Inside the Truther Mind

[JihadJane]

See how easy that is? Why can't you do it?

You didn't make up that narrative yourself, though, did you? Where did you get it from? How do you know that it is complete and truthful?

No one is suggesting that it is. First, "speculating the powerful people are able to operate covertly" hardly represents the truther position. Second, I haven't said that truthers are mentally ill. However, among the problems I have already described, truthers seem to have problems wrapping their minds around the concept of "simile":

You weren’t talking about “the truther position”. You said:

There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I presented a possible narrative, namely that that powerful people are able to operate covertly. Does that sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

Do you know of any other type of organization that has shown a willingness to target civilians in peacetime without any direct provocation, even at the cost of lives on its own side?

The Mafia and similar criminal organizations, nation states, their agencies and proxies. (The US, in various South America countries, for example)

JJ seems to have difficulty conceptualizing my theory as a whole, and is instead focusing on individual aspects of it.

I am focussing on your thinking processes. You have presented a crude, smearing equation between twoofers and schizophrenia. It’s gutter rubbish.

 

[JihadJane]

"The investigations"? Irrelevant. You were talking about NIST.

Are you suggesting that NIST didn't conduct any investigations?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Are you suggesting that NIST didn't conduct any investigations?

Investigations into who attacked the USA on 11 Sep 2001? I don't believe they actually did. Perhaps you have some documentation on why the NIST was doing the FBIs job?

 

[JihadJane]

Investigations into who attacked the USA on 11 Sep 2001? I don't believe they actually did. Perhaps you have some documentation on why the NIST was doing the FBIs job?

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You didn't make up that narrative yourself, though, did you? Where did you get it from? How do you know that it is complete and truthful?

That's the good thing about reality. You don't have to make stuff up!

As to it being complete and truthful...I made no requirement that it be complete in every detail. Just that it be consistent with the facts and internally consistent. It also helps if it is simple and straightforward.

I presented a possible narrative, namely that that powerful people are able to operate covertly. Does that sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

What you presented is not a narrative that explains 9/11. Such a narrative would sound like this:

In September, 2001, powerful people covertly caused four planes to be hijacked. The hijackers successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

Does this represent your position?

I am focussing on your thinking processes. You have presented a crude, smearing equation between twoofers and schizophrenia. It’s gutter rubbish.

No, I presented a simile to make a point, which is that truthers avoid stating a theory out loud because it would make them sound crazy.

Just like you are avoiding stating a theory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

 

[8den]

Funny I was picturing a cavernous space with a soft echo, empty but for a tumbleweed and a few faded "Paul '08" posters.

 

[JihadJane]

That's the good thing about reality. You don't have to make stuff up!

As to it being complete and truthful...I made no requirement that it be complete in every detail. Just that it be consistent with the facts and internally consistent. It also helps if it is simple and straightforward.

As with all narratives, someone did make it up. How do you know it's truthful?

What you presented is not a narrative that explains 9/11. Such a narrative would sound like this:

In September, 2001, powerful people covertly caused four planes to be hijacked. The hijackers successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

Does this represent your position?

My narrative is as far as it is possible to go in explaining 911 without a thorough investigation. Unless there is a major political unheaval in the US it is safe to assume that such an investigation will never happen.

Your narrative is so incomplete that it reads like a schoolboy cartoon. Why bother?

No, I presented a simile to make a point, which is that truthers avoid stating a theory out loud because it would make them sound crazy.

Just like you are avoiding stating a theory.

Yes, I know what a simile is.

In your abstract speculation about "Truther" motivation you very specifically suggested that they don't (plenty do!) state their theories because "There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic." (My bold) Are you now retreating from that position into a watered-down, generic "crazy"?

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

Discussing physical evidence that no longer exists is pointless but the forgone conclusion eradicated the need to examine the possibility of additional sabotage - an irrational position considering how the buildings had been previously attacked.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

You are making up things to suit your rhetoric again, JihadJane.

Totally, completely and utterly wrong. The investigations into what happend to the buildings could've been conducted by scientists from Venus who had no knowledge whatsoever of the conclusions being drawn in the press and in government offices.

For the purposes of the NIST investigation, Batman and Robin could've been flying one plane and Wonder Woman the other.

In your fantasies it's important that they started out with some a priori conditions, but that's just plain false. Wrong. Incorrect.

I am open to being shown evidence (not your rhetorical musings) to the contrary.

 

[JihadJane]

You are making up things to suit your rhetoric again, JihadJane.

Totally, completely and utterly wrong. The investigations into what happend to the buildings could've been conducted by scientists from Venus who had no knowledge whatsoever of the conclusions being drawn in the press and in government offices.

For the purposes of the NIST investigation, Batman and Robin could've been flying one plane and Wonder Woman the other.

In your fantasies it's important that they started out with some a priori conditions, but that's just plain false. Wrong. Incorrect.

I am open to being shown evidence (not your rhetorical musings) to the contrary.

I agree, it was irrelevant to the NIST computer modelers etc. who was flying the planes, even if it was Cinderella and The Seven Dwarves, with on-the-ground scenes assistance from Goldilocks . However the tasks that the scientists are set to perform are not irrelevant. These things are set by other people - crudely put, to find out how plane impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

 

[tuc0]

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

You are proving his point here. You have retreated as far as you can, so that you don't sound "crazy" to rational people and still maintain that you have a "narrative". The problem is that "911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly" isn't a narrative, it is irrelevant speculation (you even call it a "theory" in the very next sentence; theory does not equal narrative). It explains nothing, it is worth nothing.

And to answer your question: Yes, it does.

Edit: Sure, you have your fall-back position "Unless there is a major political unheaval [...] such an investigation will never happen" but that is also worth nothing. It's just a way for you to reduce cognitive dissonance.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

The global warming deniers have always interested me. I feel they fall into two camps:

1. I don't want to believe in global warming because it is too frightening.

2. I don't want to believe in global warming because the steps needed to head it off/minimize it will negatively affect my quality of life, the amount of money my company makes, etc.

I would suggest two other groups..

3. Habitual contrarians: if most people believe "A" they will insist that "B" is correct. The amount of evidence for "A" is immaterial. The most important thing for this group is to believe that they are smarter than everyone else.

4. Those that will believe "B: because they can't stand the people who believe "A." If Al Gore says "A" then they will insist that "B" is correct. (I suspect this pattern is common on every part of the political spectrum. I use the Al Gore example because we're discussing Global Warming.)

Of course, some people will fall under more than one of these groups to different degrees.

I also considered a 5th group, those that refuse to believe "A" because they do not understand it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I agree, it was irrelevant to the NIST computer modelers etc. who was flying the planes, even if it was Cinderella and The Seven Dwarves, with on-the-ground scenes assistance from Goldilocks . However the tasks that the scientists are set to perform are not irrelevant. These things are set by other people - crudely put, to find out how plane impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

You, of course, have something to lend credence to this revised claim. Like a document or the instructions given to NIST? 'Cuz I'd really like to see the proof for that, lemme tell ya!

I'll tell you what. Here's the release from 2002 explaining their mandate after taking revisions/suggestions from interested parties. Maybe you'll cite us the portion that says, "And make sure to only look into damage that could have occurred by planes being flown into the towers and subsequent fire damage - and nothing else, understand!"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

 

[~enigma~]

inside the truther mind we will find out if singularities are actual objects...

 

[JohnG]

I would suggest two other groups..

3. Habitual contrarians: if most people believe "A" they will insist that "B" is correct. The amount of evidence for "A" is immaterial. The most important thing for this group is to believe that they are smarter than everyone else.

4. Those that will believe "B: because they can't stand the people who believe "A." If Al Gore says "A" then they will insist that "B" is correct. (I suspect this pattern is common on every part of the political spectrum. I use the Al Gore example because we're discussing Global Warming.)

Of course, some people will fall under more than one of these groups to different degrees.

I also considered a 5th group, those that refuse to believe "A" because they do not understand it.

Yup, those too.

 

[Justin39640]

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

that was my point when i first quoted her
NIST is there to understand the mechanics of failure to help reduce the chance of the same thing happening in the future (IE: improve quality of life by preventing death lol)

at that point to the NIST whether the collision was intentional or accidental doesnt matter
the airspeed impact angles etc etc was all that mattered to the NIST
all ideas were considered and CD was ruled out early (including 7 in their report)

hence why i left the 911 commission report out of my RE (as its politics and CJ more than science as the NIST is)
oranges and apples my dear lol

 

[JihadJane]

You are proving his point here. You have retreated as far as you can,...

Retreated from where?

... so that you don't sound "crazy" to rational people and still maintain that you have a "narrative". The problem is that "911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly" isn't a narrative, it is irrelevant speculation (you even call it a "theory" in the very next sentence; theory does not equal narrative).

I think aggle-rithm was using the two interchangeably, but I can't be bothered to check back. Theories are possible explanations and and are usually speculative.

It explains nothing, it is worth nothing.

If you say so

And to answer your question: Yes, it does.

Why?

Edit: Sure, you have your fall-back position "Unless there is a major political unheaval [...] such an investigation will never happen" but that is also worth nothing. It's just a way for you to reduce cognitive dissonance.

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table. Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

You, of course, have something to lend credence to this revised claim. Like a document or the instructions given to NIST? 'Cuz I'd really like to see the proof for that, lemme tell ya!

I'll tell you what. Here's the release from 2002 explaining their mandate after taking revisions/suggestions from interested parties. Maybe you'll cite us the portion that says, "And make sure to only look into damage that could have occurred by planes being flown into the towers and subsequent fire damage - and nothing else, understand!"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

Thanks for the link. The forgone conclusion is contained in the first paragraph, namely that the disintegration of the building was due to structual failure and “progressive collapse”, caused by the terrorist attacks (“...the structural failure and subsequent progressive collapse of several World Trade Center (WTC) buildings following the terrorist attacks ...”).

 

[tuc0]

*sigh*

Retreated from where?

From a position that would offer a narrative. (not that I'm saying you ever had one)

I think aggle-rithm was using the two interchangeably, but I can't be bothered to check back. Theories are possible explanations and and are usually speculative.

I'll let him speak for himself, but it doesn't matter how he used it. A narrative is a story. It describes a sequence of events. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. Yours is and has neither. It's not even a theory, because it lacks specific details.

If you say so

No! It doesn't matter that I say so, it just is. No explanation of anything whatsoever.

Why?

A purely subjective reason. People who suspect unseen forces behind historical events just seem crazy to me.

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table. Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

See? It worked. Cognitive dissonance was reduced.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

Then we are 100% in agreement! The leadership of al Qaeda, which includes Osama bin Laden, can certainly be described as being in positions of power, and they certainly acted covertly.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table.

This is exactly what I find so interesting. Despite the fact that this is obviously very important to you, you won't even TRY to speculate as to what happened on 9/11.

I believe that you have some very specific suspicions about who you think is behind it. I also believe that you will throw up all sorts of specious verbal roadblocks to avoid answering any direct questions about these suspicions that you have.

You're doing it as we speak!

Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

Appeal to emotion noted.

Another common truther tactic.