Easiest challenge for the Truthers, ever

1337m4n · 5th February 2008, 12:41 PM

We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them.

So here's one they can't possibly mess up.

Here's what you have to do, Truthers:

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.

In fact you don't even have to type it. You could just copy and paste it into your post. Or you could even just quote it and reply with the words "Yes I am" or "I agree".

I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.

DGM · 5th February 2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

"I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it.

VespaGuy · 5th February 2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them.

So here's one they can't possibly mess up.

Here's what you have to do, Truthers:

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.

As a non-believer in the twoofer stuff: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Quote:

I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.

I guess we can forget the LTW boys then...they've gone on record saying that nothing will convince them that they could be wrong.

Somehow I doubt you'll get many more truthers either, but this thread will be fun to watch...

Totovader · 5th February 2008, 12:53 PM

The problem, though, is two-fold:

1) The standard of evidence for conspiracists is often absurd and irrational ("show me a building falling at free-fall speed!!!")

2) When presented with clear, concise, and irrefutable evidence, conspiracists retreat to a position of "we can't know" or- without any justification whatsoever- "that evidence was faked". Just look at the ridiculous flyover nonsense for an example of that: the lightpoles, flight path damage, eyewitnesses, etc... all fake.

By examining what criteria a conspiracist would need to admit that they're wrong, we can see just how irrational and absurd their position is. It's often so obvious and unavoidable that they have to retreat.

Unfortunately, conspiracists often are not very skilled in critical thinking and logic, so it's not terribly obvious to them that expecting a clear picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon is entirely irrational and cannot be applied to any other aspect of life or scientific inquiry.

GStan · 5th February 2008, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, however, I think it's only fair to warn you that [chuck norris facts] the only time I was ever wrong was the time I thought I had made a mistake [/chuck norris facts].

Drudgewire · 5th February 2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it.

There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation.

UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it.

So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day.

twinstead · 5th February 2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation.

UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it.

So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day.

yup. I would LOVE for it to be determined that UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting the Earth. I would LOVE for there to be a Bigfoot. I would LOVE if there was life after death and it could be proved. Hell, if my government actually WAS complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent people I'd LOVE to see them go down.

But, I'm not big on faith. I need some REAL, verifiable, legitimate evidence of all these things. That is what being a skeptic is all about.

johnny karate · 5th February 2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

...but tomorrow's a new day.

I just checked my calendar. He's right.

Viper Daimao · 5th February 2008, 01:28 PM

I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits.

Drudgewire · 5th February 2008, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits.

In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

OldTigerCub · 5th February 2008, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge?

Billdave2 · 5th February 2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers.

T.A.M. · 5th February 2008, 03:08 PM

Truther:

IF someone shows me the right, NON-FAKED, NON-PLANTED, evidence, then I will consider it.

/Truther

TAM

Max Photon · 5th February 2008, 08:13 PM

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Unsecured Coins · 5th February 2008, 08:16 PM

Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence"

I'll make popcorn.

Hokulele · 5th February 2008, 08:52 PM

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?

X · 5th February 2008, 09:02 PM

I will not say it.

I will, however, say the following: "I am willing to admit I am wrong if convincing factual evidence is shown to me."
In fact, I have done so in the past.

As Coins opined, the definition of "right" is sure to be an object of contention.

Gravy · 5th February 2008, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?

I've never admitted to being wrong about anything here.

Wait, that's wrong.

chillzero · 6th February 2008, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Let's not ignore it when people respond as you requested.

(although I agree about the problem with the word 'right')

Wildy · 6th February 2008, 06:50 AM

Has this been posted on LCF to see what their response would be?

Dave Rogers · 6th February 2008, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?

I've made a couple of real howlers on this forum, and admitted to them at the time.

I deny them all now, of course.

Dave

twinstead · 6th February 2008, 07:23 AM

I've decided to ignore my many mistakes on this forum. From what I can see, truthers appear to make mistakes magically disappear by ignoring them. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me, dammit!

twinstead · 6th February 2008, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you?

Loss Leader · 6th February 2008, 07:46 AM

I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value.

Reality Believer · 6th February 2008, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. .......

The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA.

It is the Chewbacca Defense really.

Drudgewire · 6th February 2008, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Billdave2

I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers.

Even their greatest hits CD "Penis Mightier."

Originally Posted by OldTigerCub

You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge?

I should mention it to the rapists.

Terral · 6th February 2008, 08:57 AM

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

Quote:

1337 >> Here's what you have to do, Truthers: Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.

We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0)

GL,

Terral

DGM · 6th February 2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0)

GL,

Terral

Talk to United airlines they have the 100 ton plane.(or at least 95% of it). Do that and the truth will set you free.

GStan · 6th February 2008, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0)

GL,

Terral

Am I the only one playing the "Take a drink every time Terral says 'Bushie' drinking game"?

I'm pretty tore up.

Am I thlurring my thpeech?

TWO MORE ROUNDS PLEATHE TWINTHTEAD!

Totovader · 6th February 2008, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0)

GL,

Terral

This doesn't even make any sense.

What evidence do you have? Try to see if you can present some evidence without doing the whole "Bushie says" stuff. I- for one- am interested in evidence, not childish political banter.

Dave Rogers · 6th February 2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Terral

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

And thank you for failing it so dismally.

Dave

Max Photon · 6th February 2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.

Totovader · 6th February 2008, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.

Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery.

Max Photon · 6th February 2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence"

I'll make popcorn.

Originally Posted by twinstead

What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you?

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value.

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA.

It is the Chewbacca Defense really.

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.

Originally Posted by Totovader

Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery.

Really? A complete mystery? (And here I thought I was being crystal clear all this time.)

Just let me have a wee peek at fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2.

Max Timorous Beastie

nicepants · 6th February 2008, 10:38 AM

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me

In the case of the 9/11 CTS...I think a great start would be actual physical evidence of an explosive device.

Totovader · 6th February 2008, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Really? A complete mystery? (And here I thought I was being crystal clear all this time.)

Just let me have a wee peek at fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2.

Max Timorous Beastie

No, you weren't.

A "wee peek" is an action, not evidence. As far as what's right- it's completely non-sequitur.

To take this statement in the reverse, you're saying that the evidence that has convinced you is that you were not allowed to take a "wee peek" at the perimeter panels. I was not allowed to take a "wee peek" at the perimeter panels, and even though I never asked (and would never expect to be able to since I am in no position to have any sort of authority or scientific position) I have not arrived at the same conclusion that you have.

Who is in error? Me, or you?

Considering your qualifications, I think everyone can understand why you were not in a position to take a "wee peek". However, in the entirely unlikely event that you were granted special permission to take a "wee peek" at the panels you wish, and found evidence of your precious thermite- would you still admit you were wrong? No? Then your answer makes no sense, does it?

Max Photon · 6th February 2008, 10:43 AM

Fire-affected perimeter panels are the evidence.

And that evidence was destroyed.

"A wee peek" would be the action of seeing the evidence -- were it not for the spoliation.

Totovader · 6th February 2008, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Fire -affected perimeter panels are the evidence.

And that evidence was destroyed.

"A wee peek" is the action of seeing the evidence.

The question is what evidence would you need. Fire-affected perimeter panels would be easily satisfied by looking at video or pictures, or reviewing the witness testimony.

There is absolutely no doubt that the perimeter panels were affected by fire.

You going to admit you were wrong, now? No more conspiracy theories from you?

Max Photon · 6th February 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Totovader

The question is what evidence would you need.

To test the interiors of fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC2 for traces of thermite.

Quote:

Fire-affected perimeter panels would be easily satisfied by looking at video or pictures, or reviewing the witness testimony.

NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2.

Quote:

There is absolutely no doubt that the perimeter panels were affected by fire.

Exactly.

And there is absolutely no doubt that there was no arson investigation to determine the cause of the fires that affected the perimeter panels, and there were no tests to determine if fires were the sole cause of the heating of the columns.

Yet 99% of the steel evidence was destroyed.

Totovader · 6th February 2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Max Photon

To test the interiors of fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC2 for traces of thermite.

"To test" is another action. Asking for evidence, not your unreasonable demands intentionally set up on non-sequitur pieces of evidence you think were intentionally destroyed.

Quote:

You're so full of it.

If calling you out on your irrational and absurd claims means I'm "full of it"- then yes, to the brim, I am full of it.

Quote:

NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2.

Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire.

Quote:

And there is absolutely no doubt that there was no arson investigation to determine the cause of the fires that affected the perimeter panels, and there were no tests to determine if fires were the sole cause of the heating of the columns.

"No test" is not evidence, but requiring an "arson investigation" when there... uh... were these planes, is quite ridiculous. There's no need to conduct an "arson investigation" when there is absolutely no shred of evidence for arson- and a metric ton of evidence to the contrary. Again, however, that's not evidence... its a "lack of test"- which is not what was asked for.

Seriously, can you answer the question or not? If you can't- can you explain why, or at least admit that it's caused you to think FOR ONE SECOND why you can't even come up with evidence?

Are we to believe your story even though you completely lack evidence? Why?

5th February 2008, 12:41 PM	#1
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Easiest challenge for the Truthers, ever We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them. So here's one they can't possibly mess up. Here's what you have to do, Truthers: Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it. In fact you don't even have to type it. You could just copy and paste it into your post. Or you could even just quote it and reply with the words "Yes I am" or "I agree". I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.
	Last edited by 1337m4n; 5th February 2008 at 12:43 PM.

5th February 2008, 12:47 PM	#2
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,308	Quote: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

5th February 2008, 12:50 PM	#3
VespaGuy Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,036	Originally Posted by 1337m4n We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them. So here's one they can't possibly mess up. Here's what you have to do, Truthers: Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it. As a non-believer in the twoofer stuff: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me. Quote: I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls. I guess we can forget the LTW boys then...they've gone on record saying that nothing will convince them that they could be wrong. Somehow I doubt you'll get many more truthers either, but this thread will be fun to watch...
	__________________ "You are claiming it wasn't one. That is a positive claim." - Russell Pickering

5th February 2008, 12:53 PM	#4
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,240	The problem, though, is two-fold: 1) The standard of evidence for conspiracists is often absurd and irrational ("show me a building falling at free-fall speed!!!") 2) When presented with clear, concise, and irrefutable evidence, conspiracists retreat to a position of "we can't know" or- without any justification whatsoever- "that evidence was faked". Just look at the ridiculous flyover nonsense for an example of that: the lightpoles, flight path damage, eyewitnesses, etc... all fake. By examining what criteria a conspiracist would need to admit that they're wrong, we can see just how irrational and absurd their position is. It's often so obvious and unavoidable that they have to retreat. Unfortunately, conspiracists often are not very skilled in critical thinking and logic, so it's not terribly obvious to them that expecting a clear picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon is entirely irrational and cannot be applied to any other aspect of life or scientific inquiry.
	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

5th February 2008, 01:01 PM	#6
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by DGM I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it. There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation. UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it. So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

5th February 2008, 12:56 PM	#5
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	Originally Posted by 1337m4n Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, however, I think it's only fair to warn you that [chuck norris facts] the only time I was ever wrong was the time I thought I had made a mistake [/chuck norris facts].

5th February 2008, 01:21 PM	#7
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by Drudgewire There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation. UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it. So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day. yup. I would LOVE for it to be determined that UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting the Earth. I would LOVE for there to be a Bigfoot. I would LOVE if there was life after death and it could be proved. Hell, if my government actually WAS complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent people I'd LOVE to see them go down. But, I'm not big on faith. I need some REAL, verifiable, legitimate evidence of all these things. That is what being a skeptic is all about.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 5th February 2008 at 01:21 PM.

5th February 2008, 01:22 PM	#8
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,820	Originally Posted by Drudgewire ...but tomorrow's a new day. I just checked my calendar. He's right.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

5th February 2008, 01:28 PM	#9
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 498	I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits.

5th February 2008, 01:37 PM	#10
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Viper Daimao I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits. In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

5th February 2008, 02:02 PM	#11
OldTigerCub Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Steeler Nation, Pa. Posts: 1,633	Originally Posted by Drudgewire In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson." You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge?
	__________________ "Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe

5th February 2008, 02:04 PM	#12
Billdave2 Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Anderson, South Carolina Posts: 591	Originally Posted by Drudgewire In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson." I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers.

5th February 2008, 03:08 PM	#13
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Truther: IF someone shows me the right, NON-FAKED, NON-PLANTED, evidence, then I will consider it. /Truther TAM

5th February 2008, 08:13 PM	#14
Max Photon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spacetime Posts: 1,554	I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.
	__________________ MAX-MIHOP: Thermite - an incendiary - was used to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, to initiate collapse. Jets served as ambiguity-reducing deception to make all of the experts certain, decisive and wrong that the WTC fires were solely jet-induced. The experts were so bewildered by deception planners' use of feedback - of hiding fire in fire - that no one thought to investigate for arson. That is how the WTC demolitions-by-heat-weakening were - and still are - hidden in plain view. Last edited by Max Photon; 5th February 2008 at 08:14 PM.

5th February 2008, 08:16 PM	#15
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence" I'll make popcorn.
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

5th February 2008, 08:52 PM	#16
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

5th February 2008, 09:02 PM	#17
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	I will not say it. I will, however, say the following: "I am willing to admit I am wrong if convincing factual evidence is shown to me." In fact, I have done so in the past. As Coins opined, the definition of "right" is sure to be an object of contention.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 5th February 2008 at 09:07 PM.

5th February 2008, 09:43 PM	#18
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Hokulele As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists? I've never admitted to being wrong about anything here. Wait, that's wrong.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

6th February 2008, 04:51 AM	#19
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,226	Originally Posted by Max Photon I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me. Let's not ignore it when people respond as you requested. (although I agree about the problem with the word 'right')

6th February 2008, 06:50 AM	#20
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,921	Has this been posted on LCF to see what their response would be?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

6th February 2008, 06:55 AM	#21
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Hokulele As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists? I've made a couple of real howlers on this forum, and admitted to them at the time. I deny them all now, of course. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

6th February 2008, 07:23 AM	#22
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	I've decided to ignore my many mistakes on this forum. From what I can see, truthers appear to make mistakes magically disappear by ignoring them. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me, dammit!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 6th February 2008 at 07:23 AM.

6th February 2008, 07:27 AM	#23
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by Max Photon I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me. What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

6th February 2008, 07:46 AM	#24
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence. Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable. The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

6th February 2008, 08:04 AM	#25
Reality Believer Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: So. Cal Posts: 720	Originally Posted by Loss Leader I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence. Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable. The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. ....... The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA. It is the Chewbacca Defense really.
	__________________ "Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

6th February 2008, 08:41 AM	#26
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Billdave2 I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers. Even their greatest hits CD "Penis Mightier." Originally Posted by OldTigerCub You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge? I should mention it to the rapists.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

6th February 2008, 08:57 AM	#27
Terral Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 257	Nice Challenge. Debunkers Go To Town Debunking. :0) Hi 1337: Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge. Quote: 1337 >> Here's what you have to do, Truthers: Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it. We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0) GL, Terral
	Last edited by Terral; 6th February 2008 at 08:58 AM. Reason: his to "this"

6th February 2008, 09:02 AM	#28
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,308	Originally Posted by Terral Hi 1337: Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge. We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0) GL, Terral Talk to United airlines they have the 100 ton plane.(or at least 95% of it). Do that and the truth will set you free.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

6th February 2008, 09:07 AM	#29
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	Originally Posted by Terral Hi 1337: Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge. We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0) GL, Terral Am I the only one playing the "Take a drink every time Terral says 'Bushie' drinking game"? I'm pretty tore up. Am I thlurring my thpeech? TWO MORE ROUNDS PLEATHE TWINTHTEAD!

6th February 2008, 09:11 AM	#30
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Terral Hi 1337: Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge. We have a deal! This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole. This is a picture (and this one) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (and this one) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie is dead wrong anytime. :0) GL, Terral This doesn't even make any sense. What evidence do you have? Try to see if you can present some evidence without doing the whole "Bushie says" stuff. I- for one- am interested in evidence, not childish political banter.
	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

6th February 2008, 09:12 AM	#31
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Terral Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge. And thank you for failing it so dismally. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

6th February 2008, 09:30 AM	#32
Max Photon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spacetime Posts: 1,554	Originally Posted by Max Photon I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me. Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.
	__________________ MAX-MIHOP: Thermite - an incendiary - was used to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, to initiate collapse. Jets served as ambiguity-reducing deception to make all of the experts certain, decisive and wrong that the WTC fires were solely jet-induced. The experts were so bewildered by deception planners' use of feedback - of hiding fire in fire - that no one thought to investigate for arson. That is how the WTC demolitions-by-heat-weakening were - and still are - hidden in plain view. Last edited by Max Photon; 6th February 2008 at 09:31 AM.

6th February 2008, 09:51 AM	#33
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Max Photon Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me. Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery.
	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

6th February 2008, 10:17 AM	#34
Max Photon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spacetime Posts: 1,554	The "right evidence" for Max Photon Originally Posted by Max Photon I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me. Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence" I'll make popcorn. Originally Posted by twinstead What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you? Originally Posted by Loss Leader I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence. Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable. The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value. Originally Posted by Reality Believer The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA. It is the Chewbacca Defense really. Originally Posted by Max Photon Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me. Originally Posted by Totovader Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery. Really? A complete mystery? (And here I thought I was being crystal clear all this time.) Just let me have a wee peek at fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2. Max Timorous Beastie
	__________________ MAX-MIHOP: Thermite - an incendiary - was used to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, to initiate collapse. Jets served as ambiguity-reducing deception to make all of the experts certain, decisive and wrong that the WTC fires were solely jet-induced. The experts were so bewildered by deception planners' use of feedback - of hiding fire in fire - that no one thought to investigate for arson. That is how the WTC demolitions-by-heat-weakening were - and still are - hidden in plain view. Last edited by Max Photon; 6th February 2008 at 10:39 AM.

6th February 2008, 10:38 AM	#35
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,720	I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me In the case of the 9/11 CTS...I think a great start would be actual physical evidence of an explosive device.
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein