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

[Skibum]

Could you let me answer before you answer for me? I'd happily debate Bush, theres just no way he would agree to it. If you know a way to set it up i'll do it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

 

[Gravy]

I did not set it up. I revealed Tarpley's existence to a very uninformed Mackey.

I then suggested Mackey could sate his desire for CT opponents by contacting Tarpley. Mackey then did a 180 degree turn, quicker than hani hanjour on flight 77, andclaimed it wasn't his job to debate CTs!

Amazing

Got it. You accused him of refusing a nonexistent debate with someone he knows nothing about.

At least you believe Hanjour piloted flight 77!

Calcas, you beat me to it. Okay, Docker, I challenge you to debate me, in New York, next week. Agreed?

 

[Docker]

Got it. You accused him of refusing a nonexistent debate with someone he knows nothing about.

At least you believe Hanjour piloted flight 77!

Calcas, you beat me to it. Okay, Docker, I challenge you to debate me, in New York, next week. Agreed?

After the quiz incident in the OKC thread I would rather debate a crocodile that hasn't been fed.

This entire thread is about Mackey looking for new CT blood to debate, I found one and he legged it.

 

[Gravy]

After the quiz incident in the OKC thread I would rather debate a crocodile that hasn't been fed.

This entire thread is about Mackey looking for new CT blood to debate, I found one and he legged it.

Well there we have it. I'm sorry that you are unable to answer questions, but you have refused a direct challenge to debate someone who's actually willing to debate you. Unlike you accusing R.Mackey of refusing your challenge to debate someone who did not offer to debate him. That's double cowardice!

 

[Docker]

Well there we have it. You refused a direct challenge to debate someone who's actually willing to debate you. Unlike you accusing R.Mackey of refusing your challenge to debate someone who did not offer to debate him. That's double cowardice!

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

 

[MikeW]

Tarpley is as deceptive, misleading and poor at research as any 9/11 author. Just picking an example at random:

According to one of Bin Laden’s handlers by the name of Beardman, during the Afghan years Bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of Bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): “neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.” (Meyssan 2002 7)

Gasp! Does he really have a quote from one of bin Laden's CIA handlers?

Well...

No.

Take a look at this:

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

This is Michel Chossudovsky stretching the truth past breaking point. He wants to believe bin Laden was supported by the CIA, so the "neither I, nor my brothers" quote (which didn't come via "Beardman") doesn't disprove this, and instead indicates that, uh, he just didn't know about it. Also "Beardman" has consistently said that the CIA had nothing to do with bin Ladin or al Qaeda for years, however Chossudovsky also throws that away because it's inconvenient.

What Chossudovsky did do, though, was get this in very early, this article appearing on September 12 2001. It was then almost certainly the source for Meyssan and Tarpley, as the articles contain the same mis-spelling of the "handler" (Beardman is actually Milt Bearden, Google him and see if you think Tarpley has fairly represented his views). Neither bothered looking into it, of course, because what's the point of that when there's money to be made? So Chossudovsky's garbage lives again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's funny that Mackey declared victory over the CTs and then admits he hasn't heard of some of them. If I could write comedy like this i'd be a rich man.

I would say that statement is a form of Argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

See, now this quote illustrates a straw man logical fallacy. Mackey stated that there have been no new arguments brought to the table, by existing, or recently new, posters that he has seen; and, barring this occurring, he would consider it a dead issue and not spend his time re-debunking the same recycled arguments. He did not state he was looking for new blood to debate, and he certainly didn't state he was looking to set up a formal debate with some new (to Mackey) proponent of a CT.

Additionally, he did not definitively declare victory, as you implied he did; but rather stated, "I tentatively declare victory."

Now, Docker, do you see the difference between what you have been claiming to have been straw men arguments, and the straw man you have actually committed here? If not, I shall spell it out, you are committing the straw man fallacy because you are misrepresenting your opponents statements and then using those intentional misrepresentations as the basis for your counter-arguments.

 

[Horatius]

Mackey said: "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"

So I found an opponent for him, one he had never heard of.

He totally bottled out of a debate with him.

Enough said.

Mackey was quite clear that he was looking for "worthy" opponents, not ones who would just parrot the same old BS, with no evidence, just like all the earlier CTists he listed. You suggested one, and on examining your candidate, what did Mackey find?

You can read some of his ramblings here: http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2005/11/story-of-webster-griffin-tarpley.html

You'll note a startling lack of evidence, even in this friendly interview. If that's the best he's got, I confidently state that he wouldn't last five minutes under critical scrutiny.

As Andrew says, "he has no theory." Nothing but innuendo... Oh, and special mention for his early days as a LaRouche aide, though rumour has it the relationship ended badly.

Any more nominees?

So, not worthy. You're free to disagree with his conclusions, and I have no doubt you will, but your implication that he is ingoring a "worthy" opponent simply won't hold water.

 

[MikeW]

Oh, forgot to say, anyone who wants to see what Tarpley has to offer should try http://rapidshare.de/files/15543831/Tarpley-_911_synthetic_terror_made_in_USA.pdf.html

 

[Gravy]

Mackey was quite clear that he was looking for "worthy" opponents, not ones who would just parrot the same old BS, with no evidence, just like all the earlier CTists he listed.

Yes, he was clear:

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.

 

[Horatius]

I think we also need to make clear that it's not just the particular claims we're tired of seeing, but the whole methodology of how they make their arguments.

Compare Christophera, TruthSeeker1234, PDoherty, Killtown, and all the others. They each have a few particular claims they liked to harp on (Concrete core, How much dust?, Who the hell knows, and that Picture of the smoke, respectively), but they all argue in exactly the same manner:

Assertion without evidence
Refusal to provide evidence
Reluctantly provide "evidence" that doesn't hold up under inspection
Ignore or belittle debunkings
Make same assertion again, probably in new thread, while ignoring the earlier discussions.


What we'd really like to find is someone who doesn't play the same old BS games. What we expect to find is nothing, as people who are capable of constructing good arguments will usually end up convincing themselves that the CT position is crap.

 

[tsig]

Hold on, I didn't start a thread saying i'd exhausted all the idiots and wanted new people to debate. Mackey even invited me to this thread to suggest someone! I wouldnt have entered the thread otherwise. It backfired on him.

I am not a coward. I have witnessed your "debates". Besides, I couldn't get to new york. Incidentally, would you debate tarpley?

Why don't you just cut and paste the parts of Tarply "you" think are important and we'll try those?

 

[MikeW]

Why don't you just cut and paste the parts of Tarply "you" think are important and we'll try those?

Perhaps I can help...

Similarly, any Arab who feels sympathy for al Qaeda needs to be forcefully reminded that al Qaeda was created by the CIA and continues to be steered by the CIA, through various cut-outs and mediations

Oops, no, that's not true. Let's try this:

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz later reported that, about two hours before American 11 hit the North Tower, two employees of the Israeli company Odigo who worked in Herzliya, Israel, had received an email message warning that terror attacks in New York City were imminent.

False. The company said it was a general message that didn't specify the WTC and could easily be a convenience. Maybe if we look over here...

Professor Michel Chossudovsky contends that “ given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8,000 feet.

Perhaps not. Another?

the two American 11 flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney allegedly each made a separate phone call to report the ongoing hijacking. Ms. Ong talked about hijackers spraying mace, but Ms. Sweeny did not. Ms. Sweeny reported seeing a bomb with yellow wires, which Ms. Ong did not mention. Are the two flight attendants reporting events as seen in different parts of the plane, or are the calls fakes, simulated by well-trained imposters working for intelligence agencies as part of the general orchestration of 9/11?

I'd go with option a)

The alleged Barbara Olsen telephone call, which loomed so large during the first week after 9/11, presents many contradictions

Such as those demolished by LashL in an earlier post?

The US Securities and Exchange Commission pledged to get to the bottom of this question, and so did the German Bundesbank, the central banking authority of that country. But all references to 9/11 insider trading soon disappeared from the press. The finance oligarchs were not interested in pursuing this investigation, which appeared by its very nature to undercut the official version of 9/11.

Actually foreign investigations revealed no evidence of insider trading, but Tarpley appears to want to believe that the Bundesbank etc are "in on it", too.

 

[Horatius]

the two American 11 flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney allegedly each made a separate phone call to report the ongoing hijacking. Ms. Ong talked about hijackers spraying mace, but Ms. Sweeny did not. Ms. Sweeny reported seeing a bomb with yellow wires, which Ms. Ong did not mention. Are the two flight attendants reporting events as seen in different parts of the plane, or are the calls fakes, simulated by well-trained imposters working for intelligence agencies as part of the general orchestration of 9/11?

This is what really annoys me about these guys. I can understand not knowing much about physics or structural engineering, but this?

Why would "well-trained" "imposters" make such an obvious error in reporting different versions of the attacks? If you were making up a story to be used in a conspiracy, wouldn't you make sure to have some internal consistency?

Why anyone not completely insane would interpret this to be anything other than two people seeing an event (or more than one event) from different perspectives, and subsequently reporting what they thought was the most important part, is simply beyond me.

Unless he's just deliberately lying, of course.

And this is supposed to be a "worthy" opponent?

 

[tsig]

Perhaps I can help...


Oops, no, that's not true. Let's try this:


False. The company said it was a general message that didn't specify the WTC and could easily be a convenience. Maybe if we look over here...


Perhaps not. Another?


I'd go with option a)


Such as those demolished by LashL in an earlier post?


Actually foreign investigations revealed no evidence of insider trading, but Tarpley appears to want to believe that the Bundesbank etc are "in on it", too.

Maybe it woud be better to say the things Tarpley got right.

I'l start the list:

1. He spelled his own name right.

2....

 

[tsig]

This is what really annoys me about these guys. I can understand not knowing much about physics or structural engineering, but this?

Why would "well-trained" "imposters" make such an obvious error in reporting different versions of the attacks? If you were making up a story to be used in a conspiracy, wouldn't you make sure to have some internal consistency?

Why anyone not completely insane would interpret this to be anything other than two people seeing an event (or more than one event) from different perspectives, and subsequently reporting what they thought was the most
important part, is simply beyond me.

Unless he's just deliberately lying, of course.

And this is supposed to be a "worthy" opponent?

Quite worthy for Docker.

 

[MikeW]

Maybe it woud be better to say the things Tarpley got right.

I'l start the list:

1. He spelled his own name right.

2....

Heh. To be fair, I was just posting bits that I found most laughable, you should really download the file from the link I posted above to get a true picture. But for those who aren't interested, here's a summary of what he thinks later on:

CONCLUSIONS
So far we have come to the following conclusions:
1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself. The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more bluntly, patsies.
2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote control.
3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles operating inside the government.
4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must therefore be considered.
5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible, given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.
8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US government and establishment.

 

[bob_kark]

...in the Battle for September 11th Conspiracies.

I think your victory is a bit premature. While I know what you mean in your statement. I think you might be fighting the wrong battle. While it is true that each of the posters you mentioned are unable to prove their case, their ability or inability to prove their case in its own right has a greater depth to it.

The attacks on September 11th, 2001 were committed by agents of Al Qaeda. Victory is achieved simply by realizing this. The problem we have as skeptics is that these people we are debating against do not understand the scientific method or even simple logic for that matter. They fail to realize when their beliefs have been disproven because they're unable to grasp the reasoning behind your statements.

So, when you disprove their argument, you do not achieve victory, you simply prove their ignorance. While this is still a victory of sorts, people sitting on the fence surely see your efforts and hopefully see the errors in logic that the Truth movment hold so dear, it does nothing to change the mind of the person you are debating. The only way to claim victory is to combat their ignorance and the only way to achieve that is through education.

Unfortunately, an internet forum isn't the best place to educate an unwilling student, especially when the student is as insulting as many you mentioned have been. Of course this becomes even more difficult with other people posting that are more interested in berating than educating, something I've been guilty of on occation...

However, when it really comes down to it, you have to ask yourself if it's worth the effort. Why educate someone who is unwilling to educate themself? Personally, I believe it can be worth the effort, depending on the "student."

A prime example of this would be RandFan, who is a greatly respected member on this forum, well by myself at least. However, when he first joined the website, he was a proponent of Intelligent Design. I won't go into great detail, since he already has here and here. RandFan's conversion demonstrates the power this forum has and what we can accomplish if we try. Not only were we able to help RandFan make some discoveries about himself and his beliefs, we were able to add a greatly valued member to the JREF team.

Realistically speaking, I'm certain that the majority of the people you listed in your OP are likely beyond hope. They're simply too driven by their beliefs to be able to consider another point of view. However, we do have other CT believers for which there is hope. With time, perhaps they'll simply prove no better than their bretheren, perhaps they'll show themselves to be another RandFan, who can say?

I want to make clear, I'm not posting this to call on everyone to work together, make nicey-nice and help these people to understand. I realize that none of us has made a commitment to become educators of the ignorant. Also, I certainly do not want to point fingers, make judgements, or berate anyone. However, I wanted to provide some perspective to hopefully show that the victory you speak of is simply too hollow to be worth the effort. That being said, perhaps we can work together to achieve more.

IMHO, as always.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think your victory is a bit premature. While I know what you mean in your statement. I think you might be fighting the wrong battle. [...] The problem we have as skeptics is that these people we are debating against do not understand the scientific method or even simple logic for that matter. [...] The only way to claim victory is to combat their ignorance and the only way to achieve that is through education.

[...]

I want to make clear, I'm not posting this to call on everyone to work together, make nicey-nice and help these people to understand. I realize that none of us has made a commitment to become educators of the ignorant. Also, I certainly do not want to point fingers, make judgements, or berate anyone. However, I wanted to provide some perspective to hopefully show that the victory you speak of is simply too hollow to be worth the effort. That being said, perhaps we can work together to achieve more.

Hi bob_kark, your points are well taken. However, let me try to explain my rationale a bit further.

I agree completely that the ultimate goal and the only end to the war, such as it is, is education. I've tried to follow that model in my own posts. In my discussions here I've done my best to answer reasonable questions -- at least those I have a good answer for -- regardless of their source. Some of my better explanations have been to the likes of Killtown and TruthSeeker1234. I have little confidence that they attempted to learn anything from them, but if the question was asked in good faith, all are welcome.

But there is another enemy of education, one that is again ravaging the forum. Education gets lost in the noise when we get distracted, fixated on the ravings of just another malcontent yokel who wants to rack up his post count and act like a tough guy. We're experiencing another episode right now. How can we educate if we can't get in a word edgewise?

Some of this is our own fault, of course. Ideally we as a collective would not rise to the bait, but all of us are guilty of it now and then. I'm certainly no angel. The other approach is to simply separate the leaders from the spam fodder, and improve signal to noise by bypassing the noise.

That was my intent here. I wanted to avoid getting into mindless, recycled, contentious discussions fueled by pure ignorance and testosterone with yet another wave of Troothers. I wanted instead, rather than challenging their beliefs head-on, to simply ask where they came from. By taking it to the source rather than beating them up directly, I was hoping to reduce the antagonism and posturing. Eventually, this will lead them to start asking questions -- really asking, not the farcical Troother variant where the question is a thinly veiled statement, phrased as a question to prevent them from having to take a firm position. I mean the question that demands an answer, the type where one admits one doesn't know. Once that happens, one is ready to learn.

With rare exceptions, everyone learns from someone else. Let's work our way up the food chain. The "victory" I describe is simply an acknowledgement that we've been in the trenches with the common Troothers, we've seen all that there is, and it's time to acknowledge that further bickering and repeating ourselves is pointless. We've made progress. We've answered pretty much every challenge that we're likely to face at this point and still have a solid theory. We could compile a ruddy huge volume of information right now, using only what's contained in this forum, and simply direct new Deniers to the appropriate page if we wished. Gravy, for one, is already well on his way to having such a volume.

In closing, the war is not over, and I agree with you on the ultimate goal of the campaign. But I still believe that the battle is won. I will be shocked indeed if the Deniers who post here manage to construct an original, coherent argument, even a wrong one, so it's time to close that chapter.