Questions for Truthers

[Foolmewunz]

I'm all for a sense of decorum, but I'm all against these various proposals, of formulating some sort of group standard.

The JREF Forums comprise a large group of individuals. Gravy is Gravy. TAM is TAM. Beachnut is Beachnut. A lot of this discussion seems to be bordering on setting "policy", and I'm not about to, in the face of the incredible amount of work and background digging that just those three I named here have done, try to tell them how to form the debate.

For those who want to follow a set criteria in how to respond (or not respond) to TMers, please go right ahead. I'll be my anarchic self, though. Mind, I just wade in every now and then to smack someone upside the head who's being particularly obtuse, but I reckon that's my right if that's my wont.

If some choose to answer ridiculous trolling claims with pointed rhetorical questions, that's their choice.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I've only known about the 911 truth movement for about 6 months. Before that time, I'd never even heard of it. It wasn't until some 911 related threads started popping up on the science board I'm a regular at, did I discover it. At this science board, we get lots of "fringe thinkers" (read:nutjobs) that like to post their pet theories about things that go way outside of what is considered "accepted science". I've generally found that many of these fringe thinkers are just people who fancy themselves smarter than they really are, and when the real scientists show them how wrong they are, they will at least concede some points, or back down all together.

When I first starting discussing 911, I expected the same ole same ole, but the truth guys were different in someway, and had similar patterns of discussion and behavior. When faced with clear-cut, credible, documented evidence, they would complete ignore it, or change the subject. I couldn't understand this. How could rational people behave like this? You can't blame it on stupidity, because some of them were clearly college educated. I had to look for something else.

I've recently had "Eureka!" moment in my analysis of their behavior

It wasn't until I spoke with my cousin for the first time in over 10 years at a family reunion, did I finally start to put 2 and 2 together. My cousin is paranoid schizophrenic, and when he's off he's meds, he has delusions of "The Government" being after him. He assigns conspiracies to everything. No amount of clear-cut, credible, documented evidence would sway him. He would completely ignore ANYTHING that didn't go along with his delusion. If he believed Dick Chaney was an alien...you could go and get Dick Chaney and in front of him, cut his arm with a knife to show he bleeds red...and he would say it was a fake knife and blood. You can't de-bunk a paranoid delusion...period.

While I enjoy discussing the topic, and have learned quite a few things in the process of researching a truther's claim...I'm pretty much here for entertainment value only. I have come to the conclusion that it is a complete waste of my time to try to convince the un-convinceable.

If you do a little research into paranoid schizophrenia, and look at the symptoms, It will go a long way to explain truther behavior.

Either that or they're someone's "online persona" playing the part for their own jollys.

Just my 2 cents

 

[BenBurch]

A discussion of tools various posters can use here to self-moderate, rather than rely on outside moderation.

It would be materially helped if we could compel an answer to direct questions. But that's not self-moderation. You corner these guys, and they utterly change the subject, or abandon the thread, or answer in a way that is not responsive.

"Permission to treat the witness as hostile, Your Honor?"

They will do everything, and I mean everything, except admit they were wrong about anything at all. And that includes Red Ibis, and the fact that he is clearly the most intelligent of the lot pisses me off even more that he will not face reality. He's clearly capable of comprehending the truth, and I cannot for the life of me understand why he will not?

The only self-moderation that is possible here is to ignore them, talking around them with the actually reasonable people in the thread, but that goes nowhere because those in touch with reality generally agree on these matters. I have learned a lot about aircraft and architecture and building codes and military procedure and thermite, though. So its not an utterly wasted effort. But just ONCE I would like to see a truther come in here with an actually open mind and learn something themselves.

 

[Hokulele]

But just ONCE I would like to see a truther come in here with an actually open mind and learn something themselves.

It does happen. Here is a link to one of the more recent ones. It's a long post, but extremely revealing, and I commend Hourglassmemory for posting it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4395430#post4395430

The problem is that this sort of thing tends to get lost in all the sturm und drang that makes up the CT sub-forum. As another example, I have noticed that thesyntaxera has almost completely changed his/her posting habits and thoughts, although he/she didn't make a big production out of it.

Granted, there are some people it is better for me to simply ignore, but that doesn't mean that everyone else should. Who knows, maybe even the most obstinate CTist of the bunch will eventually understand what most of us are saying.

That can't happen without some sort of dialog, or if we all end up banned.

ETA: Here is a snip from Hourglassmemory's post. Really, sometimes we do sink in (my bolding).

In just a few months, I’ll be turning 20, grateful more than ever, that if I hadn’t gone through all of the things I went through in my mind, if I hadn’t actually believed in a gigantic myriad of things and having all these “possibilities” hit me in my heart and believing in them with vehemence and honesty, and if I hadn’t had the likes of the SGU podcast and the JREF forums I would never really understand why people fall for these things, nor do I know where I would be mentally.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, that is heartening. I hadn't encountered that person that I recall.

It is very, very frustrating to have something like the "flight 93 filled only one dumpster" lie repeated when we know its not true. And that they will just not believe you if you say it. So I give them the ONLY way to get ground truth of the matter here 9 years later, and they refuse to even attempt it. I won't bother giving out UAL's unlisted numbers again, though.

For the curious, however, UAL received many truckloads of material, nearly all of it contaminated with human remains, and packaged it into shipping containers and stored it, probably forever, at an underground document storage facility so that nobody could buy the recycled metal and sell grim souvenirs.

And the public information office at UAL would have told RI this had he been brave enough to call.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, that is heartening. I hadn't encountered that person that I recall.

He/she (although I am pretty sure Hourglassmemory is a "he"), was fairly active for a bit, then quieted down for almost a year before posting that revelation. But he was as stubborn as any while he believed.

I find it helps to remind myself of the people who have made posts like that every now and then, that these arguments do have happy endings on occasion. IIRC, there have been at least three threads like that where people explain how and why they abandonded various CT's. But then again, I have always been a bit of an incurable optimist.

It is very, very frustrating to have something like the "flight 93 filled only one dumpster" lie repeated when we know its not true. And that they will just not believe you if you say it. So I give them the ONLY way to get ground truth of the matter here 9 years later, and they refuse to even attempt it. I won't bother giving out UAL's unlisted numbers again, though.

Oh, absolutely. This is why I have the new policy of link 'em and leave 'em. There is a slim chance they will remember that the information is available, and ask again if and when rationality kicks in. If not, forget them, they can come back and ask nicely if they want me to repeat myself.

For the curious, however, UAL received many truckloads of material, nearly all of it contaminated with human remains, and packaged it into shipping containers and stored it, probably forever, at an underground document storage facility so that nobody could buy the recycled metal and sell grim souvenirs.

And this is good information that not everyone knows. It would be a shame to have this remain unposted, simply because someone is acting too pigheaded to be able to acknowledge it.

And the public information office at UAL would have told RI this had he been brave enough to call.

Which is more his loss than yours. But who knows, maybe someday a few months from now, another Hourglassmemory will post thanking the JREF for showing them the other side of the story. After all, it has already been 5 months since the last one, we should be due any time soon.

[/wry commentary]

 

[chillzero]

I'm all for a sense of decorum, but I'm all against these various proposals, of formulating some sort of group standard.
<snip>
A lot of this discussion seems to be bordering on setting "policy"

Well, I'm certainly not.

However, on the context of being on a discussion forum, I'm open to having alternative methods for discussion .... discussed. Wouldn't you like to add a few more tools to your repertoire? Isn't it a good idea every now and then to review options for responding? Particularly when it is clear that the current options aren't working and need refreshed?

By not working I mean that people are still being led down a path by trolls - Galileo has all but blatently stated "I will say anything at all here to get this thread up to 10 more pages in length - ha ha ha" and people still respond in the same format. In this very thread we have a minor derail which I hope is over now, when RedIbis ignored a few of the more considered posts directed specifically at him, and instead set you all a challenge - which several people jumped to, regardless of this thread's actual topic.

As I said earlier, you can all continue with the status quo, and either drive off your opponents making this the most stagnant part of the forum, or forcing more and more moderation, making this the section most likely to be shut down.

Why is it that when someone comes up with a suggestion as to alternative - possibly better - ways to handle a discussion people jump to the conclusion that they are being ordered to act in a certain manner? All that's been suggested is an alterative to the current bait taking that's going on. In some contexts taking the bait and asking questions is appropriate - not always though. Why not give some consideration to your posts before responding? That's all that's being asked.

 

[T.A.M.]

All I can say is this (yah right, I could say more):

I have been here for nearly 3 years, and I have made over 16,000 posts. About 15,000 of those are here in the 9/11 CT subforum. 99% of them are in response to truther questions, and comments.

Yet in that time I have recieved 2 yellow cards, and one suspension, later over turned, because someone incorrectly thought I ignored a mod box warning. That is it...in 16,000 posts.

Mark Roberts has a better record than that, with an even higher post count.

So Mark and I must be doing something right when it comes to interacting and discussing the issues with the truthers.

One technique that I have often used, and I have talked about here before, is to type out the post you want to post, read it over, then backspace/delete the post, and start a new one...the one with the anger taken out of it.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

In this very thread we have a minor derail which I hope is over now, when RedIbis ignored a few of the more considered posts directed specifically at him, and instead set you all a challenge - which several people jumped to, regardless of this thread's actual topic.

I ignored them? I answered the first post that did not call me a liar or other baiting attempts. I figured if I responded to all of the posts that called me a liar I would be further derailing what could be a productive thread.

 

[RedIbis]

What I really think is the problem is in the discourse. If I could use an example, it goes something like this:

I ask: What physical evidence did NIST use to support their WTC 7 single column collapse hypothesis?

Variation on answer: The computer modelling, eyewitnesses, video and photographic evidence

My response: But that's not physical evidence. Where is Column 79 or any of the thermally expanded joints to support this unprecedented collapse hypothesis?

Variations on answer: WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives or Why are you so hung up on WTC 7 is it because Silverstein is a Jew? or Every fireman on the street knew the bldg was going to collapse or Every engineer in the world knows that WTC 7 didn't collapse from explosives.

My attempt to redirect the question: I'm not arguing CD, I'm simply asking what physical evidence did NIST provide to support this unprecedented collapse?

And on and on it goes.

Now, in my mind, my original question is important and relevant. Many don't agree, but in a skeptics forum based on critical thinking, I would think that physical evidence to back up an unprecedented hypothesis would be requisite, but it's not. It's not required because there is the presumption that whatever analysis an official provides that supports the official story is correct.

That's not skepticism, that's faith.

 

[DavidJames]

I suggest a combination of Myriad's and and Quad4's approaches. After a 9/11 CTist post, one person should reply using Myriad's approach. The rest of us should follow Quad4's approach.

 

[BenBurch]

See, its utter intellectual cowardice. How can you hold a rational conversation with somebody who RUNS from truth?

 

[Macgyver1968]

See, its utter intellectual cowardice. How can you hold a rational conversation with somebody who RUNS from truth?

You can't. That's why all of this is pointless. I think it would much more productive and much more entertaining to turn this subforum into a gallery for LOLcats pictures.

 

[T.A.M.]

What I really think is the problem is in the discourse. If I could use an example, it goes something like this:

I ask: What physical evidence did NIST use to support their WTC 7 single column collapse hypothesis?

Variation on answer: The computer modelling, eyewitnesses, video and photographic evidence

My response: But that's not physical evidence. Where is Column 79 or any of the thermally expanded joints to support this unprecedented collapse hypothesis?

Variations on answer: WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives or Why are you so hung up on WTC 7 is it because Silverstein is a Jew? or Every fireman on the street knew the bldg was going to collapse or Every engineer in the world knows that WTC 7 didn't collapse from explosives.

My attempt to redirect the question: I'm not arguing CD, I'm simply asking what physical evidence did NIST provide to support this unprecedented collapse?

And on and on it goes.

Now, in my mind, my original question is important and relevant. Many don't agree, but in a skeptics forum based on critical thinking, I would think that physical evidence to back up an unprecedented hypothesis would be requisite, but it's not. It's not required because there is the presumption that whatever analysis an official provides that supports the official story is correct.

That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Here is how I would address you in your example.

Red: What physical evidence did NIST use to support their WTC 7 single column collapse hypothesis?

Me: video and photographic evidence.

Red: But that's not physical evidence. Where is Column 79 or any of the thermally expanded joints to support this unprecedented collapse hypothesis?

Me: Video and Photos are Physical evidence, but I can see this is not what you are after. Your question is not genuine, because you know before you ask the question, that column 79 was not recovered. You also know that the NIST WTC7 Hypothesis is not based on examination of that column, but on computer modeling, video, and photo evidence. So what now?

Your turn....

TAM

 

[chillzero]

I ignored them?

Yes, you did. Both TAM and I responded to you, and asked you some follow up questions - like, for example, why you consider it pointless to continue any discussion with us.

 

[RedIbis]

Here is how I would address you in your example.

Red: What physical evidence did NIST use to support their WTC 7 single column collapse hypothesis?

Me: video and photographic evidence.

Red: But that's not physical evidence. Where is Column 79 or any of the thermally expanded joints to support this unprecedented collapse hypothesis?

Me: Video and Photos are Physical evidence, but I can see this is not what you are after. Your question is not genuine, because you know before you ask the question, that column 79 was not recovered. You also know that the NIST WTC7 Hypothesis is not based on examination of that column, but on computer modeling, video, and photo evidence. So what now?

Your turn....

TAM

And of course you're not the majority of posters, so you can propel the discourse in a productive way. You often make good points and make me consider my position more closely.

But to answer your last question, we would get into a discussion about whether the NIST report is conclusive, why the evidence was spoliated? Is it an excuse that the column and other material would have been difficult to recover, etc etc. It would become a discussion of whether or not that particular explanation is conclusive. If we finish by disagreeing, it's a matter of perspective or opinion.

Often, discussions end that way. Some people remain indignant, hurl all kinds of insults, call me a Truther and other labels and prejoratives, but I don't take it personally. I can move on.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, you did. Both TAM and I responded to you, and asked you some follow up questions - like, for example, why you consider it pointless to continue any discussion with us.

True it is that I did not answer every freakin' question thrown at me in this thread. I will now answer your question in the spirit of productive discussion.

I suggested that it was pointless to talk to you and TAM about this because it's a bit like preaching to the choir. I prefaced my comment by saying I consider both you and TAM to be among the most civil, friendly, and ultimately persuasive posters, so telling you this isn't exactly hitting the right audience. Probably clumsily, I was also trying to agree with you that there is bad behavior on both sides, and in general, most of the posts I read that question the official story are not well composed.

 

[DavidJames]

Your turn....

Related to his turn, I would also create a three strikes rule for invocations of the argument from incredulity from those can't demonstrate they have the requisite knowledge to make such an argument credible.

I'm half joking with that.

 

[T.A.M.]

And of course you're not the majority of posters, so you can propel the discourse in a productive way. You often make good points and make me consider my position more closely.

But to answer your last question, we would get into a discussion about whether the NIST report is conclusive, why the evidence was spoliated? Is it an excuse that the column and other material would have been difficult to recover, etc etc. It would become a discussion of whether or not that particular explanation is conclusive. If we finish by disagreeing, it's a matter of perspective or opinion.

Often, discussions end that way. Some people remain indignant, hurl all kinds of insults, call me a Truther and other labels and prejoratives, but I don't take it personally. I can move on.

The continuation of such a discussion I will leave for another thread, should it pop up.
------

I think, just as you might defend some of the snipping and harsh tones of truthers as a result of their distrust of govt and their conviction that debunkers defend what they consider to be murderers, you must also except that many here consider those that promote the "9/11 truth" to be terrorist apologists, and defilers of the memories of thousands who lost their lives on 9/11.

In other words, the issues are extremely emotional ones, and while I will not excuse bad behavior, I can understand the impetus behind it...on both sides.

TAM

 

[Seymour Butz]

They will do everything, and I mean everything, except admit they were wrong about anything at all. And that includes Red Ibis, and the fact that he is clearly the most intelligent of the lot pisses me off even more that he will not face reality. He's clearly capable of comprehending the truth, and I cannot for the life of me understand why he will not?

It's all due to their political beliefs. Everyone accepts that a politican will lie. Any means to an end, etc. The lies that the few smart troofers out there repeat are just a means to an end.

That end is pretty clear when they post HERE. Nobody in this forum is mis-informed. If they truly wanted to inform "the sheeple", they'd go elsewhere. So, they're only here to troll.

Dudes like Red know they're trolling. They don't care that they ask irrelevant questions like where is col 79? What physical evidence was used, blah blah blah.....

Like all trolls, this is how they get their rocks off.