Arguments 9/11 Debunkers Shouldn't Use?

[Myriad]

I've been thinking about this as a thread topic for a while. Since defaultdoxbe's anyone interested in a debunker v debunker debate? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84683) thread has gotten a mixed (at best) initial reaction, I thought this topic might be a productive alternative.

The question is, are there arguments against CT nonsense that are valid, but should not be used (or only used with particular caution) by debunkers, because they're not effective or potentially counterproductive? And what is it that makes them so?

To start off, here's my suggestion for one, and it's a biggie:

"It would take too long to rig the WTC towers for demolition. And it would be impossible to do without being caught."

Here's the reason I'm confident that every truther who hears it will ignore it, every time I see a debunker use it. It's because it's contradicted by pervasive movie mythology that American movie and TV audiences (that is to say, young people) have been immersed in for years.

You've seen this movie plot (and its endless variations) dozens or hundreds of times: the hero, a talented ex-burglar/mercenary/spy/con man who's gone straight, is forced out of retirement when the bad guys hold his wife/child hostage, and forced to perform a task that everyone has always believed completely impossible, such as plan and execute a break-in of an ultra-secure vault, in a ridiculously short period of time. Not only does the hero succeed in this task, despite the cops getting wind of it and coming after him and despite some last-minute unplanned-for complication that forces him to improvise, he also manages (in the same ridiculously short amount of time) to rescue the hostage, double-cross the bad guys, and trick everyone (including the cops) into thinking the suitcase full of cash has been destroyed when actually he's made off with it.

As soon as truthers hear "not enough time to wire the buildings," I can practically see the DVDs spinning in their video-addled little brains. A guy in a delivery uniform wheeling a laundry cart past a security desk; the guards casually poke at the cover to reveal laundry inside, but once in the elevator the false laundry layer is tossed off and eight commandos crawl out, vault through the access panel, and fan out through the elevator shafts. Meanwhile other groups are patching VCRs into security cameras, arranging little mirrors around photocells, and unpacking RDX from a stack of innocent-looking office supply delivery cartons from that afternoon.

Remember, also, that the heroes in the movies always succeed despite every factor (except their own talent) -- the clock, the police, distrust within the group -- working against them. Imagine how much more could be done with additional inside help, the latest secret government gear, unlimited budget, and years of planning time!

The truthers can't think up that kind of plan themselves, so if you ask "how could it be done?" they don't have an answer. But they couldn't think of how to do it in the movies either, and the people in the movies always manage to do it anyhow. So the fact that neither they nor you can imagine how it could be done does not instill the slightest doubt in their minds that it could be done.

It's not a convincing debunk. It's a dare, a challenge. It runs up against the ubiquitous (if false) idea that clever motivated people can come up with a way to do anything.

Does this matter? Should the argument be raised anyhow for the benefit of fence-sitters, or are fence-sitters likely to have the same unadmitted "nothing's impossible" reaction, making it counterproductive?

Any other arguments anyone thinks should not be as readily used?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[parky76]

we should probably not say things like:

-the american governmant is too benevolent to ever hurt its own people.
-conspiracies just dont happen.
-george bush is a peaceful man
-inside job, outside job, who cares?

[Myriad]

we should probably not say things like:

-the american governmant is too benevolent to ever hurt its own people.
-conspiracies just dont happen.
-george bush is a peaceful man
-inside job, outside job, who cares?


I believe I specified valid arguments? :)

Though I'm starting to come dangerously close to that last one in my darkest thoughts. Social policy decisions on issues like health care and traffic safety, even "minor" ones, routinely cause, fail to prevent, or shuffle around hundreds, sometimes thousands, of deaths. For instance, if past U.S. Government policies are even 1% responsible for the worldwide epidemic of nicotine addiction, that 1% of the resulting deaths amounts to another 9/11 every 50 days.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Brainache]

There's also the if the conspiracy was real you guys would be dead argument, which while being arguably valid, only prompts the Truther to say: "They wouldn't dare bump me off because I'm too important and there would be too many questions".

It just confirms them further into the idea that they are important movers and shakers in the shadowy world of international intrigue, like James Bond Jack Bauer or Jack Ryan.

Absurd? Yes, but still part of their Hollywood themed reality.

[Redtail]

There's also the if the conspiracy was real you guys would be dead argument, which while being arguably valid, only prompts the Truther to say: "They wouldn't dare bump me off because I'm too important and there would be too many questions".

It just confirms them further into the idea that they are important movers and shakers in the shadowy world of international intrigue, like James Bond Jack Bauer or Jack Ryan.

Absurd? Yes, but still part of their Hollywood themed reality.

While i admit it shouldn't be used I also admit I use it because the "tail-chasing" that ensues from "They can't becuase of the questions." Followed by "They are ruthless, and would kill them (the whistle blowers who really CAN back up what they say) in a second!" amuses me.

I would say an argument that shouldn't be used is "If the fires weren't that hot explain people jumping out of the buildings." Hot is realitive to the individual,and there are other factors (ie smoke) to be considered.

[gumboot]

"No structural engineers agree with you".

I think it's a mistake to play the "expert" card. The reality is there are people vaguely related to the field who support the CTs. Most of them appear to been utterly insane (Billiard Balls!) or grossly misinformed, but the point is, as soon as a debunker raises the issue of expertise, in the mind of a CTer the support of a single perceived expert automatically validates their theory.

Now, debunkers can make the fine distinctions between an engineer specialising in fire behaviour, or an engineer specialising in steel high-rise structures, or an electrical engineer, or a dental engineer. We can make the distinction between a demolition expert who watches a collapse on video and a demolition expert who was right there when the building collapsed.

Conspiracy Theorists can't. In their mind, Judy Wood is equally as qualified to talk about the WTC collapses as the staff at NIST. Jowenko is equally as qualified to talk about the collapse of WTC7 as the Controlled Demolition crews who were physically there at the time, or the Protec crews who were monitoring seismographs in the area.

They simply lack the critical thinking ability to make those distinctions. We should avoid the credentials argument all together and focus on the question "What information does this expert have available, and what is their evidence to support their position?"

If we look at a CD of WTC7, all Jowenko has is a video, and his only evidence is his own personal assertion. In contrast Protec witnessed the collapse, talked to people who witnessed the collapse and damage, had recorded primary data on seismographs, and so forth.

It doesn't matter which is the more recognised "expert". One of these experts has collected substantial data and provided substantial evidence to support their assertion. The other has not.

If Isaac Newton himself came back from the grave and claimed the towers on 9/11 were collapsed in a CD I would demand evidence.

-Gumboot

[MarkyX]

I think it's a mistake to play the "expert" card. The reality is there are people vaguely related to the field who support the CTs. Most of them appear to been utterly insane (Billiard Balls!) or grossly misinformed, but the point is, as soon as a debunker raises the issue of expertise, in the mind of a CTer the support of a single perceived expert automatically validates their theory.


I agree. You need to remember that like holocaust deniers and creationists, these folks are trying to pigeon-hole any small tiny hole they "view" as a flaw to crumble the entire theory. Not exactly scientific and very stupid, but that's how they work.

My argument has changed to "Not a single structural engineer in the entire world has written a peer-reviewed paper disputing the NIST report"

[Kage]

My theory is that we as a forum are reactive when it comes to these debates. The best arguments are those that confront the cter:

How many UBLs are there?
Why didn't the goverment fake wmds in Iraq?
Why were most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia?

I feel that these are the hugest holes in all the CTer's theories.

[The Doc]

Well, to be honest, I think that no matter what argument you throw at them, they will have some kind of response. However, in most cases, that response has had no thought put into it and is an utterly absurd fabrication. We've seen it happen in Gravy's "Ground Zero's" film.

Gravy: "Does the NIST report say that explosives brought the towers down"
Conspiracist: "Yes".

We've just got to remember that the burden of proof is not on us, and as long as that proof is not being provided, the "truth" movement will not achieve anything (thus the 6 years of no progress on their part).

Brainache makes an excellent point with the "if the conspiracy was real you guys would be dead" argument. I'm not a fan of that one myself. Think about the reaction of the public if all the prominent truthers committed suicide or got into an unfortunate accident. That would certainly raise a few eyebrows.

[uk_dave]

My theory is that we as a forum are reactive when it comes to these debates. The best arguments are those that confront the cter:

How many UBLs are there?
Why didn't the goverment fake wmds in Iraq?
Why were most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia?

I feel that these are the hugest holes in all the CTer's theories.

But even those arguments are easily dismissed by the 'truther'

"UBL? Who knows? All we know is that the US govt has a name and it is that name upon which they have pinned the blame for 911. UBL could be real, fake, a single person or many people, it makes no odds."

"The govt did try to fake wmd in Iraq. I read it on the internets...somewhere. They failed because the whole world was watching Iraq and looking for signs of faked wmd. The whole world wasn't watching NYC prior to 9/11"

"Saudi is a close ally of the west and was the most convenient country to get the patsies from. They couldn't get Iraqis because Saddam wasn't going to play ball to provide an excuse for an invasion of his country"

:D

[portlandatheist]

I don't know if this is a good or bad strategy, but the strategy I do use is to push their conspiracy further by asking them the consequences of their theory. So 911 was an inside job? Who was involved? CIA, FBI, Fire fighters, Bush Administration, Free Masons, NORAD, NSA, etc. How many people would it need? Do you think that during the recruitment campaign (demolition, cruise guided missile, et al ) that some people decided they didn't want to be involved? How do you imagine the recruitment campaign and when did it start? Those types of questions.
Another strategy I use is to start out with is asking them about whether they think there is a also a global conspiracy to keep the everlasting light bulb a secret and to keep the public stuck with our crappy ones. Since this is much less emotional, I first try to convince them that there is not global conspiracy and why. If I can convince them that their is no global light bulb conspiracy, I have a chance that I can do the same for 911, otherwise there is no hope.
I have also found, like the others have mentioned, that appealing to authority and consensus such as NIST, demolition experts, etc. is basically worthless. The government, and everybody else for that matter, is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

[Carefulplease]

If Isaac Newton himself came back from the grave and claimed the towers on 9/11 were collapsed in a CD I would demand evidence.

Evidence that he is Isaac Newton resurected? ;)

[qarnos]

I've always felt that "so, the fire fighters are in on it?" is a bit too much of an appeal to emotion for my liking.

:dig:

[Brainster]

Remember that for the most part your arguments should be tailored towards the onlooker and not the Denier, except in the rare case where the Denier is a friend/relative and you are attempting an intervention. So whether it works with Deniers is irrelevant in most cases.

Obviously the family members who support another investigation are probably the touchiest topic, and so I recommend just pointing out that there will always be some percentage of family members dissatisfied with the results of any investigation. But always be careful to avoid arguing quotes from the family members. They have their opinions and you have yours.

[Corsair 115]

Brainache makes an excellent point with the "if the conspiracy was real you guys would be dead" argument. I'm not a fan of that one myself. Think about the reaction of the public if all the prominent truthers committed suicide or got into an unfortunate accident. That would certainly raise a few eyebrows.On the other hand, since some CTers insist the U.S. is a de facto fascist state with the government snooping on everyone, presumably the first folks who found out the "truth" about 9/11 would have eliminated before they had much of a chance to spread their knowledge.

Indeed, I would think at the first whiff of someone having stumbled across the "truth" they'd have met with some sort of untimely demise. I mean, if the NWOers or whomever is said to have been responsible for 9/11 had no qualms about killing 3,000 people, then surely they'd have no qualms about offing one or two people here and there once they started disseminating their 9/11 theories.

Thus, the "truth movement" would have been decapitated before it ever even started.

[Brainache]

...

Brainache makes an excellent point with the "if the conspiracy was real you guys would be dead" argument. I'm not a fan of that one myself. Think about the reaction of the public if all the prominent truthers committed suicide or got into an unfortunate accident. That would certainly raise a few eyebrows.

So, all the prominent Truthers need to do to put the NWO into the spotlight and expose the evil conspiracy is commit mass suicide. Come on guys are you warriors for Truth or what?

[gumboot]

Evidence that he is Isaac Newton resurected? ;)


Well yes, first up I'd need some pretty frikken compelling evidence that he had in fact returned from the dead. Then I'd probably interrogate him about the afterlife. Some time on the second day I'd ask for evidence about his 9/11 opinions.

-Gumboot

[Par]

How many UBLs are there?
Why didn't the goverment fake wmds in Iraq?
Why were most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia?

I feel that these are the hugest holes in all the CTer's theories.


I’ve seen these questions answered with an almost glib “well, I can’t know how these people’s minds work.” That response, however, invariably comes from someone who seems more than happy to make claims about how their minds must work when attributing them motivations for even the most inconsequential of details concerning the supposed conspiracy.

[Civilized Worm]

I've always felt that "so, the fire fighters are in on it?" is a bit too much of an appeal to emotion for my liking.

:dig:


Not just that, it raises the question of why the firefighters would send so many of their people in to die if they were in on it in the first place.

[jab712]

"I know someone who was working at the Pentagon that day, it was a plane."

Looking back, I realize that this is a pointless argument as well. Especially arguing it on a posting board. Maybe ok when dealing with a family member, but certainly not a stranger.

I actually started looking into this whole "conspiracy" garbage when my brother-in-law was convinced it was an inside job. When my husband told me I was like "you...are...kidding...me!!!" Specifically he did not believe that a plane hit the pentagon.

This, of course, flew all over me because I have a dear friend who was working at the Pentagon that day, on the side that was hit. My argument was that my friend was NOT a liar, saw the plane wreckage and that he couldn't keep a secret to cover up a mass murder. I love my friend, but he can't keep ANY secret, certainly not one that big. Actually, the only reason he wasn't hurt that day was because he decided to go have a cigarette break. As he was about to go back to his office he decided he would smoke one more cigarette. A few moments later the plane hit.

I ended up on a conspiracy board to see what they had to say. I started to get mad and I was ready to pounce with my argument (I was naive about CTers). I even emailed my friend just to be sure I had my story straight. I certainly didn't want to get the facts wrong. He replied "yes Jennifer a plane did hit. Yes I have heard all that before, they are crazy...I saw plane wreckage. Just ignore them." I put my information on the board and immediately there were responses saying he was wrong, that you can't rely on witnesses, blah, blah and more blah. My effort was futile and now that I think about it, pretty stupid. Why should strangers believe me or my friend, especially paranoid ones?

Back to my brother-in-law. I haven't taken on the debate with him yet. I was getting all my facts together first before I take on him on. :)

[lapman]

"No structural engineers agree with you".

I think it's a mistake to play the "expert" card. The reality is there are people vaguely related to the field who support the CTs. Most of them appear to been utterly insane (Billiard Balls!) or grossly misinformed, but the point is, as soon as a debunker raises the issue of expertise, in the mind of a CTer the support of a single perceived expert automatically validates their theory.
More often than not, it's grossly misinformed.

Now, debunkers can make the fine distinctions between an engineer specialising in fire behaviour, or an engineer specialising in steel high-rise structures, or an electrical engineer, or a dental engineer. We can make the distinction between a demolition expert who watches a collapse on video and a demolition expert who was right there when the building collapsed.

Conspiracy Theorists can't. In their mind, Judy Wood is equally as qualified to talk about the WTC collapses as the staff at NIST. Jowenko is equally as qualified to talk about the collapse of WTC7 as the Controlled Demolition crews who were physically there at the time, or the Protec crews who were monitoring seismographs in the area.

They simply lack the critical thinking ability to make those distinctions. We should avoid the credentials argument all together and focus on the question "What information does this expert have available, and what is their evidence to support their position?"

If we look at a CD of WTC7, all Jowenko has is a video, and his only evidence is his own personal assertion. In contrast Protec witnessed the collapse, talked to people who witnessed the collapse and damage, had recorded primary data on seismographs, and so forth.
Then there is the phone call where Jowenko says that he studied the floor plans. CT'ers will claim that he has looked at ALL the information or even say that he is "well versed" on the subject of WTC7.

Actually, the only reason he wasn't hurt that day was because he decided to go have a cigarette break. As he was about to go back to his office he decided he would smoke one more cigarette. A few moments later the plane hit.
Jab712, to a CTer, that means that he was forewarned and purposely left the office and that he was threatened with death if he exposed the conspiracy. That's how desperate they are to prove their no-existent point.

[Par]

I forgot to mention: Excellent original post, by the way, Myriad.

[jab712]

Jab712, to a CTer, that means that he was forewarned and purposely left the office and that he was threatened with death if he exposed the conspiracy. That's how desperate they are to prove their no-existent point.


YEAH, I think that was said in the many blah blah blah retorts. Why I didn't see it coming, I can't tell ya. I am no longer that naive about debating/arguing with a CTer.

On a side note, I want to thank all of the people on this board who have provided such great debunking info!!

[Foolmewunz]

As to the "You'd all be dead!" argument, remember that these guys think that a victim of a mugging was murdered because he was an affiliate student member of Fetzer's squad. If that comes up, then it's a fair argument. Why is Crazy Jim still around if the NWO is snuffing students of no standing?

The argument/statement I most often avoid is, "Say, Ace, you sound like a fairly intelligent, fellow."

:spjimlad:

[Kage]

But even those arguments are easily dismissed by the 'truther'

"UBL? Who knows? All we know is that the US govt has a name and it is that name upon which they have pinned the blame for 911. UBL could be real, fake, a single person or many people, it makes no odds."

"The govt did try to fake wmd in Iraq. I read it on the internets...somewhere. They failed because the whole world was watching Iraq and looking for signs of faked wmd. The whole world wasn't watching NYC prior to 9/11"

"Saudi is a close ally of the west and was the most convenient country to get the patsies from. They couldn't get Iraqis because Saddam wasn't going to play ball to provide an excuse for an invasion of his country"

:D

I've convinced three or four people with these questions. The WMD one is the most striking.

So, how much money do you think it took to fake 9/11?

Wow, must have bee like billions?

Why then, did they not fake WMDs in Iraq? All it would need is an arabic typewriter and a vial of anthrax.

Oh.

I find these arguments separate the delusional from the suspicious. If a truther brushes it off, then probably nothing would convince them, and it still is a benefit to lurkers and fence sitters. You can spend forever debating the minute details of the WTC/Pentagon attacks with truthers but these questions rip holes in their arguments like nothing else.

[Cuddles]

"You're an ugly poopy-head with the mental capacity of half a brain-dead amoeba and you smell faintly of raspberries."

It's valid in many cases, but probably shouldn't be used very often.

[Belz...]

"It would take too long to rig the WTC towers for demolition. And it would be impossible to do without being caught."

It's still true.

[Pardalis]

The rock hyrax doesn't seem to work very well... :(

[Brainache]

The rock hyrax doesn't seem to work very well... :(

Well, no one wanted to say.... it looks so damn cute and you seemed very fond of it...

[Pardalis]

Well, no one wanted to say.... it looks so damn cute and you seemed very fond of it...

:D

I'm compensating with my tough Kubrick stare. ;)

[gumboot]

I've always felt that "so, the fire fighters are in on it?" is a bit too much of an appeal to emotion for my liking.

:dig:



I agree. Having said that, I think it can be worded in such away that it presents a dilemma of logic. The FDNY lost the second largest number of members on 9/11 after Cantor-Fitzgerald. Yet WTC7 cannot possibly have been demolished without FDNY involvement, either in the act itself, or in a coverup. And WTC7 cannot possibly have been rigged for demolition between the collapse of WTC1 and when the building collapsed.

Ergo, if WTC7 was demolished, someone prepped it to do so prior to the attacks, which means they knew the attacks were going to occur. And the FDNY must know this, yet they have said nothing, despite the fact that they were victims of the attacks.

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

Gumboot, everyone knows that FDNY shills are quite willing die for their NWO agenda!

[ElMondoHummus]

"No structural engineers agree with you".

I think it's a mistake to play the "expert" card.

{snip text}

If Isaac Newton himself came back from the grave and claimed the towers on 9/11 were collapsed in a CD I would demand evidence.

-Gumboot

Not only that, you get into an expert vs. expert argument. What if someone who truly is a certified, licensed Structural engineer hops on board with the conspiracy fantasists? What of that argument then? All of a sudden, the discussion becomes evangelism for a given expert rather than true argument i.e. statement of a premise, presentation of facts, and a logical conclusion derived from the presentation.

The point is not who makes an argument, it's what logic the argument contains. I really shouldn't use the argument about no structural engineers agreeing with the conspiracy fantasies - although I admit to hypocrisy on this, because I've done that exact thing before :blush: - because very, very few of those experts have ever actually commented on the arguments, nor have they studied them with the professional/analytical parts of their brain engaged. In short, I don't think a whole lot of them have examined the conspiracy fantasies critically. Most take the route epitomized by a geophysicist I once read: 'Why respond to the flat earthers? They'll just waste your time'.

Ideally, I should make arguments building up from specific facts or issues, then cite an expert's supporting argument, not just the authority of the expert. Drawing a non-random example: In weighing treatments for myosarcoma, I'd weigh the specifics of how a given medical treatment - say, a specific chemotherapy regimen, or surgury recommended by an oncologist or surgeon - addresses the sarcoma vs. how an alternative treatment - say, one from a homeopath - would. It's be a mistake to just broadside the argument M.D. vs. homeopath (or osteopath, or whatever) because you're closing the argument off on a basis that doesn't take into account the actual arguments the experts would make about the subject. Not to mention the fact that you open it all up to arguments having nothing to do with medicine i.e. the power of the physician class, their "self-interest" in maintaining supremacy in the healthcare fields, etc. Social issues do not interest me when I'm weighing surgury vs. some herbal treatment; efficacy does. Anyway, saying "Medical treatment X vs. invasive treatment y (surgury) vs. alternative treatment z: What is the success rate of each?" is a far more logically based argument than appealing to experts.

Now, granted, we all get lazy at times, myself most emphatically not excluded, and I've fallen prey to disregarding the very ideal I spelled out here. Still, though, it's a good ideal to strive for.


------

Off topic: Can I nominate one conspiracy fantasy argument that I wish they'd punt with due prejudice? It's one that's so easily defeated, I have to bite down contempt whenever I see it, and really work to address the arguer as an adult rather than a 5 year old. It's the one in various guises where they tell you to ignore the "science" (or research, or engineers, or whatever) and ask yourself if Bush (or Neocons, or Republicans) is capable of doing such an act.

I always end up using CAPS, the italics, and the bold tags to respond, and one day I'm gonna add the blink tags: MOTIVE IS NOT OPPORTUNITY!!!!!.

... and then I go on about how it doesn't matter how evil a government is, they cannot suspend physics to do evil deeds. It's such an absurd argument that I groan out loud and gnash my teeth. I'm debating these chumps? And this is one of their arguments? If a man is truly measured by his opponents, then arguments like that depress me, because it means I have some really small, ignorant opponents.
{/rant}

Sorry, but it's just such a stoooooopid argument...

[uk_dave]

Excellent first post Elmondo...and welcome to the asylum...I mean, forum.

:D
ETA - Well second post...so who is counting?

[ElMondoHummus]

Excellent first post Elmondo...and welcome to the asylum...I mean, forum.

:D
ETA - Well second post...so who is counting?


Thank you. I'm assiduously working towards post #50 so I can put up an avatar (I got two: One of Wile E. Coyote holding a card that says "Genius", and a similar one I Gimp'ed to say "WTF?". Still torn over which one to use... :D ).

[negativ]

Good points all around, but from my point of view, if the weakness of an argument stems from the likelihood that truthers will ignore it or dance around it or dismiss it out of hand, then why offer any arguments at all? The devout CT believers prove time and again that they are immune to anything that contradicts their faith.

If the goal is to contain the spread of idiocy so that otherwise sane people are not infested, I don't think it's strictly necessary to go about it as though the Truthers are all members of the Oxford debating society. (http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us) Sometimes illustrating why a CT claim is just really frickin' stupid is just as effective as a giant wall of extensively footnoted text with PhD-level physics equations added in.

Just sayin'.

[calebprime]

The issue of what works for fence-sitters or members of the general public is quite different from the issue of what is a logical argument.

Finding logical flaws in the opponent's argument will convince few people.

Also--as an aside--convincing fence-sitters is one useful thing, but it need not be the only goal of the people arguing (or discussing here).

Logical argument, again, is somewhat different than debate among experts. In this kind of debate, people without technical knowledge (the jury, or the fence-sitters) are mostly looking for subtle cues about who is most credible--who seems most expert, and sanest, and sure of herself.

I personally agree with Myriad's objective, and admire his brains and logical acumen. But the argument that people won't be convinced by the simple impossibility of rigging the towers in a short period of time strikes me as too clever. If people are temporarily fooled by the artifice of movies, they need to be reminded of reality. This is a good common-sense argument.

I see people in the general public being influenced by how often they hear some vague rumor. They are not critical thinkers. This is true for the Kennedy assassination, and it's true for 9/11.

Common sense need not be abandoned for all purposes, just not appealed to in matters of physics or science.

Perhaps for a lesson in persuasion, people could look to Bugliosi.

He gives a prosecuter's summary of what happened.

He describes simple reasons for the public's misconceptions.

He shows in simple terms why the conspiracy theories are impossible.

In short, don't forget to assert, in simple terms: This happened. Not this.

My morale here is often improved by the somewhat simple poster who says something like: "Planes operated by terrorists hit the towers. They fell down."

Don't forget to be simple.

Also, think diversity--Gravy, ConspiRaider, Gumboot, Myriad, etc. (to pick a few, and arbitrarily leave out others) are somehow more persuasive as a loose group with different styles.

Don't be too exclusive.

I can well imagine that some of you would like better opposition, or to raise the logical or technical level of the debate--but given the fact that your opposition consists almost entirely of nuts, the basic scene is too odd to try to make it more reasonable.

[Foolmewunz]

Thank you. I'm assiduously working towards post #50 so I can put up an avatar (I got two: One of Wile E. Coyote holding a card that says "Genius", and a similar one I Gimp'ed to say "WTF?". Still torn over which one to use... :D ).

Well, analyzing the math(s), at the rate you're going, you have until February of 2015 to decide, so you can work through it by then, I gather.

(Welcome!)

[CHF]

I've always felt that "so, the fire fighters are in on it?" is a bit too much of an appeal to emotion for my liking.

I find it actually works quite well on the issue of WTC7.

The role of the FDNY places twoofers in a horrible dilema where they are forced to either

a) blame the FDNY for either the demolition or coverup, or

b) re-examine their beliefs

There simply is no third option.

[Travis]

I don't think it's a good idea to back off on explaining the impossibility of wiring the buildings just because in Truther world fictional Hollywood films make it seem possible. This is essentially conceding defeat to ignorance. It's definitely a problem, but one that needs to be addressed through education.

Think of this analogy. I constantly run into the problem, when dealing with Apollo hoax believers, of them wanting to know why you can't see stars in the photos/videoclips or hear the LM rockets ignite for liftoff? They feel they should see the one and hear the other purely because they have experienced them so many times in movies. In movies stars are always visible even when they shouldn't be, and sound is prevalent in virtually every sci/fi movie/tv show made by anybody not named Kubrick.

So what to do? Give it up? Not on my watch!

Bottom line is movies aren't real. Movies exist to entertain and that often requires leaps of logic and pandering emotionality. Fact is that the movies that are being referred to often get loads of things wrong. They have illogical premises, incorrect facts, convenient coincidences and good old fashioned plot holes. Thinking one can infiltrate a building full of machine gun toting guards just because Jack Bauer can is just silly and as a gruff cynic I just can't stand silliness!


Except when Monty Python did it, that was ok silliness.



About the FDNY. I don't think it should be seen as an appeal to emotion but as a way to bring up accusations against the FDNY and explore the logical consequences of such accusations. That a fireman could be corrupt is without question. That a fireman could be so corrupt as to collaborate in the deaths of friends, and in some cases family, is also hypothetically possible. But an entire metropolitan wide fire department full of such people with not one of them ever cracking and confessing is not only just improbable but downright nutty!

[MortFurd]

I find it actually works quite well on the issue of WTC7.

The role of the FDNY places twoofers in a horrible dilema where they are forced to either

a) blame the FDNY for either the demolition or coverup, or

b) re-examine their beliefs

There simply is no third option.

In the CT mind, there IS a third option:
c) Ignore the conflict and continue hollering about CD.

[The Silver Shadow]

Would arguing that "why are they still living in the US if they know the government has committed all these atrocities against their people" not be a suitable point? I mean, they are supporting this with their taxes...

[Foolmewunz]

Would arguing that "why are they still living in the US if they know the government has committed all these atrocities against their people" not be a suitable point? I mean, they are supporting this with their taxes...

I'm afraid that's a slam-dunk for the twoofers. (Oh, you're Canajun,.... so it's an empty net goal.)

That's really just a variation on several lines, easily parlayed after a hundred years of hearing them:

"Hey why dontcha go back to Russia you don' like it here?"
"Aww go back to Africa!"
"Go try living in Iran!"

The answer's just as pat... "I'm exercising my right as an American, nay my responsibility... To question and to lobby for peaceful change."

[GregoryUrich]

I have finally given up and become a non-truther. Here is some inside information that will help us win the war on insanity.

1. The military can't find 2.3 trillion dollars that is missing after the fact. How are they going to find four hijacked planes in real time?

Truthers just can't seem to understand that jet fighters can't be scrambled in less than an hour. It just doesn't work that way. Commercial flight intercepts are infrequent. In fact only 67 intercepts were done in the 12 months preceding the terrorist attacks.

2. 15 million dollars is more than enough to fund the 9/11 Commision's mandate: The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.
Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

Truther's always assume this would be an extremely complex task requiring alot of resources.

3. Then they compare the budget to the investigation of the Clinton-Lewinski affair...

They are comparing apples and oranges. 30 million dollars was the absolute minimum necessary for a complete investigation of an issue as of this nature.

4. The NIST collapse times for WTC1 + 2 are proven by science and cannot be compared to video timings.

The NIST collapse times were calculated and reviewed by the best experts the US has to offer. Everyone who isn't lacking in education or intellect understands that they are infallible. The Videos were taken and analyzed by amatuers. Enough said.

5. Bazant et al. have proved gravity collapse in their latest paper.

Of course this is true, but truthers will always counter with: "But Bazant says the combined compacted mass of the lower part and the upper part hit the bedrock at 47m/s. This KE is 25,000 times the total seismic energy as calculated by LDEO." Truthers always pretend knowledge or lie. It's obvious that the bedrock and the impacting mass would just absorb 99.996% of the impact energy.

6. Each WTC tower weighed 566,000 tons. Bazant et al. say so, and all experts and structural engineers agree.

Truthers just can't grasp that one WTC tower weighed 2.54 times as much as the Sears Tower. But in fact the WTC tower is 30% larger. Go figure!

7. Truthers are incapable of logic. Of course they can't get this one...it's too logical.

[uk_dave]

'Truthers' should never, ever pretend to be debunkers. They're no better at debunking than they are at ... ummm... 'truthing'.

[The Silver Shadow]

I'm afraid that's a slam-dunk for the twoofers. (Oh, you're Canajun,.... so it's an empty net goal.)

That's really just a variation on several lines, easily parlayed after a hundred years of hearing them:

"Hey why dontcha go back to Russia you don' like it here?"
"Aww go back to Africa!"
"Go try living in Iran!"

The answer's just as pat... "I'm exercising my right as an American, nay my responsibility... To question and to lobby for peaceful change."
So then the ball will be in their court when I say that they are supporting the Bush regime by paying sales tax on their everyday purchases. Why are they doing that? If they want to exercise their rights, then they shouldn't buy anything at all to support their warlord government at all...

[GregoryUrich]

'Truthers' should never, ever pretend to be debunkers. They're no better at debunking than they are at ... ummm... 'truthing'.

One more tactic that doesn't work on truthers.

When lacking in substantial logic or evidence, resort to insults.

[westprog]

I've always felt that "so, the fire fighters are in on it?" is a bit too much of an appeal to emotion for my liking.


I think that if the argument was "The fire fighters are good guys, and you say they did something bad. Therefore you are wrong" then that's an appeal to emotion.

However, pointing out that the CT necessarily implies that the firefighters are involved, and pointing out that the CT's try to exculpate them using convoluted reasoning is a good argument. If the CT argument is that a large number of firefighters were blackmailed into lying about 911, then I'd just make them state that that's what they think, and let it sit there and steam. Arguing against that would indeed be an appeal to emotion, in that it's saying "Yes, George Bush, his cabinet colleagues and the armed forces might be involved in a mass murder conspiracy, but the firemen could never do such a thing."

In general, a good debating tactic against the CT's is to let them state any given belief, and to derive the implications thereof.

[westprog]

"I know someone who was working at the Pentagon that day, it was a plane."

Looking back, I realize that this is a pointless argument as well. Especially arguing it on a posting board. Maybe ok when dealing with a family member, but certainly not a stranger.


Especially since a lot of CT thinking involves something a guy told a guy and THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE and apparently THERE WAS NO PLANE! Unnamed people making unsubstantiated statements are the basis of CT's, not the rebuttal.

In the case of someone you know, it's a different matter. You can say "I spoke yesterday at 3.14 to Mr So-and-so at the Pentagon, and he said this - I wrote it down on the pad next to the phone. I've know him since 19xx, I trust what he says." You can even, depending on circumstances, record a message or put people in contact.

However, when it's a matter of someone I don't know posting a statement allegedly from someone else I don't know, I have to discount it as hard evidence. It's too easy for the other side to come up with the same thing.

[Myriad]

I have finally given up and become a non-truther. Here is some inside information that will help us win the war on insanity.

1. The military can't find 2.3 trillion dollars that is missing after the fact. How are they going to find four hijacked planes in real time?

Truthers just can't seem to understand that jet fighters can't be scrambled in less than an hour. It just doesn't work that way. Commercial flight intercepts are infrequent. In fact only 67 intercepts were done in the 12 months preceding the terrorist attacks.

2. 15 million dollars is more than enough to fund the 9/11 Commision's mandate:
Truther's always assume this would be an extremely complex task requiring alot of resources.

3. Then they compare the budget to the investigation of the Clinton-Lewinski affair...

They are comparing apples and oranges. 30 million dollars was the absolute minimum necessary for a complete investigation of an issue as of this nature.

4. The NIST collapse times for WTC1 + 2 are proven by science and cannot be compared to video timings.

The NIST collapse times were calculated and reviewed by the best experts the US has to offer. Everyone who isn't lacking in education or intellect understands that they are infallible. The Videos were taken and analyzed by amatuers. Enough said.

5. Bazant et al. have proved gravity collapse in their latest paper.

Of course this is true, but truthers will always counter with: "But Bazant says the combined compacted mass of the lower part and the upper part hit the bedrock at 47m/s. This KE is 25,000 times the total seismic energy as calculated by LDEO." Truthers always pretend knowledge or lie. It's obvious that the bedrock and the impacting mass would just absorb 99.996% of the impact energy.

6. Each WTC tower weighed 566,000 tons. Bazant et al. say so, and all experts and structural engineers agree.

Truthers just can't grasp that one WTC tower weighed 2.54 times as much as the Sears Tower. But in fact the WTC tower is 30% larger. Go figure!

7. Truthers are incapable of logic. Of course they can't get this one...it's too logical.


The topic of this thread is discussion of arugments 9/11 debunkers shouldn't use, and why. For discussion of arguments 9/11 consipracy theorists shouldn't use, and why, see... most of the other threads in this forum. (If you're currently discussing #5 somewhere, please pm me a link -- I'd love to hear how adding additional energy over and above the gravitational potential energy to the collapse (such as via explosives) would account for the low amount of seismic energy observed.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[GregoryUrich]

The topic of this thread is discussion of arugments 9/11 debunkers shouldn't use, and why. For discussion of arguments 9/11 consipracy theorists shouldn't use, and why, see... most of the other threads in this forum. (If you're currently discussing #5 somewhere, please pm me a link -- I'd love to hear how adding additional energy over and above the gravitational potential energy to the collapse (such as via explosives) would account for the low amount of seismic energy observed.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

These are definitely arguments debunkers shouldn't use--because being wrong is no fun. I have never proposed adding additional energy over and over. Nonetheless, the siemic energy issue is being dicussed on the "physics from non-experts" thread.

[gumboot]

1. The military can't find 2.3 trillion dollars that is missing after the fact. How are they going to find four hijacked planes in real time?


Er, it's the FAA that has to find four hijacked planes in real time, not the military.




Truthers just can't seem to understand that jet fighters can't be scrambled in less than an hour.


15 minutes was the allowed time frame on 9/11. They did it faster.




It just doesn't work that way. Commercial flight intercepts are infrequent. In fact only 67 intercepts were done in the 12 months preceding the terrorist attacks.

Evidence that any of these intercepts were commercial flights? Almost all NORAD intercepts 1990 - 2001 were drug smuggling flights across the Caribbean, intercepted by the fighters at NORAD's two bases in Florida.

One domestic airspace intercept by USAF between 1991 and 2001, it took 81 minutes.

-Gumboot