There is no debate on 9/11...

Agreed, no real debate...

Let us know when the "truth" side of things gathers enough real evidence to engage in one...we'll be here waiting.

TAM:)
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.
Click to expand...

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

<snip>

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
Click to expand...
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
Bolding mine for emphasis
 
mortimer said:
Um, where's the analysis? Those three pages simply have photos of the collapse.

ETA: Or are you referring to the arrow pointing to a 'squib' in the first photo? Are you really claiming that the 'squib' is evidence of CD?
Click to expand...
FYI , looks like their "analysis" is linked at the bottom of this page:

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html#analysis


ps. I wasn't suggesting anything about "squibs," but rather that their arguments for CD seem superficial.... like these supposed "eyewitness" accounts:

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
 
Yurebiz said:
I'm pointing out that there's a need for a new investigation, and there's no debate about that. There's a need for a new investigation, to settle all these issues once and for all. The debatable and non-debatable aspects of 9/11
Click to expand...

If a new investigation returned no evidence for MIHOP/LIHOP scenerios, would you then consider the 9/11 conspiracies as complete bunk?
 
Yurebiz said:
It's not an assertion... do your research on this very same sub forum... I know I did, for over 6 months now -.-
Click to expand...
Then you are, I presume, aware: that the criminal investigator of 9/11, codenamed PENTTBOM, was the largest in U.S. history; that it involved 7000 agents (that's 64%, Yurebiz, of the all the agents the FBI have); that they continued to investage and make arrests for years after they identified the 19 hijackers; that they followed over half-a-million investigative leads; and that they did in fact follow the "money trail" to the hijackers' sponsors.
 
It is also worth mentioning that pushing for further investigations into things, such as the ISI report, is perfectly, but to claim that the entire Commission report, et al should be thrown out and start from scratch because of this further investigation is not. It would only be valid to demand so if the investigation in to the ISI report invalidated what is presented in the Commission report; this would not be known until the ISI investigation is complete.
 
Yurebiz and skepticalcriticalguy-

#1. why is it so important for you guys that people at JREF believe your side of the story? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? You're like door-to-door Evangelists who keep coming back to the home that doesn't accept the "truth". You just cant deal with the fact that some very intelligent people don't want your tupperware. I see a deep emotional need for validation here.

#2. Why dont you come up with an actual theory of what happened that day. Who did what...when they did it...how they did it. Names, places, dates, materials, etc etc. Thats a real theory. We have our theory...what is yours?
 
Yurebiz said:
I agree that there is no evidence of CD, and that stuff should go somewhere else :|
Click to expand...
I agree, and there is no evidence of anything you are trying to say either. Unless you have uncovered some undiscovered facts to support any truth movement ideas on 9/11, you can say there is no evidence for all the stuff you are trying to imply about 9/11.
 
What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.

take the passenger lists released by CNN for example. they failed to list the names of the hijackers. conspiracy theorists immediately grab onto that and say "see...there were no arabs on the planes!!". it never occurs to them (or they choose not to) consider the possibility that CNN removed the names of the suposed hijackers from the victims list. to them, everything must be a conspiracy, and not only evidence that suggests otherwise, but even logic and thought processes that suggest otherwise, must be rejected outright.

this is why 9-11 truthers are not real skeptics. true skeptics EXAMINE the evidence and dont disregard it because of the source, or because of politics. truth knows no color or political party. 9-11 truthers should try to understand that.
 
Yurebiz.

You seem to oscillate at will between weak LIHOP, strong LIHOP, and MIHOP.

LIHOP and MIHOP are two completely incommensurable positions.

You claim to see evidence for "weird" "fishy" etc. etc. occurrences on that day. However, you can only see evidence for either LIHOP or MIHOP. There is no way you can see evidence for both without massive contradictions.

So, sir (madam?), which is it? Do you see evidence for LIHOP or for MIHOP?
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.
Click to expand...

A very succinct, and accurate description of the truther mindset on the "inconsistencies". They like to call what they are doing "Connecting the dots".

the trouble is, they think "Connecting the dots" ends up revealing a picture of the USG causing 9/11, when in fact, once the dots are connected, all you have is a ball full of knotted string.

TAM:)
 
Yurebiz said:
Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
Click to expand...
More sleep may help your thought process. Seriously.
There is no official story provided by the government
Click to expand...
:confused:

Can you admit that something smells fishy?
Click to expand...
Fish might also be helpful. Keep in mind that fresh fish doesn't smell fishy. And beware of bad clams.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.
Click to expand...
:con2:

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?
Click to expand...
:notm

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.
Click to expand...
You feel sleepy...sleepy.

You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum.
Click to expand...
It's actually online.

Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.
Click to expand...
Also, your blood sugar may be low.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened.
Click to expand...
Both the paperback and the hardcover versions will stand up. Your motor skills may be suffering due to low blood sugar and lack of sleep.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.
Click to expand...
Thanks for stopping by though. It's always good to see you.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong.
Click to expand...
Never get a degree in somnambulism from an internet university.

Look, there can be no debate because there was no criminal investigation undisclosed to us.
Click to expand...
:eek:

By not admitting the need of a new 9/11 Commission, you admit not having any regards to the truth, or the victims, or this country as a whole....
Click to expand...
By not admitting that your arguments are the logical equivalent of the train wreck scene in The Bridge on the River Kwai, you are not showing due respect to Sir Alec Guinness.

There's no debate...
Click to expand...
Did you finally nod off? I'll tuck you in. Aw, how cute is that cowlick?
 
Fact is, no one ever got punished for letting the planes crash in the FAA.

How did they let them crash? Were they supposed to run up the WTC stairs and put a big "Diversion" sign out the window?
 
John Blonn said:
Yurebiz.

You seem to oscillate at will between weak LIHOP, strong LIHOP, and MIHOP.

LIHOP and MIHOP are two completely incommensurable positions.

You claim to see evidence for "weird" "fishy" etc. etc. occurrences on that day. However, you can only see evidence for either LIHOP or MIHOP. There is no way you can see evidence for both without massive contradictions.

So, sir (madam?), which is it? Do you see evidence for LIHOP or for MIHOP?
Click to expand...


QFE

Exactly. You can't have a LIHOP theory and a controlled demolition theory at the same time.
 
parky76 said:
What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.

take the passenger lists released by CNN for example. they failed to list the names of the hijackers. conspiracy theorists immediately grab onto that and say "see...there were no arabs on the planes!!". it never occurs to them (or they choose not to) consider the possibility that CNN removed the names of the suposed hijackers from the victims list. to them, everything must be a conspiracy, and not only evidence that suggests otherwise, but even logic and thought processes that suggest otherwise, must be rejected outright.
Click to expand...

Tricky wording. "100%", "slight discrepency", etc.

Then you list one example of a "slight discrepency". There are hundreds. No, I won't list any. Entire books have been written. You know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom