For those of you who have been following the heated debate between myself and the British lecturer who uses the pen name Joseph Welch:
Mr Welch has posted his rebuttal to my "Conflicting Sources" installment in the comments section of his "Final Response" to me:
You may find it unusual that I would be advertising the work of my ideological opponent, but I am an advocate of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" adage about knowing ones enemy, and I believe Mr Welch's reply to be a case study in debunker "confirmation bias" as an ego defense mechanism.
Mr Welch's smug presumption of superiority and infallibility stems from two major ideas that Mr Welch and many other debunkers religiously promote as empirical fact despite evidence to the contrary:
1. That there could not possibly be any covert collaboration between Bush administration or US intelligence officials and those who planned, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attack.
2. That Bush administration or US intelligence officials could not use deception to cover up such a covert collaboration.
The active word here being "covert" which obviously implies they would not willingly divulge such information. Yet debunkers like Mr Welch regularly site statements from these "official" sources as proof that there was no collaboration. I don't have to point out the absurdity of accepting on blind faith the word of an administration that has demonstrated a nearly pathological aversion to telling the truth and a cavalier willingness to manipulate scientific research to serve it's political agenda:
But the prima facie acceptance of Bush administration innocence in regards to 9/11 has become the basis of many circular arguments which follow this basic pattern:
a) If Bush administration and intelligence officials had foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attack then there would be testimony, documents, or physical evidence confirming this fact.
b) We know Bush administration and intelligence officials had no foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attack.
c) Therefore any testimony, documents, or physical evidence which imply Bush administration and intelligence officials had foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attack must be exposed as either a mere coincidence or a diabolical deception.
This then defines the job of the debunker; to take every claim made by 9/11 researchers and try to find a reason, any reason at all, to discredit the claim. This can be something as elaborate as computer model of the World Trade Center towers that collapse when the test parameters are "tweaked", or something as banal as claiming Steven E. Jones has no scientific credibility because he is a Mormon. Regardless, a flaw must be found, or invented, for every claim if they are to continue their steadfast belief in the Bush administrations innocence, and their own inability to be wrong.
In that spirit I respectfully dedicate my latest short film to Mr Joseph Welch, who is a true "Master Debater."
Warm regards to all...... Stewart Bradley
15 Answers: An open response to Joseph Welch
Beyond 15 Questions; Historical Context of 9/11
Conflicting Sources: Another Final Note to Joseph Welch