• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Inside the Truther Mind

Childlike Empress said:
You have seen nothing but the reaction of the real world to your input. Some people live a life like James Bond, some live the life of a pedantic bore. Your argument is one from ignorance.
Click to expand...


That's what I get for participating in the legendary "Let a Truther choose your Custom Title" thread.:mad:


Will anyone who disputes the "Official Account" of 9/11 answer my question? Anyone?

...if the Government and/or Big Business in the United Sates is as evil as you say, why wouldn't there be radical groups around the world justifiably angry enough to lash out at America in the form of what we'd call "terrorist" attacks? In other words, wouldn't a 9/11 type event be the sort of thing you'd expect to inevitably happen when downtrodden and angry people revolt against an oppressor?



BTW CE, Anna says "salut!". I recently had dinner with her in Paris after crashing through the ceiling of her flat when Blofeld threw me out of an airplane.
 
JohnG said:
Will anyone who disputes the "Official Account" of 9/11 answer my question? Anyone?

...if the Government and/or Big Business in the United Sates is as evil as you say, why wouldn't there be radical groups around the world justifiably angry enough to lash out at America in the form of what we'd call "terrorist" attacks? In other words, wouldn't a 9/11 type event be the sort of thing you'd expect to inevitably happen when downtrodden and angry people revolt against an oppressor?
Click to expand...


Jane gave you the obvious answer already in #137. You just didn't listen.

JohnG said:
BTW CE, Anna says "salut!". I recently had dinner with her in Paris after crashing through the ceiling of her flat when Blofeld threw me out of an airplane.
Click to expand...


BS. She's back in Copenhagen for some time where she runs a Kebab Store with Bin Laden. Everybody knows that. Fail. ;)
 
Childlike Empress said:
Jane gave you the obvious answer already in #137. You just didn't listen.
Click to expand...


Um...no she didn't, as I explained in post #139. How does taking me to task for not considering that the USG and AQ could be in cahoots address my central point that the oppressed can and often do eventually revolt against their oppressors? I'll pare down my question even more for those who have trouble reading more than a few sentences without their attention drifting:

wouldn't a 9/11 type event be the sort of thing you'd expect to inevitably happen when downtrodden and angry people revolt against an oppressor?

Why are you and Jane dancing around this question?
 
No, 9/11 was not the event I would have expected from downtrodden and angry people revolting against an oppressor, at least not if they are really oppressed. I would expect deperate manoevers like blowing themselves up in front of an embassy/an army station or something like that. But the motivation described by the blowback theory, - the conventional explanation for 9/11 around most of the planet -, of course exists, there we agree.

I don't see the point of your question though if we want to find out if a new investigation into 9/11 would unearth important details that aren't uncovered yet, may they be of an CYA, LIHOP, MIHOP or whatever nature. Or if there is something wrong with "the truther mind" - again, ignorance isn't an argument.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I don't see the point of your question though if we want to find out if a new investigation into 9/11 would unearth important details that aren't uncovered yet, may they be of an CYA, LIHOP, MIHOP or whatever nature.
Click to expand...

There have been many investigations done; some by government agencies, some by independent organizations, some by individuals. They range in focus from criminal to political to scientific. Every one of them comes to a conclusion that supports the simplest, most rational explanation...that Middle Eastern terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks.

(I don't include investigations such as the ridiculous CIT project...these have no working hypotheses and thus cannot result in any reasonable conclusions)

As more and more of these investigations are carried out, the possibility that a radically different conclusion will fit the evidence becomes smaller and smaller, and the justification for a new investigation shrivels and dies.

Sorry.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'll counter your evidence after presented.
Click to expand...

You have made a claim that there are people who live lives similar to that of a fictional character who has many highly implausible, if not impossible, adventures. It falls to you to demonstrate that such people exist, not me to show that they don't.

Name one person who lives such a life, and I will alter my position.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Of course you're not an authority on which investigation is credible and which isn't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Again, credibility is conferred automatically when there is large-scale internal and external consistency. That is the basis of science as a tool to accurately model the nature of reality -- it is self-correcting. It's why the scientific method, rather than fantasy, is used in successful investigations.

Truther investigations can be safely dispensed with because they are both internally and externally inconsistent, and therefore demonstrably bogus. Truthers therefore demand that someone else, someone actually competent, perform the investigation. What they don't realize is that their entire mode of thinking is the problem, not the "authority" of those conducting the investigation.
 
Let me get this straight, CE: first you take me to task for not considering that people and events straight out of a James Bond movie can and do exist, then you tell me that the sorts of actions that the oppressed would perpetrate against their oppressors would always be relatively small in scale and never the sort of thing you'd see in a...James Bond movie?

For the millionth time, the people who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks weren't SMERSH or SPECTRE agents, but they sure as hell weren't illiterate shepherds living in caves, either. They were intelligent and educated (some highly educated), and some with training and experience in actual warfare. This isn't to say that terrorists don't carry out the sorts of attacks you mentioned (e.g., blowing themselves up in front of an embassy), but 9/11 wasn't meant to be just an old terrorist operation. They meant it to be their "pièce de résistance" (if you'll pardon the pun ). The whole point was that it wasn't going to be just another checkpoint suicide bombing or embassy attack. It was meant to be something that goes down in the history books people discuss and debate for generations.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that you or many other Truthers would have changed your opinion about who carried out the 9/11 attacks even if they had been more on the sort of modest scale you mentioned.


ETA: You accused me earlier of arguing from ignorance. As long as we're on the subject of logical fallacies, let me "Tu Quoque" right back at you and say that your belief that Al Qaeda didn't have the means to plan and carry out 9/11 is an argument from personal incredulity.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
You have made a claim that there are people who live lives similar to that of a fictional character who has many highly implausible, if not impossible, adventures. It falls to you to demonstrate that such people exist, not me to show that they don't.

Name one person who lives such a life, and I will alter my position.
Click to expand...


No no mate, you've made the claim that nobody exists whose livestyle could be reasonably compared to that of James Bond. You deliver evidence, i counter it. It's a skeptic forum, after all.

Of course you know that already and make that "argument" anyway, so me pointing out people like Mata Hari, Reinhard Gehlen or Ali Mohammed wouldn't satisfy you.

edit: your second post is nothing but hot air.
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
ETA: You accused me earlier of arguing from ignorance. As long as we're on the subject of logical fallacies, let me "Tu Quoque" right back at you and say that your belief that Al Qaeda didn't have the means to plan and carry out 9/11 is an argument from personal incredulity.
Click to expand...


Let's call it a draw and start a new investigation. The extremely weak position of you debunkers is perfectly illustrated when you accuse us on the one hand of pretending to know exactly what happened on 9/11, but on the other hand you belittle us and demand from us to deliver an "alternative hypothesis" - which means you demand from us to speculate, because me and the vast majority of 9/11 Skeptics never claimed that we know what happened.

This, by the way, is a little obvious point that apparently, despite pointing out that in a criminal investigation the investigator doesn't have to provide a different suspect to rule the first suspected person as culprit out, cannot be understood even by the resident rocket scientists.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
You are sounding a little psychopathic. Maybe you need to think deeply about torture.
Click to expand...

That would be an example of truther thinking. In order to deepen my understanding about something, I learn the facts rather than just thinking about it.

Even the ebil Zelikow admitted that "quite a bit, if not most" of the 911 Commission's information on the 9/11 conspiracy "did come from the interrogations."
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there is no need to appeal to authority, because we have the commission report itself, complete with over a hundred pages of citations. Have you read it?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Let's call it a draw and start a new investigation.
Click to expand...

Yes, please, start your investigation and let us know what you find out.

Keep in mind that in order to overturn the conclusions of the many other investigations that have already been carried out, the quality of your evidence must be mind-blowing.

And, of course, you won't be taken seriously if you present several unrelated and mutually exclusive scenarios and call it a "conclusion".
 
Childlike Empress said:
edit: your second post is nothing but hot air.
Click to expand...

You're referring to this post?

aggle-rithm said:
Again, credibility is conferred automatically when there is large-scale internal and external consistency. That is the basis of science as a tool to accurately model the nature of reality -- it is self-correcting. It's why the scientific method, rather than fantasy, is used in successful investigations.

Truther investigations can be safely dispensed with because they are both internally and externally inconsistent, and therefore demonstrably bogus. Truthers therefore demand that someone else, someone actually competent, perform the investigation. What they don't realize is that their entire mode of thinking is the problem, not the "authority" of those conducting the investigation.
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you agree with none of this? It's nothing but hot air?

Do you seriously believe that wishful thinking, gut feeling, and personal bias are more reliable investigative tools than the scientific method? Because that's what is implied here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom