Guess who's agreed to debate me?

[defaultdotxbe]

another thing to consider is that these men believed they were carrying out the will of allah, so in their minds there may have been no need for a backup plan, allah would guide them to success no matter what

 

[Pardalis]

Well, their plan seem to have been very well rehearsed and calculated, I'm sure they had a thought about one of the flights being cancelled or delayed. I'm sure they planned for any problems.

I wonder what is the probability of one's flight to be cancelled or delayed. I'm sure these are very low probabilities. Most people's flights are on time, I assume.

 

[hellaeon]

To me this is one of the best straw clutching arguements to somehow magically validate the rest of the stupidity I have seen. A decent smoking gun, but nonetheless, once again - hindsite, coincidence and assumptions.

 

[Gravy]

It is an interesting question, but unless the investigation turned up an answer to it that I haven't encountered, we'll never know. IronSnot, please take this to another thread if you want to continue it.

 

[IronSnot]

Ok I will. But not quite yet, I've got a little more investigating to do.

 

[Brainster]

I'm no expert, and I'm all for the division of labor, but as it stands now I can wipe the floor with the CTs on any of these subjects. I don't say that to blow my own horn, but to point out how inept the CTs are. This stuff is not difficult. There's just a lot of it.

Nobody denies you are the man, here, Gravy, but at least from what I recall, the SC conference was going to have 5-6 people on their side. It will almost seem fair to the audience if you get 16% of the time and unfair if you get 33%. Because you are the man, I would say that our side should be ready to yield time to you if you signal you've got the killer argument. But as many people as they have on the stage, we've got to have at least the same number.

We want to win, and with you in our corner I'm confident we will. But let's pretend it's really a title bout against the heavyweights and not a sparring match against a bunch of punch-drunks. Ron Wieck approached it seriously and clobbered Les Jamieson; the guys from Popular Mechanics were a little more casual and did not kayo the Loosers. PM won, but largely because of Bermas' foolish outburst about "I'm accusing you of being a liar". I got a hunch that Fetzer's panel is going to be a little tougher than either of those opponents.

BTW, I'm not suggesting you put just anybody up there. But we do have six months to plan this. Get the best people we can at public appearances (hint, I think Abby should be there). Don't forget the college setting--having a young debunker might really help, like the guy who did Internet Detectives or the blogger at Nyctohylophobia. Women (plural) might really help, since the "Scholars" did not have a woman at the LA panel on CSpan. Some of these things could win us a lot of points before the debate even starts.

Sorry if I'm getting carried away about an event 6 months from now, but I see this as a real opportunity to get medieval on the Deniers' buttocks.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Also, everybody here should know that the primary need for good philosophy is to combat bad philosophy.

I can't speak for Gravy but I myself don't just see a few, isolated tin-foil hats in their lonely basements doing this. No, what I see is a disease, the primary symptom being loud, knee-jerk rejection of opposing viewpoints for absolutely no reason other than the fact that they're coming from the opposing "team." Even if 9/11 conspiracies die a quick death, this battle against petty, reactionary ignorance is the great battle of our time.

Yes, the CT'ers provide the most laughable and dramatic example but you see this way of thinking freaking everywhere. It drives politics now. You hear people defending their favorite brand of car or video game this way. It's ruining religion, that divisive dogma of the fundamentalist that says, "you must accept these facts to be true, or you are the enemy."

Not, "you should live by this philosophy," or even, "we interpret the world in this way." No, it's "you must choose to believe these facts are true or else you are the enemy." Civilization cannot survive with the populace doing that, clinging for dear life to bad information because it bonds them with a tribe and distances them from another.

Might as well fight it here, now. I can't think of a more noble cause.

[mostly dead voice]truuue loooove[/mostly dead voice]


Very well said, David. Nominated.

 

[Bell]

Bell, I wasn't in New York on 9/11, and I didn't lose anyone close to me. I was very isolated from the events of 9/11 (I never even saw video or TV coverage of the attacks until December, 2001), and some of this may be an attempt to get "in touch," in a small way, with what others went through. But I'm mostly motivated by anger, and by the opportunity to do something about the historical revisionism that has appeared and metastasized before our eyes.

Chipmunk got it right in his post above, that the immediate causes of me getting involved were 1) being banned from the LC forum in 4 or 5 days for "just asking questions," and 2) seeing a LC forum moderator mock the plight of victim Edna Cintron.

realitybites started the thread "Why we fight" where I go into more detail, and if you really want specifics, I ramble on about this stuff in an open letter to the LC guys, which starts on page 6 of Loose Change Creators Speak.

(your first link gives me a 404)

Thanks Gravy, and thanks for your wonderful work. I also get angry when the deniers mock the victims like Edna (as you mentioned) or Mark Bingham (KKKilltown, anyone?) or are mocking relatives and people who experienced 9/11 first hand (like so...)

I'm amazed on how easy is seems for you present all the facts, quotes etc. I'm bad at remembering such information, that's also the reason I would be bad at going head to head with deniers. Glad that lots of other people can do it.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Ron Wieck approached it seriously and clobbered Les Jamieson;

Good points all, Brainster.

Perhaps Wieck would like in on this? He's certainly demonstrated his interest and his competence.

 

[Gbob]

One of the problems for any debate is that of moving goalposts. You could demolish an argument against CT and then be stuck when they switch it to alien death rays or whatever nuttiness they suggest next. You might also want to practice in some live fire exercises.

Perhaps a bunch of us could volunteer to do mock debates with you, each person taking another bizzare aspect of the troofers? It could help keep you on your toes, and the arguments can be broken down afterwards.

These people are vile and wretched, and if we don't crush the insanity soon it'll become another JFK or Area 51 conspiracy our kids will have deal with.

 

[Hutch]

Gravy, Architect posted your thread over at Bad Astronomy/Universe Today (BAUT) Forum, and except for a little grumpiness in taking 3-pages to get to the debate, I think the feeling is positive...

Note this post from Phantom Wolf suggesting alternative sources.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834932&postcount=5

We have some great experts here, but having additional sources never hurt (I would love to Jay Windley--known as Jay Utah as one of your debate partners).

Just for your information.

 

[T.A.M.]

Flight Cancelled subthread:

I don't think they really gave a shaite. I mean the chances of more than one flight being cancelled was slim. Don't forget, one flight was substantially delayed, flight 93. I think if a flight got cancelled than they would have either (1) rebooked on another flight, or (2) the group missing the flight would have just cancelled their particular arm of the attack.

Debate subthread:

I agree, my comments on Fetzer were in jest...I think he will be well prepared. I also think we should see if Mackey would be interested. It is too bad Gumboot has gone, as he would be another very good candidate. There are plenty of others though.

TAM

 

[Architect]

Gravy, Architect posted your thread over at Bad Astronomy/Universe Today (BAUT) Forum, and except for a little grumpiness in taking 3-pages to get to the debate, I think the feeling is positive...

Note this post from Phantom Wolf suggesting alternative sources.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834932&postcount=5

We have some great experts here, but having additional sources never hurt (I would love to Jay Windley--known as Jay Utah as one of your debate partners).

Just for your information.

Speaking professionally, I have to say Jay is AA+ class on such issues. If you have not made contact, then PLEASE do so.

Note for Gaels: Tha mi duillich, ach bha mi air an pub a nochd agus bha seo moran alcol/lager (neo, air, ghaidligh, Leon) agamsa a nochd.....(hic)

agus (hic)

 

[Abbyas]

I like this Gravy vs. Fetzer deal, but a paneled debate leaves me with questions.

Is the positive case that 9/11 was an inside job (as it should be)?

Also, the problem with the truth movement is that it designed to be slippery. There is no united thought to them, and certainly if individuals are pressed in one issue, many times they claim to not ascribe to it. Fetzer vs. Gravy works because Fetzer makes himself clear as to what he believes. A panel vs the Scholars seems messy. Could someone then bring up the no-plane article from Morgan Reynolds to be published? Or would bringing up such outside details be considered out of line in a formal debate?

 

[Architect]

Abby makes a fair point; a key aspect of the 911 movement is their inability to state a case (in the legal sense) and hence they are a moving target.

[och, bithidh an hangover mor agamsa a meareach.........ochone, ochone]

 

[Gravy]

Perhaps Wieck would like in on this? He's certainly demonstrated his interest and his competence.

If there's progress towards this becoming reality I'm definitely going to contact him.

Gravy, Architect posted your thread over at Bad Astronomy/Universe Today (BAUT) Forum, and except for a little grumpiness in taking 3-pages to get to the debate, I think the feeling is positive...

Note this post from Phantom Wolf suggesting alternative sources.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834932&postcount=5

We have some great experts here, but having additional sources never hurt (I would love to Jay Windley--known as Jay Utah as one of your debate partners).

Agreed. I rarely get the time to peruse BAUT, but Jay's reputation alone is enough to move him to the top of the list. Again, this stuff is on the back back burner for me until something solid develops.

I like this Gravy vs. Fetzer deal, but a paneled debate leaves me with questions.
Is the positive case that 9/11 was an inside job (as it should be)?

Also, the problem with the truth movement is that it designed to be slippery. There is no united thought to them, and certainly if individuals are pressed in one issue, many times they claim to not ascribe to it. Fetzer vs. Gravy works because Fetzer makes himself clear as to what he believes. A panel vs the Scholars seems messy. Could someone then bring up the no-plane article from Morgan Reynolds to be published? Or would bringing up such outside details be considered out of line in a formal debate?

Good questions. It's my position that they need to have a platform and stick to it. Individuals will argue particular cases, but it won't make for a good debate if they're not on the same page overall. If our side makes a strong counter-argument to a claim of theirs, I don't want them to say afterwards that the claim wasn't supported by their majority in the first place.

 

[stateofgrace]

Ok I know I am going off topic here but I didn't want to start a new thread over this. Anyway this is Fetzer related.

I came across this on smashers blog.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...dfeed&hl=en-CA

I suppose the question is, can he say this? I mean he as made specific allegations against specific people.

Namely, if I watched it correctly “Cheney controlled it all from a bunker".

Surely this is libel, slander. He as basically accused Dick Cheney, on national TV of controlled and orchestrated 911.Is there case for suing for damages here?

I just would like to know how far these people can go before, somebody, anybody; those they accuse can come down on them and basically sue the ass off them

 

[Bell]

Ok I know I am going off topic here but I didn't want to start a new thread over this. Anyway this is Fetzer related.

I came across this on smashers blog.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...dfeed&hl=en-CA

I suppose the question is, can he say this? I mean he as made specific allegations against specific people.

Namely, if I watched it correctly “Cheney controlled it all from a bunker".

Surely this is libel, slander. He as basically accused Dick Cheney, on national TV of controlled and orchestrated 911.Is there case for suing for damages here?

I just would like to know how far these people can go before, somebody, anybody; those they accuse can come down on them and basically sue the ass off them

How much would that help the deniers fight, would be the question. The deniers will use such a legal action to further strenghten their 'case' "See? The gubmint is trying to silence us, we're on to something!!!!1!!!1!one!!"

Maybe ignoring the morrons is the best way for those public figures to deal with them?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Maybe ignoring the morrons is the best way for those public figures to deal with them?

that would be evidence that the CTs claim cannot be contested, and must be correct

its liek playing tennis with a brick wall

 

[Bell]

that would be evidence that the CTs claim cannot be contested, and must be correct

its liek playing tennis with a brick wall

Yeah, a brick wall is a bit heavy to serve and hit over the net.