CRITICS CORNER IS POINTLESS... FACT.

[Anti-sophist]

No matter how many investigations you do, you will never "know" what happened, exactly. That's not how science operates. The scientific answers to all CT questions are out there... you just need to go and find them.

If you have political questions, feel free to ask them, but the physical events of september 11th are very well understood and very well backed up by several thousand years of scientific theory.

[IronSnot]

Do you send out DVD's... spread the word... hell... campaign even... If not... Why???

Yes it can get frustrating. But the critics are not necessarily our enemies and may indeed become allies at some stage. It's basically impossible to tell who is doing this to stop investigation of 9/11, but my suspicion is that such 'agents' are more likely to appear to be on our side.

As for the 911 promotion, I think we need to look hard at this. We need to get more professional, and possibly utilise some type of 'guerilla' marketing of 9/11. I don't think the old ways such as handing out leaflets necessarily work that well in isolation.

It might be a good idea to headbang a little and organise 'teams' to carry it forward.

[Anti-sophist]

Anti-sophist...

If you have political questions, feel free to ask them, but the physical events of september 11th are very well understood and very well backed up by several thousand years of scientific theory.

Ask who the political questions... ask them to Who??? To you??? what do you know??? I'm guessing nothing... As for your b0ll0cks regarding 9/11 events being well understood... I await the release of your book.... that will explain everything... I will need to send one to all the families who's relatives died on 9/11... I can just see the response "Oh... It was obvious all along "...

B0ll0cks!

Science has explained it. Your post is full of alot of words, and very little examples. What parts are you having trouble understanding? I'll try to help. Feel free to pick the most confusing aspect, and I'll do my best to make it clear.

You also seem to be under the mistaken notion that it's science's job not only to explain the situation, but explain the explaination, so all can understand it. That's not really the case. If you want to fully understand the science behind the explaination of 9/11, you will need alot of background knowledge.

[IronSnot]

Some of them, certainly are puke inducing. Sophist's post above being a pretty good example of that. Talk about ego.

But my point was that most of these critics are doing this because of their real belief that we are wrong, which we can change, and not because they are shills, which is an accusation often levelled but never backed up.

[Anti-sophist]

You said it Anti sophist...

Your post is full of alot of words, and very little examples.

...

... it is not up to me or you to "give examples"... I know as much as phukin you do... which aint a lot...

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU.... YOU KNOW NOTHING...

fuk it... prove me wrong and I will show you a dumass???

Prove you wrong? You haven't even said anything! Hah. You clearly aren't equipped to handle a rational discussion, so move along.

When you have something worthwhile to say, I'll be willing and ready to discuss it.

[Anti-sophist]

Some of them, certainly are puke inducing. Sophist's post above being a pretty good example of that. Talk about ego.

But my point was that most of these critics are doing this because of their real belief that we are wrong, which we can change, and not because they are shills, which is an accusation often levelled but never backed up.

Offering my help to answer questions is ego? Really? I thought this was about finding the truth and getting answers to questions... why would puke at someone offering to give you answers?

[IronSnot]

That's not how science operates. The scientific answers to all CT questions are out there... you just need to go and find them.

This is, despite the fact you'll disagree, opinion, and sounds as arrogant as hell.

If you have political questions, feel free to ask them

No opinion, just misplaced arrogance, again. We're not here to be tutored and I for one, won't ever, have any political questions for you.

but the physical events of september 11th are very well understood

No they're not.

and very well backed up by several thousand years of scientific theory.

Breathtaking stupidity rather than arrogance this time.

[Anti-sophist]

This is, despite the fact you'll disagree, opinion, and sounds as arrogant as hell.

It's not at all. If you want to discuss the philosophy of science, I've studied it in great detail. I'll go through the definition of a logical fallacy, of truth, of fact, and the philosophical basis of the scientific method. The scientific method, and its methodologies aren't in the business of finding truth. It is in finding useful models. A model can be wrong, but if it's useful, it's still valid science. Disagreeing with these very basic statements is arguing with the definitions on which all of science rests.

You can continue to attack me by calling me arrogant all you want, it doesn't change the issues at hand.

No opinion, just misplaced arrogance, again. We're not here to be tutored and I for one, won't ever, have any political questions for you.

I thought you were asking questions? Now you feel demeaned because people offer answers? Are you so arrogant as to think that no one can offer you answers?

but the physical events of september 11th are very well understood
No they're not.

By scientists, they are. Repeating your claim ad nauseam doesn't make it true.



I've put out the same challenge, several times, and it's been ignored several times. Bring up a topic not understood by science. Go for it. Maybe this time you can reply with something other than ad hominem attacks on me. I doubt it, though, since you all seem much more interested in me than in the science. That's a curious approach for "truth-seekers". Attack the messenger, ad infinutum. Ignore the science.

[MiniMauve]

This is, despite the fact you'll disagree, opinion, and sounds as arrogant as hell.

It's not at all. If you want to discuss the philosophy of science, I've studied it in great detail. I'll go through the definition of a logical fallacy, of truth, of fact, and the philosophical basis of the scientific method. The scientific method, and its methodologies aren't in the business of finding truth. It is in finding useful models. A model can be wrong, but if it's useful, it's still valid science. Disagreeing with these very basic statements is arguing with the definitions on which all of science rests.

Um... this is a public internet forum to which almost all contributors are posting to under anonymous names. NONE of us have any credentials here irreguardless of what we do, or claim we do, in the real world. The only credentials anyone has here are the logical sense they make of available information. Knowledge that finding useful models is the 'business' of scientific method does not prove the usefulness of critic's models nor does it disprove the usefulness of Truth Movement's models. The argument has always been which model is useful and which isn't. Your knowledge of the existence of this relationship does not make your views unassailable. Also, disagreement with what you consider to be useful models is not automatically, 'arguing with the definitions on which all of science rests'. It these assumptions that seems to others a very arrogant position, and I agree.

You can continue to attack me by calling me arrogant all you want, it doesn't change the issues at hand.

At what point does an observation become an attack?

I've put out the same challenge, several times, and it's been ignored several times. Bring up a topic not understood by science. Go for it. Maybe this time you can reply with something other than ad hominem attacks on me. I doubt it, though, since you all seem much more interested in me than in the science. That's a curious approach for "truth-seekers". Attack the messenger, ad infinutum. Ignore the science.

Ad hominem attacks are not a response exclusive to the Truth Movement. Nor is attacking the messenger or ignoring science.

[aggle-rithm]

The families are pressing for the truth,

Yes, but what truth are they pressing for? What are these tough questions they want answered, that weren't covered by the 9/11 commission? The "Press for Truth" video doesn't think it important enough to say what the questions are, exactly. I find that very strange. I'm guessing the reason is that most "truthers" would find the questions rather mundane, since they probably don't contain hidden agendas about the New World Order or secret societies of Jooooos. You know, cool stuff.

the first responders who are dying want the truth,

I think what these people want is compensation for their injuries. The "truth" would be scant comfort at this point. Besides, they already KNOW the truth... the EPA minimized the dangers of the toxic dust arount GZ, and as a result they went into a dangerous situation without knowing the risks.

most people on this board want the truth...

Actually, I think most people on this board want their pre-conceived notions affirmed. Since these notions require extremely unlikely and convoluted hypotheses to be true, I don't think it's going to happen.

[Ignatz]

Actually, I think most people on this board want their pre-conceived notions affirmed. Since these notions require extremely unlikely and convoluted hypotheses to be true, I don't think it's going to happen.

I'd only half agree with that, aggle-rithm.

I think most of the Truthers on this site would absolutely hate a full and totally independent scientific enquiry. In fact, if it ever happened I'm sure they would find reasons to condemn it well in advance. What the Truthers want (imo) is something that can never be settled. Knowledge of a shady undercover world to cling to, a way to set themselves apart from the masses of "sheeple", a way to be "special". And there are so many aspects of 9/11 that can be disputed till the cows come home that I believe that the more dedicated (i.e. muleish) Truthers have a job for life.

[aggle-rithm]

Aggle-rithm... answer me one simple question then.... just one simple question...

Why did Miss Rice state that she (or anyone in the administration) did not and could not have envisaged planes being used as missiles in terrorist attacks against the USA.... WHEN THE AUGUST PDB (presidential daily briefing) catagorically stated that this eventuality was indeed possible... if not probable...

Go on answer me that one simple question... ???????????????????

She lied?

Lying is not unprecedented. Mass-murder by a newly elected president is, and such a notion demands boatloads of evidence before it can be taken seriously.

Aggle-rithm, ...

Yes, but what truth are they pressing for?

... what a stupid question... for your information... in law it is understood by...
... the truth... the only truth... and nothing but the truth...

You didn't read the whole post, did you?

... the fact that you are posting here is proof that we do not have the full answers to 9/11.... "ie. the only truth"... you just cannot see it for what it is because you will believe anything as long as the BBC says it as fact...

Actually, I live in the US, but I do get BBC America on cable.

So far everything they've said has been spot-on!

what you have to do is start to question everything... AND I MEAN EVERYTHING... all I have heard you do so far is question one viewpoint...

Excellent! Perhaps, finally, I will get someone to tell me what that viewpoint is, in a few succinct sentences. Care to give it a shot?

the viewpoint of the VAST MAJORITY of the people in the world by the way...

...cannot make something true.

so all I have to say is "Start to use your mind rather than your emotion", something I have done recently and have become aware 'does not achieve anything' !!!

So when I say that force equals mass times acceleration, or that moving the goalposts is not a valid debating technique, or that a bunch of people really, really believing in something does not make it come true, I'm using my emotions and not my mind?

Huh. Didn't know that.

[Anti-sophist]

Knowledge that finding useful models is the 'business' of scientific method does not prove the usefulness of critic's models nor does it disprove the usefulness of Truth Movement's models.

The truth movement has models? Where? I thought you guys were "just asking questions". I'd love to see some answers! Show me your model for how termite cuts vertical beams, or your model for what happened to the passengers! I'd love to see it.

The argument has always been which model is useful and which isn't.

Wrong. There is no conspiracy theorist "model". The moment I force you to form a hypothesis of what actually happened, it takes 19 seconds to debunk it at eveyr level. Don't try to equate the "truth" movement with science. It doesn't have any testable hypotheses, and it certainly doesn't have any models.

I am open to correction, so please, take my challenge. Show me your model for thermite cutting verical beams.. show me your model for what happened to the passengers of flights 77 or 93. Show me the evidence that backs up your models.

Your knowledge of the existence of this relationship does not make your views unassailable. Also, disagreement with what you consider to be useful models is not automatically, 'arguing with the definitions on which all of science rests'. It these assumptions that seems to others a very arrogant position, and I agree.

Wrong, again. You didn't even understand what I said. Try re-reading it. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand what "models" means. I said that 100% truth doesn't come from science. That is fundamental and provably true. If you demand 100% truth, find a religion. Or, it appears, you already have.

Ad hominem attacks are not a response exclusive to the Truth Movement. Nor is attacking the messenger or ignoring science.

Stange, that statement shows you don't even know what ad hominem means. It _is_ attacking the messenger. Second of all, you are right at ad hominem isn't exclusive to the truth movement. I never said it was.

It is, however, exclusive to the two of your and your continued insulting of me based on no evidence. It is, also, exclusive to conspiracy theorists to continually ignore good science. Unless you have scientific bases for throwing out NISTs analysis, which I haven't heard. I challenege you to provide it.

[Anti-sophist]

still no response from Anti-sophist, maybe I will give a little more time for him to analise his agenda?

You posted this nonsense twice within 24 hours. At least give me a day to respond before declaring victory. I have other things in my life that require attending to, beyond debunking conspiracy theorists.

[chipmunk stew]

AWhy did Miss Rice state that she (or anyone in the administration) did not and could not have envisaged planes being used as missiles in terrorist attacks against the USA.... WHEN THE AUGUST PDB (presidential daily briefing) catagorically stated that this eventuality was indeed possible... if not probable...

Please find me the passage that states this:
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/31435.htm
(scan of original): http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

Before using words like "categorically stated", you should double-check your facts. The memo says nothing of the sort.

The only mention of WTC is historical:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct foreign terrorist attacks on the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

Hijackings are mentioned twice:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Neither quote mentions using airliners as missiles. The first quote supposes that hijackings could be used in the classic way--to make demands, in this case to free "US-held extremists". The second is quite possibly referring to the 9/11 plot, but indicates that they were a long way from uncovering the plot.

Other passages also give the impression that they were a long way off from cracking the case.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Where are these categorical statements of certainty?

[Anti-sophist]

you still don't get it Anti-sophist, it is not up to you to "discover" what the truth may be... cos you don't know and never will as things stand!!!

Again, repeating the claim that we can ever "know" what happened. Science isn't religion.

The families are pressing for the truth, the first responders who are dying want the truth, most people on this board want the truth...

Pretending the families and the first-responders are on your side is dishonet and offensive. Most of them would prefer to punch you in the face for disgracing their lost loved ones. Part of the reason I do what I do is to minimize the chances that the ignorant cesspool of pseudoscience that is the truth movement doesn't get enough traction among the weak-minded so that those families and friends of 9/11 victims dont' have to be exposed to this.

Again, if anyone wants to know the scientific explainations, they are there. Keep asking questions, just stop ignoring the answers.

SO all your semantics regarding science etc is pointless... pure hear-say and a waste of time .... until we get a further investigation into the events of 9/11.

It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with your continued attacks on science. You don't understand what science is or what science does. I'm trying to explain to you that the answers _are_ there. There are scientific explainations for everything that happened on 9/11. You will never "know" 100% that any of it is true. That doesn't change the validity of the science. Demanding 100% fact is why we have religion. Science doesn't provide it.

Do you get that yet? Being 100% true isn't what science does. It can't. Therefore, demanding 100% truth is basically equal to saying that science isn't good enough for you.

Get it?

m sure their opinion would change quickly enough if it was one of their family who lost their life of 9/11? So to be fair, their opinions do not matter an iota!

The idea that you are doing the bidding of the families of 9/11 by disgracing the memories of their loved-ones every day is the single most offensive aspect of the truth movement.

Walk into a fire house near ground zero and explain to them your position and how much you understand their need for truth.. and how you are fighting to uncover the murderer conspirators. They're desperate for someone with the courage to say the truth, like you.

[MiniMauve]

The families are pressing for the truth,

Yes, but what truth are they pressing for?

Uh... a criminal investigation of a mass murder that claimed their loved ones. Why is this an unreasonable request?

What are these tough questions they want answered, that weren't covered by the 9/11 commission? The "Press for Truth" video doesn't think it important enough to say what the questions are, exactly. I find that very strange. I'm guessing the reason is that most "truthers" would find the questions rather mundane, since they probably don't contain hidden agendas about the New World Order or secret societies of Jooooos. You know, cool stuff.

Just can't resist that good ol' tempation to lump the resonable posters with all the fringe elememts, huh? I suppose we only have ourselves to blame but that doesn't make this tactic any less contemptable.

the first responders who are dying want the truth,

I think what these people want is compensation for their injuries. The "truth" would be scant comfort at this point. Besides, they already KNOW the truth... the EPA minimized the dangers of the toxic dust arount GZ, and as a result they went into a dangerous situation without knowing the risks.

So, all the first reponders that lost colleagues in the tragedy are only interested in compensation? I have a little more optimism in the human spirit so I'm afraid I have to disagree.

most people on this board want the truth...

Actually, I think most people on this board want their pre-conceived notions affirmed. Since these notions require extremely unlikely and convoluted hypotheses to be true, I don't think it's going to happen.

A lot of posters on both sides of the issue are like this. I think it's the human condition. Unless a person makes a conscious decision to honestly consider an opposite view these discussions are all just semantics and one-upmanship.

[jsut_peopel]

Show me your model for how termite cuts vertical beams, or your model for what happened to the passengers! I'd love to see it.

Sorry, but that typo brins up amusing images that I can't ignore. :)

[aggle-rithm]

Show me your model for how termite cuts vertical beams, or your model for what happened to the passengers! I'd love to see it.

Sorry, but that typo brins up amusing images that I can't ignore.

The termites were genetically engineered to cut through steel. It could happen! They have genetically engineered corn, don't they?

[aggle-rithm]

Just can't resist that good ol' tempation to lump the resonable posters with all the fringe elememts, huh? I suppose we only have ourselves to blame but that doesn't make this tactic any less contemptable.

No more contemptable than implying that the surviving family members share the same belief in an "inside job" as conspiracy theorists do, simply because they have questions. If we knew what those questions were, perhaps we wouldn't have to speculate on what they believe, but the makers of "Press for Truth" withheld that information.

So, all the first reponders that lost colleagues in the tragedy are only interested in compensation? I have a little more optimism in the human spirit so I'm afraid I have to disagree.

This is misleading. I did not say people wanted compensation for the loss of friends and colleagues. They want their MEDICAL EXPENSES paid by the people who were responsible for their injuries.

These people got screwed, they know they got screwed, and they know who screwed them. What other answers do they need?

A lot of posters on both sides of the issue are like this. I think it's the human condition. Unless a person makes a conscious decision to honestly consider an opposite view these discussions are all just semantics and one-upmanship.

Absolutely true. Everyone is biased; this is determined by our shared physiology. That's why critical thinking is so important.

[Jay Ref]

The families are pressing for the truth,

Yes, but what truth are they pressing for?

Uh... a criminal investigation of a mass murder that claimed their loved ones. Why is this an unreasonable request?

Since it's already been done?

What are these tough questions they want answered, that weren't covered by the 9/11 commission? The "Press for Truth" video doesn't think it important enough to say what the questions are, exactly. I find that very strange. I'm guessing the reason is that most "truthers" would find the questions rather mundane, since they probably don't contain hidden agendas about the New World Order or secret societies of Jooooos. You know, cool stuff.

Just can't resist that good ol' tempation to lump the resonable posters with all the fringe elememts, huh? I suppose we only have ourselves to blame but that doesn't make this tactic any less contemptable.

the first responders who are dying want the truth,

I think what these people want is compensation for their injuries. The "truth" would be scant comfort at this point. Besides, they already KNOW the truth... the EPA minimized the dangers of the toxic dust arount GZ, and as a result they went into a dangerous situation without knowing the risks.

So, all the first reponders that lost colleagues in the tragedy are only interested in compensation? I have a little more optimism in the human spirit so I'm afraid I have to disagree.

most people on this board want the truth...

Actually, I think most people on this board want their pre-conceived notions affirmed. Since these notions require extremely unlikely and convoluted hypotheses to be true, I don't think it's going to happen.

A lot of posters on both sides of the issue are like this. I think it's the human condition. Unless a person makes a conscious decision to honestly consider an opposite view these discussions are all just semantics and one-upmanship.

[/quote]

We critics of the 9/11 trooth idiocy movement have spent a long time considering and reseaqrching these "opposite view(s)". We have collectively found them to be universally illogical, anti-scientific, emotionally and politically biased, and internally inconsistent.

Also there's the little problem of evidence...in that there is none for any of the various CT's.

The only thing you people are really good at is asking questions. Listening to the answers or forming a cohesive "opposite view" that makes any kind of sense at all are simply not your strong suits.

As for disrespecting the victims and families by using this as some kind of macabe entertainment? We leave that to the troothers who do not stop at scoffing at the last desperate acts of the passengers of United 93...no they also find it necessary to bullhorn the solemn remembrance services at GZ.

Honestly though your strange psychological need for the conspiracy makes you nutters rather interesting to me. Yes, perhaps even entertaining. Your movement has already imploded upon itself...evidenced by the fact that this board rarely gains a new hard-core troother. It's just the same old muleish behaviour...as has been said before....by the same old crop of blinkered mules.

Fascinating in it's own pathological way. You folks don't need a movement; you need therapy.

-z