• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Truthers at the JREF, learned anything yet?

Dictator Cheney said:
Is there one thing about 9/11 that you now feel has been debunked to your satisfaction?

yes the official theory.
Click to expand...


Ah, that must mean that you America-hating liars will at long last show us some actual evidence.

You won't? You don't actually have any evidence? How did the mainstream account (there is, as you know, no "official" theory) get debunked? Surely someone must have proved that something was wrong with it?

Speak up.
 
RedIbis said:
Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.
Click to expand...



Have you learned that no demolition professionals use the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building with explosives"?

Why not?
 
RedIbis said:
So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.
Click to expand...


Stop lying.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't put people on ignore. I just don't answer ridiculous questions. The extent of my knowledge on 9/11 is not something I'm going to post on an internet forum. Sorry, but I won't be playing along with the little monkey show, here.
Click to expand...


Edited for civility and ignoring moderator instructions in post #59
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedIbis said:
Since I don't believe in no-planes, space beams, or a Jewish conspiracy, jref debunking hasn't changed my perspective much if at all from when I first started posting here.

What I have learned is that debunking is not the same as honest research. Debunking is the strategy of diminishing your opponent's argument by a variety of methods that don't necessarily enlighten.

With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
The question you ask in the thread title is not the same as the question you ask in the OP. Have I learned something by reading and participating in the jref forum? Absolutely. In the 9/11 forum I learn a great deal. I learn what the prevailing theories are. I learn what evidence does or doesn't support official explanations, etc. Still, my position has not changed much, if at all.

If by agnostic you mean that I don't proclaim my beliefs as the absolute truth, than yes, I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know 'what really happened". I came to this forum because I was interested in the best debunking of conspiracy theories.

It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.
Click to expand...

1. Given you have, in the past, seemed to fall into the LIHOP category (even if you hate to be categorized), it does not surprise me that you have not changed your mind much. It is hard for anyone to prove to you that someone DIDN'T intentionally NOT act. The old expression "you can't prove a negative" comes to mind.

2. Debunking has never claimed to be "research". Debunking is using fact, evidence, logic, and where applicable, common sense, to argue against a Conspiracy theory or other myth.

3. The truth movement has few if any HONEST researchers. Cherry Picking quotes, writing misleading and confabulating texts (ala DRG), and trying to swindle publishers into publishing your dimwitted, barely scientific paper through deception is far from "Honest" research.

4. This forum has not tried to change the inaccuracies or "missing pieces" in existing research, investigations, or accounts of the day. No one here has said any element of the investigation (FBI, NIST, FEMA, etc...) is PERFECT. Far from it. As one of the co-authors of the 9/11 commission has admitted, the early version of history are almost always not the full and true story. I accept that. What I do know, however, is as of now there has been not a shred of compelling evidence that anyone but Al-Qaeda had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

5. I am glad you have come to this forum, if for nothing more than to learn. Even if it has not changed your mind, something has still been gained. Agnostic, to me, is someone who will not commit to a particular stance or view point. Someone who sits the fence. You seem pretty sure the govt allowed 9/11 to happen. That is not agnostic. To MIHOP you seem perhaps a little more so.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
The temperature of the fires has been discussed ad nauseum. The temperatures were estimated (there was noone alive in the areas in question recording it with a thermometer) to be hot enough to compromise the steel through significant weakening.

NIST has gone over this in fine detail, as all parties here know.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The temperature of the fire, air and steel are all separate issues.
 
T.A.M. said:
1. Given you have, in the past, seemed to fall into the LIHOP category (even if you hate to be categorized), it does not surprise me that you have not changed your mind much. It is hard for anyone to prove to you that someone DIDN'T intentionally NOT act. The old expression "you can't prove a negative" comes to mind.

2. Debunking has never claimed to be "research". Debunking is using fact, evidence, logic, and where applicable, common sense, to argue against a Conspiracy theory or other myth.

3. The truth movement has few if any HONEST researchers. Cherry Picking quotes, writing misleading and confabulating texts (ala DRG), and trying to swindle publishers into publishing your dimwitted, barely scientific paper through deception is far from "Honest" research.

4. This forum has not tried to change the inaccuracies or "missing pieces" in existing research, investigations, or accounts of the day. No one here has said any element of the investigation (FBI, NIST, FEMA, etc...) is PERFECT. Far from it. As one of the co-authors of the 9/11 commission has admitted, the early version of history are almost always not the full and true story. I accept that. What I do know, however, is as of now there has been not a shred of compelling evidence that anyone but Al-Qaeda had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

5. I am glad you have come to this forum, if for nothing more than to learn. Even if it has not changed your mind, something has still been gained. Agnostic, to me, is someone who will not commit to a particular stance or view point. Someone who sits the fence. You seem pretty sure the govt allowed 9/11 to happen. That is not agnostic. To MIHOP you seem perhaps a little more so.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

This forum can be such a flood of semantics and contrarian argumentation it can be difficult to cut the crap and just talk straight. What is this obsession with labels and pigeonholing people, LIHOP, MIHOP, truther, rationalist, believer, agnostic, ad nauseum?

Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point? I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector. Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.
 
RedIbis said:
Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point?
Click to expand...

You should "conform" to the "ideology" that is supported by the evidence. It's called rational thinking.

RedIbis said:
I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector.
Click to expand...

But when you're "bs detector" is out of synch with every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet, (individuals who tend to be expert bs detectors), it might be time to reassess just how good that "bs detector" or yours actually is.

RedIbis said:
Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.
Click to expand...

You'll have to define "conclusive" in this context and explain why what the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates isn't sufficient to meet that standard.
 
RedIbis said:
Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.
Click to expand...

19 suicidal jihadists hijack four planes and murder many people. It's not complex at all. Now D-day, I'd call that complex.
 
RedIbis said:
This forum can be such a flood of semantics and contrarian argumentation it can be difficult to cut the crap and just talk straight. What is this obsession with labels and pigeonholing people, LIHOP, MIHOP, truther, rationalist, believer, agnostic, ad nauseum?

Why in the hell sould I conform to any ideology on 9/11 at this point? I'm not a kid and I'm not an idiot and I think I have a pretty good bs detector. Anyone who thinks that the investigation into the various aspects of the most complex day in American history is complete, conclusively ruling out either LIHOP or MIHOP is fooling him or herself.
Click to expand...

1. Personally when I label people, it is so I can know how to approach, and what to expect. Yah, it can prohibit or impede "straight talk" but you find so little of that online anyway...

2. It is not an obsession, for me. Lighten up...it is done all the time. Conservative, Liberal, Rebel, Nerd, Jock, the list goes on. It is human nature to pigeon hole things...helps make things a little more manageable.

3. I am not asking you to conform to anything. My assessment of you that rendered me LABELING you as an LIHOPer, is based on what I have read from you, and our discussions.

4. As I said earlier, I have no reservations with calling the investigation, AS A WHOLE, incomplete. Facts and evidence will continue to filter in as time goes on. However, as of today, and as far as I can tell for the foreseeable future, there is/will be no evidence that convinces me that the govt orchestrated, or allowed intentionally, the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
1. Personally when I label people, it is so I can know how to approach, and what to expect. Yah, it can prohibit or impede "straight talk" but you find so little of that online anyway...

2. It is not an obsession, for me. Lighten up...it is done all the time. Conservative, Liberal, Rebel, Nerd, Jock, the list goes on. It is human nature to pigeon hole things...helps make things a little more manageable.

3. I am not asking you to conform to anything. My assessment of you that rendered me LABELING you as an LIHOPer, is based on what I have read from you, and our discussions.

4. As I said earlier, I have no reservations with calling the investigation, AS A WHOLE, incomplete. Facts and evidence will continue to filter in as time goes on. However, as of today, and as far as I can tell for the foreseeable future, there is/will be no evidence that convinces me that the govt orchestrated, or allowed intentionally, the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

1. At least you're honest.
2. Human nature? For you maybe.
3. That's not so strange to me, but at least leave room for the possibility that my perspective and opinion is flexible. I maintain that the official story requires a kind of inflexibility because if any crack in the facade appears, it has the potential to bring down the entire fabrication.
4. That's what I mean by requiring inflexibility.
 
RedIbis said:
Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.
Click to expand...


That's understandable. How about, instead of that, you briefly list 5 or so theories that you weren't aware of before you started posting here, and if at all possible, where you heard/read them.

For example:

1. Space Beams brought WTC 1 & 2
2. Thermite used in CD of WTC 7
...

BTW: Sorry for being a dick earlier
 
TheRedWorm said:
That's understandable. How about, instead of that, you briefly list 5 or so theories that you weren't aware of before you started posting here, and if at all possible, where you heard/read them.

For example:

1. Space Beams brought WTC 1 & 2
2. Thermite used in CD of WTC 7
...

BTW: Sorry for being a dick earlier
Click to expand...

You're hardly the worst around here. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. There are tons of theories that I first heard in this forum. Certainly, space beams comes to mind, as does the very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower, video fakery, no planes, the jooz did it, etc.
 
Good, that is what I was asking for. So there is:

1. space beams
2. very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower
3. video fakery
4. no planes
5. the jooz did it


Now, of those, is there any that you have researched enough to come to a conclusion as to the veracity of? For instance, have you found that there is no evidence that in any way points to weapons from outer space, and thus discard it as a possibility, at least until some compelling evidence comes along?
 
TheRedWorm said:
Good, that is what I was asking for. So there is:

1. space beams
2. very slow moving, magic fireball in the N. Tower
3. video fakery
4. no planes
5. the jooz did it


Now, of those, is there any that you have researched enough to come to a conclusion as to the veracity of? For instance, have you found that there is no evidence that in any way points to weapons from outer space, and thus discard it as a possibility, at least until some compelling evidence comes along?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in any of those. Please add, 100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch. The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon. Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse. As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.
 
RedIbis said:
Is this where you want me to explain everything I've ever researched about 9/11? No, probably not.
Click to expand...

You've started many threads here, asking people to debunk things. Have you learned anything in those threads so far, in an entire year of doing this, new things you didn't know about? Has anything people like Mangoose, RMackey, Gravy and the others have said sunk in yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom