Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Roeper on the Scholars

Richard Roeper takes on Uncle Fetzer and the rest of the gang at the Scholars for 9-11 Denial.

The article from the Associated Press was headlined, "Conspiracy theorists just aren't buying 9/11 story." We learned about a group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," or, as I like to call them, "A Bag of Mixed Nuts." Although they offer no concrete evidence to support their wild theories, they're educated and articulate, and they ask unanswerable questions, thus giving some of their theories a hint of plausibility.


I do wish that people would drop this argument:

As one debunker noted, these people think a Boeing 757 should have sliced through the walls of the Pentagon intact, leaving behind the kind of "perfect" outline you'd see if a plane crashed through a building in a cartoon.


Considering that the planes left perfect outlines in the WTC, it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to expect something similar at the Pentagon. Yes, it wouldn't happen because of the difference in the construction of the buildings.

But Roeper senses the best argument against the CT:

Here's a question: Where are the PEOPLE who were on that plane? If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon and Flight 93 didn't crash-land in a field in Pennsylvania, what happened to the planes and the passengers and crew? Where have they all been for the last half-decade?

"Lost" is the name of a fictional series. That's not the way it works in the real world.

Lost would also be a good word to describe those who believe this nonsense.


Update: Here's another good analysis of the Scholars.

37 Comments:

At 09 August, 2006 08:51, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like my man Jason says,

"The people are really secondary."

 
At 09 August, 2006 11:01, Blogger Tempestuous said...

If Roeper wasn't so much like that clown, Mr. Roeper from TV's "Three's Company" I'd be mad at the clown. That goosestepper should tkae the crazies on in a debate...Not take the cowardly route...and it would be entertaining for all.

 
At 09 August, 2006 11:18, Blogger shawn said...

That goosestepper should tkae the crazies on in a debate...Not take the cowardly route...and it would be entertaining for all.

Stop breaking Godwin's Law, it's irritating.

And it's actually cowardly to demand a debate. The weaker, desperate side is almost always the one who calls for the debate.

 
At 09 August, 2006 20:55, Blogger Tay Hota said...

Thw weaker side always calls for a debate. Wow, that is fascist.Thanks 911goosestepper. Debates are fun...That is all. Debates are entertaining. Stop preaching to the damn choir.That is cowardly. The 911nutbars want to debate, so what's the big deal. Is it manly to due a voice over dub of that Dylan guys video in some basement. Have a boxing match. The loyal bootlicking, steroided out 911goosesteppers (101st Fighting Pawns) against the mentally ill geeky 911nutbars. Pay for view.

 
At 10 August, 2006 01:09, Blogger Dog Town said...

Off your meds again, eh.....La Taya? WoWeeeeee!

 
At 10 August, 2006 03:18, Blogger shawn said...

Thw weaker side always calls for a debate. Wow, that is fascist.

It's almost always the case, moron. Creationists do the same thing. Holocaust deniers do the same thing.

Which side is blocking the opposing viewpoint? It's not us. Don't let your biases hit you on the way out.

 
At 10 August, 2006 03:37, Blogger shawn said...

Tay hota, I wonder what you'd say if there was a group denying gravity. If we refused to debate them after destroying their (obviously) unsupported argument, would we then be "gravity goosesteppers"? It makes about as much sense as calling us 9/11 goosesteppers.

 
At 10 August, 2006 05:01, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

The 9-11 Troofers FEAR debate. Believe me, regardless of what they say, that's the last thing they want. That's why they avoid Mark Roberts like the plague.

 
At 10 August, 2006 05:50, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Tell me more about this Mark Roberts. What are his specific credentials? We should author an expose on all the major debunkers. There are too many anonymous cowards out there. At least the crazies put there names out there, and there credentials, and there contact information.

 
At 10 August, 2006 05:58, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Also, I have read the letter saying we can use the Centcom site material for our 101st fighting fodder blogs---what about getting more of the 911 anti-nut material? I don't have the 911debunking site's good stuff.

 
At 10 August, 2006 06:21, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Well Temp, you can go to 9-11myths.com and download Roberts' Loose Change Viewers' guide, 2nd Edition. He includes his email address and I have emailed him several times. It turns out that minimal research is required to disprove most claims about 9-11 CD and other theories.

 
At 10 August, 2006 06:57, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Great, I'll do that...Who runs the Debunking911Conspiracies thing? I can't find the dude to interview?

 
At 10 August, 2006 09:05, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Nobody "runs" it aside from those individuals who have websites or blogs like these. It just so happens that there are people left in America that understand the concept of critical thinking.


I am sure any of these individuals would be happy to answer your questions. Who would you be interviewing for anyway.

 
At 10 August, 2006 10:44, Blogger Tempestuous said...

I want the 911debunking guy(s) to lay the cards on the table. They/he is/are cowards. They blab about Uncle Fetzer (whose home number is listed on the site, and address, and credentials), and the goosesteppers hide behind their own fragile egos. Who the hell is the author of Debunking911?

 
At 10 August, 2006 10:45, Blogger Tempestuous said...

To reiterate for random surfers:

Also, I have read the letter saying we can use the Centcom site material for our 101st fighting fodder blogs---what about getting more of the 911 anti-nut material? I don't have the 911debunking site's good stuff.

 
At 10 August, 2006 13:05, Blogger shawn said...

Tell me more about this Mark Roberts. What are his specific credentials? We should author an expose on all the major debunkers. There are too many anonymous cowards out there. At least the crazies put there names out there, and there credentials, and there contact information.

You have his name yet he's an anonymous coward? How stupid are you? You can see my real name and where I live by checking my profile.

And let's think about this temp (I know thinking is something you do very rarely, but let's try it). The debunkers aren't the ones holding conferences and selling videos and books and tshirts. They aren't putting their names everywhere and tyring to become famous. They're not trying to make money off a tragedy. They're (gasp) actually trying to educate people. What a novel concept!

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:14, Blogger Tempestuous said...

No. No.

First, thanks for the ever tiring sarcastic and mocking punk attitude. You freaks must have the "How to be a rude Bitch." At least the "nutbars" are mostly polite.

Secondly, I am asking the following tough guy:

Who runs Debunking911?

Why are a bunch of you idiots in the 101st Fighting Drones?

The Centcom question is on a different post...

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:24, Blogger shawn said...

You freaks must have the "How to be a rude Bitch."

You compared us to Nazis right off the bat. You're reaping what you sow, punk.

Why are a bunch of you idiots in the 101st Fighting Drones?

No such group. If you mean the Keyboardists, most of us aren't part of it anyway. See that image on my blog? Nope.

At least the "nutbars" are mostly polite.

Politeness doesn't matter if you're wrong. I've said many times I don't care if I come off as an asshole, as long as I'm right.

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:30, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Show me where I used that word, little baby punk. You did.

And many of you drones have received the Centcom letter and cop stuff, clown.

You are the the most lowly of creatures. That is bad Charma dude. See you in Church...

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:39, Blogger Alex said...

See you in Church...

No you won't. I don't buy into that conspiracy theory either.

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:43, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Atheist?

 
At 10 August, 2006 14:51, Blogger Alex said...

If you need to attach a label, feel free to call me whatever you like. I won't answer to it though, and I certainly don't identify with it. I'm a member of the species "sapiens", genus "homo". Other than that, any labels you assign me are just handy ways for you to apply your biased stereotypes to me.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:01, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Humanist? Intersting...It's all making sense to me now. However, author Joe Nickel approaches the debunking thing a little differently. He's an aetheist. However, his debunking techniques do not include insults and personal attacks. He has debunked many issues with careful investigation. Obviously, most 911 debunkers are of the sarcastic, demeaning, and mocking brand. I'm all for debunking, but the idiots have to go. You seem to at least be willing to engage in some amount of conversation without the Hannity-styled attacks. Hoorah for you Alex.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:11, Blogger Alex said...

The attacks around here only occur in one of those circumstances:

1) When 200 individuals come on here, one after the other, all asking the same damn question. It's rather aggrivating having to debunk the same nonsense over and over again. It'd be nice if people just learned to use the search function.

2) When an individual simply refuses to listen to reason, or use even the least ammount of logic in analyzing either their own arguments, or those presented by us.

You will never see anyone here insult a person who calmly came on here and politely asked a question, after which they logicaly analyzed the response and either accepted the answer or asked a reasonable follow-on question. If someone like that were to be insulted I'd stick up for him/her if I was around.

The oens who get insulted are the f@4@#$ crusaders who come on here making like they're the only ones in possession of "Da TRUTH", asking the same old questions, and refusing to neither acknowledge the answer nor use any sort of critical thinking when modifying their conspiratoid theories.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:28, Blogger Tempestuous said...

I believe that you are quite noble. thanks. Many of the other so-called debunkers appear more insane than the people they call nutbars. However, I must disagree with one of your points. These individuals are posting in other forums under various names and they are just as venomous and insulting---so much so that it actually does nullify their argument. Even the anonymous debunking guy's website is overtly and unnecessarily sarcastic. He/they should read some of Joe Nickel's materials.

Also, the sites that are copping material from Centcom should just stop. I have the letter like the rest, and I'd like some more of the debunking materials as well, but we should let it end at the right wing propaganda.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:28, Blogger Tempestuous said...

I believe that you are quite noble. thanks. Many of the other so-called debunkers appear more insane than the people they call nutbars. However, I must disagree with one of your points. These individuals are posting in other forums under various names and they are just as venomous and insulting---so much so that it actually does nullify their argument. Even the anonymous debunking guy's website is overtly and unnecessarily sarcastic. He/they should read some of Joe Nickel's materials.

Also, the sites that are copping material from Centcom should just stop. I have the letter like the rest, and I'd like some more of the debunking materials as well, but we should let it end at the right wing propaganda.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:29, Blogger Tempestuous said...

I believe that you are quite noble. thanks. Many of the other so-called debunkers appear more insane than the people they call nutbars. However, I must disagree with one of your points. These individuals are posting in other forums under various names and they are just as venomous and insulting---so much so that it actually does nullify their argument. Even the anonymous debunking guy's website is overtly and unnecessarily sarcastic. He/they should read some of Joe Nickel's materials.

Also, the sites that are copping material from Centcom should just stop. I have the letter like the rest, and I'd like some more of the debunking materials as well, but we should let it end at the right wing propaganda.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:41, Blogger Alex said...

These individuals are posting in other forums under various names and they are just as venomous and insulting---so much so that it actually does nullify their argument.

They're only human. I have also fallen back on insults in the past, and probably will again in the future. I make a concerted effort to avoid it as much as possible but everyone does it occasionaly. Look at your own behaviour on some of these threads, and then try to criticize. As your own religion states, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ;)

All of us are human, and, by our very nature, all of us are fallible. Some might finish that sentence with the words "only god is not", but I truly cannot believe that any being in this universe could be perfect and infallible. In fact, that's one of the reasons I cannot believe in a god. Without mistakes and failure, what's the purpose of life? A perfect being would be bored out of his mind, especially if he also happened to be immortal. Life is only made interesting through constant challenge, and challenges cannot exist without the possibility of failure.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:47, Blogger Tempestuous said...

I agree, floating on some cloud would be quite boring. Thanks...

Also, the sites that are copping material from Centcom should just stop. I have the letter like the rest, and I'd like some more of the debunking materials as well, but we should let it end at the right wing propaganda.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:52, Blogger Alex said...

I have no clue what you're refering to with the centcom bit. If you're suggesting that anyone around here is just repeating talking points from some government organization, you couldn't be more wrong.

 
At 10 August, 2006 15:54, Blogger shawn said...

Show me where I used that word, little baby punk. You did.

Goosesteppers = Nazis.

And many of you drones have received the Centcom letter and cop stuff, clown.

I have NO idea what you're talking about. None of us are drones, and I have no idea what the hell this letter is.

You are the the most lowly of creatures.

And WE'RE making personal attacks? I just called you an idiot, which you are. I never made any judgment as to your place on the food chain.

That is bad Charma dude.

The word is karma.

See you in Church...

Stop ignoring my posts, I told you I'm an atheist.

. Many of the other so-called debunkers appear more insane than the people they call nutbars.

Yeah isn't it a shame when we get pissed off when people try to pass off fantasy as reality? You don't seem to understand what sanity/insanity means. Anger has nothing to do with it.

These individuals are posting in other forums under various names and they are just as venomous and insulting---so much so that it actually does nullify their argument.

How many times can you be wrong in one post? It does no nullify the argument. I could debunk a CT point and then follow it with ten million "morons" and it wouldn't change that I was right and they were wrong. Only some weak-minded fool would think that an attack destroys an argument.

 
At 10 August, 2006 18:26, Blogger Tempestuous said...

An aetheist. Another one? Hmmm. This is interesting. But you really should read Joe nickel's work. He's adebunking investigator, but doesn't use the offensive approach that you fellows do. It works much better, and I'll apologize for my part. Aetheist Debunkers. Who'd a thought? I like it. It's perfect. I think even Jesus might like it. Wow, I'm beginning to like this blog. Aetheist 911debunking dudes. I like the sound of it. So really, anything can be debunked, right.

The obvious choices are religion, the afterlife, ghosts, Remember The Maine, UFO's , Gulf of Tonkin, Big Foot, Operation Northwoods, Mothman, Mena drug running by the CIA during Clinton's Governorship, dinosaurs/Loch Ness, USS Liberty...

How many in this debunking gig are aetheists?

 
At 10 August, 2006 19:20, Blogger shawn said...

How many in this debunking gig are aetheists?

I'd think quite a few. Since God isn't logical, it's why we don't believe in Him. We take that logical outlook on other theories and such.

 
At 10 August, 2006 19:23, Blogger shawn said...

And I do prefer the term secular humanist, atheist is an ugly sounding word.

 
At 10 August, 2006 22:38, Blogger Dog Town said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11 August, 2006 10:07, Blogger Tempestuous said...

OK, I like humanist also. So how many are you guys are humanists? This is very interesting and should be subject to an article in and of itself. "Humanist 911 Debunkers: How aetheists have pulled together to support the official account of September 11," by Tempestuous. Please, maybe we should create a thread over at the forum. I really want to write an article. I will send it to a bunch of publications.

 
At 11 August, 2006 10:29, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Is the whole lot of ya secular humanist. This is truly facinating...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home