In a conversation that is quite typical of those I have engaged in with Ron Paul fans, I ended up provideing evidence that Ron Paul’s views on the 9/11 are misguided by showing the people involved in the conversation themselves wee misguided. The discussion was the same-ol-same-ol… Ron Paul sends his fans to vote for radical candidates that are self-attested anti-Semites and Marxists when libertarian folk like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman are/were lifelong Republicans, etc., etc.
What peaked my interest is that the conversation is joined by John Lofton, who is part of the site, The American View, and has many of his MP3s HERE, as well as having a blog entitled, Recovering Republican. All-in-all John and I probably agree on much. However… discussion about Ron Paul led to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. So I pick up the conversation where John hops in. (I will point out that most times I will change the name of persons from FaceBook discussions. But john is a public enough figure that I will use his full name and links):
John Lofton
Oh, and Reagan gave us O’Connor!
Me
Mr. Lofton, may I recommend a resource for you. It is seminary level study, and you may thoroughly enjoy it, “Politics According to the Bible.” We also got Rehnquist and Scalia (and almost Bork). Bush gave us Thomas. How many Justices did Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode get us? Zero.
Ruining the good for the perfect… your position (to the many above who are doggedly RP fans) are no better than the utopians out there because you do not ebb the utopian dreams of the left in ANY way.
Also, there are less hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like today than generations ago. These are false stats put forward by eschatological positions of the left (and unfortunately from the eschatological positions within Christianity, with which I agree with — minus the bad information and scare tactics).
[….]
By the way John… I believe you have jumped the shark. You seem to be a truther as well. And after listening to you mp3 on the subject, I would steer you to my C-O-Nspiracy page: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/c-o-n-debunker/
John Lofton
You a Christian, Sean?
Me
Yes.
John Lofton
Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about being a “truther?”
Me
After listening to your mp3 on the matter, you conflate two subjects, what the 9/11 truther goals are with truth/Truth. My faith has no connection to calling a spade-a-spade. I have spent lots of $$$ and time looking into many of the claims in Loose Change and other conspiracy position. I also noticed that many of these positions are lies, the opposite of truth.
“Trutherism” doesn’t ad-hoc equal truth, and to make it is a non-sequitur/straw-man argumentation.
John Lofton
So what are the top 3 things in Loose Change that are “lies?” List them here, please….
Me
Lets do this John. Let us talk about one item you think is strong in Loose Change (since over different editions got rid of many of their previously stated evidences).
John Lofton
You made an assertion, Sean, an affirmation….please back it up. Thank you….
Me
I have written on it thoroughly already:
Pentagon:
https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/pentagon/
WTC-7
https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/wtc-7/
And my compilation of many refutations:
https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/c-o-n-debunker/
John Lofton
So, in other words, you will not reply even briefly to my simple question, right?
Me
I have thoroughly refuted Loose Changes position on two major premises, a) the Pentagon, and b) WTC-7. If you have not read a good refutations of these two major positions put forward in this “true” documentary, then choose one? Which edition? One, two, or three? How bout cell phone calls, mmm, that was in the first one. They rejected that. There are many they present, I deal with the macro one, choose one YOU feel confident about, something that would come to mind that convinces YOU or that you would like to share here as an evidence that others would be persuaded by. One. Simple, not three. One.
go…
John Lofton
“Lies” means things said to DECEIVE ON PURPOSE……list those things here, Sean….
Me
Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying out options on airline stock.
John Lofton
What was said in “Loose Change,” Sean, that was a “lie,” something said ON PURPOSE TO DECEIVE?
Me
That is one. There was no truth to it, and when investigated, there was no truth to it. It was stated merely to endure a conspiracy minded folk to the film. Maybe those reading this would benefit from some sanity on this topic:
Another example is the out-of-context quote from an air traffic controller who supposedly reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane. This controllers full context (apologists should be use to this tactic used by skeptics to state certain things from the Bible but not so in context) was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that:
★ “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
I have given you two.
John Lofton
What was said, Sean, that was said TO PURPOSELY DECEIVE is my question which you have not answered?
[….]
You have loose mouth about “Loose Change,” Sean……have documented here no “lie” that was told….
Me
They misquoted the second example IN ORDER TO mislead, deceive. They had no proof, evidence of the first example but merely invented it with no evidence. Both are willful acts to deceive and to engender people’s fears. It worked apparently.
John Lofton
And what is your evidence they sought to mislead ON PURPOSE, Sean?
Me
Both were untrue, in the first they had no way of knowing this — even if true — however, they made it up whole-cloth. In the second, they had access to the full context, but decided to truncate it in order to engender their point. A common attack on our faith. Sort of like when they talk about WTC-7 and show a picture of a small fire in one window… but refuse to show pictures of the entire building on fire or the massive damage of the World Trade Towers destroying a corner of the building, or not talking about the 15,000 gallons of fuel in the building, etc., etc. The picture engenders what they want their viewers to believe.
John Lofton
For-the-record: I have neither said nor written ANYTHING saying I agree with anything in the “Loose Change” DVD. I do NOT, however, believe our government’s official story re: 9/11 and believe our government is capable of murdering 3000+ people because our government murders people now in our unGodly, unConstitutional wars; and the government has OK’d the murder of millions in the womb by abortion…..
SIDE-NOTE: Again, it is quite plain-and-simple John supported these conspiracy theories by a) obfuscating ideas of truth and trutherism, and b) by all-but endorsing Loose Change. FOR CONTEXT: one should listen to John’s MP3 on the “truther” movement and realize that I spoke out against Ron Paul’s admiration of truthers and John then [much like in his MP3] equated the mere mention of “truth” in “trutherism” as unassailable. His presentation is titled: Lying, Shameless Hatchet-Job On 9-11 Truth Seekers By Chris Bury On “Nightline” Scurrilous, Despicable But, Of Course, No Surprise; Also of note is his interview with Richard Gage, Founder Of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, Inc.; O’Reilly Lies Repeatedly About Study Re: Building 7. ON RICHARD GAGE: Here is a three part interview with Richard Gage where he is caught lying about thermite: Part 1, Part 2, and Part3. You can also see many well done articles refuting Gage’s positions quite well, HERE. While he says he doesn’t support. I would strongly suggest John does agree with Loose Change as well as Gage on these issues (after listening to his own words that is).
John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?
Me
John, proving one position by stating opinion and then supporting the “truth of it” by stating another example unrelated (you gave thee definition of a non-sequitur) is not a logical way to jump from one position to another. The Christian has to think well, and testing our own positions with this good thinking:
“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”
Morimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207.
This is applicable to our discussion. Reason is not being used to its Godly potential here.
John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?
Me
Do you have a good reason for me not to?
John Lofton
Why can you directly answer a direct question, Sean? You are a bit of a windbag…..
Eric RS
Come on John…lets be gracious at least. He answered your leading question with a question, very much like Christ did many times.
[….]
Of course he agrees with the govt. story, unless we can prove otherwise.
Me
“You a Christian, John? Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about a fellow believer?” (Adapted from Mr. Lofton)
Do I trust my government, the heroes of America, our Founders, say one should always be weary of it. And that the Christian faith is its true guide. But as to THIS topic (9/11), yes. And you have yet to show me why I should not. Again, I think you are taking a larger issue (one trusting government in the macro), and then overlaying it to our particular (micro) discussion here. Like you saying that if our government can kill “x” amount of people through abortion, then why not 3,000 in New York?
I believe many on the pro-choice side think that killing innocent lives is wrong. They agree with us on this major point. They merely redefine the person in the womb as non-human. It is imperative that we open up dialogue with them and make a strong moral argument that convicts them to change on this position.
- POST-SCRIPT: I should have also made the point that both pro-choice people and pro-life people agree that the people that perished in this particular attack were innocent people, and thus an evil immoral act.
Continuing My Thought
So yes I trust the government in this particular case. And no, as a whole the checks and balances issue is meant to try and keep government honest:
Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).
John did not reply after that.