You seem upset that those who share your position are considered to be complete cranks, to have no grasp of logical thinking, to be unable to distinguish between truth and lie, and so on. Fine, be upset about this. But that’s an entirely separate matter from whether they are referred to as “truthers” or “questioners” or what have you. The name is just a neutral term for referring to such a position; pick a different name and the same connotations would attach to that instead. Choosing a different name doesn’t change anything relevant to the manner in which your position is regarded. What you would have to address is the reasons those who share your position are considered to be complete cranks, to have no grasp of logical thinking, etc.
What are you "awaiting’ for?!? Indistinguishable’s definition is in the paragraph you just quoted.
No, read it again and pay attention to the way the words are ordered. He doesn’t actually define what a “truther” is. Do you want to have a crack at it while he’s thinking?
My confidence level remains at zero.
I fail to see the relevance. There may have been dozens or hundreds of firefighters running in and around WTC7, but to spot how badly the building was beginning to sag could easily require someone standing well back who could see the building as a whole. Those observers (some of whom may be experienced firefighters with some expertise in building engineering, trained to look for signs of inevitable structural failure) conclude the building is a lost cause and send out a general order to clear the area. I wouldn’t expect every firefighter on the scene, scattered as they were, to simultaneously draw the same conclusion, hence I’m unclear on what point you seem to think you are trying to make and I stand by my earlier assessment pending another attempt at clarification.
I suppose it’s remotely possible the fires could have burned themselves out and the husk of WTC7 remained (barely) standing, thus the order to clear the area would have been unnecessary. I’m not sure what purpose is served by this kind of hypothetical hindsight - firefighters make judgement calls like this all the time, including when to abandon a burning building when firefighting efforts are deemed too risky.
Using what little water that was to keep the fire from spreading to other buildings perhaps?
A “truther” is anyone who feels strongly that the truth about the September 11 attacks is radically different from the mainstream account. Major strains within this position include the belief that there was an inside plot by the United States government to engineer the attacks themselves, and that the building collapses which occurred were due to controlled demolition rather than the effects of the plane crashes.
It’s very Orwellian. They are lying so bad that they had to actually name themselves “the truth.”
If a truther falls in the woods, does anyone believe him?
I wouldn’t mind this resistance to considering anything but the official rubber-stamped account if it was just me who had this bee in the bonnet, but there are a lot of seemingly intelligent people who have doubts.
And it isn’t ever used as an insult? Got it.
What’s a “Twoofer” then; are they the same thing? Maybe I’ve mixed the 2 up?
A “twoofer” is a mocking term for a “truther”. “Truther” itself can be used disparagingly, in the same way as “People who strongly feel the truth about the September 11 attacks radically diverges from the mainstream account” can be used disparagingly: it can be used as an insult precisely to the extent that one feels such a position is not worthy of respect. It has nothing to do with what the position is called and everything to do with how such a position is viewed. No matter what you call this position, it can be treated with disrespect.
I think “questioner” necessarily implies that you’re looking for answers. You’ve demonstrated literally hundreds - if not thousands - of times that you’re not. Unless you mean it in some ironic postmodern sense of asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, even though you get an answer each time, and occasionally even pretend to accept it.
I gather one uses “twoofer” to describe (in the speaker’s view) a truther burdened not only with stubborn paranoia and obstinacy and illogic, but immaturity as well.
The Commission was not charged with determining what happened but rather how to prevent it from happening again.
So, the question is, does it have negative connotations comparable to calling somebody mentally challenged, and the answer appears to be “Yes”
Do we agree?
The next question is, is it being used disparagingly against me, or is it being used to describe a positive attribute of mine?
If it is the latter, can you clarify exactly what it is you find positive, I could do with a bit of a boost.
It’s not the term “truther” that provides the negative connotations; it’s your position that has those negative connotations. To rid yourself of the negative connotations, it’s not the name “truther” you must shed; you would have to actually change your position.
We are claiming that you feel strongly that the truth about the September 11 attacks diverges radically from the mainstream account, including elements of belief that the United States government engineered the attacks and that the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition by explosives rather than the effects of the plane crashes. I assume you would agree that this fairly characterizes your position? Furthermore, we feel that this is an illogical, nonsensical, and, yes, downright stupid position to take. You may be offended by that if you like, but note that I didn’t use the word “truther” there once; it has nothing to do with that term. What’s being used disparagingly against you is not any particular name, but simply the position you aver.
Woah, how meta is this? “Just asking questions” about what “truther” means. Far out.
Indeed. If we were discussing a building that collapsed after a natural disaster, with a battery of engineers advancing a plausible theory of cascade failure, I don’t think it particularly wrong to look askance at the person who ignores most or all of this “official account”, expresses disparaging remarks at those who do believe it, and suggests alternate (and far-fetched) hypotheses for which no evidence is known to exist.
Huh?
Ok, I know little enough about this whole thing to make any kind of arguments on the science, but I really don’t get your point here. It would be perfectly fine if people accepted the official account - a practice of not questioning authority you seem to disagree with quite strongly - except there are other authorities who agree with you?
It seems odd to condemn following an authority by pointing out that another authority disagrees.
Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.