so, quickly scanning over the "myths" presented, here's what we have:
Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing. - for the sake of argument, we can let him have this one. i don't care.
Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. - again, for the sake of argument, we can let him have this one as well. i care about evidence, not conjecture.
Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now. - as with the first two, while i don't agree, this isn't really much a claim. again, the argument thus far is simply trying to prove that the government *could* have carried out the 911 attacks, which is something i'm willing to consider, at the very least for the sake of argument.
Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed. - another watered down myth that doesn't prove anything. obviously, he ignroes the fact that the all the work of scientists in the NIST report and such is supported by virtually 100% of the scientific community, and should therefore be trusted, but he also fails to present any failings within the 9/11 commission report, which begs the question: why would we agree that the 9/11 commission report can be doubted, when we can find no instance of it failing to stand to scrutiny?
Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden. - ahhh hah! now we have some real claims, FINALLY. from brushing through this dialogue, i can see the same, tired, debunked claims. but, this is good, because he's actually making claims, which can easlity be demonstrated to be false. his first four "myths" were mainly just speculative crap that really doesn't prove anything.
Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration. - um, what? i mean, kinda, i'm sure, but the government knew the WTC buildings were the targets of terrorist plots for a long while now. hell, they'd be attacked prior to 9/11! but, at least he cites some specific claims here-- amoung them the notorious "stock put" claims.
Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted. - this has all been done to death. i didn't read his supporting dialogue here, but i'd be surprised if it wasn't the same old crap we've all read ten thousand times before. i glanced quickly through a few paragraphs, and it seemed that there were specific claims.
Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. - ahhhh hah! i'm saving this one. i don't want to ruin this. i want to have some good food and drink to enojy the dialogue here. i'm putting 74% confidence in the prediction that steel's melting point WILL come into play!
Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon. - more specific claims. excellent. these will, i'm quite certain, simple be the same crap we've all seen. this should be another instance where evidence can be summarily debunked quickly and concisely.
SO, of these nine "myths", only 5 really rely on real claims that support the 911 CT. 3 rely on conjecture, attempting to prove that a 911 CT could exist, and one attempts to argue against the fundamental problems that most understand regarding CTs involving vast numbers of participants.
i'd love to have a debunking of all nine myths, but really, i just don't care about a few of 'em at all, and generally, when i debate this stuff, i always just give motivation and oppurtunity to the CTer, so that we can just get to the real evidence.
if i don't address all nine myths, perhaps a reader might be given the impression that i was unable to address those that i did not. but if i address the myths that are rather pety, and rely completely on conjecture, the debunking may seem a bit trite and pety itself. what should i do?
