Email to debunking911.com
I sent an email to whomever runs the website www.debunking911.com. It's really not a bad website, but it's far from good. He really needs to clean that thing up if he (or she) wants actual credibility.
Here's my email. Yeah, it's messy (and I put it here in case anyone else wants to have this debate).
The first part addresses some lameness in the FAQ of the site.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site?
>>Where can one comment on your website? Maybe you could open a comments section and if you're worried about flaming, you could moderate the comments. This would make your site a center of actual debate instead of simple info dissemination.
Q: Why don't you have anything on the pentagon?
A: Because this idea is so far out there even the conspiracy sites are debunking it. I offer links which go into that issue in detail. I'm more interested in the stories the conspiracy theorist are in agreement with.
>>Actually, there are many different conspiracy theories even regarding the WTC. Some are very ridiculous (no planes theory, pod theory) and other conspiracy theorists don't agree with them and attack them. Maybe you should bring up the pentagon.
Q: Most of your arguments seem to be straw man. Why do you attack arguments I'm not making?
A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who make it. (Read: logical fallacy) If the topic doesn't apply to you then just skip it and go on to the next.
>>You should address as many different arguments as you can if you want real credibility. And you do, in fact, have many strawman arguments on your site. You don't have to agree with one side or the other to recognize a strawman.
I'd like to specifically address your page: www.debunking911.com/osama.htm
This is an example of a strawman. People like Alex Jones don't say that it is impossible for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. They say is it impossible for Arabs, or any foreigners, to confuse NORAD with multiple terror drills and make them "stand down" (as he puts it) on the very day they plan to attack. Alex Jones doesn't ever mention that these war games and simulations aren't closely guarded secrets (neither does anyone trying to debate Jones's and others' points, including Popular Mechanics and your site, which always makes me scratch my head). Just go to www.falseflagnews.com to see listings of many war games and terror drills planned for the near future. It's pretty easy to find out about these things and it would have been obvious to plan multiple hijackings for a day on which multiple hijacking simulations and distracting war games were to be carried out. Also, the 7/7 bombings in London took place during a terror drill simulating that very situation, tube and bus bombings. It must be that the terrorists planned their attacks that day once they found out which day the drills would be held.
If you could address this argument this way, it would be much stronger, instead of focussing on Osama bin Laden, since there is no actual physical evidence linking him to 9/11. (I never understood why everyone focusses on bin Laden and not on the man who actually masterminded the plan, KSM, and whom we have in custody. You hardly hear about him, at least not 1% as much as you hear about OBL.) His "confession" right before the elections could be many things. He is in Bush's rolodex, like many CT say, or he is taking credit for something that he didn't do to gain advantage and to make empty threats. And read the words of the "confession" very carefully and critically. Does he ever really confess? Not really. It came to his mind? Well, it came to everyone's mind after it happened. Even US intellgence puts the mastermind of the attack not as bin Laden, who they claim is a financier, but as KSM and Atta, based on plans by Yousef. "They pointed out that AQ spent..."
doesn't mean they actually did spend anything. Anyway, you'll never convince people with a confession from bin Laden as long as CTs say that bin Laden is part of the conspiracy as a boogie man anyway.
on this page: www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
why do you keep referring to people who don't come forward and then add "and they are even liberals and centrists." What does that have to do with anything?
This is yet another strawman anyway, I'm afraid. The CTs don't say that all these people are in on the conspiracy. They say (a) most of them were fooled too (b) there are a few 'brave' people here and there coming out of the woodwork. There are people in the Pentagon who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Karen Kwiatkowski). There are people in the CIA who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Ray McGovern). There are many of the widows and family of the victims who are calling for a full independent investigation. They don't dismiss complicit elements within our government either. Also, don't you think it's odd that 'all' the steel got shipped off and sold? Don't you think that years and millions SHOULD be spent investigating the steel and everything about the collapse of the buildings. You say NIST is studying computer models. Why aren't they studying every scrap of steel from the buildings themselves. Ask yourself that.
Why is ironic that Bloomberg is a Republican?
And get Noam Chomsky's name right. If you are a flaming liberal like you say, you should know your gatekeepers' names.
If you want to be taken seriously clear up all the bad typos and some sentences that don't even make sense. Example: "In some ones need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest they may forget an important fact." What?
Keep it up, but try to be more convincing. Just to let you know, I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I don't buy controlled demolition. But, since I have no way of knowing, I can't discount LIHOP, especially after reading the "new Pearl Harbor" language in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It's just too convenient. The real reason CTs flourish is that parts of the govt are so secretive and can't or won't explain certain aspects and events of that day.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the site. If you would like to debate or discuss points in my email thingie, or any part of the 9/11 conspiracy debate, please do.
Here's my email. Yeah, it's messy (and I put it here in case anyone else wants to have this debate).
The first part addresses some lameness in the FAQ of the site.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site?
>>Where can one comment on your website? Maybe you could open a comments section and if you're worried about flaming, you could moderate the comments. This would make your site a center of actual debate instead of simple info dissemination.
Q: Why don't you have anything on the pentagon?
A: Because this idea is so far out there even the conspiracy sites are debunking it. I offer links which go into that issue in detail. I'm more interested in the stories the conspiracy theorist are in agreement with.
>>Actually, there are many different conspiracy theories even regarding the WTC. Some are very ridiculous (no planes theory, pod theory) and other conspiracy theorists don't agree with them and attack them. Maybe you should bring up the pentagon.
Q: Most of your arguments seem to be straw man. Why do you attack arguments I'm not making?
A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who make it. (Read: logical fallacy) If the topic doesn't apply to you then just skip it and go on to the next.
>>You should address as many different arguments as you can if you want real credibility. And you do, in fact, have many strawman arguments on your site. You don't have to agree with one side or the other to recognize a strawman.
I'd like to specifically address your page: www.debunking911.com/osama.htm
This is an example of a strawman. People like Alex Jones don't say that it is impossible for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. They say is it impossible for Arabs, or any foreigners, to confuse NORAD with multiple terror drills and make them "stand down" (as he puts it) on the very day they plan to attack. Alex Jones doesn't ever mention that these war games and simulations aren't closely guarded secrets (neither does anyone trying to debate Jones's and others' points, including Popular Mechanics and your site, which always makes me scratch my head). Just go to www.falseflagnews.com to see listings of many war games and terror drills planned for the near future. It's pretty easy to find out about these things and it would have been obvious to plan multiple hijackings for a day on which multiple hijacking simulations and distracting war games were to be carried out. Also, the 7/7 bombings in London took place during a terror drill simulating that very situation, tube and bus bombings. It must be that the terrorists planned their attacks that day once they found out which day the drills would be held.
If you could address this argument this way, it would be much stronger, instead of focussing on Osama bin Laden, since there is no actual physical evidence linking him to 9/11. (I never understood why everyone focusses on bin Laden and not on the man who actually masterminded the plan, KSM, and whom we have in custody. You hardly hear about him, at least not 1% as much as you hear about OBL.) His "confession" right before the elections could be many things. He is in Bush's rolodex, like many CT say, or he is taking credit for something that he didn't do to gain advantage and to make empty threats. And read the words of the "confession" very carefully and critically. Does he ever really confess? Not really. It came to his mind? Well, it came to everyone's mind after it happened. Even US intellgence puts the mastermind of the attack not as bin Laden, who they claim is a financier, but as KSM and Atta, based on plans by Yousef. "They pointed out that AQ spent..."
doesn't mean they actually did spend anything. Anyway, you'll never convince people with a confession from bin Laden as long as CTs say that bin Laden is part of the conspiracy as a boogie man anyway.
on this page: www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
why do you keep referring to people who don't come forward and then add "and they are even liberals and centrists." What does that have to do with anything?
This is yet another strawman anyway, I'm afraid. The CTs don't say that all these people are in on the conspiracy. They say (a) most of them were fooled too (b) there are a few 'brave' people here and there coming out of the woodwork. There are people in the Pentagon who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Karen Kwiatkowski). There are people in the CIA who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Ray McGovern). There are many of the widows and family of the victims who are calling for a full independent investigation. They don't dismiss complicit elements within our government either. Also, don't you think it's odd that 'all' the steel got shipped off and sold? Don't you think that years and millions SHOULD be spent investigating the steel and everything about the collapse of the buildings. You say NIST is studying computer models. Why aren't they studying every scrap of steel from the buildings themselves. Ask yourself that.
Why is ironic that Bloomberg is a Republican?
And get Noam Chomsky's name right. If you are a flaming liberal like you say, you should know your gatekeepers' names.
If you want to be taken seriously clear up all the bad typos and some sentences that don't even make sense. Example: "In some ones need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest they may forget an important fact." What?
Keep it up, but try to be more convincing. Just to let you know, I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I don't buy controlled demolition. But, since I have no way of knowing, I can't discount LIHOP, especially after reading the "new Pearl Harbor" language in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It's just too convenient. The real reason CTs flourish is that parts of the govt are so secretive and can't or won't explain certain aspects and events of that day.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the site. If you would like to debate or discuss points in my email thingie, or any part of the 9/11 conspiracy debate, please do.
posted by beervolcano at 12:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home