28-09-2013, 02:17 PM
People are quick to call someone a liar. This assumes that the person who made the utterance or wrote a statement knew that it was factually untrue. People make such statements all the time believing them to be true without intent to deceive.
The cases of people referring to Tony as a liar I presume is based on the notion that Tony's has been made aware of the technical reasons why something he said or wrote is untrue. For those who make such a claim there is no wiggle room and Tony is believed to be perfectly capable of understanding his error and his persistence in repeating said claim can only be attributed to his inability to admit a mistake and or his willful attempt to maintain a fiction. I think this sort of charge applies to Tony because he claims to be technically on top of his game, unlike some others who post on internet forums and who simply copy, paste, and repeat and cheer from the sidelines so to speak. While what the supporters believe and do may be incorrect their error in thinking is somewhat understandable... they are not engineers, physicists and so forth and the positions they espouse are simply repeating what people who they believe are experts have said or written based on rigorous science and rational critical thinking.
Magda is asking for some academics who persumably have no skin the game to study and report on the matter. This is certainly a fine idea. But because of the charged politics it's hard to find anyone who hasn't taken a position either broadly supporting the official account or broadly opposing it. It's rather hard to produce blind studies of the WTC events.
And of course the level of discourse is pretty low and flooded with all manner of insults and ad hom arguments such as calling someone who does not support a belief an agent who is trying to destroy the movement of those who are striving for the truth.
I don't find the level of discourse at Randi something to hold up as an example for anyone. I will say there are at least a few people who post there who do have a fair amount of technical standing in a sea of others who don't. I do find the 911freeforms to be relatively free of non technically driven agendas. It's not a political site such as DP... and so it doesn't appeal to and is not read by member of DP. But if it's technical understanding of the little evidence that does exists, 911FF is the place to go to further understanding. And if one does spend time reading through the posts one can see that the level of understanding as evolved over time as the analysis and tools for analysis have improved.
You can only "debate" so much when you neither have all the facts nor can agree on the ones that are accessible.
The cases of people referring to Tony as a liar I presume is based on the notion that Tony's has been made aware of the technical reasons why something he said or wrote is untrue. For those who make such a claim there is no wiggle room and Tony is believed to be perfectly capable of understanding his error and his persistence in repeating said claim can only be attributed to his inability to admit a mistake and or his willful attempt to maintain a fiction. I think this sort of charge applies to Tony because he claims to be technically on top of his game, unlike some others who post on internet forums and who simply copy, paste, and repeat and cheer from the sidelines so to speak. While what the supporters believe and do may be incorrect their error in thinking is somewhat understandable... they are not engineers, physicists and so forth and the positions they espouse are simply repeating what people who they believe are experts have said or written based on rigorous science and rational critical thinking.
Magda is asking for some academics who persumably have no skin the game to study and report on the matter. This is certainly a fine idea. But because of the charged politics it's hard to find anyone who hasn't taken a position either broadly supporting the official account or broadly opposing it. It's rather hard to produce blind studies of the WTC events.
And of course the level of discourse is pretty low and flooded with all manner of insults and ad hom arguments such as calling someone who does not support a belief an agent who is trying to destroy the movement of those who are striving for the truth.
I don't find the level of discourse at Randi something to hold up as an example for anyone. I will say there are at least a few people who post there who do have a fair amount of technical standing in a sea of others who don't. I do find the 911freeforms to be relatively free of non technically driven agendas. It's not a political site such as DP... and so it doesn't appeal to and is not read by member of DP. But if it's technical understanding of the little evidence that does exists, 911FF is the place to go to further understanding. And if one does spend time reading through the posts one can see that the level of understanding as evolved over time as the analysis and tools for analysis have improved.
You can only "debate" so much when you neither have all the facts nor can agree on the ones that are accessible.