Re: Re: Re: Re: Responce To Occrider
|Originally posted by occrider |
Actually you have reposted the exact information that stevieboy32808 provided in his post. But in response to your response, numerous websites have insinuated the contrary. stevieboy32808's post insinuated to the contrary claiming that he in fact represents something that he doesn't factually represent. I'm simply attempting to clarify the situation. I don't like ad-hominems that attack a person's character while failing to attack the person's arguments. That is why I have nothing but distaste for arguments that critique Popular Mechanics because the editor is Michael Chertoff's brother/cousin or whatever. So which is it, do ad-hominems work against Popular Mechanics while failing with Ryan or are they both ancillary arguments to the meat of the matter? That is why I didn't stop with looking at the background of Ryan. He was apparentely making claims as a subject matter expert and thus the start of my investigation was to determine whether he was in fact a subject matter expert or not. Once I found out he was not, I examined his argument in greater detail to see whether there were flaws. If you reference my arguments I directly addressed his claims because that's the meat of the issue.
I never attempted to discredit him for raising questions. I simply made it clear to everyone that everything he said should be subject to the EXACT same scrutiny and skepticism as any other proposed theory that provides little verification ... because he doesn't deserve the status of a subject matter expert. Quite the contrary I realised the weaknesses of ad-hominem arguments and thus I attempted to discredit his specific arguments which I then proceeded to do.
Now I know you have sourced a bunch of links and papers in response to my arguments, but let's be frank ... they run the gammot on a million issues. Like I told stevieboy32808, I really don't have time to read a website that raises a million theories. I'm doing things one at a time presented by someone in their own words. This is why I originally abandoned 9/11 discussions. I would make a good case and the person i was arguing with never responded ... never admitted the weaknesses of their arguments or bolstered their case. Then someone esle would come along and post another website that I would try to refute ... and of course they would never try to argue beyond what their website told them to copy and paste. To be frank I'm sick of it. I've resolved to spend as much time as my opponent is willing to sepnd on an issue to a resonable degree. This requires specificity and arguments put in your own words with reference quotes as opposed to quoting someone else's entire arguments.
So in conclusion I'm perfectly happy to debate you, but unless you're addressing a really specific argument I have raised (I think that I have addressed every specific argument that stevieboy32808 raised in quote/response, quote/response format) I really don't have the time to really argue with 10 different people on 10 different issues. I'm doing as much as I can ...
Actually bro, if you look more closely you'd see that I included the original header which had been left out on the majority of the websites in which that letter was reposted (including stevieboy32808's post here). I didn't want to just repost the header while leaving the body of the message out. As far as him (Ryan) being a subject matter expert - no, I never made such claims (and as far as I can tell, neither did he.) While I can't and won't claim to be a subject matter expert on ANY of this myself, I can in fact make good use my research skills in order to glean bits and pieces of information which others may have missed. At least I'm trying to do something which could possibly prove to be of use to anyone attempting to further connect the dots beyond the sorry excuse of a picture that our government has painted for us in regards to the overall events of 9/11. And in consideration of how resolute they have been in both their stonewalling and their prohibiting of any real investigations into the matter, I would definitely have to say that every little bit helps at this point.
In regards to my posting all of that information, I was posting it here merely for the sake of disclosure. I really wasn't using it as a rebuttal to anything you've said, especially since most of the material you posted here seems to have come almost directly from one of the main Federal agencies that I deem to be complicit in the coverup (or as Bill Manning, Fire Engineering Magazine's Editor in Chief called their investigation, "A half-baked farce.") Anyway, as much as I would enjoy such a great debate, I really can't be arsed to wait on you to reply to every little specific question when there are what seems to be like a million of them floating around which have gone completely unanswered. Those questions will likely remain that way until people wake up and start making their own inquiries, because complacency isn't a very good way at getting to the truth.
So while you may be able to look at the big picture and naively believe that there is no conspiracy involved here, after taking a considerable amount of time to look at the mounting evidence which states otherwise - I couldn't live with myself to do the same.