Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted.

[Mendel]

No, I'm saying that if the story had been about something you don't think is true (like the CIA "running" the 9/11 Commission, pulling the strings behind the scenes) then you'd immediately point out that Carriher is a dubious character and that it's all hearsay anyway. Rightly so.

That's a nonsense argument on par with the "Chewbacca defense". You're saying that if I disbelieve some argument that nobody has actually made and that I haven't actually disbelieved, then I must disbelieve this argument as well. That's pure phantasy and has no relation to what happened with AE911; all it does is suggest to the audience that I'm a hypocrite based on something you have only imagined me doing. It's kind of like the stereotypical ditzy girlfriend joke where she wakes up and blames her boyfriend for something he did in her dream.
Unless you address the AE911 issue, and specifically the arguments I have made, I'm not going to respond to you.

Now, the only counterclaim you made is that Carriher is a "dubious character", with no reasoning attached to why you think that; and presumably you want us to think she is lying, but you have no evidence of it. If she's a truther, that may mean she repeats lies of others; but you yourself have argued that there are honest, sincere truthers who would not make up a lie themselves; but that's what you accuse Carriher of doing.

There's also no "hearsay" involved; Carriher is not writing about something someone else said. I'd definitely like to know more about the evidence she used to come to her conclusion, but I doubt it's hearsay.

 

[Thomas B]

Now, the only counterclaim you made is that Carriher is a "dubious character", with no reasoning attached to why you think that;

Maybe you missed this part of my post?

Carriher is clearly a conspiracy theorist (and a truther, as far as I can tell). Health Wyze appears (haven't looked at it closely) to peddle ideas we'd dismiss as quackery. I don't think we'd normally take her testimony at all seriously.

----

There's also no "hearsay" involved; Carriher is not writing about something someone else said.

Maybe I'm reading a different post of hers than you are? Here's a bit from the one Marc linked to:

We have been told by our insider connections that attempts to discuss us during conferences are usually silenced by the phrase "that's a sensitive subject". We have no doubt about it.

https://healthwyze.org/tidbits/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon
----

You're saying that if I disbelieve some argument that nobody has actually made and that I haven't actually disbelieved, then I must disbelieve this argument as well.

No, I was saying that you have a double standard. You are taking evidence of doubtful quality as "proof" of views you find plausible. But if the same kind of evidence had been offered for view you find implausible, I was willing to bet that you'd dismiss it on the same grounds that I have been. (It's just a blogpost by a conspiracy theorist who also holds views about medicine that don't bode well for her credibility.) I'm actually no longer sure you have a double standard. I'm not sure what your standards of evidence are.

Unless you address the AE911 issue, and specifically the arguments I have made, I'm not going to respond to you.

I'm happy to leave things here. You don't seem to want discuss the quality of the evidence separate from the claims it is used to support. I have no opinion on the question of whether AE911T is a CIA (or other governmental agency) "operation". And the post Marc links to has given me no reason to start looking into it. So I really can't engage with you on this.

 

[Mendel]

You don't seem to want discuss the quality of the evidence separate from the claims it is used to support.

I do want to discuss it, but you don't contribute to this discussion, so I can't.

You fail to adress anything in my post #38, excepting that you insinuate that Carriher is a liar because she is a truther; but you have shown no other evidence that she is.

My claim was not that "AE911 is a CIA operation"; my claim is that the DHS was involved. Please don't misrepresent me, I've been clear on this.

 

[Mendel]

P.S. @Thomas B
I've called Gage and Hooper liars, not because they are truthers, but because Marc Powell has shown them to knowingly and wilfully misrepresenting evidence in their movie "Anatomy of a Great Deception".

 

[Marc Powell]

I think this is a very interesting theory for a debunker to be considering. Carriher is clearly a conspiracy theorist (and a truther, as far as I can tell). Health Wyze appears (haven't looked at it closely) to peddle ideas we'd dismiss as quackery. I don't think we'd normally take her testimony at all seriously.

And yet you originally described her story as "credible evidence" that AE911T might be some kind of CIA/government "op". @Mendel seems to go further when he says it "proves DHS involvement" and that he's "sure" they had reason for it. But I think you would both be much more skeptical if this was a story about CIA involvement in, say, the 9/11 Commission after the attacks, or WTC security in the days prior to the attacks.

To your credit, you also say this:

I'm not sure I would describe something "I am in no position to judge whether there is any truth to" as "credible evidence" of anything. And I think I would treat the whole idea precisely as speculation.

The fact that you give this story credence (without, like I say, being in a position to judge its truth) calls your judgment into question. You do clearly mark it as a speculative lapse, so I guess there's that. I just don't understand why you're putting it on the table at all. If you can consider this sort of thing plausible, I'm not sure why you're so offended by the theories that truthers explore. You seem to live in roughly the same speculative universe when it comes to secret government operations and our knowledge of them. You seem to understand where they're coming from.

Wouldn't you agree that Sarah Corriher's claims about government agents infiltrating AE911Truth and openly gleaning personal information from its membership records carry at least as much credible evidentiary value as Richard Gage's claims about what was found in the WTC rubble (as mentioned in my OP)?

And what we find down there is pools of molten iron... what does that mean?... several tons... exactly, what is that doing there? First responders see it. The structural engineers see it.

At least, I admit that the evidence I provided was anecdotal and speculative. Gage makes his claims as if they are proven fact.

 

[Thomas B]

Wouldn't you agree that Sarah Corriher's claims about government agents infiltrating AE911Truth and openly gleaning personal information from its membership records carry at least as much credible evidentiary value as Richard Gage's claims...

at best as little

At least, I admit that the evidence I provided was anecdotal and speculative.

Yes, that is to your credit. I just don't understand why you also find her story "credible".

If all you're saying is that on the truthers' own standard of evidence they should believe AE911T is a CIA operation, and that that's absurd, then fine. But it seemed like you do actually believe that this is a plausible theory. And, as Corriher exemplifies, some truthers do actually believe that AE911T is an "inside job".

I think your original thesis, that some of them are charlatans and profiteers, is much stronger and has much better evidence. I just don't think it makes much of a difference to the movement as a whole.

 

[Thomas B]

My claim was not that "AE911 is a CIA operation"; my claim is that the DHS was involved. Please don't misrepresent me, I've been clear on this.

I'm going to stop engaging with you now because, as anyone on this thread can see, I represented you (and Marc and Corriher) inclusively as follows:

I have no opinion on the question of whether AE911T is a CIA (or other governmental agency) "operation".

 

[Marc Powell]

Yes, that is to your credit. I just don't understand why you also find her story "credible".

I find Sarah Corriher's story credible because, unlike Gage, she has no reason to lie and/or put spin on inconsequential evidence.