False Skeptics' Debate Flowchart

[JackRiddler]

I'd prefer a term other than "Skeptinazi."

[JackRiddler]

1. Last one to post in this thread wins!

(This is designed to preempt the ad hom insult that will usually occupy this space within 5 minutes of my posting anything.)

[Ohio Joe]

2. I do not see the picture

Just the little red 'x' in a white box. Properties says it is here:

And sometime I can see pictures if I paste the address into a new window but it comes up not found when I do that.

[JackRiddler]

3. Can you see it in your own post? Because I can.

Not sure what to do to correct something that's actually working with my machine. Let's see what others say.

[Ohio Joe]

4. Nope, not in my post either

Sorry, I have no suggestions as to why that is.

[AZCat]

6. I can see it.

I don't think much of it, but I can see it.

[Ohio Joe]

7. ahh, yes, it now seems to appear.

Can't say I think much of it either.

[greyl]

5. I don't see it. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Oh, is this the flamebait thread?

Here's mine:

[jberryhill]

9. Oh, why don't you post a reasoned counter-argument to the OP

Instead of a silly flowchart.

[greyl]

10. "Hide and watch"! lol, oh man. nt

[Lithos]

11. I'd rather invoke rule #42

It's been too long of a week to read that chart.

L-

[AZCat]

13. Then you need to follow this one instead:

xkcd flowchart

Especially the last few steps. They can be a lifesaver.

[Realityhack]

32. XKCD rocks. n/t

[William Seger]

15. Rule 42: "All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."

"I'm not a mile high," said Alice.

"You are," said the King.

"Nearly two miles high," added the Queen.

"Well, I sha'n't go, at any rate," said Alice: "besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now."

"It's the oldest rule in the book," said the King

"Then it ought to be Number One," said Alice.

[dlaliberte]

12. Obfuscators are trying to hide the truth from you

This is great, Jack. Thanks for posting.

I have recently returned to the DU forums specifically for the 9/11 forum. I had previously participated in the election fraud discussions back in 2006 and 2004, and I am hoping against hope that we will be able to put that issue behind us someday soon. But who am I kidding? It could be worse than ever now that we have them on the run.

There were skeptics in the election fraud forum as well, but the issues were much more objective and predominantly statistical, which maybe scared away some of the riff-raff.

But here, I was a bit taken aback by the intense obfuscation campaign, civil though it may seem on the surface. It's a full scale war of ideas, with global consequences.

While it might be nice to consider filtering out these troublemakers using something like slashdot karma points, another thought is that we should use them as target practice for us to hone our skills. After all, if they think they can get away with some line of attack because readers are receptive to it, then we should also have effective responses.

One danger is wasting our time dealing with the predictable onslaught. I've only been here less than a week, and already it is getting tedious. Perhaps that is part of their strategy. Tire out the writers as well as the readers.

They do seem to want the last word very badly, but I am content to let them have it if I've already said everything relevant, and trust the reader will be able to figure it out.

[seemslikeadream]

14. Welcome back dlaliberte

yes do you remember that god awful BozosforBush

[dlaliberte]

16. Glad to be back, I think

I do remember the bozo name, suggestive of the careless disregard for honest integrity.

Speaking of election fraud pressures, now we have another murder: DUers who know me know I regularly ridicule & dismiss the tinfoilers. Till today

What does it take to wake people up?

[Mist]

17. Welcome to the dungeon, dlaliberte. If I could, I'd like to comment on

a couple of your remarks.

You write:

"One danger is wasting our time dealing with the predictable onslaught. I've only been here less than a week, and already it is getting tedious. Perhaps that is part of their strategy. Tire out the writers as well as the readers."

I think it's partly a strategy to wear out opponents, but also to attempt to refute a variety of observations, for anyone dropping in for a view of this forum. It's meant to plant doubts about those who seek the truth, even to the point of using the word "truthers" as an insult (how Orwellian is that?)

I think most people who visit this forum do so to see what's new in 911 discussions, and don't bother getting into discussions due precisely to the continuous belittling and harrassment that go on here. The view count for any given thread is generally much higher than the number of responses on the thread.

Personally, I put the obfuscators on ignore--I'm not missing anything, and they do little more than waste time, and have little to add to the ongoing discussions of 911. Some here feel it's their duty to deal with the obfuscators, to put up a good fight, and I respect them for that. My personal decision to ignore them comes from the fact that they seldom have anything new to say, and are remarkable time-wasters. YMMV.

The DU 911 forum is but one of many internet forums on 911. It seems, from the large number of "views" for many threads, that many use this forum as I do: to see about new connections, new videos, new info. I decided a while back to stay out of the mud-wrestling.

[dlaliberte]

18. It takes all kinds

Thanks lulu. Your comments are reassuring.

Being only recently awakened, and by that I mean absolutely certain, not just suspecting, I still have an intense fire in my belly to figure out what needs to be done.

It goes far beyond 9/11, of course. Speaking of which, I don't see much about the higher-level implications, the extensive connections with the financial world, etc. Maybe that is going on in other forums, or maybe DU is to close to the middle for such a stretch. If so, I don't want to push it. I have a few other social networks that cover that quite well.

So I've been thinking, relative to this thread in DU and communication styles, what are the arguments that obfuscators tend to give up on? I am really wondering what are the best simple arguments that more people could latch onto, but those arguments should try to avoid the entanglements exploited by obfuscators if possible.

I'd like to have a top 10 list of: Why 9/11 is an inside job. The purpose would be to raise sufficient doubts about the official story to get people to want to learn more.

Then we need a short tutorial on 9/11 truth to bring them the rest of the way, to wake them up.

And the best thing is the obfuscators can help us do this. :)

[Mist]

21. I've heard it said that crime is a matter of "who-done-it" rather than "how-done-it." Instead

of focusing so much on the controlled-demolition and melting planes (which lead to enormous threads containing remarks such as "Obviously you slept through high school physics", as well as endless nit-picking on extremely tangential issues), we should probably look more at the many many connections, political and financial, of the various "players." I include myself in this assessment--I've often been too caught up in the many and varied physical anomalies of 911, but the "who-done-it" is the crux here, I think. I would include any lack-of-response, and stand-down issues, to be connected to "who-done-it" and not "how-done-it."

One big argument the obfuscators gave up on eventually was the molten metal issue. The molten metal found at ground zero in NYC was explained by OCTers as fallen debris creating a flue that kept the metal in molten state for a while. ("This is quite simple if you understand high school physics.") Later, when enough study had been done on this issue to determine: 1) as debris was cleared, there wasn't much support for the "flue" story; 2)anything flammable would have burned up well under several weeks; 3)the smouldering ruins were watered down frequently;and 4) what could burn at such a high temperature to keep metal molten?---anyway, after all this was gone over, the "flue" argument didn't seem very believable, so some OCTs simply asserted that the issue of "molten metal" had been "debunked." Some OCTs simply ignored the whole molten metal issue.

I salute you for wanting to start a "Top 10 list for 911 being an inside job," but it might be easier to list those reasons, then direct people to appropriate threads that discuss them. Just my .02!

[AZCat]

22. Hmm. I guess I missed this.

What "molten metal" was found at ground zero? Please with the evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Oh, you're obfuscating now by asking for this silly thing called "evidence."

Your last name must be Thomas, doubter.

[AZCat]

24. I know - crazy, huh?

It must be another one of those revolutionary things the NIST made up for their reports, along with "thermal expansion".

[dlaliberte]

27. First, what was the real crime?

But who-done-it assumes that something was done, so people have to first be convinced of what was really done. The details of who did it and how they did it soon follow.

It's more complicated because people believed what they were told about what was done, and who did it, and how. So we have to also counter those beliefs. And the consequences of understanding that the actual crime was so much worse than what we were led to believe makes it very difficult to wake people up from their pleasant dreams to face the very real nightmare we are living in.

For me, it was the physics argument, the impossibility of near-free-fall collapse, that convinced me that there must have been controlled demolition, and then there is so much more supporting evidence to reaffirm that certainty, and that leads to all the rest.

Many other aspects of the problem tend to have possible rationalizations, unless you are familiar with the details and realize the extreme improbability of such events. E.g. excuses of incompetence regarding the non-response by the FAA, justice, military, and intelligence communities to the preparations before and during 9/11, combined with no consequences for such incompetence - it doesn't add up. E.g. evidence of insider trading of the two airlines that would (supposedly) be used, and companies in the WTC towers that would be hit, combined with zero investigation of these obvious crimes - it doesn't add up. People can understand them, but they can also find reason to excuse them, or forget about them.

So different people will be able to understand and appreciate different aspects of the problem. And it will be useful to find out which aspects have been most successful for those already convinced. People who are not yet convinced might need other arguments, however, so it is important not to assume everyone is like ourselves. It might be that nothing will convince some people because they have so little concern for anything but their comfy sofas, but I guess I can't be too concerned about those folks.

I do have a concern about people who continue to intentionally and consciously lie to hide the truth. A perfect example is the molten metal issue, and the other replies to your message which throw out the nonsense that there is no evidence. Of course, the physical evidence was quickly destroyed by those we trusted to be responsible with it. It should be easy enough for readers to find the pictures, the audio reports, and previous discussions. It is simply ludicrous that they would deny this, and yet they do. They know it is a lie, so that implies they are part of the coverup. Crimes are being committed every day as we speak, quite literally.

I found two lists last night:



THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=5280

Finally, I think something needs to be added about the relevance and urgency of this. 9/11 could soon be eclipsed by a much worse event, carried out by the same evil doers:

Panel warns biological attack likely by 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-02-terrorist-attacks-report_N.htm

I wouldn't be surprised if something happens during the inauguration of Obama. Horrified, but not surprised.

[Mist]

28. The immediate crime was in killing several hundred people and in the

destruction of property. I take your point that depending on who the perpetrators were, there could be other crimes enumerated, that would follow from who the perpetrators were found to be.

I agree that different people respond to different parts of the 911 story. It's hard to know ahead of time how anyone will respond. No doubt that's why the 911truth.org list you posted goes to so many different areas: physical anomalies; withholding evidence (insider trading issue); criminal destruction of crime scene evidence; disruption of usual protocol (* staying in the school); lack of investigation into the many questions of the Jersey Girls. I wonder if it would be more to the point to look at questions that would lead to criminal indictments, such as destruction of crime scene evidence, or dereliction of duty. The many questions and anomalies that would NOT lead to criminal indictment would then have to remain as intriguing questions. They are suggestive, but not criminal. However, some items now characterized as "incompetence" (lack of air defense) might then be characterized as crimes if other crimes are proven first.

Forgive me if I'm not entirely on board with your desire to convince others--after seven years, those who are okay with the government's story aren't going to budge from that belief, and others have the same info available that we do, presumably.
I guess I'm just willing to let people know I think it was a false flag operation, and when they ask why, rattle off a few reasons. I'm not into busting a vein to convince someone if they're obviously uncomfortable with that.

In the world outside the DU 911 forum, people aren't so argumentative, and when they hear my reasons for thinking someone other than foreign terrorists did it, it makes them thoughful, not bellicose, insulting, or argumentative.

As to whether there will be another "attack" --I think the current admin. knows how high the skepticism level is for the OCT, and I like to think they would "prevent" another attack.

[AZCat]

29. Several hundred?!

I think you're off by an order of magnitude, regardless who you think is at fault.

[dlaliberte]

30. Soon it could be millions killed at the hands of terrorists

Looking today for that article on the biological attack warning, I found it on this jihadwatch.org site

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023751.php

And the comments are a tad scary, rallying for preemptive strikes. e.g.

"Something really bad will have to happen before people wake up to Islam"...

...and this was two years after 9-11.

Christ almighty! Time to shadow-box just to work off the anger.

and this:

With Armageddon scheduled for 2012, we should have a pretty busy schedule in the years ahead.

If we cannot stop the enemy from acquiring nukes today, then how are we going to stop their use against us when the time is right. Same for the bio agents.

[dlaliberte]

35. Morgan Reynolds, ex-economist in Bush admin, comes out (2006)

We ought to focus some more on the near future and the next 9/11 event, and all provocations of world war 3. We have enough evidence that things could go "wrong", by design, says Morgan Reynolds at Chicago 911 Truth Conference 02 Jun 2006

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278

He also gives very credible arguments about all the nonsense of the official lies, from his inside perspective.

[LARED]

36. Great your back, how goes the lesson plan?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=230173&mesg_id=230497

[RC]

33. Thank you for the "11 Facts" graphic.

I can use it to get people thinking or at least starting to question what they were told (& not told) about 9/11 by our so called news agencies. The graphic is simple, and not bogged down with details, so as to not overwhelm the surviver crowd or whatever they are watching now.

[LARED]

19. The strategy is simple

expose bad logic, faulty thinking, quote mining, weird science, unknown science, etc, etc, etc. The so called truth movement is comprised of about 85% bullshit, so it's like shooting fish in a barrel most of the time.

[AZCat]

20. How devious!

I should have known you'd have some trick up your sleeve.

[William Seger]

25. The trial

`That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; `so now let the jury--'

`If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) `I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'

The jury all wrote down on their slates, `She doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

`If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, `that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; `I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. "--Said I could not swim--" you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. `Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did NOT, being made entirely of cardboard.)

`All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: `"We know it to be true--" that's the jury, of course-- "I gave her one, they gave him two--" why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know--'

`But, it goes on "They all returned from him to you,"' said Alice.

`Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. `Nothing can be clearer than that. Then again--"Before she had this fit--" you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.

`Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

`Then the words don't fit you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

`It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, `Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'

`Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

`I won't!' said Alice.

`Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

`Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) `You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

[smiley]

34. I'm so glad to see other 9/11 skeptics with

the same mindset as myself. I too come hear to find out new connections, info and video. I rarely take part in the discussions because of the group that linger here that only wish to cloud the issues.

I've begun an ignore list. I'm tired of their comments. There are a few of them on this thread. Luckily I have no idea what they are saying.:thumbsdown:

[Subdivisions]

46. Good example of what you're saying here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=231419&mesg_id=231419

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. you paged me?

I always thought the September 11 forum was the appropriate venue for much of the election fraud discussion in 2006 and 2004.

The circumstances seem pretty similar. The consensus of competent experts (engineers, political scientists, etc.) is that the towers fell without resort to controlled demolition, and that the vote counts were substantially accurate (with some striking exceptions, such as FL-13 in 2006). Arguments to the contrary haven't impressed the experts, so the people espousing the alternatives basically talk to each other and intermittently impugn the judgment and/or integrity of the sheeplike mainstreamers -- or, more comfortably, ignore them entirely.

I don't see anyone "on the run," but I agree that the threads here get pretty tedious -- although interesting nuggets of information do emerge.

[JackRiddler]

43. No, the experts on election fraud in 2004 said the opposite.

And until you name your "experts" and explicate their arguments, all you're doing is waving around a word on behalf of a faith, in the classic style of Republican talking points.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. it is to laugh

I can only infer that the people you deem "experts on election fraud in 2004" are those who believe that there was massive election fraud in 2004. Perfect tautology.

If we're starting from expertise, I challenge you to name an expert of the stature of Walter Mebane (who worked inter alia on the study for the DNC VRI) or Fritz Scheuren (past president of the American Statistical Association). There are good substantive reasons why "Kerry won" articles aren't flooding the poli sci journals. Of course, if you think you know enough to engage the substance directly, be my guest. That would be interesting.

As for your shite about "Republican talking points," it speaks for yourself. Way to poison the well, dude.

[jberryhill]

26. I'm sold

I hereby declare that henceforth I will agree with everything Spooked911 posts in this forum.

[Thorandmjolnir]

31. Thank you for posting

It is amassing when you look at the various discussions here, how the pattern and structure of the argumentation, postings, replies and comments seems to follow your chart.

Thanks. Very interesting.

[Mnemosyne]

37. Jack,

:yourock:

Did I win?! Last one to post?!

[William Seger]

38. Yes!

I mean... NO!

[greyl]

39. And if I change the definition of last to mean next before present,

you're still the winner!

[JackRiddler]

40. You did...

But now I've won. Ha-HA!

[Mnemosyne]

41. You stinker!

:rofl:

[Subdivisions]

44. Funny...my OP here seems to be following the flow chart nicely...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=231419&mesg_id=231419

So far...

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

47. This is, of course, nothing like the way CTers argue. Not one bit.

[wildbilln864]

48. a fitting kick. nt