National 911 Debate

jessicarabbit

Banned
J
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
555
I am loathe to start a thread in case the trolling accusations surface. I just wanted thought on the 911 debate.

Heres a list of people who wont take part:

9/11 Commission Members
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Thomas H. Kean[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Lee H. Hamilton[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Richard Ben-Veniste[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Bob Kerrey[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Fred F. Fielding[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]John F. Lehman[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Jamie S. Gorelick[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Timothy J. Roemer[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Slade Gorton[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]James R. Thompson [/FONT]

Applied Research Associates, Inc.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Steven Kirkpatrick [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif] [/FONT]
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Zdenek P. Bazant, Northwestern University
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Berkeley[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif] [/FONT]
Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Peter Barrett


 Popular Mechanics

 James Meigs
David Dunbar
Brad Reagan
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Scientists
World Trade Center Collapse Investigators
S. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Project 5 Leader
William Grosshandler, Project 4 Leader
H.S. Lew, Project 1 Co-Leader
Richard W. Bukowski, Project 1 Co-Leader
Fahim Sadek, Project 2 Leader
Frank W. Gayle, Project 3 Leader
John L. Gross, Project 6 Co-Leader
Therese P. McAllister, Project 6 Co-Leader
Jason D. Averill, Project 7 Leader
J. Randall Lawson, Project 8 Leader
Harold E. Nelson, Fire Protection Expert
Stephen A. Cauffman, Program Manager

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Philip Zelikow

Securacom (WTC Security Provider)
Barry McDaniel



Only Frank Greening has agreed

If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?
 
There's a bum on broadway that thinks he's jesus. How come the pope won't debate him?
 
jessicarabbit said:
If it's so easy to show the CTs are wrong, where are the volunteers. Will gravy volunteer?
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of volunteers. All of the people above have already shown that the CTers are wrong. Professionals don't get paid to repeat themselves to the deaf.
 
Tsk tsk. You are sooooo behind the times, little rabbit. Thought you said you knew how to use the search function here, "hun".
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Argumentum ad populum. Next.
Click to expand...

What do they fear though. If they hate the CTs unfounded accusations, why don't they turn up and humiate them and then the problem is solved. I admire frank greening, at least he is prepared to stand by his work.

All costs and expenses will be paid for so whats the problem?

I mean PM debated LC on democracy now. Why do they suddenly get scared when scientists are in the debate?
 
jessicarabbit said:
What do they fear though. If they hate the CTs unfounded accusations, why don't they turn up and humiate them and then the problem is solved. I admire frank greening, at least he is prepared to stand by his work.

All costs and expenses will be paid for so whats the problem?

I mean PM debated LC on democracy now. Why do they suddenly get scared when scientists are in the debate?
Click to expand...

False choice fallacy. You are presenting it as either they debate the CTist or they are scared to do so.

However, I would like to provide a quote here that describes with great accuracy what is going on in this thread:
"9/11 Truth" - The use of this by CTists must be corrected. They have consistently shown observational and confirmational bias; and make it clear that they are working from their conclusion backwards. Every time this term is used it plants a subconscious seed; people remember the word "truth" without necessarily remembering it context. Therefore, when debating/discussing/etc the CTists movement, we should always use the terms "9/11 Denier/Denial", and/or "9/11 Revisionism/Revisionist". They act like Holocaust deniers and they should be labeled the same way.

The more important one is as follows:
Original/Official Version or Official Conspiracy Theory (OV, OCT) - I'm going to quote PM here as they summed it up best; from the Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, pgs 94 & 95

Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, include the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests ..."
The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. by presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.
I would add to this, that by doing so, they are also able to implant the idea that their ideas are on equal footing, have equal value, and are in similar standing in the relevant fields of expertise. This behavior was summed up nicely in Daniel C. Dennett's essay The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated in the book Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement pgs 39-41
The campaigners for intelligent design have become adept at feeding off the difficulty of this idea, by starting with a straightforward counterclaim and then retreating into the fog of technical confusion when their counterclaims are refuted. For instance, the philosopher William Dembski, one of the two most prominent ideologues of the ID movement, has attempted to argue that a particular sort of design product does require an intelligent designer, and that the designs found in nature include such products, but his various expressions of the argument to date, which depend on some rather abstruse mathematical formulations, have been show to be technically flawed. Few, if any, theoreticians give his project any hope of success, since the flaws they have uncovered are central to his thesis.
...
How can non-scientists assess their own judgement in this case? Not by trusting wishful thinking. If you can just see that Dembski must be onto something even thought you can't follow the mathematics, you are falling right into the trap. ... Perhaps, then, you should wait with bated breath on the sidelines while the experts duke it out in the scientific arena. This would be fine, except that Dembski has left the playing field and is appealing directly to the spectators, instead of contending with the scientists on their own terms.
In his trade books, magazine articles, and popular lectures, Dembski makes it appear that there is scientific controversy - but there isn't, as we can see by comparing his path with others. ... Instead, he and his cohorts use a ploy that works like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work, provoking an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence there is a "controversy" to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. ... And here is the delicious part:You can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point amid all the difficult details. ... Clever! What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to almost everyone else as ridiculous hairsplitting.
Click to expand...
source
 
Anti-sophist said:
They don't, at all. I see no scientists. I see crackpots and kooks.
Click to expand...

Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Kooks or not, the people on the panel have Phds in engineering and physics.

If PM can debate some kooks who made a film and are 22 years old, then they should put their money where their mouth is and debate some academics.
Click to expand...

Academics? Who? And at what Universities?
 
jessicarabbit said:
So you can't answer. You could have just said that.
Click to expand...

I've already answered your stupid question 4 times. There is no one to debate. Popular mechanics has won. All the scientists and academics agree. All that is left is kooks and crackpots.

Name me a scientist or academic who wants to debate PM, and we'll discuss the issue further.

It seems you can't name a single scientist or academic who agrees with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom