No, you made a statement based on your mindset that the NIST went into their investigation with an a priori set of conclusions based on instructions from the administration.
This was in the midst of much talk about credibility of made-up narratives. I challenged you to proove that statement and even provided you with a link to the press release.
Your best argument is now to try to twist the meaning of the word "following"? The entire document and the mandate from Congress give no credence whatsoever to your contention.
You asked me for proof and then provided it yourself with a link illustrating the two forgone conclusions that informed NIST’s computer modeling excerise: “progressive collapse” and “structural failure”.
It’s completley relevant (and not a
"dodge").
The art of persuasion has become ever more refined since Freud’s nephew applied his uncle's insights about the subconscious mind to public relations and propaganda.
The process by which the Dodgy Dossier was created (its genesis was forced into the public domain by truth seekers) illustrates how carefully the linguistic nuances of propaganda are chosen. There is no reason to believe that NIST's manifesto would be any less well crafted.
Well, JihadJane, seems that you represent truth and honesty. So what's your theory? Or do you want to join Russell Pickering and the CIT crowd in the group that are just pointing at holes in what they refer to as the OCT, yet providing no actual theories of their own?
Would you like to get Tweeter's theory about what actually happened? RedIbis? Galileo?
Heck, go for the big boys.... What does Jim Fetzer think really happened? Stephen Jones? David Griffin? Richard Gage?
For the most part all any of them do is JAQ. Give them another five years and they'll be JFK conspiradroids - what's the count now? 64 individuals who've been named by one or another JFK writer/investigator as the person who did it? That's where the career 911 theorists are going - just throwing ◊◊◊◊ against the wall and hoping that something sticks.
blah blah blah...
So give us one (just one) credible theory that makes more sense than 19 Islamist Terrorists working in conjunction and likely financed and driven by AQ hijacked four planes, flew three of them into buildings, and crashed the other when it was in danger of being retaken.
How about all this happened as you have been led to believe but with outside, enabling assistance?
No - don't start trying to pick miniscule little hanging threads from the narratives of the four planes. Give us a single all-encompassing narrative from any TMer anywhere that explains - better - the events of that day.
This thread is on getting some insights into the thinking of members of the TM. If you have something to add, that would be fine, But if you wish to just turn the tables, please go start a thread on the debunker mindset. But in this one, we'd kind of like to discuss what makes truthers think the way the do in the face of so much evidence that contradicts what they are claiming.
Blah.
------------------------------------------------------
You are probably clever enough to understand the point, but choose to play with words. How about proving me wrong?
You would need to provide something more substantial than another "sounds-like" theory (like aggle-rithm's dodgy paranoid schizophrenia theory).
I think this will be my last reply to you (at least in this thread). Talking semantics to a wall isn't my idea of a productive discussion.
I see what you did there. I didn't say anything about where you retreated from in the original post, just where you retreated to. But english isn't my first or even second language, so maybe it was a bad choice of words. Let's rephrase it then: Replace "You have retreated as far as you can, so that you..." with "You have set up such a position, that you..."
Better?
Not really. I haven't set up a position. "Setting-up" suggests that I'm performing a fabricated, legalistic dance. I have arrived at my position from studying available information.
(Thanks for explaining that English isn't your first language)
So what? We're talking about your (and the whole TM's) inability to come up with a rational narrative. The "OCT" could be one big fat lie, it would still be a narrative.
Creating an internally consistent hypothesis that takes into account the information that is available is one possibility. There are others.
It has already been explained in this thread why
some 911 skeptics do not present an all-encompassing theory. There isn't enough information available to do so. Extracting sufficient information would require powerful, legal coercion.
I see what you did there. This is probably another poor choice of words. Rewrite: "People who suspect Them (and I mean the paranoid Them) behind historical events just seem crazy to me."
Better?
I understand what you mean better but your position still seems a little "crazy" to me. Haven't you noticed that governments set up agencies that operate in secret, sometimes with "black" budgets and that sometimes these agencies become autonomous, developing their own independent sources of funding, unaccountable to anyone but themselves?
(This is an interesting question however; you could start a thread over in the History forum and when you manage to convince anyone a certain historical event was the work of "unseen forces" I will concede you this point)
This is where you go badly off the tracks. I was refering to your position, that the the "OCT" is invalid, just because somewhere someone was tortured, which I see as a way for you to reduce the cognitive dissonance of denying quite a big pile of evidence that doesn't fit with your ideology.
You misunderstood my point. It wasn't that "somewhere someone was tortured" but that a large chunk of the narrative presented about the al Qaeda plot in the 911 Commission Report was derived from torture and that information derived from torture is universally regarded as unreliable.
I don't want to start being insulting, so I'll just stop now.
Good luck.
------------------------------------------------
When I first started exploring the subject of 911 the mechanism by which the Twin Towers disintegrated was not seen as important at all. It was seen as a red herring and 911 skeptics were advised not to allow themselves to be seduced by the glamour of (malleable) physical evidence. Unfortunately this warning was ignored and the rest is history.
I have said that when there is only one reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, then it is most rational to provisionally accept that explanation until a better one is offered. That is the case with the 9/11 attacks.
When I first made the conclusion that the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, it was based on several pieces of circumstantial evidence: That it had all the earmarks of a terrorist attack, that al Qaeda is one of the few groups worldwide capable of carrying out such an attack, that al Qaeda had in fact attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in an attack a decade earlier, and that al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, had proclaimed publicly that we wanted to bring down the World Trade Center.
Since then, more and more evidence has become available. Some of it is from truthers, some from US government investigative agencies, some from independent investigators in a wide variety of disciplines from engineering to aviation. The "evidence" from truthers has been almost universally of very, very poor quality, while the evidence from all other sources is consistent with the facts and consistent with the theory that al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
THAT is why I believe the preferred narrative is truthful. If anyone can come up with another one that fits the evidence better, then I would love to hear it.
You have an endearing faith it what appears "reasonable".
I certainly wouldn't be moved to believe your story as you have presented it above. It shows no curiosity about looking beneath the surface gloss of events and demonstrates a very superficial approach to the machinations of international politicking at the end of the age of oil.
Because I don't believe that it's true. Can you tell me specifically which pieces of information were derived from torture, and how you know it was derived in that manner?
It's all in the public domain and very easy to find. Like many confident evanagelists you are remarkably ignorant about how your story was formulated.
No. Until anyone comes up with a theory that fits the evidence better, I will continue to believe that al Qaeda carried out the terror attacks, because that is the only theory that makes sense.
If you were as skeptical as you appear to believe yourself to be you'd come up with some alternative theories yourself, simply to test your own, rather than believing the one you have been spoon-fed and leaving it to others to do your thinking for you.
As well as forgetting about the Twin Towers I'd advise you to forget about "Truthers" as well. It may help you think more clearly.
Once again: If you know of another one that makes sense, please present it now.
I presented one to my friend Foolmewunz, above, namely that al Qaeda may have operated with outside, enabling assistance. If this were the case then the only people with the resources and capabilities to do so would be within State intelligence agencies or similar. Perhaps you're too sacred even to ponder such a possibility in case you start sounding to yourself like a paranoid schizophrenic.
Your doubt is misplaced. You are an interesting subject to study.
I've known it from the beginning.
Here is an article I wrote for SkepticReport over five years ago where I said:
Here we have a defense of what is perhaps the most ubiquitous tool of the conspiracy theorist - the "fuzzy assertion". The conspiracy theorist suggests, infers, tantalizes, and quotes others out of context, but refuses to commit to a solid, defensible hypothesis supported by evidence. He leaves that up to other, more respectable parties.
A lonely journey.
Perhaps "he leaves that up to other, more respectable parties" because "respectable parties" would have the resources and the ruthless power necessary to force all the required information into the open. In the meantime throwing out impossible-to-substantiate theories merely provides rant fodder and troll food for people such as yourself.
