What should a skeptic make of 9/11 criticism?

[Loss Leader]

So, it looks like the first thing you need to do, madfoot, is start reading. There are a lot of great resources out there. Pick up a couple of the books you think are reputable but critical of the official story. Pick up a couple of debunking resources and get to work. After you've educated yourself on the basics and narrowed down exactly what about 9/11 still bothers you, we'll all be here to talk about it.

 

[madfoot]

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?

But... there IS an official story. 0_0 I'm open to the idea that the truth is in between two extremes, but usually when I say that people tell me I'm making a false equivalence.

Thanks for the reasonable responses though, everyone. I've kind of preferred to stay ignorant about this subject, because debates about it usually seem to be vitriolic, but the tone here seems more polite than other places of been. Full disclosure, I'm a libertarian, and I definitely don't believe Bush/Mossad/Bilderbergs did 9/11. (On that note, I'm curious what folks here have to say about Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, the trilateral commission and other common conspiracy topics. I'm sure people believe some stupid things about them, but I'd imagine there's more than meets the eye to groups like these.)

 

[LSSBB]

But... there IS an official story.

If there IS an official story covering all aspects of 9/11, what is it, where is it published and who wrote it?

 

[ozeco41]

But... there IS an official story....

That would be news to most of us here. In what form is this "official story"? Can we access a copy of it?

I'm open to the idea that the truth is in between two extremes...

Sorry but you have a wrong model. "Between two extremes" can only apply to a single issue or entity. 9/11 is a mass of separate issues. Those issues are not all at one extreme OR the other extreme OR at a single point somewhere between those extremes. Some claims are true, some claims are false, some claims are indeterminate, maybe some don't relate to a "true/false" status.

Each issue can be anywhere across the spectrum - allowing for some issues interacting with others and thus may be constrained to be at the same "end".

For example take claims of CD at the WTC. The weight of evidence - overwhelming weight of evidence - is "No CD"

...contrast that with unrelated claims that there may have been misfeasance or even malfeasance by portions of US Government.

I would not be at all surprised if there was minor misfeasance at least. And whether or not someone did not do their job makes not the slightest difference to the finding of no CD at WTC. The two are independent of each other. So add in all the hundreds of other 9/11 issues and they cannot all be at one extreme or the other or "somewhere in between".

... but usually when I say that people tell me I'm making a false equivalence.

..whether it is a "false equivalence" or not you certainly have an error of structure when you regard the multiple events of 9/11 as if they are one single whole which can be at either extreme OR somewhere in between.

 

[The Platypus]

But... there IS an official story.

Then prove that, because simply capitalizing "IS" doesn't cut it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Jeez, are you guys just itching for a fight? Do you get extra points for "Who Spotted the Truther First"?

NIST and the initial 911 Commission Rerport comprise, for most people, the "official version". Are we going to deny that? I have a few problems with the way the investigations were put together and the politics involved. I also have a few problems with the fact that they ignored the Intelligence failings and did not pursue the Pakistan connection sufficiently.

Am I a Truther, now?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I'll cut Madfoot a little bit of slack. There is no official story, that is a myth propagated by con men to mean whatever it is that they want it to mean at the time. There is however a common narrative in that there were 19 terrorists who, with the assistance of Osama Bin Laden, hijacked four airliners and crashed them into three buildings and one field in Pennsylvania and that the resulting crashes directly caused the collapses of those buildings and the collapse or destruction of several more buildings.

That's it. That's the common narrative in a nutshell.

What truthers call the official story is much more complicated than that and spans several governmental and non-governmental bodies from all over the globe, all of whom have expounded upon the narrative through investigation, experimentation and peer review to break down the details as best as possible given the situation. Not all of them agree on the fine details but virtually all of them agree with the broad strokes of the above narrative. That is to say all of them but a select few who are in the vast minority, most of whom aren't qualified to debate the finer points of the investigation much less cast doubt upon the common narrative.

 

[Oystein]

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.

No one claims that "every 9/11 truther believes in meticulously planned conspiracies involving holograms and intense coverups" - that is a strawman of yours now. Did you notice?

What is your definition of a "truther"? If you agree with me that every truther believes that Al Qaeda is not, or not solely, responsible for the 9/11 attacks but that some government agents consciously and actively aided the terrorist, by either knowing about Al Qaeda's plans and actively allowing them to procede ("NORAD was stood down"), or by actively making things happen (controlled demolitions, shoot-downs, hiring Al Qaeda, ...), then the following questions are for you:

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.

1. Does Max Cleland believe that anyone else but Al Qaead carried out the attacks?
2. Does Max Cleland think that any government agents actively and conciously aided Al Qaeda?
3. Does Bob Kerry believe that anyone else but Al Qaead carried out the attacks?
4. Does Bob Kerry think that any government agents actively and conciously aided Al Qaeda?
5. Does John Farmer believe that anyone else but Al Qaead carried out the attacks?
6. Does John Farmer think that any government agents actively and conciously aided Al Qaeda?

These are 6 yes/no questions. I expect you to put in a little effort here and actually answer each of the 6 questions with "yes" or "no" or "I have no idea".

If you answered "no" to all six, then I hope you will realise how referencing Max Cleland, Bob Kerry or John Farmer in no way shape or form supports any claims that any truther at all makes.
If you answered "yes" to any one question, then I will be seriously surprised and would ask you to back up your answer with a citation of the man you think accuses the government of active complicity.
If you answered "I don't know" to some or all questions, then I will ask you why you think your post should be considered to have any merit 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?

A skeptic should not accept anything just like that.
A skeptic should not accept that certain quotes attributed to Max Cleland, Bob Kerry or John Farmer somehow support any truther case. They don't, actually.
A skeptic should ask for evidence and sound reasoning.
A skeptic will find that the official story is full to the brim with facts that are in fact factual and knit together with boatloads of very sound reasoning.
A skeptic should also ask truther for their facts and their reasoning.
A skeptic will find that hardly a minute passes while a truther speaks without him telling lies, distortions, or plain non-sequiturs.

 

[Oystein]

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

hurrah

And how cute it is! I want to pet and feed it

 

[Robrob]

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

Examples of this "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.

I see you haven't spent much time reading truther posts have you?

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.

Shouldn't you read the book or at least the actual chapter containing the quote - before you formulate an opinion about it?

I know next to nothing about 9/11, but it seems unrealistic that a skeptic should simply accept the official story.

You know nothing about a subject but feel it "unrealistic" for others - who do know something about the subject - to not simply accept wild improbable theories, contrary to science and fact?

Basically what I'm asking is, what level of skepticism towards the official story is acceptable, and at what level does it become lunacy?

When truthers claim space lasers destroyed the WTC, that's lunacy. Fantasizing non-existent technology to simulate planes and/or the voices of people on the aircraft hitting the WTC, that's lunacy. Admitting four jets were hijacked but insisting a missile hit the Pentagon, that's lunacy. Using terms like "official story" as a thin cover for implying something sinister about a well documented incident, that's lunacy.

Accepting as fact the hundreds of eye witnesses testimony (and video) of planes hitting the WTC, that's not an "official story" - that's reality.

 

[ozeco41]

Let it pass.

 

[madfoot]

Shouldn't you read the book or at least the actual chapter containing the quote - before you formulate an opinion about it?

Have you read that book? If you have, perhaps you could fill me in on the context, instead of being condescending towards me.

 

[Oystein]

Have you read that book? If you have, perhaps you could fill me in on the context, instead of being condescending towards me.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Remember: It was YOU who brought up Farmer's book in the OP and made a claim that it somehow "sounds like a pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision", even though you "haven't read that book". The OP insinuates somehow that Farmer's book somehow supports any allegations by any truthers at all.

It's your OP, your topic, your evidence - you better make sure that you read it, or you retract the part of the OP that tries to make an uninformed appeal to authority - namely the reference to 3 men who do not at all support any truther theory.

Don't expect us to do the legwork for you unless you first show that you are unbiased and accept that you habe zero information that supports any truther story.

 

[Architect]

Jings, give the guy a bit of room.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Jings, give the guy a bit of room.

Ditto (but I already said that).

Madfoot, you have to understand that this is a sort of hazing ritual around here. We've had dozens (nay, hundreds) of newbies who start out with, "I'm new to this and maybe you could help me with a question..." but who, within thirty pages are arguing the precise words of Fetzer or Griffin. In short, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing ruses.

I reckon if you're a Truther, it'll come out. If you're not, no harm in at least trying to answer some of what, to us, are really rather basic questions. But that's just me.

 

[Miragememories]

Ditto (but I already said that).

Madfoot, you have to understand that this is a sort of hazing ritual around here. We've had dozens (nay, hundreds) of newbies who start out with, "I'm new to this and maybe you could help me with a question..." but who, within thirty pages are arguing the precise words of Fetzer or Griffin. In short, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing ruses.

I reckon if you're a Truther, it'll come out. If you're not, no harm in at least trying to answer some of what, to us, are really rather basic questions. But that's just me.

It is really quite funny.

Seeking the truth should always be an admirable quest.

Being called a truther should be a good thing.

But in this forum, you are the lowest of the low if you disagree with the prescribed truth, the Official Story.

And in spite of what they may say, there is an acknowledged Official Story.

Disagree with the NIST reports or the 9/11 Commission and you will quickly discover the boundaries of the Official Story.

Just remember, lying is permitted here.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

This post is a thing of beauty. To follow this...

But in this forum, you are the lowest of the low if you disagree with the prescribed truth, the Official Story.

And in spite of what they may say, there is an acknowledged Official Story.

Disagree with the NIST reports or the 9/11 Commission and you will quickly discover the boundaries of the Official Story.

...with this...

Just remember, lying is permitted here.

...is almost a self-referential work of art.

Dave

 

[The Platypus]

It is really quite funny.

Seeking the truth should always be an admirable quest.

Being called a truther should be a good thing.

But in this forum, you are the lowest of the low if you disagree with the prescribed truth, the Official Story.

And in spite of what they may say, there is an acknowledged Official Story.

Disagree with the NIST reports or the 9/11 Commission and you will quickly discover the boundaries of the Official Story.

Just remember, lying is permitted here.

MM

It's telling how you CTers throw these tantrums when called out on your dishonesty.

 

[Brainster]

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.

Yes, it is pretty obvious that you have not read Farmer's book, if you think it's "pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision". Farmer was interviewed by Brad Friedman in 2010, and here's what he had to say:

BF: Right. And we seem to have re- we constructed an organizational chart after 9/11, in response to 9/11, and then as you point out in the book, it doesn't seem we paid much attention to it when it came to Katrina- so it's unclear that we even learned anything from 9/11, frankly- and I wonder- the uh, effectiveness of the Commission- you guys did not have subpoena power early on, and how badly do you think that ended up crippling the final report that was released by the 9/11 Commission?

JF: Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

So Farmer's "pretty substantial criticism" of the 9-11 Commission report turns out to be that he thinks it's "extremely accurate".

 

[madfoot]

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Remember: It was YOU who brought up Farmer's book in the OP and made a claim that it somehow "sounds like a pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision", even though you "haven't read that book". The OP insinuates somehow that Farmer's book somehow supports any allegations by any truthers at all.

It's your OP, your topic, your evidence - you better make sure that you read it, or you retract the part of the OP that tries to make an uninformed appeal to authority - namely the reference to 3 men who do not at all support any truther theory.

Don't expect us to do the legwork for you unless you first show that you are unbiased and accept that you habe zero information that supports any truther story.

I don't have a burden of proof, I never said he was a truther, I just stipulated that there might be some reasonable premise from which truthers come from. Am I way off? Explain to me how.

Yes, it is pretty obvious that you have not read Farmer's book, if you think it's "pretty substantial criticism of the 9/11 Commision". Farmer was interviewed by Brad Friedman in 2010, and here's what he had to say:



So Farmer's "pretty substantial criticism" of the 9-11 Commission report turns out to be that he thinks it's "extremely accurate".

See above. I never said he was a truther, but it is a substantial criticism of the "official story". Don't believe me? Read the Amazon description of the book:

From the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, a mesmerizing real-time portrayal of that day, why we weren't told the truth, and why our nation is still at risk.

As one of the primary authors of the 9/11 Commission Report, John Farmer is proud of his and his colleagues' work. Yet he came away from the experience convinced that there was a further story to be told, one he was uniquely qualified to write.

Now that story can be told. Tape recordings, transcripts, and contemporaneous records that had been classified have since been declassified, and the inspector general's investigations of government conduct have been completed. Drawing on his knowledge of those sources, as well as his years as an attorney in public and private practice, Farmer reconstructs the truth of what happened on that fateful day and the disastrous circumstances that allowed it: the institutionalized disconnect between what those on the ground knew and what those in power did. He details -terrifyingly and illuminatingly-the key moments in the years, months, weeks, and days that preceded the attacks, then descends almost in real time through the attacks themselves, portraying them as they have never before been seen.

Ultimately, Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. The ground truth that Farmer captures suggests a very different scenario-one that is doomed to be repeated unless the systemic failures he reveals are confronted and remedied.

See that? A "convincing case that the 'official version' is almost entirely untrue". That's not me saying that, that's not a truther, that's the publisher. I'm sure he doesn't talk about holograms or inside jobs, but it sounds to me like he's pretty critical of the established narrative nonetheless. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone who read the book to tell me so.