Sure, no problem. See, only complete ****ing imbeciles think that to acknowledge the reality of 9/11 you need to "trust the government".
Hmm. That wasn't difficult at all.
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
Sure, no problem. See, only complete ****ing imbeciles think that to acknowledge the reality of 9/11 you need to "trust the government".
Hmm. That wasn't difficult at all.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
It's mindblowing he asked that. I honestly thought even those who used terms like "sheeple" and the like had some understanding of the difference.
SteveAustin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 494
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand
"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule"
32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category
There has been a lot of evidence that supports alternatives to the OCT, but everytime it is brought up at JREF the "spin machine" revs up into high gear and brings out all the tactics listed on both lists and then some.
You have to cut through all that chaff to be able to get to any real discussion. Point to any thread here at the JREF 9/11 CT subforum where facts supporting alternatives to the OCT were brought up and I could easily point out those tactics in each and every one.
Why do you think so few people even bother to post here? Why do you think most "truthers" do not post here? You think it's because you are so superior? LOL, if your arguments could stand the light of day you might actually try publishing a book or an article that refutes the books and articles the Truth movement has published. Instead you all remain safely here at JREF and talk about how this and that source is garbage or delusional and how this and that publisher is not "scientific" or trustworthy or "garbage".
We few "truthers" that do post here do so knowing full well the reception we will receive without fear of that reception, because we know exactly what it means. If only you had the courage to try your tactics outside this environment.
SteveAustin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 494
tom, you have just agreed with my explanation as to why the Mike Rivero quote is valid. I said the same thing you just said numerous times here already just in a different way.
People are willing to accept the little crimes but are unwilling to admit the possibility of the big crimes.
Thank you tom
I and several other posters can tell you the difference. I'll make the attempt, but I strongly suspect that you aren't interested in the answer.
In a word, the difference is CONTEXT. Beachnut is a very, very smart guy who has a wealth of experience as a pilot and crash investigator. Like the other genuine experts who frequent this forum, he has presented in-depth analyses, using graphs, charts, photos, and accurate calculations. All too often, his opponents counter with--how to put it?--rubbish. They challenge his professional expertise with agenda-driven ignorance. Understandably, he gets frustrated. When he finds himself insulting the "truthers," it is a sort of shorthand. He is saying in effect, "Look, this crap has been discussed to death. There are hundreds of threads containing thousands of pages, and the particular myth you're peddling has been dismantled, dissected, demolished, shredded, and smashed from here to Bangkok. Do you think I'm going to jump through hoops for you?" Calling someone who makes an outrageous claim an idiot is poor debating form IF that's all you do. You haven't shown why we should believe that the person is an idiot. If the outrageous claim the person is making has been refuted countless times, the CONTEXT allows us to dismiss him with a rude epithet. It is unwieldly, and unnecessary, to continually trot out refutations of "truther" nonsense that many posters here can recite in their sleep.
You quoted Beachnut without taking the trouble to reflect on the wisdom of something he wrote. He said that, "Precise use of language is your enemy." So much of the foolishness promoted by the "truth" movement simply evaporates when you parse it carefully. Ultima1 is currently enaged in another of his surreal struggles against reason and logic in the Larry Silverstein thread. He insists that fire chiefs were talking about "pulling" WTC 7. To demolition professionals, "pulling" involves attaching cables to a small structure to pull it, literally, off its center of gravity. It is impossible to "pull" a massive 47-story building. "Pulling" has nothing to do with explosives--nothing! Firefighters, by contrast, talk about "pulling" men from dangerous environments. The bogus "debate" centers around a deliberately imprecise use of language. Once we establish that nobody could conceivably have talked about "pulling" WTC 7, the whole silly kerfuffle disappears.
Debunkers may be excused for speaking harshly to the apologists for Islamist terrorism; they have, after all, earned the right to heap scorn on those who promote hateful views that are unsupported by any evidence. The debunkers have made their case. They've made it redundantly, pounding home certain points with sledgehammers of sound science and physical evidence. You expend all of your energy in unproductive word games. I've explained the way to gain respect for your movement. It happens to be the only way. Show us a single piece of evidence that lends credence to one of your cherished myths.
That's all you need to do, yet it is too much for you. You can't do it.
SteveAustin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 494
So in essence you are using an appeal to authority as an excuse for using those tactics, and claiming that "ALL" "truther" arguments have been soundly refuted as another excuse because "truthers have nothing".
Aside from "debunkers" having debunked some "straw men" and "red herrings" that no real "truther" would support "debunkers" have done nothing to end any of the real questions/lies/holes about the OCT. They all claim to have done so here but it has always been just use of the tactics on both those lists and many others.
And implying that you can call someone an idiot because the claim has already been refuted is ...
"Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority."
"Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshiping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method."
"Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining"
"Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are "stated." "
"Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" "
"If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back "there is nothing new here." "
and others, but you get the point, or maybe you do not want to.
{off-topic sidetrack deleted}
Going by this logic all "truthers" have the exact same right as the "debunkers" to do this, yet it is rare (though not unheard of) to see a "truther resort to these tactics.
And would you tell you kids that it's ok to treat anyone that way just because they believe differently than you do? SERIOUSLY? That's not debating it's schoolyard bullying
Again no, though that claim is repeated here ad nauseum. It is one of the main JREF "debunker" mantras, that along with "the truth movement is dying"
Again, there has been a lot of evidence to support alternatives to the OCT, but when it is brought up here on JREF the "spin machine" kicks into action and instead of countering and laying to rest these claims, the majority are simply "smoke and mirrored" into oblivion until anyone who hasn't the patience to do a lot of research on their own will give up and usually side with the "officials" without knowing anything. This effect is also psych 101 (well not 101 but you get the meaning)
A W Smith
Philosopher
Go ahead Steve-0. Post your evidence in another thread.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Go ahead and post your evidence that support alternative theories rather than the generally accepted narrative (I hope you don't mind me calling it that rather than the OCT). Rather than falling back and hiding behind you new found website and quoting how to win arguments why don't you do that right now, shut this entire sub forum down and post your evidence?
Post one bit of "evidence" that has not been discussed here, one bit that blows the generally accepted narrative of the terrorist attacks of Sept 11th out of the water.
No claims, no speculation, no"I thinks" but solid evidence.
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Me too, and the same thing is happening to Obama.
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
You beat me to it TK. If he would answer this simple straight forward question with a simple straight forward answer then we'd have a,better, more open discussion.
Last edited:
SteveAustin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 494
It has been posted and discussed not only on JREF but on many ten's of thousands of websites/forums all over the internet and in public and on video.
And as I already stated, here at JREF whenever any evidence that supports alternatives to the OCT is brought up all that happens here is the "spin machine" pops up into full gear. So why should I jump through your hoops? heck I have discussed this to death many places and proved my points. Why should I jump through YOUR hoops here?
Why indeed?
See, that just reinforces my point... "Post one bit of evidence that has not been discussed here" ... as if anything that has been discussed at JREF has been debunked.
"Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority"
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Weasel words, where is your evidence?
The only person being condescending is you making vague and dismissive remarks. Making claims and failing to back them up , running off and hiding behind weasel words.
Post your evidence.
Last edited:
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
No it hasn't. All we've seen is poorly written "reports" by unqualified "experts". No evidence to bring forth; nothing at all provided by the 911 liar movement
Please present this evidence
A W Smith
Philosopher
when backed into a corner- poison the well
looks like Steve-0 has zero.
looks like Steve-0 has zero.
I love it when posters come here and gripe about the spin machine, but never actually post anything related to the subject to actually debate.
As to the "spin machine" I guess if applying evidence based standards to a theory is the "spin machine", then guilty as charged.
He will not argue a specific point, because he knows we have all the proof to adequately debunk any issue he brings...so he complains about debating techniques etc...
TAM
As to the "spin machine" I guess if applying evidence based standards to a theory is the "spin machine", then guilty as charged.
He will not argue a specific point, because he knows we have all the proof to adequately debunk any issue he brings...so he complains about debating techniques etc...
TAM
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
Ah well..so much for Steve Austin facilitating an open discussion. I gather that he has no personal beliefs or,even, an opinion on what happened on 9/11. That makes me wonder why he even takes the time to post here.
You are unable to understand the rhetorical term, "appeal to authority." When an argument is countered by pointing to a celebrity or an authority in the particular field who disagrees with it, it is appropriate to label the tactic a logical fallacy. The argument remains unaddressed. Saying that someone rejects it does not refute it. Debunkers here do NOT rely on appeals to authority. Invoking the NIST reports is a form of shorthand for invoking the science in them. It is not feasible to quote hundreds of pages of analyses. Directing a "truther" to the relevant sections is not an appeal to authority. The "truther" is being asked to examine the science that contradicts whatever myth he's peddling.
But the "real questions/lies/holes about the OCT" do not exist. If they did, you could express them in words. You can't. No "truther" can. The specific myths that "truthers" peddle have all been totally destroyed. Your use of the dishonest initialism "OCT" reinforces my point. There is, as you know, no "official" theory. The findings of many serious researchers dovetail into indisputable conclusions about the identities of the men who hijacked the four planes and the causes of the collapses of the buildings.
Your empty words ignore the FACT that SPECIFIC claims made by "truthers" have found SPECIFIC refutations. Your gibberish about "God" and "faith" is intended to mislead; it reminds one of the charlatan Heiwa. He raves about religious beliefs, but his own mad garble of mainstream physics is purely faith-based.
Yes, your insane movement's attempt to use science in support of its idiocy is a travesty. You are conspicuously incapable of showing any examples of the sane side doing what your side does routinely--fudging, stretching, violating scientific method, or omitting it entirely. Notice how easy it would be to refute me if you could show a SINGLE instance of debunkers being guilty of the sins your side commits ALL THE TIME.
The irony is overwhelming. As a "truther" you are, of course, oblivious to it. Debunkers examine the evidence with meticulous care. Your side distorts the evidence, and when that tactic fails, ignores it. Again, you could win the point by showing where debunkers avoid the evidence, but YOU CAN'T DO IT! Are you tired of hearing this? Remember, you can show us that single piece of evidence for your myths. But, YOU CAN'T. IT DOESN'T EXIST.
If you want to pretend that debunkers try to dismiss your side's "evidence" by saying that there's nothing new, SHOW US WHAT'S NEW.
You can't because you don't have anything.
Much blather, but you never get around to showing us what you actually have. You won't take this essential step because you don't have anything.
If there is "a lot of evidence to support alternatives to the OCT," then LET'S SEE IT! Why are you incapable to presenting anything at all? Show us something that hasn't been refuted years ago.
WHY IS THIS TASK TOO HARD FOR YOU?
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
well that's not what the truth movement thinks
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80:youandthe911truthmove
- Status