Now you can "Shut the fuck up Donnie!" (Big Lebowski) all you want, but one thing most (clearly not all) of us agree on is that 9/11 is worthy of debate because alot of strange things went on and alot of competing theories have popped up. It's only too bad that a somewhat enlightening forum for debate is so dominated by pretentiousness and told-you-so's.

The greatest tragedy of the conspiracy theorist (in many ways like a media centrist) is that all of their good ideas are coated in bad ones and that they eternally confuse cause and correlation. Not to mention some laughable "you're not on my level" shit. This often leads to willy-nilly connections fabricated between a mixture of important and unrelated facts that amounts to a crack pipe theory with someone who we're supposed to repsects name endorsing it. A great example:

President Bush is a paranoid schizophrenic (????!)

How the fuck can you even attempt to psychoanalyze a media personality? Any psychologist that thinks they can toss off an accurate read on someone they have only seen on tv is hardly a psychologist at all. More importantly you short attention span conspiracy theorists IT FUCKING DISTRACTS YOU AND US FROM THE SUBJECT WE WERE ORIGINALLY DISCUSSING.

And for a medical doctor to make a diagnosis from only seeing someone on TV is kinda like being Bill Frist.

[quote="losthighway" A great example:

President Bush is a paranoid schizophrenic (????!)

How the fuck can you even attempt to psychoanalyze a media personality? Any psychologist that thinks they can toss off an accurate read on someone they have only seen on tv is hardly a psychologist at all. More importantly you short attention span conspiracy theorists IT FUCKING DISTRACTS YOU AND US FROM THE SUBJECT WE WERE ORIGINALLY DISCUSSING.[/quote]

sounds like a book I read about Hitler whose premise was the he was a coprophiliac and masochist (I think the book was called "The Psychopathic God").

Since there is no empirical proof of the premise, like testimony from lovers or pictures, it was, at most, supposition.

Of course, saying "Hitler was a Shit Eater" to neo-nazi skinheads was quite fun.

This is off the topic of the physics of the wtc collapse.

according to this article at Judicial Watch, Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the flights that got his relatives out of US a week after September 11th.

http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Clocker Reuben, I have a question for you...

First, my disclaimer- Unlike apparently everyone else here, I don't have a phd in physics, structural engineering, computer programming, video manipulation or any other complicated discipline. I'm NOT advocating either the official 9/11 story or the the alternative one.

-Would you, an avowed conspiracy theorist, abandon belief in a specific conspiracy theory that you had spent much time researching and "selling," if subsequent evidence proved it to be convincingly untrue?

Stated differently, do you view all of these sources that you present/criticise through the filter of your conspiracy theory "myth" (I'm not saying it is untrue, just that you obviously have a certain "story" regarding these events), or do you evaluate them with an open mind and take into account the expertise of the researchers in these fields relative to your own expertise in these fields?

I'm not trying to attack you here. It's just that I have spent a good deal of time reading through this thread and have noticed some recurring themes. I just want to put this debate into context.

I'm not asking Galanter the same question (although if he wants to answer I would be interested) because his posts have struck me as being more reasoned, in addition to being less accusatory and frantic.

Also, just because you don't agree with someone's view, it doesn't mean they are necessarily a liar.

Minotaur029 wrote:

kerble wrote:911 is a Joke.

HAHA.

Clocker Flav:

A true comedic oasis.

I laughed out loud for a couple of minutes.

Thank you Kerble for the idea, and Minotaur for the overkill. Perfectly placed post.

Rick Reuben wrote:
Of course not. Galanter is a liar, though. Just ask him.

Galanter, are you a liar?

Rick Reuben wrote:

rzs wrote:
Also, just because you don't agree with someone's view, it doesn't mean they are necessarily a liar.

Of course not. Galanter is a liar, though. Just ask him. Ask him these questions:

Why did the UN arms inspectors leave Iraq in 2003?

Is there any proof that GWB manipulated the intelligence on Iraq that he presented to the UN and to congress and to the American public?

Was 9/11 used to manufacture a policy of revenge and pre-emptive attacks against Muslim populations?

See what answers Galanter gives you. Maybe you'll call what you get back 'differences of opinion'. I call them lies.

I would like to respectfully oppose this type of combative questioning that has been going back and forth from both sides of this debate.

These specific questions, at least, are better than the previous "sign your name next to one of the following two statements" questions, though.

My guess is that most people's views are too nuanced to take this type of bait or be reduced to an oversimplified characterization by someone who thinks they're an idiot. They're typically just questions that the questioner has no interest in getting an answer to. They're just self evident insults of the other person's position, which is why they are consistently not answered by either side.

This debate could be much more interesting if there was a whole lot less sniping going on.

Maybe try to find a some common ground in the debate first and then start the debate from there rather than continuously banging your heads against the wall.

Unless you like that type of thing.


For what it's worth, while I may not generally agree with Galanter's politics, I score him as comfortably ahead in the current debate.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:Who peer reviewed these articles Tom?

Don't you know how to use google, retard? See that box in the middle of www.google.com? That's where you put your question, clown. Then you make clicky clicky sounds with your mouse. It's easy, asswipe. If you want me to do your research for you, I make $25 an hour.

Hmmm. How exactly would someone google the names of who peer reviewed something that wasn't actually peer reviewed?

Here, dumbass, I'll answer it for you. It isn't possible and you know it. And now, by your pathetic attempts to distract from this fact, everyone here knows it. Nobody credible has peer reviewed these articles. You are a liar and a fraud for saying that they were peer reviewed.

And $25 an hour, Tom? I'm not going to double your weekly salary dipshit. You're just going to have to go back to sucking cock for quarters if you want to make rent.

Just for fun though, I'll give you another chance to duck the issues, you yeast infected pussy.

Rick Reuben wrote:

ue wrote:Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?

That's a common lie/ error, often made by dopes like you.

All the papers published here are available for peer review, and many have been peer reviewed:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Ok, Cock Knocker Bob. Now we are getting somewhere. I mean, the Journal of 911 studies. Sounds so official. Hey, look who the editor is! It's none other than Steven Jones.

Who peer reviewed these articles Tom? Don't be afraid to name names. What were their qualifications? Feel free to include their degrees and areas of specialty.

Flaneur wrote:I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.

Nowhere to hide Tom.

Rick Reuben wrote:Just like you can't comment on the petition signed by over 190 architects and engineers

Yesterday I quoted this passage:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/petition.html]
In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.[/url]