Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory...

[Firestone]

If at all needed, a new illustration of how correct the OP was.

After being trashed here and here, kameelyun has given up all pretense and has started a number of empty propaganda threads.

ETA: damn, the mods are fast here!

The four threads have been consolidated into one.

 

[SkepticGuy]

1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here, so how do I collect those bonus points?

2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.

The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.

I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.

I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here, there's no point in trying.

 

[busherie]

Victory? not quite yet

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

Of course, you'll say that Mineta confused his timeline, that he was talking about F93... Etc.

But now that the neo-cons are starting to be rebuffed... (has anybody read what brzezinski recely declared in public? I recommend it, it's... strange) everywhere, that Libby & co 's honesty is questionned in a court of law, well, we'll see what happens.

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Enjoy!

Busherie

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here, so how do I collect those bonus points?


The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.



I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here, there's no point in trying.

While applying a range of value assignments to different criteria, evidence, etc ranging from .01 to .99 is good for evaluating some things it does nothing to address the crux of R. Mackey's 2nd point.

Just as all it would take is one human fossil bone found in the same strata of rock as a T-rex bone to call in to question the theory of evolution, it only takes one objective, verifiable, testable claim from the other side of the wall, that directly conflicts with the EBC for the EBC to be called in to question.

Plausibility of motives is subjective by its very nature. Interpretting actions in a manner that is not consistent with the entirety of evidence does not generate evidence. Yes, someone could put forward a logically consistent argument that al Qaeda's actions were directed by some power outside of al Qaeda, but unless objective, verifiable evidence is put forward to support that claim, then it has no value.

 

[R.Mackey]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here, so how do I collect those bonus points?

You do it by having something worth talking about. So let's see what you bring to the table:

The main problem you (JREF) seem to have encountered is the immature spewage of activists pretending to be "conspiracy theorists". While activists may embrace specific conspiracy theories to support their anger, they're not theorists.

I can assist in aggregating some of the best material. However, you need maintain a degree of critical discernment that accepts there is a range of plausibility within the realm of conspiracy theory, that goes something like this:

Ummm... this is not an argument. All you've done is complain about me.

When you actually have an argument, let's hear it. As I remarked above, I don't care who came up with the idea. I want to hear the best arguments. You haven't brought any. Until then, no bonus points for you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

You and your stupid Mineta argument were defeated in this thread and again here.

Not my fault if you can't follow the progress in your own discussions.

Next!

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Now that's just sad.

 

[SkepticGuy]

You haven't brought any. Until then, no bonus points for you.

I appreciate that, but the important question at the end of my post hasn't been answered. Until then, nothing on the table for you.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's not the way it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you must produce.

Proceed.

 

[SkepticGuy]

That's not the way it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you must produce.

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?

Sorry.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?

Sorry.

Do you think that these ideas and/or claims are going to be received and treated with kids gloves by professional fields, professional journals, or the general public? If what is being presented is logically consistent, and scientifically valid, then its merits will be discussed as such. Trying to make sure it doesn't receive a hostile reception is not what science is about.

 

[The Almond]

Well now that's unfortunate isn't it. If respect and decorum isn't offered prior to an exchange, how can the exchange be of value other than in entertainment for some?

If respect is offered prior to action, rather than earned through it, what value does respect have?

 

[R.Mackey]

"Respect and decorum?"

Did you not finish reading my original post?

But before retiring the field, I will seek to re-engage, if there are any worthy opponents to be found. Please help me find them by considering the questions below:

1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.

2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.

I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.

Thanks!

Now, then, you claim to have an argument, and you claim you won't share it with me because you're worried about "lack of respect and decorum."

That's an excuse. I'm not interested in those.

Any time you feel like presenting an argument, you go right ahead. Until then, stop complaining about things I haven't even done yet. I believe I've addressed you a total of three times, including this post.

So, once again, what have you got?

 

[Pardalis]

SkepticGuy, it's OK to consider conspiracy theories, if that's your thing. But now is the time to test these theories and try and see if they work, if they are actually real.

Please start here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18

 

[JimBenArm]

You know, this is a lot like when my kids are going to say something really stupid, and they know it. Basically, it's "Promise you won't laugh at me!"

 

[chipmunk stew]

I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here, there's no point in trying.

Sorry? I just read through the first two pages of that thread, and your reception was overwhelmingly courteous. What kind of experience are you looking for?

edit: There is also an Ignore function for those you feel are being unproductive.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

And what of the SQUIRRELS? Has anyone accounted for the activity of the SQUIRRELS that day?!?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry? I just read through the first two pages of that thread, and your reception was overwhelmingly courteous. What kind of experience are you looking for?

Something along these lines:

"My God, you're RIGHT! I have never thought of this, nor had any sort of brainwave activity at all, before this moment!! Allow me to radically change my belief system IMMEDIATELY to correspond with yours!!!"

 

[ConspiRaider]

And what of the SQUIRRELS? Has anyone accounted for the activity of the SQUIRRELS that day?!?

Duh. The flying squirrels were launching an aerial attack on the Keebler Elves who had been selling tree branch property below market value and were squeezing out the squirrels into high-branch, high-crime neighborhoods. The fur was flying that day, I can tell you. Some people near the Pentagon mistook the flying squirrels for...

 

[beachnut]

While not an "expert" personally, I can accurately represent the best material from the "conspiracy theory" community. And I tend to think I showed a positive demeanor here, so how do I collect those bonus points?

[possibly]<---------->[interesting]<---------->[probably not]

When attributes of a conspiracy theory become a verifiable fact, the theory is no longer such, and becomes scandal.

In the "pre-scandal" phase, I would classify the mountain of 9/11 conspiracy material as:
[1%]<---------->[19%]<---------->[80%]

There are precious few items in the "possibly" category, and are often overwhelmed by the chaos caused by the "probably not" items.

I can, as I said, represent interesting items that cause pause in this area. However, if the exchange is anything like my experience here, there's no point in trying.

Seeing as he presents mountains of talk instead of evidence; victory is declared.

I officially declare victory over SkepticGuy, who will never present facts. He has yet to find a fact to support any CT on 9/11.

Victory over SG is quick and easy; talk does not equal facts.

Here are SG best junk with no facts to make 9/11 the CT.

So far his ratio of talk to facts is near infinity; undefined; a really big number; too big to define.

The following is more talk he tried to pass as facts or something. (his top posts approaching what he think are facts)

It seems you're blurring the lines between conspiracy theorists and "9/11 activists"... if not tossing the lines out altogether.

Top "conspiracies" I feel have merrit:
1- The Roswell UFO incident was a cold-war propaganda campaign
2- Regan did negotiate with Iranian terrorists
3- Northwoods would have gone forward if not for Kennedy
4- Gulf of Tonkin was fabricated
5- Perl Harbor was "allowed" to be attacked
6- My socks are being stolen by intelligent dust bunnies in the dryer

Top "conspiracies" I feel have no merrit:
1- I think a passenger airline struck the Pentagon on 9/11
2- I don't think we invaded Afghanistan for oil
3- I don't think Elvis or Hitler is still alive
4- I think the vast majority of UFO sightings are tests of advanced aircraft
5- I think John Titor was a hoax
6- I think we landed on the moon

The two three that continue to stand out in my mind, specific to the collapse are:


1) The "squibs" at the sky-lobby level preceding the collapse by several floors... there are lots of explanations for these anomalies, but if you've ever been in the sky lobbies, the air-pressure explanation doesn't make sense... especially as the collapse is happening above.

2) The speed of the collapse... while not as fast as free fall, it's not much slower either.

3) The multi-source reports of explosions in the basement levels moments before the collapse started. At first I dismissed these, but the more I looked into it, the more it adds to a disturbing data set.

And a further point... I was in a pool league with several construction workers who were clearing out the debris. Even then, with little or no online "conspiracy theory" madness, these "regular Joes" were amazed at how there was no attempt to preserve that they felt was important evidence... even if it was to simply understand what failed and how. (I didn't pester them with conspiracy theories, after all we were drinking beers and shooting pool).


Perhaps by my saying "I also feel there is compelling information related to some degree of "assistance" that ensured total structural failure" you extended that to "wired to blow". Maybe I wasn't clear... let me be clear now, I think it remains a possibility, but is an avenue of pursuit that is fruitless and fraught a mountain of highly distracting crap data (in favor of "wired to blow") online.

This is his best; I assume he is all talk and no facts; victory is officially pronouced complete; SG has failed to present anything except regergitated CTer junk. .

Victory - why wait for him to dump junk and declare first.

 

[Pardalis]

I prefer the Feng Shui Overload theory myself, but I would have to look further into that Flying Squirrel theory...