ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ex-truther

Reply
Old 20th December 2008, 12:13 PM   #41
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Some truthers are idiots, some are brilliant, yet misguided. The same could be said of skeptics, or any other group.

As far as your question goes: what is your goal?

If your goal is to help truthers overcome their misconceptions, I'd argue you'll get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

If your goal is to amuse yourself and your fellow skeptics, flame on- just don't expect to change any opinions.

Off topic: where is your avatar from? It looks eerily familiar to me, but I can't place it.
Considering you are "agnostic" about 9/11, I will correct your error. ALL truthers are idiots and some skeptics are idiots. BTW, it is past the point in time where it is a worthwhile pursuit to help truthers overcome their stupidity. Either they can "want" the help on their own or they can go on being wastes of oxygen.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2008, 12:14 PM   #42
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
 
stilicho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,757
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
A) Watching some video like In Plane Site. They provided data, I found it comprelling and saw no reason to disagree.
I've watched that one too. The 'mysterious plume over WTC6' really confused me until I found it debunked on a conspiracy site of all places. (It might have been oilempire.us. They have done quite a few pieces of debunking all on their own.)

I am and always have been fascinated by conspiracy theories. I read Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy when I was in high school and it had quite an impact on my approach to politics. I didn't necessarily believe any of it but it created a scepticism about the motivation of political leaders.
__________________
"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue... It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN

LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."
Rolfe: "I really hate lawyers."
stilicho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 01:46 PM   #43
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Think the following to yourself:

Noo ne noo ne noo noo noo ne noo (*sound of squeaky wheels*)
You're driving me crazy! I know that cartoon from somewhere- but where?

zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 02:01 PM   #44
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Considering you are "agnostic" about 9/11, I will correct your error. ALL truthers are idiots and some skeptics are idiots. BTW, it is past the point in time where it is a worthwhile pursuit to help truthers overcome their stupidity. Either they can "want" the help on their own or they can go on being wastes of oxygen.
What was the purpose of this comment? What was your motivation in making it?

From the "support" section of this website:

Quote:
The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.
Since you believe it is "past the point in time where it is a worthwhile pursuit to help truthers overcome their stupidity", why are you here? It seems to me, the purpose of this forum is to "help truthers overcome their stupidity".

And as far as "agnostic about 9-11" goes, I will remain agnostic until I witness the lawful conviction of Osama bin Laden. If you respect the due process of law, I suggest you do the same.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 21st December 2008 at 02:08 PM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 02:19 PM   #45
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
What was the purpose of this comment? What was your motivation in making it?
Correcting your error.
Quote:
the purpose of this forum is to "help truthers overcome their stupidity".
That is pretty narrow minded. Guess Jref should be glad such a narrow minded individul that is unable to understand there are other topics to discuss. Besides, the 9/11 subforum was one of the latter additions to the Jref forums but apparently that means nothing to one who wears blinders.
Quote:
And as far as "agnostic about 9-11" goes, I will remain agnostic until I witness the lawful conviction of Osama bin Laden. If you respect the due process of law, I suggest you do the same.
So you advocate everybody remain an agnostic (cowardly term for truther) until OBL is convicted? How does him not being convicted for any of a myriad of reasons mean one can't determine 9/11 wasn't an inside job?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 03:21 PM   #46
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Considering you are "agnostic" about 9/11, I will correct your error. ALL truthers are idiots and some skeptics are idiots. BTW, it is past the point in time where it is a worthwhile pursuit to help truthers overcome their stupidity. Either they can "want" the help on their own or they can go on being wastes of oxygen.
wow..is something wrong today?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 04:00 PM   #47
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,087
In plane site debunked themselves. Notice the "pod" on the plane chosen for their front cover, just like the same "pod" they claimed was "proof" ua175 was a military jet. Definitely the top five of greatest truther moments.

Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 04:01 PM   #48
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
hmm...almost looks like a planned mistake to me.

=)
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 10:49 PM   #49
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
wow..is something wrong today?
Well, today was the darkest day of the year. I felt kinda moody myself.

Originally Posted by Enigma
That is pretty narrow minded. Guess Jref should be glad such a narrow minded individul that is unable to understand there are other topics to discuss. Besides, the 9/11 subforum was one of the latter additions to the Jref forums but apparently that means nothing to one who wears blinders.
I think I'm being misunderstood. My point is simple: I don't blame you if you are sick and tired of the 9-11 conspiracies. To be honest, I am too. But the purpose of the 9-11 conspiracy section of the JREF forum (as I understand it) is to debunk the misinformation, and help the misguided find the truth.

If you are sick of the truthers, why are you here in a thread about ex-truthers? As best I can tell: to pick on people who are either misguided or genuinely mentally ill. And when you post these rude comments, it only reinforces the "us versus them" mentality that cult leaders like Alex Jones THRIVE on. You are inadvertently aiding the truth movement by giving them an enemy.

And to be clear: I never said 9-11 was an inside job. Quite the contrary, I posted the honest story of how I came to the JREF, and how I learned to debunk the many myths that I once falsely assumed were true. I remain agnostic about many things, mostly due to the fact that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. I also play "devil's advocate" a lot, which probably contributes to the confusion.

You strike me as very similar to the militant atheists who would attack me as an enemy because I think god(s) might exist, while I would rather be an ally against those who threaten our mutual freedom of (non-)religion. In other words, I see us as allies, or at least, potential allies.

But, like I said, if your goal is simply to insult those (like myself) who have been misguided, but who have attempted to learn from our mistakes, it is pointless to argue with you. I will always stink of an "ex truther". I can't go back in time, and I can't stop myself from being deceived; I can only hope that the next time a conspiracy theory comes around, I will have the experience to research the skeptical side of things before believing in illusions.

I take great comfort in the fact that I am not the only one. It seems quite a few of my JREF friends have walked a similar path. And that experience gives us a certain empathy for CTs- and that empathy can be leveraged to stop misinformation, rather than spread it. I thought that was the goal of the skeptic movement.

I'm babbling. Let me just tag this post tl;dr and wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 21st December 2008 at 11:05 PM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 11:15 PM   #50
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
If your goal is to help truthers overcome their misconceptions, I'd argue you'll get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Or not.

http://xkcd.com/357/
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 11:16 PM   #51
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
I remain agnostic about many things, mostly due to the fact that it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Are you agnostic on whether or not the world is controlled by reptilian aliens? After all, it can't really be proven that George Bush is not secretly a lizard man.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 11:22 PM   #52
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
I stand corrected.

(This is why I love JREF- always correcting my misconceptions. I have a feeling I will be experimenting with vinegar in the near future)

Quote:
Are you agnostic on whether or not the world is controlled by reptilian aliens? After all, it can't really be proven that George Bush is not secretly a lizard man.
Is this a falsifiable claim? In other words, if a neutral doctor gave George W. Bush a physical and determined him to be human, is that evidence? I would assume so.

However, if the alien lizards have the power to alter their physical body (as Icke claims), I'm sure he would also argue that George W. Bush simply "faked" his way through the physical, and therefore, it wasn't really proof.

Assuming the latter, sadly, the technical term for my opinion is "agnostic". If we were in Vegas, I'd expect to see odds of 9^99999:1 against. I'd expect to see similar odds for "9-11 was an inside job", "Bigfoot is roaming around the Pacific Northwest" and "Jesus is the son of God".
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2008, 11:40 PM   #53
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Assuming the latter, sadly, the technical term for my opinion is "agnostic". If we were in Vegas, I'd expect to see odds of 9^99999:1 against. I'd expect to see similar odds for "9-11 was an inside job", "Bigfoot is roaming around the Pacific Northwest" and "Jesus is the son of God".
So you think think the odds of Dubya being a lizard man, 9/11 being an inside job, ect, are 1 to many, many, many more atoms than there are in the entire Universe yet to are agnostic on those issues? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Agnostic just means that you aren't willing to commit an opinion. If you think that the odds are that high against, you are not agnostic. Hell, I am not even that sure that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and I would bet my life against a ham sandwich that it wasn't.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 12:41 AM   #54
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,966
Hey Zaphod. Enigma's just this guy, y'know? I think he sometimes gets his head stuck in a jar full of angry pills. Don't let him get to you.

All this talk of agnosticism is getting me down. It is turning into one of those interminable religious debates where everyone has to agree that we can't prove that we aren't just a single brain in a vat dreaming the universe into existence. So lets just congratulate Zaphod and all the other ex-Truthers for having the courage and honesty to tell their personal stories in this thread. Well done everyone! (except Enigma, who shall stay behind and write out one hundred times: "I am not the boss of the internet")
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 12:47 AM   #55
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Agnostic just means that you aren't willing to commit an opinion.
I already told you my opinion: the best explanation for 9-11 is that Osama bin Laden did it, and should be brought to justice via a lawful trial.

I think we are getting stuck in a semantic debate. Perhaps this thread will help you better understand where I'm coming from when I use the term "agnostic".

For example: say you accuse me of stealing a cookie from your pantry. I cannot prove a negative- that is a logical fallacy. But I CAN prove that at the time the cookie went missing, I was with my wife 1,000 miles away from your kitchen (i.e. I can prove I was somewhere else via an alibi, and thus we can logically infer that I was not also in your kitchen at the same time).

Back to 9-11, let's use "bombs in the twin towers" as our example. You can prove that a) two jets hit the buildings b) the jet fuel burned hot enough to warp the steel and c) the buildings collapsed due to fire. But does that necessarily disprove that Al Queda agents also planted bombs in the basement? Isn't it possible- possible -that the building would have collapsed from the planes alone, but since Osama wasn't sure of this (no one had tried it before), he had agents plant some bombs also? And, isn't it possible- not likely, but possible- that when the buildings came down, evidence of the bombs was destroyed (vaporized along with other materials, such as cement, and plastic, and our fellow citizens)?

Full confession: I want to believe that something else helped take those towers down. Why? Because it terrifies me to think that a plane crash can level a skyscraper. With so many planes, and so many skyscrapers, it seems to me that we are doomed to witness a similar tragedy again (either by accident or by terrorist attack). How can we protect ourselves from this, without tearing down our cities and rebuilding them with new plane-proof buildings? This is the paranoid thinking that makes me want to believe in an "x factor" despite the undisputed (by me at least) fact that no evidence of bombs exists.

History has shown me that absolutism is a recipe for embarrassment. And so, despite infinitesimally small odds, I maintain it is possible, however unlikely, that Alex Jones will be vindicated in the end. Stranger things have happened.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 22nd December 2008 at 12:53 AM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 12:56 AM   #56
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
But does that necessarily disprove that Al Queda agents also planted bombs in the basement? Isn't it possible- possible -that the building would have collapsed from the planes alone, but since Osama wasn't sure of this (no one had tried it before), he had agents plant some bombs also. And, when the buildings came down, evidence of the bombs was destroyed (vaporized along with other materials, such as cement, and plastic, and our fellow citizens)
Nothing in the collapse suggests the presence of subterreanean bombs.

How does this account for WTC7? Bomb there too?

If AQ managed to create an explosive device with enough explosive that leaves no evidence, they would be the first in history. Chemical changes in surrounding materials, pieces of casing, det cord, hardware, circuitry, what have you.

And let's not forget about the uh...total lack of evidence for these bombs at ground level or lower. No eyewitnesses. The video of the collapse doesn't support it.

Was this all a mental exercise? I apologize if I'm missing your context.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:03 AM   #57
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Considering you are "agnostic" about 9/11, I will correct your error. ALL truthers are idiots and some skeptics are idiots. BTW, it is past the point in time where it is a worthwhile pursuit to help truthers overcome their stupidity. Either they can "want" the help on their own or they can go on being wastes of oxygen.

Anyone who says all twoofers are idiots is an even bigger idiot.

Fundamentalist twoofers and Fundamentalist Dewunkers are just as deluded as each other.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

~enigma~ you clearly have a problem with low self esteem.
Tin Foil Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:04 AM   #58
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Hey Zaphod. Enigma's just this guy, y'know? I think he sometimes gets his head stuck in a jar full of angry pills. Don't let him get to you.
I don't take it personally. I'm sure you guys have seen these same arguments verbatim 1,000 times by now. I'd probably get a little hostile after repeating myself 1,000 times also.

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts
Was this all a mental exercise? I apologize if I'm missing your context.
I think Brainache nailed it when they said:

Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
All this talk of agnosticism is getting me down. It is turning into one of those interminable religious debates where everyone has to agree that we can't prove that we aren't just a single brain in a vat dreaming the universe into existence.
Guilty as charged, and I'll stop blabbing on about it. I will also make sure never to use the phrase "agnostic about 9-11" around here again.

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts
If AQ managed to create an explosive device with enough explosive that leaves no evidence, they would be the first in history. Chemical changes in surrounding materials, pieces of casing, det cord, hardware, circuitry, what have you.
Since you brought this up, let me vet a CT that I've still been clinging on to. As I understand it, Giuliani sold the steel debris as scrap to China, and shipped most of it off before the 9-11 Commission completed their investigation. If this is false, a link to a thread debunking it would be appreciated. Yes, I did try to search the forum, but had no luck. (I like your 'stache by the way).

Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
So lets just congratulate [... ] all the [...] ex-Truthers for having the courage and honesty...
I'm just glad I have the chance to be part of solution. I think most CTs share our dislike of misinformation, they just disagree as to who is doing the misinforming sometimes.

And to be fair- with about 50% of you guys using "NWO" in your profiles, you should forgive them for being a little nervous when they first arrive here.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 22nd December 2008 at 01:17 AM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:05 AM   #59
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy View Post
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
How come? Why does it have to?

Evidence is evidence, either you have it or you don't. It's either a conspiracy or it's not.

Last edited by Pardalis; 22nd December 2008 at 01:07 AM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:09 AM   #60
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
How come? Why does it have to?

Evidence is evidence, either you have it or you don't. It's either a conspiracy or it's not.
Evidence can be fabricated. Only the naive would claim that would never happen.


dewunkers are just as fundamentalist in their beliefs as twoofers.
Tin Foil Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:11 AM   #61
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy View Post
Evidence can be fabricated. Only the naive would claim that would never happen.


dewunkers are just as fundamentalist in their beliefs as twoofers.
Didn't I just ask you a question?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:11 AM   #62
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
I will also make sure never to use the phrase "agnostic about 9-11" around here again.

I wont.


I am genuinely agnostic about 911.

To the fundamentalists that makes me either a twoofer or a dewunker depending on who is fabricating the label.
Tin Foil Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:13 AM   #63
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Didn't I just ask you a question?
Who are you?

I just answered your question. Don't blame me if you haven't the ability to notice.
Tin Foil Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:15 AM   #64
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy View Post
I just answered your question.
No you didn't. Why does it have to be half-way in between?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:20 AM   #65
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,089
Does "somewhere in the middle" = "halfway inbetween".


Or is there a computational fault?
Tin Foil Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:22 AM   #66
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Quit stalling jackass, answer the damn question.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:39 AM   #67
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
How come?
Because the absence of evidence isn't proof of anything. And using a piece of evidence about a specific, falsifiable claim, to make generalizations about genuinely unknown factors, is also a logical fallacy (those links explain both sides of the debate in greater detail- forgive my obsession with logic, but I'm a computer programmer, and it comes with the territory).

Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Quit stalling jackass, answer the damn question.
Why don't you and ~enigma~ enjoy a nice cup of tea by the fire, and relax a bit. I thought this was supposed to be the happiest time of the year. What do you hope to achieve with this sort of approach?

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy
I am genuinely agnostic about 911.
I understand where you are coming from (as this thread demonstrates painfully well), but I fear using that phrase is akin to tossing rocks at a hornet's nest. Above all, I wish to understand, and to be understood. I think you will agree with me when I say: "labels" and "teams" are irrelevant to truth.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 22nd December 2008 at 01:54 AM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:45 AM   #68
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
This is not a 50/50 game, if you haven't any evidence for a conspiracy, then you start with zero. It's not because something could be that it levels the playing field at 50/50.

Moral equivalence doesn't work, either something is, or it isn't. It doesn't make you look smarter or more just by saying "the truth lies somewhere in the middle", like that king who cut the pie in the middle. Look at the evidence and make up your mind.

Last edited by Pardalis; 22nd December 2008 at 01:49 AM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:46 AM   #69
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
I already told you my opinion: the best explanation for 9-11 is that Osama bin Laden did it, and should be brought to justice via a lawful trial.
Sure he should be brought to trial. But he has to be caught first. You realize Osama wasn't even the mastermind though, right?

Quote:
Back to 9-11, let's use "bombs in the twin towers" as our example. You can prove that a) two jets hit the buildings b) the jet fuel burned hot enough to warp the steel and c) the buildings collapsed due to fire. But does that necessarily disprove that Al Queda agents also planted bombs in the basement? Isn't it possible- possible -that the building would have collapsed from the planes alone, but since Osama wasn't sure of this (no one had tried it before), he had agents plant some bombs also? And, isn't it possible- not likely, but possible- that when the buildings came down, evidence of the bombs was destroyed (vaporized along with other materials, such as cement, and plastic, and our fellow citizens)?
Sorry, there were no bombs in the towers, planted by al Qaeda, the USG, the joos, whomever. It is not possible. Even if the collapse of the towers somehow destroyed the evidence, it couldn't have happened. The thing is, explosives make very loud sounds. Unmistakable. If there were explosives in the towers, literally millions of people would have heard them go off. I was there, relatively close to the WTC and I didn't hear anything. It would have also been recorded by all the video cameras in the area. So unless you are suggesting that they had silent explosives (which is not possible), no explosives were used to bring down the WTC, period.

Quote:
Full confession: I want to believe that something else helped take those towers down. Why? Because it terrifies me to think that a plane crash can level a skyscraper. With so many planes, and so many skyscrapers, it seems to me that we are doomed to witness a similar tragedy again (either by accident or by terrorist attack). How can we protect ourselves from this, without tearing down our cities and rebuilding them with new plane-proof buildings? This is the paranoid thinking that makes me want to believe in an "x factor" despite the undisputed (by me at least) fact that no evidence of bombs exists.
This kind of thinking is understandable. But I really don't think you have to worry. Although a terrorist attack on the US is always possible, there is no way that they are going to be able to hijack airplanes ever again. Would you let a bunch of terrorists hijack a plane that you were on? No? Either would I, and I think most Americans feel the same.

And I really do think that it is undisputed among people that know what they are talking about that there were no bombs in the WTC. I hope my short explanation above helped you. Pretty much, if there are no extremely loud bangs, there are no bombs.

Last edited by dtugg; 22nd December 2008 at 01:47 AM.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:00 AM   #70
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Answering your edit (20 minutes after the fact)...

Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Because the absence of evidence isn't proof of anything. And using a piece of evidence about a specific, falsifiable claim, to make generalizations about genuinely unknown factors, is also a logical fallacy
We're not talking about one piece of evidence, but mountains of evidence brought by countless independant sources that corroborate the Al Qaeda attack, what does the truth movement have for evidence for its ever-to-be-defined conspiracy theory?

Ziltch.

This is not a 50/50 game, sitting between chairs for extended periods of time causes hemroids.

Last edited by Pardalis; 22nd December 2008 at 02:01 AM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:13 AM   #71
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Sure he should be brought to trial. But he has to be caught first. You realize Osama wasn't even the mastermind though, right?
I believe Khalid Shiekh Mohammed is the official mastermind of 9-11, and currently on trial. I'd like to see Osama follow suit. To use a WWII analogy, I'm glad we got Himmler, but I still want Hitler's scull on my desk.

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
there were no bombs in the towers...explosives make very loud sounds...literally millions of people would have heard them go off.
I was on 29th st @ 8th ave, and too far away to hear anything. However, all the footage I saw had a series of very loud bangs and crashes as 100+ stories of concrete collapsed. Would you notice a bomb if it went off as the building was collapsing? I understand that if the bomb went off AFTER the buildings started to collapse, it probably wasn't very effective, but it still seems plausible to me.

But, if the steel was thoroughly tested, and no evidence of explosives was found, I am dead wrong (see above post, re: Giuliani & WTC steel).

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
there is no way that they are going to be able to hijack airplanes ever again.
In October of 2001 I flew from JFK to Chicago, and accidentally took a wallet-insert multitool with me, complete with blade. I flew last summer, and accidentally took a lighter on board. I completely forgot about these items, and they were not caught by security either. I am of the opinion there will be a few people slipping through the cracks, no matter how much security we have.

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Would you let a bunch of terrorists hijack a plane that you were on? No? Either would I, and I think most Americans feel the same.
I felt the same way on September 10, 2001 (I have family in Israel- hijacking is nothing new). I will never know what the people on those flights were thinking, or what I would do if in their place.

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Pretty much, if there are no extremely loud bangs, there are no bombs.
I find this argument unconvincing because there was one hell of a loud bang when the towers came down. However, if you can help me debunk the "Giuliani sold the scrap steel to China before a full investigation" CT, that would be more convincing to me.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 22nd December 2008 at 02:22 AM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:20 AM   #72
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
So KSM blew the towers up? What for?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:36 AM   #73
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Why don't you and ~enigma~ enjoy a nice cup of tea by the fire, and relax a bit. I thought this was supposed to be the happiest time of the year. What do you hope to achieve with this sort of approach?
9/11 "agnostics" such as Tinfoil and RedIbis never answer straight-forward questions, they are experts at dodging. Squirming away from questions is an easy way not to face facts and keep being in denial. I have no patience with these people.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:46 AM   #74
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
I believe Khalid Shiekh Mohammed is the official mastermind of 9-11, and currently on trial. I'd like to see Osama follow suit. To use a WWII analogy, I'm glad we got Himmler, but I still want Hitler's scull on my desk.
Correct. KSM was the mastermind. He says so himself. Hitler was dead before he could be caught. Who even knows if Osama is still alive.

Quote:
I was on 29th st @ 8th ave, and too far away to hear anything. However, all the footage I saw had a series of very loud bangs and crashes as 100+ stories of concrete collapsed. Would you notice a bomb if it went off as the building was collapsing? I understand that if the bomb went off AFTER the buildings started to collapse, it probably wasn't very effective, but it still seems plausible to me.
29th and 8th is about 2.5 miles from the WTC, I am positive that if there were bombs you would have heard them going off. I was maybe 1.5 miles away across the Hudson, and I didn't hear anything that could be described as explosives. IIRC, NIST calculated that any explosive that could be used to destroy WTC7 (and this explosive would have been relatively small), would have been about 130dB, a mile away, this would have been as loud as a gunshot going off next to you.

Yeah, of course the footage shows loud sounds as the building collapses, that's what happens when 110 story skyscrapers collapse. But they are not the extremely loud sounds that would be bombs. I defy you to find an expert who says otherwise.

Quote:
But, if the steel was thoroughly tested, and no evidence of explosives was found, I am dead wrong (see above post, re: Giuliani & WTC steel).
All the steel was thoughtfully examined by experts. Nobody saw any signs of explosives.

Quote:
In October of 2001 I flew from JFK to Chicago, and accidentally took a wallet-insert multitool with me, complete with blade. I flew last summer, and accidentally took a lighter on board. I completely forgot about these items, and they were not caught by security either. I am of the opinion there will be a few people slipping through the cracks, no matter how much security we have.
You accidentally had a multi-tool, so what? Do you really think that the passengers and crew would have let you hijack the plane a month after 9/11? Hell no, they wouldn't.

Quote:
I felt the same way on September 10, 2001 (I have family in Israel- hijacking is nothing new). I will never know what the people on those flights were thinking, or what I would do if in their place.
I probably would have felt the same way. Risk my life when the hijackers say they have a bomb, no way. Post 9/11 it is a different story.

Quote:
I find this argument unconvincing because there was one hell of a loud bang when the towers came down. However, if you can help me debunk the "Giuliani sold the scrap steel to China before a full investigation" CT, that would be more convincing to me.
Not nearly loud enough to be big ass bombs. If there were, you would have heard it 2.5 miles away.

The steel was sold for scrap. Some of it was even used to build a US Navy ship. What did you expect them to do with it? Hold half a million tons of steel forever just so paranoid people could examine it if they doubted the official story?

Last edited by dtugg; 22nd December 2008 at 02:48 AM.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:38 AM   #75
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Maybe you guys could argue the evidence elsewhere. Let's not derail this thread.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:41 AM   #76
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
. But the purpose of the 9-11 conspiracy section of the JREF forum (as I understand it) is to debunk the misinformation, and help the misguided find the truth.
Then you misunderstand it. The CT section was created because 9/11 baloney kept polluting other sections of the forum and that was not welcome by many other members so the admin created a CT section. The 9/11 section was recently split because every other CT thread was almost immediately buried by the 9/11 nonsense. So your point is based on a false premise and you do understand that if you base a conclusion on false data, your conclusion and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:43 AM   #77
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,539
Originally Posted by ref View Post
Maybe you guys could argue the evidence elsewhere. Let's not derail this thread.
Agreed

Mod WarningPlease stay on topic and be civil to each other.
Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:47 AM   #78
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Full confession: I want to believe that something else helped take those towers down.
Ex-truther...agnostic...LIES.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:52 AM   #79
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Because the absence of evidence isn't proof of anything.
Sure it is. It is proof that there is an absence of evidence and a very strong indication that whoever is using the phrase is speaking out their nether regions.

ETA - If something, anything, can't be falsified it is not in the realm of science but faith. If there is no evidence for something, believing in it is a matter of faith.

Last edited by ~enigma~; 22nd December 2008 at 04:27 AM.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 08:59 AM   #80
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 876
One thing that I find most interesting is that nearly all of the "confessions" indicate that they were in their mid-teens when they were exposed to the bs and "bought" the troofer crap.

I'm 46, and I can remember the first time I watched LC, about 3 yrs ago. It took all of about 5 minutes to start picking out flaws in their so called "ANALysis".

I guess it takes an immature and/or inexperienced person to believe in this junk in the first place. Cuz anyone with any life experience could pick out the errors in the troofer crap right off the bat. Plus, life experience will tell you when you're being exposed to propaganda, and youngsters don't have what it takes to do this.

Just my .02.....
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.