OK Truthers, what is your smoking gun?

[Jango]

I used to write long posts with links and charts and images. Total waste of time. Now I answer in as few words required to communicate the basic thought. Sometimes it's one word. I regret nothing.

Shameful.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Agreed.

 

[Jango]

Sweet.

 

[beachnut]

What were the top ten dumbest smoking gun claims by the delusional 911 truth followers, leaders, ... What an idiotic movement.

One classic is the moving smoke smoking gun, where movement of smoke is evidence for 911 truth fantasy CD.
Or the squibs, where air is ejected, the smoking gun for CD. CD claims prove 911 truth persistent followers are gullible. 911 truth followers have no clue the WTC was 95 percent air, and a collapsing building ejects air; why are 911 truth followers so gullible.

There are very smart 911 truthers, but they figure out 911 truth is a failed movement quickly, in weeks; people who can do rational research, and pay attention, then check references recover from 911 truth's fantasy world, quickly.
The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", quickly see 911 truth followers have no clue what the "official narrative" is, and 911 truth followers can't define their fantasy narrative, or present a far out fantasy of CD, and BS. The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", finds the "official narrative" is based on evidence, science, and facts - leaving 911 truth lies in the past.


Then Dr. Steven E. Jones, who made up the fantasy of thermite, had the loaded gun...

When Dr. Steven E. Jones and his failed nuts made up the fake thermite paper, Dr. Steven E. Jones, co-author of the fake paper, writes:
"In short, the paper explodes the official story that ”no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.” The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11." 911 truth has the "loaded gun", but no Pulitzer, just fake evidence they made up to fool gullible followers.

 

[Jango]

What were the top ten dumbest smoking gun claims by the delusional 911 truth followers, leaders, ... What an idiotic movement.

One classic is the moving smoke smoking gun, where movement of smoke is evidence for 911 truth fantasy CD.
Or the squibs, where air is ejected, the smoking gun for CD. CD claims prove 911 truth persistent followers are gullible.


Then Jones, who made up the fantasy of thermite, had the loaded gun...

Is there a reference point for this though? Have other building collapses done similar things, like ejecting tonnage of material laterally?

 

[GlennB]

You're wrong. It was and remains a false generalization. Why? There is such a thing called an Open Secret.

"There's no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I'm convinced there is some out there and that if we look hard enough we'll find it. So I'll continue to believe in the FSM"

This, in a nutshell, is your position. You have zero actual evidence but choose to believe.

 

[Jango]

Ah. Another member of the "No such thing as an Open Secret" club. I'm sure more will be along to join the party. Excellent.

 

[beachnut]

And the idiots in 911 truth make up lies to fool those fringe gullible followers, the persistent ones, very fringe.

911 truth make up the smoking gun, they call it, "Air defense failure", which reveals the massive ignorance 911 truth has of NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, and the USAF.

These kinds of smoking guns, make 911 truth self-debunking.

The squibs are idiotic, as the ejected air is no where near the speed of an explosive ejection.

As 911 truth post their "smoking guns", it becomes clear, 911 truth does zero research, making up claims based on opinions, fantasy, and lies. Waving hands, declaring moving smoke is a proof of CD, or the WTC collapse speed, which matches momentum models, is proof of CD. Why can't 911 truth do physics?

 

[GlennB]

Ah. Another member of the "No such thing as an Open Secret" club. I'm sure more will be along to join the party. Excellent.

And yet another example of your religious belief system.

Present your evidence and stop appealing to the unknown.

 

[beachnut]

Another of the top ten dumbest "smoking guns" of 911 truth. Insider trading. I can see the FBI now, checking the trades made relative to the airlines; hoping for another easy bust like Martha Stewart, or when the SEC caught me when I made a simple mistake trading stocks.

Following stock trades is easy, and the FBI found the shorts/Puts on the airlines were a hedge against long positions. There is some simple jargon which 911 truth followers fail to look up, thus have no clue what is going on, so 911 truth followers are clueless and gullible; not armed with knowledge, too lazy to learn, and accepting the insider trading "smoking gun" as proof of an inside job.

Is any "smoking gun" lie too dumb for 911 truth followers?

The NoC by CIT was another top ten dumbest "smoking gun". With CIT witnesses pointing to the official Flight 77 flight path, confirming CIT were idiots on flight, FDR, Radar, and taking witness statements. A classic case of ignoring evidence, and making up lies.

 

[Jango]

And yet another example of your religious belief system.

Present your evidence and stop appealing to the unknown.

...which is mere keystrokes away. Don't believe there is a thing called an Open Secret? Google it then.

 

[GlennB]

...which is mere keystrokes away. Don't believe there is a thing called an Open Secret? Google it then.

No, you tell us what it is. However, just like when you failed to point us to the "plausible alternate narrative" you ensured us existed you'll avoid actually committing to demonstrable facts.

 

[Jango]

So if I don't define what it means for you, what does that mean? Does it mean you won't know what an Open Secret is? Doubtful. So why do I need to define what it means for it to be relevant information to make the statement ""Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies"" a false generalization.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So if I don't define what it means for you, what does that mean? Does it mean you won't know what an Open Secret is? Doubtful. So why do I need to define what it means for it to be relevant information to make the statement ""Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies"" a false generalization.

The thing is an open secret is not a secret at all, do you realize how many people
have to be a part of it for your statement to be true?
Is that your smoking gun that every body knows about it but you?

 

[GlennB]

So if I don't define what it means for you, what does that mean? Does it mean you won't know what an Open Secret is? Doubtful. So why do I need to define what it means for it to be relevant information to make the statement ""Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies"" a false generalization.

We all know perfectly well what an "open secret" means. But what's the open secret in this case?

Just like that narrative, you seem to have an idea in your head but refuse to reveal it.

 

[Jango]

We all know perfectly well what an "open secret" means. But what's the open secret in this case?

Just like that narrative, you seem to have an idea in your head but refuse to reveal it.

Apparently, in this case, the open secret is that the statement of:

"Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies."

is a false generalization.




In all seriousness though: I've already explained my position. What exactly are you missing here if you say you know what an open secret is...incorporate that information to the problem of ""Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies."" and voila, a false generalization appears.

 

[ozeco41]

"Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies."

Well said Sir!

I read it as a false generalization.

Wrong on two points Jango.

The first is your own consistency. The second is that it isn't.

You recently OP'ed a thread with a Poll Question - you wanted the question read literally - I supported you AGAIST those who wanted to insist that the literal question should not be answered. Your question included terms that were loosely defined so I gave lessons in how to reason when terms are loosely defined. And I copped ridicule bordering on personal attack as members practised mental gymnastics to avoid the simple fact that you were right -- and over 100 couldn't read and comprehend basic English.

Now the boot is on the other foot and you want to change sides with the logic. Turncoat!

Shame.

Coincidentally it is once again a three parameters situation:
1) "Conspiracy Theory" - definition in common use understood;
2) "Conspiracy" - definition also known BOTH in general use AND in juxtaposition to "conspiracy theory".

In simple terms a conspiracy theory being a conspiracy where the central tenet is wrong which is not the situation in this case because:

3) "Smoking gun" refers to the existence of a true central issue.

You're wrong. It was and remains a false generalization.

It never was a false generalisation so it cannot "remain";

Why? There is such a thing called an Open Secret.

You are playing the trick you objected to in your OP Poll - going beyond the literal meaning and applying irrelevant or false extra constraints/limits/requirements. That is called "inconsistency".

You also did not account for what constitutes a conspiracy theory being proven.

The statement made does not require proof - it is based on the existence of proof as a premise. "If there is an X THEN...Q".

Talked about by CNN or the government itself kind of proven? If that is the criteria, what about all of the things that happen that they do not talk about? Or do you believe that they talk about everything that happens everywhere all of the time?

Wow - now go back to your OP'ed Poll thread and apply those arguments - the LOGIC of them - against your own position.



Some of us have memories beyond the "last couple of posts" - especially me when I defended you and now you abandon ship, go turncoat, leave me out on a limb....

...I will not be able to sleep at night worrying...

 

[Jango]

The thing is an open secret is not a secret at all, do you realize how many people have to be a part of it for your statement to be true?
Is that your smoking gun that every body knows about it but you?

It's done by professionals in public relations who are very much a part of the official bureaucracy. How many of those professionals did it take to get America to go to war in World War I, Vietnam, Iraq? I don't know, but we saw and know that they used enough people to get what they wanted.

Now that the Argumentum ad populum and appeal to emotion are out of the way...what's next?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

To tell you the truth, I'd likely enjoy it. For years I did all my own equipment work. Priorities changed that for me.

I do get to play with the big toys though.................

First we would have to have you trained to work around old underground
Coal mines, and Quick sand, wouldn't want to lose you like they lost the L 21 Alischambers,
Bull dozer at the old Victoria Coal mines, droped down an air shaft still down there.
Also wouldn' t want to have you sink, into a large liqrifide sand
Blow, like the oil drilling rig did in the Murphy bottoms.
Might also need to teach you to look out for old abandoned caped natural gas wells
Too, wouldn't want you going boom.
The hillside cuts are the most fun especially when you silde sideways over
Suicide ridge.
I set a D7 cat strait up on the blade, against a tree a couple years ago,
Lucky I installed a new seat and seat belts and beefed up the limb risers and
Roll cage.

 

[Jango]

Wrong on two points Jango.

The first is your own consistency. The second is that it isn't.

You recently OP'ed a thread with a Poll Question - you wanted the question read literally - I supported you AGAIST those who wanted to insist that the literal question should not be answered. Your question included terms that were loosely defined so I gave lessons in how to reason when terms are loosely defined. And I copped ridicule bordering on personal attack as members practised mental gymnastics to avoid the simple fact that you were right -- and over 100 couldn't read and comprehend basic English.

Now the boot is on the other foot and you want to change sides with the logic. Turncoat!

Shame.

Coincidentally it is once again a three parameters situation:
1) "Conspiracy Theory" - definition in common use understood;
2) "Conspiracy" - definition also known BOTH in general use AND in juxtaposition to "conspiracy theory".

In simple terms a conspiracy theory being a conspiracy where the central tenet is wrong which is not the situation in this case because:

3) "Smoking gun" refers to the existence of a true central issue.

It never was a false generalisation so it cannot "remain";

You are playing the trick you objected to in your OP Poll - going beyond the literal meaning and applying irrelevant or false extra constraints/limits/requirements. That is called "inconsistency".


The statement made does not require proof - it is based on the existence of proof as a premise. "If there is an X THEN...Q".

Wow - now go back to your OP'ed Poll thread and apply those arguments - the LOGIC of them - against your own position.



Some of us have memories beyond the "last couple of posts" - especially me when I defended you and now you abandon ship, go turncoat, leave me out on a limb....

...I will not be able to sleep at night worrying...

Ulcer inducing, I'm sure.


The way I read the statement of ""Conspiracy theories" where there's a smoking gun are known as "conspiracies."" was thus:

1. Conspiracy theories = 'a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event'

2. smoking gun = 'a piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence'

3. conspiracies = 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful'

The way it was phrased is not universally true. If he had instead asked a question with the same contextual standard but left it as a Yes/No/Undecided/X response, 'No' would be the logical choice out of the bunch just as 'Yes' was the logical response in mine. Which is why I brought out Open Secret. Also, note the difference between a question (my poll) and a statement (the quote that is being examined).