|
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. |
2nd April 2016, 09:27 AM | #361 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
|
If you mean these
Quote:
|
2nd April 2016, 09:36 AM | #362 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
|
|
2nd April 2016, 12:31 PM | #363 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
2nd April 2016, 12:53 PM | #364 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Excellent summary. From my spending over half a century reading everything I could get my hands on about the JFK assassination, each of those points would apply to most JFK assassination conspiracy theorists as well.
In spades. They are more than willing to trample the constitution to 'solve' (to their satisfaction, of course) the assassination. They still complain that Oswald never got his day in court, so that means he's innocent; while ignoring the fact that one of their favorite scapegoats, Clay Shaw of New Orleans, was actually tried by an over-zealous District Attorney and found 'not guilty'. In their zeal to find Oswald somehow innocent, they don't mind throwing almost every acquaintance or co-worker or relative of Oswald under their bus. So Ruth Paine, a Quaker woman who tried to help the Oswald fsmily out by taking his wife into her home, getting her free pre-natal care, and helping him obtain a job, is accused of setting up Oswald. A co-worker of Oswald's who testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before the assassination, is accused of lying under oath. An uncle of Oswald's who made money on the side as a bookie is accused of helping the mafia become aware that Oswald would make a perfect assassin / patsy (the versions vary). Etc. Ad nauseum. Sorry for the digression. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
2nd April 2016, 12:59 PM | #365 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
2nd April 2016, 01:22 PM | #366 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Absolutely. And a couple dozen more. Pearl Harbor, RFK assassination, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, MLK assassination ...
It's the same old methodology... misinterpret something, take something out of context, utilize hearsay instead of eyewitness testimony, discard the hard evidence on one pretext or another, ignore expert testimony and substitute your own opinion, employ logical fallacies, suspicion, innuendo and character assassination, as well as other tricks of the trade, to try to keep the conversation going. As I first read from Jay Utah, the goal isn't to solve any these incidents. It's merely to keep the conversation going so it appears they have a legitimate argument. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
2nd April 2016, 01:32 PM | #367 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
|
|
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump |
|
2nd April 2016, 01:37 PM | #368 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
I didn't just call it dumb, I said it was quite possibly the "dumbest" thing I've ever read here. What about that do you not understand?
I noticed you completely ignored this: Do you think all the posts you dodge are helping to convince lurkers of the truth? |
2nd April 2016, 02:43 PM | #369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
This is a perfect summary.
My years as a CT-moron this was the game: 1. Make a claim based on a tangent. 2. Fabricate evidence. 3. Claim is attacked. 4. Counter-attack with claims that the skeptics are either sheep or are "In on it." 5. Change the subject, move the goal post. 6. Cite actual conspiracies that have nothing to do with what you're talking about as "proof" that your theory is valid. 7. Repeat. FF isn't even good at it, the majority of Truthers are not. If Truther-nut jobs had any brains they would start the conspiracy after the attacks, let the obvious truth of Al Qaeda's hijackings stand, and instead fabricate secret meetings between the White House, Halliburton, the Saudis, Israel, Girl Scouts of America, and Zack Snyder to use the attacks as an excuse to do all kinds of evil stuff. Why? There's no conclusive video evidence to the contrary, the people at these fantasy meetings would be small numbers of the usual suspect who will never talk. So you spin your yarn from there. |
2nd April 2016, 02:54 PM | #370 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
|
|
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump |
|
2nd April 2016, 04:14 PM | #371 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
One question, FF:
What intention do you assign to those in the FD who tried to withhold the information? |
2nd April 2016, 04:22 PM | #372 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2016, 05:17 PM | #373 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
When I read the recommendations in the NIST report on WTC7 the first thing I thought was that somebody had cut corners. Later I read about how NYC building codes had been changed to allow the WTC to be constructed as it was.
My problem is that I lack the technical expertise to make a credible claim, and those who do (including the Slide Rule Committee on this forum) have been careful about what they've said about the designs of the buildings. So I take my cue from them and get on with my life. Then there are the actions of Clinton's former NSC Adviser, Sandy Berger, who stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives under the cover of representing Clinton for the 9-11 Commission. I'm not a CTist anymore, but I'm hard pressed to recall a time when someone destroyed documents that were favorable to them. Berger is ALWAYS absent from the Truther narrative, even while alleging CIA malfeasance. Berger was the guy that the CIA reported to, yet his name doesn't raise Truther red-flags, false or otherwise. |
2nd April 2016, 07:36 PM | #374 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
|
2nd April 2016, 08:25 PM | #375 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Good move. The underlying issue is probably too subtle for discussion in a forum. It involves"shades of grey" decisions which are site specific - and both polarised "sides" on a forum prefer "yes" <> "no" or "black" <> "white" arguments.
Reality is that there is often much room for variation of what look like rigid code rules to allow for specific aspects of a project where the code does not fit well. It could mean increasing design loads in some circumstances - reducing them in others. All subject to legitimate assessment and appropriate management of risks and liabilties. When the issue is raised in the false setting of untruthful conspiracy claims you get no prizes for guessing how specific reductions will be misrepresented. And whether the changes were legit or not will be hard to determine. Because the real world also does have behind the scenes exchanges of brown paper parcels of green backed currency. My own experience on building approval ranged from the large denomination dollar bill in the end of transaction handshake thru to the large envelope of building plans which contained more paper in currency than in the full suite of architectural and building plans. The bottle of wine token gift at Christmas may be tolerated BUT when it becomes 24 x 40fl oz bottles of premium Scotch...midway through the year..... But I'm drifting in reminiscences. |
2nd April 2016, 09:55 PM | #376 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
You take three sentences from three different posts and then you make the statement above. Your trick of taking sentences completely out of context is lame, absurd, and even the most fact-challenged skeptics can see what you are doing. The only thing your posts prove is that you have no legitimate point whatsoever, but for some reason you felt the need to post something.
Since you have no legitimate point at all, yet you still decided to post, why should anyone listen to anything else you write? I certainly won't. |
2nd April 2016, 10:06 PM | #377 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
You're calling me a moth? OK, this is a new one.
The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact. The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact. I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept. What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society. Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question. I have read all of the absurd arguments that have been posted, and they have no merit. They are simply posted because skeptics feel the need to do whatever they can to argue with a truther no matter how bad it makes them look. Anyone can see this, the skeptics here simply choose not to. |
2nd April 2016, 10:09 PM | #378 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 10:10 PM | #379 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
3rd April 2016, 01:10 AM | #380 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
|
|
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp |
|
3rd April 2016, 01:11 AM | #381 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
|
|
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp |
|
3rd April 2016, 01:21 AM | #382 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
3rd April 2016, 01:30 AM | #383 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 253
|
Yes they do all that. They say a bunch of extreme and nutty opinions with little or no technical basis. And this gets people all riled up. They then become a celebrity, at least in their own mind, as the conversation is all about them and their questions. FF does it to wonderful effect and the reason FF asks you to prove everything, is simply to widen the conversation, not to get answers. She/he is best ignored.
Sounds a little like Donald Trump doesn't it? |
3rd April 2016, 02:16 AM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
How did anyone take an opposite view to you when at the start of the thread you asked for reasons without giving any of your own. It is you thst disagreed with other posters.
You do it in other threads, you 'just ask questions' then reject the answers you are given but never give any conclusions of your own. There are many long, detailed, thoughtful and reasoned replies to your questions in all the threads you take part in. You just dismiss and ignore thrm. Why do you think that most posters no longer bother? My hat is off to those that still have the energy to put in the effort required. |
3rd April 2016, 03:45 AM | #385 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
3rd April 2016, 04:13 AM | #386 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
You are correct. I have not addressed the motive. I have refused to do so because it is nothing more than speculation.
The issue is that the release was blocked. The only reason given was privacy. This could have been addressed through anonymity. Since the privacy issue could have been addressed, continuing to block the release is withholding information. Withholding information is a form of secrecy. There should be no secrecy when it comes to 9/11. Those are my points and conclusion. There is nothing more to add. This really should have been the end of the discussion. |
3rd April 2016, 04:15 AM | #387 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
|
|
3rd April 2016, 04:20 AM | #388 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
OK. I understand your point, and it's partially correct. Voting is not done in secret. It is done in a public place, and a record of a person's vote is kept. What you mean to say is that voting is anonymous to protect privacy. Privacy is a valid concern, and it is addressed through anonymity.
Records of each vote are public, or at least they should be in every state. Anonymity is preserved by not attaching a name to each ballot. It should also be noted that when I have filled out an absentee ballot, my vote was not anonymous. |
3rd April 2016, 05:13 AM | #389 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
So, correct me if I'm wrong. It's not that you think that the fire department who withheld the information was "in on it", but that you're upset that it did. Is that it?
|
3rd April 2016, 05:48 AM | #390 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
|
Finally you've admitted you are a "truther". It's no wonder you think any answer that does not fit the suspicion based narrative you come to know in your heart must be true is not satisfactory. I've read all of the posts and not one poster supports secrecy; I dare you to find one post that does. There are often good reasons why information isn't disclosed right away contrary to what you think ought to be done.
The thing I can't comprehend is why you and persons just like you choose not to acknowledge a bunch of foreign terrorists hijacked commercial jets and turned them into weapons? Yet you find the utmost plausibility that the US government did the very thing. At the core of your being there's something about you that makes you see the world differently than nearly everyone else here so would you take time to explain why please? I'd really like to understand your perspective. |
3rd April 2016, 06:41 AM | #391 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
|
|
__________________
COMING SOON – Finding the Ark of the Covenant by Brian Roberts, in the iBook Store on iTunes, a new investigation into the Hebrew’s Most Sacred Relic! |
|
3rd April 2016, 07:00 AM | #392 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
The support of the right to privacy does not imply a support of secrecy. This is a false claim you advance. The right of the government to keep some secrets to protect its citizens must be balanced against the rights of the rights of the people to make informed decisions and both must be balanced against the right of individuals to maintain their privacy. You pretend your curiosity takes primacy over all that. It doesn't.
Why would anyone support secrecy? There are numerous good reasons for secrecy. Imagine we received good intel from Castro's butler during the cold war. Imagine he is still alive in Cuba. Do you think revealing his name at this point would do any good, or would it just get him imprisoned or killed? Why would anyone support secrecy? Why would anyone support secrecy? We should tell ISIS how a build a nuclear weapon? How best to obtain fissionable materials? Why would anyone be opposed to revealing that? Why would anyone support secrecy? We should let the Soviet Union what capabilities our spy satellites have, so that they know exactly what we can detect, and what we can't? Why would anyone support secrecy? Why would anyone support secrecy? The English should have let the Germans know when they captured the German's Enigma Machine, because we should be opposed to secrecy just on general principles, right? Why would anyone support secrecy? Why would anyone support secrecy? I take it you're opposed to encryption on your cell phone? You have no problems with the NSA or anyone else being able to track your whereabouts and who you're communicating with at all times? Why would anyone support secrecy? Why would anyone support secrecy? Why are you concealing your name and your whereabouts? Your argument fails because your own actions reveal there are sometimes numerous and sundry good reasons to support secrecy. Asked and answered above. Of course it does. Your simplistic responses aside, you cannot justify your suspicions (and that is all they are) and you cannot support your claims. Yeah, that's what JFK conspiracy theorists argue about the JFK assassination. And other conspiracy theorists argue about their favorite "cover-up". They want everything released merely to satisfy their curiosity... or so they have more data to mine and take out of context. Do you think there's a clause in the constitution giving you the right to satisfy your curiosity at the expense of others' right to privacy? Secrecy sometimes protects the truth. Or should we tell Castro all our sources just to speed up the process of ending the 56-year embargo against Cuba? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
3rd April 2016, 07:04 AM | #393 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Sorry, merely claiming I have no legitimate point when I pointed out the precise issue using your own words isn't a valid response.
Claiming I took those quotes out of context - without telling us what you actually meant, in context - isn't a valid response either. We'll await your clarifications of those three posts and the points you were actually trying to make, before we'll accept your attempt to hand-wave the contradictions in your posts aside. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
3rd April 2016, 07:05 AM | #394 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
|
So you're upset, because the Fire department gave a damn about the privacy of the first responders?
What's next? You gonna be upset that several portions of the oral interviews are blacked out? Because that's mighty suspicious don't you think, that they had to block out several portions of the interviews. Who knows what they are trying to hide. |
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp |
|
3rd April 2016, 07:13 AM | #395 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
"WAS" is the operative word. The data you're quibbling over has been available for a decade. Hasn't it?
That's the only reason given here, online, that you've been willing to accept. And then only grudgingly. Or by releasing the data. Consider it done - a decade ago. Right? So what's your complaint today? I'm laboring under the impression the data was already released. So what is this "continuing to block the release is withholding information" argument you're advancing? It makes no sense in the real world. Which is a ironic argument since the data you're complaining about was released a decade ago. And you have yet to tell us what the 'big reveal' is from that information. Yes. We're done. Seriously. Done. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
3rd April 2016, 09:08 AM | #396 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
3rd April 2016, 03:27 PM | #397 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Fact: 2005 was 11 years ago. Fact: You have nothing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Larger example: Should the US hammer out a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians it will involve a long list of dirty, or at least questionable back-room deals between the three parties and their neighboring states, and Europe. Public knowledge of these secret deals would sink the peace agreement, and people continue to die all because FF and his like abhor secrets.
Quote:
Quote:
Your "suppressed" oral histories didn't reveal anything that the NY Times, and every major news outlet had not already reported in the thousands of interviews with NYPD, FDNY, and PA first responders which were available to anybody wishing to read them. The other thing you fail to understand is that you are calling the FDNY liars, implying that they had a hand in the murder of 343 of their own men and women. In doing so you have become another poster-boy for everything that is ugly and evil about 9-11 Truth. |
3rd April 2016, 04:04 PM | #398 |
Mistral, mistral wind...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
|
And even the CTists can't find any "there!" there. FF is saying that skeptics are only reflexively responding to a Truther argument by taking an opposite position, no matter what the merits of the Truther position. But I can't think of anything much more knee-jerk than saying, of information released 11 years ago with no secret information revealed, that it must have been withheld because of secret information. There's nothing useful to the Truther in the information itself, so the conspiracy must be found elsewhere- the Truther will find his merits wherever he can make them.
|
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King |
|
3rd April 2016, 04:33 PM | #399 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Well, it's a metaphor that you'd probably have to think about for a while.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
3rd April 2016, 08:48 PM | #400 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
OK. You quote me saying "the release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact."
Then, and this is brilliant, you confirm that the release was blocked. Then, you say 2005 was 11 years ago, so I have nothing. You quote my fact. You confirm my fact. And then, you say I have nothing. Brilliant. I keep thinking there is nothing you skeptics can do to surprise me, but then you post something as ridiculous as this. Once again, your post needs to be a sticky. But, wait, as hard as it might be to believe, your post gets even more absurd. You post this gem, where you criticize my deductive skills, even though I have not deduced anything. I only stated a fact. I also have said absolutely nothing in this thread about privacy lawsuits.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|