Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Jango]

Why don't we get back to the OP topic?

IMNSHO the answer MUST be "1. Yes"
In fact I find it somewhat disturbing that so many people can vote "2. No"
My reasons actually have little to do with 9/11 events and a lot to do with the structure of the question.

To answer "No" means that the person voting "No" is convinced that there is not one single error or questionable conclusion in the full range of the "official narrative".
I cannot support that position and I suggest that zero errors is for all practical purposes impossible.
And there can be no measurable doubt - infinitesimal probability - of there not being a single error.

The other alternate "3. Undecided" is IMO also untenable for anyone capable of reasoned thinking.

The real issue therefore is how should Jango have framed the question he could be asking?
Because the issue is not black or white. It goes to shades of grey.

I have zero doubt that there are false claims in the official narrative.

The real questions IMO are:
A) What are the errors, false claims or dubious conclusions?
B) For each one separately "Is it significant?" Do any consequences flow from the error which warrant the governed community taking corrective action? AND
C) Is the cumulative effect of the errors sufficient to warrant corrective action even though individual errors may not.

THEN - The process issue for forum members is "How come so many did not identify the issues of false generalising AKA global claims in the OP?"
...and I suspect that latter comment will exhibit the aeronautical capabilities of a lead balloon.

1. You continue to impress me.

2. Agreed.

3. Exactly.

4. Exactly.

5.

6. Where?

 

[erwinl]

For starters, since there is little agreement about how hot the fires could have gotten and for how long, why not test for those basic parameters?

Then, when you have the answer, test to see what those conditions do to an assembly built to specs. That is, if the fires got to 1100C for 15 minutes, what effect does that have on a bare steel assembly with joints most likely to fail?

When these tests are done, then we know whether the NIST theory of collapse makes any sense or not.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?

Why suppose that the WTC buildings were completely built to specs?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This section isn't running under the banner of skepticism though, neither is sports or the politics section. You brought up emotions, if you don't like my responses about my true emotions, then perhaps don't bring up my so-called emotions in the future. You thought me to be angry, which is wrong, it is annoyance that I feel. You feel as though I want 'uncritical acceptance' and want to censor this forum. Not true. I just said the conspiracy theories suck crowd is annoying in the conspiracy theory section. Why? Because it is. Just as the analogy I've used several times: sports sucks people in the sports section. Nagging is annoying.

More anger on display.

Yes, this section is under the banner of skepticism. It is here for the sceptical discussion of conspiracy theories, how ever much you may want to pretend otherwise. Skepticism is in evidence whenever someone asks you to provide evidence for your claims, something you seem to hate doing. If your ideas were sound, you wouldn't get so much criticism. If you want uncritical acceptance of poorly thought out ideas, write a blog, which I won't read. If you're so concerned about personal freedoms being infringed, maybe being a little more respectful of freedom of speech would be a good idea. And if you want a forum where criticism of conspiracy theories is banned, go to the David Icke forums, or PrisonPlanet, or somewhere else like that. What you don't get to do is come in here and insist that the culture of the forum be radically changed to suit your preferences.

And by the way, this isn't the sport forum. Argument by analogy is never valid.

Dave

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Why don't we get back to the OP topic?

IMNSHO the answer MUST be "1. Yes"

In fact I find it somewhat disturbing that so many people can vote "2. No"

My reasons actually have little to do with 9/11 events and a lot to do with the structure of the question.

To answer "No" means that the person voting "No" is convinced that there is not one single error or questionable conclusion in the full range of the "official narrative".

I cannot support that position and I suggest that zero errors is for all practical purposes impossible.

And there can be no measurable doubt - infinitesimal probability - of there not being a single error.

The other alternate "3. Undecided" is IMO also untenable for anyone capable of reasoned thinking.

The real issue therefore is how should Jango have framed the question he could be asking?

Because the issue is not black or white. It goes to shades of grey.

I have zero doubt that there are false claims in the official narrative.

The real questions IMO are:
A) What are the errors, false claims or dubious conclusions?
B) For each one separately "Is it significant?" Do any consequences flow from the error which warrant the governed community taking corrective action? AND
C) Is the cumulative effect of the errors sufficient to warrant corrective action even though individual errors may not.

THEN - The process issue for forum members is "How come so many did not identify the issues of false generalising AKA global claims in the OP?"

...and I suspect that latter comment will exhibit the aeronautical capabilities of a lead balloon.

A sage post, and one with which I'm largely in agreement...

Obviously the poll was flawed from the outset, in that it was framed so badly that any data returned would be corrupt ("garbage in, garbage out" and all that).

I can't bring myself to feel disturbed or otherwise about the spread of votes in a poll on a forum though: people whose opinions I respect have voted in all three categories, which is interesting, and probably as it should be.

I personally voted "No" because I recognised the flawed premise (unless I'm misremembering my immediate motive) and also because I feel confident that, both within and beyond the narrow scope of the poll, any remaining unanswered questions, loose ends and as-yet-unrevealed data are unlikely to alter the reality-thrust of the commonly accepted narrative.

I feel that, within the context of this thread, to vote "Undecided" is to sit on the fence, and to vote "Yes" is to give false succour to conspiracy theorists (and it could be argued that all of us who vote in a poll with a flawed premise and no "Planet X" option, and then post about our reasons for doing so, are equally buggered )

 

[GlennB]

Why don't we get back to the OP topic?

IMNSHO the answer MUST be "1. Yes"

In fact I find it somewhat disturbing that so many people can vote "2. No"
.....

I don't see a few areas of doubt on minor specifics as a good reason to vote "Yes" here.

 

[Oystein]

Why don't we get back to the OP topic?

IMNSHO the answer MUST be "1. Yes"
In fact I find it somewhat disturbing that so many people can vote "2. No"

My reasons actually have little to do with 9/11 events and a lot to do with the structure of the question.

To answer "No" means that the person voting "No" is convinced that there is not one single error or questionable conclusion in the full range of the "official narrative".
...

I don't think the question, as posed, implies this Call for Perfection. The question wasn't "can you question the official narrative?" or "is every detail of the official narrative perfectly correct?"
The question is: "Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?"

This is sufficiently vague, IMO, to allow for different opinions than just "Yes".
What is "legitimate", what constitutes a "reason", and what does "question" mean?

I construed the question as being roughly equivalent to asking "is there prima facie evidence for the proposition that the results of any of the official investigations are so wrong that a new investigation is warranted?". This sounds as if I was thinking about legal thresholds of "legitimate reason", but you might adjust the wording to the needs of the various technical and political objectives that some of the investigations had.

Organisations like AE911Truth are demanding a "new investigation" - and I believe you do NOT support that stance. So you might as well have answered "No".

I decided on "Undecided" because, well, I realize the vagueness of the question as well as the possible scope of the remaining unknowns, and thus admit the possibility that further discoveries might raise levels of legitimate doubt in some arena (I am mostly thinking about the political) enough to warrant some new, formal investigation. For the time being, I see no such need, but wish more power to those who are pushing for the release of more information (hint: 28 pages; FEA model data).

 

[Dave Rogers]

IMNSHO there is no rational answer to the question in the OP. That's why I haven't offered one.

I made my views known back on page 1, and I don't think they differ much from others. The big problem is, what is "the official narrative"? Is it the 9/11 Commission Report only? Does it include the NIST reports, the Zacarias Moussaoi verdict, or any other documents issued by the US government or legal system? Does it include newspaper reports and analysis, none of which is in any way "official"? Does it include the Popular Mechanics article, or Mark Roberts's videos? I would submit that no such thing as "the official narrative" exists, in which case the poll is about as answerable as "Does unicorn poo make good rose fertiliser?"

A couple of better questions would be:

(1) Does the 9/11 Commission Report give a full and reliable account of the events of 9/11?

(2) Is the conventional understanding correct that people owing allegiance to al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks and that all subsequent damage resulted from their actions?

The options in each case could be Totally agree, Mostly agree, Undecided, Mostly disagree and Totally disagree. In which case, I think Totally Agree would not even describe the opinion of the 9/11 Commission themselves, who described their own report as "a first draft of history"; there are bound to be areas where better and more accurate understanding is possible.

By phrasing the question the way he has, Jango has basically made reasoned debate quite unlikely. It's a shame, because there is actually a reasoned debate to be had. But it doesn't involve suggesting WTC7 was deliberately demolished with thermite.

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

To answer "No" means that the person voting "No" is convinced that there is not one single error or questionable conclusion in the full range of the "official narrative".

That's one interpretation.

The question is framed ambiguously enough as to be interpretable as "Is there a legitimate reason to question the fact that the collapses of the buildings and other events that happened in that day were caused by planes fled by terrorists from Al Qaeda that were mostly of Saudi origin?"

The unequivocal answer is "No". I believe that's how many that have voted "No" have interpreted it.

I found it too ambiguous to respond, so I abstained. Do I find some fine details questionable? Yes! Do I find the body of the narrative, as I've oulined it, questionable? No! And I'm not undecided, so that's not a suitable answer either. None of the answers is the correct answer in my case. Had there been an answer like "Only in minor details that wouldn't change the main body of the narrative", I would have voted that.

 

[pgimeno]

That's one interpretation.

The question is framed ambiguously enough as to be interpretable as "Is there a legitimate reason to question the fact that the collapses of the buildings and other events that happened in that day were caused by planes fled by terrorists from Al Qaeda that were mostly of Saudi origin?"

The unequivocal answer is "No". I believe that's how many that have voted "No" have interpreted it.

I don't see a few areas of doubt on minor specifics as a good reason to vote "Yes" here.

That's one example that supports my case.

 

[tsig]

It is called entertainment. Like playing "whack a mole" at an arcade.....it doesn't accomplish anything, but it blows off steams and feels good.

The only people that think this discussions really mean anything are the troofers with their religious beliefs.

My wife does crosswords, I post here, both are entertainment.

 

[fitzgibbon]

You're still not getting it. What you and your peers do is akin to someone posting in the sports section who hates sports and makes that point clear in every post: sports suck.

Not at all.

You may be unmindful that this forum began its life as JREF (James Randi Educational Forum [note bolding]). To use your analogy (which is somewhat lacking), truthers of various flavours come here insisting that the Toronto Maple Leafs' 48-year Stanley Cup drought is due to recurring voodoo while the JREF/IS regulars cite statistics, player (in)abilities, coaching shortcomings and other known facts to explain it. Many truthers have come and gone (with the occasional honest admitting to going away with a clearer understanding of the myriad factors in play) but they all come in certain that they understand the various mechanics better than seasoned professionals.

Along with a number of other television professionals, I helped technically school music composer Ace Baker on why his no-planes, video compositing 'theory' of 9/11 was beyond wrong. But in your world, those with knowledge and relevant experience should pack up rather than challenge drive-by truthers.

Sorry but it just doesn't work that way

So I ask again, what the **** are you doing here to begin with?

To address misunderstanding, mistruths, half-truths and outright lies and fabrication. Sorry if you find that disturbing

HTH
Fitz

 

[JayUtah]

You're still not getting it. What you and your peers do is akin to someone posting in the sports section who hates sports and makes that point clear in every post: sports suck. Just switch terms and we have you and your peers doing that very thing here in the conspiracy theory section: conspiracy theories suck in every *********** post. I get it already. You don't believe in any conspiracy theories. So I ask again, what the **** are you doing here to begin with?

You're still not getting it. What you and your peers do is simply to say, "Government and people in power suck." We get it. You're very suspicious of people in power. Unfortunately for many of us, your suspicion doesn't impress us. It doesn't create a legitimate reason to question something unless you have something more convincing than suspicion.

Why do you think the conspiracy theory section of a skeptics board is only for people who believe in conspiracy theories? I and many others are here because we don't believe in conspiracy theories, and we enjoy spending some of our free time debating the people who do. To a larger extent, many of us believe there is social good in the notion of expressing and advocating a critical-thinking approach to public discourse. I know what's here. You seem to think I'm expecting something different than what I find here.

A better question is why you're here. It's a board run by and populated to a large degree with skeptics -- people you should know by now dispute much of what you choose to believe, and much of how you choose to support it. Why do you keep coming back for more of the same, if you dislike it so much?

 

[JayUtah]

I found it too ambiguous to respond, so I abstained.

As do and did I.

Over a large number of respondents, ambiguity tends to work itself out. A roughly equal number of people will interpret it broadly as will interpret it narrowly, and the central tendency will give you a useful if blurry picture. But we don't have a large number of respondents.

As usual, the skeptic's parsing of the question snags at what is meant by "legitimate," "question," and the "official narrative." And a skeptic can adroitly answer either yes or no depending on how he defines them.

The other problem is rhetorical. Questions worded this way, asked in this context by conspiracy theorists, are a rather cheap way to try to seize the no-man's land. "Oh, you don't believe my conspiracy theory. Well then, can you think of no reason to question the official story?" "Question the story" becomes a rhetorical proxy for, "Accept that my proposition is not irrational or farfetched." It's just another way to beg the question. Once the opponent has indicated his natural and rational willingness to change position and be swayed, the conspiracy theorist paints all the amphibolistic middle ground in his own colors.

This ploy is the kissing cousin of "just asking questions." While you can be certain the proponent has an affirmative claim waiting just out of sight, he won't do more than chip away at the prevailing view and hope to condition you into accepting a burden of proof for it so that his own affirmation won't have to.

Skepticism is indeed about being forever tentative, forever inquisitive, forever critical, and forever dispassionate. But it's also about recognizing when other people try to convince you to lower the standards for their benefit.

 

[jay howard]

Answered. They only need to be hot enough, long enough....

Those criteria were clearly satisfied on 9/11, because the building suffered enough progressing damage to initiate a collapse event

Really? No one else sees this as the leap of faith it is? Wasn't Turingtest just accusing his interlocutor of maintaining a religious position?

Why is it ok for you or anyone else who claims to be a "skeptic" to cling to the official narrative, or especially defend it, without a clear understanding of what mechanism of failure caused the destruction of both core structures of the WTC towers? What is clear from the literally thousands of posts of defenders of the official theory is that no one knows what exactly happened to the buildings to cause the destruction we saw.

No one yet knows. And the official theory largely fails to explain the mountain of high-temp phenomena, the mechanism of collapse, the disappearance of the core structures, or indeed, even propose a testable theory. And no one here can dispute that.

It's always entertaining to read that "the answer was given earlier." No, it wasn't. It never was. Not in any of the threads I've ever had this discussion. Not over the last 6 or so years. YEARS. Hundreds of you talking heads. Constantly acting like you don't understand the basic, basic principles of wiping your behind so you don't have to acknowledge how vapid the official theory is.

That's the trick: once it becomes clear how poorly the NIST report explains much of anything, anyone defending it must play dumber than the report. As if the report opened their eyes about the events that day, and they look to it for support and guidance in troubled times. The NIST report has become a bible of sorts: do not question it. Do not look too deeply. Just read the words and repeat the mantra: "office fires caused steel to lose strength, and a miracle happens and the core structures evaporate."

I would venture to say that the only people engaging in debate at this point are sophists. But I want people to read your responses and see for themselves how vacuous they are. That's the starting point.

Once people see that the NIST report is undefendable, they will look for an explanation that simply makes sense. Scary thought, right?

Had the buildings been designed differently, maybe the result would have been different, had there been no impact, and just fire, the buildings may have survived. Had it been impact damage only, same thing.

I agree that there are factors for which we are not taking into account, but you're just begging the question here. Again. I don't accept that heat from office fires and plane impacts caused the collapses. That's why I reject the official narrative to begin with. So it doesn't do much good to reiterate a narrative which I outright reject to support your argument.

Look at what you're saying: "office fires caused 3 steel buildings to collapse. I don't need nor want a thorough explanation, even though in every other crash investigation in history, a specific, testable source of the crash is found and confirmed.

But not in this case. Not to the true believers.

But history as happened is that they collapsed, and whether you believe NIST to be in error on the exact straw that broke the camel's back, unless you can definitively show CD, or a meteor brought the towers down, the only viable conclusion will be the combined effects of impact and fire.

Why is that the only explanation? You don't even have a single test confirming the official explanation, so it can't exactly rule out any other explanations. Just because you don't understand this does not change the reality.

The problem is we have yet to determine how they collapsed. NIST has an anecdotal version of events which give a very general, lazy explanation of the collapses, but there's no forensic evidence to back up their theory. Zero. In fact, the evidence flies in the face of the NIST theory. The temperatures possible by hydrocarbon fires simply will not cause a building to collapse. It won't happen, and any test to demonstrate that will fail.

Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone else on the planet can point to a test that corroborates NIST's version of events.

Your inability to comprehend such issues will not change that, nor will claiming that it's "untestable"

Instead of asserting things, why not try to demonstrate what I'm not comprehending or better yet, show me a corroborative test for NIST's explanation, or even better, show me a testable version of their theory.

All these things are beyond your ability. But please, yammer away.

 

[jay howard]

Why suppose that the WTC buildings were completely built to specs?

All we have are reasons. Do you have special knowledge about the construction of the towers by which they were not built to specs?

Are you opposed to building and testing an assembly at all? On principle?

If you're trying to say that any test we run will not be able to take into account all the variables on the day of the attacks, I agree. If you think that's a reason not to conduct any testing, then you are confused or just trying to run away from defending the NIST report.

Which is it?

 

[jay howard]

Yes, this section is under the banner of skepticism. It is here for the sceptical discussion of conspiracy theories, how ever much you may want to pretend otherwise. Skepticism is in evidence whenever someone asks you to provide evidence for your claims...

What evidence do you have that supports the official narrative?

If your ideas were sound, you wouldn't get so much criticism.

You can't even find a single corroborative test for your pet theory, and yet you chastize others for holding "unsound" ideas. Walk the walk or you're just a hypocrite.

 

[NoahFence]

All we have are reasons. Do you have special knowledge about the construction of the towers by which they were not built to specs?

Are you opposed to building and testing an assembly at all? On principle?

If you're trying to say that any test we run will not be able to take into account all the variables on the day of the attacks, I agree. If you think that's a reason not to conduct any testing, then you are confused or just trying to run away from defending the NIST report.

Which is it?

For the 1,000,000th time, the testing has been done, both by NIST and by common sense reality. The mechanisms by which the towers collapsed were known many hundreds of years before they were even built.

 

[Animal]

Again. I don't accept that heat from office fires and plane impacts caused the collapses. That's why I reject the official narrative to begin with.

In a nutshell......your personal incredulity rejection is meaningless.

Centuries worth of knowledge of material science, decades of knowledge of fire science all tossed because "you don't believe"

Is it any wonder that 13 years later, the troof movement is still stuck on a hamster wheel?

 

[JayUtah]

What evidence do you have that supports the official narrative?

All the evidence you're so desperate to dismiss or ignore. You know it's there. Your attempted undermining of it is all you do, so don't stand around wondering what or where it is.

You can't even find a single corroborative test for your pet theory...

Asked and answered. Your straw man demands "tests" only of a certain kind that you've imagined. You cannot describe them in suitable detail. When questioned about their practicality or fidelity, you will not answer. You cannot substantiate that they are considered reasonable and probative tests in the relevant fields. Your inability to do anything beyond wildly waving your hands has led many of us to conclude you are posing your questions only so that you can loudly complain about how ineffective your critics seem to be at answering them. Shrillness doth not erudition make.

 

[Hellbound]

Well stated, Jay. I couldn't come up with a way to say that which wouldn't result in a rule violation