Originally posted by Alfie1
That is not what I asked. KJ stated that the body was not that of a passenger, I never claimed to know either way. I asked him what information he had to back up that assertion and he just seems to want to avoid the issue.

I find that particularly hypocritical from a poster who happily calls someone else a liar and calls for straight facts and honesty. If he doesn't have anything to support what he said why doesn't he admit it and we can move on.

Yeah yeah yeah. Now can you just answer my question? You whipped out this evidence in order to make your case that there were passenger bodies found so I am asking you which passengers you are showing us pictures of.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You honestly think that the theory of relativity is analogous to a an ancient Greek's belief in, say, centaurs?

I mentioned cantaurs did I? Remind me when.

According to you, the existence of centaurs would qualify as a "theory". I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise to me, but somehow it still does.

Yes. This is not about the scientific method. You are stating that I must have one theory in order to counteract your theory or else yours wins.

Oh man. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even saying you're wrong (although you almost certainly are).

What I'm trying to get across to you is that if you don't start to construct a viable alternative theory then the flow of the discourse surrounding 9/11 will leave you, and the rest of the Truth movement, behind.

It really does not matter if the theories come from serious investigation or fever dreams.

Really? Read that back and have another think about it. You seriously accord equal weight to, say, germ theory as you do to the idea that the tides are caused by Odin drinking from a big cup attached to the sea? You think that the only difference between those is that one has been proved wrong?

I am not the one that said there needs to be a theory behind me in order for anything I say to be valid.

Neither am I.

In fact, I was told in this thread that I should not even ask questions until I have my own theory to present. LOL.

"LOL". Not sure who by.

Anyway, you misunderstood my original comment. Historical theories are complex pictures of reality. They are not axiomatically true or false with regard to historical events, but there are generally accepted models. They compete with and refine each other through academic debate. Yours won't be one of those competing in this way because you haven't even got one.

I did not realize this was a competition. I am simply looking for the truth behind 9/11. If you are looking for a game to win, I suggest you look elsewhere.

I'll say this as gently as possible and then move on. Ideas, especially dramatically conflicting ones, are always in competition. That's why they generate such heat (but often not much in the way of light) around here.

This doesn't mean that they are the intellectual equivalent of an egg and spoon race. Just that this is the method by which the sum of human knowledge is advanced.

Although I suspect you know this and are just trying to be sanctimonious.

And FYI the enlightenment ended in the late 18th century. Your last couple of sentences suggest that you're spectacularly confused about what I meant when I mentioned it.

Unfortunately, this response shows that you are very confused about the premise you put forth to me.

I can assure you I'm not.

You demand I have a theory in order to make my questions valid

No. I suggest you mount some kind of theory if you wish to be taken seriously. The world cares little for your "questions", but people might stand up and take notice if you put forward some counter arguments about what might actually have occurred.

and yet you are also the one who decides what theories are good and bad based on the century they come from?

No. The timescale has no bearing at all. One could examine the ideas of a south sea cargo cult in the modern era and conclude that its "theories" are just base superstition.

Ignorance is ignorance. If people thought you would fall of the earth because it was flat simply because they did not know any better, it is no different from you believing AA77 flew into the Pentagon because you do not know any better.

It's completely different. I am in a position to evaluate that evidence and have unprecedented access to it because of the vast difference in communication speed between now and then.

Look, the "theory" that the earth is flat does not even start with a basic set of data or principles, beyond the idea that the "earth" exists and that it often appears "flat" to the naked eye.

It then conjures an idea from nowhere about what the state of the world must be. But it isn't put forward as a logical, scientific answer to a defined problem. It isn't posited from evidence in opposition to another claim. Rather it is accepted as empirically self evident until another explanation comes along, at which point it vanishes because it has no scientific traction.

Anyway, this is a side issue really. What I'm trying to show you is that "just asking questions" is a retreat, the first step towards defeat. If you can't provide viable alternative theories - and no, fever dreams won't cut it - then you're going to fade away.

Arguably you already are.

Instead of trying so hard to come across as outsmarting yourself, perhaps you can keep up with the actual things you said to me and then my responses would make more sense to you.

Doubt it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

According to you, the existence of centaurs would qualify as a "theory". I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise to me, but somehow it still does.

I guess if you do not know what a theory is, sure. That is not what I said. I did not ever once claim that mythology or religion were synonymous with theories. I merely pointed out that at one time, there was only two theories about something and neither was right but you did not like my example so lets go post enlightenment for you, ok?

Not all that long ago, there were two theories about cancer.

1-It was a virus that could be killed as well as spread.

2-It was an out of control bacterial infection.

Neither was true. Get my point yet?

Oh man. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even saying you're wrong (although you almost certainly are).

Can you prove that I am or are you just saying that?

What I'm trying to get across to you is that if you don't start to construct a viable alternative theory then the flow of the discourse surrounding 9/11 will leave you, and the rest of the Truth movement, behind.

Thanks mom but I am willing to take that chance, ok.

Really? Read that back and have another think about it. You seriously accord equal weight to, say, germ theory as you do to the idea that the tides are caused by Odin drinking from a big cup attached to the sea? You think that the only difference between those is that one has been proved wrong?

Yeah. The only difference is the level of knowledge. The only difference between myth, superstition, legend, and theory is education in most instances. At one time, with the information available the theory was that the earth was the center of the universe. Then there was the theory that it was flat and so on. Are you trying to say these were not theories at the time just because we know better now? Are you also trying to say that until a competing theory was introduced, these ones were true?

Neither am I.

Then what do you want?

"LOL". Not sure who by.

Pteridine.

I'll say this as gently as possible and then move on. Ideas, especially dramatically conflicting ones, are always in competition. That's why they generate such heat (but often not much in the way of light) around here.

This doesn't mean that they are the intellectual equivalent of an egg and spoon race. Just that this is the method by which the sum of human knowledge is advanced.

Although I suspect you know this and are just trying to be sanctimonious.

No, you are just trying to be an ass. You know all to well that what I was referring to was your 'I win! Yay for me!' cheerleading.

I can assure you I'm not.

It is too bad that twice now your answer has not reflected any real comprehension. Wanna give that a shot?

No. I suggest you mount some kind of theory if you wish to be taken seriously. The world cares little for your "questions", but people might stand up and take notice if you put forward some counter arguments about what might actually have occurred.

Really? What world is that? Is that the one where someone you love is murdered and your favorite cop is the one the shows up with a suspect and MO in mind and does not bother to ask any questions?

Everyone knows the best investigators are the ones that ask the least questions and offer the most uninformed theories instead, right?

No. The timescale has no bearing at all. One could examine the ideas of a south sea cargo cult in the modern era and conclude that its "theories" are just base superstition.

I am curious what it is you are using as criteria for what is a theory and what is a superstition.

It's completely different. I am in a position to evaluate that evidence and have unprecedented access to it because of the vast difference in communication speed between now and then.

So how does that make their theory not a theory? So no one was able to theorize until they had unprecedented access? What makes you think 1000 years from now they will not have greater access and then that will make your theory retroactively not a theory, right?

Look, the "theory" that the earth is flat does not even start with a basic set of data or principles, beyond the idea that the "earth" exists and that it often appears "flat" to the naked eye.

It was the best they could do with the information they had access to at the time. You just said yourself that the only difference is access. So there are no theories until there is full access?

It then conjures an idea from nowhere about what the state of the world must be. But it isn't put forward as a logical, scientific answer to a defined problem. It isn't posited from evidence in opposition to another claim. Rather it is accepted as empirically self evident until another explanation comes along, at which point it vanishes because it has no scientific traction.

LOL. I know you wanted that to sound all super intelligent and all but it is mostly doubletalk that barely says anything and almost contradicts itself. You just described a major characteristic of a theory in trying to prove something is not a theory. Interesting.

Anyway, this is a side issue really. What I'm trying to show you is that "just asking questions" is a retreat, the first step towards defeat. If you can't provide viable alternative theories - and no, fever dreams won't cut it - then you're going to fade away.

Nope. Asking questions is the best way to get to the truth. You do not find out anything by deciding before hand what something is.

Arguably you already are.

...and yet look how much time you spent replying to me already.

Doubt it.

That is ok, I doubt it too. You are trying really hard but I am not one of your little college friends. I can actually read. You should try to be more monosyllabic. I don't care if you use nothing but SAT words but it looks like you are tripping over yourself in your attempt to come across as more intelligent than you are. Just a little advice.

"You should try to be more monosyllabic"



Sorry, I can't carry on with this. You're just willfully refusing to understand what I'm writing. Or you're not insightful enough to grasp it.

Keep asking the questions.

Okay. I'll try to summarise for you, in as monosyllabic a fashion as possible.


-- You seem to think that I was suggesting that the latest theory about something must always be correct.

That's not what I meant. Forget scientific method, I'm talking about academic discourse, with particular regard to history, since increasingly that's what 9/11 is.

The way that this discourse is advanced is through the testing of different, often competing, theories in open debate. You can, if you want, continue to ask questions and clarify existing theories, but if you want to negate them you must, I'm afraid, eventually put forward your own.

Take your cancer analogy. The reason that we now have a different idea about what constitutes and causes the disease is because another theory has replaced the two that you mention. People like you may have "asked questions" about them, but that's only a small part of the way knowledge has developed

Especially - and ironically - with regard to cancer. If your 9/11 approach had been followed they would have demolished the first two theories eventually and then been left with nothing. Which wouldn't have been much of a comfort to cancer sufferers.


-- You make another analogy, about a policeman not asking questions during a grisly murder case

Again, ironically, this is a poor example for your argument. Because in order to build a case the policeman must posit a theory about what really happened. That theory is then tested in court.

Obviously I am not suggesting that asking questions and testing hypotheses is not part of that process. But it is only a small piece of it. Let me turn it around - imagine your loved one had been killed and you got another policeman round. He asked millions of questions, interviewed every witness methodically, performed exhaustive forensic investigations.

As he left you asked him when the case might be. "What case?" he asks. There won't be one. He's not going to come up with some kind of theory about what happened. He's just asking questions.

You might conclude that he'd wasted your time.


-- You write that "It was the best they could do with the information they had access to at the time. You just said yourself that the only difference is access. So there are no theories until there is full access?" And you seem generally confused as to the difference between a "theory" in the academic sense (obviously the usage in this thread) and superstitious or mythical attempts to explain natural phenomena. Indeed your dismissal of what I wrote as "mostly doubletalk that barely says anything and almost contradicts itself" betrays your difficulty.

I'm not sure this is particularly relevant, because I think it's based on a misunderstanding you made at the outset, but I'll indulge your interest.

First, there is a vital difference beyond "access" (and I never wrote that the "only" difference is access). And it has to do with the enlightenment issue I wrote about earlier, and has little to do with timescale.

Take Anaxagoras, who claimed that the moon reflected the sun's light in about mid-5th C BC. This was the product of an individual putting forward a theory for which he had a series of arguments. He started with an observation, and through a combination of conjecture and experiment produced a theory to explain it. He saw a clear goal.

At the same time it was believed, probably by Anaxagoras himself, that the cycle of seasons was explained by the caprice of Demeter, a nature goddess, and her lament over her daughter Persephone.

The latter is not a theory in the sense used here. It's a piece of folk wisdom handed down through generations, not an hypothesis designed by investigation to accurately explain a natural phenomenon. Nobody tested it, or put forward counter theories - it was taken as self evident, like the flat earth. It didn't exist within a post-enlightenment exchange of ideas. And as soon as it did it instantly dissolved.

But as I say none of this really matters. It's irrelevant to the main thrust, which is that if you'd understood my original point then you wouldn't have made the analogy that you initially did. Theories don't "come true" because they exist for a period of time. It's just that the latest one, the one that has stood up best, is for practical purposes assumed to be the most accurate model of the truth.

And yes, this was true of your cancer example. It just happened to be wrong and a better theory replaced it. With 9/11 that better theory isn't going to be yours because you don't have one.



BTW -- "I am sorry that I made valid points and won the argument"

Now who's interested in mere point scoring? I thought you had only the high-minded pursuit of truth as a goal?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Seriously, Pterry have you suffered from a head injury? Are you special in some way? You seem to have a bad habit of repeating yourself as if on a loop. Jthomas does it too. It almost seems like every few months you both just start back at the beginning of some script. Hmmmm. You have asked me this about 5 times now. See what my answer was any of those times.

You, too, seem to repeat yourself quite a bit. Not long ago you were into calling me and others liars. I was also called a coward for not doing your bidding. I understand that this is common with those who are losing arguments.
Your failure to state a position while continually demanding evidence of others is also a simple fence-sitting tactic used by those who wish to avoid taking a position by proposing a testable theory. Claims of "seeking the truth" and "gathering evidence" ring hollow during the verbal attacks of the evidence-gathering truth-seekers.
You have no evidence of any cover up or conspiracy. You propose no mechanism for any of the stories that are forwarded. There are many conspiracy theories where invisible forces using unknown means for questionable ends are proposed and seconded by acolytes. When confronted with opposing theories and evidence, these theorists all claim planted evidence and unreliable witnesses.

You seem to be typical of this group.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. I'll try to summarise for you, in as monosyllabic a fashion as possible.


-- You seem to think that I was suggesting that the latest theory about something must always be correct.

No. You told me I needed to have a theory in order to be taken seriously. I simply pointed out to you that having a theory only means you are a person who can imagine and nothing more. Having theories has no effect on the truth. Sorry this got so over your head.

Now who's interested in mere point scoring? I thought you had only the high-minded pursuit of truth as a goal?

I said that I was sorry for you, not happy for me.

[edit on 12/10/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by pteridine

You, too, seem to repeat yourself quite a bit. Not long ago you were into calling me and others liars. I was also called a coward for not doing your bidding. I understand that this is common with those who are losing arguments.

Right, see when you ask the same questions over and over and I answer them over and over, I will be seen as repeating myself as well. Very good. You finally caught something.

I called you and 3 other people liars. I did it because you lied.

Your failure to state a position while continually demanding evidence of others is also a simple fence-sitting tactic used by those who wish to avoid taking a position by proposing a testable theory. Claims of "seeking the truth" and "gathering evidence" ring hollow during the verbal attacks of the evidence-gathering truth-seekers.

So then can you explain to me what the job of an investigator is?

The next time a crime happens to you, you only want people who already think they know what happened without ever asking any questions?

Asking questions is actually a tactic used by people who are trying to find out something.

You have no evidence of any cover up or conspiracy. You propose no mechanism for any of the stories that are forwarded. There are many conspiracy theories where invisible forces using unknown means for questionable ends are proposed and seconded by acolytes. When confronted with opposing theories and evidence, these theorists all claim planted evidence and unreliable witnesses.

You seem to be typical of this group.

You have no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon so how is your lack of evidence somehow more valid than mine?

I thnk you guys should shake hands and go to your corners.

Got wrapped up in the last few pages, I did, and THEN thought to have a go at the first page again, to remind myself about the OP.

Let's be clear: This entire OP premise is based on the nonsense put out by Craig Ranke, and his pal Igor....ermmmm Marlo....ermmm...Aldo, something....Marguis de Sade?? (no, that can't be right, what's his name again? Oh, never mind, will not be remembered anyway).


I'd say --- INVESTIGATE this alleged "Citizen's Investigation Team".

What's that?? Already been done? They what now?!?

I have been informed that the CIT, and their 'claims', have been thoroughly trashed, a multitude of times. What's more, there are allegations as to the mental stablity, and questionable character of, one self-proclaimed "leader" of that 'organization'.

Seems we have a real, live conspiracy to look into there, folks!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I have been informed that the CIT, and their 'claims', have been thoroughly trashed, a multitude of times. What's more, there are allegations as to the mental stablity, and questionable character of, one self-proclaimed "leader" of that 'organization'.

Seems we have a real, live conspiracy to look into there, folks!

This list is a bit retarded (in the progress sense, of course)

Citizen Clown Act and Swat Team has been exposed and thoroughly gutted on every self-respecting conspiracy forum. Whole web pages devoted to it.

I just posted a link detailing their outrageous abuse of witnesses and ones they don't want to talk about. Ignored of course.

This might be the last place anyone takes them seriously.





[edit on 10-12-2009 by mmiichael]