Who is the Copernicus of 9/11 Truth?

[greyl]

Poll question: Who is the Copernicus of 9/11 Truth?

About Copernicus

[StrictlyRockers]

1. Why do you insist on spamming the 9/11 truth forum with inane threads?

I don't get it. By filling the forum with spam do you help us to get to the truth? Is your mission to get in the way as best you can and PREVENT us from reaching the truth? Because I really don't get it, greyl.

SR

[LARED]

2. the noive of some people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=139874&mesg_id=139881

Back to the galleys with you! :crackswhip:


BTW, I think it's an interesting poll. Perhaps it will open the eyes of those that cling to CT silliness.

[greyl]

3. Straw Argument, Appeal to Emotion, Needling,

Argument by Rhetorical Question, Argument To The Future, ...

Damn, way to shove so much stuff into one post.

[StrictlyRockers]

4. Way to dodge the question.

Damn, way to shove so much jargon in one post.

All you had to do was say "pass, ask me a different question".

I didn't know I was debating Mr. Veteran Forum Guy with a six gun full of fancy sounding zingers.

Anyway, nice dodge.

SR

[greyl]

7. Your question was rendered moot. If you aren't familiar with the tools of logic, don't fret

it's an acquired skill, not some inborn talent.
If you want to, you can get better at it. I have to tell ya, it comes in real handy when debating ignorant right-wing assholes.

Winning arguments is fun, and you can do it to!

Just send 3 easy payments, and one really hard one, to ...

edit: spling

[StrictlyRockers]

11. I am learning. I am learning the artful dodge from master greyl.

How to avoid answering a pointed question about your motivations in three easy steps.

I. Hurl jargon like your life depended on it.

2. Decree that the question was rendered moot.

3. Change the subject.

Do I have it down yet?

Verrrry impressive.
:sarcasm:

SR

[greyl]

13. Vote. nt

[StrictlyRockers]

14. No.

I'm not gonna vote in yer stoopid poll. :P

:D

SR

[greyl]

15. kick nt

[LARED]

6. Another thing

This is not the 9/11 Truth Forum. It is the Sept 11 forum. There seems to be a concerted effort to market the 9/11 CT'er as truth seekers. Please stop pretending the 9/11 CT movement is actually interested in the truth. Some are. Most are not.

[greyl]

8. Ah, nice catch.

What you point out reminds me of the way astrologers used to complain about critical thinking showing up in the DU Meeting Room.

The noive.

[LARED]

10. Astrologers and CT'ers have much in common

Both have a faith based "science" at their disposal. I have no problem with either (faith or science), its just the two should never meet with the expectation that a critical thinking process will fit into the discussion

[greyl]

5. Other - There aren't any, and the artificial category of so-called "OCTer"

was dreamt by those who have no coherent theory or evidence to stand on to be a self-serving means to demonize anyone who disagrees with them in "with us or against us" fashion.

[LARED]

9. I should change my vote to other

if that is how you meant so-called OCTer. I assumed the "so called" implies it was a misnomer cast by others.

[greyl]

12. No real need to.

I didn't think of that response till after the poll was posted.
Your reply is appreciated and on the record, and I know I'm in the category of so-called OCTer with you.

[JackRiddler]

16. Who's Your Ptolemy? GreyL's false assumption on display.

The false assumption here is that there was ever a reigning model of the universe to be overthrown: roughly, 19 terrorists in surprise attack, as opposed to the heretical notion of "false flag" operation, or an orchestration of the attack from within the US secret state establishment.

In fact, the paradigms have been in contest from the first day forward. If one idea has been represented more loudly in the US media, that is no more salient to determining the truest model than that likely a majority of the planet's citizens outside the United States believe a conflicting idea.

To name a Copernicus concedes without warrant that your side of the argument is the long-established consensus paradigm.

In other words: Who's your Ptolemy? The 9/11 Commission Report?

By what mechanism was the neutral hypothesis established in this case? Because Attorney General Aristotle said so, and he was on TV when he did?

[greyl]

17. you have a few other posts of mine to reply to before you

try to get famous replying to this one, jackie.

[StrictlyRockers]

18. Self-aggrandize much?

:yawn:

SR

[PunkinPi]

19. Your post is really dumb. Nt

[JackRiddler]

20. yawn indeed

I think Ptolemy is pissed about my snark at this thread of his which is even more inane -- what would you do with $90 K to prove your case? I used a one-liner to point out this was peanuts. (Since he's not providing ANY sum and going to be abusive of ANY answer I give, I'd rather not fantasize pointlessly, or at least fantasize about what I'd do if I commanded the resources of the NY Times or a TV network. That's more fun.)

Here's what a group of us did with about $10 k (for setting up, a couple of months wages and the legal advice):
http://Justicefor911.org

And it's not so far-fetched that I might get $90 K for such a task - I'd rather keep my cards close about what I'd do then.

But anyway: Give the guy a joke answer, get a huffy dismissal. Give the guy a serious answer, as in this thread, and get a huffy dismissal. Is there a pattern here?

And can you blame him? Does he have an answer? Who made his idea of what happened on 9/11 into the equivalent of an established consensus theory for the apparent motions of the planets? All these man-child no-content threads he's currently flooding the board with are desperately trying to confer some kind of special status on the OCT,* as though it's backed by some vast scientific community, as though it's the theory of gravity or evolution.

I'm inconsolable. Will I ever be let into the GreyL He-Man Science Guys Treehouse?

* OCT = 19 guys, by surprise, sole perpetrators.