response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Cunt]

But Conny and Galaxian have already fled this thread...couldn't take the evidence, I suppose...what did they used to call it? Cognitive dissonance?

Anyway, there isn't anyone here who reasonably disagrees. I guess that is why Sagan, in his baloney detection kit, suggests...

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Without knowing much, anyone can see that the 'truthers' have vague innuendo and no answers to specific questions. It's rather telling.

naaa...( my emphasis,) au contraire, i think it is you who may have this problem... i just think it's probably a question of time...like many other events of history.
But, if you have time- or rather, if you want to make time, read this short article/ comment.
http://bigeye.com/911cat_is_out_of_the_bag.htm

So other than parroting blogs and other reputable sources, can you state what it is you think? Not quote what it is you think, but state it in your own words. Words you are willing to defend?

No quoting or linking, just what you know, in your own words. I think this would be a good place to start.

Actually, I would also like you to answer Coito ergo sum. Be clear, too. No innuendos or hints - just the facts you take issue with and why.

[Coito ergo sum]

But Conny and Galaxian have already fled this thread...couldn't take the evidence, I suppose...what did they used to call it? Cognitive dissonance?

Anyway, there isn't anyone here who reasonably disagrees. I guess that is why Sagan, in his baloney detection kit, suggests...

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Without knowing much, anyone can see that the 'truthers' have vague innuendo and no answers to specific questions. It's rather telling.

naaa...( my emphasis,) au contraire, i think it is you who may have this problem... i just think it's probably a question of time...like many other events of history.
But, if you have time- or rather, if you want to make time, read this short article/ comment.
http://bigeye.com/911cat_is_out_of_the_bag.htm

So other than parroting blogs and other reputable sources, can you state what it is you think? Not quote what it is you think, but state it in your own words. Words you are willing to defend?

At least if someone would be specific - we could look at the 9/11 report and see the context and the exact assertions made and evaluate them. The vagueness of the "truthers" is hard to deal with.
No quoting or linking, just what you know, in your own words. I think this would be a good place to start.

Actually, I would also like you to answer Coito ergo sum. Be clear, too. No innuendos or hints - just the facts you take issue with and why.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...naaa...( my emphasis,) au contraire, i think it is you who may have this problem... i just think it's probably a question of time...like many other events of history...

Like to mention any of the particular events of history you had in mind?

[Conny]

Like to mention any of the particular events of history you had in mind?

I hope you have the luxury of time (as i have had these last 5 years) to read and do research. I mean this very sincerely and not at all in jest.
Here is one article that should serve as my reply:

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Arti ... -Know.aspx

[Randydeluxe]

So your argument is that, because people have conspired successfully to do heinous things before, and were caught...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, the language of conspiracy. Special definitions. "Interesting" phrases. "Implied" everythings.

[Cunt]

Like to mention any of the particular events of history you had in mind?

I hope you have the luxury of time (as i have had these last 5 years) to read and do research. I mean this very sincerely and not at all in jest.
Here is one article that should serve as my reply:

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Arti ... -Know.aspx

So other than parroting blogs and other reputable sources, can you state what it is you think? Not quote what it is you think, but state it in your own words. Words you are willing to defend?

[Coito ergo sum]

Like to mention any of the particular events of history you had in mind?

I hope you have the luxury of time (as i have had these last 5 years) to read and do research. I mean this very sincerely and not at all in jest.
Here is one article that should serve as my reply:

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Arti ... -Know.aspx

You skipped over the posts asking you to identify the things in the 9/11 commission report that you take issue with: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

[Conny]

You skipped over the posts asking you to identify the things in the 9/11 commission report that you take issue with: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Yes, I did, and you (probably) skipped doing a lot of research, or you would know exactly what i mean. -But of course, you are only 20, -according to what it says on your avatar-, so, it cannot be expected that you would have been able (or willing, or interested?) at 13 and 14 years old until now to have read and researched as much as i have.

But i will answer in one sentence: The entire 911 commission report should be labelled as the "ommission" report.
Just today, on one of the most popular political blogs, one can read about one aspect of this farce:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/ ... d-911.html

[GrahamH]

You skipped over the posts asking you to identify the things in the 9/11 commission report that you take issue with: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Yes, I did, and you (probably) skipped doing a lot of research, or you would know exactly what i mean. -But of course, you are only 20, -according to what it says on your avatar-, so, it cannot be expected that you would have been able (or willing, or interested?) at 13 and 14 years old until now to have read and researched as much as i have.

But i will answer in one sentence: The entire 911 commission report should be labelled as the "ommission" report.
Just today, on one of the most popular political blogs, one can read about one aspect of this farce:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/ ... d-911.html

You keep saying you have done lots of research, but won't say anything about the issue in your own words. Do you have any opinions on matters of fact, rather than a general belief that we are all being deceived?

Do you have a list of specifics you consider to be beyond reasonable doubt?

[Coito ergo sum]

You skipped over the posts asking you to identify the things in the 9/11 commission report that you take issue with: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Yes, I did, and you (probably) skipped doing a lot of research,

No, I haven't. It's not my job, however, to support your position. If you make an assertion, back it up.

or you would know exactly what i mean.

Ah, the "go do the research and figure out my position" argument....very persuasive.

-But of course, you are only 20, -according to what it says on your avatar-,

Oh, yes, and that matters. I'll let you in on a secret. I'm not really 20.

so, it cannot be expected that you would have been able (or willing, or interested?) at 13 and 14 years old until now to have read and researched as much as i have.

Then you ought to be able to explain your position quite easily.

[Conny]

You keep saying you have done lots of research, but won't say anything about the issue in your own words. Do you have any opinions on matters of fact, rather than a general belief that we are all being deceived?

Do you have a list of specifics you consider to be beyond reasonable doubt?

In my own words? why? would you want to read a book on a forum? (jk)
No , Ok, more seriously:

I think my ideas and thoughts are extremely close to what David Ray Griffin has come up with in his years of research as well. Although he is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology, his books, essays and talks on the events of 911 have nothing to do with religion.
My strongest sentiment is that we don’t -and never will have- all the information, ( not in our lifetime) but from what we do have, it is quite obvious that 911 was a false-flag operation.

[GrahamH]

You keep saying you have done lots of research, but won't say anything about the issue in your own words. Do you have any opinions on matters of fact, rather than a general belief that we are all being deceived?

Do you have a list of specifics you consider to be beyond reasonable doubt?

In my own words? why? would you want to read a book on a forum? (jk)
No , Ok, more seriously:

I think my ideas and thoughts are extremely close to what David Ray Griffin has come up with in his years of research as well. Although he is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology, his books, essays and talks on the events of 911 have nothing to do with religion.
My strongest sentiment is that we don’t -and never will have- all the information, ( not in our lifetime) but from what we do have, it is quite obvious that 911 was a false-flag operation.

What I know of Griffin's views leaves me deeply unimpressed. He doesn't seem to approach the subject with any rigour or scepticism. I looks at hos stuff a while ago so I can;t quote you something, but I clearly recall seeing his arguments as very weak.

I'm not asking for a book. Just give us a summary of what you think did and did not happen. You can leave the real unknowns out for now. Focus on what you are confident about and could back up with evidence if asked to.

[Randydeluxe]

Just today, on one of the most popular political blogs, one can read about one aspect of this farce:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/ ... op 100,000 is "one of the most popular political blogs", you can assume they're NEVER EVER going to answer a straight question.

That was somehow more pathetic than the snide dismissal of a poster's observations due to his or her age.

[Randydeluxe]

"How Your Truther Argument Can Be Made Even More Pathetic, A Guide To Stoking Your Delusion, by Randydeluxe"

Are you tired of just knowing deep down inside that something wildly different actually happened on Sept. 11, 2001 (than what all of the witnesses who observed the facts of the day and the investigators and journalists recorded)? Have your arguments become stale attacks on your opponents age, backed up by crackpot musings from people whose sole credential is the ability to create and publish the written word in blog form? Well worry yourself no more! By simply indulging in one or more of the following easy steps, you'll soon experience the joy of actively steering the argument even further away from coherence, relevance, and logical consistency.

-----

Step 1: Make a red herring argument that actually includes references to literal red herrings. Explain that the genus Clupea is never red except after it has been smoked, and this is exactly like 9/11.

Bonus points if you can tie this into the mental image of "smoke" rising from the WTT towers.

-----

Step 2: Everyone knows that George W. Bush is a criminal mastermind and guilty by association. To really mess with your opponent, tie the former American President to someone wholesome and innocent, then quote the bible on the subject of how the appearance of innocence is the guise of the devil.

Bonus points if Bush's wholesome association is actually someone's grandma.

Double bonus points if you're previously on the record claiming the bible to have no authority.

-----

Step 3: The confusion of cause and effect never slowed any good conspiracy theorist down, but it's so mundane! Spice it up by begging the question with this argument: "The governmental conspiracy to feign terrorism on 9/11 allowed the hijacker conspiracy to proceed unhindered without actually knowing that they existed."

Bonus points if you can get your opponents to acknowledge the two conspiracies by using your own pet names for them.

-----

Step 4: Refuse to debate in threads that you yourself started (and continue to otherwise participate in), by indulging in lines of questioning that shift the burden of proof to your opponents on arguments that you haven't actually made. If they still succeed in making points, claim that they have failed to address key underlying issues that have not been mentioned. Be very careful to not name any.

-----

Step 5 [OPTIONAL]: Just as Jesus will eventually return to earth and prove his believers right, your deep hope that 9/11 was an inside job will eventually be proven by a miraculous admission of guilt by some party to the primary conspiracy. Spend a lot of your effort building up the importance and power of minor players in Bush administration / Illuminati / C.I.A. so that you can anticipate victory at the deathbed of practically anyone who had a job to do on that day. State clearly that you are willing to wait for decades, if you must.

Bonus points if you make it clear that you're willing to accept a confession of guilt from someone who actually performed janitorial services.