Response to proposed rejuvenation of 9/11 forum.

I very rarely visit the 9/11 forum and never post there, because since I have been a member that forum has been garbage.

The problem does not seem to me to be one that will be fixed by strictly enforcing respectful debate. The discussion is played out. Each side knows exactly what the other one has to say, and they remain unconvinced. How many times can we reinterpret the same data?

This is not an issue like ethics or politics - it is not a matter of opinion - it is a matter of fact. There is some specific, factual, objective set of events that took place on and leading up to 9/11. Yet, we are in possession of all of the evidence that is availible and, collectively, we cannot come to a consensus.

There are virtually no substantive developments in the field. A rare exception is the Danish study which reports evidence of nano-thermite in the rubble. Occasionally, high profile groups or individuals will take a stance against the OS. This is not evidence of anyhing. These people have just developed an opinion. It does not make any side "more right" just because someone well known agrees with them. The truth of the matter is uneffected by the number of artchitects and engineers that take one side or the other.

Once all of the evidence has been presented, and all of its logical implications have been considered, and still two competing theories remain, there is little to be done without more evidence. Clearly, the evidence does not favor one side enough for there to be a general consensus - otherwise there would be a general consensus. We are at a point of impasse as long as no new evidence(not the kind where so and so takes a side based on existing evidence) is made availible.

What can be expected of people who continue to engage in this discussion, when there is nothing more to be said given the availible data? I think the answer to this is self-evident. Look at the content of the forum in question. Garbage.

I think that general discussion should be halted entirely if our objective is to filter out trivial contributions. New data only, and then specific discussion of that new data and how it fits into the existing body of evidence!

If you have any concern whatsoever for the value of this discusson board, do not turn this thread itself in a debate about what happened on 9/11. If you propose that this OP is a troll, or that I am not interesting in the truth of the matter, you do not know what those words mean. No new truths have come out of this board in a long time. Think about that. The problem is systemic, and the issue of respect in the debate is only tangentially related, though it is a worthwhile pursuit under any circumstances. It just isn't the cure in this case, because lack of civilized discussion is only a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

[edit on 3/14/10 by OnceReturned]

We already have a thread open for responses. No need for a new one.

Closed.