...in the Battle for September 11th Conspiracies. Simply put, we've run out of opponents and we've run out of arguments. Let me briefly consider what we've seen here.
Still posting here, we have TruthSeeker1234, who is still banging on about "mushroom clouds" and "99.99% concrete turned to dust," and insisting this means untoward quantities of explosives must have been used. This is despite having started this way from his very first post, being repeatedly called out on the issue, and never backing it up -- other than to say it's his own personal estimate, which we should accept because it's "generous." And being lectured on the non-issue of his "mushroom cloud." And being shown that the explosives hypothesis is utterly absurd.
Then we have einsteen, who seems to think WTC 1 and 2 came down too fast solely on the basis of his misunderstanding -- frequently corrected -- of Greening's paper. And he keeps returning to the notion that an off-hand comment by a firefighter is proof that WTC 7 was demolished, despite the fact that he conceded, only three weeks ago, that the same video and same argument were not proof at all.
We have newcomer Docker, a rather curious study in aggression as an evasive stratagem in debate, recycling oft-quoted canards, such as extrapolating the two hoseline request on the 78th floor or the jet fuel burn time as "proof" that the WTC fires were small -- thousands of tons of other combustibles and giant column of smoke notwithstanding -- and then turning around and accusing others of lying on the mere suspicion that they haven't read every single page of the NIST report. He picks and chooses, we can't, therefore he must be right? what?
Finally, we have Russell Pickering, by far the more reasonable, but still uninspiring. His arguments seem to based not on evidence, but on its absence. These arguments are inherently unprovable by their nature. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the saying goes.
In the KIA and walking wounded column, we have Christophera, who by his own admission has mental health concerns. We have weedwacker, a front for the notorious John Doe X, who has yet to even faintly challenge the thorough refutation of his argument. And we have Killtown, who isn't so much a Sept. 11th conspiracy theorist as he is a punk with an inexplicable grudge against an individual he's never met (I hope).
This is not an impressive resume for the side of Sept. 11th Denial.
Frankly, there isn't a single thing to be gained here. They are bringing us nothing new, just recycling the same old arguments and mistakes, so we have nothing to learn from them. On the other side, they either refuse to learn, as in TruthSeeker1234's tired reptetition without ever reading the answers, or in Christopera's case where learning appears to be medically impossible.
So therefore, on that basis, I tentatively declare victory.
But before retiring the field, I will seek to re-engage, if there are any worthy opponents to be found. Please help me find them by considering the questions below:
1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.
2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.
I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.
Thanks!
Still posting here, we have TruthSeeker1234, who is still banging on about "mushroom clouds" and "99.99% concrete turned to dust," and insisting this means untoward quantities of explosives must have been used. This is despite having started this way from his very first post, being repeatedly called out on the issue, and never backing it up -- other than to say it's his own personal estimate, which we should accept because it's "generous." And being lectured on the non-issue of his "mushroom cloud." And being shown that the explosives hypothesis is utterly absurd.
Then we have einsteen, who seems to think WTC 1 and 2 came down too fast solely on the basis of his misunderstanding -- frequently corrected -- of Greening's paper. And he keeps returning to the notion that an off-hand comment by a firefighter is proof that WTC 7 was demolished, despite the fact that he conceded, only three weeks ago, that the same video and same argument were not proof at all.
We have newcomer Docker, a rather curious study in aggression as an evasive stratagem in debate, recycling oft-quoted canards, such as extrapolating the two hoseline request on the 78th floor or the jet fuel burn time as "proof" that the WTC fires were small -- thousands of tons of other combustibles and giant column of smoke notwithstanding -- and then turning around and accusing others of lying on the mere suspicion that they haven't read every single page of the NIST report. He picks and chooses, we can't, therefore he must be right? what?
Finally, we have Russell Pickering, by far the more reasonable, but still uninspiring. His arguments seem to based not on evidence, but on its absence. These arguments are inherently unprovable by their nature. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the saying goes.
In the KIA and walking wounded column, we have Christophera, who by his own admission has mental health concerns. We have weedwacker, a front for the notorious John Doe X, who has yet to even faintly challenge the thorough refutation of his argument. And we have Killtown, who isn't so much a Sept. 11th conspiracy theorist as he is a punk with an inexplicable grudge against an individual he's never met (I hope).
This is not an impressive resume for the side of Sept. 11th Denial.
Frankly, there isn't a single thing to be gained here. They are bringing us nothing new, just recycling the same old arguments and mistakes, so we have nothing to learn from them. On the other side, they either refuse to learn, as in TruthSeeker1234's tired reptetition without ever reading the answers, or in Christopera's case where learning appears to be medically impossible.
So therefore, on that basis, I tentatively declare victory.
But before retiring the field, I will seek to re-engage, if there are any worthy opponents to be found. Please help me find them by considering the questions below:
1. Who is the single best representative of any Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The person in question should be logical, well researched, scientifically capable, and organized. Bonus points for respectful demeanor.
2. What is the single most airtight argument supporting a Sept. 11th conspiracy theory? The argument must be based on established and independently verifiable fact, consideration of logical alternatives, testable, and unambiguous.
I invite anyone, CT, OCT, or OG to bring an answer to one or both questions to my attention. Please do your best. I am entirely unsatisfied with the level of discourse currently underway, and would seek the absolute best the other side has to offer. Don't be shy or gentle.
Thanks!
While Chris is alive AND posting?
