Truthers at the JREF, learned anything yet?

[Pardalis]

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

[DC]

Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.

[Mobyseven]

The scary part is that these people will one day have to function in society somehow...

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.

A dishonest answer to start, what a surprise.

I mean seriously. Has anything, even small, changed in your views about 9/11 since you first got here?

[bio]

sometimes it is interesting. i learn, that there may be other explanations, too. in rare cases, you really manage to "debunk". Often you just work with semantic tricks or insults.

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What did you learn so far?

Sock-puppetry?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A dishonest answer to start, what a surprise.

I mean seriously. Has anything, even small, changed in your views about 9/11 since you first got here?

yes, some things i saw as a strong indication for a conspiracy / cover up, i dont see as indications anymore, but in overall. i still belive in a CD of the tower and oc WTC7, im still agnostic about flight 77, but im still sure we didnt get presented the real impact place of flight 93.

i still belive Cheney played a major criminal roles in the atack.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

yes, some things i saw as a strong indication for a conspiracy / cover up,

Such as?

This is the point of the thread, you can't just say "some things". What?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Such as?

This is the point of the thread, you can't just say "some things". What?

just resently, the cuts of the remaining steel columns.

and i underestimated the damage of WTC7 (while this improved my oppinion about WTC7 to be a CD)

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

just resently, the cuts of the remaining steel columns.

and i underestimated the damage of WTC7 (while this improved my oppinion about WTC7 to be a CD)

So have you found any physical evidence of a CD yet?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

So have you found any physical evidence of a CD yet?

no, and never claimed to have.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

no, and never claimed to have.

So you believe theories that have, even according to you, zero evidence supporting them. At least you are honest about it. But how do you think that makes you look?

[DC]

Originally Posted by dtugg

So you believe theories that have, even according to you, zero evidence supporting them. At least you are honest about it. But how do you think that makes you look?

i dont care how it makes me look

is there anything you belive without having hard evidence?

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

is there anything you belive without having hard evidence?

Nothing that comes to mind.

[Alex Libman]

I've learned that logical reasoning skills and moral integrity are even less commonly combined within one person than I previously thought.

[chillzero]

One off topic split to AAH, another to a new CT thread. Please try to address the topic defined in the OP.

Posted By:chillzero

[DC]

Originally Posted by chillzero

One off topic split to AAH, another to a new CT thread. Please try to address the topic defined in the OP.

Posted By:chillzero

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

I've learned that logical reasoning skills and moral integrity are even less commonly combined within one person than I previously thought.

I've learned there are a lot more paranoid people and trolls than I ever imagined possible.

[Mark Felt]

I've learned that coming to a conclusion, then looking for evidence that supports that conclusion and ignoring all the evidence that contradicts that conclusion is common to fanatics in all their various forms: the fundamentalist, the conspiracy theorist, the racist bigot...

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

[Pardalis]

So you learned absolutely nothing new, Red? Nothing changed in your mind after all these months of debating here? Not even a small thing?

May I ask then why do you keep posting here? What's the purpose of starting "debunk alert" threads, exactly, if you know nothing we say will change your mind?

Aren't you supposed to be "agnostic"?

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

Says a whole lot more about you than anything else you have ever posted.

Originally Posted by Red

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

Using facts to counter lies is not honest research? Claiming fires in WTC7 were not large fires despite all the evidence to the contrary is how honest?

Originally Posted by Red

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

Even so, if they are anyways intelligent they will realise that the incomplete or inaccurate explanations still do not equal inside job. Something you have hilariously failed to realise.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Even so, if they are anyways intelligent they will realise that the incomplete or inaccurate explanations still do not equal inside job. Something you have hilariously failed to realise.

And that, my funky friend, is the crux of the matter.

Although I have never considered myself a twoofer, I've learnt a great deal and cannot stress how much I appreciate every effort in this forum. Fortuneately it seems I joined at just about the right time before the 'debate culture' went a little downhill. But you're all forgiven; I wouldn't want to and couldn't repeat myself over and over again just to see the other end being banned for being a sock puppet.

[notheist]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.

Well Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was not entirely accurate or complete, and yet it has proven to be true. All these years have only strengthened the fact of evolution in spite of "creation truth" people desperate attempts to poke holes. It's survival of the fittest idea.

The truth of evolution would have come out in spite of Darwin, reality has a way of doing that. Bunk, on the other hand tends to sinks to the bottom and trutherism has hit bottom, and is showing signs of digging.

With seven years to come up with one solid piece of evidence that 9/11 was and inside job the truthers have become nothing but jokes. I know of three persons personally who made 'truther" sounds a few years ago and NOW! tell me they never REALLY believed in that ****.

So enjoy it while you can, either you guys will abandon the 9/11 conspiracy or end up being old crackpots, good for laughs.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

So you learned absolutely nothing new, Red? Nothing changed in your mind after all these months of debating here? Not even a small thing?

May I ask then why do you keep posting here? What's the purpose of starting "debunk alert" threads, exactly, if you know nothing we say will change your mind?

Aren't you supposed to be "agnostic"?

The question you ask in the thread title is not the same as the question you ask in the OP. Have I learned something by reading and participating in the jref forum? Absolutely. In the 9/11 forum I learn a great deal. I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

If by agnostic you mean that I don't proclaim my beliefs as the absolute truth, than yes, I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know 'what really happened". I came to this forum because I was interested in the best debunking of conspiracy theories.

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.

[SDC]

Red I., your last sentence should end, "to confirm the official story for me" (or words to that effect). It is apparent that you made up your mind some time ago, and that your profession of "agnosticism" is false. You have made it clear over and over again that you believe it was some sort of "inside job" by the present administration.

I'm sad to say that your sham agnosticism, well, it gives agnosticism a bad name.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed?

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.

Congratulations, you've realized something about debunking that most people, including most debunkers here, never quite get straight. Debunking has nothing to do with confirming any particular story.

Debunking is finding fault with the evidence offered in support of a story. Completely successful debunking -- that is, demonstrating that there is no valid evidence in favor of a story, as is the case here with 9/11 inside job theories -- means there is no reason to believe that story.

Naturally, if there's no reason to believe a particular story, it makes sense to turn instead to other explanations of the event that do have evidence supporting them. But that's irrelevant as far as debunking is concerned. If it were a total mystery how 9/11 happened, the 9/11 conspiracy theories would still be debunked. For instance, controlled demolition via explosives and/or incendiaries would still suck as a theory for why the towers collapsed, even if their collapses had not been immediately preceded by airplane impacts and large intense fires. The possibility would be considered and quickly rejected due to the lack of observed blast shocks, no overpressure waves, no shrapnel, no evidence of explosive or incendiary distortion of the column ends, no remains of demolition apparatus, and collapse dynamics inconsistent with pre-weakening of the structure except at the collapse initiation zones. Suspicion would probably fall (as it has in other cases of accidental structural failure) on design and construction errors, flaws in material quality, extensive corrosion or fatiguing of members or fasteners, brittle fracture or other mechanical damage from usage or modification, and overloading. (Perhaps that's why NIST investigated many of those possibilities, despite the obvious evidence of collision damage and fire also having occurred! For example, if NIST had found evidence of substandard steel, or of chronic leaks having caused extensive corrosion, the narrative would have been quite different: rather than "the towers were doomed once the collisions took place," we'd all be seeing the big picture of the tower collapses as "substandard materials/practices made the towers more vulnerable than they should have been."

Not everything presented or discussed here is limited to debunking alone. Evidence in favor of the consensus narrative has emerged from research under discussion here including work by Gregory Urich, Crazy Chainsaw, and Frank Greening. Other such work published by journalists, scientists, engineers, and prosecutors in their respective milieux have also been discussed. But if you're looking for "debunking that confirms the official story," that's a contradiction in terms. Sorry if you were led to think otherwise.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Some truthers have been posting and debating here for months, some even a year or two (RedIbis comes to mind). They've had their ideas and claims thoroughly discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail and repetitively so.

So, I'm wondering out of curiosity, has anything changed your mind? Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction? What did you learn so far?

Discussing ideas is not the same as showing that certain claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement are false, or that certain claims made by the defenders of the official story are true. Debunking, JREF style, when it comes to 9/11 usually means coming up with alternative scenarios to explain an event. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Any explanation will do as long as it agrees with the official story(i.e. Flight 77's impact into the E-ring). How did WTC1 and 2 collapse? Maybe it was a pile-driver effect, a pancake collapse, a shockwave, a cushion of debris etc. Any theory is okay as long as you conclude the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire led to the tower's demise.

What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking.

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Discussing ideas is not the same as showing that certain claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement are false, or that certain claims made by the defenders of the official story are true. Debunking, JREF style, when it comes to 9/11 usually means coming up with alternative scenarios to explain an event. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Any explanation will do as long as it agrees with the official story(i.e. Flight 77's impact into the E-ring). How did WTC1 and 2 collapse? Maybe it was a pile-driver effect, a pancake collapse, a shockwave, a cushion of debris etc. Any theory is okay as long as you conclude the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire led to the tower's demise.

And what is your overall theory regarding 9/11? Is it consistent?

Quote:

What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking.

Now that's not really an answer to my OP is it? Please try again, honestly this time.

Quote:

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

I think this speaks for itself.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tanabear

...
What have I learned so far? Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it agrees with the official story. This is special pleading, not debunking. ...

This is the problem! Truthers think someone is supporting the "official story" when they debunk everything 9/11 truth comes up. 9/11 truth is fantasy and junk. Truthers are only against the "official story" and fail to see how stupid all the conclusions (when the truth movement decides to make one) of 9/11 truth are. Thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and explosives are all the same, fantasy ideas not supported by evidence.

It is debunking, you just think you have something, you don't, and you can't produce evidence of what you think you have. Does your failure to understand 9/11 mean you lack knowledge in fields related to 9/11, or are you ignoring evidence on purpose? The debunking works like this, you make a claim about something; take the stupid idea a plane can't hit the ground going 400 mph due to ground effect! A stupid idea and clearly any pilot can see is false! It is not false because it does not agree with the "official story", it is due to physics and it is pure stupidity. It is so stupid I can't believe a pilot made it up! You clearly lack knowledge and are unable to gather the correct evidence to make rational conclusions.

If you understood physics you will see WTC7, 1, and 2 all fell in a time consistent with a gravity collapse. Simple momentum models show this to be the case. If you can't handle NIST, and the dozens of other studies with explanations for the WTC collapse, you lack the knowledge. There has been many opportunities for you to learn what most take for granted due to their study of 9/11, or engineering background, or cause they are smart, or they have experience, or they are true skeptics who don't take what Jones says to be gospel, but check it out and find him to be a liar due or ignorance or on purpose.

Your failure to learn is proven in your post dedicated to only deny the "official story". You are not a skeptic, you act like a cult member who ignores reason, logic and facts to believe in your fantasy of 9/11.
Why can't you try to learn about 9/11? It has been 6 years, many people can figure out 9/11 in minutes using a very small amount of evidence.

[leonAzul]

I understand much evidence for science, when considering the scope of the various reports, and little evidence for conspiracy, when considering the lack of evidence among the various reports.

Without exemption, "truthers" appeal to something that is not falsifiable.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by leonAzul

I understand much evidence for science, when considering the scope of the various reports, and little evidence for conspiracy, when considering the lack of evidence among the various reports.

Without exemption, "truthers" appeal to something that is not falsifiable.

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

[Pardalis]

Are you serious? You're pulling our leg right?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

Stundied!

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?

Too rigorous? It's too expensive.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Too rigorous? It's too expensive.

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War, which was based on lies; the Olympic Games in Beijing; the budget for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

[Smackety]

Originally Posted by tanabear

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War, which was based on lies; the Olympic Games in Beijing; the budget for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

How much are you willing to contribute to the experiment? How about we go 50/50?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by tanabear

To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War, which was based on lies;

First off, the relevance to 9/11 is?

Second off, oh those lies. Saddam really wasn't a murdering madman you know, in fact he single handed cured Polio then went back in time in a time machine he invented. I heard he also made puppies cute. What a guy.

Originally Posted by tanabear

the Olympic Games in Beijing;

Relevance to 9/11?

Originally Posted by tanabear

the budget for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Your budget for Homeland Security would be what? Some Doritos and sodas for super google sleuths who validate their own paranoid beliefs?

Originally Posted by tanabear

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated.

Just because it could be doesn't mean it should be. I suppose we could shuttle Apollo Hoax Believers to the moon to show them the flags etc but would that be a wise expenditure just to dissuade some deluded folk of their fantasies?

Originally Posted by tanabear

Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.

You find a steel tube in a tube building we can destroy and a Boeing 767 to crash into it and we're on.

[leonAzul]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

Wrong.

No one needs to demolish anything in order to demonstrate the known vulnerability of light-weight trusses when applied as joists to heat. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that demolition is involved, why not accept the verifiable fact that a fire was involved and then inquire among those who are most competent to give an informed opinion about how fire behaves? Not because fire fighters have authority, but rather because they have competency