What should a skeptic make of 9/11 criticism?

[madfoot]

Hi, new here, and I'm trying to understand what it means to be a skeptic. I'm not a troll, and not trying to start a fight; I couldn't think of any better place to come than the randi forums. I'm a complete newbie to this whole 9/11 truth thing, and despite how insane some of the conspiracy theories seem (holograms? fake hijackers? really?), a lot of the skepticism seems more like a kneejerk reaction against valid criticism. I find it hard to believe that every 9/11 truther believes in meticulously planned conspiracies involving holograms and intense coverups; at some point, this looks more like a giant strawman than a legitimate argument.

For example, you have Max Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission, and you have Bob Kerry's quote: “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version". Then there's the John Farmer book, The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. The dean of Rutgers law school isn't exactly some anonymous nut. While he's not exactly saying Bush-did-9/11, and I confess I haven't read that book, it sounds like a pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision. Given that, I'm not sure what separates John Farmer from your average "conspiracy wingnut", if anything at all.

I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

 

[cjnewson88]

Hi madfoot, welcome to jref. Skepticism is always healthy, no one should ever believe anything at face value, and that goes for all sides of the argument. Where this rule impacts 9/11 skepticism is that the two sides of the arguments have extremely different opinions and "facts" to back them up. On one side, the official story, and on the other, the truth movement, or "skeptics" of 9/11. The people here at JREF could probably more accurately be described as skeptics of 9/11 skeptics; where 9/11 skeptics doubt the official story using their 'facts', and skeptics of 9/11 skeptics (JREF) doubt the 9/11 skeptics story and their 'facts'.

This is where skepticism has gone off on a tangent. Healthy skepticism is based on at least some factual information, however the 9/11 skeptics is based on misinformation, fabrications, anecdotal evidence and illogical/incoherent conclusions, which gives birth to skeptics of 9/11 skeptics; us

You are in the same situation as the vast majority of the population, where you know bare basics about 9/11, perhaps not a complete story, and where any explanation which seems convincing at face value can be perceived as correct, simply because of the fact you do not know any better. This is how the 9/11 Truth movement gained its momentum. It is because of this that is it necessary to become not only a skeptic of main stream information, but a skeptic of skeptics, doubting all and looking at as much raw information as you can and, above all, using common sense.

Healthy level of 9/11 skepticism towards the official story? Well, I could see it very healthy to be skeptical of the level of information the intelligence agencies had of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. It would be healthy to be skeptical of the response and gross methods in which the administration used the fear generated by 9/11 to push political ideas and motives. It would be healthy to consider that 9/11 was more of a massive cock up/break down in intelligence communication and preparedness.

Where it becomes unhealthy is where you start saying the aircraft didn't exist, government payed off/murdered witnesses, WTC lease holders destroying his own buildings, hightec incendiary mixed with paint and painted on steel columns destroying buidings, missiles fired in broad daylight over busy motorways without anyone seeing etc things along those lines which are completely illogical and impossible to cover up. Effectively, being a skeptic of the narrative of events on the day of 9/11 is what I would consider unhealthy.

 

[Penemue]

"Maybe the government had a hand in 911, or at least had some warning of it and turned a blind eye" = "Yeah, okay, maybe."

"The American government destroyed the Towers under direct orders from their Reptilian Overlords using hologram airplanes and Tesla's earthquake machine" = "Yoo-hoo, truther, it's yummy medication time!"

 

[cjnewson88]

I'm writing this post for the single reason of reach 50 total posts and earning the right to an avatar

hurrah

 

[TJM]

I'm writing this post for the single reason of reach 50 total posts and earning the right to an avatar

hurrah

Reported as a violation of rule 11.

 

[cjnewson88]

Reported as a violation of rule 11.

Noooooooooooooooo!

 

[beachnut]

Hi, new here, and I'm trying to understand what it means to be a skeptic. I'm not a troll, and not trying to start a fight; I couldn't think of any better place to come than the randi forums. I'm a complete newbie to this whole 9/11 truth thing, and despite how insane some of the conspiracy theories seem (holograms? fake hijackers? really?), a lot of the skepticism seems more like a kneejerk reaction against valid criticism. I find it hard to believe that every 9/11 truther believes in meticulously planned conspiracies involving holograms and intense coverups; at some point, this looks more like a giant strawman than a legitimate argument.

For example, you have Max Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission, and you have Bob Kerry's quote: “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version". Then there's the John Farmer book, The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. The dean of Rutgers law school isn't exactly some anonymous nut. While he's not exactly saying Bush-did-9/11, and I confess I haven't read that book, it sounds like a pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision. Given that, I'm not sure what separates John Farmer from your average "conspiracy wingnut", if anything at all.

I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

Max, and Bob say what they say for political reasons - they have no substance. How do you know what version they are talking about?

19 terrorists did 911. If you think we should see it coming and stop it, remember that when your kid totals your car, or someone breaks into your house, or the worse, why did you fail to stop it from happening?. I am warning you now, your kid could be in an accident, and someone could rob you; you were warned; after the fact, why did you let it happen?

I never accepted the official version; I used facts and evidence to figure out 911. I know of no official version. Bush and presidents do not tell me what to think, and I spent 29 years in the USAF; and we did not stand down.

I can't find any claims made by 911 truth that have substance. If you find a claim backed with facts and evidence, present it. I am skeptical of 911 truth knowing that hearsay, lies and fantasy are not evidence.


John Farmer book, The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. it debunks 911 truth... you should read what you think is against the official story, when it might be the best version of the official story. Funny, 911 truthers rip Farmer's book; but then, they are nuts.
DRG is a liar, or nuts. http://www.amazon.com/review/R744LF...4488940&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful
What a moron, expert at hearsay, DRG.

 

[Pantaz]

... a lot of the skepticism seems more like a kneejerk reaction against valid criticism. ...

If you are referring to recent posts on JREF, you should keep in mind that many of the members have been responding to such "criticisms" for years. After answering the same basic question for the tenth or twentieth time, only to be met with accusations of being a "government shill" (or other nonsense), you too may respond brusquely.

... I know next to nothing about 9/11 ...

I recommend spending some time exploring the links provided in the sub-forum "Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories".

... it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

Perfectly acceptable question, and I believe it applies to any subject. Although, I don't think you can define, nor assign, levels of skepticism.

For anyone new to the subject of the 9/11, some of the events can be difficult to wrap your mind around. If something sounds extraordinary, it should be explored. In this case, the hard work has been done and it's a simple matter of reading the reports and looking at the evidence. Of course, while not rising to the level of objective evidence, there were also innumerable eyewitnesses.

In my opinion, the problems begin with wholly discounting something merely because you dislike/distrust the source -- that goes for both sides of the issue. If you are truly interested in facts, then any new information (within reason) deserves some level of research.

When does it become lunacy? That's difficult to pinpoint. The craziest notions are things such as, "energy beams from space", and holographic airplanes.

 

[MikeW]

it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

That's not a measure I would use. There is no particular level of skepticism which is unacceptable. The issue is more that what we commonly see from truthers isn't skepticism at all; it's an attempt to prove "inside job" by any means possible.

So, for example, they'll quote the Bob Kerrey line you mentioned and pretend that means he supports them, while ignoring the fact that in the very same interview he said he was confident that bin Laden directed the attack and that there was no evidence for controlled demolition (see here).

Similarly, they take a line a publisher said about John Farmer's book and pretend it means he's critical of the 9/11 Commission, which is entirely false (see here).

This isn't being "skeptical". It's cherry-picking quotes and removing their context in an effort to deceive.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You can't really go wrong being skeptical of anything you hear in the way of news reportage, government reports, even scientific papers. Check other sources and dig through things to see if you can find the direct/original sources and satisfy yourself that what you're looking at is or is not correct/accurate.

In Trutherspeak, being skeptical means, "I don't believe the government". It plays well to the immature and the ill-informed, but it's nothing more than an a priori conclusion and they never back it up with anything pertaining to 911 that actually shows that they have a valid reason to distrust the government in this case. If they started with "let me examine that" instead of "but, no the government is ebil so I'll find holes in that", they might have a leg to stand on.

I don't believe the government, off-hand. Does that make me a truther? No, since I don't necessarily disbelieve them, either. If you check out the actual sources and still decide you don't believe the government, I may disagree with you but I'll give you your due respect. If you go looking for evidence and wind up on Prison Planet, YouTube, and ATS? Not so much.

(Oh, and by "you", I mean the royal/editorial you, not you personally.)

 

[FatFreddy88]

insane some of the conspiracy theories seem (holograms?

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement. They try to lump those theories with the serious ones to make the serious ones look bad to people who are new to the issue.

Here's a link to some of the serious stuff.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

I'd just post it all on a thread here and keep linking to it but the last time I tried to post a long summary of info here, the info was deleted.

 

[twinstead]

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement.

How can you say something you have absolutely no evidence for as fact like that?

Here's a thought: maybe YOU are employed by the government to make 9-11 truthers look like idiots?

 

[ozeco41]

...I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

You are either a truther OR you are adopting a truther tactic. If the latter possibly without intending to do so.

There is no single, unitary, homogeneous "thing" which is "the official story" and which can be the single target of scepticism - I believe all of it OR I reject all of it OR I am in doubt about all of it.

The accepted narratives/explanations of 9/11 events cover a wide range of issues many of which stand alone. It is quite reasonable to hold that there was no CD at the WTC whilst at the same time holding genuine doubts about Government decision making processes and possibly disbelieving some Government claims.

Truthers routinely disparage "believers of the official story" implying that it is one indivisible entity. Simply a debating trick to falsely force people into two polarised opposing camps. Don't use it and/or don't fall for it.

You can choose to be sceptical or not at the level of each separate issue or group of directly related issues. It is illogical to make claims such as the familiar truther claim that "since there was thermite on site >>>there was CD employed>>>>and it was an inside job...." Each element of that triad stands alone and is susceptible to "proof" or disproof. Hence my often repeated statement that arguing whether there was or was not thermite on site is nothing more than a technical interest - a diversion - there was no CD so what if there was tens of tonnes of thermite on site?

 

[deeper]

Here's a thought: maybe YOU are employed by the government to make 9-11 truthers look like idiots?

Money well spent if you ask me.

 

[tsig]

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement. They try to lump those theories with the serious ones to make the serious ones look bad to people who are new to the issue.

Here's a link to some of the serious stuff.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

I'd just post it all on a thread here and keep linking to it but the last time I tried to post a long summary of info here, the info was deleted.

You really think that the government pays people to post wacky theories on the internet?

The same government that killed thousands of it's own citizens is suddenly reduced to placing rumors on obscure forums?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement. They try to lump those theories with the serious ones to make the serious ones look bad to people who are new to the issue.

Here's a link to some of the serious stuff.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

I'd just post it all on a thread here and keep linking to it but the last time I tried to post a long summary of info here, the info was deleted.

Thank you FatFreddy for giving us this example to show the OP. In one sentence he has shown many of the basic tenets of trutherdom.

1. Paranoia- Belief the government is out to get them.

2. Self-importance/ delusions of grandeur- Belief that their views are so important, the gov't would actually pay people to discredit them.

3. Self delusion- Refusal to believe well known, easily provable facts (in this case, that some members of the truth movement believe in serious crazy theories like no planes and holograms.)

4. Lack of research skills- Posting links that directly contradict the point they are trying to make (in this case, he posted a link to another post that contain links from "killtown" that contain references to no-planes and holograms)

There are others, but I won't bother. Thanks FF!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm a complete newbie to this whole 9/11 truth thing, and despite how insane some of the conspiracy theories seem (holograms? fake hijackers? really?), a lot of the skepticism seems more like a kneejerk reaction against valid criticism.

[...]

I know next to nothing about 9/11 [...]

Then how can you possibly know what constitutes "valid criticism" in this context?

 

[The Platypus]

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement. They try to lump those theories with the serious ones to make the serious ones look bad to people who are new to the issue.

Here's a link to some of the serious stuff.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

I'd just post it all on a thread here and keep linking to it but the last time I tried to post a long summary of info here, the info was deleted.

How is such paranoid delusions supposed to counter the charge of insanity?

This makes you look more insane not less...

 

[Craig4]

Hi, new here, and I'm trying to understand what it means to be a skeptic. I'm not a troll, and not trying to start a fight; I couldn't think of any better place to come than the randi forums. I'm a complete newbie to this whole 9/11 truth thing, and despite how insane some of the conspiracy theories seem (holograms? fake hijackers? really?), a lot of the skepticism seems more like a kneejerk reaction against valid criticism. I find it hard to believe that every 9/11 truther believes in meticulously planned conspiracies involving holograms and intense coverups; at some point, this looks more like a giant strawman than a legitimate argument.

For example, you have Max Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission, and you have Bob Kerry's quote: “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version". Then there's the John Farmer book, The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. The dean of Rutgers law school isn't exactly some anonymous nut. While he's not exactly saying Bush-did-9/11, and I confess I haven't read that book, it sounds like a pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision. Given that, I'm not sure what separates John Farmer from your average "conspiracy wingnut", if anything at all.

I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story. Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

There's a world of difference between saying, "the commission methodology was flawed" or "there are things we don't know about in the lead up to 9/11" and "the US Government, Illuminati, Jews or Rotary Club planted explosives in the WTC". This is the real problem with the 9/11 nutters. It makes legitimate failure analysis more difficult because legitimate work gets lumped in the freakish death ray/controlled demolition crowd.

 

[Craig4]

Some of those whacky theories were started by the government to discredit the truth movement. They try to lump those theories with the serious ones to make the serious ones look bad to people who are new to the issue.

Here's a link to some of the serious stuff.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

I'd just post it all on a thread here and keep linking to it but the last time I tried to post a long summary of info here, the info was deleted.

What documents, e-mails, witness testimony would you care now to present to establish your claims? You've publicly accused people of violating US laws on the use of public funds for propaganda (5 U.S.C. 3107). The honorable thing to do here is to provide evidence of this claim or apologize and retract it.