Comments on: Truth in Wellington http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/ The Philosophy and Epistemology On, About and Around Conspiracy Theories Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:03:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Matthew Dentith http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13901 Matthew Dentith Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:20:22 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13901 Indeed, you're displaying a fairly common tactic of the 9/11 Truth movement; you don't want to have an argument in regards to the merits of your theory; rather, you want a platform to attack those who question the 'Inside Job' hypothesis. In part this is motivated by the lack of traction you are getting from qualified professionals in the sciences and in part it is because the various media outlets and organisations just are convinced by your theories, so you have to take whatever avenues you can to get your message out there. Indeed, you’re displaying a fairly common tactic of the 9/11 Truth movement; you don’t want to have an argument in regards to the merits of your theory; rather, you want a platform to attack those who question the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis. In part this is motivated by the lack of traction you are getting from qualified professionals in the sciences and in part it is because the various media outlets and organisations just are convinced by your theories, so you have to take whatever avenues you can to get your message out there.

]]> By: Matthew Dentith http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13900 Matthew Dentith Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:12:59 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13900 I like the way you immediately rule out the possibility of my being able to dissect and analysis the 'Inside Job' hypothesis. Given that only part of that thesis is based on scientific 'evidence' (large chunks are assumptions of what the supposed conspirators were up to and how they might have managed it), I really think you're trying to distort the argument. I like the way you immediately rule out the possibility of my being able to dissect and analysis the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis. Given that only part of that thesis is based on scientific ‘evidence’ (large chunks are assumptions of what the supposed conspirators were up to and how they might have managed it), I really think you’re trying to distort the argument.

]]> By: Fred Johnson http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13899 Fred Johnson Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:15:32 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13899 Matthew I agree, assertions either way are useless. But that doesn't mean that his aren't verifiable. Gage's central thesis is that the official story violates the laws of physics in relation to the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers. We are not talking a single violation here, he outlines around 10 separate instances. His arguments hinge on physical science and the empirical evidence. The only way to debunk him is to prove that his scientific theories are wrong, or to argue against the empirical evidence. There is no way you can do this as you obviously lack the necessary qualifications. Any arguments you put forward that are not addressing the hard science that he presents, are worthless faff. The university that you attend must surely have a physics department. Why don't you take the AE911Truth CD down to one of the professors and ask him/her to pull it apart. In the meantime you could also ask yourself, who would have more of clue when examining the scientific evidence? - you or Dwain Deets ex-Director of NASA's Dryden Flight research centre. Have a good one

Matthew

I agree, assertions either way are useless. But that doesn’t mean that his aren’t verifiable.

Gage’s central thesis is that the official story violates the laws of physics in relation to the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers. We are not talking a single violation here, he outlines around 10 separate instances.

His arguments hinge on physical science and the empirical evidence.

The only way to debunk him is to prove that his scientific theories are wrong, or to argue against the empirical evidence.

There is no way you can do this as you obviously lack the necessary qualifications.

Any arguments you put forward that are not addressing the hard science that he presents, are worthless faff.

The university that you attend must surely have a physics department. Why don’t you take the AE911Truth CD down to one of the professors and ask him/her to pull it apart.

In the meantime you could also ask yourself, who would have more of clue when examining the scientific evidence? – you or Dwain Deets ex-Director of NASA’s Dryden Flight research centre.

Have a good one

]]> By: Matthew Dentith http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13898 Matthew Dentith Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:53:43 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13898 I know that many in the '9/11 Truth' movement like to think that the academically and political endorsed and warranted Conspiracy Theory, that Al-Qaeda's attacks brought the Twin Towers and WTC7 down, aka the Official Story, violates the laws of Physics but asserting that does not make it true. Anyway, my thoughts will be the topic of next week's radio segment. Short, preview version, Gage was just as I expected him to be (from the various things of his I have heard), and his argument, such as it was, did not do the work required to debunk the Official Story, let alone produce a satisfactory rival. At best, he asks questions about the fulsome nature of the Official Story, but that, on its own, doesn't do the work of showing it to be a patent fabrication, which is his central thesis. I know that many in the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement like to think that the academically and political endorsed and warranted Conspiracy Theory, that Al-Qaeda’s attacks brought the Twin Towers and WTC7 down, aka the Official Story, violates the laws of Physics but asserting that does not make it true.

Anyway, my thoughts will be the topic of next week’s radio segment. Short, preview version, Gage was just as I expected him to be (from the various things of his I have heard), and his argument, such as it was, did not do the work required to debunk the Official Story, let alone produce a satisfactory rival. At best, he asks questions about the fulsome nature of the Official Story, but that, on its own, doesn’t do the work of showing it to be a patent fabrication, which is his central thesis.

]]> By: Fred Johnson http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13897 Fred Johnson Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:40:53 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13897 Dear Matthew, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Richard Gage's presentation. I presume that you would have studied some physics and chemistry in your NZ education. This would be good, as you only need about 8th grade level to work out that the official story violates the laws of physics. If so you could be in for a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Interesting to see how you handle it. Dear Matthew,
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Richard Gage’s presentation.

I presume that you would have studied some physics and chemistry in your NZ education. This would be good, as you only need about 8th grade level to work out that the official story violates the laws of physics.

If so you could be in for a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Interesting to see how you handle it.

]]> By: Matthew Dentith http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13879 Matthew Dentith Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:16:35 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13879 Oh, maybe that will be my disguise, although surely the Kiwi way would be to wear gumboots? Oh, maybe that will be my disguise, although surely the Kiwi way would be to wear gumboots?

]]> By: Paul Litterick http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13878 Paul Litterick Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:14:44 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13878 How many of the audience will be wearing sandals with socks and carrying plastic bags filled with newspaper cuttings? That's what I want to know. How many of the audience will be wearing sandals with socks and carrying plastic bags filled with newspaper cuttings? That’s what I want to know.

]]> By: Matthew Dentith http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13877 Matthew Dentith Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:00:30 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13877 Hmm, that's an unwelcome reminder of a potential problem... I may need a better disguise. I wonder if I can fit in dressed as Old Gregg? Hmm, that’s an unwelcome reminder of a potential problem… I may need a better disguise. I wonder if I can fit in dressed as Old Gregg?

]]> By: Eric Olthwaite http://all-embracing.episto.org/2009/11/09/truth-in-wellington/comment-page-1/#comment-13876 Eric Olthwaite Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:58:54 +0000 http://all-embracing.episto.org/?p=2043#comment-13876 Say hi to that weirdo from the Skeptics Conference. Say hi to that weirdo from the Skeptics Conference.

]]>