We need an independent investigation!

[metamars]

errr, excuse me, debunkers

I have a couple of questions.

#1) First, is it fair to say that none of the debunkers posting on this thread, so far, feel that a fairer, and more complete re-investigation of 911 is required, in order to have a more complete knowledge of how 911 happened, who should be accountable within the US security establishment, and (GASP!) whether or not LIHOP and/or MIHOP has any validity?

#2) For those debunkers who do not feel we need a reinvestigation, what are the BEST arguments (in the minds of 911 truthers, not your own mysterious minds) for calling for a reinvestigation?

The answer to #1) seems obvious for most of the posters in this thread, and the less important of these two questions. If you're only going to answer one of these two questions, please answer #2.

In scientific arguments, scientists go after the strongest arguments and evidence given for a competing theory. In political arguments, however, a "throw mud against the wall, and hope it sticks" approach is used, and frankly blatant lies are often par for the course.

If you are merely attempting to refute 911 truthers with political-type arguments, well, have at it, just don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.

OTOH, if you are looking to refute 911 truthers using an approach more recognizable by scientists, you will focus on your opponents strongest arguments. That, of course, necessitates that you know what they are. 911 truthers, being a disparate bunch of individuals, and not terribly well organized, probably have not produced some sort of consensus manifesto (I'm not actually sure about this, myself). However, that in no way prevents you from asking this question of people you are trying to rescue from their so-called delusions, and it in no way prevents you from trying to put yourself in your opponents collective mindset, and trying to generate a set of strongest arguments, yourself. Playing devil's advocate is an invaluable habit of mind for anybody engaging in public argumentation, whether of the scientific or political sort. Yet, the debunker versions of this (somewhat evident on this very thread) are typically juvenile, even laughable.*

My prior experiment in challenging the JREF community to transcend their abortive thought processes turned out to cast more doubt on the collective, cognitive abilities of said community than even I had expected. Let's see if you all can do a little better this time.

Note that if you can successfully produce a set of strongest arguments for a reinvestigation, that even most 911 truthers would agree is a fair collection of points that they could agree with, and then proceed to demolish those arguments, one by one, you will will have a powerful document which you can publish on 911 debunking sites that you can point truthers to when you argue with them. Think of all the time you'll save, and how you'll have a less stressful life, to boot. You might even live longer - long enough to see Bin Laden captured, and confess so thoroughly, that all doubts are dispelled and 911 Truthers say "Oops! Boy, did we blow it for failing to trust the US government's version of things!"


* While honorable mention goes to Mackey for starting a thread attempting to address individual truthers' main objection to official accounts, the fact is that most individuals will have reached their overall conclusions or beliefs based on multiple lines of argument.

 

[twinstead]

Jesus Metamars. It's almost as if you haven't read a single word any so-called debunker has ever posted on this forum in response to truthers. Ever.

 

[Gravy]

#2) For those debunkers who do not feel we need a reinvestigation, what are the BEST arguments (in the minds of 911 truthers, not your own mysterious minds) for calling for a reinvestigation?

A perfect example of the fecklessness of the 9/11 "truth" movement: the need to ask others what your good arguments are.

OTOH, if you are looking to refute 911 truthers using an approach more recognizable by scientists, you will focus on your opponents strongest arguments. That, of course, necessitates that you know what they are.

You've never heard the term "burden of proof," have you?

Note that if you can successfully produce a set of strongest arguments for a reinvestigation, that even most 911 truthers would agree is a fair collection of points that they could agree with, and then proceed to demolish those arguments, one by one, you will will have a powerful document which you can publish on 911 debunking sites that you can point truthers to when you argue with them.

Or, rather than doing your work for you, we could just point to the evidence of what actually happened, and laugh at your spastic mental gymnastics as you desperately try to avoid it.

 

[metamars]

However, that in no way prevents you from asking this question of people you are trying to rescue from their so-called delusions, and it in no way prevents you from trying to put yourself in your opponents collective mindset, and trying to generate a set of strongest arguments, yourself.

I should have been a little clearer. I am looking for a bulleted or numbered list. The bulleted items can have any amount of explanatory text associated with them.

It's also desirable to order the list from strongest to weakest. Even amongst "strongest" arguments, there will be a pecking order.

Also, I'll amend my suggestion with the following. After producing such a list of strongest arguments, but before demolishing them, point by point, show the list to some well known 911 truthers, and ask for their comments.

Just to show you what a swell guy I am, I promise to post your list on my blog at 911 blogger, and solicit feedback. I will also PM some of the more eloquent posters and bloggers, there, and ask them to publicly comment on your list. I can't promise that a concensus will emerge, but we should get a good idea if your list is anything close to what 911 truthers would agree on. I will make it perfectly clear that the list they are commenting on originated from JREF, and that the JREF'ers intend to demolish all of the best arguments, one by one. I will entitle my blog post "Best Arguments for a 911 Reinvestigation, to be challenged by JREF".

 

[metamars]

A perfect example of the fecklessness of the 9/11 "truth" movement: the need to ask others what your good arguments are.

I think my purpose is clear enough. It's to demonstrate that JREF'ers exhibit abortive thought processes, and furthermore have a political, rather than scientific-like, approach to things. Certainly, after all of these years, you should have a very good idea of what the 911 truthers best arguments are for a reinvestigation. If you are unable to tell us what they are, you either have a tin ear, or worse.

 

[metamars]

In fairness, I should point out that I was thinking in terms of defective processes, rather than specific factoids (or pseudo-factoids, as the case may be ) related to 911.

Getting into specifics such as whether a metallic spheres are what Stephen Jones and Kevin Ryan say they are, vs. what Frank Greening says they are, is not what I was getting at. My apologies for not making that clear.

So, allow me to rephrase as "What are the strongest arguments for a reinvestigation, due to defects in the prior investigation processes?"

 

[Dave Rogers]

#2) For those debunkers who do not feel we need a reinvestigation, what are the BEST arguments (in the minds of 911 truthers, not your own mysterious minds) for calling for a reinvestigation?

Since I only have direct access to the contents of my own mind (which aren't particularly mysterious to me), this is of course an impossible question to answer. However, the general tone of this post is the familiar one from Metamars: Start by assuming I'm right, then proceed from that assumption to refute me. Of course, this is by definition impossible. Having a masochistic streak, however (as has everybody who posts here, I suspect), I'll try and address it, even if not answer it.

For a start, a good place to look for the best arguments is to look for truther organisations that look up to a specific person and refute that person's arguments. This is hardly something that the debunker community has shied away from. I've been over numerous papers from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, a journal one would expect to be the repository of the arguments considered by its publishers to be the best, and shown up their fatal flaws, as have many others here. Loose Change has been so thoroughly debunked that its own creators have effectively given up the fight; Dylan Avery was last heard accusing the US Government of possibly no more than criminal negligence, by definition a non-conspiracist position. The same is true of any of the leading figures in the movement. And the truth movement's response to this? Anyone whose arguments are shown to be flawed is exposed as a disinformation agent, deliberately advancing poor arguments to discredit the cause. Therefore, the strongest arguments by this criterion are re-defined as the weakest, and deliberately so, in order to evade the consequences of their refutation.

Should we, then, look at the truther arguments that we personally have found the most convincing? For most debunkers, this is like trying to identify which of the Police Academy series contains the most intelligent and subtle social commentary. I have yet to find any argument from the truth movement in any way convincing of anything other than that specific individuals do not fully understand the specific mechanisms behind specific events. And, of course, even if any arguments appear stronger to me personally, these arguments have all been addressed, as have all the other arguments of the truth movement.

And that, quite simply, is the fatal flaw behind the question. Metamars is in effect asking: Why don't you read truthers' minds, work out what convinces them, and refute those arguments, instead of only refuting the weaker ones? And that's a classic example of the complex question fallacy. Because the debunking community has not concentrated on the weaker arguments of the truth movement, but has addressed everything it produces somewhere along the line. There are no strong arguments we, collectively, shy away from. As for "a powerful document which you can publish on 911 debunking sites that you can point truthers to when you argue with them", there are several out there, and they are regularly pointed to in these arguments.

And, of course, one truther's meat is another truther's poisoning. Why do we argue with no-planers, when they're clearly disinfo and the real truth movement is the thermians? Why do we argue with Steven Jones, when every sane member of the movement knows that LIHOP is the most reasonable position? Why do we try to debunk LIHOP, when there is irrefutable physical evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives? Why do we focus on the Twin Towers, when it's clear that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon? Why do we argue with CIT when it's clear to anyone that al-Qaeda was a US intelligence asset? Why do we argue over who controlled al-Qaeda when it's never even been established that any airliners ever hit the Twin Towers? And so the circle goes on.

There are no "good" arguments put forward by the truth movement. Nor is there a central core to the theories of a disparate group, all anxious to deny each other any credit. There is simply a circle of poor arguments, and a dishonest or self-deluded group who flit from one to the next as their intellectual bankruptcy is exposed, and hope that, by the time they get back to the starting point, someone will have forgotten the previous cycle.

Dave

 

[Gravy]

I think my purpose is clear enough. It's to demonstrate that JREF'ers exhibit abortive thought processes, and furthermore have a political, rather than scientific-like, approach to things. Certainly, after all of these years, you should have a very good idea of what the 911 truthers best arguments are for a reinvestigation. If you are unable to tell us what they are, you either have a tin ear, or worse.

Sorry, but our NWO contract forbids us from helping you to cheat. You're just going to have to do the work yourself. It's 2009: you might want to get started soon.

 

[RedIbis]

I think Philip Shenon in his book, The Commission presents one of the stronger arguments for demanding a new investigation, specifically that a good amount of the AQ testimony had derived from torture. In a recent Newsweek essay Shenon states,

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

ETA: My bad, I see that Geggy has already linked to Shenon's essay.

 

[Drudgewire]

For most debunkers, this is like trying to identify which of the Police Academy series contains the most intelligent and subtle social commentary.

Clearly "Police Academy 3: Back in Training." Zed going from gang leader to police cadet so soon after trying to murder Mahoney shows the fallacies inherent in our justice system.

 

[metamars]

I think Philip Shenon in his book, The Commission presents one of the stronger arguments for demanding a new investigation, specifically that a good amount of the AQ testimony had derived from torture. In a recent Newsweek essay Shenon states,



ETA: My bad, I see that Geggy has already linked to Shenon's essay.

Thank-you, noble uni-footed bird. However, my questions are directed at debunkers. They are the ones manifestly suffering from abortive thought processes, here at JREF.

I should note, in fairness, that a similar exercize should be directed at 911 truthers. I think you'd find a sizeable subset who have little idea of what the best debunker arguments are, or else also suffer from abortive thought processes and, for one reason or another, won't allow their minds to seriously think along certain lines, even as a devil's advocate. Apparently, reinforcing their beliefs is more important to them, also, as opposed to sharpening their arguments and abandoning some hypotheses, and qualifying others.

It's like that old, old saying goes:

"To woo is human
to forgive, divine"


Something like that.....

 

[Disbelief]

A perfect example of the fecklessness of the 9/11 "truth" movement: the need to ask others what your good arguments are.

You've never heard the term "burden of proof," have you?

Or, rather than doing your work for you, we could just point to the evidence of what actually happened, and laugh at your spastic mental gymnastics as you desperately try to avoid it.

And once again, metamars is asking others to do his work for him.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

I spent two years in Tulsa as a young 'un. (Horace Mann JHS '63 - '64, back in the Rumblefish era)

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think Philip Shenon in his book, The Commission presents one of the stronger arguments for demanding a new investigation, specifically that a good amount of the AQ testimony had derived from torture.

Okay, let's try running with that one. What are you actually demanding here? Should there be a complete new investigation, starting from scratch, that has to cover all the ground already trodden by PENTTBOM, FEMA, and NIST? That seems largely futile, as there are large areas of evidence untainted. Should all the testimony of the detainees be rejected, or only the testimony that was known to have been extracted under torture (assuming, which point has yet to be proven, that such testimony formed part of the case for AQ's guilt)? If so, then there might be a case for re-examination of the conclusions of the investigation, and there is certainly a case for an investigation into the use of torture by US interrogators. However, what scope is there for a new investigation into 9/11? Are you proposing to re-interrogate the detainees under properly monitored conditions? Even if that were done, any results of such an interrogation would be rejected on the basis that the prior torture established a future threat. So where would this new investigation start, other than a re-evaluation of the evidence already known with some items omitted? And, since re-evaluation of that evidence would simply lead to the same conclusion - that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the people who claim vociferously to have planned them and executed by those who died in the act - what would be the point? What you have is a recipe for an investigation that will be rejected by the conspiracy theorists, because like every other investigation it will fail to reach their preferred conclusions.

In other words, this may be grounds for a new investigation, but probably not a new investigation into 9/11, and certainly not the specific new investigation that truthers want. And this is why debunkers don't take truther calls for a new investigation seriously; they're post hoc justifications based on matters irrelevant to the claims of the truth movement, which is trying desperately to leech off other people's credibility.

Dave

 

[TexasJack]

Since some of those that were tortured now freely admit their involvement, including KSM (who admitted his involvement before his capture anyway), a new investigation would be futile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=1

 

[dtugg]

We're supposed to come up with a list of arguments that is the strongest in the minds of the twoofers? That is just stupid.

(1) I am not psychic.
(2) The list would vary widely depending on the twoofer.
(3) All of their arguments are ******** and have been previously demolished.

 

[R.Mackey]

We're supposed to come up with a list of arguments that is the strongest in the minds of the twoofers? That is just stupid.

I agree. Some of the more persistent members here might even recall a thread I started two-and-a-half years ago where I asked them, point blank, to give me their strongest arguments, so I could go after those without wasting time on the little ones.

No effect. Nobody wanted to play except P'Doh.

Then I took on the biggest comprehensive collection of Truth Movement nonsense I could find, and defeated it in detail, in my analysis of Dr. Griffin.

Only three feeble responses ever came back, all easily dispatched, all from his principal sources. Everybody else in the Truth Movement either ignored it or actually claimed DRG was "disinfo."

Dave Rogers adequately described the Journal of 9/11 Studies. To that I will add that they broke cover twice in the realm of "real" Journals, by which of course I mean somebody else's improperly reviewed online Journals. Both were engaged and destroyed with hardly a fuss, which is why you don't hear about them anymore. The venue changed, but the content didn't.

This isn't our fault. We've controlled the logical battlefield from day one. The opposition simply will not leave its hiding place, if indeed it has anything to say in the first place. We've done exactly what metamars asked. But in the final analysis, there's just no "there" there.

Apparently, there are still those who cling to the idea, that somewhere, undiscovered, refusing to make himself known, is somebody in the Truth Movement with a dynamite theory that will stand the world on its end. In other words, the Truth Movement is waiting for its Messiah. It ain't gonna happen, people.

I have no problem with investigating why intelligence failed, what CYA happened in the aftermath, and how to improve our security agencies, military, and transportation system. That could be useful. Chasing after ghosts hoping the Truth Movement will somehow be saved from itself at the last moment, not so much.

 

[metamars]

We've done exactly what metamars asked.

Really? Then how about providing a link?

Also, you didn't miss my clarification, did you, in post 46?

To recap, I am looking for a bulleted or numbered list of the best arguments that the 911 truthers would present, as best as can be inferred by JREF debunkers, from the JREF debunkers, as to why a reinvestigation of 911 is considered necessary. I am only asking for process-oriented lists, which involves far less work to put together than a any-factoid-related-to-911 list. I have promised to post this list on 911blogger, solicit feedback, and then allow JREF debunkers to demolish the arguments of what I presume will be a modified list from what they originally presented. (Actually, I presume that the JREF debunkers will not allow their minds to play devil's advocate, and will never produce such a list. But in the event that they surprise me, then I am obligated to follow through on my promise.)

My request can accomplish either of 2 goals: It can show the degree to which abortive thought processes dominate JREF debunkers.(This is the result that I am expecting, and getting, so far.) Or, should they actually surprise me and produce even a half decent list, if the 911 truthers then respond in good faith, it will show how ridiculous the debunkers delusions about already having an adequate investigation are. Of course, if the debunkers are to be believed, no matter what refined list may be returned by the 911 truthers, the debunkers will still go down that list and demolish each and every one of those arguments. You see, they've already done so! Or, at least, that's what they tell us.

Unfortunately, I never read your book. I did read part of the first chapter, liked a lot of what I saw, and requested that it be debunked by anybody that was inclined to do so, at the stj911 forum (before I was thrown out ). I later read parts of the WTC 7 chapter, and was frankly not impressed. In part, that killed my motivation for reading the rest of your book, though truth be told, there was a lot to it, and I only have so many hours to waste spend on this stuff.

Perhaps I should elaborate on "process". Process is not just methodology, but also the people chosen to perform those methodologies. Thus, part of "process" is "personnel selection."

You wouldn't, for example, hire your local butcher, throw him in a nuclear lab with access to any reference in nuclear physics that he/she could possibly want, and then say "analyze this dust sample and tell me if it's radioactive".

Of course, a criticism of process could well entail competent individuals, who nevertheless don't perform some function properly, which impedes their rational ability to solve a problem.

If you are knowledgeable about such things, you would know that criticisms of defective processes, even by presumably competent individuals, cannot be completely separated from their whatever milieu they are operating in. Once again, I refer the interested reader to The Trouble with Physics (see also Not Even Wrong). In Trouble, Smolin refers to a "string theory mafia". A fearful milieu is not conducive to an honest search for truth in particle physics. Analogies to a post-911 world, and groups within the government that all are ultimately controlled by politicians, will then be obvious.

 

[Gravy]

To recap, I am looking for a bulleted or numbered list of the best arguments that the 911 truthers would present, as best as can be inferred by JREF debunkers, from the JREF debunkers, as to why a reinvestigation of 911 is considered necessary. I am only asking for process-oriented lists, which involves far less work to put together than a any-factoid-related-to-911 list. I have promised to post this list on 911blogger, solicit feedback, and then allow JREF debunkers to demolish the arguments of what I presume will be a modified list from what they originally presented.

Go directly to Fail.
Do not pass Go.
Do not collect a new Investigation.

 

[TexasJack]

To recap, I am looking for a bulleted or numbered list of the best arguments that the 911 truthers would present, as best as can be inferred by JREF debunkers, from the JREF debunkers, as to why a reinvestigation of 911 is considered necessary. I am only asking for process-oriented lists, which involves far less work to put together than a any-factoid-related-to-911 list. I have promised to post this list on 911blogger, solicit feedback, and then allow JREF debunkers to demolish the arguments of what I presume will be a modified list from what they originally presented. (Actually, I presume that the JREF debunkers will not allow their minds to play devil's advocate, and will never produce such a list. But in the event that they surprise me, then I am obligated to follow through on my promise.)

OK, I'll start with the #!, I mean #1 best argument from truthers, anybody else is free to jump in.

1.