Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

2. I do not need reassurance that I am right. On 9/11, I know I am.

TAM

So much for skepticism,

 

[applecorped]

So much for reality.

 

[MarkyX]

I would suggest that there is a great deal of independent scientific inquiry going on right now, some good, some not so good. In fact, I see very little actual scientific research going on in support of the official story from debunkers. The purpose of debunking is tearing down arguments, as opposed to sincere research

BBC, Popular Mechanics, the Insurance companies, and several structural engineers in universities and colleges.

You have a fat crazy bastard who thinks fluoride is a mind control drug, a theology who hangs with holocaust deniers and even states the movement has no scientific theory, a man who thinks Jesus walked in North America and based his entire research on information by a holocaust denier, and of course the holocaust deniers themselves whose "research" is still used today.

Sorry for the run-on sentence, but the 9/11 deniers are just that stupid.

 

[RedIbis]

So much for reality.

The reality of skepticism is when you resist blind faith in something that is as poorly explained as 9/11.

What but blind faith would cause someone to accept NIST's WTc 7 magic single column causing global collapse theory? A theory for which there is no physical evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

BBC, Popular Mechanics, the Insurance companies, and several structural engineers in universities and colleges.

You have a fat crazy bastard who thinks fluoride is a mind control drug, a theology who hangs with holocaust deniers and even states the movement has no scientific theory, a man who thinks Jesus walked in North America and based his entire research on information by a holocaust denier, and of course the holocaust deniers themselves whose "research" is still used today.

Sorry for the run-on sentence, but the 9/11 deniers are just that stupid.

I can't spend a whole lot of time on a post that is this hectic and poorly composed, but to address just one of your offhand comments. You're criticising Dr. Jones for his Mormon belief that Jesus walked in North America. How is that any more bizarre than a Jesus who walks on water in the Middle East?

 

[T.A.M.]

So much for skepticism,

I am not skeptical about the FACT that 19 Arabs carried out the hijackings. Perhaps that is better.

I am SUSPICIOUS as to the role of Pakistani Intelligence.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I am not skeptical about the FACT that 19 Arabs carried out the hijackings. Perhaps that is better.

I am SUSPICIOUS as to the role of Pakistani Intelligence.

TAM

Are you suspicious of anything else? For instance, the ISI's communications and contact with the US gov't before during and after 9/11?

 

[T.A.M.]

The reality of skepticism is when you resist blind faith in something that is as poorly explained as 9/11.

What but blind faith would cause someone to accept NIST's WTc 7 magic single column causing global collapse theory? A theory for which there is no physical evidence.

WTC7 is not a part of the 9/11 attacks, except in the minds of the "truthers". It is tangental, in the fact that its collapse occured as the result of the collapses of the two towers that were attacked.

So leaving WTC7 out of the equation, point out what you find "poorly" explained about any OTHER aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and why?

(if you have the time).

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Are you suspicious of anything else? For instance, the ISI's communications and contact with the US gov't before during and after 9/11?

I am not suspicious of it. Now if you provide me with a reliable source that states that those communications were Nefarious in nature, then I am listening.

TAM

 

[applecorped]

The reality of skepticism is when you resist blind faith in something that is as poorly explained as 9/11.

What but blind faith would cause someone to accept NIST's WTc 7 magic single column causing global collapse theory? A theory for which there is no physical evidence.

You'll never unravel this web if you keep tying yourself in knots.

 

[RedIbis]

WTC7 is not a part of the 9/11 attacks, except in the minds of the "truthers". It is tangental, in the fact that its collapse occured as the result of the collapses of the two towers that were attacked.

So leaving WTC7 out of the equation, point out what you find "poorly" explained about any OTHER aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and why?

(if you have the time).

TAM

Saying, "WTC 7 is not a part of the 9f/11 attacks, except in the minds of "truthers" is as close to a stundie as I suspect you'll ever get.

Nearly any aspect of 9/11 is poorly explained. You only have to look at the Bush administration's incredible reluctance to have any of this investigated, the way the evidence was handled, and the speculative theories that come out, contradicting earlier theories.

In this way I'm always a bit surprised to see how little skepticism there is on this forum in regards to 9/11.

 

[RedIbis]

You'll never unravel this web if you keep tying yourself in knots.

It's really not much of a puzzle. NIST's theory on WTC 7 sucks, primarily because there is not a jot of physical evidence to back it up.

 

[applecorped]

It's really not much of a puzzle. NIST's theory on WTC 7 sucks, primarily because there is not a jot of physical evidence to back it up.

Imagine never knowing, to your satisfaction, what happened.

Life goes on.

 

[MarkyX]

You're criticising Dr. Jones for his Mormon belief that Jesus walked in North America. How is that any more bizarre than a Jesus who walks on water in the Middle East?

You make it sound like I believe one thing over the other, which isn't true.

Hell you want bizarre? About a chick who never got laid gives the birth to the son of God.

In case you miss my point, Jones' Mormon belief and trying to mix in science shows in his "research". He basically tries to come up with a conclusion and make the so-called evidence fit into his conclusion. This is the opposite of science.

For example Jones' earlier 'work' still suggested the buildings were bought down by bombs, although in a bit more pathetic way. In other words, he wants to prove 9/11 was an inside job because he believes (like his faith) it was an inside job, not because the evidence leads to it.

He has come to the point where he needs to reassure his beliefs by creating a "journal" where he controls everything. You're telling me this is science?

 

[T.A.M.]

Saying, "WTC 7 is not a part of the 9f/11 attacks, except in the minds of "truthers" is as close to a stundie as I suspect you'll ever get.

Nearly any aspect of 9/11 is poorly explained. You only have to look at the Bush administration's incredible reluctance to have any of this investigated, the way the evidence was handled, and the speculative theories that come out, contradicting earlier theories.

In this way I'm always a bit surprised to see how little skepticism there is on this forum in regards to 9/11.

oh really? so take bloke off the street who accepts the official account of 9/11, and ask him about WTC7 and its relevency to the attacks. Go ahead.

That is my point. It is only relevent as a "conspiracy" point to the truthers...not to anyone else.

You still haven't pointed out anything in particular. saying it is all so, is a duck.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

You make it sound like I believe one thing over the other, which isn't true.

Hell you want bizarre? About a chick who never got laid gives the birth to the son of God.

In case you miss my point, Jones' Mormon belief and trying to mix in science shows in his "research". He basically tries to come up with a conclusion and make the so-called evidence fit into his conclusion. This is the opposite of science.

For example Jones' earlier 'work' still suggested the buildings were bought down by bombs, although in a bit more pathetic way. In other words, he wants to prove 9/11 was an inside job because he believes (like his faith) it was an inside job, not because the evidence leads to it.

He has come to the point where he needs to reassure his beliefs by creating a "journal" where he controls everything. You're telling me this is science?

Are you suggesting that no NIST scientists are Christians? Just because someone has a religious belief does not mean they can't produce good scientific work.

 

[MarkyX]

Are you suggesting that no NIST scientists are Christians? Just because someone has a religious belief does not mean they can't produce good scientific work.

You're completely missing the point or you're intending to miss it.

Jones has also demonstrated in his past work that he is willing to mix faith and science together so he justify what he believes in...THIS ISN'T SCIENCE.

And even if they were a few members in NIST who happen to be religious faiths, it was a peer reviewed report so others would've easily pointed out legitimate flaws within the report unlike the work of Jones.

 

[RedIbis]

oh really? so take bloke off the street who accepts the official account of 9/11, and ask him about WTC7 and its relevency to the attacks. Go ahead

.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I would agree that WTC 7 is not a widely known aspect of the attacks. I completely disagree that it's tangential and not part of the attacks. You would do better to retract that statement than attempt to defend it.

That is my point. It is only relevent as a "conspiracy" point to the truthers...not to anyone else.

Utter crap. Sorry for the incivility, but I can't think of a more precise way to express my disagreement. Many people living in or around NYC were aware of Giuliani's saga with the OEM and placing it exactly where it was suggested he does not. It was with further research after 9/11, that many people came to realize the bizarre nature of WTC 7's occupants and its collapse.

You still haven't pointed out anything in particular. saying it is all so, is a duck.

TAM

Take your pick:
Lack of evidence at Shanksville
Lack of evidence at the Pentagon
Lack of evidence for a gravity driven collapse of the Towers
The military's lack of rapid response
The hijackers operating in the US and even pulling off the hijackings
The Bush administrations resistance to any investigation

 

[TexasJack]

I always get a giggle on how truthers just hand wave at the reports of NIST and the 911 Commission Report. These reports were throughly researched; the 911 Commission report used hundreds of references, yet rarely is there attempt by truthers to impeach any of the evidence in any type of coherent, rational, or logical way.

 

[Myriad]

In fact, I see very little actual scientific research going on in support of the official story from debunkers. The purpose of debunking is tearing down arguments, as opposed to sincere research

In a way you are correct, but this can be stated more clearly.

Debunking is challenging the sufficiency of evidence for a claim. No more and no less.

An example I've used before (so my apologies if you've read it before) is a person claiming to have evidence of the existence of alien visitors to earth, in the form of photographs of a saucer-shaped flying metal disk.

A debunker examines the photograph and points out that the metal disk is the photographs is identical to a hubcap from a 1986 Buick LeSabre.

What has the debunker accomplished? Not, certainly, disproving that aliens visit the earth. In fact, the debunker has not even proved that the particular photograph in question doesn't depict an alien spacecraft. After all, there is no physical law that would prevent aliens from shaping their spacecraft in the exact shape of 1986 Buick LeSabre hubcaps if they wanted to.

All the debunker has done is give a very good reason why those particular photographs are not significant evidence of the existence of aliens visiting earth.

Debunking is not equivalent to research, just as deleting is not equivalent to writing. But debunking is a legitimate component of research, just as the delete key on a keyboard is a legitimate tool of great benefit to practically all effective writers. In order to reject propositions having insufficient evidence, it's necessary to assess the sufficiency of evidence. That is by nature an adversarial process, since people have many reasons for wanting other people to accept claims for which they cannot provide sufficient evidence. For instance, every prosecutor wants to win every case.

That makes "debunker" a perfect description of a defense attorney, in the U.S. court system at least. The defense in a trial is not required to prove who did do if the defendant didn't (though it certainly helps their case if they can). They're not even required to prove the defendant didn't do it (though it certainly helps their case if they can). Their key task is to show that the evidence that the defendant did do it is insufficient.

In the case of 9/11, the truthers' evidence that 9/11 was any kind of inside job is insufficient to the point of nonexistence, and debunkers merely point that out. It helps their case that they can show evidence that it was not an inside job (such as the lack of any plausible motive or means), and that they can show substantial evidence of who did it, but in the end the key point is that the evidence for an inside job is itself lacking.

The truthers, of course, when they're not whining about what a terrible nasty negative thing it is to be a debunker, want to be debunkers themselves. They want to show that the evidence for "the official story" (that is, the consensus arrived at by scientists, the press, historians, the businesses directly involved, law enforcement personnel, and intelligence services at all levels worldwide) is insufficient.

But that just can't be done, if the evidence is in fact overwhelmingly sufficient. (Similarly, a defense attorney's task can become impossible if the defendant not only did it, but left clear evidence of that fact in the process). Often on this forum members ask, "Even if [some truther claim] were true, how would that make any difference in our understanding of the events of 9/11?" Truthers rarely if ever answer that question. And yet that is the key question that truthers must always answer in order to have any hope of debunking "the official story."

It's understandable, then, that truthers object to "debunking," when actually debunking is exactly what they aspire to do but cannot do successfully.

A guy named Aesop (or whoever wrote the stories attributed to him) understood the psychology of this over 2,500 years ago, as told in the story of The Fox and the Grapes. The part that people are prone to forget is that the grapes are not really sour. They are sweet, juicy, and delicious.

Mmm. Grapes.

Respectfully,
Myriad