Display:

We are not allowed; as I understand the situation.

And that 9/11 thread you refer to demonstrates why: the people that bring up the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and those that are willing to believe them will never be convinced by any argument, however well based on facts, evidence and physics. Thus it is an absolute waste of time to make the arguments. Like I said, DoDo, stormy and others provided massive amounts of evidence to debunk the various points raised by mmmm (with new ones coming up each time).

But you seem to think that no argument has been provided, and you use the thread as an example to whine about how the poor hoi polloi are oppressed, censored and not taken seriously on ET. Well, you're 100% wrong on this.

If that thread did not change your mind on 9/11, nothing will, and that's a real case of "if you have already made up your minds,..."


These anomalies have been proposed  by professonal pilots of long experience,  as well as believable senior military representatives.

Just FYI - this is again the argument by authority, not by facts.


 There is no doubt in my mind that an alternative exists, and that a failure to understand that view renders arguments one sided.

"no doubt in my mind" - that supposedly open mind of yours?
"an alternative exists" - all the version that have been proposed are, each time, a lot more absurd and bizarre than the version they purport to debunk.


you are not a client that I'd like to work wiih

Is that meant as an insult?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 01:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
   We are not allowed; as I understand the situation.

And that 9/11 thread you refer to demonstrates why

You just exposed yourself to more allegations of suppressing multiple views...

To make the argument to Sven a bit differently and hopefully in a way perceived less confrontatively: Had it been not allowed, I and later stormy wouldn't have made detailed counter-arguments. But in fact it seems that for you, it is the real or claimed expertise of the claim-maker that counts, and you are less inclined to consider the arguments itself, as I have done. It is true that you as a non-technical person, you are justified to bow out of judging the technical validity of the arguments itself. However,

  • one can still take a closer look at how the claim is truly related to the claimed expertise,
  • one can check whether and what other experts responded to the claim,
  • one can check whether there is evidence ignored by the expert opinion (be them witness testimonies, photos or materials testing), because experts aren't infallible and omniscient either,
  • one can check whether the evidence the critical experts based their anomaly claim on is what they claim it to be (because even experts can mis-read and mis-interpret transscripts or even photos).
I was doing nothing more and nothing less. And every time the 9/11 anomalies come up, it feels like I'm called on doing someone else's homework. I note that I started into this as a 'believer', with special interest in the hijackers' identity, fighter scrambling timeline, and Bush regime pre-knowledge issues, but I found my answers. Yet when I browse the ever growing 9/11 anomaly sites, I see ever more of these claims, with the old ill-considered ones still in place. So it gets annoying and tiresome and time-consuming, and one is not exactly happy when yet again there is outlook for doing someone else's homework on a 9/11 anomaly claim. I guess that's exactly what others have felt who yawned.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 07:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series