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

R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Actually,

Has anyone here considered such an idea? I know PM have done one, but I suspect this forum, collectively, has more 9/11 knowledge than any other collective group on the planet.

The idea of actually putting together and publishing a sort of "laymans guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories" sounds kinda cool.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hello again Docker. You seem to have completely misunderstood my intent here, so let me try to explain.

I also did not start a thread saying "I wanted new people to debate." Nowhere will you find that in this thread. The reason is simple: I'm not after "debate," I'm after fact.

Debate is a useful tool of investigation only where opinion is significant. In Politics, debate is highly useful, but in science, it is rare. The only value of debate in science is when two incompatible viewpoints both appear correct, and the normal process of peer review and experimental validation is inconclusive, at which time it makes sense to debate the merits of theory. I use the Einstein-Bohr debates at the dawn of Quantum Mechanics as an example.

The September 11th attacks, at least with respect to the mechanics of what happened, are not such a topic. There is no duality of scientific viewpoints. Evidence and scientific investigation are virtually unanimous (although I invite anyone to bring dissenting evidence, not opinion, to the table). As for the politics, that's a different matter, and I'm not considering it here.

What this means is that I have very little to gain from "debating" anyone, although I haven't ruled it out. It's far too early for that. Before we even consider a debate, we must first complete our fact-finding and study each others' analyses. That's what I'm interested in.

I note you didn't answer the second question I posed, namely "what is the most airtight argument in favor of a conspiracy theory." Without an argument, there is nothing to consider, regardless of how well accomplished or known any popular figure among the conspiracy movement might be.

To summarize, I did not call for a debate, my thread has not "backfired," and your claim that I've "done a 180" is mistaken. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read more into my words than I intended.

So, Docker, if you have anything further to add, I trust you will offer a retraction. Thanks!
 
gumboot said:
Actually,

Has anyone here considered such an idea? I know PM have done one, but I suspect this forum, collectively, has more 9/11 knowledge than any other collective group on the planet.

The idea of actually putting together and publishing a sort of "laymans guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories" sounds kinda cool.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

If this is a war then its like the war on terror, never ending against enemies you won't always find.
 
R.Mackey said:
Debate is a useful tool of investigation only where opinion is significant. In Politics, debate is highly useful, but in science, it is rare. The only value of debate in science is when two incompatible viewpoints both appear correct, and the normal process of peer review and experimental validation is inconclusive, at which time it makes sense to debate the merits of theory.
Click to expand...

Mackey, I had very similar thoughts back when TS1234 was blithering on about wanting to debate. The best topics to debate are ones where the truth is not just difficult to see but impossible to make out through the distortions of subjectivity and time. It is very difficult to tell what the consequences of a social policy or political decision should be, how it will affect a broad spectrum of people, what its real costs will be, whether it is morally good, etc. Even then, a debate is onely useful as a tool to help interested people think through the issues.

Whether there was any sort of conspiracy in the past regarding the incidents of 9/11 does not fit that mold. It either happened or it didn't. There's nothing to debate.

Luckily, we have a very well developed system for figuring out whether some humans took some acts in the past - a trial. In that case, the proponent of the criminal act would be required to present evidence which the oponent would examine and question. The trier of fact would need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would very much like to see the CT movement put on that trial. They could start by offering to defend the insurance companies (as a false-flag operation would certainly be an uncovered act of war). In that case, they'd only have to prove their case to a preponderence of the evidence.

That's the proper way to resolve these types of issues (IMHO, as always).
 
Who is Webster Tarpley?
Click to expand...

Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey.
 
Abbyas said:
Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

At least you have heard of him. Have you never made an error? Should we discount all your furure work due to that error?

I notice the only thing you can refute in his 9/11 work is the location of a landfill. Care to refute something a little more difficult?
 
At least you have heard of him. Have you never made an error? Should we discount all your furure work due to that error?

I notice the only thing you can refute in his 9/11 work is the location of a landfill. Care to refute something a little more difficult?
Click to expand...

I apologize in that I've never read the entirety of his book. But don't you think that that is one hell of a glaring error for a researcher to make? Doesn't he edit?

My question when reading such things, is "My God, what other large, LARGE errors has this man made in research?" Wouldn't you have a similar reaction?
 
Abbyas said:
I apologize in that I've never read the entirety of his book.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you have looked at all the CTs work before calling them all nuts
But don't you think that that is one hell of a glaring error for a researcher to make?
Click to expand...

Maybe he has a researcher. He's a busy man
Doesn't he edit?
Click to expand...
Maybe he doesn't think the location of freshkills is crucial to proving a conspiracy

My question when reading such things, is "My God, what other large, LARGE errors has this man made in research?" Wouldn't you have a similar reaction?
Click to expand...
Ok you asked this question but then didnt bother reading the book to get the answer???

Typical example of "thorough" research
Click to expand...
 
Docker, is it really taking you 30+ minutes to formulate a response to specifically what element of "the OKC thing" you disbelieve?
 
Docker said:
Nice to see you have looked at all the CTs work before calling them all nuts
Click to expand...
Where does she call him "nuts" in this statement? "Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey."

Docker said:
Maybe he has a researcher. He's a busy man
Maybe he doesn't think the location of freshkills is crucial to proving a conspiracy
Click to expand...
Stop making excuses, it's just poor post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If you are going to go off making a claim that runs counter to the evidence based conclusion that the mainstream of science, industry, and media accept as the story you better have your ducks in a row and quacking in key.

Docker said:
Ok you asked this question but then didnt bother reading the book to get the answer???
Click to expand...
It's a rhetorical question.

Docker said:
Typical example of "thorough" research
Click to expand...
Where in her post, ""Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey." does she claimed to have researched him? She stated she was familiar with the name and provided a context from whence she knew it.
 
No, I didn't read his book (although I have read others). And that error makes me believe that there are probably other very, very large errors.

The location of Fresh Kills would be very important in a historical piece about 9/11.

I have a feeling that you understand this.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Where does she call him "nuts" in this statement? "Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey."


Stop making excuses, it's just poor post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If you are going to go off making a claim that runs counter to the evidence based conclusion that the mainstream of science, industry, and media accept as the story you better have your ducks in a row and quacking in key.


It's a rhetorical question.


Where in her post, ""Ah, Webster Tarpley, the man who performed such extensive research into 9/11 that in his book that details the subject, he says the Fresh Kills Landfill is in New Jersey." does she claimed to have researched him? She stated she was familiar with the name and provided a context from whence she knew it.
Click to expand...

Abby is well known fo characterising all CTs as nuts. I've seen her video.

If she wants to do that then she should read all their work.

P.S. why does she need you to respond for her. I was addressing her. Please don't do that again or it's ignoreville for you.
 
Docker said:
I am involved in other threads. Whats the rush?
Click to expand...

No rush. I just think you may find it helpful to actually pursue one line of reasoning at a time. In your case, it may help you achieve greater rigor in your critical thinking as opposed to skimming the surface of several threads. It may help you to post more substantive arguments in the future.
 
Abbyas said:
No, I didn't read his book (although I have read others). And that error makes me believe that there are probably other very, very large errors.

The location of Fresh Kills would be very important in a historical piece about 9/11.

I have a feeling that you understand this.
Click to expand...

So if you haven't read the books of all CTs why do you say they are all nuts?

Freshkills is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom