In my opinion, if you dont think there was a conspiracy, your not a thinker. and not capable of critical thinking....Ask yourself, does blissful
ignorance serve, some purpose in your life? if so, enjoy it and dont read the conspiracy post.
the problem rests in your inability to realize facts from fiction...the people that believe the "official government story" are terrified to think
the conspiracy nuts could be right.
Yeah right. That sure describes me. I have my head in the sand, afraid to read or ponder what the conspiracists say, afraid to apply my critical
thinking skills, afraid to learn new things about 9/11. My mind is so addled by media manipulation that I have no ability to separate facts from
fiction. My disagreement with truthers is not borne out of any understanding of the evidence and logic, it is mere blissful ignorance. Yeah, sure.
This might come as a shock to you guys, but my critical thinking skills are just fine. And I am hardly in the dark about the details of the events and
the claims that CTs have made over the years. It actually has been something of an interest to me. I have been following the "truth movement"
almost from the get-go and checking up on the claims that have been made over the years. I am also interested in the events as a matter of
history (I have about 350 GB of material on my computer of photos, audio, video, and radar and flight data recorder data). I have seen over and
over time and again how truthers have gotten the facts wrong, and then built elaborate theories on top of worthless data. I have seen countless
examples of ad hoc and a priori reasoning, misquoting and misrepresentation of sources, special pleading, poisoning the well, and any number of
other fallacies. Frequently I have seen a refusal to reconsider the original hypothesis when new data comes to light; almost always the new facts
are dismissed...."the physical evidence was faked!" "those things were planted!". I have seen again and again how conclusions are based on
selective data with an outright dismissal of facts unfavorable to one's thesis, rather than on an impartial consideration of the evidence at hand.
9/11 conspiracy theories rather tend to be constructed out of unrelated coincidences and anomalies (why are anomalies preferred over convergent
lines of evidence?), yielding a convoluted conspiratorial plot that makes little to no operational sense. Some truthers don't even believe there were
planes that crashed into the towers -- it was all holograms and explosives that made it look like there were crashes, or that all the video and photos
have been faked by the media. And others who do believe there were planes feel that the "no-planers" are disinfo psyops working to discredit the
truth movement -- that's right, these conspiracy theorists are themselves part of the conspiracy. You know what is the cutting edge of 9/11 truther
research right now? I shit you not -- that the victims themselves were faked. Google "VicSim" if you want to see this for yourself. This means
they have accused victims' families of being "in on it". I have repeatedly seen truthers accusing witnesses, bystanders, and photographers of being
"in on it" and guilty of mass murder (such as Val McClatchey, who photographed the smoke plume of the crash of United 93, who has been
harrassed by high-profile internet "researchers"; see http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm).
Also I find it amusing that the consensus understanding of the events of 9/11 is always termed "the official government story", as if the fact that it
is the generally accepted view of the events makes it inherently suspect. The matter isn't, "Well, the government says so, so it must be true." It is
the consensus understanding because it is the one best supported by the available facts and evidence. I have yet to see an alternative explanation
that better explains the evidence (without resort to an ad hoc dismissal of evidence), is simpler or more parsimonious, and doesn't rely critically
upon errors of fact and dubious interpretations. The worldwide structural engineering community rejects 'controlled demolition' hypotheses of the
WTC collapses, which would be quite peculiar if in fact the evidence is so 'obvious' even to the amateur. If it's so obvious, why isn't the
international (i.e. beyond the purview of US governmental "influence") professional consensus that the WTC towers collapsed due to premeditated
sabotage? Yes, I know that truther architect Richard Gage has organized AE911Truth to create the appearance of a body of professional engineers
and architects in agreement with his peculiar views on the collapses, but his list of endorsements is in no way representative of the engineering and
architect communities and it includes names of many who have no expertise in the relevant areas and some who do not necessarily endorse
'controlled demolition' scenarios. A better indicator of the professional consensus is whether articles specifically on the WTC collapses published in
trade journals in the fields of fire science and structural engineering posit sabotage instead of structural failure as a possible cause. When this
subject came up in an earlier thread, I decided to look up every article I could find in professional journals, as well as engineering dissertations and
monographs, that discuss potential causes of the collapses. I found about 50 of them. Many of them disagreed about various aspects of the events
and contributing causes, some even quite critical of the NIST report (such as underestimating the possible role of inadequate and degraded
fireproofing). Not a single one suspected sabotage.
I rarely talk about this stuff here, mainly because it's a colossal waste of time. I try to ignore these threads when they come up, but this one is a
little different because its more about expressing annoyance towards truther theories (in general I find pseudoscience and pseudohistory annoying),
not refuting them. Typically I would see such threads filled with old canards and very basic factual errors, and I would feel tempted to point them
out, but generally I feel it is pointless and far too time-consuming to do so properly (i.e. in my usual style of explaining things thoroughly and citing
sources backing up my statements). There is just too much of a gulf in how we understand and approach the events, particularly with those
committed to CT worldviews in general. And the 'comedian' video is totally spot-on about how frustrating it is to discuss technical aspects of 9/11
with a convinced truther; I have seen so many times the rhetorical tactics he describes, as well as plenty others. Nor do I think they're necessarily
nuts (though some most definitely are), or are all the same. The situation imo is quite similar to that with creationists (whose brand of
pseudoscience has many parallels to what I see in 9/11 trutherism). Many are true believers and are biased by their worldview to regard "official"
consensus scientific explanations of the evidence as incorrect. Some are dishonest, cherry-picking and mischaracterizing facts. Some make up
completely dubious theories about "what really happened" -- theories which can easily be refuted by physical evidence. Many simply lack a
familiarity with the facts and critical thinking skills, and simply accept what seems true to them, and may change their minds later when they learn
more about the evidence and what evolution actually claims. And then there are some who are totally nuts.