Reply With QuoteYou said; "I believe there is evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that was an inside job".
All I'm asking you to do is present that evidence, so we can all understand and evaluate your claim.
Thankyou, but I'm not here to write an e-book. lets slim it down like I mentioned. The point is not proving whether a point is true or not - as chris french says, it is specifically to do with the application of critical thinking and logic, evidence, reasoning.. laying out the entire body of evidence is itself unnecessary, and therefore illogical. how about responding to my initial, more focused question(s)?
Also, just to point out, I've never heard a supporter of the alternative theory refer to Randi as comprehensive, nor ask me to lay out the entire evidence of an inside job. That is typically the behaviour of supporters in the official conspiracy theory - demand a full explanation rather than question the endless flaws in their own theory. Is this assumption wrong? My logic flawed? Do you actually support the alternative version? I'm keen to know if someone could reasonably want exhaustively convincing of what they already know?
Last edited by 9/11 conspiracy realist; 12th October 2009 at 04:31 AM.
You said; "I believe there is evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that was an inside job".
All I'm asking you to do is present that evidence, so we can all understand and evaluate your claim.
Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones...
Yes, unfortunately there's rather a lot of it. I personally have a mere two years of research I could point you to which I personally find convincing, but that would take quite some time even to point to, more importantly - its unnecessary. Its not my primary goal to convince you here, but compare critical thinking from opposing positions. As I said.
you also bypassed my initial question, again.
I have illustrated that there is no logical need to cover the entire evidence anyway, in the specific interest of comparing critical thinking and logic between the two opposing conspiracy theories/theorists. It requires us to discuss just specific aspects of 9/11, not everything there is to cover. The points to discuss would depend on our personal positions on the issue, since if we all agreed on 9/11 there would be no question of individuals critical thinking, see? I have made my position clear. You have not bothered to type a few words regarding your standpoint, while demanding I write an 'exhaustive' account of all the supporting evidence of a vast historical event? I hope you don't consider this an example of logical? It is not, nor is it critical thinking. Far from it. This would be a waste of time, weeks, months.. An example of poor logic and critical thinking in itself. I'm almost compelled to believe I know this kind of anti-logic, and serious lack of critical thinking from elsewhere..
Yes.. It reminds me of the wonderfully flawed experiment Chris French carried out (that demonstrated in detail the precise opposite of what he hypothesised, that '[non-]conspiracy theorists' base their opinion on partial evidence - was proven true.) where he deceptively 'predicted' which type of people were most likely to believe in conspiracies based on the answers to an unseen questionnaire, which he lied about. then lied again about the results. He amazingly did predict some of those who would believe in conspiracies based on their answers to questions regarding other conspiracies - amazing huh?..
I'd go farther with you, than Chris French did in his experiment, and genuinely 'predict' that despite the very minimal evidence I have for judging your opinion (ignoring reason, coupled with an illogical, unnecessary one-sided questioning from the beginning, only after having ignored my initial question twice)- and I wouldn't say beyond reasonable doubt, here - but I believe you support the official account, purely due to your sheer lack of logic and critical thinking. and you've barely said a word yet, or addressed 9/11. If I'm wrong please tell me?
If I'm right, I'll have drawn a more accurate conclusion based on very partial evidence than Chris French was able to make on his own thorough research in his own 'experiment' , that would be an interesting issue to raise here in his critical thinking blog wouldn't it? So, what is your position on 9/11?
if your unwilling to let your personal position be known, perhaps I could simply demonstrate how utterly - hopelessly flawed Dr Chris French's position on 9/11 is to everyone here, that would be a pleasure, and take less time - yet highlighting critical thinking and logic [or lack of it]. This is an interesting place to do it. Anyone want to try and defend French's position? Or simply see how flawed his opinions are? Perhaps I will anyway to highlight the critical thinker - Chris French's critically flawed thinking, its only right to in this blog, by a 9/11 truther.. I'll get to that later.
Originally Posted by 9/11 conspiracy realist
Now here is a novel concept. Invent a conspiracy, refuse to present any wortwhile evidence, and anyone who fails to agree that this conspiracy is plausible is a conspiracy denier!
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
The Question...
...is a load of pants.
Who said it and why did you believe them? Which alternative theory are you talking about exactly? Controlled demolition? No planes? Holographic planes and laser beams from space? The idea that such theories are non-falsifiable is clearly ludicrous so you may wish to rephrase this part.
The problems of psychologists are irrelevant. All that counts is the evidence, which should be able to stand on its own merit.
Yes, the 'Official Version' is falsifiable. Claims of it being thoroughly falsified will have to followed with evidence of the same. I am certainly not going to take your word on it.
There you go, fixed that bit for you
You have yet to present any.
skb
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
No you haven't!
You are using extremely loaded language and doing what conspiracy theorists always do: stating things as facts and demanding that others disprove them (which is a logical fallacy in itself - not critical thinking!).
If you do indeed want to engage in critical thinking then why don't you present a case where you're convinced the evidence disproves the official version and we'll see where it goes.
Just one example will do.
.
Why on earth would any alternative explanation/s for the events of 9/11 be non-falsifiable? It's simply a case of presenting the evidence and evaluating its validity. You, thus far, have failed to submit any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your initial claim.
You seem to be asking whether I support the 'official version of events'. Well, I have read as much as possible about 9/11 - both the official, published material and the 'alternative' theories. On a more personal, anecdotal level, I have been to New York, visited 'Ground Zero' and also spoken to many friends and colleagues who experienced those events at first-hand. I have yet to find anything in the 'alternative theories' which I find convincing. As a skeptic, I remain open to new evidence ( of course ) - if you have the evidence that you claim, then please do present it here.
You seem to make certain assumptions about my 'worldview'. I will tell you that I despised both Bush and Blair, and that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, from the outset. Please don't think that I have any 'vested interest' in being convinced by the 'official version' of 9/11. It really is simply a case of evaluating the evidence. Thus far, the conspiracy-theorist explanations have proven to be utterly lacking.
As for the Chris French experiment that you referred to - I am only familiar with it from a Channel 4 documentary in which it featured ( do you have more in-depth knowledge of the experiment? ). Although I have great respect for Chris French, and for his work, I did think that experiment was somewhat flawed in its execution. An interesting idea, but I felt that the protocol needed refining ( the way that the questions were posed to the participants needed to be more controlled - I felt that there was a certain amount of 'leading' in the footage that I saw ). Perhaps the experiment will be refined and repeated at some point.
Anyway, as with others, I would now simply repeat my request that you outline your evidence that 9/11 was an 'inside job'.
Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones...
I feel like I'm talking I'm to a brick wall here, perhaps with less logic than a wall has. How did you all manage to ignore my question? Surely your not all prone to 'selective evidence', effortlessly ignoring half of it?
One at a time please.. firstly, to pebble.
"All of 9/11 as reported in mainstream media and the official reports I find very plausible."
These reports are clearly contradicting in many, many places, how can someone find them ALL plausible. The mainstream media reports the evidence suggesting inside job occasionally, therefore you cannot accept all the evidence without raising some very critical questions, they are not all mutually supporting, like NISTs experiments as I will mention later..
To skbuncks: "...is a load of pants" as an answer to my initial question gets no points for critical thinking, or logic, in my book at least. the 9/11 conspiracy theories was claimed to be "non-falsifyable" by a psychologist named Dr Chris French, and I don't believe a word he says, although I have no reason to believe it is falsifyable until I have heard it be falsified, maybe thats flawed logic? Of course evidence is the only important factor, but this is a blog set up by a psychologist in order to discuss critical thinking and logic with regards to evidence, that's still no reason for me to need to write the whole body of evidence up, specific examples will do, as anyone with any logic or critical thinking will realise. Hopefully you can understand this somewhat obvious point.
You also say "Yes, the 'Official Version' is falsifiable. Claims of it being thoroughly falsified will have to followed with evidence of the same. I am certainly not going to take your word on it."
So, given that not even NISTs own experiments showed what NIST concluded, why do you not question them, rather than take them on their word? Is that very one sided, or illogical in the first place? I asked this question initially, you answered "..is pants". What an argument! Yet you focus on mine, despite me asking my question first. I was hoping to talk with people who have a reasonable amount of sense, capable of conversing in a grown up way.
Wonderful quote by Zaphod Beeblebrox, most of the quotes I tend to value are more often US military, intelligence officers, pilots, engineers, architects - rather than fictional characters. I find they carry more weight in the real world, tell Zaphod I said hi.
To john jackson - you have yet to answer my initial question also - "just one example will do".. the Docu '9/11 blueprint for truth' sets out a very small body of evidence in some detail, lets start there, you can explain the dozens of statements regarding molten metal? And incorporate much of this evidence into the official theory? You again, demand I explain myself but don't place the same requirements of yourself in response to my initial questions. Interesting... Why do you demand I explain my position with supporting evidence despite the obvious fact that those who believe in NISTs version of events for example, are not even supported by NISTs own experiments? They're results support the alternative conspiracy theorists. How can anyone logically claim they do support the official account? I have initially challenged you to answer this with common sense, critical thinking and logic. Can you?
To SimonC: I did assume that you did not support the alternative theory, I appear to have been correct. Unlike French's predictions. I do not supply evidence for my initial statement, because I initially asked you a question, which demands specific evidence of you, not me. You must explain why for example - you support NISTs conclusion, despite their own evidence demonstrating the opposite. We needn't layout the entire evidence, since I'm sure I can highlight critical thinking, logic / or lack of, with smaller examples such as this, I have no interest in trying to convince you, that is for you to decide, based on your own research, I'm simply trying to highlight critical thinking and logic.. In the first place I did this by pointing out that an overall full body of evidence is not logically necessary, the answer I get from you all is 'where's your evidence' having first ignored MY question entirely - please do not ignore my question again, If you can answer logically to my single question, then do so. If you cannot, say so.
I've studied the experiment of Frenchs/Lemans in detail. It demonstrates the exact opposite of what they hypothesised. Its not simply that it was flawed in places, it was thoroughly flawed, its important to note that they deliberately lied, too. A flagrantly biased piece of propaganda. I'll return to the subject sometime.
Can anyone answer my question? or will you all continue to pointlessly ignore my questions, and desperately demand that I must cover all the evidence to support my opinion! I asked first! I've never met such a group who can so easily ignore half the critical questions, critical thinking, logic..
So please answer my question - why believe NISTs conclusion - when even their experiments demonstrated the opposite of what they claim. How can logically not question, and agree with that lie? This is where we can discuss logic and critical thinking, I need not write hundreds of pages, you need only answer a single specific question with logic. Can you though? Will you bother?
This question requires much less evidence, opinion, reasoning of you than your subsequent questions of me, since I have logically focused in on specifics for the sake of time saving. Answers please...
If anyone repeats their questions, continuing to ignore my initial questions, I shall move on. I want a grown up discussion, not a rant with people who can't even logically direct, or support their own arguments.
I am amazed anyone can be so stupid as to boldly point out that I have ignored your demands for exhaustive general evidence, and not supported my position with evidence --- given that all those who have responded, have done exactly this themselves in the first place!
to John Jackson again: I didn't ask anyone to disprove it, did I? I've reasoned myself, and decided myself, though I sometimes use others arguments as a test for the strength of ones own argument. No logical fallacy is included here, despite your baseless assertion.
You ask me to support my claim. But I asked you first - specifically - why would anyone be able to logically believe in the NIST report, given that their own experiments demonstrated the exact opposite? Logic please.. and please don't avoid my initial question, yet again.
Sorry ....
Your arrogant an insulting tone has already been noted. I suggest you give it a rest.
Just because you are convinced of your own intellectual superiority doesn't mean anyone else is.
This one you mean?
"Let me ask this first question: It has been said that the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory is "non-falsifyable" which is problematic for psychologists, however, the Official version on the other hand is - and has been - thoroughly falsified. Why would anyone believe in such a thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory after it has been demonstrated as lies, Why ignore the evidence?"It's a really dumb question which shows a lack of understanding of what the falsifiability criterion actually is; and it is extremely loaded toward your conclusion.
Your ending question "why ignore the evidence?" is rather stupid as, as has been pointed out to you, you haven't actually supplied any evidence.
If you're wanting intelligent debate then you'll really have to try a bit harder than to come out with assumption-laden tripe like that and expect people to engage with it.
What molten metal?
What statements?
I asked you to explain your position with evidence so it would actually be possible to engage with your argument. Unless you make a proper, coherent argument, no one can deal with it.
I fail to see how NIST's experiments have any bearing on you providing a coherent argument.
I would say most people support the official account (to some degree) simply because the evidence supports it and alternative theories don't stand up to scrutiny.
Now I'll be honest here. I'm no expert on 9/11 conspircy theories as the issue bores me senseless. The level of debate by conspiracy theorists is generally pathetic and it's a total and utter waste of time as it involves nothing more than endlessly going over the same crap like a dog chasing its tail.
Your approach so far has been par for the course unfortunately.
.
Do you have a link/ref for this please? It sounds interesting.
Why would I have to answer that?
I don't even know what you're referring to for a start!
.
The NIST report is somewhere around 10,000 pages in length. Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the specific paras/pages/references, where NIST's "own experiments demonstrated the exact opposite".
Which experiments, precisely, are you referring to? In exactly what way did they "demonstrate the opposite" ? If you could please offer page references, etc, we can all then read the material, and consider your statement.
Many thanks in anticipation.
Last edited by SimonC; 12th October 2009 at 05:36 PM. Reason: spelling
Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks