Skeptisism vs Cynicism on 911

[Orphia Nay]

There are a lot of us leaning towards cynicism lately. Sad to loose a skeptic.
I think you'll be missed, so I hope you don't...

SYL

I don't think becoming cynical towards a certain field of investigation means no longer being a skeptic. There are plenty of things going on in the world to be skeptical towards besides something that happened nearly 6 years ago.

I really am now cynical of 9/11 conspiracy theories, because I have analysed them, researched them, and seen them debunked countless times.

Any new 9/11 conspiracy theories/theorists seem to reference the general claims of the Truth Movement, but put an individual spin that can be debunked using critical thinking, skepticism and a little research.

The general claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been thoroughly debunked. These are:

Osama Bin Laden had nothing do with 9/11;
Controlled Demolition at the WTC using Explosives;
Controlled Demoliton at the WTC using Thermite;
Controlled Demolition at the WTC using Energy Weapons;
No Plane at the Pentagon;
Missile at Shanksville.

Any new theories are based on at least some of the above refuted claims, and while analysing a new spin on those theories requires skepicism, deep cynicism is warranted because the main claims have already been debunked.

The Truth Movement is a flimsy, haphazard castle built on quicksand, and new claims never build a new foundation to stand on.

I remain a skeptic towards any claim, such as the Paranormal, but I am highly cynical towards 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I know that doesn't meet the 400 word limit, but in my opinion, brevity is a virtue, and you did ask for our opinions.

 

[beachnut]

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation. Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT, yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical..

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?

OMG, your first post was pure fiction at JREF. You failed to find facts people have used to show truthers are nuts or not correct? That could be the sign of shallow research.

I can give you some facts on the nav stuff. But not one pilot in the truth movement has a clue about 9/11, and most make up stuff, false information for the clueless cult members of 9/11 truth to believe. If you have not read 3 or 4 months of posts, you are lost, and I can see how someone could miss the debunking with facts, but you seem to ignore facts.

I doubt the truth movement will ever find some new evidence to change anything. The truth movement is similar to negative education, dark ages type return to flat earth ideas. Being a truther is like never thinking out of the box, and having not a closed mind, but a mind without logical, or rational thought. I guess I am cynical about all tuthers. Darn the OP. Short on words but very cynical that you will never admit the 9/11 truth movement has no facts.

Do you have any to prove the Navigation "expert" pilots statement?

 

[deep]

Nope. Here's what I said:
I backed up my statements with a mountain of evidence in the following 30 pages of that paper. Wittenburg has backed his no-plane claim with no evidence.

His beliefs have nothing to do with his opinion as a pilot with regard to the possibility/impossibility of that maneuver. You've presented no evidence to refute his claim as a professional pilot, instead stating his other beliefs, then stating that you don't agree with them, and dismissing the original statement.

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

 

[Furcifer]

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

You will undoubtedly be directed to Dr. Geenings new paper and "concrete comminution" for some clarification on this. It would appear that what you stated is the exact opposite, someone has posted how natural collapse is the only way in which the WTC buildings could basically turn to dust.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

Please start a new thread and show that this occurred.

 

[deep]

You will undoubtedly be directed to Dr. Geenings new paper and "concrete comminution" for some clarification on this. It would appear that what you stated is the exact opposite, someone has posted how natural collapse is the only way in which the WTC buildings could basically turn to dust.

..and I would just counter with the response to his paper showing how his own calculations do not support the official story. I'll save us all some time by not creating another thread, because at the end of the day, we're both just going to believe who, and what, we want to believe.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Thank you Orphia Nay and deep44

(Notice: For off topic fights: take them elsewhere)

For the reasons of the constraints of the OP, look at my discussions with cuddles and chipmunk stew in this thread. I think the results are encouraging, so I like to stick with it.

SYL

 

[deep]

I can give you some facts on the nav stuff. But not one pilot in the truth movement has a clue about 9/11, and most make up stuff, false information for the clueless cult members of 9/11 truth to believe. If you have not read 3 or 4 months of posts, you are lost, and I can see how someone could miss the debunking with facts, but you seem to ignore facts.

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

Have a look at the thread started by R. Mackey on the "Gravy line"
I think you can continue this discussion there...

I like to maintain the character of this thread. I think it is fair and open to any viewpoint and I like to keep it that way,...

SYL

 

[beachnut]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

How cynical of you.

If you believe in 9/11 truth movement ideas and conclusion on 9/11, you have no specifics or facts to support them. You are arguing a point you have lost. The "expert" pilot was not an expert, he gave a false statements about the terrorist not being able to do the simple navigation of 9/11 (just dial in 4 numbers and point the plane; a monkey can do it). I am telling you a kid who has never flown could fly and navigate to the WTC towers and the Pentagon. Where is the tough stuff? Therefore the "expert" pilot moves into the liar column of 9/11 truthers. A crowed place in truther land.

I do not need an official story to understand 9/11, why do you even bring it up? You keep bring that up. I am sorry, but you may need to bring up some official story, but I can see liars without it. Why are most people in 9/11 truth unable to research and check things out?

No I do not care what the official story is, it has to be verified too. But why is the official story verifiable, and the 9/11 truth stuff not? Facts? If the official story has 19 terrorist killing 8 pilots to steel 4 airplanes to crash into target and they only hit 75 percent. Then the 75 percent terrorist were better at being terrorist that the zero percent 9/11 truth movement is at being skilled logical thinkers. Zero for 9/11 truth, 75 for terrorist.

You opinion is noted, but you seem biased toward the zero fact truth movement. And you opinion is not based on fact. The expert pilot you speak of makes up stuff and all his statements are support for 9/11 truth. Maybe you are fooled by these so called experts. But the pilot must be biased like you appear to be, and unable to make rational statements about 9/11. I am a ATP rated pilot with 34 years of experience, your "expert" pilot did not do well on the topic of 9/11; he failed. You picked the wrong side, you should be more skeptical if not cynical of the those who make up false information know as 9/11 truth.

If you need some help with flying stuff, I am it. What evidence are you skeptical about, or even cynical? This is the skeptoid, cynoid thread!? I can help you remove that pesky pilot stink from the 9/11 truth BS if you need help.

Please test my skeptical/cynical abilities to expose any truth pilot you have! ? Do not pick Russ, he is too easy to expose.

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

I am very skeptical about this. This is a lie. The WTC did not turn to dust. The collapse was gravity driven after a cripling impact and fires destory the WTC. I need zero inputs from anyone on that. I can check other peoples work and have experience doing so. I also know the dust on 9/11 from the WTC was mostly wallboard. I now must be skeptical about your ability to understand anything 9/11. The above statement about dust is wrong. See?

piles of dust? Why is the truth movement full of false information?

 

[Minadin]

... at the end of the day, we're both just going to believe who, and what, we want to believe.

If I just believed what I wanted to believe, there would be no reason at all for people to pay me to design their buildings, as I'm no longer any more expert than your average layman. I would lose my credibility as an architect. Things would fall down and people would die.

In Gravy's paper above, since the gentleman in question is using his status as a pilot to establish his credibility in the matter, it's perfectly reasonable to examine how credible he has been on various topics - most pertinent if they are related, of course. However, because the guy is making fallacious claims based solely on an appeal to his own authority - not providing any verifiable evidence whatsoever - we become suspicious. I would not do that in my line of work. I can't imagine any expert who would - and very few who could get away with it even if they wanted to. The people paying for your expertise don't usually buy the "Because I said so" line that parents often give their children as explaination. You still have to support your conclusions.

I suppose that's the sort of thing that usually makes cynics out of skeptics - even if it's only on one particular issue. Any time anyone makes an unfounded statement that is outside the norm and refuses / neglects to back it up with any sort of evidence, it deserves some cynicism. Contrastingly, I think that you'll find that on the rare occasion that a newer forum member brings up some odd theory that they think might be true, and provides the reasoning / evidence behind their belief, they receive a much more measured reaction from the skeptic crowd here.

Skeptics love to look at evidence. If you give them some, they'll go tearing into it so that they can judge the proposed position for themselves. They might decide that it's incorrect, they might tell you that it's wrong or illogical. But they'll at least tell you why they think so, that's what they delight in. Conspiracists who come here and throw out a number of wild claims without backing it up, who don't provide evidence, who repeat (usually several) long-debunked claims; they get chewed up, rather than their posts disseminated, because there's no real substance for the skeptical person to delve into.

 

[Gravy]

His beliefs have nothing to do with his opinion as a pilot with regard to the possibility/impossibility of that maneuver.

False. His crackpot belief that it was a missile, not a plane, that people saw has everything to do with what he says about its maneuvers.

 

[Minadin]

Dang, only 390 words. Unless this post counts, I'm under.

 

[hellaeon]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

Remember just because they are an expert dont mean they are correct or there calculations are correct. There are posters like R Mackey who have shown where the 9/11 scholars and experts are wrong.

This is the scientific method at work, each scientist working to further advance a conclusion to its most accurate.

Bear in mind a lot of 'experts' in the truth movement are out of there depth (Theologans, dental techs) and trying to use their authority in those areas in areas out of there depth as if it lends weight to their arguements - which are shown to be incorrect by the relevant field experts.

For example im an Analyst Programmer. What use would my calculations or opinion be if I said 'That looks like a CD'. Having said that - what on earth would Dylan Avery's qualifications be?

The reason the NIST report is agreed upon by very much the entire building industry out there is because the findings and calculations are shown to be sound and the evidence points to it being the most likely conclusion. You cant argue with the rules of reality. There initially was errors that once found were recorrected to be more accurate.

With this in mind, a true scientist will see his error and thank his colleague for pointing it out, something severley lacking in the 9/11 'experts'.

I realise a lot of posts (like many of mine) do attack the poster but the ones that attack the arguement, have always stood up to scutiny. Peer review will always stand above an expert no matter what. If your calculations are wrong - they are wrong - deal with it.

I highly suggest reading some good stuff by people like Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer. Books for guys like you and I, simple to read and absord yet tell it how it is. I started to really thrive on science a few years back, but Sagan single handedly turned me into a lover of it overnight once I understood how and why it works.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Skeptics love to look at evidence. If you give them some, they'll go tearing into it so that they can judge the proposed position for themselves. They might decide that it's incorrect, they might tell you that it's wrong or illogical. But they'll at least tell you why they think so, that's what they delight in. Conspiracists who come here and throw out a number of wild claims without backing it up, who don't provide evidence, who repeat (usually several) long-debunked claims; they get chewed up, rather than their posts disseminated, because there's no real substance for the skeptical person to delve into.

Dang, only 390 words. Unless this post counts, I'm under.

Thanks Minadin, I think that’s true. Many truthseekers stick to their argument even after their “facts” have been debunked. I think it stems from some sort of distrust, making this a “us versus them”conflict. The 10 words don’t bother me, the 400 words is more of an opportunity. I think you presented the background for your opinion very well.

Bear in mind a lot of 'experts' in the truth movement are out of there depth (Theologans, dental techs) and trying to use their authority in those areas in areas out of there depth as if it lends weight to their arguements - which are shown to be incorrect by the relevant field experts.

With this in mind, a true scientist will see his error and thank his colleague for pointing it out, something severley lacking in the 9/11 'experts'.
I realise a lot of posts (like many of mine) do attack the poster but the ones that attack the arguement, have always stood up to scutiny. Peer review will always stand above an expert no matter what. If your calculations are wrong - they are wrong - deal with it.

I think truthers take criticism very personally and are not really used to peer-review. I think that’s where my two questions stem from. We tend to get cynical after a while and to outsiders it may seem as a sort of “missionary role for the official theory”. This may even put real skeptics off, like T.A.M. for instance. But the same argument can be made for the truthers. As you can see from a post in here even people who comment more favorably of the truth movement, are in fact, to some extent cynical and may even be promoting their belief. I call it belief, because the presumed anomalies to support their claims have not reached the level of “evidence” under careful scrutiny..

Except for excerpts, I haven’t read Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer yet, but most certainly will. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

How cynical of you….
You opinion is noted, but you seem biased toward the zero fact truth movement. And you opinion is not based on fact. The expert pilot you speak of makes up stuff and all his statements are support for 9/11 truth. Maybe you are fooled by these so called experts. But the pilot must be biased like you appear to be, and unable to make rational statements about 9/11. ….
You picked the wrong side, you should be more skeptical if not cynical of the those who make up false information know as 9/11 truth.

I think you hit the nail on the head…

As some others in this thread have suggested cynicism is found on both sides and skepticism fades. And it could very well be argued that what remains is a missionary role. Of course I agree that a skeptic view should be led by evidence and suspect that the truth movement may be misled either on purpose or by mistake by a lack of a good grasp of what “evidence” implies.

I'm starting to find out that there are many more people in here that initially started out at the side of the truthseekers, but after thorough research and after looking at the evidence rejected the truth movement. Further confrontation and further research made them even more skeptical or even cynical. Cynicism/ skepticism , eventhough confronting for truthers, may shock them into looking more skeptically at the suggestions made by the 911 truth movement or on the other hand drive them towards cynicism and make them discard any other point of view. They hang on to the truth movement even when the evidence should clearly lead to a rejection of the arguments made by the truth movement (no-planers, laser beams, CD,...).

SYL

 

[hellaeon]

You present a well thought out post Sylv.

I'd like to say that initially though when the 9/11 debate came to the fore thanks to Delphi ote , the truth seekers rejected any immediate alternate theory from anyone in that we over here suddenly became agents and shills for the government and James Randi himself was targeted for slurs although he was and I believe never is involved in any forum discussions.

It was this kind of reaction that I believe everyone from here was not quite ready for. We were used to people going 'really? oh wow, thats great, now I know better' or at least having a civil debate. All of a sudden a simple explanation for a branch in the 9/11 conspiracy tree was met with hostility and threats. People here think they are doing people a service by giving them education and tools to go further but a complete rejection of this approach was unusual.

At times a rebuttal of a crazy theory only led to a more complex and crazy theory.

There is also the huge lack of respect shown to victims on the day not in the general sense as us JREFers tend to put forth as a whole but individual cases were astonishingly horrible.
LC forum members laughing at the infamous picture of the lady in the wtc hole - which spurred Mark Roberts to produce the work he has.
Avery laughing at people on the plane because he likes to think of himself as a regular rambo.
Accusations of victims and their families lying about their unfortunate position during 9/11.

All this behaviour was pretty astonishing to come across.

I think all this contributed highly to the cynicism. With this in mind, I think its an excellent reflection on this forum that we have remained as civil as we have.