You seem to have a habit of responding to criticism in one area by asking for evidence of "why the official story is a lie".
You seem to be needlessly fustrated. A reminder: you said,
...its hardly surprising that the people here quote Alex Jones or LC to a much greater extent than the far more diligent scholars who actually dominate the field.
To which I replied,
"Please detail, or at least list, some of the 9/11 claims made by these diligent scholars that are demonstrably correct and indicate that the 'official version' of events may be wrong."
If you know their work, and these quality reseachers "dominate the field," you shouldn't have
any trouble pointing out the important things they get right.
You're don't think we should simply take your word for it that these unnamed "diligent scholars" have produced competent, accurate, significant research, do you? If so, you're engaging in the logical fallacy of "argument to authority," as I've already pointed out.
If they have produced such research, the world needs to know about it. Don't you agree?
So, Brannagyn, please support your statement with evidence. I didn't change the subject, you did. It's your statement. Please support it now or retract it.
Next, please say if you think these questions are unfair, and if so, why?
Are any of the 9/11 Commission report's significant conclusions demonstrably wrong? How so?
What important claims or debunkings do we debunkers get demonstrably wrong?
Again, Brannagyn, these aren't trick questions. They're as basic as can be. If you cannot answer them, you'll need to think hard about why that is.
I'm not interested in discussing this or any subject with you, specifically, as you've displayed and inability to respond in a rational or civil manner to previous comments.
Let's look at my
inability to respond rationally and civilly to you. These are all my responses to you:
You should listen to the portion of the interview where I take "a lot of" debunkers to task for their behavior.
"The exact same?" Please point out where these "extremist" skeptics have been influential to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. Where are their popular websites, their books, their DVDs, their speaking tours, their conferences? How have they caused the debunkers to get anything wrong?
The "debunking" movement, if one wants to call it that, was not started in large or small part by people who express race or ethnic hatred and get everything wrong.
You may also want to consider my statement about the "truth" movement's rank-and-file members:
"This is a religious movement. It didn't, I think, start out that way. I think it started with a lot of people who had questions that they at least believed were legitimate, and lots of things were confusing and take some study and research. But it became, quickly, a religious movement. As I said, not a single significant claim correct. It takes a special kind of person to stick with that."
If I'm wrong about that, I encourage the truthers participating here to state what evidence would change their minds.
I made that point in post 14 of this thread. From my 2006 commentary:
"There are several prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I don’t mean the people who believe the very common conspiracy theory that radical Zionists in Israel and/or in the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to get the US to wage war against the foes of Israel. And it’s important not to automatically label as anti-Semitic, people who disagree with Israeli policy or with a Zionist political agenda. That said, I’m not aware of a single Holocaust denier or anti-Semite who’s prominent on the 9/11 myth-debunking side. But there are several people on the CT side who hold such views. These include..."
My point, which I made repeatedly in the podcast interview, is that many truthers have been influenced by people with agendas not related to the facts of 9/11. You did not support your claim that the same is true of debunkers.
Clear enough?
WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to my evidence that anti-Semites were prominent early in the establishment of the 9/11 "truth" movement.
This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated to people like myself who examine 9/11 conspiracy claims, using factual evidence from myriad sources, which anyone can check.
I asked you for evidence that "extreme" skeptics were influential in the establishment of the "debunking" movement. You have made several posts since then and have provided none.
Nor have you provided evidence that the debunking movement had gotten anything significant wrong.
If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere.
That's because only a handful of the hundreds of truthers who've posted here have ever cited those people or their work.
Further, in my face-to face dealings with hundreds of truthers, not a single person ever cited those people or their work. Zero. But many cited the websites and other influential early 9/11 work of Hufschmid, Valentine, the AFP et al.
By far the most influential 9/11 conspiracy platform has been Loose Change 2nd Edition. Millions of people have seen it. It's been translated into many languages and distributed in many countries. Its largest source of false conspiracy "evidence" is the quasi-Nazi-owned American Free Press. Your claim that the people you listed above are "far more central" than that is nonsense.
Please detail, or at least list, some of the 9/11 claims made by these diligent scholars that are demonstrably correct and indicate that the "official version" of events may be wrong.
Are any of the 9/11 Commission report's significant conclusions demonstrably wrong? How so?
Next, please name some important claims about 9/11 that we debunkers have demonstrably gotten wrong.
To put it more plainly: less talk, more rock, please. Have at it.
P.S.: These are not trick questions.
Lots of rationality there, as I see it, and hardly a hailstorm of invective. Don't you agree? I do admit to letting frustration get the best of me when people won't support their statements with evidence, and I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities.
Brannagyn said:
The people I mentioned were in reference to the roots of the supposed 'truth movement', circa 2001. This should have been clear as it was your comments we were discussing. The idea that these people were more central than a video that wouldnt be released for more than three years is hardly "nonsense". The statement is 'arguably' true only if you are refering to a period well after 2001 for reasons I've already pointed out.
There was no "truth movement" early on. Some anti-Semites were early and important promoters of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Their influence lasted for years. I've provided evidence of that in this thread. That's all.
The "truth" movement" didn't take off until late 2005/early 2006. Don't take my word for it: here's a poll of 9/11 truth activists conducted by the most active truther website, 911blogger.com
So, when were most people influenced to the point of activism: in 2001, or years later? I make this point clearly in my podcast interview: the truth movement took off when the video hosting sites did, and Loose Change was by far its biggest impetus. As I've pointed out, Loose Change's largest source of false information is Willis Carto's American Free Press.
Again, don't take my word for it. Here are the results of
another poll, sent by a truther to truthers:
41. What made you aware of or suspect that the official version of 9/11 was not true?
1) Friends talking about it 15%
2) Figured it out on my own: attacks/collapses/gov't response seemed suspicious 12%
3)
Watching a video (please name video): 58% (Top choice, Loose Change, 38%)
4)
Reading a book by a 9/11 skeptic (Griffin, Ruppert, etc.) 4%
5) A website I came across (name it if you remember which): 11% (Top choices, 911research (Hoffman), cooperativeresearch
42. When did this awareness happen?
1) 2001 7%
2) 2002 8%
3) 2003 10%
4) 2004 10%
5)
2005 26%
6)
2006 33%
7) 2007 6%
Brannagyn said:
You're wrong. I referenced people who were prominent among those who initially doubted the official version of events. I never assigned any weight to their views on the subject other than to say they were more diligent scholars than Alex Jones (a fact you can easily determine by comparing the work and referencing styles of both parties). To claim this is an 'argument to authority' represents a failure to understand the term's correct usage.
Again, If they are diligent scholars, and far better than Alex Jones, you won't have any problem briefly stating some significant claims of theirs about 9/11 that are correct and in contradiction to the "official version." Please do so.
If you cannot do that, you need to re-think your position.
Brannagyn said:
Apart from this, the aspects of the thread I have contributed to and have interest in are the false allegation of foundational anti-semite prominence
I provided evidence that some anti-Semites were early and influential, and that they remained influential for quite a while – exactly what I said in the podcast. You have provided no evidence to prove me wrong. Do not continue to make a straw man argument.
Requesting a shift to a topic that represents more familiar footing is a blatant act of evasion from specific arguments contained within this thread.
The shift of topic came after I provided my evidence. When you decide to back your claims with evidence, you can feel free to also say, "Here's what I've got. Take it or leave it."
But you haven't even tried yet.
"What mistakes have we made" I see you ask several times. Answer: How the hell should I know. I've only been here a short time and posted in less than a handful of threads.
What? How the hell would you know? Brannagyn, you said this in your first post in this thread:
@tanabear: The point you’ve made, that it was poor form to highlight the worst elements of the ‘truth movement’ as being notable when the exact same can be done with extremist ‘skeptics’, is a perfectly fair one and Mr. Roberts character would no doubt go up in the estimation of many people if he could acknowledge this.
I repeatedly asked you for evidence of negative influence on the work of debunkers by these "extremist skeptics." You repeatedly provided none, nor did you retract your claim. Now you're saying that you don't even know our work!
That's highly irrational.
What I do know is that those threads exhibited displays of illogic, irrationality and incivility that I initially expected the forum to be above.
See if you can ignore that and focus on the facts. If I let myself get rattled every time a truther made a vile accusation against a victim, firefighter, or other innocent person, I wouldn't be able to make my points.
Stay focused on what you believe the very best of the 9/11 "official version" critics get right, and try to communicate that to us as best you can. That's not unreasonable, is it?
Should someone wish to start a separate thread debunking the views put forth by the people I mentioned above I would be interested (and sincerely appreciative of any flaws pointed out) but I would not neccesarily contribute.
The burden of proof remains on the claimant. You think there are diligent scholars who've cast legitimate doubts that the events of 9/11 are as described by the investigations, right?
So it's up to you to tell us what you find compelling and why. That's how a discussion starts. It's not our job to try to figure out what you think matters.
Do you understand this?
Despite what some seem to think I'm not here to either push or defend their views or attempt to convert people.
You've repeatedly suggested that their work is good. In fact, you say they "dominate the field." But you haven't once said what you think they get right or what the "official version" gets wrong.
Or am I misreading you? It's perfectly acceptable to say, "These people were more diligent than most, and they do dominate, but they're still wrong," if that's what you mean.
Brannagyn said:
If its a matter of requesting off-topic threads though, I'd love to see someone debunk the Ryazan CT. Though arguably only tangenitally related to 9/11 it was presumbaly mentioned at some point in LC and holds some relevance for anyone with a firm grasp of geostrategic affairs and the argument from ignorance. Thats something I would probably engage in it with interest.
If a topic interests you, start a thread in the relevant section, brief people on why you think it's interesting, and ask for discussion.
Other than that I'm here to explore opposing arguments to views I can find more forcefully expressed elsewhere, not to pick a side in the meeting of the (closed) minds.
You'll find that our minds are quite open to good evidence.
I'll leave you with this question as a reminder: Are any of the 9/11 Commission report's significant conclusions demonstrably wrong? How so?
If you don't know or haven't read it, just say so. Simple.
