We need an independent investigation!

Btodd said:
Not to start a big hubbub about it, but there are a few things about this I don't find to be the trouble it's made out to be.

1. It takes longer to search through threads to find the answer than to ask the question, and the other threads usually have a slightly different angle than the specific way I might be asking.

2. It's not as if I'm taking away from valuable threads about 9/11 conspiracies, since it's pretty much ALL been covered at this point.

3. If people are so easily irritated by answering the same questions over and over, then there's no reason for them to be here at all. There are almost NEVER any new questions, yet I've seen the same complaint by many of the same people....who are still here, ready to complain again.

4. If a thread asks a question that irritates someone, it's usually implicit in the thread title (like mine). So don't open it, and just move on.

And I'm not just referencing Mark, either. I see it a lot here, since I lurk most of the time. It's a real turn-off. It's almost as if there's a contest to see who can put out a smartass answer the quickest, so people can slap each other on the back for another 'good burn'. There are times and places for that, especially if someone is consistently playing games, but I am not.

Just some friendly advice from an outsider, take it as you will.
Click to expand...

...

After many fruitless debates with 'truthers', who will NEVER present any logical scenario that explains the events of 9/11, I'm almost to the point of being done debating anything with them, and instead simply ridiculing them as I would a moon-landing conspiracist.

How long have we waited for a logical outline of ANYTHING ELSE that could explain the events of that day, if not the official version (whatever that really is)?

From now on, I will only refer to it as the 9/11 Doubt movement, until I see some attempt at truth. That's blatant false advertising.:cool:
Click to expand...
If the words in the quote immediately above look familiar, Btodd, that's because they're yours, from January, 2008. And they're quite reasonable, I think. :)
 
Gravy said:
...

If the words in the quote immediately above look familiar, Btodd, that's because they're yours, from January, 2008. And they're quite reasonable, I think. :)
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between telling other 'debunkers' (I hate that term) how you feel about the Truth Movement, and getting snippy or malicious with a fellow skeptic who is asking a question (and an honest one, too) that you've heard before. I don't think that's quite so offensive, and my assessment still stands regarding those who are hanging around here, waiting to be offended by things they could easily pass over. Did my question prevent all of the fascinating threads from getting through? I think not. Again, take it any way you wish....it depends on the goal of the JREF; to either foster a healthy skeptic site, or something less worthwhile. You personally have much more to offer than that...

...but this is disappointing. As I stated, I respect your work....perhaps your break wasn't long enough, though. I now have the answers I needed, thanks. It could have been that simple from the very beginning. My thanks to T.A.M. (and others), who didn't create an issue where none existed. I'm not going to hold on to this, so I look forward to a more respectable discussion whenever I ask another question.
 
Last edited:
Btodd said:
...


Nice manufactured quote that you created for me.
Click to expand...
Btodd said:
My cousin showed me Loose Change one weekend when I was home, and he was already sold on the idea.

...

I'm a 'debunker' because people believe insane stuff, and much of these beliefs are dangerous in one way or another. And I'm not immune either....after all, I believed my cousin was rational. Oh, the irony.:p
Click to expand...
(took about 4 seconds to search this out, wow, if I had a quad core would that be 1 second? I would taken less time but I was also seeing how many hit Gravy suggested search had, it was over 1700; oops, and google only took 0.47 second to find it "site:randi.org debunker btodd" !!! cut paste, done! it was not a waste, it was proof of concept you could look up the on topic items as fast as I can look up btodd debunker stuff)
It is your quote, not manufactured; be proud you are the best, I am the worse (or one of the ...) you win. Pot meets kettle.

I thought your OP was fine, your inability to ignore what you call sarcasm is typical of 911Truth believers, and I was taken by your ease of being distracted instead of being tenacious to keep your thread, your OP on track for resolution. But instead of you tenaciously gathering facts to combat ignorance you continue to spar and honor me as being one of the worse practitioners.

What will you use against the anti-intellectual claim of needing a new independent investigation? As you opened, I now ask what have you found to combat the delusions of 911Truth as you searched for since the OP?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
It is your quote, not manufactured; be proud you are the best, I am the worse (or one of the ...) you win. Pot meets kettle.
Click to expand...

No wonder I didn't recognize it....you were so desperate for a win, you had to go spend your time chasing down old quotes in order to attempt it. Had you simply admitted it was an old post of mine, there would have been no confusion....as it stands, I had to assume you were putting words in my mouth. Notice the 'quotes' around the term, too (as I said, I don't really like the connotation of 'debunker', since it implies an inherent bias separate from skepticism).

beachnut said:
I thought your OP was fine, your inability to ignore what you call sarcasm is typical of 911Truth believers, and I was taken by your ease of being distracted instead of being tenacious to keep your thread, your OP on track for resolution. But instead of you tenaciously gathering facts to combat ignorance you continue to spar and honor me as being one of the worse practitioners.
Click to expand...

I think you're aware of it, and seem to remember you admitting it a little bit (and others have commented on it as well) in the past....but alas, I don't plan on searching the forums for quotes to foster a personal grudge with you, either. If that means you win, then you win. My intention with this thread was to get some added input, in order to put forward the best answers I can.....I did not intend on getting in a verbal sparring match with you, and someone else who I have quite a bit of respect for.

beachnut said:
What will you use against the anti-intellectual claim of needing a new independent investigation? As you opened, I now ask what have you found to combat the delusions of 911Truth as you searched for since the OP?
Click to expand...

Thanks for getting us back on track.

1. I'm still continuing to ask the person what specific items they think are being accepted by those who believe the 'official version' that cannot be confirmed by outside sources. Unless they can give me specifics, then they aren't after an answer in the first place, and simply want to gain an air of 'plausible deniability'.

2. I think it will be quite effective (not necessarily to that person, but for anyone listening who isn't so far immersed in Trutherism) to ask them (as others put so well) who would carry out the independent investigation, who would fund it, and who they could possibly expect to get access to sensitive information that can affect national security, since it's unreasonable to expect ANY government to hand over its secrets to outside sources. Since I doubt they will have thought it through enough to have a ready-made answer about private funding, I hope they are dense enough to suggest 'taxpayer money' or any equivalent that actually means 'government money'.....at which time, it will be easy to point out that their own idea is not independent, either, and any unwanted verdict they receive will likely be discarded in the same manner. If they do mention private funding, it should be easy for me to make the same convenient accusations that they are.....that whomever funded it had an agenda, just like the supposed government agenda they are implying.

The answer about 'who' would carry it out will also provide quite an opportunity for them to trip up in the same manner, and reveal what I already stated.....that they don't want a new investigation, but instead a 'new verdict'.

By the way, to clarify.....I have no problem with sarcasm or ridicule for those who have shown themselves to be willfully dishonest, or playing games (as Gravy's example of my quote shows)....I do have a problem with it right off the bat, however....unless it's so blatant as to be obvious. It's a fine line to walk sometimes. :)
 
Last edited:
One of the things that Truthers constantly complain about is that Bush and Cheney weren't under oath (nor was Clinton or, if I recall correctly, Rudy Giuliani, although I might be wrong there). But how are you going to compel people to testify under oath without the government being involved in issuing subpoenas and the threat of perjury prosecution for lying?

In other words, it has to be a governmental entity.
 
One might think that for a truly independent 9/11 investigation to get to the truth, it would have to be headed by the United Nations or some other international arbiter to remove the alleged taint of the US government investigating itself. But many truthers are also far enough through the looking glass to believe in the nWo and globalist group paranoia and think that Bilderberg (or your favourite back-room boogeyman globalist group) could engineer it to be part of a conversion to a one world government. So every now and then, I'll see a truther make a random pitch for a new sovereign 9/11 investigation. At least those truthers have given that little bit of thought to at least who they wouldn't want to conduct the investigation. But since many truthers seem to think of the US government as a gigantic, monolithic evil entity that fuses into a single hivemind that either controls everything that happens or is controlled by a group of elite globalists who are controlling everything that happens, they can't come up with a domestic agency that could do it without also being attached to a government string.
So, though few truthers will own up and admit to it, the demand for a new investigation is really a call for the truther elites to be given all the powers they want or need (subpoena power, authority to arrest and detain those who won't obey their subpoenas, and so on) to reach the conclusions they've already reached through their investigoogling and supposition, so that they can then present their findings to the Bush-loving American Idol-watching sheeple in an official report they'll have to accept as the new Official 9/11 Story... and when the history books are written, the truthers' bravery, patriotism and heroism will be lauded far and wide.

Of course, if those powers were to ever be granted to the truther elites for whatever stupid reason, they'd never be able to stop arguing about who would get to head the investigatory effort, who would get to do what, who would get to grill who, whose version of the truth would become the new gospel and who would get to videotape the proceedings for later release long enough to actually do any investigating with their powers.
 
Last edited:
Btodd said:
There's a huge difference between telling other 'debunkers' (I hate that term) how you feel about the Truth Movement, and getting snippy or malicious with a fellow skeptic who is asking a question (and an honest one, too) that you've heard before. I don't think that's quite so offensive, and my assessment still stands regarding those who are hanging around here, waiting to be offended by things they could easily pass over. Did my question prevent all of the fascinating threads from getting through? I think not. Again, take it any way you wish....it depends on the goal of the JREF; to either foster a healthy skeptic site, or something less worthwhile. You personally have much more to offer than that...

...but this is disappointing. As I stated, I respect your work....perhaps your break wasn't long enough, though. I now have the answers I needed, thanks. It could have been that simple from the very beginning. My thanks to T.A.M. (and others), who didn't create an issue where none existed. I'm not going to hold on to this, so I look forward to a more respectable discussion whenever I ask another question.
Click to expand...
I apologize for giving offense. My reply to your OP was meant to be funny, as I tried but failed to indicate with the winking smiley. I thought it might come across as too harsh, which is why I edited it to try to include some substantive advice. My edit was cross-posted with your first reply. I think you're a good guy and an excellent skeptic.

I used that old quote of yours for two reasons:

1) I think you know the answer to the question in your OP, and if not, perhaps you should: you've been thinking about it long enough, and you're aware that there have been many threads here devoted to the topic.

2) In 2008 you said, "After many fruitless debates with 'truthers', who will NEVER present any logical scenario that explains the events of 9/11," and in this thread you said, "They won't bother to tell me what specific problems they have with any particular piece of info..." You are being perfectly rational with these hardcore truthers. Their behavior isn't going to change if you present different rational arguments. Your frustrations will continue as long as you engage with them.

Yes, I've been posting here a bit lately, but you may notice that, with a few exceptions, I don't engage with the hardcore truthers at all. They've had years to make their case for a new investigation. It is impossible to overstate how utterly they've failed. With new truthers I take a "three strikes and you're out" approach, and I keep a tight strike zone. I've made an exception for Heiwa lately because I think that someone who arrogantly claims expertise that he obviously lacks, deserves to be hammered. I'm glad that there are people here who are far more capable than I of doing the hammering, and I'll probably put Heiwa back on ignore soon. I have most of the truthers here on ignore, and their quoted remarks tell me that I've missed absolutely nothing of substance.

I've had little new to add myself, but I continue to learn by reading posts from the likes of tfk, Sunstealer, MikeW, R.Mackey, Architect, Jaydeehess, 911Files, Minadin, GlennB, Hokulele, and others (not to mention laughing like hell with JimBenArm and J. Wellington Wimpy). And I'm glad to be able to provide quick answers to many questions posed by rationalists, because I often know where to look.

I think the general discussion thread that T.A.M. started is an excellent idea. I posted there recently about a serious truther proposal to create a group called "9/11 Truth and Cookies," which I probably would have given its own thread in 2006 but today is just a drop in an ocean of idiocy.

This subforum seems to be getting much less traffic than it did six months ago. I think that's a sensible trend.
 
Btodd said:
There's a huge difference between telling other 'debunkers' (I hate that term) how you feel about the Truth Movement, and getting snippy or malicious with a fellow skeptic who is asking a question (and an honest one, too) that you've heard before. I don't think that's quite so offensive, and my assessment still stands regarding those who are hanging around here, waiting to be offended by things they could easily pass over. Did my question prevent all of the fascinating threads from getting through? I think not. Again, take it any way you wish....it depends on the goal of the JREF; to either foster a healthy skeptic site, or something less worthwhile. You personally have much more to offer than that...

...but this is disappointing. As I stated, I respect your work....perhaps your break wasn't long enough, though. I now have the answers I needed, thanks. It could have been that simple from the very beginning. My thanks to T.A.M. (and others), who didn't create an issue where none existed. I'm not going to hold on to this, so I look forward to a more respectable discussion whenever I ask another question.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Here is what I would say.

1. There have been times when I have done as Gravy has done, and spoken with annoyance at the creation of another useless thread (ask Parky76). It is the reason why I created the "General Discussion" thread.

2. I think everyone should think for a bit, before starting a new thread, at whether a question or topic deserves a thread unto itself. As a very frequent poster here for the last 2-3 years, I say this because it is very hard to weed through the wheat and chaff here at times.

3. Not an excuse, but an explanation for hostile behavior (although I do not think Gravy was hostile in this case) seen on the forum at times, is due to the day in day out repetition of claims by the truth movement.

No matter what you tell them, they refuse to listen, and continue to ask the same questions over and over. This leads to Debunker Fatigue Syndrome. Now the best remedy for this ailment is a period of absence from the forum, at least 7-14 days. Barring that, frequent use of the ignore function may also help.

If you see someone exhibiting signs of DFS (irritable, quick to jump on statements, increase in the use of hostile and demeaning words such as idiot, stupid, morons, etc...) please inform them, as most will then realize this is the case, and most here being sensible, will try to remedy the situation.

*There are a couple of exceptions (you will know them when you see them) who have permanent, incurable forms of DFS.

TAM;)
 
Last edited:
Mark, thank you for the clarification and the apology (and to T.A.M. for further clarification). I really appreciate that, and perhaps I was a bit too sensitive with my initial reaction, for which I also apologize (and extend to beachnut as well). In the case of the current person I'm dealing with, if he were not quite young (18) and fooled by David Ray Griffin (this is where most of his schtick comes from, which angers me), I would have simply given up on him. I'm still going to give him a bit longer, though.

I noticed in the past year that, not only in 9/11 Truth debates, but other skeptical issues, I had a tendency to go straight for the jugular with sarcasm and slight hostility toward issues that particularly bother me....it's very easy to let nonsense get the best of you, because it's like the 'whack-a-mole' game, no matter how much you do to defeat a certain fallacious argument, there are three more people who have picked it up by the time you finish with one. I often wonder if I spend too much time doing something that, while valuable, might be personally and psychologically harmful to the extent that I do it. Typing away furiously on the internet isn't a recipe for good mental health, ha.

But: I backed off of that in some instances, tried to listen more and foster a better environment, relying on to-the-point rational answers with very little added fluff. And it has proven more fruitful thus far. In the past year, I've received e-mails from people who thanked me for what I had done, and told me stories of how they used it to help straighten out their Truther buddies, as well as a few of the culprits themselves noting that I had helped change their view. And to give credit where it's due, I have used your website as a source more than any other, as well as using the 'Google + JREF' search.

I couldn't agree more that with most Truthers, the 'mystery mongering' game is the common M.O. that does not deserve my continued respect and sincere efforts....and is worthy of nothing more than disgust and ridicule.

Thanks again to everybody here, for doing what they do. And gumboot...your post also clued me in to something I hadn't thought about that will be useful, regarding 'who will have authority to issue subpoenas and enforce them'. Very astute point, and that's why I come here....to add to my arsenal and personal understanding. :)
 
Hey! I didn't get a chance to make any sarcastic remarks, and make you mad yet! No fair!

I demand an immediate apology for the obvious slight to me!

And an oatmeal raisin cookie!
 
JimBenArm said:
Hey! I didn't get a chance to make any sarcastic remarks, and make you mad yet! No fair!

I demand an immediate apology for the obvious slight to me!

And an oatmeal raisin cookie!
Click to expand...


There's still time, you jerk. :D I'm getting ready to make a 5.5 hour drive from Oklahoma to Arkansas (I live in OK permanently, but work in Arkansas pretty much full-time). THAT should give you some time, and plenty of ammunition!
 
how many posts is that now geggy?

I only need to read one paragraph (near the end) to know the writer of this is FOS...

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission.
Click to expand...

Absolute BUNK!!!!

TAM:)
 
I guess we can scratch Newsweek of the list of MSM outlets that are part of the cover-up. Let know when they release their explosive "Inside Job" issue.
 
T.A.M. said:
how many posts is that now geggy?

I only need to read one paragraph (near the end) to know the writer of this is FOS...

Absolute BUNK!!!!

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Shenon could be right there, none of us knows at this point. Note that the part that is in doubt is mostly the background of the plot and al Qaeda, not the mechanics of 9-11. Of course, I would imagine that the Looming Tower probably does the best on that aspect.
 
Brainster said:
Shenon could be right there, none of us knows at this point. Note that the part that is in doubt is mostly the background of the plot and al Qaeda, not the mechanics of 9-11. Of course, I would imagine that the Looming Tower probably does the best on that aspect.
Click to expand...

My problem with his article, is not the suggestion that KSM and others were threatened with torture, and some may have been subjected to it. I agree, this is probably, if not certainly, true.

My problem is with the "exclusive source" and "because of the 9/11 commission".

I am thinking that the torture of KSM and others, if it occurred, had little to do with what the commission wanted, or did not want. As well, please show me what (A) long passages means, and (B) where the potentially tortured individuals were the EXCLUSIVE SOURCE of that information.

TAM:)
 
I reserve the right to make a sarcastic remark in this thread at a later date. Thank you.
 
Btodd said:
There's still time, you jerk. :D I'm getting ready to make a 5.5 hour drive from Oklahoma to Arkansas (I live in OK permanently, but work in Arkansas pretty much full-time). THAT should give you some time, and plenty of ammunition!
Click to expand...

Well, shoot me full of moonshine and call me Merle Haggard. Another Okie. That makes two I've met on here and only one other one that still lives in OK.

I'm in Tulsa myself - home of local wacko commune TulsaTruth which is little more than a repeater for Alex Jones' hogwash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom