Featured What's The Difference?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

Can it get any more obvious that the "debunkers" have lost the debate?

Take away their ridicule, personal attacks and program of character assassination (slander) what do they have left in the way of an argument?

Not much.

At this point it's like watching a tragic comedy taking place on a stage, when one person's trash talking and attempts to silence the opposition by slander isn't working they gang up on the opposition as if multiplying and combining the number of insults and personal attacks into a chorus somehow makes these types of responses valid and credible.

Such is the strength of the "consensus" argument that it has to be defended in such a shallow predictable manner.

Now that we have seen the best arguments (sic) the 9/11 "debunkers" can muster it's time to again ask the question . . . "what's the difference"?

How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the "global warming" believers?

How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the anti gun people?

The "global warming" believers tell us the "science is settled" and point to how many scientists with "peer reviewed" papers to their name there are that believe in "global warming" and anyone who questions this "consensus" is insane and shouldn't be allowed a platform to raise questions that challenge the "consensus".

How is that any different from the 9/11 "debunker's" argument?

The anti gun people are always ready to "dance in the blood of the victims" of gun violence to shame their opponents into silence and force us to relinquish another bit of our liberty to advance their agenda.

There's one minor difference that I can see in the arguments of the "anti gunners" and the 9/11 "debunkers" the anti gunners don't wrap themselves in the flag to put on a show of faux patriotism before they go about "dancing in the blood of the victims" to shame their opponents into silence, force us to relinquish more of our liberties, and acquiesce to a corrupt authoritarian governmental system.

Not much of a difference in the tactics used by either group really, Both use the victims as pawns while attempting to "shame" their opponents into silence. In this they reveal how they have no shame themselves.

So again . . . what's the difference?

I see very little difference at all so the next question should be . . .

What do the "global warming" believers, the anti gunners, and radical leftists have in common with the 9/11 "debunkers"?

Having failed to silence their opposition through "shaming" and slander they are now calling for censorship and the criminalization of opposing views.

If you don't think the 9/11 "debunkers" aka "anti conspiracy theorists" are doing this then you haven't read Cass Sunstein's book or this "scholarly paper" in which he proposes . . .

The "take away" from all this is that we are now witnessing the lefties and the righties holding hands and using the same tactics to defeat their common enemies . . . truth and individual liberty.

 

Now that we've had a chance to hear from both sides in this debate what's the difference between AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" and the 9/11 "debunkers" the "anti-truthers" evidence, science and arguments?

AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" question all the omissions and misinformation in the 9/11 Commission report, the total lack of a criminal investigation into one of if not the largest crimes on American soil and the soundness of the "science" NIST used to come to their conclusions.

The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".

AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have produced an alternative hypothesis that explains the collapse of the three buildings at or near free fall speed using evidence and science that doesn't depend on ignoring or violating Newton's laws to come to their conclusions.

The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".

AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have openly published their findings and conclusions and the scientific methods they used to reach them.

The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" have published a plethora of un-scientific "hit pieces" that never ask why NIST feels the need to hide the data it used in it's models which makes any peer review of that data and the models impossible or how the alleged 9/11 hijackers were able to suspend Newton's laws on the day of the attacks.

In other words, they still depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers". The "anti-truthers" also heavily depend as our friend Carpro has just shown us again on the belief that everyone they the "anti-truthers" lump together and hang the label of "conspiracy theorist" is in fact part of the "9/11 truth movement". When in fact they are not. There are many disinformation artists posing as "truthers" who's agenda is to call attention to themselves and "poison the well" of information presented by legitimate researchers.

In this thread you've had a chance to see the evidence for and against the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which side's evidence and science and arguments are more compelling and therefore more credible.

 

Anyone else notice how Carpro avoids addressing the omissions in the 9/11 Commission report, the total lack of a criminal investigation and how NIST had to ignore Newton's laws in order to come to it's conclusions?

He's really good at smear and character assassination, not so good at addressing the actual issues AE9/11Truth and people like David Ray Griffin and other researchers have brought up.

That's why there's always going to be "conspiracy theories" the "debunkers" spend all their time smearing those who ask the questions instead of honestly answering the questions.

Maybe if NIST came up with a hypothesis that didn't have to ignore Newton's laws to explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the "truthers" would find them a bit more credible. As it is NIST uses the same kind of "science" the IPCC used to come to it's conclusion that global warming is man made.

The IPCC ignores the effects of the sun, NIST ignores Newton's laws.

 

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

DVD 1

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory"
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

DVD 2

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

 

I'm wondering if I should change the title of this thread to something like "Debunker Smear Vs Truther Questions And Evidence . . . You Decide".

DVD 2

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated <--- Start Here ---
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

 

That's some theory Carpro. But again it doesn't address any of the concerns with the 9/11 Commission report, or why there was never a criminal investigation, or why NIST has to keep ignoring Newton's laws to explain the total collapse of three buildings.

I think I know the answer but for the sake of other readers I have to ask . . . is there going to come a point in the near future where you stop with the smear campaign and start addressing the concerns listed above?

"What's the difference" between my arguments and your arguments?

My arguments center on the facts, evidence and science.

Your arguments center on "personalities".

In other words AE9/11Truth, and other researchers are running an investigation to sort fact from fiction while your "debunkers" are running a political campaign to smear them.

Address the facts, evidence and science Carpro. Smearing people only proves you can smear people. Don't get me wrong you've got real talent and a lot of energy when it comes to smearing people but that talent and energy would be put to better use in a political campaign run by the Clinton's rather than an investigation into the facts, evidence and science of 9/11.