• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Consensus 9/11: The Best Evidence" - O RLY?

RedIbis said:
The list isn't perfect, but it's a good start. I think it's helpful to try and boil down so much competing information to try and come up with a short list of what the panel believes to be points of consensus.
.
Click to expand...

They spend over a decade coming up with the "best" list of evidence they can, and they still claim that their critics claim no one heard explosions? And you don't think this makes them at least wildly incompetent in coming up with such a list?
 
DGM said:
Let me restart. How may of these points would be on your top ten list of "best evidence?
Click to expand...

I don't mind answering the question, and I've jotted down my choices, but first, out of curiosity, why are you interested in my opinion? Why not simply refute the points of the panel?
 
RedIbis said:
I don't mind answering the question, and I've jotted down my choices, but first, out of curiosity, why are you interested in my opinion? Why not simply refute the points of the panel?
Click to expand...
Because as you know I've been around for awhile and have done this many times. Nothing they bring up is new. You may argue that it was not argued to your satisfaction but that's not the point. The thread is about the "Best evidence"* not the validity of it..


*of inside job.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Because as you know I've been around for awhile and have done this many times. Nothing they bring up is new. You may argue that it was not argued to your satisfaction but that's not the point. The thread is about the "Best evidence".
Click to expand...

That didn't really answer my question. As you can see from many of the responses in this thread, explanations are given, even what may be called "debunking" but as I noted with Beachnut's example, these "arguments" or debunking is unsatisfactory because it misses the point or never resolves why the panel is skeptical. Here, debunking has become merely providing reasonable sounding explanations, not refutations with evidence.
 
DGM said:
Because as you know I've been around for awhile and have done this many times. Nothing they bring up is new. You may argue that it was not argued to your satisfaction but that's not the point. The thread is about the "Best evidence"* not the validity of it..


*of inside job.
Click to expand...

*that's a misreading of what their purpose is. As their post states, this is evidence that the official 9/11 story is not factual, not evidence of an inside job. A huge difference, and one I know that is not very popular around here.
 
So now the 911 cults are sorting through all the lies they tell and trying to compile a list of the best lies. Absolutely hilarious. :D
 
RedIbis said:
That didn't really answer my question. As you can see from many of the responses in this thread, explanations are given, even what may be called "debunking" but as I noted with Beachnut's example, these "arguments" or debunking is unsatisfactory because it misses the point or never resolves why the panel is skeptical. Here, debunking has become merely providing reasonable sounding explanations, not refutations with evidence.
Click to expand...
I don't care about who posted what.

I'm interested in what is the "Best evidence". That is what the OP is about, right?
 
Reading that dross dropped my IQ so far that I'm no longer able to beat protozoans at chess.
 
RedIbis said:
*that's a misreading of what their purpose is. As their post states, this is evidence that the official 9/11 story is not factual, not evidence of an inside job. A huge difference, and one I know that is not very popular around here.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is on my part. Perhaps they should first define what the "official story" actually is? And what exactly defines such.

Reading their posts it seems to indicate they put it together from several sources.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
*that's a misreading of what their purpose is. As their post states, this is evidence that the official 9/11 story is not factual, not evidence of an inside job. A huge difference, and one I know that is not very popular around here.
Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design to me!!! :)
 
RedIbis said:
That didn't really answer my question. As you can see from many of the responses in this thread, explanations are given, even what may be called "debunking" but as I noted with Beachnut's example, these "arguments" or debunking is unsatisfactory because it misses the point or never resolves why the panel is skeptical. Here, debunking has become merely providing reasonable sounding explanations, not refutations with evidence.
Click to expand...
Regarding the point about UA93 that beachnut was referring to, the problem with the panel's assertion about the 30 seconds it took hijackers to gain access to the cockpit, is not supported in the evidence which they themselves provide! Read the LA Times article again and tell us if it says that it took hijackers 30 seconds, or any specific amount of time, to get into the cockpit.

An argument based on misinformation is always unsatisfactory.
 
Roughly 2/3 of their points are predicated on the idea that the towers could not have collapsed without assistance from explosives... I have to agree with a few people who already commented specifically on the technical stuff, whether you're arguing inside job or not I've seen no reason to hold skepticism that aligns with what the truth movement would have me believe in.

Skepticism with valid reasoning is one thing, but skepticism based on a lack of education is another matter. Being familiar with architecture and design, I cannot blindly agree with the TM whom itself has shown an incapacity to do the research expected of someone whose studied in the field
 
RedIbis said:
Here, debunking has become merely providing reasonable sounding explanations, not refutations with evidence.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
As their post states, this is evidence that the official 9/11 story is not factual, not evidence of an inside job.
Click to expand...

It's ironic that these statements should be in successive posts, and yet RedIbis should have failed to connect the dots between them. The basis for claiming that this collection of dubious factoids constitutes "evidence that the official 9/11 story is not factual" is the assertion that there is no reasonable explanation of them in terms of the "official story", yet this claim is somehow not refuted by demonstrating how the "official story" provides precisely the explanations whose existence is denied (for the subset of these factoids that may actually be true).

Dave
 
DGM said:
Perhaps it is on my part. Perhaps they should first define what the "official story" actually is? And what exactly defines such.

Reading their posts it seems to indicate they put it together from several sources.
Click to expand...

Check out the site itself, they're pretty clear about their methodogy, sources and purpose.


“Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe we should yet again start over.

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.
Click to expand...

It appears they also reserve the right to define what this "official narrative" is. Would that be a fair statement on my part?
 
Tezro said:
Regarding the point about UA93 that beachnut was referring to, the problem with the panel's assertion about the 30 seconds it took hijackers to gain access to the cockpit, is not supported in the evidence which they themselves provide! Read the LA Times article again and tell us if it says that it took hijackers 30 seconds, or any specific amount of time, to get into the cockpit.

An argument based on misinformation is always unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...

You seem to be quibbling a semantic point. The panel is skeptical because there is a 30 duration from the time the CVR records the pilot screaming "Mayday" and "Get out of here."

From that piece of evidence, the panel is skeptical of the larger point that not one of the eight pilots squawked this code.

Personally, I don't find this point all that strong, but that doesn't make yours nor Beachnut's debunking arguments any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom