Where is the line between acceptable questioning and unfounded conspiracy nuttery?

[noise]

Does the line depend on motive? Good faith motive/incompetence/bureaucratic failure=acceptable to discuss and call for reform. Suggestions of corruption=absurd conspiracy nuttery.

Does the line depend on agreement with authoritative findings?

Is the line determined by what Glenn Beck believes?

Why do some debunkers demand 9/11 truthers put forth evidence for their theories but seemingly not care that the 9/11 Commission voted to conceal many of their records from the public until 2009? And seemingly not care that many key MFR's are still classified? Is that not a double standard?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. The line is around this forum.

Outside this forum, you will find acceptable questioning as far as those who run DU are concerned.

Inside this forum, you will find unfounded conspiracy nuttery.

Sorry to interrupt your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. If you need a great place to get sackcloth wholesale, I've got people.

[jakeXT]

2. I've seen unfounded conspiracy nuttery outside of the 911 forum and acceptable questioning inside.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Hey, nobody's perfect

But the rules are enforced consistently enough that everyone knows what should go where.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Don't shit where you eat

One of your buddies tried (failed) to justify his obsessive involvement with the "crazy forum" by proclaiming he was like a doctor and we were like patients. Talk about delusional...

[SDuderstadt]

9. Try reading what I wrote again, dude...

nice twist.

[Twist_U_Up]

57. hey leave me otta this....

but then again you shouldnt shit where you eat.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Here's what I actually wrote, dude...

of course, the reader can easily see that you're just up to your reframing tricks...you know, where you accuse people of saying something other than what they actually said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=271276&mesg_id=271494

I knew it would go over your head. Maybe you should study analogies, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

93. Ok Mr. I didn't say it, but I meant it.

I know abstract thinking is not your forte, but what's is the actual meaning of what you wrote? Forget the precise words, what's the message, other than that you and your friends are different (better) than the rest of us. Please hip us if you meant something else.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Jesus, dude...

do you understand what an analogy is????

[whatchamacallit]

96. Yes I do

what is the meaning of your analogy?

[SDuderstadt]

98. Look up the definition of an "analogy", dude...

do you think analogies are literal????

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

64. "unfounded conspiracy nuttery."

you are referring to your support of the OCT, I assume.

Because there is simply no doubt 9/11 was an inside job, and plenty of foundation for that.

[noise]

73. Why should any citizen accept ridicule

for daring to question authority?

If a 9/11 truther posted a theory and when asked to provide evidence replied by saying, "I'll post it in a few years. Not all of it. Some of it needs to remain secret but you should take as an article of faith the fact that the secret evidence confirms my theory."

This is what the 9/11 Commission did. Why is this acceptable?

[defendandprotect]

121. Rather this forum/dungeon is a line created by fear . .. .

of tin foil, evidently!

And the need of others to use "tin foil" to try to keep cover-ups going --

and we have plenty of them in America!!

[HannibalCards]

4. When the question

has been answered, and the evidence is clear, asking the same question again and again is where the 'nuttery zone' begins.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[dbonds]

6. That nutty Galileo questioning the answers he had been taught by authority.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. on the "double standard"

It may depend on the context.

If I tell someone, dunno, "I think Obama secretly opposes health care reform," then I would expect whoever I'm talking to -- "debunker" or not -- to ask, "Umm, why do you think so?" Or, if I say, "Obama secretly opposes health care reform," the rejoinder might be "How do you know?" (with a tinge of sarcasm around the 'know').

If I then said, "Well, I don't see you complaining about the government's failure to release classified documents," I wouldn't expect the conversation to end well.

The notion that people should provide some evidence for their theories isn't a weird debunker fixation; it's an ordinary social expectation.

I know some people feel that they get harassed for "just asking questions," but I don't think it's common.

[lovepg]

8. Asking for evidence not a problem... Demanding evidence to back up their goofy

tinfoil hat notions is. As you said one would not expect the answer to that question /demand to go well.
But some dabunkers feign surprise at the "unreasonable response" to their "sane requests".
Its of course a strategy to get a reaction and then paint the reactor as a kook.
SEE they say I ask for evidence and this is how they come back.

[SDuderstadt]

10. With all due respect, dude...

Could you please try to write clearly?

[lovepg]

11. Here is a great example. The poster uses a"civilized" phrase with all due respect when actually..

Its clear they are really saying with all due disrespect.
This allows the poster to portray themselves in a superior light while at the same time denigrating the intelligence of the person they are responding to.
Of course if called on it the poster simply feigns indignant surprise and claims ignorance of the insult implied.
This leads to the question of course at what business a poster has retaining their superiority complex when the are so ignorant of the rules of basic civil discourse.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Dude...

I'd be happy if you'd simply use proper punctuation. Your posts are difficult to read and understand.

[rd_kent]

30. Agreed. Make more sense, brother!

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. you're fishing for a flame war

I won't give it to you. You might get luckier with that other guy.

:hi:

[lovepg]

46. No my point is dabunks are usually fishing for a flame war. But you knew that.

Here is the pretend what the poster says makes no sense tactic.
Even though its perfectly clear superiority is still maintained because the poster gets to claim the truther poster makes no sense.

[SDuderstadt]

47. "Here is the pretend what the poster says makes no sense tactic"

Could you at least provide some punctuation so whatever you're trying to say is clearer?

[lovepg]

50. The superiority thru punctuation line. The last most desperate defense of DABUNKS

When all else fails try and pretend you are more educated than the other poster by pointing out punctuation errors.
This becomes all the more hilarious when attempted by a poster who uses the term DUDE as a grammatical crutch.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. I wish I could express to you

how hard it becomes to believe that you are even interested in the events of September 11 when you veer further, and further, and further from any point other than the perfidy of those who disagree with you.

You don't like SDuderstadt. Check. Is that all you've got?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. I wish it were a ploy n/t

[SDuderstadt]

67. How is "dude" a "grammatical crutch"?

This should be good.

[lovepg]

74. Well dude its well established dude that in linguistic circles dude any repeated catch phrase..

Dude can become a linguistic crutch dude ap on which the communicator becomes dependant on dude!

[SDuderstadt]

81. Well, if you can find any post in which I used it 3 times in one sentence...

you might have a point. As usual, you haven't the slightest notion what you're yammering about...dude.

[noise]

13. The OP didn't say that it was wrong for

9/11 truthers to be asked to provide evidence for their theories. Rather, I noted a double standard. The 9/11 Commission decided to withhold records from the public until 2009. Imagine if a 9/11 truther posted a theory and when asked to provide evidence replied by saying, "I'll post it in a few years. Not all of it. Some of it needs to remain secret but you should take as an article of faith the fact that the secret evidence confirms my theory."

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. and your point is?

If you can point me to the "debunker" who says that the 9/11 Commission Report should be accepted as an article of faith, I'll be happy to tell him/her off.

[whatchamacallit]

16. If I may

There is a shocking lack of understanding about the nature of the playing field. This may come as a surprise, but thruthers don't have the resources to mobilize any government and private entities they desire, to provide "evidence" of their narrative. There is no truther NIST, or FEMA, or 9/11 commission... Yet, the OCTers shout "it's been 7 years and where's the proof of your goofy claims? We got ours, where is yours?". No mind that what the OCTers "have" is the word of the most lying US administration in history, and a basket of unproven theories and models sponsored by that administration. They simply claim we fail because we haven't ponied-up the same. What a racket.

[SDuderstadt]

17. You could start be refuting...

NIST and the 9/11 Commission. What's stopping you from that?

I've already pointed out how the 9/11 Commission was not an arm of the Bush Administration, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

20. You pointed wrong

How do you disprove a yarn? Once again, the models were constructed on assumptions about events and conditions that are not known, just necessary for the model to be valid. Do you see problematic, circular, nature of this? Probably not. Also, for all intents and purposes, Philip Zelikow *was* an arm of the Bush Administration. At this point no fewer than 6 commission members have expressed reservations about the mission and findings of the commission. It is obvious it was a whitewash to all but the keepers of the eternal flaming lie.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...

the WH opposed Zelikow's selection. It's also stupid to pretend that Zelikow somehow singlehandedly produced the commission's work. Beyond that, prominent structural engineers have acceoted the work of NIST. I have a hard time believeing you know more than them. It's also apparent that you take the words of any 9/11 Commissioner and try to get them to mean things they clearly didn't say. If yu want to go at this, find the relevant quote and indicate which commissioner it's from, then I'll find the COMPLETE quote, provide the context it was expressed in and stop your little game, dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. "the playing field"?

Look, I didn't sign up for your game. I just want to know whether you have anything useful to say. If you have a response to post #7, maybe you can share it.* If you just want to complain about how unfair the "OCTers" are, I think Bolo covered that back in #1.

*ETA: Or an even better approach might just be to post something about 9/11 straight up -- preferably something that hasn't been demonstrated to be factually incorrect.

[lovepg]

48. Not to mention science from an administration with an admited war on science..

[SDuderstadt]

49. Then it should be easy to point to the dubious science, dude...

Again, why are the scientific and engineering communities up in arms?

[lovepg]

76. Many of them are, you just refuse to listen to them when they speak out..

Of course others are afraid to speak out for fear of getting the kind of treatment dabunks love to diss out here on this post.
Others are afraid of funding drying up, some are afraid of their jobs and of course others are unaware some believe the governments story or simply do not care.
To expect any group of professionals to behave as a monolith is not realistic in my view.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Name one...

that should be easy. It's also silly to claim that any of them would fear retribution with Obama in office now.

[hack89]

59. The pseudo science that truthers embrace

does not require anything else but a decent education and understanding of science to debunk. No planes, mini-nukes, thermate, etc, defy logic and science. All the resources in the world will never prove them.

[whatchamacallit]

60. So in your "mind" these are things all truthers embrace?

fail.

[hack89]

66. Look at the vocal truthers in this forum

Look at the most active threads. They very much embrace all the pseudo science nonsense. We don't discuss much of any thing else. If you don't think they represent the 911 Truth movement then you have your work cut out reclaiming your cause.

[lovepg]

77. Of course in a dabunks mind pseudo science translates as science that does not support the ..

official story. And being a "truther is not a cause its a quest for the truth.
Whatever it turns out to be.

[hack89]

109. You really believe that no-planes is plausible?

that every image was faked? Explain the science behind that one.

[William Seger]

18. My definition

"Conspiracy nuts" are people who believe highly implausible conspiracy theories with religious conviction but for no good reasons. Conspiracy nuts only use "questioning" to imply that there is an obvious answer -- conspiracy -- which is why they completely ignore any other answers. It's exactly like creationists "questioning" how evolution could produce complex animals, and there's really no point in offering them answers. Starting with a "conclusion" that comes from religious belief rather than reason, creationists slash-and-burn their way backwards through the evidence trying to find a rational justification for it. Failing time after time doesn't dissuade them from their search because they just know it's got to be there somewhere. Conspiracy nuts do the same thing, except that they start with a conclusion that comes from paranoia.

So, my answer to your question is that "acceptable questioning and unfounded conspiracy nuttery" are two completely different things, not a continuum, so your question should be how to tell the difference. It's usually not too hard to distinguish between them if you dig into the questions and look closely at a few possible answers, weigh them against the evidence, then observe whether or not the "questioner" is willing to take a rational approach to deciding which answer is the most plausible.

[whatchamacallit]

22. And on the 7th day God rested

And on that day evil Satan Bin Laden, reigning for his cave of terror, sent forth 19 of his dark minions to undo God's greatest creation: the US of A. With little more than their wiles (and box cutters) they passed straight through God's majestic defenses as if they weren't there (cuz they weren't). Before heaven could dispatch it's "Blue Angels" to smite the unholy kamikazes, they miraculously managed to utterly destroy 3 (almost 4) of God's most treasured alters...

Like that William?

[SDuderstadt]

24. Is this just another one of your...

"bin Laden is just misunderstood" posts?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

26. So, what was bin Laden's role...

in your view? Why don't you go on record for us.

[whatchamacallit]

27. As far as I can tell the scope of his involvement is unclear

Did he coordinate the attacks? Possibly.
Did he do so without the help of elements within the US government? Possibility, but given the nature of events leading up to, during, and after the attacks, I say no.
Simply put, IMO he is an accomplice, a patsy, or both.

[SDuderstadt]

28. The evidence against bin Laden is...

overwhelming, dude. You can believe whatever bullshit you want, but don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

31. Don't expect us to imbibe your bin laden/al Qaeda brewed....

Kool-aid, dude.

Don't like what I just said? Well, then start focusing on facts and quit smearing people who disagree with you on the facts as somehow tied to or under the influence of Bush. It's silly to think the Bush administration was somehow the only source of info on 9/11.

Isn't it time for you to cease the silly "you're a Bush supporter" smears, dude? You little "one-size-fits-all" isn't working.

[whatchamacallit]

34. I didn't say you were a supporter

Is it not a fact that you fully accept the administration's account? It's totally incidental I'm sure...

[SDuderstadt]

35. No, it's not a fact, dude...

and I'll thank you to quit attacking my motivation in this matter. It's up to you.

[lovepg]

78. So what do you disagree with in the official story then?????? Be specific.

[SDuderstadt]

83. That the Bush administration did everything they could to prevent the attacks...

of course, only the Bush administration claimed that. Others, including the 9/11 Commission, took them to task over that issue, which you would know if you bothered to actually read their Report, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

86. Nice escape pod you got there

I didn't ask if you thought they did all they could to prevent the attacks, did I? I asked if you accepted the administration's account, and you predictably answered a different question.

[SDuderstadt]

87. That WAS the administration's account...

or, at least, part of it. Please don't pretend my reply isn't responsive. This is getting silly.

[lovepg]

106. Thats not really an answer ......

I asked what about the official story you did not believe. Since taking the Bush administration to task is in the 911 commision report which I did read then its in the official story.
So that does not really answer the question.

[lovepg]

55. Simple question why not stay on point to the post? the Bin ladin smear will not work either.

[SDuderstadt]

61. You surely don't object to the bin Laden smear while...

wielding the "you support Bush" smear, do ya? Well, do ya?

[lovepg]

72. No its just a waste of time . Which is exactly what your want to make this post.

A waste of time so no one will bother to question your world view.

[SDuderstadt]

84. You might notice that I only deploy it in response to the...

"you support Bush" smear. Figured out the connection yet, dude?

[lovepg]

107. Deploy away it is a WAR after all so use your biggest gun and fantasize about how much bigger...

your gun is than everyone else.

[lovepg]

54. If the creationist smear does not stick here comes the Bin Ladin smear right on time.

[William Seger]

32. Problem is, whatcha...

... you have no idea how rational people would decide which answers are most plausible. Instead, you just imagine that all the evidence we have was faked and that all the evidence that would prove your "inside job" theory was covered up. The reason you do that is because it's the only way to get the answers you want.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Well said, Seger....

that's why this poster attempts to smear anyone who points that out as somehow under the spell of Bush.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Sorry man

It simply doesn't add up. Your auto-acceptance of any improbable, ad hoc, excuse, coughed up to fill the enormous gaps, says more about your rationality than mine.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Can you show where Seger has...

"auto-accepted" anything? Seger is trying to argue on the facts, while you constantly assail the motivation of anyone who dares disagree with you, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

38. If there is one monumental self-exposing aspect to the mindset of the OCTer

it's that they are incapable of dispassionately scrutinizing the random, ad hoc, "evidence and facts" that are cooked up to explain away the myriad peculiarities of the official account. I would feel a lot better about your core beliefs if you would occasionally admit "yeah, that bit is weird and I don't really have an answer for it...", but no, as far as I can tell there is no part of the official account that you won't fall all over yourselves to defend. No matter how contradictory or improbable. This aspect brings into question the psychology driving your beliefs.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Dude...why don't you ask these questions of...

ASCE? Does it seem logical to you that if the problems you allege existed, the largest organization of civil engineers would echo your concerns? Why don't they?

[whatchamacallit]

40. Here you go trotting out your favorite (lame) chestnut again

Just because the ASCE doesn't, en mass, address all the disputed issues of 9/11, does not mean their members believe what you do. This approach is an intellectually dishonest joke. You look simple and foolish every time you try this.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

ASCE has 140K+ members. If the "disputed issues" regarding the engineering is such a big deal, as you claim, what do you make of the silence of ASCE? Are they "in on it", dude? And, no, it doesn't make me look foolisn; it makes you look foolish.

We're still waiting for this, dude;



Let us know if you ever get close.

[whatchamacallit]

42. Back up your goofy claim

post a link to the ACSE's unambiguous endorsement of the official account (preferably signed by all of it's 140K+ members). If it exists I stand corrected, otherwise, it's your bullshit fantasy.

BTW, I work for a large corporation. They have positions and policies on many things. Just because I don't jump up on a soapbox with a megaphone doesn't mean I agree with all their stances. Quite often I don't, but they pay the bills. If they issued a statement officially supporting the OCT, I would be quite disappointed, but for obvious reasons, would not automatically end my affiliation with the company. Do us all a favor and read it twice.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude....

how am I supposed to prove that ASCE members agree with ASCE's conclusions other than to point out the lack of dissent? If you have some indication of festering pools of dissent within ASCE regarding 9/11, could you please point to it.

Where is the groundswell of support? It's not my fault your movement isn't able to attract substantial engineering membership, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

44. I'm not required to disprove your logical fallacy

you should be embarrassed.

[SDuderstadt]

45. It's not a logical fallacy, dude...

if it is, point to it by name.

[whatchamacallit]

51. I'll go with something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[SDuderstadt]

71. Dude...if you read my actual words...

nowhere in there did I claim that the absence of questions from ASCE proved NIST's conclusions. I merely asked you why you don't ask your question of ASCE, the largest organization of civil engineers.

Of course, you predictably took what I said, reframed and twisted it into something I didn't, than immediately attacked it, in the process, accusing me of committing a logical fallacy.

So, the irony here is that, by creating a strawman, you're the one who actually committed a logical fallacy, dude.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you confine yourself to responding to arguments I've actually made, not the ones in your head. As I've said before, you'd benefit from some classes in critical thinking. Your local community college will have them.

BTW, here's a link to seminars on avoiding progressive collapse put on by ASCE, in partnership with NIST. Does this sound like there's any sort of rift between the two organizations, dude? Do you know of any ASCE members who boycotted the seminars?

Four seminars are presented in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), on "New Best Practices to Mitigate Progressive Collapse." NIST has worked with industry experts to prepare comprehensive guidelines for design professionals to help prevent progressive building collapse in the event of abnormal loading. Our Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) offers the sessions with NIST to share the information in the best practice guide.

http://www.asce.org/static/911.cfm

[whatchamacallit]

85. Spinning like a top

nowhere in there did I claim that the absence of questions from ASCE proved NIST's conclusions. I merely asked you why you don't ask your question of ASCE, the largest organization of civil engineers.

Of course, you predictably took what I said, reframed and twisted it into something I didn't, than immediately attacked it, in the process, accusing me of committing a logical fallacy.

Strawman to boot, you're on a roll. No one accused you of claiming that the absence of questions from ASCE proved NIST's conclusions. Changing "agree with" to "proved" is a transparent trick to cover your ass. The logical fallacy we both know I'm talking about is contained in the following statement:

how am I supposed to prove that ASCE members agree with ASCE's conclusions other than to point out the lack of dissent?

I reframed and twisted nothing, those are your own words from a few posts back. Game, set, match.



I'm certain your obfuscation will continue until you're satisfied you've rewritten the history of this exchange. Please do the right thing and spare us whatever pathetic denials you're planning.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Dude...

as usual, you've twisted my words again. If you want me to prove that ASCE supports NIST's conclusions, how else would someone do that without, among other things, pointing out the lack of dissent? That is not claiming it DOES prove it. Do you get the distinction?

QAs usual, you expect us to believe the "9/11 was an inside job" nuttery without proof, but you demand this impossibly high standard from the "official story". Again, ASCE has 140K + members. What is your explanation for the lack of a groundswell for your position from them?

[whatchamacallit]

89. I edited my response. reread it and try again. dude. (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

90. "Game, set, match"

Dude...this all started when I asked you why you don't submit whatever questions you have to ASCE and why, given ASCE's sheer size, a substantial number don't appear to be flocking to the "truth movement".

Your use of "Game, set, match" demonstrates that your real purpose here is to win, no matter what, as evidenced by you proclaiming that you've won. "Game, set and match" is an example of "psychic foreclosure" in which you attempt to declare the issue nondebatable. Small problem. It IS debatable.

Your standard M.O. is to take what someone has said, reframe it into an argument that is easier to knockdown and one your opponent never, in fact, made, then flail away at it. I really have no interest in continuing to play your little game. You want to crow that "you've won"? Then tell it to the five or six people here who seem to agree with you. In the meantime, you might ask yourself why the "truth movement" has not made more progress in 8 years. Enjoy your strawmen, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

91. Quit the head games and answer this simple question

Does the following statement represent a logical fallacy?

"how am I supposed to prove that ASCE members agree with ASCE's conclusions other than to point out the lack of dissent?"

Yes or no?

[SDuderstadt]

92. No, it doesn't....

duh. It's a fucking question.

[whatchamacallit]

95. Ha, so slippery

One more time.

Does assuming a group of people agree with a stance simply because they have not protested that stance, represent a logical fallacy?

Yes or no?

[SDuderstadt]

97. Dude...do you understand that logical fallacies have to do with CLAIMS??

Can you show me where I made a CLAIM? Is a question a CLAIM? Do you understand the various things that question could have meant? This is getting silly. Maybe you should review the structure of a claim, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

99. The semantic shuffle is mind boggling

Maybe you should grow some balls and answer the question you know I'm asking. Lets forget the question of whether or not you've committed a fallacy and your formal declaration BS.

I'll ask you a simple question in plain english. Do you Sdude, think it is logical to assume a group of people agree with a stance simply because they have not protested that stance?

Yes or no?

[SDuderstadt]

100. Dude...

I have to go to Atlanta on business. Why don't you declare victory to your little coterie of fellow adherents and think in your mind that you won. Okay?

[whatchamacallit]

102. I think your friends will find this interesting as well

Have a nice trip.

[William Seger]

104. What I find "interesting"

... is that you keep accusing SD of making an argument that he didn't actually make while simultaneously tossing around the word "strawman." If you think that SD was making an implicit argument by what he said, then pointing out that such an argument would be a fallacy is quite sufficient. Instead, you try to score a point by insisting he actually made that argument. Fail.

[William Seger]

63. I've spent a lot of time on this board explaining exactly WHY I believe what I believe

... and I give you or any other "truther" all the opportunity you need to show that your arguments are more rational than mine. So, sorry, but your delusions about why I believe what I believe are about as impressive as your delusions about 9/11.

[whatchamacallit]

65. You mean, you've spent a lot of time on this board regurgitating pre-chewed government pablum

It's so funny to see you debunkers talk about all the hard work you put in to prove your case. You proudly parrot prepackaged BS without making any real effort to verify any of it, then claim it as the product of your superior intellects. You fool no one.

[William Seger]

69. Total bullshit, as always

In the first place, anyone who has been around here for a few years should know that I could find at least a dozen examples of original work I've done on debunking "truther" nonsense, probably more. If you wanna bet on that, "truther," just name the stakes. Furthermore, I have never misrepresented other people's arguments as my own. You are backing up false claims with false accusations.

But more importantly -- and more to the point of the actual topic here -- rational arguments are characterized by being valid and sound, not by who first advanced them. The board is littered with your failed attempts to discredit them, and yet you think that just calling them "prepackaged BS" should be good enough.

Your lame attempt at a counterattack has failed because you are unarmed. The topic in this subthread is "truther" irrationality, and you just continue to provide examples.

[lovepg]

108. My supposition.....

One of the many problems with the official story.
1.The official story states in the NIST report that more core columns were damaged in the South Tower by the second plane than the first. Nist says in their report without this damage to the core columns
in both towers they would not of had collapse making this a key element in the official story.
2. Yet its clear to see from the evidence the south tower planes right wing emerged out the side. The engine was found on the street a couple blocks away. Its also clear from the huge fireball much of the jet fuel from the right wing
was expended outside the tower in the fireball.
3. So the south tower could not have sustained MORE core column damage than the north tower since it did not hit center on where the core columns reside.
And its right engine went out the side of the building. One of the few parts of the jet capable of taking out a core column This also means the jet fuel fires in the south tower could not have burned as hot because one wing blew out the side of the building and the fuel tanks are in the wings.
Yet in the Nist report Both of these key elements are supposed despite obvious EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Why? because for collapse to occur these things had to occur.
Nist has no physical evidence to back up there claim more core columns were taken out in the south tower.
Or that the fires burned hotter , And we know the fires lasted longer in the north tower it collapsed second.
Its evidence is a computer model it adjusted to obtain the collapse it was looking for going in.
This is the rational science your story is based on?

[William Seger]

110. Well, that's at least better than just pretending to have an argument

> 1.The official story states in the NIST report that more core columns were damaged in the South Tower by the second plane than the first. Nist says in their report without this damage to the core columns in both towers they would not of had collapse making this a key element in the official story.

Almost correct, except that what NIST actually said was that their sim showed somewhat more damage to South Tower core columns, as did the MIT impact analysis, BTW. The analysis performed by a team of structural engineers led by Weidlinger Associates Inc., (WAI), however, showed more damage to the WTC1 core, but the WAI analysis found other reasons for why WTC2 collapsed sooner. Nobody knows for sure -- and NIST certainly does not claim to know for sure -- what the interior damage was.

> 2. Yet its clear to see from the evidence the south tower planes right wing emerged out the side. The engine was found on the street a couple blocks away. Its also clear from the huge fireball much of the jet fuel from the right wing was expended outside the tower in the fireball.

OK. So?

>3. So the south tower could not have sustained MORE core column damage than the north tower since it did not hit center on where the core columns reside.

Bzzzt, logic error detected. There are other factors involved besides where the planes hit. One big one is that UA175 hit at about 100 MPH faster than AA11 (546 MPH versus 443, by NIST's calculations from the videos). If you'll recall from high school physics that kinetic energy is a function of mass and velocity squared, you can calculate for yourself that UA175 hit with about 42% more kinetic energy than AA11. Another factor was that AA11 hit at about a 10-degree downward angle, whereas UA175 hit at about a 6-degree downward angle so it's debris had a somewhat more direct path to the core. Another factor was that because the cores were rectangles oriented in different directions, the core columns in WTC2 were closer to the south exterior wall than the WTC1 core columns were to the north wall. So your conclusion that the "south tower could not have sustained MORE core column damage" is faulty. But it's not clear where you're going with that, anyway. For the sake of argument, let's say that we don't know for sure which tower had more core column damage. So what?

> And its right engine went out the side of the building. One of the few parts of the jet capable of taking out a core column

It also lost about 400 MPH in the process of passing through the building, most likely because it did a lot of damage to floors on its way past the core. Those floors are what held the core columns in place horizontally, which has a huge effect on their resistance to buckling, whether or not the engine did any direct damage to core columns. The situation here is obviously much more complicated than you realize, which is why NIST did the sim.

> This also means the jet fuel fires in the south tower could not have burned as hot because one wing blew out the side of the building and the fuel tanks are in the wings.

Bzzzt. Save that argument for the next time someone suggests that jet fuel melted the columns. The "official story" is that the jet fuel very quickly ignited huge, uncontrolled contents fires in both building.

> Yet in the Nist report Both of these key elements are supposed despite obvious EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Bzzzt. That conclusion simply does not follow. Even if WTC2 had less core damage and less fire than WTC1, we don't even need to beat up on your "obvious EVIDENCE to the contrary" (of what?) to see that structural damage and fire could still have caused WTC2 to collapse.

> Why? because for collapse to occur these things had to occur.

Bzzzt. Structural damage and fire did occur in both buildings. Your argument here hardly makes enough sense to justify calling it a fallacy.

> Nist has no physical evidence to back up there claim more core columns were taken out in the south tower.

Nor did they ever claim to.

> Or that the fires burned hotter

Nor did NIST ever claim they did, nor does their "probable cause" require the fires to be hotter than WTC1.

> And we know the fires lasted longer in the north tower it collapsed second.

And we know that, being lower in the building, the damaged and heated structure of WTC2 had more load on it than the damaged area of WTC1. And we know that the specific collapse sequences that NIST found from their sims are not quite the same in the two towers, so there is no reason to assume that they should have proceeded at the same rate.

> Its evidence is a computer model it adjusted to obtain the collapse it was looking for going in.

Bzzzt. False assertion. They adjusted their sims to agree with the observable evidence, such as the structural damage visible from the exterior and the paths of debris exiting the building. Sims of that nature necessarily involve lots of variables that can't be known with any certainty, so standard procedure is to adjust those parameters until the model at least agrees with what you know happened. If you don't do that, then there is no reason to think the sim means anything at all. NIST goes into a lot of detail about how they did that comparison and adjustment. If you want to attack their methodology, you will need to begin by learning what it really was, not just fart in their general direction.

> This is the rational science your story is based on?

Nope. What NIST actually did and actually said is based on rational science, your confused interpretation of it notwithstanding. And now we shall see if you are capable of rationally dealing with these challenges to your arguments.

[lovepg]

114. Wow thanks for the detailed and fairly snarkless response...

I read your points and appreciate your explanation. And the time taken by you to do that.
However I still have a few problems with several points.
First nist does not claim to actually know how many core columns were taken out but still uses some figure of number of core columns taken out to
arrive at this collapse. Yes some of their assumptions are based on observable data but that cannot tell you for sure what happened to the core columns. This would have to be a reverse engineered conclusion arrived at by jigging the number of core columns damaged in the sim model until the collapse is achieved.
I feel changing the parameters on unknowns to achieve the effect you are looking for is a valuable experimental tool but is not good science to claim that bedrock conclusions have been established.
Its at best is useful for showing a possible result. Not a factually solid basis for claiming this is the only thing that could have occurred.
The reason I brought up the jet fuel is that the MIT report you refer to hypothesizes that the intense fireball ignited by the initial explosion of jet fuel
caused a significant amount of steel weakening that contributed greatly to the collapse. I see problems in the theory because the south towers planes explosion of fuel out the side would mean less steel weakening
in the south tower than the north due to this factor in addition to less core column damage and duration of internal fires.
The MIT report fails to even consider this variable in the report and indeed acts as if it does not occur.
I do not find your kinetic energy explanation for additional core column damage in the south tower to be very convincing either.
If most of the additional kinetic energy was out the side it still does no more damage to the core. It still leaves a rather weak nose cone and one engine to somehow do more damage to more core columns than the north tower plane that hit straight on. You claim that the south tower had more load to bear due to the plane hitting lower down the tower but the core columns were also thicker and stronger lower down and better able to compensate as well.
Interested in your response thanks.

[William Seger]

118. The core columns didn't trigger the collapse

The collapses were triggered when perimeter columns buckled inward after being pulled slowly inward by sagging floors. The exact number of core columns damaged doesn't matter, so NIST did not need to fiddle with the number of damaged core columns to get their model to collapse.

[lovepg]

119. I disagree on this point. Nist says in its report without the core column damage..

There would have been no collapse. I will find it and bring it back to ya!(sorry for the palin reference)

[lovepg]

56. Here comes the you have no idea what is rational line. Again a sad attempt at retaining superiority.

We all know people cannot discuss a subject without one side being smart and correct and the other side defective and unreasonable.
All most all dabunk answers are full of this attitude.

[lovepg]

52. Again the term "rational approach" is defined by whatever the debunk finds reasonable

All other lines of questioning are not. The attempt to smear truthers as creationists by dabunks is prevalent on this post.
They will howl to high administrator heaven if accused of being a Bush administration apologist and think nothing of calling you essentially the same thing as a creationist.
Of course truthers have far more evidence than the dabunks wish to acknowledge.
And far more than creationists. But hey that does not stop them in their never ending quest to feel better about themselves thru ridiculing others

[William Seger]

62. Nope, the word "rational" has a specific meaning.

It doesn't mean whatever you or I want it to mean, so it is not entirely a matter of subjective opinion whether or not a particular argument is rational. Do you know what it means? Let's see how you do on this pop quiz. Are these arguments rational or irrational:

1. I don't understand how a progressive collapse could happen, so the WTC towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
   
   
2. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, so the WTC towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
   
   
3. If "free-fall" would mean "no resistance" then "near free-fall" would mean nearly no resistance, so the WTC towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
   
   
4. Collapsing buildings should fall over like a tree, so the WTC towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
   
   
5. The WTC tower collapses don't look or sound anything like a conventional controlled demolition, so it must have been an unconventional controlled demolition.
   
   
6. The videos showing the top third of WTC7 falling look like a conventional controlled demolition, so it must have been a controlled demolition.
   
   
7. I can't can't really explain how either the towers or WTC7 were demolished in a way that fits all the evidence, so it must have been done with secret technology.
   
   
8. I saw a YouTruth video where some guy said a 767 can't fly at 500 mph below 1000 feet, so the videos of UA175 hitting WTC2 at that speed must be fake.
   
   
9. I saw a YouTruth video where some guy showed that the flight path of UA175 looked different from different camera angles, so one or the other (or both) must be fake.
   
   
10. I see records that give two different times for UA175 taking off, so there must have been two UA175 flights.
    

> Of course truthers have far more evidence than the dabunks wish to acknowledge.

Really? Where? Please provide three examples.

[lovepg]

79. This is just rich," rational has a meaning separate from what you and I say"....

So here is MY little quiz to determine what is rationale by MY standard.
And I do not think you understand the arrogance.
Why does there have to be all the put downs in every post?
Why can't you just see it differently than I and talk about what you think without insulting others if they disagree?
Its gotta be a tactic why else would you behave in this manner on a post built for civil discourse on a subject?
Or are dabunks just so threatened by people who challenge there world view they gotta try and stamp them out?
I could care less if I convince any of the dabunks what I think is true.
There are at least a few of you who are able to just talk about subjects without all the garbage attached and i salute you.

[William Seger]

103. First, please stop whining; it's annoying

Second, yes, words have meaning. If you bend and twist the meaning, then you're subverting the process of communication. That's annoying, too.

"By MY standard," "rational" in this case means having a logical reason for believing something did or did not happen. I happen to believe it really does matter what really happened on 9/11, and "by MY standard," doing the best possible job of figuring that out means objectively applying valid logic to credible facts in order to arrive at the most likely estimation of reality. "Truthers" seem to want to take a shortcut and use their intuitions, and then try to rationalize it. But "by MY standard" that's a highly inferior and unreliable method (especially if you have paranoid intuitions), and it's easy to demonstrate what's irrational about it: On examination, their conclusions never quite follow logically from the credible facts. If I'm wrong about that, it should be equally easy for you to point out where I'm going wrong. Instead, when "truthers" argue themselves into a corner, I get accusations about my motives for doing so. So even if you did succeed in subverting the meaning of the word "rational," then we'd just need to find some other word to distinguish rational beliefs from paranoid speculations and conclusions arrived at with dubious facts and/or invalid logic. Then, you would have to attack the new word, and that would be annoying to have to keep searching for new words just to spare your feelings.

Why can't I "just see it differently" than you and stop insulting your irrational beliefs? Why can't you stop insulting my intelligence? You seem to miss that the real issue here is not what you believe; it's what you are attempting to get others to believe, and whether or not I'm on your target list is irrelevant. When you claim that something did or did not happen, you are making a claim about objective reality that is either right or wrong. That's completely different from expressing a subjective opinion that is neither right nor wrong. "By MY standards," not all opinions about objective reality are created equally, and demanding respect for poorly formed ones that you are repeatedly attempting to foist upon others, after repeatedly showing contempt for logical reasoning, is annoying.

And furthermore, I am obviously not "threatened" by your poorly formed views of objective reality, since I give you every opportunity to "challenge {my} world view" and demonstrate that yours is more rational. You are the one who keeps whining about people challenging yours -- and trying to use that whining to dodge actually answering the challenges, as you did with the post you responded to -- so it's quite clear to me who is having difficulty handling challenges around here. No, I am not at all concerned that reason will lose out to nonsense, unless it goes unchallenged. Your hypocrisy is as annoying as your whining.

[lovepg]

105. Actually thats a lot of bluster and BS. The arrogance, its funny from such closed minded individuals

"Why can't you stop insulting my intelligence???"
Yeah I am" whining" all right right about you being incapable of civil discourse.
If dabunks had there ability to insult taken away they would lose 90% of what they have to say.
I am not demanding "respect" for my ideas as i said before I could care less what debunks think about my ideas.
I am here to gleen information not to convince people MY idea is right.
But as a human being I do demand the right to be addressed with civility. You seem to find that concept unreasonable.

[William Seger]

111. "closed minded individual"

Hint: Closed-minded individuals don't pay any attention to you. At all. Why should they? As I said, I give you more than ample opportunity to make your case, and I put a fair amount of time into detailed explanations of why I disagree with it. If you want to argue about that, fine, but your responses here are typical examples of what I usually get in return: I claimed that "truthers" don't have rational arguments; you claim that there is lots of evidence that I don't acknowledge; I ask you to provide three examples; you change the subject to how arrogant and rude and close-minded I am. QED.

[lovepg]

115. True enough...

I have been guilty of snark no doubt but what I really want is a back and forth on the issues not an insult war.
So how about it?

[zinnisking]

58. The Dude

sDUDErstadt is the dominating conspiracy denier here. She sets the tone for the rest of the crew.

Never, in any walk of life, have I seen someone enjoy getting debased by some pompous chauvinist. After my first couple of posts in the dungeon, I simply indicated that I didn't fully believe the government's explanation ( a "suggestion of corruption"). You can probably accurately guess the vocabulary used in Dude's replies.

Opposing views make things interesting. There are plenty of conspiracy deniers here. Frankly, I don't understand why any of you people keep engaging Sduderstadt, as pompous and excessively self-elevated as she is.

Just my opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

68. First of all, dude...

I'm a guy. I guess you couldn't be bothered to look at my profile.

Secondly, can you tell me what conspiracy I've denied? Could you point to the difference betwwen a mere "conspiracy theory" and a real conspiracy, then point to any proven conspiracy I've denied?

If you have a problem with the vocabulary used in any of my replies, feel free to alert the moderators. And, last but not least, I am a proud conspiracy theory "denier". I prefer to live in an evidence-based world.

[greyl]

112. If you have to ask, ... nt

[noise]

116. IMO the line

is whatever the political/media establishment says. The line doesn't depend on truth. Van Jones crossed the line by daring to sign a 9/11 petition. It doesn't matter if he was right to do so.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. I think the White House just let us know.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/breaking-from-nbc-white-house-official.html

[cliffjj]

117. Re: Where is the line between acceptable questioning and unfounded conspiracy nuttery?

It's a narrow line between reasoned questioning and conspiracy nuttery, some people will tag you a conspiracy not if you raise the slightest criticism against the official story...
Usually the people you talk to about this have not done any research on the topic and thus believe your a nut case....

[defendandprotect]

120. There isn't any line . . . any demarcation is simply in the mind of some frightened . . .

by challenges to authority --

DU obviously does not want to be known as the "tin foil" website -- and that still works
because places like DU still honor that ridicule of challengers to officialdom!

There will always be people who will try to get you to stop thinking --
and those who will try to make some subject or other taboo to benefit themselves.

Questioning 9/11 makes many at DU uncomfortable -- from what I read that they have to say
they are people who's minds just cannot fathom that anyone would betray their own country,
do such harmful things. It's naive, at best -- but the propaganda of the "no-conspiracy"
America seems to still hold -- DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!!

Remember also that the Warren Commision -- with Nazi symps Allen Dulles and McCloy -- held up
releasing their information until 2034!!!

The 1992 JFK Classified Records Act/Panel headed by John Tunnheim . . . got a lot of stuff
declassified and very slowly it's being released. Large batches of it have been newspaper clippings!
However the Panel did see the documents and presumably Oswald's employment documents.
They concluded that:

"OSWALD WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS AND PROBABLY ALSO FOR THE FBI"

Evidently that conclusion was also given to Congress in closed session just about the time that Clinton was being impeached!!

The final thinking on this is that no one has the power to bring forth this information --
no one has the power to end the cover-up. I think I agree.

And, the power seems to me to be in political violence!

[Bolo Boffin]

122. kick