An argument for the creation of a new sub forum

[scott3x]

So you say but when we actually get to the details you don't appear to have anything at all.

I disagree, but feel free to try to find something I've said that would support your claim.

Over and over again you bring up out of context witness testimony

Can you cite where I have done this?

incorrect claims of 'rapid removal'

I'll cite Steven Jones to get the 'rapid removal' remark into context:

Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed — and others as outlined above — should proceed in the United States.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

allegations that everyone is too scared speak up (even though many are)

I have never said that -everyone- is too scared to speak up. And when I claim that many people are scared, I have frequently mentioned the fact that and expert has been fired (Kevin Ryan) for speaking up, Steven Jones seems to have been on his way to getting fired before he retired from BYU and a fireman Paul Isaac, Jr. has claimed that other firemen knew the buildings were brought down by explosives but were too afraid to speak up. Here's what Paul Isaac said exactly:

New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,’ he said, ‘but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.’ Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD’s antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ Isaac added.”

The article goes on to say:

Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski’s article:
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.

http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

I actually wasn't aware of this gag order until reading of it from the above link just now.

and regular appeals to the authority of a crackpot physicist who's work has been debunked.

1- There has been no evidence presented that he is a 'crackpot'.

2- His work hasn't been debunked, although I remember someone posting a link to an article that supposedly did so. I only looked at it a bit, but I remember showing a possible defense for the one point I had addressed.

Another thing you must realize is that Steven Jones doesn't rely solely on his own research. He cites many other experts, which you would know if you actually read one of his articles.

Originally Posted by scott3x

When experts such as the NIST ones claim things which any layman, given the evidence, can see are full of holes, then yes I am highly critical. And you seem to forget that the official story is also a conspiracy theory, if a very flawed one. I really don't understand why so many official story believers can't realize this simple fact.

What do you mean?

I thought my statements were fairly clear. What don't you understand?

There are many urban myths as well but that doesn't imply that they are real.

Agreed. I wish you'd take that into consideration when considering the incredibly flawed 9/11 official 'urban myth'.

That is the reason why these debates can continue. There isn't one or two completely stupid claims, there are dozens of them.

Yes, dozens, perhaps more, some official, some not. I myself would like to discuss the more serious theories. Unfortunately there are many who are stuck on the official myths and thus, we must spend more time on them.

The conspiracy theorist who wants to believe will be impressed by this. This same conspiracy theorist will spend hours reading the conspiracy sites while carefully avoiding the skeptical sites which debunk the claims.

Oh come on shaman. As if I don't deal with enough official story believers on this very site. If I can deal with the fact that you're not carefully analyze truther sites, I think you should be able to deal with the fact that I'm not carefully analyzing official story sites.

 

[KennyJC]

I've done it multiple times (the most recent time being to Sockpuppy here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1996248&postcount=683) but I've written many posts and perhaps you haven't seen those ones. From what I've seen, american physicist Steven Jones has said it best. I will quote once more from his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" his explanation of NIST's argument regarding the WTC collapses, wherein he shows that fire experts have criticized their theory as well:

Steven Jones' main claim appears to be that the "fingerprint" of thermite is found in the WTC dust. What is this "fringerprint"? Sulpher and Iron and trace elements such as potassium.

The WTC's drywall is Sulpher based. The Iron is used in computers and practically everything else office based. Potassium is used in concrete.

When it comes to thermites main byproduct (aluminium oxide and barium nitrate), Steven Jones doesn't even report finding these.

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

It's not far more plausible since there is no proof for any of these claims. Furthermore, most of it can be debunked. The squibs were slow in nature, alluding to air being pushed out as each floor was being compressed. A squib you would see in a controlled demolition is instantaneous and is accompanied with a huge bang and a flash. As for the cut beams, I assume he is basing this assumption on the pictures of angled cut beams which were a result of the cleanup operation as I have already proven to you.

No one is debating whether there was a conspiracy. The only debate is who the conspirators were and what methods they used to accomplish what they did on 9/11.

One conspiracy involves getting tens of thousands of people to lie and keep the cover-up going. It also involves setting up 267 floors of busy office space for demolition and trying to make it not look like a controlled demolition. And that's just the beinning... truthers make the conspiracy more complicated than that.

The other conspiracy involves a small group of pissed off muslims hijacking a plane and comitting suicide.

One of the above is farfetched.

I couldn't agree more. Thousands disagree with the official theory and I've posted about this somewhere in the 'mighty tangle'.

Thousands? I'm pretty sure your A&E website had only 400 architects or engineers. And I tend to question the expertise of those 400.

More importantly, I'm interested in the expertise of demolition experts of which the truth movement appears to have none.

The official explanation is supported by NIST, MIT and ASCE's 125,000 structural engineers. and more worldwide. The numbers you have to offer are not impressive, even if we were to consider your experts were top of their field, even though architects like Richard Gage never designed any high rise buildings.

I'm not sure about most popular, but there are a lot of theories out there with little supporting evidence.

I believe the nuclear weapons and Star Wars beam comes from the Scholars for 9/11 truth website.

If one expert says something well, I don't see why a whole bunch have to say the same thing. A lot of experts have anonymously signed on to theories such as that of Steven Jones but I can understand that most don't want to be put on paid leave with views towards being fired (Steven Jones) or being fired outright (Kevin Ryan), so they may want to limit their exposure to criticism.

So far you can count two people who were fired, and they were fired for good reason. In a world with hundreds of thousands of experts, this shows that amongst them, there is no controversy about the "official story".

I need do no such thing. Most official story supporters revel in the fact that they have some experts. I see no harm in saying that alternate story supporters have many experts as well. However, I think the most important thing is to examine the evidence oneself. If we let experts do all our thinking for us, they become the new priesthood, to whom we should bow down before their 'superior' knowledge.

Scientific consensus is a beautiful thing. You know why? Because kooks are relegated out of the process. You never will get any scientific consensus on any of your claims simply because your evidence is falsified.

Look, I don't know what you mean by 'woo'. I mention that I think there may not be more because they'd be fired because people keep on bringing up the question of 'why aren't there more experts siding with the alternate theory?'. So I respond to them. But my preferred focus is on the evidence itself.

I guess historians don't support the Atlantis theory because they'd be fired? Perhaps biologists don't support creationists because they'd be fired?

...

Perhaps civil engineers don't support WTC demolition because they'd be fired? Perhaps demolition experts don't support WTCdemolition because they'd be fired?

Perhaps they simply think you guys are stupid. I'd say that's the main reason they don't support you. Don't flatter yourself that they are actually on your side, but don't show it because of their jobs.

Let us not forget that many civil engineering and demolition experts are retired (or will be in the future) and no longer have to worry about losing a job.

Watching the video more isn't going to change the arguments that have already been made by experts such as Steven Jones. Arguments that I've quoted and that I wholeheartedly believe in.

I already showed why Steven Jones is full of shit in my first paragraph.

That video actually provides evidence for the controlled demolition scenario.

One question... Why?

 

[shaman_]

I disagree, but feel free to try to find something I've said that would support your claim.

We have gone through many pages of looking at your best evidence.

Can you cite where I have done this?

You have posted carefully snipped testimony regarding explosions. One even excluded the comment regarding a kerosene smell. I’m not going searching for them.

I’m not saying that you are cherry picking witness testimony, but the links you provide have certainly done so.

There is also the vague reference to someone seeing one pole knocked down. Until you provide the source for this it certainly appears that the same technique is involved.

I'll cite Steven Jones to get the 'rapid removal' remark into context:
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

One source I checked said the steel wasn’t completely removed until May. That is six months later! Does half a year sound like a hasty removal? Quoting Steven Jones saying something stupid doesn’t make it any less stupid. You need top cowering in awe of his qualifications as a physicist.

Buildings and metals are not his expertise and those who are far more qualified disagree with him.

I have never said that -everyone- is too scared to speak up. And when I claim that many people are scared, I have frequently mentioned the fact that and expert has been fired (Kevin Ryan) for speaking up, Steven Jones seems to have been on his way to getting fired before he retired from BYU and a fireman Paul Isaac, Jr. has claimed that other firemen knew the buildings were brought down by explosives but were too afraid to speak up. Here's what Paul Isaac said exactly:


The article goes on to say:


http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

I actually wasn't aware of this gag order until reading of it from the above link just now.

Yes and all those claims become rather silly when you take into account that the event was seven years ago. How many firefighters have retired or left the profession since then? Hundreds? Thousands? None of them are speaking up. Stop hiding from logic and reason in your quest to maintain the conspiracy.

1- There has been no evidence presented that he is a 'crackpot'.

The guy thinks jesus visited America. He is a crackpot.

2- His work hasn't been debunked, although I remember someone posting a link to an article that supposedly did so. I only looked at it a bit, but I remember showing a possible defense for the one point I had addressed.

Another thing you must realize is that Steven Jones doesn't rely solely on his own research. He cites many other experts, which you would know if you actually read one of his articles.

Yes professors of theology ….

He is the best expert you have and that's not a solid position to be in.

I thought my statements were fairly clear. What don't you understand?

Why it would be an important point.

Agreed. I wish you'd take that into consideration when considering the incredibly flawed 9/11 official 'urban myth'.



Yes, dozens, perhaps more, some official, some not. I myself would like to discuss the more serious theories. Unfortunately there are many who are stuck on the official myths and thus, we must spend more time on them.

Oh come on shaman. As if I don't deal with enough official story believers on this very site. If I can deal with the fact that you're not carefully analyze truther sites, I think you should be able to deal with the fact that I'm not carefully analyzing official story sites.

But I have visited truther sites and I have heard Steven Jones’ claims. That’s how I got to my current position. I read both sides of the story and made my mind up. By only reading the conspiracy sites you aren’t really after the truth, you are just wishing to reinforce a non existent conspiracy.

 

[scott3x]

KennyJC, in response to your last post, I didn't know the answers, so I turned to the loose change forums. I can just imagine you getting upset that I quoted a few lines from you again and I'm thinking perhaps I should have just linked to your post. In any case, what's done is done. In the loose change forums, Headspin made a very detailed response:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=139755&t=663014

DoYouEverWonder did as well:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=139747&t=663014

 

[scott3x]

We have gone through many pages of looking at your best evidence.

And I've come out with winning arguments every time ;-).

You have posted carefully snipped testimony regarding explosions. One even excluded the comment regarding a kerosene smell. I’m not going searching for them.

Neither am I. Dang 'mighty tangle'.

I’m not saying that you are cherry picking witness testimony, but the links you provide have certainly done so.

Which neither of us are going to search for.. it's kind of like a fairy tale "Once upon a time, certain links were cherry picking witness testimony" you say. "Well, how about you show me some evidence", say I. Both of us loathing the thought of actually have to search the tons of pages in the entangled threads that could confirm or deny things..

There is also the vague reference to someone seeing one pole knocked down. Until you provide the source for this it certainly appears that the same technique is involved.

I'll pass on that mighty tangle search, thanks ;-).

One source I checked said the steel wasn’t completely removed until May. That is six months later! Does half a year sound like a hasty removal? Quoting Steven Jones saying something stupid doesn’t make it any less stupid.

You have yet to prove that he's said anything stupid.

You need top cowering in awe of his qualifications as a physicist.

If it were simply his qualifications I were in awe in, NIST would have won hands down. From "Top Ten Connections between NIST and Nano-Thermites" (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html):

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

Yes and all those claims become rather silly when you take into account that the event was seven years ago. How many firefighters have retired or left the profession since then? Hundreds? Thousands? None of them are speaking up.

Actually, a few did. You can see this in various 9/11 truth movement videos.

Stop hiding from logic and reason in your quest to maintain the conspiracy.

"" in your quest to maintain the official conspiracy.

[The guy thinks jesus visited America. He is a crackpot.

Everyone has flaws. Simply because a person has a flaw doesn't mean one should discard everything else they have to say.

Originally Posted by scott3x

2- His work hasn't been debunked, although I remember someone posting a link to an article that supposedly did so. I only looked at it a bit, but I remember showing a possible defense for the one point I had addressed.

Another thing you must realize is that Steven Jones doesn't rely solely on his own research. He cites many other experts, which you would know if you actually read one of his articles.

Yes professors of theology ….

He relies on a lot more people then David Ray Griffin. And David Ray Griffin isn't just a professor of theology. He's written around 5 books on 9/11.

He is the best expert you have and that's not a solid position to be in.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

When experts such as the NIST ones claim things which any layman, given the evidence, can see are full of holes, then yes I am highly critical. And you seem to forget that the official story is also a conspiracy theory, if a very flawed one. I really don't understand why so many official story believers can't realize this simple fact.

What do you mean?

I thought my statements were fairly clear. What don't you understand?

Why it would be an important point.

What I'm trying to say is that while it may take experts to have found some of the flaws in the official 9/11 story, once exposed, you don't need experts to verify said flaws.

But I have visited truther sites and I have heard Steven Jones’ claims. That’s how I got to my current position. I read both sides of the story and made my mind up. By only reading the conspiracy sites you aren’t really after the truth, you are just wishing to reinforce a non existent conspiracy.

Please. This is definitely not a 'truther' site, with its 9/11 'mighty tangle'. In fact, it's the forum where I've seen the most lively debate on what happened on 9/11.

 

[shaman_]

And I've come out with winning arguments every time ;-).

Neither am I. Dang 'mighty tangle'.

Which neither of us are going to search for.. it's kind of like a fairy tale "Once upon a time, certain links were cherry picking witness testimony" you say. "Well, how about you show me some evidence", say I. Both of us loathing the thought of actually have to search the tons of pages in the entangled threads that could confirm or deny things..

I'll pass on that mighty tangle search, thanks ;-).

You have yet to prove that he's said anything stupid.

The constant references to the supposedly suspicious removal of the steel are stupid. Only truthers could see the six months needed to remove the steel as hasty and suspicious.

If it were simply his qualifications I were in awe in, NIST would have won hands down. From "Top Ten Connections between NIST and Nano-Thermites" (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html):





Actually, a few did. You can see this in various 9/11 truth movement videos.

Got any names?

"" in your quest to maintain the official conspiracy.




Everyone has flaws. Simply because a person has a flaw doesn't mean one should discard everything else they have to say.

Yes everyone has flaws. Dr Steven Jones’ flaw is that he likes to publish loopy papers.

He relies on a lot more people then David Ray Griffin. And David Ray Griffin isn't just a professor of theology. He's written around 5 books on 9/11.

Making a handy living off the tragedy isn't he? I looked at some of his work and he was repeating the same theories as others.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

What I'm trying to say is that while it may take experts to have found some of the flaws in the official 9/11 story, once exposed, you don't need experts to verify said flaws.

Please. This is definitely not a 'truther' site, with its 9/11 'mighty tangle'. In fact, it's the forum where I've seen the most lively debate on what happened on 9/11.

But all your information comes from truther sites.

 

[scott3x]

The constant references to the supposedly suspicious removal of the steel are stupid. Only truthers could see the six months needed to remove the steel as hasty and suspicious.

The bottom line, I believe, is not that it took a wink to remove the steel. Rather, the issue is that it wasn't analysed enough. Even NIST admits that they didn't analye it for thermite.

Yes and all those claims become rather silly when you take into account that the event was seven years ago. How many firefighters have retired or left the profession since then? Hundreds? Thousands? None of them are speaking up.

Actually, a few did. You can see this in various 9/11 truth movement videos.

Got any names?

Sure: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Yes everyone has flaws. Dr Steven Jones’ flaw is that he likes to publish loopy papers.

If we started counting how many people have religious beliefs that strain credulity, we'd be here a while. Similarly, if you could analyze any particular person's life, I'm sure you could come up with a fair amount of flaws. At times, this can be a real shame, because it can distract from truly inspiring work.

Originally Posted by scott3x

He relies on a lot more people then David Ray Griffin. And David Ray Griffin isn't just a professor of theology. He's written around 5 books on 9/11.

Making a handy living off the tragedy isn't he? I looked at some of his work and he was repeating the same theories as others.

Yes, there are a network of people in the truth movement who seem to generally come to the same conclusions regarding certain things. From what I've seen, there are some key 9/11 researchers on 9/11 and David Ray Griffin is one of them. Steven Jones says this in his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Bryan Peterson and Harold Stokes.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Or atleast that's what you believe.

What I'm trying to say is that while it may take experts to have found some of the flaws in the official 9/11 story, once exposed, you don't need experts to verify said flaws.

Please. This is definitely not a 'truther' site, with its 9/11 'mighty tangle'. In fact, it's the forum where I've seen the most lively debate on what happened on 9/11.

But all your information comes from truther sites.

Ah Shaman. Don't you realize I'm getting information from here too? Truther sites are good, but at times they may not challenge you.. it's the old 'preaching to the choir'. Here, I get information from official story believers, there I get the counters.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC, in response to your last post, I didn't know the answers, so I turned to the loose change forums. I can just imagine you getting upset that I quoted a few lines from you again and I'm thinking perhaps I should have just linked to your post. In any case, what's done is done. In the loose change forums, Headspin made a very detailed response:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=139755&t=663014

Well this guy states that barium, aluminium and oxygen were found, and he is correct. I wasn't sure, but I had assumed that barium nitrate was a compound which could not be mistaken for barium. Same with aluminium oxide can't be confused with aluminium and oxygen separately.

Just to confirm my suspicions, I addressed this question to RKOwens4 whose debunking videos on YouTube is where I got my information. This is what he had to say:

---------------------
Yes, Steven Jones reports finding ALUMINUM, but there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide (which is the number one main byproduct of a thermate reaction). Aluminum oxide is aluminum with 3 oxygen atoms added, in the same way that water is hydrogen with two oxygen atoms added. The difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide is as great as the difference between hydrogen and water. There would be no mistaking the two under analysis. Also, Barium was used throughout the complex and is unmistakably different than Barium Nitrate. Steven Jones knows this, but instead of telling the truth (which is that no aluminum oxide OR barium nitrate was found by either the USGS or himself), he points to traces of aluminum and barium and hopes his followers will be too stupid to know the difference.

Also, aluminum was very common at the WTC complex (it was used in the aluminum facade of both towers, the two 767's, vehicles, etc.) and is something that would be EXPECTED to be found. I hope I don't even have to explain why oxygen would be common at the WTC... Don't be fooled by the blatant lies and gross incompetence of people like Steven Jones.
-------------------

So basically, Steven Jones' claim that there were "uncommon chemical elements in abundance" is invalid when you consider these elements were common throughout the building.

So what about the iron microspheres? Well Steven Jones as usual ignores all other possabilities of how these could have been formed:

--------------------
It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
--------------------------

In short, Steven Jones has nothing.

Can he at least set up an experiment to show how thermate could be used to cut through a steel beam similar to ones he claims were cut on the WTC with the speed and precision necessary? I would think that a LOT of thermate would have to be used and it would be anything but quick.

 

[scott3x]

In short, Steven Jones has nothing.

Well, we'll just see about that. This time, I have only linked your post to the loose change forums, so no offending quotes . We'll see what they have to say about it.

Can he at least set up an experiment to show how thermate could be used to cut through a steel beam similar to ones he claims were cut on the WTC with the speed and precision necessary? I would think that a LOT of thermate would have to be used and it would be anything but quick.

Maybe it's been done. Or perhaps not, but will be done in the future. As I just mentioned in the loose change forums, at this point, it seems that experts are taking over. I'm getting my info from them and so are you. I feel like a messenger boy right now .

 

[KennyJC]

I don't know what you want them to say...

If elements in the WTC dust can be explained without invoking thermate, and if the iron microspheres can be explained without invoking thermate... then what does Steven Jones have?

Maybe it's been done. Or perhaps not, but will be done in the future.

Should be easy enough. I'm surprised Steven Jones or any other truther hasn't made any attempt to conduct an experiment like this. It would go a long way to at least giving truthers a bit of credibility if the experiment showed that WTC sized steel could be cut quick enough for the 15+ second collapses.

 

[KennyJC]

Heh.. I guess the people on the Loose Change forums don't like being called tin hatted nutjobs.

Was banned after one post.

 

[scott3x]

I don't know what you want them to say...

If elements in the WTC dust can be explained without invoking thermate, and if the iron microspheres can be explained without invoking thermate... then what does Steven Jones have?

First off, I'm not sure that can be done. But secondly, I think we should go for the most probable answer even if there are less probable ones.

Should be easy enough. I'm surprised Steven Jones or any other truther hasn't made any attempt to conduct an experiment like this. It would go a long way to at least giving truthers a bit of credibility if the experiment showed that WTC sized steel could be cut quick enough for the 15+ second collapses.

Maybe it's easy enough. At this point, I fully admit that I don't have the answers.

 

[scott3x]

Heh.. I guess the people on the Loose Change forums don't like being called tin hatted nutjobs.

Was banned after one post.

Well, it's more that you were suspended for 14 days. It's just that unlike here, they don't take it so well when forum members insult each other. In a very real way I'm a bit sad because I welcomed the debate, but I know that when people start insulting each other, they can loose all sight of the actual issues and get into an insultfest instead (which I don't think helps anyone). I like to think that it's very hard if not impossible for me to start doing this on an online forum, which is why we can continue talking on here (one side insults can sometimes be nipped in the bud if they get no response).

Hopefully you will still respond to things that I quote from them, as I fully admit that I can't currently keep up with the debating points at present.

In any case, Headspin responded to your post anyway:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=141354&t=663014

 

[KennyJC]

First off, I'm not sure that can be done. But secondly, I think we should go for the most probable answer even if there are less probable ones.

Thermate is not the most probable answer. I think I've already made it clear why that is the case.

Well, it's more that you were suspended for 14 days. It's just that unlike here, they don't take it so well when forum members insult each other. In a very real way I'm a bit sad because I welcomed the debate, but I know that when people start insulting each other, they can loose all sight of the actual issues and get into an insultfest instead (which I don't think helps anyone). I like to think that it's very hard if not impossible for me to start doing this on an online forum, which is why we can continue talking on here (one side insults can sometimes be nipped in the bud if they get no response).

Hopefully you will still respond to things that I quote from them, as I fully admit that I can't currently keep up with the debating points at present.

I think it's more that nutjobs know they are nutjobs and are very insecure about it and don't like to be reminded about it. They thrive respectability for their claims and they don't get it. It's the same with religious people, astrologers, believers in psychics etc... They are very sensitive to ridicule... whereas the skeptics don't react so emotionally to ridicule.

If you were to call the people nutjobs on a 9/11 myth debunking forum, I'm pretty sure your comment would be allowed to stand and the people there would thrive on the opportunity to debunk you. Afterall, if someone calls you a nutjob and you know it's not true, why be offended to the point you ban someone?

In any case, Headspin responded to your post anyway:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=141354&t=663014

I can't read any post on the Loose Change forum until Oct 7th, and I'm not even going to respond to any of their posts until they grow a pair and stop crying over being called tinhatted nutjobs.

 

[scott3x]

Thermate is not the most probable answer. I think I've already made it clear why that is the case.

Can you link me to the post where you made the case that this is so?

I think it's more that nutjobs know they are nutjobs and are very insecure about it and don't like to be reminded about it.

I think it's more that they think differently then you and no one likes being insulted. But you're free to believe what you like.

They thrive respectability for their claims and they don't get it.

They thrive respectability? Do you mean that they -strive for- respectability?

It's the same with religious people, astrologers, believers in psychics etc... They are very sensitive to ridicule... whereas the skeptics don't react so emotionally to ridicule.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

If you were to call the people nutjobs on a 9/11 myth debunking forum, I'm pretty sure your comment would be allowed to stand and the people there would thrive on the opportunity to debunk you.

I took a look at JREF and it seems they're much more sensitive then that over there. But I don't really want to make this a debate of what forum allows more personal attacks. I guess it's hard for some people to simply be civil, but I don't think that people should stop trying because of this.

Afterall, if someone calls you a nutjob and you know it's not true, why be offended to the point you ban someone?

If you were in my house and you called me a nutjob, I think I might wait a while before allowing you back, at the very least.. wouldn't you?

I can't read any post on the Loose Change forum until Oct 7th, and I'm not even going to respond to any of their posts until they grow a pair and stop crying over being called tinhatted nutjobs.

You can't even read them? Maybe it's because you have a cookie from their site that identifies you (you can get rid of cookies). If it's an IP thing, though, then it's different. In any case, I can still read (and respond) there and I will synthesize Headspin's response to you soon.

 

[scott3x]

I'm going to continue the discussion of 9/11 theories in the 'mighty tangle' (9/11 conspiracy thread) because we're clearly not talking about the creation of a new forum (or even splitting the 9/11 thread) anymore...

 

[one_raven]

I personally think a "Conspiracy Theories" subforum would be fun.
I personally don't believe that 9/11 was planned and executed internally - though I do think that the full truth regarding who executed it and how is not out yet.

Regardless there are a lot more conspiracies out there other than 9/11, and having a place for them here would be beneficial.
It would remove the threads from the more mainstream (in theory at least) forums.
It organizes content better.

It could be under pseudo science if that's where you think it would fit better, but I don't see the harm in having one.

Scott has a valid point, that having ONE thread for the multitude of discussion on this topic makes it neary impossible to discuss, but the reason it was all put together was that people didn't want 100 9/11 threads to be scattered about.
Having a conspiracy theories subforum would fix both these problems.

Besides, you have to admit that conspiracy theory threads (such as Kennedy's assasination) are always popular and generate some great discussion and teach and awful lot as a result.

 

[scott3x]

Scott has a valid point, that having ONE thread for the multitude of discussion on this topic makes it neary impossible to discuss, but the reason it was all put together was that people didn't want 100 9/11 threads to be scattered about.
Having a conspiracy theories subforum would fix both these problems.

Besides, you have to admit that conspiracy theory threads (such as Kennedy's assasination) are always popular and generate some great discussion and teach an awful lot as a result.

I couldn't agree more, on all of the above .

 

[Ganymede]

Scott, the only thing the spooks will do is attack your character, not the veracity of your statements. It's pointless to make another sub-forum. The best thing we can do is learn more about the truth, and we'll accomplish that by sharing ideas with like minded people who can add to our base of knowledge.

 

[KennyJC]

Scott, the only thing the spooks will do is attack your character, not the veracity of your statements. It's pointless to make another sub-forum. The best thing we can do is learn more about the truth, and we'll accomplish that by sharing ideas with like minded people who can add to our base of knowledge.

Anybody else see the irony in this statement?

"The only thing the spooks will do is attack your character".