them and be superior to them. And that's where you lose them every time.

[WildCat]

That's what I see most of you here do. And I rarely post links to any vids or sites (for this very reason).
No scg, when we link to a video we also discuss the aspects of it in detail. CT's post w/o comment, and refuse to discuss them. Your posts here are all just snide remarks from the peanut galery - you refuse to discuss your beliefs, won't explain why you believe as you do, bring no facts to bear in support of your beliefs. 9/11 CT is your religion - an article of faith that cannot be questioned or discussed.

[WildCat]

You seem to have so much bitter disdain for anybody who would even open their mind to the possibility of something other than 19 Moslem hijackers/OBL. You aren't out to "help them." Or save them from snake oil salesmen. You are out to ridicule them and be superior to them. And that's where you lose them every time.
No, we have "bitter disdain" for troofers who go around accusing people (such as Larry Silverstein) of mass murder w/o a single scrap of evidence. None, zip, zilch, nada.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No scg, when we link to a video we also discuss the aspects of it in detail. CT's post w/o comment, and refuse to discuss them. Your posts here are all just snide remarks from the peanut galery - you refuse to discuss your beliefs, won't explain why you believe as you do, bring no facts to bear in support of your beliefs. 9/11 CT is your religion - an article of faith that cannot be questioned or discussed.

Many, if not most of you sling a link, and then say "it's been discussed." Like the other side.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No, we have "bitter disdain" for troofers who go around accusing people (such as Larry Silverstein) of mass murder w/o a single scrap of evidence. None, zip, zilch, nada.

Again, one man's evidence is another man's bunk. (See the OJ trial).

[Gravy]

OK, but if it's all a pack of lies, then nothing will ever come of it, anyway.Much has come of it, skepticalcriticalguy. Haven't you noticed?

You seem to have so much bitter disdain for anybody who would even open their mind to the possibility of something other than 19 Moslem hijackers/OBL. You aren't out to "help them." Or save them from snake oil salesmen. You are out to ridicule them and be superior to them. And that's where you lose them every time.More tiresome whining.

Have a problem with the information we present? Then prove it wrong. Isn't that what rational people do?

Have a claim to promote? Then back it with evidence. Isn't that what rational people do?

Well, stop whining, be an adult, and get to it.

[Gravy]

Again, one man's evidence is another man's bunk. (See the OJ trial).How many excuses are you going to come up with for not presenting evidence? Doesn't it bother you that you've been reduced to doing that?

What are you afraid of? I hope you'll think long and hard about that.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Much has come of it, skepticalcriticalguy. Haven't you noticed?



What has come of it? Besides annoying signs at Obama rallies, and a few people selling some books.

[Whiplash]

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

Oh I dunno, it could be the fact that truthers pee all over the graves of the dead with their unsubstantiated, wild ass theories that make no sense and have no evidence.

Some of us are disgusted with the behavior of kids who think they know everything (when they actually know very little), constantly calling heros liars, disgracing the memories of real people who lived real lives and who died that day.

It's utterly dispicable, and you and other truthers should be ashamed. But you are too busy thinking you are superstars and high fiving each other for inane, childish retorts and arugments.

Also, many of us are trying to do our part to eliminate ignorance from the world, because ignorance such as you guys demonstrate is highly dangerous. The same reason why such people fight against Psychics and relgious beliefs, because they believe this crap makes the world a wrose place than it needs to be.

You guys should seriously take a minute to reflect on everything that has happened since 9-11, and realize you are comletely wrong and in denial on it. The sooner you guys do that, the better off everyone will be.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The same reason why such people fight against Psychics and relgious beliefs, because they believe this crap makes the world a wrose place than it needs to be.



So is everybody here an atheist? If anybody here is not an atheist, please post and explain.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You guys should seriously take a minute to reflect on everything that has happened since 9-11

We do! We see our government out of control, on an imperialistic march. Failing to solve the crimes. (Including anthrax). And rights disappearing. Maybe if that stuff wasn't happening, we would never have questioned 9/11.

[beachnut]

Again, one man's evidence is another man's bunk. (See the OJ trial).
And the point is you have no evidence and you keep bringing up OJ?

What did OJ do for or against 9/11? Or do you mean see OJ did not do it? Yes if you take the 9/11 CTers on a jury they would argue and be hung up on BS. What is you point and why are you not able to mention one fact that Griffin has?

State one fact that Griffin has except for the Myth 9! Do not use Myth 9, it is too hard to debunk. Not Myth 9, please do not use Myth 9.

Do you even have a clue what myth 9 is or are you just as clueless about what you think you are talking about as it seems?

Got facts yet?

[beachnut]

So is everybody here an atheist? If anybody here is not an atheist, please post and explain.Why are you so challenged as to not stay on topic.

The topic is Griffin's idiot rant. What was myth 9 great debunker of debunkers SCG?

[beachnut]

We do! We see our government out of control, on an imperialistic march. Failing to solve the crimes. (Including anthrax). And rights disappearing. Maybe if that stuff wasn't happening, we would never have questioned 9/11.
Go ahead and name one freedom you have lost since 9/11. A list right here and now, can you?

The only out of control people since 9/11 are the CTers and their leaders with no idea what happen or able to gather one fact to support their lies in 5 years. Not a great group you have decided to support. They just lie.

PLUS you are off topic again, it is Griffin! What is Griffin's myth number 9 and why is it wrong as the rest of his debunking myth lies?

[wizzertz]

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

I could ask the same about you. If you think this is pointless, why are you even here? I politely ask what point you have to make. I am not here to eradicate stupidity. However, I have eradicated my own stupidity based on information I have gathered from several places (JREF included).

As for something sinister, yesterday I teased my cat with food. I hope she can forgive my insolence.

[wizzertz]

OMG,

Where is your "quaint" little town?

[Gravy]

What has come of it? Besides annoying signs at Obama rallies, and a few people selling some books.Let's start out small. Some truther leaders think I should be executed. That may not be significant to you, but it is to me, for a number of reasons. Can you understand why?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Go ahead and name one freedom you have lost since 9/11. A list right here and now, can you?



Why? You'll "debunk" it and say "NEXT!"

(Start with the Patriot Act).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Let's start out small. Some truther leaders think I should be executed. That may not be significant to you, but it is to me, for a number of reasons. Can you understand why?

Truth "leaders" say that? Please name them.

[beachnut]

Why? You'll "debunk" it and say "NEXT!"

(Start with the Patriot Act).
You are just talk and can not point to the lies in the things you say! You said you have lost rights! Name them!

If you can not name the rights you have lost since 9/11 I will assume you are telling lies. How can we discuss stuff when you refuse to name the very things you say you have lost?

You can not name myth 9 by Griffin and that is on topic. Your rights are not even on topic except for the fact as you can not name one fact Griffin has you can not name one right/freedom you have lost since 9/11.

Are you a fraud on 9/11 topics, just talking?

[A W Smith]

We do! We see our government out of control, on an imperialistic march. Failing to solve the crimes. (Including anthrax). And rights disappearing. Maybe if that stuff wasn't happening, we would never have questioned 9/11.

do you actually believe we have less freedom today that we did during the fifties? You know. Before civil rights, During the investigation of un-American Activities. Segregation in the south. The draft, McCarthyism. The death penalty in all states. The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg electric chair executions, (today they would get life. if that).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

do you actually believe we have less freedom today that we did during the fifties? You know. Before civil rights, During the investigation of un-American Activities. Segregation in the south. The draft, McCarthyism. The death penalty in all states. The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg electric chair executions, (today they would get life. if that).

What do the fifties have to do with this?

[beachnut]

What do the fifties have to do with this?You said you lost rights. You were wrong. He was making a comparison. You are too challenged to remember your own junk?

When are you coming up with some facts?

And do you think you are most like pdoh or is pagan or scooby?

Are you pdoh?

Facts, when are the facts and myth 9 coming, back on topic just for you?

[T.A.M.]

OK, but if it's all a pack of lies, then nothing will ever come of it, anyway. Meanwhile, you are spending a LOT of time you could be enjoying a nice day, going to the beach, etc.

Did I mention I was a father of 2, a husband, and a physician. I also enjoy numerous other hobbies. Trust me, If I wanted to "obsess" about this, and dedicate ALOT of my time to this, you would see ALOT more of me here. I do dedicate a fair bit of time to this, as I feel it is worthwhile.

The reason I bother, despite it being a pack of lies, is as I said, to ward off the snake oil salesmen. The salesmen SELLS the buyer worthless junk (lies) and takes money (truth) away from them. I am here to make sure the buyer is at least informed they are buying what is WORTHLESS JUNK before they make they're purchase. If I can make even a few reconsider, than it is a victory.


You seem to have so much bitter disdain for anybody who would even open their mind to the possibility of something other than 19 Moslem hijackers/OBL. You aren't out to "help them." Or save them from snake oil salesmen. You are out to ridicule them and be superior to them. And that's where you lose them every time.

Who are you to tell me what I am or am not out to do? Mind yourself bozo. You can tell me that you don't think I am doing that, but watch the "absolutes".

I am bitter and sometimes abrupt with the obvious "truthers" who post here. If you have watched me post over the long haul, you will see that if someone comes here legitimately asking questions, they will get a fair shake. It is when this is used by a truther as a rouse to start a debate (what we have labeled the "mark of woo") that you will see different.

I am not out to act superior to anyone. I have openly admitted to being wrong, and to not having the knowledge on many topics or areas of 9/11. Have you EVER done this?

If anyone acts superior, it is the truther, who goes around boasting that only they know the real "truth" and how everyone else are "sheep".

I havent lost anyone that was saveable yet...as for those that have already decided, and are simply acting "unknowing", oh well, I wasnt fighting for them anyway.

TAM:)

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Truth "leaders" say that? Please name them.Kevin Barrett, head of MUJCA and Rob Balsamo, head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Then there's Jason Bermas, who hasn't said I should be executed but has publicly accused me of being a traitor to the United States and to humanity. Of course, Alex Jones, the Loose Change guys, and others have publicly stated that my name isn't Mark Roberts and that I'm a government agent. They may have changed their minds about that (I'm not sure), but do I get an apology? Nooooo.

Seems like behavior that's more becoming of paranoid kooks than "truth" seekers, doesn't it?

[A W Smith]

What do the fifties have to do with this?

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2436985#post2436985)
We do! We see our government out of control, on an imperialistic march. Failing to solve the crimes. (Including anthrax). And rights disappearing. Maybe if that stuff wasn't happening, we would never have questioned 9/11.


Originally Posted by A W Smith http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2437039#post2437039)
do you actually believe we have less freedom today that we did during the fifties? You know. Before civil rights, During the investigation of un-American Activities. Segregation in the south. The draft, McCarthyism. The death penalty in all states. The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg electric chair executions, (today they would get life. if that).

are you that stoooopid? and as far as unsoilved crimes. didn't our goverment in 1994 bring Medgar Evers murderer to trial and convict him? 30 years later?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Who are you to tell me what I am or am not out to do? Mind yourself bozo. You can tell me that you don't think I am doing that, but watch the "absolutes".



Ah! You might want to tell your compadres here that they should watch the "absolutes." Not all Truthers believe in moon lasers. Just to cite an example.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy [/URL]http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2436985#post2436985)
We do! We see our government out of control, on an imperialistic march. Failing to solve the crimes. (Including anthrax). And rights disappearing. Maybe if that stuff wasn't happening, we would never have questioned 9/11.


Originally Posted by A W Smith [URL]http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2437039#post2437039)
do you actually believe we have less freedom today that we did during the fifties? You know. Before civil rights, During the investigation of un-American Activities. Segregation in the south. The draft, McCarthyism. The death penalty in all states. The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg electric chair executions, (today they would get life. if that).

are you that stoooopid? and as far as unsoilved crimes. didn't our goverment in 1994 bring Medgar Evers murderer to trial and convict him? 30 years later?

I'm talking about since 9/11. More specifically, since the congress gave war powers to the Pres, and the Patriot Act came around.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why bother? Why not just let Twoofers have their little hobby? What harm can come of it?
Jonestown
Mt. Carmel
9/11
7/7
Guy Fawkes

Yeah, what's the harm in letting paranoid people with factually incorrect worldviews spew their drivel?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

None that you would accept. You'd sling a link at me and say "debunked. NEXT!"
Then they are not facts. Facts are objective. Facts are verifiable. Facts are empirical.

[A W Smith]

I'm talking about since 9/11. More specifically, since the congress gave war powers to the Pres, and the Patriot Act came around.

Give me one example. Just one. Of how your rights were violated since 911? No shampoo at the airport? No sharps on board planes? Did someone make you take your shoes off? did you have to walk the long way around a concrete jersey barrier? Were you forced to pick up a passenger to drive through the holland tunnel? Poor baby.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Jonestown
Mt. Carmel
9/11
7/7
Guy Fawkes

Yeah, what's the harm in letting paranoid people with factually incorrect worldviews spew their drivel?

Arkan, can you explain each of these? Are you saying that the Mt. Carmel people were paranoid and had "incorrect worldviews?" So the Clinton Admin was justified?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

OK, but if it's all a pack of lies, then nothing will ever come of it, anyway.
You know this is not true. Many of the truthers love to point out all the past shenanigans, real or imagined, of the U.S. government and their negative results.

Have you ever heard of the Heaven's Gate Cult? The Jonestown Massacre? How about the various attacks on abortion clinics? Slavery?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Give me one example. Just one. Of how your rights were violated since 911? No shampoo at the airport? No sharps on board planes? Did someone make you take your shoes off? did you have to walk the long way around a concrete jersey barrier? Were you forced to pick up a passenger to drive through the holland tunnel? Poor baby.

Habeus Corpus. Wiretapping without a warrant.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of course not! But if the person handing out the leaflet has actually watched the film, I'd give them more credibility.
And by implying you would give them less had they not watched it, you are admitting to practical ad hom tactics. The evidence supplied in the leaflet should stand, or fall, on its own merit; not that of the person distributing it.

[Gravy]

Welcome back, Arkan! Hope you had a relaxing vacation.

I guess scg thinks it's amusing when people like Rosie O'Donnell exercise their "little hobby" by claiming that KSM's confessions shouldn't be believed, but that Loose Change should. Defending mass-murdering terrorists isn't much of a hobby, and I doubt if she'd be doing so if she weren't so eager to lap up misinformation because of political bias.

Damn right these things matter.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You know this is not true. Many of the truthers love to point out all the past shenanigans, real or imagined, of the U.S. government and their negative results.

Have you ever heard of the Heaven's Gate Cult? The Jonestown Massacre? How about the various attacks on abortion clinics? Slavery?

I've heard of all of those. What's your point?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I guess scg thinks it's amusing when people like Rosie O'Donnell exercise their "little hobby" by claiming that KSM's confessions shouldn't be believed, but that Loose Change should. Defending mass-murdering terrorists isn't much of a hobby, and I doubt if she'd be doing so if she weren't so eager to lap up misinformation because of political bias.

Damn right these things matter.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe the KSM confession? In its entirety?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

And by implying you would give them less had they not watched it, you are admitting to practical ad hom tactics. The evidence supplied in the leaflet should stand, or fall, on its own merit; not that of the person distributing it.

But in reality, people will give more cridibility to somebody who they know watched the same film.

(Just trying to help y'all with your strategy).

[Gravy]

Are you saying that the Mt. Carmel people were paranoid and had "incorrect worldviews?" Not at all. Their belief that they were God's choice to survive the End Times, and that Koresh was the head of the Biblical House of David, but that rather than rely on God's good will they'd better stock up on machine guns and ammo, is a perfectly rational position.

[Gravy]

Can you honestly tell me that you believe the KSM confession? In its entirety?I haven't read the confession in its entirety but will do so. Yes or no: does the evidence show that KSM a mass-murdering terrorist?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why? You'll "debunk" it and say "NEXT!"

(Start with the Patriot Act).
The PATRIOT Act was a piece of legislation with many components. Referring to the legislation does not enumerate a right that you have lost, which was the request made.

[A W Smith]

The PATRIOT Act was a piece of legislation with many components. Referring to the legislation does not enumerate a right that you have lost, which was the request made.


Oh you mean he is not typing from GITMO on a wire tapped Internet connection?

Oh well then I ask again. what rights of SCG have been violated?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, can you explain each of these? Are you saying that the Mt. Carmel people were paranoid and had "incorrect worldviews?" So the Clinton Admin was justified?
Yes, they were paranoid. They had extremist religous worldviews. They violated federal firearms law. They allowed sexual child abuse to occur. Shall I go on?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Welcome back, Arkan! Hope you had a relaxing vacation.

I guess scg thinks it's amusing when people like Rosie O'Donnell exercise their "little hobby" by claiming that KSM's confessions shouldn't be believed, but that Loose Change should. Defending mass-murdering terrorists isn't much of a hobby, and I doubt if she'd be doing so if she weren't so eager to lap up misinformation because of political bias.

Damn right these things matter.
Thanks! It was excellent, though a bit exciting as I was onboard this cruise ship (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/16/man.overboard.ap/index.html).

[Skibum]

See call me a good old fashioned skeptic - but I thought this judgement would be up to the people watching the film - one for them to make for themselves?

I absolutely agree, although I think they should hear the facts before making up their mind by watching a misleading and lie filled movie.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But in reality, people will give more cridibility to somebody who they know watched the same film.

(Just trying to help y'all with your strategy).
That does not make your point any less logically fallacious. For an argument to have credibility it must be both factually accurate, and logically consistent.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I haven't read the confession in its entirety but will do so. Yes or no: does the evidence show that KSM a mass-murdering terrorist?

Well, either a whole bunch of CTs all got cleaned up in one confession, or, he isn't credible.

We know he's a megalomaniac; perhaps he's a mythomaniac?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

They allowed sexual child abuse to occur. Shall I go on?

We were told this. Is there any proof?

Funny, I had a friend who said to me "the only member of the Clinton administration I admire is Janet Reno. She's got balls." Well, then he listened to Limbaugh, and got fed his talking points. She quickly became "the Butcher of Waco."

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Oh you mean he is not typing from GITMO on a wire tapped Internet connection?

Oh well then I ask again. what rights of SCG have been violated?

I said rights have been lost. That's different than violated. I personally haven't been violated, yet. But then, I haven't been accused of being a terrorist. Yet.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We were told this. Is there any proof?
Maybe this was already established, but you're one of those hyper-relativists, aren't you? Nothing is true unless you've seen it with your own eyes?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We were told this. Is there any proof?

Funny, I had a friend who said to me "the only member of the Clinton administration I admire is Janet Reno. She's got balls." Well, then he listened to Limbaugh, and got fed his talking points. She quickly became "the Butcher of Waco."
http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacoseven.html

[Gravy]

Well, either a whole bunch of CTs all got cleaned up in one confession, or, he isn't credible.

We know he's a megalomaniac; perhaps he's a mythomaniac?Okay, you avoided the question. I'll rephrase it.

Do you believe that the 9/11 Commission report presents a strong case that KSM is guilty of acts of terrorism?

[OMGturt1es]

No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."

don't put words and intentions into my mouth, please.

i elaborted on my intent in post #24. if you wish to continue to post as above, then you are inherently calling me a liar. if you think i'm a liar, how do you know what i meant in post #1?

the fact is, as i mentioned in post #24, even though i'm not one to bet, i'd be willing to bet that this vid is full of crap. no 911 CT vid that i've seen has managed to not present the same, tired, debunked evidences. i have no reason to believe that this vid will be any different, especially considering that it features griffin, who i know has been debunked a billion times.

i have one week to prepare my case, assuming that my assumptions are correct-- obviously. i posted here to ask for help. while i'm familar with the majority of recycled 911 CT arguments, it still takes time to organize griffin's arguments, and put together appropriate documentation.

again, this all assumes that my initial assumptions were correct. and they were. i've read through most the dialogue, and it's the same stuff i've seen dozens of times over.

i'm very gald i posted this thread. i was given a link to the transcript of the video. this helps me very much. this helps me verify or debunk his claims.

had his claims been rational, i'd not debunk them, but i'd certainly not expect rational claims to come from a demographic that has a track record of failure.

now, will you concede that you were mistaken regarding my intentions, or are you insisting that i am a liar?

[OMGturt1es]

Why not go in and watch the movie, and then participate in the Q&A session after? You'd have more cridibility than you will just handing out a leaflet.

Are there going to be any speakers there, too? Or just the film?

because they are charging money to watch the film, and i certainly don't want my money going to help their cause.

[ktesibios]

I have another question.

I said rights have been lost. That's different than violated. I personally haven't been violated, yet. But then, I haven't been accused of being a terrorist. Yet.

In exactly what way will promoting demonstrably false paranoid conspiracy theories serve to remedy this? Is it your contention that conspiracist belief is a necessary condition of altering the political landscape in a positive way?

Or are you resorting to the classic conspiracist trick of switching over to political rhetoric when you can't support your claims of evildoing with evidence? If you're trying to insinuate that the Bush administration must be behind 9/11 because of the political use which has been made of the attacks since they happened, you're stuck in the fallacy of affirming the consequent- which in my experience is one of the most common mistakes in basic reasoning that paranoid conspiracists make.

[OMGturt1es]

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

there will be average, everyday people, not yet exposed to 911 CTers and arguments watching this film-- i assume. anyone walking into that film, uneducated in this area will be feed 1-2 hours of lies. it's very easy to convince anyone that anything is true if you just make **** up.

i don't want innocent folk lied to, and i know that they will be lied to, so i feel obligated to do something.

[OMGturt1es]

You might be surprised. I was at a conference yesterday, and several of the people were there out of curiosity. Popping in to see what it's all about.

But they will ask you what your motive, or agenda, is.

and i'll answer honestly. i've had friends duped in the past. i have friends now that completely believe this stuff. i think it leads to a sick, unrealistic, delusional world view, and i think that it leads to a suspension of critical thinking skills.

as a society, we can't afford to throw good minds away. as a concerned cictizen, i can't afford to watch innocent folk blindly walking into a trap of indoctrination.

the better question, i think, is what is the agenda of one that knowingly allows another to be lied to?

[OMGturt1es]

OK, but if it's all a pack of lies, then nothing will ever come of it, anyway.

that's right, nothing will come of it, IF THE VIEWERS KNOW it's a pack of lies. and that's why i intend to present documentation, so that the viewers know it's a pack of lies.

[OMGturt1es]

OMG,

Where is your "quaint" little town?

chico, california, baby! yeah!!

ok, so i'm not really cool enough for this town. i don't really party. i don't really do anything that cool. but it's still my town... for now.

[OMGturt1es]

so, let's get back to being productive. as i already asked, if i don't address all nine myths, perhaps a reader might be given the impression that i was unable to address those that i did not. but if i address the myths that are rather pety, and rely completely on conjecture, the debunking may seem a bit trite and pety itself. what should i do?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Maybe this was already established, but you're one of those hyper-relativists, aren't you? Nothing is true unless you've seen it with your own eyes?

No more so than you. You need to see it in print in the MSM, or on your teevee.

See, you can micro-debunk every aspect of any CT, but that doesn't make it not true. So maybe you are the relativist?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

that's right, nothing will come of it, IF THE VIEWERS KNOW it's a pack of lies. and that's why i intend to present documentation, so that the viewers know it's a pack of lies.

But nothing will come of it (the "truth movement") even if you go to all this effort to debunk myths. If it's all lies.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

See, you can micro-debunk every aspect of any CT, but that doesn't make it not true.
So... one can cut down all the trees in a forest, yet the forest remains intact? How does that work?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No more so than you. You need to see it in print in the MSM, or on your teevee.

See, you can micro-debunk every aspect of any CT, but that doesn't make it not true. So maybe you are the relativist?
Are you seriously claiming that a theory put forth that has its supporting evidence debunked is as valid as if its supporting evidence had not been debunked?

Read this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have another question.



In exactly what way will promoting demonstrably false paranoid conspiracy theories serve to remedy this? Is it your contention that conspiracist belief is a necessary condition of altering the political landscape in a positive way?

Or are you resorting to the classic conspiracist trick of switching over to political rhetoric when you can't support your claims of evildoing with evidence? If you're trying to insinuate that the Bush administration must be behind 9/11 because of the political use which has been made of the attacks since they happened, you're stuck in the fallacy of affirming the consequent- which in my experience is one of the most common mistakes in basic reasoning that paranoid conspiracists make.

I was trying to explain a major motivating factor behind the movement. That's all.

I personally don't think Bush did it, so I am kind of an outsider over there. Although more and more of them (us) are starting to go in that direction. Or so it seems.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So... one can cut down all the trees in a forest, yet the forest remains intact? How does that work?

You haven't begun to cut down all the trees.

The trees I see are the ones that you can't debunk. Like:

Say an MI5/CIA/Mossad/whatever whistleblower states that Al Qaida was offered payment to assassinate Qaddaffi. He claims to be coming forward for his safety. I can't prove he's not lieing, and you can't prove he is. I can only be cautious not to believe everything I hear. But the debunks here are a hoot. "That guy? He's a nut! He thinks the moon landings were faked!" isn't a debunk.

Sure, there are people lieing, knowingly, with a sinister motive. So we have to try to sort them out. Meanwhile, I'd hate to have flippantly ignored what that whistleblower was saying, because it just might be true.

It still all goes back to my 3 month question. What part of the 9/11 story bothers you? Most of you discard ANYTHING that smells of CT, just beacause it smells like CT. Meanwhile, conspiracies exist. And I'll just betcha the media hasn't uncovered them all! But in your scientific minds, you have no room for the existential "whitleblower." Or "eyewitness" (unless it furthers your views).

See, that's the whole thing. No matter how much you think you've debunked thermite, or wrong engines, or impossible to hijack the planes, etc, many people are saying "wait; 9/11 stinks bad. Looks like a coup." And damn us for trying to find the truth about it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You haven't begun to cut down all the trees.

The trees I see are the ones that you can't debunk. Like:

<snipped giant non-sequitur (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur)>
Care to provide an actual example?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Care to provide an actual example?

"The Red Brigades were part of NATO Intelligence." Try to debunk it all you want; you can't prove beyond a doubt that it is false.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"The Red Brigades were part of NATO Intelligence." Try to debunk it all you want; you can't prove beyond a doubt that it is false.
Before I even start down that path; what relevance does it have to 9/11?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Care to provide an actual example?

"People Power" revolutions are funded and manipulated by the CIA and MI6.

The anti-war movement was/is controlled by the FBI.

Clinton was blackmailed by moles in the government, and Monica was a Mossad agent.

etc.


I'm not saying I believe all this, 100%. But unlike you, I keep an open mind and read. Just because something seems preposterous doesn't make it untrue.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Before I even start down that path; what relevance does it have to 9/11?

Does it have to? You going to call "off topic" on me?

I think you know the relevance.

[T.A.M.]

It still all goes back to my 3 month question. What part of the 9/11 story bothers you? Most of you discard ANYTHING that smells of CT, just beacause it smells like CT. Meanwhile, conspiracies exist. And I'll just betcha the media hasn't uncovered them all! But in your scientific minds, you have no room for the existential "whitleblower." Or "eyewitness" (unless it furthers your views).

See, that's the whole thing. No matter how much you think you've debunked thermite, or wrong engines, or impossible to hijack the planes, etc, many people are saying "wait; 9/11 stinks bad. Looks like a coup." And damn us for trying to find the truth about it.

What bothers me about 9/11, as the general public knows it? Hmmmm...well I don't think the govt has been entirely truthful about who knew what and when wrt warnings of potential terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. However, I am not sure that even if they were more forthcoming, that it would change anything. I am not sure, given the state of the interagency affairs in the pre-9/11 era, that anything could have been done to change the outcome of 9/11.

Noone damns you for "trying to find out the truth", we damn you for the unsubstantiated accusations and rediculous and slanderous speculation that many of the truthers put forward, at times like gospel. You are talking about accusing your govt, and many honourable people who work for it, of mass murder or covering it up.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not saying I believe all this, 100%. But unlike you, I keep an open mind and read. Just because something seems preposterous doesn't make it untrue.
How does dreaming up a book-full of possibilities for government involvement in 9/11 add any weight to the fantasy that they were actually involved in 9/11?

Everything you've proposed, without support, is utterly worthless. You've wasted more of your time than you can ever imagine.

[A W Smith]

WOAHHHH where did this come from?
and Monica was a Mossad agent

:dl: I think im using up all the doglaughs today. my apologies.

What did Monica do? try to kill Bill by vacuum cavitation?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"People Power" revolutions are funded and manipulated by the CIA and MI6.

The anti-war movement was/is controlled by the FBI.

Clinton was blackmailed by moles in the government, and Monica was a Mossad agent.

etc.


I'm not saying I believe all this, 100%. But unlike you, I keep an open mind and read. Just because something seems preposterous doesn't make it untrue.

Random statements are not falsifiable theories. You may as well be saying, "Purple salamaders keep stealing my newspaper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530)" or "There's a dragon in my garage (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm)". Now, are you going to provide a 9/11 related, falsifiable claim that you feel has not been addressed or not?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Does it have to? You going to call "off topic" on me?

I think you know the relevance.
If I knew the relevance I wouldn't have asked. Stopped being a paranoid conspiracy theorist for five minutes in your life.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You are talking about accusing your govt, and many honourable people who work for it, of mass murder or covering it up.

TAM:)

No, not the honourable people. It's the dishonourable ones.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How does dreaming up a book-full of possibilities for government involvement in 9/11 add any weight to the fantasy that they were actually involved in 9/11?

Everything you've proposed, without support, is utterly worthless. You've wasted more of your time than you can ever imagine.

So you discard the credibility of a former Intel agent, or historian, or member of a past administration, as "just making stuff up?"

[Gravy]

Most of you discard ANYTHING that smells of CT, just beacause it smells like CT.

Lying will not advance your claims. Please don't do it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

WOAHHHH where did this come from?


:dl: I think im using up all the doglaughs today. my apologies.

What did Monica do? try to kill Bill by vacuum cavitation?

You haven't heard the Monica-was-a-Mossad-agent CT?

[T.A.M.]

No, not the honourable people. It's the dishonourable ones.

How do you distinguish. Hal Bidlack posts here from time to time. He worked at the Pentagon on 9/11 he picked up plane parts, he saw debris, he saw body parts, he states catagorically that a plane hit the pentagon...

Is he honorable or a liar...or in your world can you be both?

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You haven't heard the Monica-was-a-Mossad-agent CT?
I have not, please provide a citation.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have not, please provide a citation.

I don't remember. Google it. But I know I've read it, somewhere. Probably Sherman Skolnick. I think a couple writers talked about that.

[Gravy]

I'm not saying I believe all this, 100%. But unlike you, I keep an open mind and read. Okay:

How much of the 9/11 Commission report have you read?
How much of the Commission staff statements have you read?
How much of the Commission hearing transcripts have you read?
How much of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report and staff statements have you read?
How many 9/11-related OIG reports have you read?
How much of the NIST reports have you read?
How much of the transcripts and accounts of 9/11 first responders have you read?
How many books about 9/11 that primarily contain demonstrably accurate reporting have you read?

You see, while you're reading potboilers about Monica Lewinsky being paid by Mossad to give blowjobs, other people are reading material that may help them better understand the world around them.

Stop whining and do your homework.

[OMGturt1es]

But nothing will come of it (the "truth movement") even if you go to all this effort to debunk myths. If it's all lies.

you could have argued the same thing against the rise of nazism under hitler. do i think 911 CTs will lead to a holocaust? no. the point is still valid, though.

[Gravy]

I don't remember. Google it. But I know I've read it, somewhere. Probably Sherman Skolnick. I think a couple writers talked about that.Yes, a paragon of reliable reporting, with a prose style second to none.

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/claffair.html

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How do you distinguish. Hal Bidlack posts here from time to time. He worked at the Pentagon on 9/11 he picked up plane parts, he saw debris, he saw body parts, he states catagorically that a plane hit the pentagon...

Is he honorable or a liar...or in your world can you be both?

TAM:)

I don't know. I don't know him personally (not that that could determine whether he's honourable or a liar). Did he say that the plane parts were part of a Boeing 767?

One thing you guys are correct about; the internet is a great source of disinformation. And a great place to spread lies.

Keep in mind, however, that you only define a lie as a lie if it is intentional. A lot of disinformation spreads through the truth movenment unintentionally. You have to recognize that this can happen in the skeptic world too. You guys seem to jump all over any piece of info that fits your world view. Just like them!

(I should probably separate this into two posts; the predictable response will be that I'm implying that Hal is lieing; I am not saying that).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yes, a paragon of reliable reporting, with a prose style second to none.

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/claffair.html

Hey, I didn't say I believe that one.

You guys should read his "Overthrow of the American Revolution" series!!! It's great reading. Try it. Just for fun.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Okay:

How much of the 9/11 Commission report have you read?
How much of the Commission staff statements have you read?
How much of the Commission hearing transcripts have you read?
How much of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report and staff statements have you read?
How many 9/11-related OIG reports have you read?
How much of the NIST reports have you read?
How much of the transcripts and accounts of 9/11 first responders have you read?
How many books about 9/11 that primarily contain demonstrably accurate reporting have you read?

You see, while you're reading potboilers about Monica Lewinsky being paid by Mossad to give blowjobs, other people are reading material that may help them better understand the world around them.

Stop whining and do your homework.

Plenty. Of all of it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Okay:


How much of the NIST reports have you read?


Which version?

First Edition, Second Edition? Second Edition recut?

[fuelair]

Did you read the bit about him citing a video game (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2433855#post2433855)?

Okay, I know, silly question......

Oops, we've stepped in Scooby Doo again!! double yeeccchhhhh!
:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Gravy]

Plenty. Of all of it.Then why are you unable to explain what it got wrong?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Plenty. Of all of it.
You're obviously not taking this seriously, so why should anyone take you seriously?

[Gravy]

Which version?

First Edition, Second Edition? Second Edition recut?Do you need a link to the NIST reports?

[The Demon's Head]

Which version?

First Edition, Second Edition? Second Edition recut?

You forgot that is Dylan's method of revising truth. Truth doen's need a second edition.

[Gravy]

Hey, I didn't say I believe that one.

You guys should read his "Overthrow of the American Revolution" series!!! It's great reading. Try it. Just for fun.I'll get right to it! After reading this (http://www.skolnicksreport.com/claffair.html) it couldn't be more obvious that spending time with Mr. Skolnick's work is a worthy pursuit.

You do realize that you're moving backwards here, don't you, SCG? Don't you have any shame?

[T.A.M.]

I don't know. I don't know him personally (not that that could determine whether he's honourable or a liar). Did he say that the plane parts were part of a Boeing 767?

One thing you guys are correct about; the internet is a great source of disinformation. And a great place to spread lies.

Keep in mind, however, that you only define a lie as a lie if it is intentional. A lot of disinformation spreads through the truth movenment unintentionally. You have to recognize that this can happen in the skeptic world too. You guys seem to jump all over any piece of info that fits your world view. Just like them!

(I should probably separate this into two posts; the predictable response will be that I'm implying that Hal is lieing; I am not saying that).


I believe he did say they were parts of an "American Airlines" Jetliner, but that is an IIRC, and mine goes on the fritz from time to time.

Yes, the internet is a great place for disinfo. That is why I think most officials, most sicentists, most professionals, rely on the written record, the files of investigative information the FBI has, etc...

There is alot of reliable info on the net also, and distinguishing between the two is paramount. Unfortunately this can be influenced, on both sides, by your world views. For instance, I personally take what the MSM says as the official news, unless proven otherwise. I consider it a reliable source, but you may not.

Besides source critiquing, there is critiquing of the reporter, and their agenda. There is critiquing of the articles merits on its own.

There is evaluating whether outside influence did or did not have a role in the outcomes of scientific investigations. This is often done through, as R.Mackey has mentioned, other independent verifying investigations/reviews.

Peer review, by others equally, or superiorly qualified in your field, is another good source. Scholars has turned this principle into a mockery.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Which version?

First Edition, Second Edition? Second Edition recut?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Then why are you unable to explain what it got wrong?

It's more about ommissions. And the scope. And the government contractors in the catseats.

You know what I'm talking about.

[Gravy]

It's more about ommissions. And the scope. And the government contractors in the catseats.

You know what I'm talking about.No, I don't. The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?

[T.A.M.]

We are getting into DRG territory now. He equates ommissions, even unintentional ones, with lying.

Commission Report fulfilled their mandate, and were under no obligation to do anything more...EOS.

TAM:)

[The Demon's Head]

No, I don't. The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?

That question will end up being unanswered, Gravy. Twoofers/CTists/Deniers won't answer that.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.

[Gravy]

Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.That is what I meant. Why do you think there are different versions of it? There's the WTC 1&2 report, and the WTC 7 report is in progress.

So what are you talking about?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.
Stop being lazy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Do you need a link to the NIST reports?

How many pages is the final report? I might have to confess to reading a preliminary report, and a synopses.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'll get right to it! After reading this (http://www.skolnicksreport.com/claffair.html) it couldn't be more obvious that spending time with Mr. Skolnick's work is a worthy pursuit.

You do realize that you're moving backwards here, don't you, SCG? Don't you have any shame?

You don't get my point.

See, forget Skolnick, he's an extreme. You disregard any/all reporters work, calling it bunk, unless it's on the "official" news. (Even though that has proven to be bunk so many times, too).

You don't buy Hopsicker's investigations. Nor Madsen's. Nor Flocco's. (Don't bother slinging a link here).

So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How many pages is the final report? I might have to confess to reading a preliminary report, and a synopses.
Somewhere around 10,000, I believe.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You don't get my point.

See, forget Skolnick, he's an extreme. You disregard any/all reporters work, calling it bunk, unless it's on the "official" news. (Even though that has proven to be bunk so many times, too).
Bollocks!

So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.
Don't tell that to people in the following fields:
geology
paleontology
evolutionary biology
anthropology
archeology
evolutionary psychology
cosmology

because they all use science to tell us about the past.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Somewhere around 10,000, I believe.

OK, so we now know that you haven't read it.

Gravy, have you read the whole thing? That's a lot of pages!

[gumboot]

So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.


Have you heard of a group of academia called the "social sciences"? It includes social geography, classical studies, and, oh, what was the third arm of the social sciences? Oh that's right. HISTORY.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

OK, so we now know that you haven't read it.


I'm a writer. My current novel stands at somewhere around 300 pages. I couldn't tell you exactly without looking it up. And yet, not only have I read it multiple times, but I WROTE THE FRIKKEN THING.

Try again.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'm a writer. My current novel stands at somewhere around 300 pages. I couldn't tell you exactly without looking it up. And yet, not only have I read it multiple times, but I WROTE THE FRIKKEN THING.

Try again.

-Gumboot

Right, but it's only 300 pages. Not 10,000.

If you read 10,000 pages, it might leave a mark in your memory that you had, in fact, read that many pages! I would venture to say.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Have you heard of a group of academia called the "social sciences"? It includes social geography, classical studies, and, oh, what was the third arm of the social sciences? Oh that's right. HISTORY.

-Gumboot

And history is open to interpretation. Subjective. Especially geopolitical history.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And history is open to interpretation. Subjective. Especially geopolitical history.
That is not what you said, you said, "But science can't tell you about history. " thus implying that the scientific methodology can not be applied to history. Now that you've been proven wrong (again) you try to weasel your way out of it by shifting what you were talking about.

[gumboot]

Right, but it's only 300 pages. Not 10,000.

If you read 10,000 pages, it might leave a mark in your memory that you had, in fact, read that many pages! I would venture to say.


The longer it is, the less likely one would know it. Also you're ignoring the fact that I did not just "read my book once" (which is all that would be needed Re: NIST to prove your assertion wrong). I am intimately familiar with every moment of my book. And yet I still don't know the exact page count. Page counts are not important. People don't remember them.

I have also read The Bible from cover to cover several times. It's a considerable document. I have no idea how many pages, exactly. 2000? Or there abouts?

Any assertion that anyone who reads a large document will know exactly how many pages that document has is patently absurd.

And the notion that someone could not understand that is also patently absurd. Thus I am lead to conclude you are playing stupid games on purpose to avoid admitting the fact that you have never read the NIST report and know next to nothing about it.

-Gumboot

[Whiplash]

Does SCG ever actually answer specific questions, or does he just continually sidetrack into areas which are trivial and unrelated? Now arguing about whether some should remember exactly how many pages a document is from reading it. Sheeeesh.

[The Demon's Head]

Does SCG ever actually answer specific questions, or does he just continually sidetrack into areas which are trivial and unrelated? Now arguing about whether some should remember reading a 10k page document. Sheeeesh.

Troofers will always sidetrack. It's a common characteristic among troofers.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

OK, so we now know that you haven't read it.
You do?

They don't exactly have a single paperback version of all the reports with each page numbered consecutively.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have also read The Bible from cover to cover several times. It's a considerable document. I have no idea how many pages, exactly. 2000? Or there abouts?



What did you think of it? Kinda woo, wouldn't you say?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You do?

They don't exactly have a single paperback version of all the reports with each page numbered consecutively.

Did you read the entire thing?

[Whiplash]

Did You?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Did You?

Nope. Neither did you.

[LashL]

Does SCG ever actually answer specific questions, or does he just continually sidetrack into areas which are trivial and unrelated? Now arguing about whether some should remember exactly how many pages a document is from reading it. Sheeeesh.

Like most troofers, no, he doesn't answer specific questions and yes, he simply goes off on tangents in hopes that people won't notice that he hasn't responded meaningfully to the legitimate queries raised. In short, SSDD.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

We are getting into DRG territory now. He equates ommissions, even unintentional ones, with lying.

Commission Report fulfilled their mandate, and were under no obligation to do anything more...EOS.

TAM:)

Ah yes, the "mandate." Well, that's why people want another investigation. One that doesn't beg the OBL/19 hijackers/laptop/cave question.

[gumboot]

What did you think of it? Kinda woo, wouldn't you say?



That's a bit of an understatement. As a 9 year old I was able to apply a level of skeptical logic to The Bible that a good chunk of the world's adult population is incapable of summoning.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Ah yes, the "mandate." Well, that's why people want another investigation. One that doesn't beg the OBL/19 hijackers/laptop/cave question.


You do realise that Al Qaeda didn't go hide in caves until after the US started dropping bombs on them, right? The US quite literally bombed them back to the stoneage.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You do realise that Al Qaeda didn't go hide in caves until after the US started dropping bombs on them, right? The US quite literally bombed them back to the stoneage.

-Gumboot

Perhaps I should have said "tents" instead of caves. Or were they at the Hilton?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

That's a bit of an understatement. As a 9 year old I was able to apply a level of skeptical logic to The Bible that a good chunk of the world's adult population is incapable of summoning.

-Gumboot

This is good to hear. I trust all other skeptics agree.

[Whiplash]

Nope. Neither did you.

You're right, I didn't. But I'm not making claims of it's omissions and inaccuracies. You are. Without having even read it.

Bravo.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You're right, I didn't. But I'm not making claims of it's omissions and inaccuracies. You are. Without having even read it.

Bravo.

Have you ever made a claim here that it is correct and accurate? Don't make me go digging.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You're right, I didn't. But I'm not making claims of it's omissions and inaccuracies. You are. Without having even read it.

Bravo.

I did spend several nights reading it. A decent chunk, but like Congress with the Patriot Act, I don't have time to read it all.

[Whiplash]

Funny that you quickly attacked me, then turned around and posted a more serious answer to the question. You realized that wasn't a way to strengthen your position I take it. Very good.

Also, in your attack, you basically claim that you didn't say what you have said, right on that very page, in post #167, about it being more about "ommissions" and scope.

Brilliant.

?

[OMGturt1es]

just so you all know, i bought a new laptop. it's running vista. i'm diggin' it.

carry on.

[peteweaver]

Here's a good point for you to make: If the Govt had been responsible for 9/11 they wouldn't be allowing the screenings of movies about it that try to make them look bad, they would censor websites, the works, anything they can about 9/11 if they had had a hand in it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Also, in your attack, you basically claim that you didn't say what you have said, right on that very page, in post #167, about it being more about "ommissions" and scope.
I think he was talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, but the trail is pretty unclear:

Okay:

How much of the 9/11 Commission report have you read?
How much of the Commission staff statements have you read?
How much of the Commission hearing transcripts have you read?
How much of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report and staff statements have you read?
How many 9/11-related OIG reports have you read?
How much of the NIST reports have you read?
How much of the transcripts and accounts of 9/11 first responders have you read?
How many books about 9/11 that primarily contain demonstrably accurate reporting have you read?

You see, while you're reading potboilers about Monica Lewinsky being paid by Mossad to give blowjobs, other people are reading material that may help them better understand the world around them.

Stop whining and do your homework.
Plenty. Of all of it.
Then why are you unable to explain what it got wrong?
It's more about ommissions. And the scope. And the government contractors in the catseats.

[gumboot]

Perhaps I should have said "tents" instead of caves. Or were they at the Hilton?


...

Don't let your bigotry get the best of you. They were guests of the Taliban, who ran Afghanistan. They were well looked after. They certainly weren't living out in the mountains in tents.

(By the way, they do have buildings in Afghanistan. Alexander The Great founded several cities there, while our ancestors were still living in mud huts and going "woooo" at the sun.

-Gumboot

[Whiplash]

I think he was talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, but the trail is pretty unclear:

Yes, but a few posts after the last one you quoted he said "Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.". So he thought it was about the NIST report at the time he said that thing about "ommissions".

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Here's a good point for you to make: If the Govt had been responsible for 9/11 they wouldn't be allowing the screenings of movies about it that try to make them look bad, they would censor websites, the works, anything they can about 9/11 if they had had a hand in it.

They're trying.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yes, but a few posts after the last one you quoted he said "Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.". So he thought it was about the NIST report at the time he said that thing about "ommissions".

Correct. But you don't consider the collapse an ommission. Thus the confusion.

[Gravy]

You don't get my point.

See, forget Skolnick, he's an extreme. You disregard any/all reporters work, calling it bunk, unless it's on the "official" news. (Even though that has proven to be bunk so many times, too).

You don't buy Hopsicker's investigations. Nor Madsen's. Nor Flocco's. (Don't bother slinging a link here).We address the facts behind their claims. Can you explain what is wrong with that? Should we simply "buy" demonstrably false arguments, unreliable sources, and laughably bad reporting?

Please respond with specifics about how we dismiss any of the reporters you listed WITHOUT CAUSE.

So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.Another lie. I've already asked you to try to stop lying. Can you?

OK, so we now know that you haven't read it.

Gravy, have you read the whole thing? That's a lot of pages!Wow! The report you claim to have read turns out to be really, really long! SCG, I have read all of every document I listed, including over 15,000 pages of first responder accounts, plus several books, and of course thousands of pages of internet discourse.

Not only is your claim to have read these things false, you aren't even sure what they are.

You avoided this question once. Here it is again:

The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?

Please respond.

[Whiplash]

Correct. But you don't consider the collapse an ommission. Thus the confusion.

EDIT: Nevermind, I have to say I have respect for those of you who can put up with this inane nonsense and try to debate this guy. I'm gonna leave it alone.

[uk_dave]

Not to mention intellectually provocative retort. Tell me scooby how do you come up with such witty comebacks

Probably honed to perfection on internet dating sites.

Though, one suspects he still just types "Lesbi!!11an!!!" when he gets knocked back. :D

[uk_dave]

Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?

You type as if you're not one of those 'twoofers'.

If so, what's in it for you?

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps I should have said "tents" instead of caves. Or were they at the Hilton?

No, OBL had a very nice house until he was forced to leave it.

"We had to work very quickly because the house is in a remote area — it's a beautiful location on a rocky promontory projecting into a lake, with a 360 degree view surrounded by high mountains — and we had to return to Kabul before nightfall," they told British Archaeology. "This meant we only had time for 35mm still photography, and taking measurements and notes. If we'd had more time we would have shot some video footage."

They added, "Because bin Laden is such a notorious character, people were not surprised by our interest, and they did not object to us taking photos — and we collected a few shell cases. However, when we started to take measurements and write them down, they did not like it at all, and we had to leave."

Their recreation of the house allows viewers to virtually move through its sunny, whitewashed rooms and ample storage cupboards. It somewhat resembles a tropical resort getaway, save for the ominous presence of bunkers.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

We address the facts behind their claims. Can you explain what is wrong with that? Should we simply "buy" demonstrably false arguments, unreliable sources, and laughably bad reporting?

Please respond with specifics about how we dismiss any of the reporters you listed WITHOUT CAUSE.

Another lie. I've already asked you to try to stop lying. Can you?

Wow! The report you claim to have read turns out to be really, really long! SCG, I have read all of every document I listed, including over 15,000 pages of first responder accounts, plus several books, and of course thousands of pages of internet discourse.

Not only is your claim to have read these things false, you aren't even sure what they are.

You avoided this question once. Here it is again:

The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?

Please respond.

One thing I do not doubt is that you are telling the truth when you say you've read all of these reports in their entirety. You do amaze me.

But I'll bet you're one of maybe five members here who has.

The Commission report does not investigate what happened on 9/11. It begs the question: what went wrong, given that 19 Moslem hijackers, funded by Osama Bin Laden, etc. It was certainly not a criminal investigation. I think the crime of the century deserves one. And don't bother citing the Moussaoui trial, please.

How does the Commission report handle put options, Gravy? Doesn't that bother you?

BTW, I knew the report was long, over 10,000 pages. I was baiting people. Get it?

[Gravy]

How does the Commission report handle put options, Gravy? Doesn't that bother you?You don't even know? Okay, quick: tell me right now how the 9/11 Commission handles put options, SCG.

Right now.

Then you can answer this question, which I ask for the third time: can you name anything the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong?

Then do so.

[PhantomWolf]

The Commission report does not investigate what happened on 9/11.

Quite right, and as far as I understand it isn't supposed too, it was to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it occuring again.

The NIST reports were to deal with the Engineering of what happened and how to change building designs to try and prevent it from happening again, and there are (or will be) FBI reports into the criminal aspects of what happened which generally are not and will not be released until they are made evidence in any trial (I'd keep an eye on what happens with KSM). The apparent want for all of it to be tied up in one report seems a little peculiar to me, surely you get each group of experts to deal with their area and write up a report on that section.

[Gravy]

BTW, I knew the report was long, over 10,000 pages. I was baiting people. Get it?Another lie, which is obvious from reading the relevant posts.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You don't even know? Okay, quick: tell me right now how the 9/11 Commission handles put options, SCG.

Right now.



I recall they brushed it aside. Since nobody associated with Al Qaeda did it.

Please do tell me if I'm wrong, and set me straight.

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps I should have said "tents" instead of caves. Or were they at the Hilton?

As has been stated, they lived quite comfortably until they went "on the run" AFTER 9/11. The "cave" statement is a bigoted statement created by the truthers to belittle the ability of these men, most of whom were university educated.

One thing I do not doubt is that you are telling the truth when you say you've read all of these reports in their entirety. You do amaze me.

But I'll bet you're one of maybe five members here who has.

The Commission report does not investigate what happened on 9/11. It begs the question: what went wrong, given that 19 Moslem hijackers, funded by Osama Bin Laden, etc. It was certainly not a criminal investigation. I think the crime of the century deserves one. And don't bother citing the Moussaoui trial, please.

How does the Commission report handle put options, Gravy? Doesn't that bother you?

BTW, I knew the report was long, over 10,000 pages. I was baiting people. Get it?

Well if you think you have enough evidence to bring forth a criminal investigation, than have your people name names and start issueing warrants, etc...oh wait...you don't have any evidence, just speculation and coincidence, and what ifs...

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The Commission report does not investigate what happened on 9/11.

Quite right, and as far as I understand it isn't supposed too, it was to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it occuring again.



Right. So, see, that's why people want an investigation. We're tired of waiting to find out what happened. If the keystone cops can't get their guys, and trie them, with habeus corpus intact, and without torture, then we have no closure on the biggest mass murder etc etc etc.

[Gravy]

I recall they brushed it aside. Since nobody associated with Al Qaeda did it.

Please do tell me if I'm wrong, and set me straight.You are wrong. It is very, very obvious that you haven't read the report. Please do so, then reply with your SPECIFIC critique.

How many times do you have to be told that this is how things work here? Why are you wasting posts just whining?

Fourth time: can you name anything substantial that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong?

Then do so.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Another lie, which is obvious from reading the relevant posts.

Wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Right. So, see, that's why people want an investigation. We're tired of waiting to find out what happened. If the keystone cops can't get their guys, and trie them, with habeus corpus intact, and without torture, then we have no closure on the biggest mass murder etc etc etc.

SO are you saying that the FBI investigation of 9/11 wasnt correct, or was wrong, or was set up by the USG? I mean that was a criminal investigation that resulted in the 19 names.

What you are saying is not that you want a "criminal Investigation" into all the possible perpetrators, but rather, you want an investigation of the USG...right?

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You are wrong. It is very, very obvious that you haven't read the report. Please do so, then reply with your SPECIFIC critique.

How many times do you have to be told that this is how things work here? Why are you wasting posts just whining?

Fourth time: can you name anything substantial that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong?

Then do so.

Please see post #217.

I've read parts of the Commision report, when it was fresh and new. I lost interest when I realised, as PhantomWolf points out, that it in no way solves the crime.

[Gravy]

Please see post #217.

I've read parts of the Commision report, when it was fresh and new. I lost interest when I realised, as PhantomWolf points out, that it in no way solves the crime.False. How would you know what evidence it presents if you haven't read it?

You challenged ME about how the Commission Report handles the options trading issue. Yet YOU don't have ANY IDEA how the commission handles that issue. Here's a start, SCG: try the Commission's Staff Monograph on terrorist financing, starting on page 145. You know how I have that in my head?

Because I give a damn.

Because I've read the relevant material several times in response to creeps who ask questions but can't be bothered to listen to, understand, or seek answers.

Goddamn 9/11 creeps. I hate 'em.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SO are you saying that the FBI investigation of 9/11 wasnt correct, or was wrong, or was set up by the USG? I mean that was a criminal investigation that resulted in the 19 names.

Mighty quick investigation! What, 24 hours or so?

And don't forget; the investigation is "ongoing." (I think there's a thread here with a title that mentions this).

What you are saying is not that you want a "criminal Investigation" into all the possible perpetrators, but rather, you want an investigation of the USG...right?

TAM:)

Well, a competent investigation would be nice. Slinging 19 pictures up on the teevee isn't an investigation.

I know most of you don't believe the FBI is a corrupt organization. I personally believe that there is a good faction there, that will prevail. (If they aren't all rooted out). Not the "David Frasca" branch of the FBI.

Sorry, the 9/11 Truth Movement exists today because a LARGE number of people are not satisfied with the investigation. (Anthrax too). Not the result; the investigation. Sorry, we don't trust the government.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

False. How would you know what evidence it presents if you haven't read it?

You challenged ME about how the Commission Report handles the options trading issue. Yet YOU don't have ANY IDEA how the commission handles that issue. Here's a start, SCG: try the Commission's Staff Monograph on terrorist financing, starting on page 145. You know how I have that in my head?

Because I give a damn.

Because I've read the relevant material several times in response to creeps who ask questions but can't be bothered to listen to, understand, or seek answers.

Goddamn 9/11 creeps. I hate 'em.

So PhantomWolf is wrong? It DOES solve the murders? I missed that chapter.

[T.A.M.]

LARGE = 800-1000 at GZ for the big protest on the 5th Ani....try again.

84% wont cut it, see debunking of this one through 100.

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

And I hate commissions loaded with conflicts of interest, commissioned to investigate themselves.

[T.A.M.]

Answer honestly, if 9/11 occured in 2000, would you feel the same way...

ie, if Clinton/Gore were the leaders, would you find it so easy to vilify them?

TAM:)

Edit: i ask this because they were in charge up until 9 months prior to the actual event.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

LARGE = 800-1000 at GZ for the big protest on the 5th Ani....try again.

84% wont cut it, see debunking of this one through 100.

TAM:)

If you all weren't worried about the growing movement, you wouldn't spend all your time on here, TAM.

You guys are isolated. You choose to make the LC forum and a couple other sites your focus. The movement is growing. Trust me.

[Gravy]

So PhantomWolf is wrong? It DOES solve the murders? I missed that chapter.The crime was solved long before the Commission was formed. Too bad you didn't know that.

Had you bothered to read ANY of the 9/11 Commission report, you would know that it is mostly a compilation of evidence from many agencies in the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.

Why do you care enough to post about these issues but not enough to learn about them?

You say the Commission report gets it all wrong, but can't name a single thing is gets wrong.

Does that make you pause and think about your behavior here?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Answer honestly, if 9/11 occured in 2000, would you feel the same way...

ie, if Clinton/Gore were the leaders, would you find it so easy to vilify them?

TAM:)

You really don't get where I stand. I hate Clinton. I supported him, sort of, but I knew he was shady. I read a lot. I got fed a hell of a lot of "conspiracy theories" from right-wing friends; Mena drug smuggling, murdered state troopers, Vince Foster, etc (a monster list). The weird part of it is, I read the stuff he sent me. And I didn't rule it out! Of course, today, that same CTer claims he's not a CTer. I have to remind him. We all cherry pick our CTs, I reckon.

I'd love to see Clinton behind bars too, TAM. It's a criminal enterprise.

[T.A.M.]

So given that congress chose the commission, whom should choose the investigators for your new investigation?


The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Answer honestly, if 9/11 occured in 2000, would you feel the same way...

ie, if Clinton/Gore were the leaders, would you find it so easy to vilify them?

TAM:)

Edit: i ask this because they were in charge up until 9 months prior to the actual event.

I also have made clear that I don't think Bush did 9/11.

But let me ask you this? If Clinton were President for only 9 months and this happened, would you blame Daddy Bush? Think on that.

[The Demon's Head]

So given that congress chose the commission, whom should choose the investigators for your new investigation?



http://www.9-11commission.gov/

TAM:)

Troofers would undoubtedly choose Alex Jones to head their investigation. Or am I wrong about that?

[T.A.M.]

If you all weren't worried about the growing movement, you wouldn't spend all your time on here, TAM.

You guys are isolated. You choose to make the LC forum and a couple other sites your focus. The movement is growing. Trust me.

Perhaps the number of people annoyed with the current admin is growing, and alot of them are willing listen to you, but the "movement" (indicating motion or action) is very small indeed.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

If you all weren't worried about the growing movement, you wouldn't spend all your time on here, TAM.

You guys are isolated. You choose to make the LC forum and a couple other sites your focus. The movement is growing. Trust me.Yes, trust him, TAM. Has he ever lied to us?

Oh, that's right, he has.

But he's been unflaggingly competent and informed, hasn't he?

Oh, that's right, he's been unflaggingly incompetent and misinformed.

Meanwhile, in the real world,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f26164bb79f.jpg

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The crime was solved long before the Commission was formed. Too bad you didn't know that.



Then why is there still an ongoing investigation?????

I think you mean judgement was rushed to long before the Commission was formed.

[T.A.M.]

I also have made clear that I don't think Bush did 9/11.

But let me ask you this? If Clinton were President for only 9 months and this happened, would you blame Daddy Bush? Think on that.

I would not "blame" him, I am not the one accusing the USG. However, if blame is to be handed out, one would think that a fair portion would have to go to the admin that was incharge of the country for the 8 years prior to the attacks...

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yes, trust him, TAM. Has he ever lied to us?

Oh, that's right, he has.

But he's been unflaggingly competent and informed, hasn't he?

Oh, that's right, he's been unflaggingly incompetent and misinformed.

Meanwhile, in the real world,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f26164bb79f.jpg

I notice your cute graph skips Rense, Prison Planet and Infowars. And several others.

You live under a rock, I swear. You have such a hardon for Dylan Avery that you actually think most people in the movement go to his site. I think I've been there maybe 3 times.

There are sites you don't even know about. Because you're too narrowly focused.

[defaultdotxbe]

Then why is there still an ongoing investigation?????

I think you mean judgement was rushed to long before the Commission was formed.
i thought you guys want a second investigation, now theres one still ongoing? make up your damn minds already!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I would not "blame" him, I am not the one accusing the USG. However, if blame is to be handed out, one would think that a fair portion would have to go to the admin that was incharge of the country for the 8 years prior to the attacks...

TAM:)

Absolutely, if crimes were committed.

Or, better stated, moles were put in place during that time. Which I have no doubt is the case.

[T.A.M.]

I notice your cute graph skips Rense, Prison Planet and Infowars. And several others.

You live under a rock, I swear. You have such a hardon for Dylan Avery that you actually think most people in the movement go to his site. I think I've been there maybe 3 times.

There are sites you don't even know about. Because you're too narrowly focused.

Now now, you know better than to call Mark narrowly focused. I mean you may not agree with his views, but I am sure he will now prove you wrong on this point. If there is one thing Mark is not, wrt 9/11, it is NARROWLY FOCUSED.

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

i thought you guys want a second investigation, now theres one still ongoing? make up your damn minds already!

That's what I keep telling you guys! Make up your mind! Is the official story official? Is it a solved crime? Or isn't it??!!! Come on! You keep changing it. (Like you keep changing your "official story.")

[T.A.M.]

That's what I keep telling you guys! Make up your mind! Is the official story official? Is it a solved crime? Or isn't it??!!! Come on! You keep changing it. (Like you keep changing your "official story.")

I think they "have their men" in terms of perps, though not all are captured. I think what is "ongoing" now, is a gathering of supportive evidence.

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Now now, you know better than to call Mark narrowly focused. I mean you may not agree with his views, but I am sure he will now prove you wrong on this point. If there is one thing Mark is not, wrt 9/11, it is NARROWLY FOCUSED.

TAM:)

Dylan Avery is not the main man. That's all I'm saying.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I think they "have their men" in terms of perps, though not all are captured. I think what is "ongoing" now, is a gathering of supportive evidence.

TAM:)

I'd say suppresion of damning evidence. But I guess we'll never know, because any journalist that reports any damning evidence is quickly debunked as "not credible" here. I guess only the MSM is credible.

[R.Mackey]

That's what I keep telling you guys! Make up your mind! Is the official story official? Is it a solved crime? Or isn't it??!!! Come on! You keep changing it. (Like you keep changing your "official story.")

skepticalcriticalguy, those terms are not exclusive. We can have an official story and a solved crime, but still keep investigating. Much like gravity has been a well understood fact of life ever since Newton, but some of the best minds in physics are still working furiously upon it.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'd like to list just how the "official story" has changed, and see if there's anything particularly radical there, or if it's merely the standard and expected practice of refinement. Proceed.