Proposition to close the 9/11 subforum

[Bell]

A challenge to the truthers

This post is from last night in the Silverstein thread:

here here.
this is the only reason i occasionly come here. you guys still pretend to be balanced and it constantly suprises me.

the fact you have a section entitled 'resources for debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories' indicates you have made the decision that the official theory is 100% correct at any given moment (despite the official explanation changing periodically) and is based around the assumption that the mainstream media and western establishment in general, could never, ever, ever possibly be incorrect about this event.

close the forum .. or admit you just hate anyone questioning the official story for personal reasons.

To which I replied:

Beside everything that is wrong in your post, could you post 1 (one) piece of evidence that proofs 9/11 was an inside job? Once you have done that, I'll ask Terry to close this forum.

So how about it, truthers? You provide us with 1 (one) piece of evidence that proofs 9/11 was an inside job and we'll ask the JREF that this subforum be closed.

And just to prevent you wasting your own and our time, this helpful tip from Regnad Kcin:

See, here's the thing: all you have to do to shut up the big, bad ol' JREF skeptics is present proof of what you are suggesting. Evidence. Considering any "inside job" on the scale of 9/11 would leave countless amounts, both large and small, of physical evidence, paper trails, eyewitnesses, participants, and on and on...why, the mind reels.

Questions are not evidence. Things looking funny and seeming suspicious to you does not constitute evidence. You know what evidence is. That you cannot provide it should suggest something to you.

 

[uke2se]

Proof.

Now we can close it.

 

[RedIbis]

Close it. I have yet to see this subforum fulfill the mission of the jref, to be a friendly and civil place to discuss this historical event.

The subforum is moderated as if the veracity of the 9/11 official story is a foregone conclusion. Not exactly the most objective way to host discussion. Instead it's been allowed to become a sandbox from which to hurl childish insults and gang up on anyone who dares question the prevailing view.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

How about Sibel Edmonds claim that the CIA was in direct contact with OBL in the days leading up to 9/11. This is evidence.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Close it. I have yet to see this subforum fulfill the mission of the jref, to be a friendly and civil place to discuss this historical event.

The subforum is moderated as if the veracity of the 9/11 official story is a foregone conclusion. Not exactly the most objective way to host discussion. Instead it's been allowed to become a sandbox from which to hurl childish insults and gang up on anyone who dares question the prevailing view.

Hey Red.........you've taken a lot of abuse around these parts.....I wonder why we are such suckers for abuse......most of these idiots can't see the forest from the trees.

.......does not compute........cannot process new information.......must trust politicians.....

 

[sadhatter]

How about Sibel Edmonds claim that the CIA was in direct contact with OBL in the days leading up to 9/11. This is evidence.

Even assuming veracity this is not evidence of anything other than sibel edmonds meeting with the cia.

Unless that is you have a record of what was said. Otherwise it is just a situation you don't know the details too that you are saying is proof. Which is just a sneaky way of using the argument from ignorance. Its like saying me meeting with the police is proof i was arrested. Yes this might be proof if you have proof of the content of my meeting but until you do it is nothing more than proof i met the police.

As far as proof and 9/11 truth go i go with andre the giant on this one " i do not think that word means what you think it means. "

( again i am giving you the benefit of the doubt this even happened. And still your example has more holes that cheesecloth. )

 

[MikeW]

How about Sibel Edmonds claim that the CIA was in direct contact with OBL in the days leading up to 9/11. This is evidence.

It's not exactly what Edmonds said, though, is it.

 

[RedIbis]

Hey Red.........you've taken a lot of abuse around these parts.....I wonder why we are such suckers for abuse......most of these idiots can't see the forest from the trees.

.......does not compute........cannot process new information.......must trust politicians.....

It's a good question, and one I've wondered myself. It's probably not much different from why the illustrious debunkers continue to post here, even though they know the truth and all questioning is moronic: It can be entertaining and a way to work through your own analysis and research on the subject.

My primary reason for coming here was because this was considered the best forum for debunking conspiracy theories, and Gravy was the grand dame of the ball, so I wanted to see how solid his work was. As you can see, he's since abandoned ship and his vaunted gravylinks are nothing but an out of date, speculative, subjective mess.

 

[uke2se]

most of these idiots can't see the forest from the trees.

Excuse me but, who exactly are you calling idiots?

 

[Thunder]

Close it. I have yet to see this subforum fulfill the mission of the jref, to be a friendly and civil place to discuss this historical event.

i have been around here since 2006, and its always been very clear to me when the incivility starts..and who starts it.

it always begins with a Truther calling "debunkers", either a troll, an agent, a Mossad spy, a NWO tool, etc etc etc.

if debunkers have responded with a little incivility of their own, it is your fault.

 

[funk de fino]

Close it. I have yet to see this subforum fulfill the mission of the jref, to be a friendly and civil place to discuss this historical event.

The subforum is moderated as if the veracity of the 9/11 official story is a foregone conclusion. Not exactly the most objective way to host discussion. Instead it's been allowed to become a sandbox from which to hurl childish insults and gang up on anyone who dares question the prevailing view.

Ironic that you had to lie in your post.

 

[funk de fino]

How about Sibel Edmonds claim that the CIA was in direct contact with OBL in the days leading up to 9/11. This is evidence.

No, its not. It's even more sad you think it is.

 

[Bell]

IAmANiceGuy and Red Ibis. Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'd like to point out however that you forgot to post the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Just saying.

 

[funk de fino]

It's a good question, and one I've wondered myself. It's probably not much different from why the illustrious debunkers continue to post here, even though they know the truth and all questioning is moronic: It can be entertaining and a way to work through your own analysis and research on the subject.

My primary reason for coming here was because this was considered the best forum for debunking conspiracy theories, and Gravy was the grand dame of the ball, so I wanted to see how solid his work was. As you can see, he's since abandoned ship and his vaunted gravylinks are nothing but an out of date, speculative, subjective mess.

See post number 3 and see if you think you may be displaying hypocrisy by engaging with someone and replying to that post.

 

[JimBenArm]

i have been around here since 2006, and its always been very clear to me when the incivility starts..and who starts it.

it always begins with a Truther calling "debunkers", either a troll, an agent, a Mossad spy, a NWO tool, etc etc etc.

if debunkers have responded with a little incivility of their own, it is your fault.

Well, the fact debunkers respond in kind in no way makes this anyone's fault but the debunkers. No one can make me respond to anything in any particular way. I choose to respond that way. Yes, if I respond to uncivil posts with another, it's a poor choice and reflects badly on me, but it still remains my choice. I've done this too many times, myself, because it's easy to respond to vitriol with more of the same, rather than ignoring it or responding without the emotion.
As with all humans, I remain a work-in-progress, so I will continue to do this, but I think I've come to recognize it in myself a bit more, and try to control it with some better results. Which is one of the reasons my frequency of posts here is dramatically reduced.

 

[Sabrina]

Even assuming veracity this is not evidence of anything other than sibel edmonds meeting with the cia.

Unless that is you have a record of what was said. Otherwise it is just a situation you don't know the details too that you are saying is proof. Which is just a sneaky way of using the argument from ignorance. Its like saying me meeting with the police is proof i was arrested. Yes this might be proof if you have proof of the content of my meeting but until you do it is nothing more than proof i met the police.

As far as proof and 9/11 truth go i go with andre the giant on this one " i do not think that word means what you think it means. "
( again i am giving you the benefit of the doubt this even happened. And still your example has more holes that cheesecloth. )

[PEDANT]Actually, it was Inigo who said that.[/PEDANT]

 

[Thunder]

Fact: 9-11 Truthers bring a sense of "holyer than though" to this forum. They have made up their minds even before they post. They come here mostly to insult those who dare defy their "theories". They see this as a place to play games, not engage in actual debate. They NEVER believe anything that we tell them. Ever. Regardless of the source.

To them, anything that counters 9-11 Truth, is an evil plot to install a New World Order.

Period.

 

[Tatyana]

How about Sibel Edmonds claim that the CIA was in direct contact with OBL in the days leading up to 9/11. This is evidence.

I claim that OBL lives in my basement and the CIA calls him at least once a month.

 

[The Big Dog]

Close it. I have yet to see this subforum fulfill the mission of the jref, to be a friendly and civil place to discuss this historical event.

The subforum is moderated as if the veracity of the 9/11 official story is a foregone conclusion. Not exactly the most objective way to host discussion. Instead it's been allowed to become a sandbox from which to hurl childish insults and gang up on anyone who dares question the prevailing view.

Talking about foregone conclusions, I heard that Larry Silverstein made out like a god damn bandit when the WTC complex was destroyed!

Right, Red? Keep on truthing brother!

 

[DavidJames]

I would prefer more moderation to limit discussion to serious debate, you know the kind that includes evidence, intellectually honest research and analysis (Greg U. for example), and and not be a social club for the deluded as some above would like. But I doubt the subforum will ever be closed. JREF still supports bigfoot, moon hoax and JFK CT discussions. I think the best approach would be to fold it into the general CT forum. They will then become smaller deluded fish in a bigger sea of crazy, not something they want.

I think the answer is to ignore them. They are here to chat, provoke or annoy, but not for honest debate. Ignoring them will deprive them of the only thing they really want, attention. Without it, they will move on. Responding under the excuse of concern for lurkers is just that, an excuse to...chat, provoke or annoy.