Finally some honesty from DR Griffin!

[Hyperviolet]

I sure can't wait for his next books:

1) 9/11 Discrepancies.
2) 9/11 Inconsistencies.
3) 9/11 Problems.
4) Debunking the Official Conspiracy Theory.
5) 9/11 Anomalies.
6) The 9/11 Omission.
7) Revealing the 9/11 Deception.
8) New 9/11 Evidence.
9) 9/11 Revealed.
10) 9/11: The New JFK.
11) Coup d'etat: Deception in the White House.
12) 9/11 Revisited.

.......
.......

Ad nauseam.


All with the same recycled rubbish.
- Pull It.
- Squibs.
- Pyroclastic Flows.
- Freefall.
- Put Options.
- Molten Steel.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Big surprise- you lied again.

You previously tried to pass this lie off as a contradiction on my blog- when I pointed out that you were very wrong, you had to concede the following:

(link)

Now it appears that you're retracting that statement. Since you are unable to find any contradictions in the "official story", you have to make stuff up as you go along, and avoid the evidence altogether- and attempt ad hominem against the scientific community.

Of course, far too many people corrected you on this already, but don't let that stop you.

I wrote on your blog, "I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the government's claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true." In other words, the hole in the C-Ring does not necessarily contradict the idea that a plane hit the E-Ring of the Pentagon. It means that there mutally contradictory explanations for the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. You wrote, "In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.” There is a difference between a claim that contradicts a certain theory and mutually contradictory claims within a given theory. This simplistic distinction seems lost on you.

How was I corrected? The answers ranged all over the place.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I wrote on your blog, "I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the government's claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true." In other words, the hole in the C-Ring does not necessarily contradict the idea that a plane hit the E-Ring of the Pentagon. It means that there mutally contradictory explanations for the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. You wrote, "In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.” There is a difference between a claim that contradicts a certain theory and mutually contradictory claims within a given theory. This simplistic distinction seems lost on you.

How was I corrected? The answers ranged all over the place.

i thought the subject at hand was contradictions within the "official" explanations

since im pretty sure forum posts do not comprise any official documentation of the event i fail to see how they qualify as contradictions



ETA i could point to a recent thermite thread in which 3 different "truthy" explanations for the cut column were given, do these comprise contradictions within the truth movement?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Believe it or not, it was a tea party. I'm not making that up.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Yes, you are.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Sadly, I'm not.

He's right. Someone else made it up and he's repeating it.

There's a difference!

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

I sure can't wait for his next books:

1) 9/11 Discrepancies.
2) 9/11 Inconsistencies.
3) 9/11 Problems.
4) Debunking the Official Conspiracy Theory.
5) 9/11 Anomalies.
6) The 9/11 Omission.
7) Revealing the 9/11 Deception.
8) New 9/11 Evidence.
9) 9/11 Revealed.
10) 9/11: The New JFK.
11) Coup d'etat: Deception in the White House.
12) 9/11 Revisited.

.......
.......

Ad nauseam.

Followed by:

13) MORE 9/11 Discrepancies
14) Cooking with 9/11
15) How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO
16) Britanny's 9/11 Secrets -- REVEALED!
17) 9/11 Factoids Your Congressman Doesn't Want You to Know
18) Slimmer Rhetoric in 30 Days

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Followed by:

13) MORE 9/11 Discrepancies
14) Cooking with 9/11
15) How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO
16) Britanny's 9/11 Secrets -- REVEALED!
17) 9/11 Factoids Your Congressman Doesn't Want You to Know
18) Slimmer Rhetoric in 30 Days

as long as we dont see Sweatin' to the Truthies

[ElMondoHummus]

Bump.

Originally Posted by chillzero

As was pointed out in that thread, no-one ever claimed they were all true. Good grief.

The point is, there are several possible explanations which fit the theory that a plane hit the building, and there are several explanations that fit some other theories that it did not. The consensus that was overwhelmingly demonstrated, was this: whatever the absolute exact cause of that one specific small area of damage was cannot be determined, but it was the result of a plane hitting the building. There are no surviving eyewitnesses to that poitn of damage, and there were no cameras. Therefore the information must be extrapolated from all other available information, and this leads to the conclusion that the damage was caused by the plane impact - whether it as the plane nose itself, or debris piled up before it, or any of a number of other things.

This is an answer to the repeated and incorrect assertion that there was no consistency or reason to the answers you got. All the answers you got were logically derived from the plane impact.

Originally Posted by tanabear

I wrote on your blog, "I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the government's claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true." In other words, the hole in the C-Ring does not necessarily contradict the idea that a plane hit the E-Ring of the Pentagon. It means that there mutally contradictory explanations for the cause of the hole in the C-Ring.

No, there are not. All plausible causes of the C-ring A-E drive hole derive from some part or effect of the plane crashing. The only implausible suggestions came from the advocates of the wall breaching kits. Everyone else suggested either a component of the airplane, or an effect of the impact. None of those are contradictory; all derive from the same event.

Originally Posted by tanabear

You wrote, "In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.” There is a difference between a claim that contradicts a certain theory and mutually contradictory claims within a given theory. This simplistic distinction seems lost on you.

How was I corrected? The answers ranged all over the place.

See Chillzero's comment above. Or mine from the original "C-Ring hole" thread:

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Oh, for the love of God, this is still being argued?

I said it before and I'll say it again: The impact of the jet is what caused the hole. Asking whether it was the landing gear, a fireball, shockwave compression, or whatnot is (as I've said previously) akin to asking which sperm fertilized the egg. The point is the act that got the sperm there is what counts!!!

Similarly, the act that got the gear and the fuel inside the Pentagon, and created a shockwave on impact, is what counts. Wandering hither and yon about whether it was landing gear or some pressure effect is a level of detail unexplained in the primary sources.

The hole was created by Flight 77. Why is additional detail about what part or effect of Flight 77 created the hole necessary? Why do people want to know that? The PBR was, as we see in the title, a "Building Performance Report", and the concentration of focus and effort on the state of the columns and other structural components involved in the fires and collapse is what was important to the researchers. If anyone wants to confirm that, read Sections 8 and 9 of the PBR, the "Findings" summary and "Recommendations" (pages 58 and 59). You can figure out from those pages what the researchers were really after. Since the hole was just a consequence of the impact, and the real meat of the study was about the performance of the building structure in response to impact and fire, why do we obsess about the hole? The fact is, the important findings are about how the building held up under that trauma. Those findings impact building codes and accumulated knowledge that can go into the design of other buildings. Much like the NIST report on the Twin Towers. But this hole... that is trivia.

To be blunt, the Ring C hole is not important. It only is important to those who's obsession is about disproving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It has no importance beyond that.

The answers did not "range all over the place". The answers all fell back on the same core fact: The hole is a result of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. For some odd reason, you ignore this argument when you attempt to characterize all the responses as being "all over the place". They are not. Some believe it was the landing gear because of Henry's posted pictures. Others, like Mackey, believe it was a pneumatic pressure effect. Regardless, all those answers derive from the jet's impact. The answers are not all over the place, as you try to paint them. They all derive from a single event: The jet hitting. They are hardly "all over the place".

Well, with the exception of the wall-breaching kit hypothesis. But that's only being pushed by conspiracy peddlers; no one's taking it seriously.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I wrote on your blog, "I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the government's claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true." In other words, the hole in the C-Ring does not necessarily contradict the idea that a plane hit the E-Ring of the Pentagon. It means that there mutally contradictory explanations for the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. You wrote, "In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.” There is a difference between a claim that contradicts a certain theory and mutually contradictory claims within a given theory. This simplistic distinction seems lost on you.

How was I corrected? The answers ranged all over the place.

I'll refer you to defaultdotxbe's comments above- and the original thread, since your lie was repeatedly clarified for you.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I wrote on your blog, "I was not stating that the hole in the C-Ring contradicted the governments claim. I was stating that people who support the government's claim have more than one explanation for this occurrence and they all can’t be true." In other words, the hole in the C-Ring does not necessarily contradict the idea that a plane hit the E-Ring of the Pentagon. It means that there mutally contradictory explanations for the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. You wrote, "In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.” There is a difference between a claim that contradicts a certain theory and mutually contradictory claims within a given theory. This simplistic distinction seems lost on you.

How was I corrected? The answers ranged all over the place.

There are two points I'd like to make to you, tanabear, that seem to have escaped your attention.

Firstly, you seem a little mistaken over the identity of this forum. It's an internet discussion forum, on which a number of people interested in and more or less well-informed about the events surrounding various conspiracy theories like to discuss those theories, drawing on their own personal expertise to do so. It is not a clearing-house for officially sanctioned US government analysis and comment on the minutiae of the events surrounding the 9-11 attacks. Therefore, if you're looking for consensus here and you don't find it, that has no particular implications for the plausibility or otherwise of any particular interpretation of events. You may have been taken in by the standard conspiracy theorist position that the forum is a collection of government agents rigidly enforcing a communal groupthink and ostracising anyone whose opinions differ from the party line, in which case I imagine you might find it difficult to cope when this turns out not to be the case. The normal action of a conspiracy theorist at this stage is to hypothesise a further layer of conspiracy to account for the discrepancy between bias and observation, so if you decide we're deliberately doing this to confuse you, I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise.

The second point concerns the burden of proof. This is something, as has been pointed out, that currently rests with the truth movement, not for any legalistic reasons but because the truth movement is campaigning for certain actions to be carried out which are not at present planned or countenanced by the US or any other government, or by the overwhelming majority of its population. Unfortunately, by refusing to formulate any alternative hypotheses that explain completely the events of 9-11 - as recommended recently by David Ray Griffin - the truth movement is not able to compare the merits of its own hypothesis with the accepted view of events by assessing the evidence available. The only route open to the movement is to show that the conventionally accepted sequence of events of 9-11 could not possibly have happened. In other words, DRG and the rest of the movement have elevated their own burden of proof from the balance of evidence required in a scientific analysis or a civil lawsuit to the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that is typically required in a criminal prosecution.

How does this latter point relate to the Pentagon C-ring hole? Well, in this case, the aim of the truth movement must be to prove that this hole cannot possibly have been caused by the impact of flight 77 and any resulting deflagration and secondary impacts. In this thread, several possible explanations have been discussed, and your complaint is that the one true explanation has not been presented to you. However, this is actually a problem for you, not for the debunker. In order to prove your case, you now have to examine each of these possible explanations in turn, and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every single one of them is physically impossible. You then, having achieved this unlikely victory, have to go on to prove - again, beyond reasonable doubt - that every other possible explanation is also impossible. Because as long as there is still a way that flight 77 could have caused the C-ring hole that you haven't specifically disproved, then you haven't established anything whatsoever.

Good luck with your irrefutable proof that every possibility must be excluded. Because although Sherlock Holmes famously said that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth, he should in fact have said that whatever remains must include the truth. You may have to try to exclude a great deal of the possible before you arrive at the truth you want to find.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

He's right. Someone else made it up and he's repeating it.

There's a difference!

You mean someone besides Myers?

[SDC]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You mean someone besides Myers?

Oh no, not General Myers' culpability again... Give it up, Red I. Even if he were slack by cutting himself off from communication for a few minutes at a crucial time... Even if that were for such selfish purposes as playing cribbage with the senator, or sexual activities between two consenting adults in Cleland's office... Even if that were so he could rip his uniform off, pour cooling mint tea over his body, and prance around in front of a security camera ...

It wouldn't make any difference. Please, please, find something significant to talk about. I don't know. Whether the Tigers will win a game in 2008, or something. (4 in a row...)

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

The answers did not "range all over the place". The answers all fell back on the same core fact: The hole is a result of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. For some odd reason, you ignore this argument when you attempt to characterize all the responses as being "all over the place". They are not. Some believe it was the landing gear because of Henry's posted pictures. Others, like Mackey, believe it was a pneumatic pressure effect. Regardless, all those answers derive from the jet's impact. The answers are not all over the place, as you try to paint them. They all derive from a single event: The jet hitting. They are hardly "all over the place".

Well, with the exception of the wall-breaching kit hypothesis. But that's only being pushed by conspiracy peddlers; no one's taking it seriously.

So the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring? Well, I guess that is specific as the Randians can get. This is also another way of saying, "believe any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story." This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring? Well, I guess that is specific as the Randians can get. This is also another way of saying, "believe any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story." This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

How do you think it got there? Ready to commit to something?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by SDC

Oh no, not General Myers' culpability again... Give it up, Red I. Even if he were slack by cutting himself off from communication for a few minutes at a crucial time... Even if that were for such selfish purposes as playing cribbage with the senator, or sexual activities between two consenting adults in Cleland's office... Even if that were so he could rip his uniform off, pour cooling mint tea over his body, and prance around in front of a security camera ...

It wouldn't make any difference. Please, please, find something significant to talk about. I don't know. Whether the Tigers will win a game in 2008, or something. (4 in a row...)

There for should be some term for dismissing legitimate lines of research when they can't be refuted.

The Tigers will eventually win many games, but I'm not surprised to see Sheffield finally showing his age. The Yankees on the other hand, will be benefitting from their recent youth movement. Go Joba!

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There for should be some term for dismissing legitimate lines of research when they can't be refuted.

The Tigers will eventually win many games, but I'm not surprised to see Sheffield finally showing his age. The Yankees on the other hand, will be benefitting from their recent youth movement. Go Joba!

Where do you draw the line? Do you need to know if the tray tables were up or down when flight 93 crashed?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There for should be some term for dismissing legitimate lines of research when they can't be refuted.

I vote for "bunking off". Don't think I won't use it.

Dave

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tanabear

This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

Yes, it is, 9/11 truth. Wow, you are being truthful, you have no proof you just believe the stuff 9/11 truth, your cult, makes up. cool



irony or something

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Yes, it is, 9/11 truth. Wow, you are being truthful, you have no proof you just believe the stuff 9/11 truth, your cult, makes up. cool



irony

I just coughed up my Coke laughing at a Truther accusing somebody of beleiving something without proof.Funniest thing ever.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I vote for "bunking off". Don't think I won't use it.

Dave

I like it and expect to make use of it, as well.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I just coughed up my Coke laughing at a Truther accusing somebody of beleiving something without proof.Funniest thing ever.

So you can prove how the hole in the C-Ring was created?

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So you can prove how the hole in the C-Ring was created?

flight 77 did it

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So you can prove how the hole in the C-Ring was created?

Go on then give us a clue, maybe it had something to do with a plane that had been hijacked and was flown at high speed into the side of the building.

What do you think tanabear, plausible or impossible?

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring? Well, I guess that is specific as the Randians can get. This is also another way of saying, "believe any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story." This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

Yes, that is as specific as people posting here can get. How can anyone help that? Only one primary source - the ASCE representative who was quoted in the PopMech works - comes out and states any conclusion (which was that the landing gear caused the hole). But the PBPR doesn't state any cause, and R. Mackey provides a possible alternate explanation - pressure effects - that, BTW, is not mutually exclusive with the idea that the gear was the cause (both could have contributed; there's nothing that argues against that). So there are multiple possible explanations. But regardless of which one a given individual champions, all possible explanations stem from the jet's impact. That is obvious by the location and timing of the creation of the hole. Yet, the evidence cited in the PBPR, the fact that the jet impacted, and the fact that the hole was nearly directly opposite the point of impact is not sufficient cause to conclude that the jet had something to do with the hole's creation? This conclusion is somehow evidence of a herd/cult-like mentality, rather than the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence? What proof do you have that the wall wasn't caused by the jet's impact? You never stated anything but "what-ifs" in the previous thread. And no, a wall breaching kit is not a valid answer; you've provided zero evidence of the presense of such a device, and TC's video proves nothing more than that such a kit can breach a wall. So can a fast car; proof of a kit's use must consist of more than a video that just happens to result in a similarly round hole. Can you truly separate the event that was the jet's impact from the event that caused the hole? Do you have any explanation as to how those event can be disconnected?

And why the agitprop? What part of what I said has anything to do with belief? The proof of what caused the hole lies in the jet's impact. For the 3rd time, asking what specific component or effect caused the hole is akin to asking which sperm fertilized the egg. As I said before, it's the damn act that got the sperm there in the first place that counts. What part of noting a jet collided with the Pentagon, and noting that the investigation revealed a hole practically opposite the impact point is taking things on faith? The jet hit; physical conditions existed that easily account for a multitude of effects, including the blowing out of the hole. The logic is not apparent to you? Are you even trying to think critically about the event?

Instead of presenting canards about "... (believing) any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story", why don't you explain how the presence of the hole can be separated from the impact of the jet. Instead of raising improbable and unsupported claims, why don't you explain how the hole could not have resulted from the jet's impact. Explain where the force of the impact should've went. Explain where the debris should have went. Explain why it's illogical that such an impact shouldn't result in at least one penetration or pneumatic blow-out through the opposite wall. Base your questions in something other than reaches. Maybe then you'll see why we know, not believe, that the hole was created by the jet's impact, and maybe then you'll also realize that that's a conclusion drawn from studying the evidence, not from running with the herd.

Before you can truly think originally on the topic, you better truly understand what the conventionally accepted thinking really is. As an example, in regards to the WTC, Quintierre clearly does. So does Astaneh-Asl. They understand what NIST really says about the WTC events, so they're able to truly assemble their critiques with an element of originality. It's a sad statement about the so-called "Truth" movement that not one truther here has properly framed those men's arguments. And that's because all the conspiracy fantasists that have tried have been stuck on the fact that the two dispute the "official story". Which is the albatross all truthers seem to anchor themselves with: "How much damage can this statement do to the "Official Story"?" No fantasist seems to realize that the aspects the two men dispute actually accept the "official story" in full, and not only don't bring in to question the impacts and fires, but depend on those events to make their arguments. Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl truly understand the paradigm behind the NIST report, and they're able to truly build factual and original criticism of the findings. Why can't other truthers follow that model? Especially given their willingness to cite them both as people "questioning the official story". Instead, too many think that each and every anomaly is some sort of "smoking gun" without considering how it fits into the overall narrative of that day's events. Not only is that hardly constructing alternate hypotheses, that doesn't even rise to the level of being decent refutations of current ones. Nothing about any of the questions raised regarding the Ring-C hole's presence refutes or brings into question the fact that the jet hit. No anomaly associated with that hole, whether it's your quest to discover the precise component/effect, or TC's display of a wall-breaching kit, excludes or falsifies the impact. Even if you somehow manage to discover evidence that the hole's cause is separate from the impact, you still don't establish anything that disputes the jet's impact. You certainly don't challenge or falsify any of the ATC radar data, any of the FDR data, any of the DNA evidence, or any of the witness statements. Your anomaly hunt begins and ends at the hole. It progresses no further.

Stop and think about what you're trying to get at. If your goal is to merely dispute, you'll unfortunately find many people willing to support you in that endeavor; some here love to pick at the gullibility of the conspiracy addicts. But you won't establish or falsify anything, not until such disputes not only add up to something beyond being point anomalies, but provide a falsifiable thesis that can be checked against the facts and provides a reasonable alternative narrative to the current one That last is a necessary component of truly disproving the "Official Story".

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

How does this latter point relate to the Pentagon C-ring hole? Well, in this case, the aim of the truth movement must be to prove that this hole cannot possibly have been caused by the impact of flight 77 and any resulting deflagration and secondary impacts. In this thread, several possible explanations have been discussed, and your complaint is that the one true explanation has not been presented to you. However, this is actually a problem for you, not for the debunker. In order to prove your case, you now have to examine each of these possible explanations in turn, and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every single one of them is physically impossible. You then, having achieved this unlikely victory, have to go on to prove - again, beyond reasonable doubt - that every other possible explanation is also impossible. Because as long as there is still a way that flight 77 could have caused the C-ring hole that you haven't specifically disproved, then you haven't established anything whatsoever.

Indeed. As long as even a single plausible explanation exists that accounts for an airline being purposefully crashed into the Pentagon, any attempt at shoving some alternate theory down our throats not by presenting a more likely explanation but by trying to prove it was impossible for an airliner to have crashed into the Pentagon is a total waste of time.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring? Well, I guess that is specific as the Randians can get. This is also another way of saying, "believe any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story." This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

I'm going to quote Jay Windley for the second time in two weeks, because he gave an extremely cogent refutation of this sort of conspiracist "logic" in his response to an article written by two moon-hoax proponents:

Originally Posted by Jay Windley

We agree with the Authors that there must be only one correct answer for any given anomaly. But the Authors suppose that we can refute their attempt to find it only by finding the true cause ourselves. That's not necessary, and it's not what we're trying to do. Refuting an indirect inductive case is a matter of showing that the process of elimination was incomplete. By bringing up alternatives that the Authors haven't considered, we demonstrate the insufficiency of the Authors' case. It doesn't matter that they might be collectively incompatible. It matters only that each one is individually plausible and wasn't expressly eliminated.

A simplified version of the Authors' reasoning is illustrated in this fictitious dialogue

John: I saw an alien spacecraft.
Tom: How do you know it was an alien spacecraft?
John: Because it wasn't an airplane and it wasn't an optical illusion. The only remaining possibility is that it was an alien spacecraft.
Tom: But perhaps it was a weather balloon.
Dick: Or perhaps it was Venus.
Harry: Or perhaps swamp gas, or the space station.
John: But it can be only one thing. It can't be a weather balloon and Venus and swamp gas and the space station. You three can't agree, so clearly you don't know what you're talking about. That means my argument still holds.

If John wishes to continue with his indirect proof then he must eliminate each of the possibilities that Tom, Dick, and Harry have suggested. The fact that they are mutually exclusive is irrelevant. And similarly, the Authors' accusations of inconsistency -- whether justified or not -- simply do not excuse them from the responsibility inherent to their indirect method of reasoning.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There for should be some term for dismissing legitimate lines of research when they can't be refuted.

There should also be a term for nitpicking details that are utterly irrelevant to the discussion and trying to pass it off as a "legitimate line of research".

Have you explained the relevance of your claims? No you have not. Why not?

You might as well say that since we don't know whether the "Fasten Seat Belt" lights on 77 were on at the time it crashed, that we need a new investigation. You dismiss this as a faulty analogy; I say that unless and until you explain what relevance things like Dick Cheney's arrival time have on the central question of whether 9/11 was an inside job or even LIHOP, that it is a PERFECT analogy.

No dodging: Either explain the relevance of your claims or don't answer me at all.

[ref]

I could be wrong, but I think this "9/11 Contradictions" could very well be Griffin's last book devoted entirely on 9/11. The market is shrinking. They have to expand to maintain their readership. The next book might be titled along the lines of "The Lies of the Bush Administration" or "False Flag Terrorism - The Characteristics of an Inside Job" or "Oil Wars & Imperialism".

They have to expand more into the Alex Jones territory of everything is a conspiracy. Alex figured out years ago that 9/11 alone won't sell forever. Others will follow.

9/11 Blogger paves the way:

Quote:

9/11 was not an isolated event. I intend to broaden the mandate of the site, and connect serious researchers into recent, and not-so-recent events that bear the hallmarks of "covert operations". This includes the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and other incidents rife with patsies, and obscured with disinformation. We're going to ease into it, so give me some time to gather some information on these topics as a starting point. The fact of the matter is, all of these researchers appear to be working on the same topic, the obstruction of the Truth by agents other than the individuals blamed for the particular events.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring? Well, I guess that is specific as the Randians can get. This is also another way of saying, "believe any more specific explanation you want as long as it agrees with the official story." This type of thinking is found frequently in cults. Believe whatever you want to believe, proof is not required.

Name one statement in that thread that was not supported by proof.

Name one statement here that has not been supported by proof.

On the other hand, your claim that the hole in the C-Ring could not have been caused by a plane... Where's the proof?


Who's the cultist?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I'm going to quote Jay Windley for the second time in two weeks, because he gave an extremely cogent refutation of this sort of conspiracist "logic" in his response to an article written by two moon-hoax proponents:

Man. Gotta love Jay. That's EXACTLY what Tanabear is doing

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

I sure can't wait for his next books:

1) 9/11 Discrepancies.
2) 9/11 Inconsistencies.
3) 9/11 Problems.
4) Debunking the Official Conspiracy Theory.
5) 9/11 Anomalies.
6) The 9/11 Omission.
7) Revealing the 9/11 Deception.
8) New 9/11 Evidence.
9) 9/11 Revealed.
10) 9/11: The New JFK.
11) Coup d'etat: Deception in the White House.
12) 9/11 Revisited.

.......
.......

Ad nauseam.


All with the same recycled rubbish.
- Pull It.
- Squibs.
- Pyroclastic Flows.
- Freefall.
- Put Options.
- Molten Steel.

You forgot "9-11-I better write another book lest people stop paying attention to me".

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

There should also be a term for nitpicking details that are utterly irrelevant to the discussion and trying to pass it off as a "legitimate line of research".

.....

there is a term for it, 1337'n
"Leaving no stone unturned" is used to describe investigating all plausible possibilities.
Carrying it the twoofer step further and making sure inconsequential details are explained to an impossible level of detail is
"Upending mouse turds"

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by AMTMAN

You forgot "9-11-I better write another book lest people stop paying attention to me".

And "9-11-I better write another book lest people stop paying attention to me 2: Electric Boogaloo"

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I'm going to quote Jay Windley for the second time in two weeks, because he gave an extremely cogent refutation of this sort of conspiracist "logic" in his response to an article written by two moon-hoax proponents:

Except for the fact I didn't say I know what caused the hole in the C-Ring. I stated I don't know. The Randians believe that they know the answers to all questions regarding 9/11, so that is why I'm asking them. If someone says, "I believe so and so, but I could be wrong", that person is not a conspiracy theorist. If someone else says, "I know that that this event led to this effect, but I can't prove it, demonstrate it or experimentally re-create it" then that person is a Randian.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Except for the fact I didn't say I know what caused the hole in the C-Ring. I stated I don't know. The Randians believe that they know the answers to all questions regarding 9/11, so that is why I'm asking them. If someone says, "I believe so and so, but I could be wrong", that person is not a conspiracy theorist. If someone else says, "I know that that this event led to this effect, but I can't prove it, demonstrate it or experimentally re-create it" then that person is a Randian.

So should you say?
"Other then the fact that I think so, I have no evidence that this hole is noteworthy". Is there a point to this line of reasoning?

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Except for the fact I didn't say I know what caused the hole in the C-Ring. I stated I don't know. The Randians believe that they know the answers to all questions regarding 9/11, so that is why I'm asking them. If someone says, "I believe so and so, but I could be wrong", that person is not a conspiracy theorist. If someone else says, "I know that that this event led to this effect, but I can't prove it, demonstrate it or experimentally re-create it" then that person is a Randian.

Flight 77 caused the hole in the C-Ring.

This is proven by the damage path, the light poles, eyewitness accounts, and investigative reports.

What is your objection?

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Except for the fact I didn't say I know what caused the hole in the C-Ring. I stated I don't know. The Randians believe that they know the answers to all questions regarding 9/11, so that is why I'm asking them. If someone says, "I believe so and so, but I could be wrong", that person is not a conspiracy theorist. If someone else says, "I know that that this event led to this effect, but I can't prove it, demonstrate it or experimentally re-create it" then that person is a Randian.

Other than your ridiculous ad hominem- you are stating that you don't know what caused the hole in the C-Ring so it could not have been a plane?

You're shooting yourself in the foot.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Name one statement in that thread that was not supported by proof.

Name one statement here that has not been supported by proof.

On the other hand, your claim that the hole in the C-Ring could not have been caused by a plane... Where's the proof?


Who's the cultist?

*bump* for tanabear

[twinstead]

It appears I'm not the only one amused by Tanabear's declaration that we are the cultists.

[Tbone]

A Randian? A Randian? A RANDIAN?!



Dear non-existant god(s).

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Except for the fact I didn't say I know what caused the hole in the C-Ring. I stated I don't know. The Randians believe that they know the answers to all questions regarding 9/11, so that is why I'm asking them. If someone says, "I believe so and so, but I could be wrong", that person is not a conspiracy theorist. If someone else says, "I know that that this event led to this effect, but I can't prove it, demonstrate it or experimentally re-create it" then that person is a Randian.

Once again: How can you separate the cause of the hole from the impact of the jet? Especially given that the hole wasn't there before the impact, was there afterwards, and is practically opposite the impact point?