9/11 truth nutjobs hijack Bill Maher's show

[joft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDcY2NK8bKE

well not quite hijacking. a few of them just snuck into the audience and started yelling at different points in the show and got kicked out one by one.

(btw i posted this here instead of the TV forum because I figured unless it's dead on arrival it will probably degenerate into a debate)

[stopharian]

He wonders why all his fans are nutjobs??????

[Spring]

It's sad. The people who really suffer here are the familys of the victims because they never even got a decent enough investigation to debunk these kinds of claims. There is no way to tell now whether or not it was a controlled demolition or what exactly happened to building 7, but I suspect there has to be some truth in the allegations. If only we had media that addressed these kinds of issues, nut job incidents like this one probably would never happen. But meh, that is the way the world is.

[Bodhi]

I fail to see how you can justify anyone as "nutjobs". Much less the people who have valid questions concerning these events.

[Jennywocky]

(btw i posted this here instead of the TV forum because I figured unless it's dead on arrival it will probably degenerate into a debate)

That would be nice. Right now, the thread just seems like a bunch of people saying, "Was too / Was not" without offering ANY sort of reason why they think the official record should be changed.

Funny what happens when you leave INTPc for awhile and come back later, and realize most of the posts are just self-indulgent, "Well, here's what I want to believe, so there!" without any sort of rational basis being offered.

I guess that is what public forums generally are, though.

[Bodhi]

That would be nice. Right now, the thread just seems like a bunch of people saying, "Was too / Was not" without offering ANY sort of reason why they think the official record should be changed.

Funny what happens when you leave INTPc for awhile and come back later, and realize most of the posts are just self-indulgent, "Well, here's what I want to believe, so there!" without any sort of rational basis being offered.

I guess that is what public forums generally are, though.


In short, what makes them nutjobs?

[PonderBee]

I fail to see how you can justify anyone as "nutjobs". Much less the people who have valid questions concerning these events.

Nutjobs was perhaps a poor word choice. Loudly protesting and posing unsolicited questions from the audience on a live production of a tongue in cheek comedy show is nothing more than embarrassing anticking that dilutes and nullifies a message - valid or not.

[joft]

valid questions
if by "valid," you mean "rhetorical," then fine. otherwise I take issue with the "question" designation, because these people aren't willing to listen to any answer other than the one they already believe.

Skeptic magazine did an entire issue on this topic. I haven't actually read it, but if there's one publication that I trust indiscriminately to be right about everything it's Skeptic. And I'm pretty sure that if they reached any conclusion it was that the conspiracy theorists were nutjobs. (I'm willing to bet my position that people are lazy enough to not check my source.)

[Night]

In short, what makes them nutjobs?

When they discard empiricism.

The burden of proof is in their court.

[Bodhi]

When they discard empiricism.

The burden of proof is in their court.


In what way have they discarded empiricism?

The proof has been found and not explained by the 9/11 Commission. So it appears that your statement is 180* out.

[Bodhi]

if by "valid," you mean "rhetorical," then fine. otherwise I take issue with the "question" designation, because these people aren't willing to listen to any answer other than the one they already believe.

Skeptic magazine did an entire issue on this topic. I haven't actually read it, but if there's one publication that I trust indiscriminately to be right about everything it's Skeptic. And I'm pretty sure that if they reached any conclusion it was that the conspiracy theorists were nutjobs. (I'm willing to bet my position that people are lazy enough to not check my source.)

I can't say much about Skeptic magazine as this is the first I've heard of it, but there is a movement in the US and Britain by a so-called Neo-Conservative group. From the Bush Family, Cheney, Murdoch, Blair and so on- this is the group of people that have gained an enormous amount of wealth and power from the 9/11 events.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

When there is a murder, the first questions are"

Who had motive?
Who stands to profit?

[Oso Mocoso]

I can't say much about Skeptic magazine as this is the first I've heard of it ...

Skeptic magazine is a periodical from the Harry Houdini tradition of going after and debunking bogus pseudo-scientific claims. The 9/11 issue is the only one I've ever actually purchased, but I occasionally skim through Skeptic at the bookstore. It's a well respected magazine. They thoroughly skewer the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

A documentary you can view online on the 9/11 subject is called "Loose Change". It's a well-made documentary as an example of film making, but thoroughly full of shit. On Google video:

Loose Change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Loose Change debunked

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

If you have the time, the second link includes exhaustive references that take the wind out of all of Loose Change's claims about 9/11, and Loose Change is pretty thorough about beating on all of the conspiracy theory drums.

--Oso

[Night]

In what way have they discarded empiricism?

The proof has been found and not explained by the 9/11 Commission. So it appears that your statement is 180* out.

You are not understanding my statement.

Read again.

[MacGuffin]

Nutjobs is accurate.

[Oso Mocoso]

Nutjobs is accurate.

Except for Bodhi, of course. He has the intelligence and good taste to frequent this fine web forum. That makes him charmingly eccentric.

--Oso

[ajblaise]

"Nutjobs" is a cheap shot. (But a good call for Maher to use the word...it's very effective)

Our government has admitted to planning false flag or terrorist attacks on it's own people before....soo I wouldn't move so close to what our government tells us happened.

Attack something to make it look like someone else did it as a means to an end....one of the oldest tricks in the book. The Burden of proof is not only on the "9/11 Truthers" but also on our government and their "official story". Both have put out conspiracy theories.


Anyone who thinks they know anything about an event like 9/11 is a nutjob. I'm leaning towards "they knew", until I see evidence which sways me in another direction.

[chicane]

nutjobs is equal to blinded believers?

[Oso Mocoso]

Attack something to make it look like someone else did it as a means to an end....one of the oldest tricks in the book. The Burden of proof is not only on the "9/11 Truthers" but also on our government and their "official story". Both have put out conspiracy theories.

The government plans all kinds of things. Do you have evidence of the US plotting false flag attacks on its own military or citizenry in the past? Also, you seem to be using the fact that they've done something in the past as evidence that they did so again, which is a classic example of a logical fallacy.


Anyone who thinks they know anything about an event like 9/11 is a nutjob. I'm leaning towards "they knew", until I see evidence which sways me in another direction.

...and you followed up your logical fallacy with an argument from ignorance. Wow. It's a bad logic twofer. So ... because you claim knowledge is impossible, you're choosing the whackjob argument. Bravo. Not going to even think about looking at some of the evidence? I cited references. Nah, researching your opinion would be work.

--Oso

[MadamI'madaM]

If I was Bill Maher, I would've added, "and I WILL tase you, bro"

EDIT: and insinuating 9/11 was planned or known about is a fucking steep claim

how do you actually KNOW the Holocaust really happened?

[nfinityi]

Bill Maher is an ass, and so not funny.

[zserf]

If you're going to destroy buildings 1 & 2 then it makes no sense to destroy 7 without taking out 3,4,5,&6.

As for 1&2: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm

I may not trust the government, but I trust science.

[MacGuffin]

Bill Maher is an ass, and so not funny.

Fixed.

[ajblaise]

The government plans all kinds of things. Do you have evidence of the US plotting false flag attacks on its own military or citizenry in the past?

heh, nice opener. aaand yeah...here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)


Also, you seem to be using the fact that they've done something in the past as evidence that they did so again, which is a classic example of a logical fallacy.

I seem? You can't use an ad hom (a logical fallacy) when charging me with one, I can't stress that enough.


...and you followed up your logical fallacy with an argument from ignorance. Wow. It's a bad logic twofer. So ... because you claim knowledge is impossible, you're choosing the whackjob argument. Bravo. Not going to even think about looking at some of the evidence? I cited references. Nah, researching your opinion would be work.

--Oso

I was into this subject for a while a couple years ago. Based on what I've researched over that time, I've never come to closure on the issue really, I'm leaning towards "they knew" for now. I'm not trying to convince anyone or cite references. That's what people can do on their own time.

[Oso Mocoso]

heh, nice opener. aaand yeah...here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)


Okay, so they THOUGHT about practicing a false flag attack on the U.S. but they didn't actually do it, and you're using this as evidence that 9/11 was a false flag attack? That's great.



I seem? You can't use an ad hom (a logical fallacy) when charging me with one, I can't stress that enough.

Sure, you can't stress that enough. But I was attacking your argument, not you. So you're just demonstrating that you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. Congratulations, maybe you should take a course on logic at a college near you? It might help.


I was into this subject for a while a couple years ago. Based on what I've researched over that time, I've never come to closure on the issue really, I'm leaning towards "they knew" for now. I'm not trying to convince anyone or cite references. That's what people can do on their own time.

Oh sure, you've been into the subject ... but you can't present any evidence, demonstrate mastery of logic, or coherent thought. Wonderful. Welcome to Crackpotville, population: you.

--Oso

[ajblaise]

Okay, so they THOUGHT about practicing a false flag attack on the U.S. but they didn't actually do it, and you're using this as evidence that 9/11 was a false flag attack? That's great.

Thought? "The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer."

And I'm using that as evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation? I'm not.


Straw man. Ad hom. Right in section 1 of your post. Your other two sections have logical fallacies as well.

[deepb]

If you're going to destroy buildings 1 & 2 then it makes no sense to destroy 7 without taking out 3,4,5,&6.

As for 1&2: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm

I may not trust the government, but I trust science.

Well, that simulation fails to address the most puzzling part of what happened - the actual collapse. NIST also failed to mention anything about it in their report, because "once the towers reached the point of collapse initiation, the mystery was solved". Given the following odd characteristics of the actual collapse, I disagree:


near-freefall speed collapse time (10-18 seconds, depending entirely on how you measure it).
abnormal amounts of dust (some of which has been analyzed and found to contain iron-rich microspheres, indicative of molten iron).
small explosions happening ahead of the collapse-front.
presence of molten metal in the rubble for months after the collapse, widely reported to be "molten steel"; however, only one guy from FEMA actually tested it & confirmed that (AFAIK).


Most of those characteristics were also observed when WTC7 collapsed.

I agree with you about trusting science, which is why I question the official story. I don't necessarily believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition - I just think they need to do an independent investigation.

In other words, investigate it with the same transparency that any other mass murder would have.

[nfinityi]

Bill Maher is an ass, and so not funny [if you discount how much he takes Lewis Black's material].


Fixed.

No, now it's fixed.