9/11 Debate on Democracy Now: Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics.

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33

 

nothing to discuss. that stuttering bald guy with glasses... he seems to know his #.
he is confident and definitely doesn't look or sound like a liar. the other 4 men i have
never heard of.

I believe you were talking about James Meigs, a philosophy major from Dartmouth. How can a philosophy major be believed as an expert in science, something he has no training in? He is trained in discussing both sides of a subject. He continually cited his experts though he never mentioned who they were. One of his arguments against Loose Change was that they used early reports from eyewitnesses instead of reports and conclusions from years later. An example of this is the coroner report. This is obvious witness tampering. Another example of this is the CNN reporter who totally changed his story of the pentagon debris. Any criminal investigator will try and get evidence and eyewitness statements while it is fresh, not years later. This is an example of a philosophy major at work.

His other tactics include attacking the messenger instead of the message, and using emotionalism to try and persuade you. If you want I could point out his body language and other parts that indicate he knows he is lying. You fell for the prop of the smart guy with glasses.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by patternfinder
plus, there's lots of things that happen to people when they out the government!!! and this fact is nothing new and isn't debatable....

...so let me get this straight. You make up accusations of government culpability for the 9/11 attack, and to back it up you quote a bunch of college kids making up accusations in the internet videos they cook up in their dorm room, and when one of them was caught red handed for dealing heroin you make up accusations that they've been set up. All without a microbe of proof backing anything up.

If this is the way you want to live your life, fine, but you have to know that sooner or later you're going to be expected to back your claims up with somethign tangible, and you're going to need a hell of a lot more than simply accusing everyone and their hampster of being secret government agents. Here's a wild, crazy thought- did it ever occur to you that your conspiracy stories could really be right AS WELL AS the Loose Change bunch could really be self serving con artists who are simply out to make a fast buck at other people's expense? The two don't cancel each other out.

I will say this again- you conspiracy people really need to police your ranks better and know when to cut your losses. Simple group dynamics means that your movement will necessarily have, as a whole, the credibility of your least credible component, and your making champions out of heroin dealers doesn't exactly make you look like modern day Paul Reveres.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

I believe you were talking about James Meigs, a philosophy major from Dartmouth. How can a philosophy major be believed as an expert in science, something he has no training in?

Up until now we've been pointing out to you conspiracy people that David Ray Griffin is a professor of religious studies, not to mention, Dylan Avery (the guy who wrote the 500 myriad Loose Change versions) is a film student who made the flick in their down room, and yet you consider everything they're saying as scientific gospel. Let's not forget that Dr. Judy Wood really is a professor of physics and yet you ignore her because she's spouting the "lasers from outer space" claim, while on the other hand the truthers repeatedly go to THIS guy as a "serious and dependable source of news of the real world":



Would you mind terribly explaining this contradiction of yours?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

I believe you were talking about James Meigs, a philosophy major from Dartmouth. How can a philosophy major be believed as an expert in science, something he has no training in?

Up until now we've been pointing out to you conspiracy people that David Ray Griffin is a professor of religious studies, not to mention, Dylan Avery (the guy who wrote the 500 myriad Loose Change versions) is a film student who made the flick in their down room, and yet you consider everything they're saying as scientific gospel. Let's not forget that Dr. Judy Wood really is a professor of physics and yet you ignore her because she's spouting the "lasers from outer space" claim, while on the other hand the truthers repeatedly go to THIS guy as a "serious and dependable source of news of the real world":

Would you mind terribly explaining this contradiction of yours?

Dave, you apparently have a problem paying attention. At no time did I bring up David Ray Griffin, Dr. Judy Wood, or any other conspiracy theorist. All I did was make a comment on the supposed smart guy with glasses and the video. Where is the contradiction? Would you please explain yourself.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So let me answer your question with another question- if some homeless drunk guy lying in his own urine in a back alley behind a whorehouse told you that 9/11 was an inside job, are you telling me you're so mindlessly servile to your conspiracy ideology that you'll even quote HIM as a reference?

if what the drunk said was true, i would quote him, no problem. as long as what he said made sense, and i agreed that evidence matched his story.

p.s. you can't answer a question with a question. can you?
p.s.s. god i miss ignoring you.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Dave, you apparently have a problem paying attention. At no time did I bring up David Ray Griffin, Dr. Judy Wood, or any other conspiracy theorist. All I did was make a comment on the supposed smart guy with glasses and the video. Where is the contradiction? Would you please explain yourself.

Of course. You said, and I quote:

"I believe you were talking about James Meigs, a philosophy major from Dartmouth. How can a philosophy major be believed as an expert in science, something he has no training in?"

I made the observation that the personnel the conspiracy theorists are consistantly quoting (David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, that French guy who invented the whole "cruise missile at the Pentagon" conspiracy to begin with, etc) all have equally zero scientific training to base their statements on. Why are you commenting on the credibility of that "supposed smart guy with glasses" when the people he's debating with don't have the credibility to contradict what he's saying?

...and yes, you did bring them up, whether you meant to or not. Dylan Avery (producer of this Loose Change flick) is the other main relevent person in this thread, and he too has zero scientific training to counter anything Meigs is saying. Yet, there is obviously some reason you side in with his "no credibility" over Meigs "no credibility". What is it?

Originally posted by billybob
If what the drunk said was true, i would quote him, no problem. as long as what he said made sense, and i agreed that evidence matched his story.

If what he was saying was true, you wouldn't need to resort to relying on what a homeless drunk guy was saying. There'd be a host of OTHER people who were saying the same thing and you would be quoting them, instead.

The fact that you even need to resort to quoting homeless drunk guys...or to put it back to the original context, a drug dealing film producer arrested for selling heroin...says right there you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything to back your claims up. As for me personally, I would even hold the homeless drunk guy in higher esteem that the heroin dealer. The destruction of human life he's committing is only against himself.

p.s. you can't answer a question with a question. can you?

Of course I can. My goal is to get people to think for themselves rather than simply swallowing whatever those damned fool conspiracy web sites are saying. The manner is which I do it is really immaterial.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by billybob

p.s. you can't answer a question with a question. can you?

Of course I can. My goal is to get people to think for themselves rather than simply swallowing whatever those damned fool conspiracy web sites are saying. The manner is which I do it is really immaterial.

Are you really Dave?

You are catergorising people as Conspiracy Nut Jobs, just because they can see the inconsistencies throughout the OS.

You are playing the same game as the MSM.

Granted that not all theories hold water, but you are definetley not attempting to get people to think for themselves. Most people do think for themselves and have not bought into the BS that was initially fed to us regarding 9/11, that's why they are here.

Regards

edit on 7/9/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Of course. You said, and I quote:

"I believe you were talking about James Meigs, a philosophy major from Dartmouth. How can a philosophy major be believed as an expert in science, something he has no training in?"

I made the observation that the personnel the conspiracy theorists are consistantly quoting (David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, that French guy who invented the whole "cruise missile at the Pentagon" conspiracy to begin with, etc) all have equally zero scientific training to base their statements on. Why are you commenting on the credibility of that "supposed smart guy with glasses" when the people he's debating with don't have the credibility to contradict what he's saying?

...and yes, you did bring them up, whether you meant to or not. Dylan Avery (producer of this Loose Change flick) is the other main relevent person in this thread, and he too has zero scientific training to counter anything Meigs is saying. Yet, there is obviously some reason you side in with his "no credibility" over Meigs "no credibility". What is it?

First off, you put me in with conspiracy theorists and consistently used "you" in your post. I did not mention any of these people except Meigs. I was commenting on the film and the people debating in the film. Why does PM send a philosophy major to talk about science? A philosophy major learns the skills of argumentation and persuasion in their speech and writings. I gave you an example of him arguing against the common practice of trying to gather witness statements and gather evidence early in an investigation. You want to avoid this subject or to even discuss anything in the film. You only want to attack the messenger. You attack Dylan Avery because he was a film student. I believe it is important that you have someone knowledgeable in making a film if you are going to make one. As far as credibility, you do not need to be a rocket scientist and only need common sense to see all the holes and lies in the governments story. Many scientists and engineers have come forward, though, to criticize the official version. These people have much more credibility than Meigs.