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?
I feel that if someone wants to take their OWN PRIVATE MONEY and use it to conduct an investigation, then fine. I do not feel there is enough evidence, by a long shot, either for LIHOP or MIHOP, to justify, especially during this near depression, the use of taxpayer money for such an investigation.
#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 best arguments that the truthers make, which are very few, concern the involvement of Pakistani and Saudi Arabian officials in the funding of, and turning a blind eye to, the 9/11 attacks.
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.
Oh how this can be turned on them. How often have I heard the argument that Cheney is evil, and part of the Neocon movement, and the PNAC, and all this junk. Talk about appeal to politics.
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.*
oh really, please produce evidence that when playing devil's advocate here, the debunkers TYPICALLY are 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.
please elaborate, while you are slinging mud.
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!"
Nice try. Oh yes, do it for yourselves, think of all the time you'll save, and the reduction in stress. You are such an altruist Metamars...right?
Despite your lame attempt to suggest we do it for our own benefit, I would not be above such a task, if I have the time, and the interest.
TAM
