Montrealers - 911 presentation on Friday

The Mad Hatter

Thinker
The Mad Hatter
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
128
My friend just invited me to his brother's presentation that argues that explosives were used to take down the WTC. If anyone's interested, it's at 1:30 PM Friday (the 9th), somewhere at the downtown Concordia campus. I don't know the room yet, but if anyone's interested, I'll know by tomorrow night.

I'm not sure if I can make it, but it'd be nice to get some JREF rationality in the Q&A session.

If I do go, I'll try to get a question in, but I'm really not that familiar with the CT arguments. Any suggestions for questions?
 
how about
why were planes needed.
Why explosives were used.
Why did the explosives go off at random times and not at one specific time and then the building come down.
Why dont any controlled demo experts agree. (if he says romero, he is quote mining, he is not telling the truth, romero completely hates how truthers quote mine him)
Why cant CD experts see this but kids at home on computers can 'tell by watching videos'.
Why did it not collapse to its footprint.
How about some physical evidence?
Where is the explosive residue or chemical compounds?
Why have no timers been found?
How much explosives were used?
If two US air force pilots felt sick during an accidental friendly fire incident where they killed an English soldier, why is it easy for some secret group of demolition device planters have no issue knowing they could kill thousands?

These are just tips of an iceberg.

Attack his questions with rigour. Be very forthright. Show him for the looney he obviously is.
 
Last edited:
The Mad Hatter said:
If I do go, I'll try to get a question in, but I'm really not that familiar with the CT arguments. Any suggestions for questions?
Click to expand...

i'd suggest reading through gravy's work here:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

and the 911myths site here:
http://www.911myths.com/

i'm sure neither gravy nor 911myths would mind if you made up some simple packets from their texts, debunking the common arguments that 911 CTs get wrong. coppies are cheap, so i suggest make up a bunch of packets, and handing them out afterward.

good luck, and let us know how it went...
 
Alright, it's actually at the NDG campus, in the science building. The room's SP-356. I'm afraid I can't make it, or at least I can't stay more than 10 minutes.

Thanks for the advice, everyone, but I'm afraid I won't be able to use it. It's a shame, Concordia students are gonna eat this stuff up.
 
What's the name of the building?

ETA: is that the Drummond building on Sherbrooke W?
 
Last edited:
I would ask why he thinks that a millions tons of steel and concrete would fall down silently.

There's no point in trying to pin down every point. He'll simply say "OK, but what about..." Just find one really stupid thing he says, and nail it in as simple a way as possible.
 
Boy, I just got back from that presentation.

It was, as expected, 9/11 conspiracy theory 101, it had everything concerning the towers that we've all heard time and time again, everything we've all seen in every CT sites imaginable (so I bet he's going to get an F- grade for originality), from freefall to molten metal, and of course thermite.

It didn't really go too well for me, since I have no science background. It was like a storyboard artist trying to argue science with physics students, in the Physics Department of a big University (which is what it was :o ). I didn't have the proper training and knowledge to adress the finer points, and I tried to argue the more logical (or illogical) points in their claims, but they didn't want to discuss the reasons of the controlled demolition, just the alledged discrepencies in the NIST report, which I read only the summary version (with my layman understanding), not the 10 000 pages one. Plus my spoken English sucks so that was a double disadvantage.

There was one engeneer there but he said he never looked into it so he couldn't say anything about it. He was the silent type so he wasn't much help. There wasn't too many people there but they obviously came there convinced, and were mostly friends of the presentator.

How can people of science eat this stuff up so easily?

I tried to get some points in as to why the second tower that was hit was the first one to go down, but they didn't want to adress that, I tried to get to the point that the towers didn't fall at freefall, and they kind of unwillingly agreed that it din't fall at free fall speed but I think it fell on deaf ears. I tried to tell them that the elevator shafts weren't hermetically sealed, they didn't take my argument very seriously since they knew I was only an illustrator.

Guys like Gravy and RMackey would have destroyed his entire presentation but alas, I was the only one there with a critical viewpoint (Mad Hatter had to leave at the beginning) :(

Mad Hatter is a very nice fellow BTW. At least I gave it a go, and maybe that engeneer guy will look further into this garbage and see it for what it is. If not, I don't have much hope for Montréal's science students.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that no scientists engage these ridiculous theories? Why is it that laypersons such as myself are the only ones left who care to engage them?

This presentation was shown in the science faculty of the University, why didn't the entire class debate these loons? Where were the real scientists?

And why aren't more skeptics engaging them also? Who cares about bigfoots and Sylvia Browne? As Pomeroo said in another thread, these 9/11 CTs are in the long run much more damaging than any other pseudo science (except creationism), and are an insult to History, reason, science and logic, not to mention the victims.

If the scientific community debated these troofers, it would only take them two minutes and the entire movement would disappear.

[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Why is it that no scientists engage these ridiculous theories? Why is it that laypersons such as myself are the only ones who care to engage them?

[/rant]
Click to expand...

Engaging these people will only further their cause. It is not worth anyone's time to give these people an audience. Despite one's intentions, once they are engaged, all of the claims will be repeated, ad nauseum. Who wants that?

In a similar vein, Iran has asked for evidence of the holocaust. Should we succumb to them and show them the evidence, after which they will have a platform to posit their own absurb theories?

In cases as this, silence speaks louder than words can ever hope.
 
Hey Pardalis, sorry I couldn't stay for that thing. Anyway, it was nice meeting you, and I like your hat :)

Fortunately, I have classes with most of those people, and I'll be able to go over some of the stuff. I'll try to direct them over to here if there's something I can't refute. Most of these people are actually intelligent (if you remember the older lady with red hair, I think she's a professor!), they just haven't seen the whole picture. I'll do what I can.

I'm pretty sure Matthew (the guy we were talking to outside) will fill me in with his side of the story.

I'm glad the turnout was so low, though. I expected way more people to be there, especially the humanities students. I guess it didn't get much publicity.
 
Thanks Mad Hatter, it was nice to meet you too.

I wish you luck trying to make them see reason, but I have to say I'm pretty pessimistic about those guys, they seem to have read every CT site there is so I don't think they'll admit they're wrong very easily. Everything was there in the presentation, even the "pull it" idiocy. They are exactly like every twoofer that has ever come here, and keep coming.
 
Hey, that's great that you made it and gave them a non-woo point of view, Pardalis! And terrific that you got to meet the Mad Hatter, too.

I am quite looking forward to attending a woo event when one comes to Toronto or elsewhere in southern Ontario that doesn't conflict with my work schedule, or that happens to be on a day that I can ditch work. Even if I cannot single handedly debunk everything they say, it is enough to speak up and make them think about why their conspiracy fantasies may be wrong.

Kudos to you and Mad Hatter.
 
I agree, that the real academics do not address the CTs, because to do so is to legitimize them as worthy of their attention, which really they arent. Unfortunately, when LC:FC is released, the academics will have to address it. Unfortunate that they'll have to be bothered with it, but fortunate for the rest of us, in that it will produce a plethora of scientific data to contradict the already baseless scienceless arguments of the truthers.

TAM:)
 
Same with Holocaust denial nutters

T.A.M. said:
I agree, that the real academics do not address the CTs, because to do so is to legitimize them as worthy of their attention, which really they arent. Unfortunately, when LC:FC is released, the academics will have to address it. Unfortunate that they'll have to be bothered with it, but fortunate for the rest of us, in that it will produce a plethora of scientific data to contradict the already baseless scienceless arguments of the truthers.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Academics usually avoid debating with Holocaust denial nutters, for the same reason: to avoid giving them even the slightest level of recognition and value. Just the idea that there can be a debate suggests that the nutter's idea has some weight and validity. Most academics liken the debate to arguing over whether or not slavery is bad or if the Earth is flat.

I see their point, but I also see the problem...if you debate them, they gain validity. If you ignore them, you're accused of cowardice and censorship. If they "lose" the debate, they're martyrs to the NWO. If they "win" the debate, it's a "victory for truth."

So what do you do? Besides rely on derision, that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom