Comparisons of Methods

[sadhatter]

Personally i enjoy watching information from the other side of the debate rather than from my side.

By this i mean, i would be more likely to watch Kent Hovind than Christopher Hitchens, and Loose Change rather than Screw loose change.

The reason being , i know i am going to see my side of the debate when i look into the information presented. There is no real way around that, kind of a " wash the backs of your hands and the fronts wash themselves" kind of situation.

So i find when the subject comes up i am versed at the very least in the claims that are being made. And through research, the debunking of said claims.

Now i notice that a lot of people on the flip side ( and to be fair , some on my side of the debate) simply do not give the time of day to publications, or films by the other side.

I mean to reference the topic at hand, i see a lot of truthers who can quote loose change, or zeitgeist , but very few that have given the same consideration ( even if it is in the negative ) to , Screw Loose change, or any of the other documentaries or publications that deal with debunking the 9/11 truth movement.

It seems that while we tend to focus on the big fish , Jones, Avery et al. thruthers seem more focused on interpersonal debate, and due to this seem to avoid the films, books, and other media on the other side of the issue.

My 2 cents is that there is a false duality of "us" being the official report, and nothing more. Where as "them" consists of the movies, and the books, and the web pages about "debunking" the official story.

So, am i wrong? Do we have some truthers among us who went through, lets say, Screw loose change , and rebutted the points? To be clear what i am looking for is not " here is the problem with the nist report", what i am speaking of is rebutting the facts used to debunk the claims used by truthers.

 

[beachnut]

(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

No the local truthers with failed delusions on 911 are too busy confusing what 911 truth claims, with evidence. They have no clue what evidence is and instead are hung up with debunkers. When a signature is about Gravy, it becomes clear there is no time wasted trying to refute the "official" story of terrorists, but more a personal vendetta against being exposed as being wrong and only having hearsay and lies.

You poke the truther for evidence and they post off topic tripe proving they have no interest in truth about 911, but only in trolling, posting lies and SPAMing the forum. They never apply math and physics to solve the mystery of the flight paths presented by liars in 911 truth, they take cheery-pick quote minded madness to satisfy their paranoid conspiracy theory minds and forget their empty words are not evidence.

The 911 plot by the 19 terrorists is so simple even truthers could complete it. I put the terrorists just slightly ahead of 911 truth in brain power, and 10 times past 911 truth in taking action. Then you have Flight 93 Passengers who figured out 911 in minutes and we have to put up with posters who can't figure out any part of 911 after 8 years.

It takes minutes to figure out 911, it will take 911 Truth infinity and beyond.

 

[BCR]

Sorry, I can no longer watch the truther propaganda films. Years ago I could, but when I started investigating some of the claims (as someone willing to believe any supported hypothesis) I found that either because of poor research or biased reasoning, none of it held up to scrutiny. Then when I attempted to point out the 'error of their ways' they started screaming 'disinfo agent', 'NWO', 'government loyalist', etc, etc, etc. Now I just start screaming at my computer if I try to watch them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There have been a few attempts by truthers to reply to the more prominent debunking websites. They tend to be rather pathetic. Take a look at http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm, if you can stand the embarrassment.

Dave

 

[Jono]

Get a life!

The irony.

 

[Cuddles]

Continuing to derail threads will result in further moderator action, possibly including suspension and/or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Jono]

There have been a few attempts by truthers to reply to the more prominent debunking websites. They tend to be rather pathetic. Take a look at http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm, if you can stand the embarrassment.

Dave

I got stuck on the url snippet "atspace.com", more irony. He's definently out there.

 

[Jono]

Personally i enjoy watching information from the other side of the debate rather than from my side.

By this i mean, i would be more likely to watch Kent Hovind than Christopher Hitchens, and Loose Change rather than Screw loose change.

The reason being , i know i am going to see my side of the debate when i look into the information presented. There is no real way around that, kind of a " wash the backs of your hands and the fronts wash themselves" kind of situation.

It depends, for me. With the internet, you get the opportunity to preach to the choir, and vice versa, whenever you like. However, more often than not it's generally more stimulating, to bounce back n forth on this note. I do like giggling to Kent Hovind and I do like doing the proverbial "right on" when watching/reading Dennett or Randi et al. Furthermore, the mood of the moment is a fickle 'biaatch', so I can't really say I generally watch more of any given side on these notes.