9/11 conspiracy theories

Great Debates
321

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Let’s accept for the moment that all you CT Skeptics are right in believing what you have been told, do none of you think it circumspect to at least raise these issues of the potential perils of mass deception and disinformation?
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s circumspect to raise the issue that there are many decaffeinated beverages out today that are just as tasty as the real thing, just in an effort to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Sadly, many people don’t seem to grasp this, but if only they would not believe what they are told, and instead go out and taste them for themselves and try to make up their own minds, based solely on the tasty-ness of the beverage, I think they would be surprised and pleased though disturbed and saddened to. It one step back…no, wait…make that one step back…er, step forward. Step back. Step forward…

Anyway, you raise a cogent issue here and one that…ok, no, you haven’t. Because, the thing is, I don’t base my skepticism on what I’ve been ‘told’ to think. In fact, ironically enough, that’s where the CTers are coming from. They base their own buy in to the CT on their own ignorance and being lead by the nose by bozos like the Loose Change idiots, who carefully craft a script of lies, half truths and out of the ass ignorance coupled with a collage of out of context, blurry and ambiguous images, and then they TELL you what you should be thinking while you are watching the video. Why do they tell you? Because the video evidence is ambiguous, and so inserting words, helpful text and pointers allows them to skew your thinking towards the point they are trying to make and how they want you to perceive what you are seeing and put it into the context that these guys WANT you to see it in. The real irony is that it’s the CTers who are being manipulated, and they are to stupid or to ignorant to see it.

C’est la vie. Some ignorance really can’t be fought…it can only be fought against every time it rears it’s ugly head. It’s sad that so many ignorant people have been sucked into this, and it’s sad that so many of them will continue to propagate this ludicrous CT into the future and that it will periodically rear it’s ugly head, just like the Kennedy Assassination, the Moon Landing Hoax CT and all the others. All we can do is play whack-a-mole and hope that someone on the fence who still has an open mind, or someone who has bought into the CT but who has the mental faculties to question some of the bullshit will actually listen, absorb what’s said, and then use their mind to really weigh the evidence. THAT person, even if it’s only 1 in a 1000 who read a thread like this, is the real reason to continue to bang our collective heads against the brick wall that is the CT.

-XT

322

I like the way all you skeptics come over as if you are doing the world a public service, while making out that doubters of the “Official Theory” are all deranged “Chicken Little” types.

The laws of probability alone say that you can’t all be right, and your “opponents” are all wrong. That’s got to be at least as unlikely as a terrorist’s passport being found undamaged amid tons of debris.

323

This has nothing to do with probability. It has to do with evidence. You have none, and therefore your arguments have no credibility. Remember, we’re here to fight ignorance.

324

Yeah they messed up there, you got them. They should of damaged it at least a little with a lighter or something before placing it there huh. I mean we all know the chances of a passport flying out of a plane upon impact into a building without any damage to it has to be 0% :dubious:

Yup, they messed up there just like they messed up by forgeting to plant WMD’s in Iraq.

325

What?!? One side of an argument can be right, and the other wrong, and the laws of probability have nothing to do with it.

The “debris” that it was found among was largely scattered papers and other stuff that was on the airplane. The passport was found before either tower collapsed.

326

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
I like the way all you skeptics come over as if you are doing the world a public service, while making out that doubters of the “Official Theory” are all deranged “Chicken Little” types.
[/QUOTE]

I agree…I like that to. People willing to spend their valuable time in order to fight ignorance…and in the face of deranged Chicken Little types to boot! Of course, I have to let you in on a little secret…it’s a hell of a lot of fun to beat them over the head with their own ignorance and make them look stupid to. In fact, just between us, it’s probably the primary reason a lot of people get into these threads in the first place. But…keep that to yourself, ok?

Devil is in the details. In general, I’d have to say that the CT doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and pretty much falls apart, while the ‘Official Theory’, in general, holds together remarkably well. It’s got pretty much everything on it’s side after all…logic, science, engineering, the facts, modeled data and, of course, Occam. Is it completely 100% correct without any flaws, blanks, anomalies or unexplained portions? Of course it isn’t…this is reality, not a TV show or movie. If EVERY aspect of the story were 100% filled in and known, if there were no anomalies or blanks, then I WOULD be suspicious because reality doesn’t work that way.

The thing is that because something is improbable doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and in any large events improbable things can and will happen. The other things is that this one data point is not what the ‘Official Theory’ is built on, and in fact even if said passport was planted (something that is not beyond the realm of possibility), it is really irrelevant to the overall theory.

-XT

327

Listen, I’ve heard it all before. Your main arguments are from authority and incredulity.

Your side thinks it knows all the facts, our side believes that we wouldn’t be told the real truth, IF it differed from that described by the OCT.

328

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Listen, I’ve heard it all before. Your main arguments are from authority and incredulity.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. Sadly, you didn’t do what you typed in as the first word of the above sentence. Because if you had, you would have realized long ago that this ISN’T the ‘main arguments’ of our ‘side’.

Again, sadly, if you had actually listened to the arguments being presented, you would understand that ‘our side’ does not claim to know ‘all the facts’.

-XT

329

Hilarious, considering the vast majority of CTists core argument is centered around it being “impossible” for “small fires” to have demolished a building.

Maybe you should try actually supporting your beliefs with facts and evidence. Put forth an actual argument instead of mis-characterizing your opponents to discredit them and rationalize your complete disregard for any opposing argument.

330

There are no easily available “facts” to present regarding this incident, but there are suspicions by a lot of people - who aren’t ALL cranks, despite how you’d like to misrepresent them. Pot, kettle, anyone? - that will need to be openly addressed before your country can move on from this event.

331

If that’s what you think, then there is no way to continue this conversation. You’re a prime example of why attempting to have a rational discussion with truthers is pointless.

332

What happened on 9/11, ivan? “I don’t know” is not enough. You people have been JAQing off for 8 and a half years now. It hasn’t gotten you anywhere. That should tell you something. Present a competing theory or admit your premises are deeply flawed. What happened?

333

Oh no, not suspicions! The republic is doomed!!!
Oh, wait, yeah. Being a “Truther” pretty much means that they’re either cranks, haven’t researched the issue, or aren’t understanding what’s going on. Just like JFK conspiracy buffs or anti-vaccination nuts, and so on.

Oh, no, wait, the laws of probability say that even if scientific proof shows that vaccinations are safe, if enough anti-vax crusaders oppose the facts, then some vaccines must cause people to mutate and turn into human-alligator hybrids.

We have openly addressed the fact that a lot of nutty Americans treat the events on 9/11 the same way a lot of nutty Americans treat the moon landing. We’re fine with it, really. Your concern is appreciated though.

334

Yes, it is absolutely circumspect, given that there are actual examples of mass deception and disinformation that were later proven to be mass deception and disinformation. WMDs, Watergate, Tonkin Incident, Spanish-American War, etc. Bringing up 9/11 is stupid in this regard, because very few people see it as an actual example.

It’s like, if I was to argue that there’s sexism inherent in college acceptance processes, and my only example is a girl who applied to Harvard, got straight Cs in high school, and never took the SAT. The example shows nothing, since there are plenty of reasonable reasons for Harvard to have rejected the student. And by bringing up the bad example I (hypothetically speaking) would discredit myself, because it’s clear that I don’t know what sexism is.

You know what else is crazy? Gravity. What are the odds that, if I let go of something, it falls to the earth, every single time! For thousands of years! It’s nuts! Extremely unlikely.

335

What, none? Dang, I was pretty sure we knew the WTC buildings collapsed for some reason, and that there were some fires and stuff and some people died and something about some airplanes, but I guess I was wrong because there were no facts at all.

Also, how ‘unavailable’ is the knowledge that prolonged fire can soften steel, and that buildings aren’t usually spec’d to stand up when their steel is soft?

336

How do you know there were any WTC buildings in the first place?

337

Through a conspiracy of the MSM media and hollywood movies, mainly. They were always so careful to make sure they appeared in shots of the skyline…

338

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
There are no easily available “facts” to present regarding this incident, but there are suspicions by a lot of people
[/QUOTE]

Well…there aren’t any ‘easily available “facts”’ if yo completely disbelieve all of the evidence and reports. But that’s sort of like saying there aren’t any easily available ‘facts’ on evolution, but a lot of folks are still suspicious. They are suspicious because they choose to ignore all those facts and all that evidence. I can’t make someone believe the world is round if they are convinced it’s flat, regardless of the mountain of evidence I could provide clearly demonstrating that it is. This is pretty much the same thing.

No, they aren’t all cranks. Some of them are hucksters, some are charlatans. Some are crazy, and some have their own agendas (like the Loose Change bozos who just wanted to make a really kickin’ internet viral video, and who originally writing fiction, but found they had tapped into da crazy and ran with it). Some (most I think) are, unfortunately, simply ignorant and/or misinformed or easily mislead.

So no…they aren’t all cranks. What they are, universally, is wrong. That is pretty much the bottom line. Like the folks who want to deny evolution, they can come to this stance from a lot of different places and for a lot of different reasons.

Um…no. Again, this is like a creationist claiming to be on par with someone who is pro-evolution. You COULD get a pot/kettle analogue, to be sure, since not everyone who is pro-evolution actually has a good grasp on the theory they are advocating (sort of like not all of the pro-AGW people actually know what they are talking about), but in the end the actual positions are pretty clear cut, even if those arguing it might not be optimal. The 9/11 truthers ‘theories’ don’t stand up to scrutiny, whereas the ‘official story’ pretty much does and on may different levels. That’s really the bottom line in all this.

Why? Because we can’t convince a large non-zero percentage of our own citizens, seemingly, a large percentage of whacked out Euro types to see sense?

-XT

339

Maybe the mods should just merge this thread with the “solipsism” thread.

340

…there is no solipsism thread…

(Always take the Red Pill)

-XT