9/11 — The Myth & the Reality

skepticalcriticalguy said:
No, I', making a point that it is dangerous to go about things the way post #1 lays it out.

Basically saying "I know this is crap, so help me out; hand me the debunk."
Click to expand...

don't put words and intentions into my mouth, please.

i elaborted on my intent in post #24. if you wish to continue to post as above, then you are inherently calling me a liar. if you think i'm a liar, how do you know what i meant in post #1?

the fact is, as i mentioned in post #24, even though i'm not one to bet, i'd be willing to bet that this vid is full of crap. no 911 CT vid that i've seen has managed to not present the same, tired, debunked evidences. i have no reason to believe that this vid will be any different, especially considering that it features griffin, who i know has been debunked a billion times.

i have one week to prepare my case, assuming that my assumptions are correct-- obviously. i posted here to ask for help. while i'm familar with the majority of recycled 911 CT arguments, it still takes time to organize griffin's arguments, and put together appropriate documentation.

again, this all assumes that my initial assumptions were correct. and they were. i've read through most the dialogue, and it's the same stuff i've seen dozens of times over.

i'm very gald i posted this thread. i was given a link to the transcript of the video. this helps me very much. this helps me verify or debunk his claims.

had his claims been rational, i'd not debunk them, but i'd certainly not expect rational claims to come from a demographic that has a track record of failure.

now, will you concede that you were mistaken regarding my intentions, or are you insisting that i am a liar?
 
I have another question.

skepticalcriticalguy said:
I said rights have been lost. That's different than violated. I personally haven't been violated, yet. But then, I haven't been accused of being a terrorist. Yet.
Click to expand...

In exactly what way will promoting demonstrably false paranoid conspiracy theories serve to remedy this? Is it your contention that conspiracist belief is a necessary condition of altering the political landscape in a positive way?

Or are you resorting to the classic conspiracist trick of switching over to political rhetoric when you can't support your claims of evildoing with evidence? If you're trying to insinuate that the Bush administration must be behind 9/11 because of the political use which has been made of the attacks since they happened, you're stuck in the fallacy of affirming the consequent- which in my experience is one of the most common mistakes in basic reasoning that paranoid conspiracists make.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Well, twoofers think they are saving the world. From a conspiratorial coup (I guess that's redundent, all coups are conspiratorial), or the evil Bushes.

But they have no evidence, so it won't do them any good.

What's in it for you guys? You spend a HELL of a lot of time on this. While time is ticking by, and you get older. Why waste your time?

Are you trying to save the world too? If so, from what? Is it worth your time to eradicate stupidity? I would argue that nothing you're doing is eradicating even a tiny speck of stupidity. So there must be something more to this. Something psychological (if you folks believe in psychology). Or something... sinister?

I guess I just don't get it. What's the point?
Click to expand...

there will be average, everyday people, not yet exposed to 911 CTers and arguments watching this film-- i assume. anyone walking into that film, uneducated in this area will be feed 1-2 hours of lies. it's very easy to convince anyone that anything is true if you just make **** up.

i don't want innocent folk lied to, and i know that they will be lied to, so i feel obligated to do something.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
You might be surprised. I was at a conference yesterday, and several of the people were there out of curiosity. Popping in to see what it's all about.

But they will ask you what your motive, or agenda, is.
Click to expand...

and i'll answer honestly. i've had friends duped in the past. i have friends now that completely believe this stuff. i think it leads to a sick, unrealistic, delusional world view, and i think that it leads to a suspension of critical thinking skills.

as a society, we can't afford to throw good minds away. as a concerned cictizen, i can't afford to watch innocent folk blindly walking into a trap of indoctrination.

the better question, i think, is what is the agenda of one that knowingly allows another to be lied to?
 
so, let's get back to being productive. as i already asked, 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?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Maybe this was already established, but you're one of those hyper-relativists, aren't you? Nothing is true unless you've seen it with your own eyes?
Click to expand...

No more so than you. You need to see it in print in the MSM, or on your teevee.

See, you can micro-debunk every aspect of any CT, but that doesn't make it not true. So maybe you are the relativist?
 
OMGturt1es said:
that's right, nothing will come of it, IF THE VIEWERS KNOW it's a pack of lies. and that's why i intend to present documentation, so that the viewers know it's a pack of lies.
Click to expand...

But nothing will come of it (the "truth movement") even if you go to all this effort to debunk myths. If it's all lies.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
No more so than you. You need to see it in print in the MSM, or on your teevee.

See, you can micro-debunk every aspect of any CT, but that doesn't make it not true. So maybe you are the relativist?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously claiming that a theory put forth that has its supporting evidence debunked is as valid as if its supporting evidence had not been debunked?

Read this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000
 
ktesibios said:
I have another question.



In exactly what way will promoting demonstrably false paranoid conspiracy theories serve to remedy this? Is it your contention that conspiracist belief is a necessary condition of altering the political landscape in a positive way?

Or are you resorting to the classic conspiracist trick of switching over to political rhetoric when you can't support your claims of evildoing with evidence? If you're trying to insinuate that the Bush administration must be behind 9/11 because of the political use which has been made of the attacks since they happened, you're stuck in the fallacy of affirming the consequent- which in my experience is one of the most common mistakes in basic reasoning that paranoid conspiracists make.
Click to expand...

I was trying to explain a major motivating factor behind the movement. That's all.

I personally don't think Bush did it, so I am kind of an outsider over there. Although more and more of them (us) are starting to go in that direction. Or so it seems.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
So... one can cut down all the trees in a forest, yet the forest remains intact? How does that work?
Click to expand...

You haven't begun to cut down all the trees.

The trees I see are the ones that you can't debunk. Like:

Say an MI5/CIA/Mossad/whatever whistleblower states that Al Qaida was offered payment to assassinate Qaddaffi. He claims to be coming forward for his safety. I can't prove he's not lieing, and you can't prove he is. I can only be cautious not to believe everything I hear. But the debunks here are a hoot. "That guy? He's a nut! He thinks the moon landings were faked!" isn't a debunk.

Sure, there are people lieing, knowingly, with a sinister motive. So we have to try to sort them out. Meanwhile, I'd hate to have flippantly ignored what that whistleblower was saying, because it just might be true.

It still all goes back to my 3 month question. What part of the 9/11 story bothers you? Most of you discard ANYTHING that smells of CT, just beacause it smells like CT. Meanwhile, conspiracies exist. And I'll just betcha the media hasn't uncovered them all! But in your scientific minds, you have no room for the existential "whitleblower." Or "eyewitness" (unless it furthers your views).

See, that's the whole thing. No matter how much you think you've debunked thermite, or wrong engines, or impossible to hijack the planes, etc, many people are saying "wait; 9/11 stinks bad. Looks like a coup." And damn us for trying to find the truth about it.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Care to provide an actual example?
Click to expand...

"People Power" revolutions are funded and manipulated by the CIA and MI6.

The anti-war movement was/is controlled by the FBI.

Clinton was blackmailed by moles in the government, and Monica was a Mossad agent.

etc.


I'm not saying I believe all this, 100%. But unlike you, I keep an open mind and read. Just because something seems preposterous doesn't make it untrue.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
It still all goes back to my 3 month question. What part of the 9/11 story bothers you? Most of you discard ANYTHING that smells of CT, just beacause it smells like CT. Meanwhile, conspiracies exist. And I'll just betcha the media hasn't uncovered them all! But in your scientific minds, you have no room for the existential "whitleblower." Or "eyewitness" (unless it furthers your views).

See, that's the whole thing. No matter how much you think you've debunked thermite, or wrong engines, or impossible to hijack the planes, etc, many people are saying "wait; 9/11 stinks bad. Looks like a coup." And damn us for trying to find the truth about it.
Click to expand...

What bothers me about 9/11, as the general public knows it? Hmmmm...well I don't think the govt has been entirely truthful about who knew what and when wrt warnings of potential terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. However, I am not sure that even if they were more forthcoming, that it would change anything. I am not sure, given the state of the interagency affairs in the pre-9/11 era, that anything could have been done to change the outcome of 9/11.

Noone damns you for "trying to find out the truth", we damn you for the unsubstantiated accusations and rediculous and slanderous speculation that many of the truthers put forward, at times like gospel. You are talking about accusing your govt, and many honourable people who work for it, of mass murder or covering it up.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom