Inside the Truther Mind

[Tippit]

It's a 1984 reference, which means tippit has succeeded in his goals in bogging down this discussion into irrelevancy. Everytime a truther is able to turn a discussion about 9/11 into a discussion about political opinions, it's a small victory for 9/11 truth; a victory they enjoy so much. Neither tippit nor JihadJane has the slightest clue about engineering or physics. That's why they love to bring down the "OCT" down to their level, as if arguments from ignorance mean something.

Yes. Nothing about living on planet earth in 2009 resembles 1984. WTF was I thinking.

 

[1337m4n]

Apparently I've touched a nerve. Excellent.

I see Truthers use this phrase a lot. They always seem to react with such joy and glee whenever they think they've "touched a nerve".

Rather unusual, wouldn't you say? Normal people don't enjoy making other people upset. It's something they generally try to avoid, hence why our culture considerers "please" and "thank you" and "I apologize" to be so customary.

Far more likely, Tippit is simply pretending to enjoy this discussion so he can appear "tough" and make it look like the debate is going his way.

If you don't know what I mean, this two-part image series (courtesy of Encyclopedia Dramatica) provides an accurate depiction of what's going on. Just replace "I TROL U" with "I TUCHED A NERV".

 

[Baylor]

Yes. Nothing about living on planet earth in 2009 resembles 1984. WTF was I thinking.

You have every opportunity to explain why. So far you haven't provided one shred of evidence to back up your assertions. Instead you cling to ignorance, fallacies, prejudice, lies and dogma.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Gee, ya think Tippit will ever get around to telling us what happened on 911, or are we going to have to tour every cause celebre crisis of the past 70 years, first?

I'm sorry for the derail, Tippit, let's get back to you telling us your actual theory (you have one, don't you) about what happened on 911. Where we last left off, before I allowed you this convenient derail, you were explaining that it just doesn't seem right and that what we deem to be evidence of a terrorist attack on 9/11/01 is really insignificant, and what you deem evidence (quotes out of context, what some dood said, etc...) is sufficient to multiply your distrust for the ebil gubmint in accusations of murder.

Is that a fair synopsis?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Banks run absolutely everything. There are a few families who have succeeded in lowering their formerly high profiles, fooled everyone into thinking they are run-of-the-mill billionaires, and who own nothing and control virtually everything. I've studied their histories, I've read their memoirs, I understand how they protect and cultivate their great fortunes and influence. These people make up the New World Order, and they did 9/11. "The government" wasn't responsible for 9/11, that would indict a lot of innocent people.

So your theory is that banks "did" 9/11. As in planned, funded, and executed it?

Let's forget about the "how" and the "what" for now. Why did they do it? Did they really expect to benefit from demolishing one of the key financial districts in the world?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here's what we have so far:

Banks run absolutely everything. There are a few families who have succeeded in lowering their formerly high profiles, fooled everyone into thinking they are run-of-the-mill billionaires, and who own nothing and control virtually everything. I've studied their histories, I've read their memoirs, I understand how they protect and cultivate their great fortunes and influence. These people make up the New World Order, and they did 9/11. "The government" wasn't responsible for 9/11, that would indict a lot of innocent people.

The reason, to quote Georges Danton, is audacity, more audacity, always audacity. The power to destroy the twin towers, and then demolish building 7 in a controlled demolition, and watch so many rational people rationalize it away, is intoxicating. It's the thrill in forcing so many people to submit. It's the joy a magician feels when he dumbfounds the audience. It's the serial killer who taunts the police and society-at-large, it's pure vanity. 9/11 was a masterpiece of mass murder, a giant spectacle, an audacious undertaking, no matter who you believe was responsible.

Here's an alternative theory. The building was pre-wired for demolition, and was exploded. I can't control your consideration of what "sounds crazy". Everything that happened that day, real or imagined, was crazy.

What's funny about that clip, or at least as funny as mass murderers can be, is that Bush was so guilty, and so defensive, that he failed to even parse the question properly. All he heard was "prior knowledge of 9/11", and his guilty conscience shut down the rest of his brain.

The BS promulgated by the NIST report after seven years of delays didn't convince me either. Read some of the NIST rebuttals for why.

If Bush's prior knowledge involved some vague information about some attack somewhere in the US at some time, and he did nothing, then he's incompetent. If prior knowledge means a specific time, date, and location, then he is a criminal mass murderer.

No. Maybe it was pre-wired with explosives for some other reason. There were a lot of high profile TLA government agency tenants in the building, as well as a FEMA command bunker.

Perhaps a different form of demo technology was used, not being as safe or efficient as a planned demolition requiring weeks in advance, but effective in an emergency nonetheless.

OK, so a few powerful banking companies, who control everything, decided to destroy the World Trade Center for the sheer audacity of it, just as a serial killer murders people to satisfy the need for a "thrill". Their first act was to plant explosives in WTC7, because there were high-profile government agencys there.

When the attacks were carried out, the original reason for planting the explosives was forgotten, and Larry Silverstein had the building destroyed to save lives.

In the aftermath George W. Bush, who (you insinuate) is a mass-murderer, tried to hide his blame by being evasive in his testimony.

Meanwhile, NIST spent seven years on a report that is BS.

However, the government was not involved. It was the banks.

******************************

It sounds crazy when you put it all together, doesn't it?

That is exactly the point I made in the OP. Truthers have a set of beliefs that are mutually exclusive and yet reside in their minds together harmoniously, because they refuse to put them all together in an attempt to formulate a theory about what happened.

I find this sort of thinking distasteful, perhaps because if I tried to solve problems by considering several different conflicting hypotheses simultaneously, I couldn't do my job.

However, Tippit, if you and JJ are able to make a go of it in spite of this handicap...good for you.

Just don't complain that other people have money and you don't. Your distorted view of the world may have something to do with that.

 

[JihadJane]

There is no precedent for a US government intelligence agency using a fruitful relationship with Islamic fundamentalists to attack US citizens and/or property.

That may or may not be true.

Do you think life is circular?

No amount of wider global context can make nonsense into something intelligible. This reminds me of the comment from truther a number of years ago who said that we can't understand the physics of the building collapses without taking into consideration the political ramifications....

Forget your truthers and your buildings. They won't lead you to the truth!

More educational for whom? YOU are the one who wants me to accept a claim without providing any evidence. Why should I accommodate you in gathering that evidence myself? I'd prefer simply to reject your claim summarily until you come up with something better.

For you.

Thanks for this comment. You have been operating under a false assumption. I have absolutely no interst in getting you to accept anything. That would be crazy! You're obviously hardcore. I'm interested in how your mind works. It seems to work quite like the "Truther Mind".

Your comment shows that you are happy not to check the facts of the story you believe to be a true representation of reality.

This could make you susceptible to believing falsehoods.

Not in this day and age. Anything that took decades to emerge happened long before the Internet made sharing of information so ubiquitous that it's almost impossible to keep a piece of juicy gossip secret for long.

Evidence?

Yes, that would be pretty paranoid. I do like to believe that people in positions of authority have my best interests at heart, just like I like to believe I will never get cancer. Life is just easier that way.

You believe it because you like to believe it and because it's easier that way?

That is a good recipe for delusional thinking.

Before I become curious enough to do that, I need a reason. Can you give me one?

No? I didn't think so.

I've given you a reason that makes me curious as a skeptic - torture confessions used to inform a supposedly reliable story about a serious crime - but you say it's not up to you check your story's facts. I have no interest in changing your curiosity levels. I am simply curious to see what they are: Low.



-----------------------------------

BTW, the thread you suggested I start (Short, Cryptic, Irrelevant Posts) is trotting along and fun is being had by all participants. All welcome.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've given you a reason that makes me curious as a skeptic - torture confessions used to inform a supposedly reliable story about a serious crime -

Can you at least give me some examples of this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have no way of knowing what you're talking about unless you elaborate.

I'm aware that some of the intelligence information that was used to capture suspected terrorists was obtained through questionable means. I am not aware of any such means being used to determine who the hijackers were and how they were being funded. As far as I know, that was determined by an FBI investigation that used standard forensic techniques.

If I am proven wrong, I will be happy to change my viewpoint. I just need something more than "here's a wild claim, go find the evidence that it's true".

but you say it's not up to you check your story's facts.

This has got to be the most blatant example I've ever seen of someone shifting the burden of proof.

"Much of the evidence that 9/11 was a terrorist attack was obtained through torture" is NOT my story. It is yours.

See:

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.

 

[Baylor]

As far as I know, that was determined by an FBI investigation that used standard forensic techniques.

Her rebuttal to this was putting PENTTBOM in quotation marks. I wish I were joking but I'm not. I'm dead serious.

 

[JohnG]

To Tippit, JihadJane, et al:

I'm going to (briefly) play along with you and agree that "The Man" (i.e., The Government and Big Business in the United States) is EVIL. Are the following premises and conclusion logically valid as far as you're concerned?

Entity A is powerful and evil.

Event B is evil and could (apparently) only be orchestrated by an evil and powerful entity.

Therefore, Entity A is responsible for Event B.

In my opinion, it isn't logically valid, at least not in all cases. Jack the Ripper was the most notorious serial killer in 19th century London. He was certainly evil and "powerful" (as his victims would have no doubt attested), but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was responsible for ALL murders that took place in the city of London during the period he was active, does it?

How about this? Does this seem valid?

Entity A violently represses, attacks and generally makes life miserable for Entity C.

Entity C, though not as nearly powerful as Entity A, eventually has enough of said repression and strikes back at Entity A in a similarly violent way.

What I'm getting at is, 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?

Or do you for some reason assume that all radical groups who have a problem with America are as hapless and unmotivated as the Truth Movement?







BTW, I've now stopped playing along with you now. I've now gone back to believing that while Acton's Axiom may often hold true, Big Business and Government are peopled by human beings. Some good, some bad. Some who deserve medals, others who deserve to be locked up for life. I'm unwilling to accuse any of them of anything without solid evidence. Have a nice day

 

[JihadJane]

.... your distrust for the ebil gubmint in accusations of murder.

If I talk like a baby will you take me seriously as a skeptic?

To Tippit, JihadJane, et al:

I'm going to (briefly) play along with you and agree that "The Man" (i.e., The Government and Big Business in the United States) is EVIL. Are the following premises and conclusion logically valid as far as you're concerned?

Entity A is powerful and evil.

Event B is evil and could (apparently) only be orchestrated by an evil and powerful entity.

Therefore, Entity A is responsible for Event B.

In my opinion, it isn't logically valid, at least not in all cases. Jack the Ripper was the most notorious serial killer in 19th century London. He was certainly evil and "powerful" (as his victims would have no doubt attested), but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was responsible for ALL murders that took place in the city of London during the period he was active, does it?

How about this? Does this seem valid?

Entity A violently represses, attacks and generally makes life miserable for Entity C.

Entity C, though not as nearly powerful as Entity A, eventually has enough of said repression and strikes back at Entity A in a similarly violent way.

What I'm getting at is, 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?

Or do you for some reason assume that all radical groups who have a problem with America are as hapless and unmotivated as the Truth Movement?

What makes you adopt an either ebil gubment or ebil tourists stance?

Can you at least give me some examples of this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have no way of knowing what you're talking about unless you elaborate.

Have you ever checked any of the facts of the preferred narrative that you think people are crazy not to believe or do you rely exclusively on “truthers” to do it for you?

I'm aware that some of the intelligence information that was used to capture suspected terrorists was obtained through questionable means. I am not aware of any such means being used to determine who the hijackers were and how they were being funded. As far as I know, that was determined by an FBI investigation that used standard forensic techniques.

If I am proven wrong, I will be happy to change my viewpoint. I just need something more than "here's a wild claim, go find the evidence that it's true".

It's not my claim and it is probably simple ignorance that makes it seem wild to you.

This has got to be the most blatant example I've ever seen of someone shifting the burden of proof.

"Much of the evidence that 9/11 was a terrorist attack was obtained through torture" is NOT my story. It is yours.

See:

It's evidence that claims to support your story. You are ignorant about where it comes from. That's not my problem.

You are arguing that "truthers" can't present a coherent narrative because to do so would makes them sound like paranoid schizophrenics.

Before you made such outlandish and arrrogant claims it is reasonable to expect that you would have checked that your preferred narrative doesn't reveal your own thinking to be delusional, confusing, for example, information extracted by torture with objective truth.

441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations (NBC News analysis).

 

[Foolmewunz]

If I talk like a baby will you take me seriously as a skeptic?

All signs point to "No".

 

[JohnG]

IWhat makes you adopt an either ebil gubment or ebil tourists stance?

Jane, employing the Socratic method of debate isn't clever or valid if you misrepresent (consciously or otherwise) what your opponent has to say. I've seen you employ this tactic time and time again, thinking that you can dismiss someone's well reasoned (or at least sincere) points by misapplied nitpicking. Please point out in my previous post where I adopt an "either/or" stance regarding who could/would commit terrorist attacks. If you can't, then please address my actual point -or don't- but don't pretend that your response quoted above is in any way a valid response to my last post. Let me put my question to you again:

...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?

Also, please dispense with the faux baby talk (I assume that's what you're attempting above), at least when you address me. I know you think you're giving debunkers a taste of their own medicine for "starting it" by employing the pejorative term "Twoofer", but I myself do not use that term. Personally, I think the term "Twoofer" is dumb...not nearly as dumb as "Dewunker", but dumb, nonetheless.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Have you ever checked any of the facts of the preferred narrative that you think people are crazy not to believe or do you rely exclusively on “truthers” to do it for you?

Please try to stay with the discussion.

Nobody claimed that people who do not believe the "preferred narrative" or "official story" are crazy.

What I have said is that truthers do not state explicitly what they believe because they know it will SOUND crazy. This is pretty much guaranteed because their beliefs are typically full of internal inconsistencies that become obvious when they are juxtaposed.

That is the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should read the opening post again, unless you would prefer to continue to try and derail the discussion.

It's not my claim and it is probably simple ignorance that makes it seem wild to you.

For God's sake then, TELL ME whose claim it is and I will check it out!

I've never seen so much energy expended to avoid responding to a simple request.

It's evidence that claims to support your story. You are ignorant about where it comes from. That's not my problem.

No -- I am ignorant about where you CLAIM it comes from. You have refused to back up your claims with citations or any other evidence.

Do you see how that works?

You are arguing that "truthers" can't present a coherent narrative because to do so would makes them sound like paranoid schizophrenics.

No, I am arguing that they can't present a coherent narrative, period, because they have no such narrative. They won't try to present a narrative because when they string their disjointed ideas together, they don't make sense.

They learned this early on when a few brave truthers tried to say what they believed happened on 9/11, and were ridiculed as a result. Since then I haven't seen anyone really attempt it.

Your theory is that no one presents any theory because there is not enough evidence to warrant it. Well, you are the exception to the rule among truthers. Most say that there is tons of evidence, overwhelming MOUNTAINS of it, such that it is so obvious that it's an inside job that a six-year-old could see it.

And yet these very people will not come right out and state what they believe, other than it's an "inside job".

Before you made such outlandish and arrrogant claims it is reasonable to expect that you would have checked that your preferred narrative doesn't reveal your own thinking to be delusional, confusing, for example, information extracted by torture with objective truth.

441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations (NBC News analysis).

Ah, THANK you!

Was that so hard?

 

[aggle-rithm]

If I talk like a baby will you take me seriously as a skeptic?

Speaking for myself, I would be happy to do so for any baby that demonstrates critical thinking abilities.

You haven't qualified yet.

 

[aggle-rithm]

441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations (NBC News analysis).

OK, I've begun to dig into these footnotes, and so far it doesn't look good.

There may be 441 footnotes that refer to CIA interrogations. However, only a little over 100 refer exclusively to these interrogations -- the rest mention the interrogations as part of the citation for which there were other sources of information.

Of these, many do not appear to be the sort of information that would be coerced through torture. Unless you can picture this scenario:

Detainee: All right, all right, I admit it! When bin Laden flew from Sudan to Afghanistan, he made a stop in Yemen! Please, just make it STOP!


Also, although I have only gone through half of the footnotes so far, I have yet to see a single one that supports one of the basic building blocks of the "official story". As such, all of the information that uses these footnotes as a citation could be removed from the report without doing any damage to that narrative.

Before I finish my research, JJ, would you consider withdrawing your claim that the "preferred narrative" is based largely on evidence obtained through torture?

 

[JihadJane]

Jane, employing the Socratic method of debate isn't clever or valid if you misrepresent (consciously or otherwise) what your opponent has to say. I've seen you employ this tactic time and time again, thinking that you can dismiss someone's well reasoned (or at least sincere) points by misapplied nitpicking. Please point out in my previous post where I adopt an "either/or" stance regarding who could/would commit terrorist attacks. If you can't, then please address my actual point -or don't- but don't pretend that your response quoted above is in any way a valid response to my last post. Let me put my question to you again:

...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?

You appear to be working on the questionable assumption that if al Qaeda did it then then no-one else (Government and/or Big Business in the United States, Batman and Robin etc) could have been involved. That's what I was referring to as a black and white/ either or stance.

Also, please dispense with the faux baby talk (I assume that's what you're attempting above), at least when you address me. I know you think you're giving debunkers a taste of their own medicine for "starting it" by employing the pejorative term "Twoofer", but I myself do not use that term. Personally, I think the term "Twoofer" is dumb...not nearly as dumb as "Dewunker", but dumb, nonetheless.

Yes, it's pathetic, isn't it?

Of these, many do not appear to be the sort of information that would be coerced through torture. Unless you can picture this scenario:

Detainee: All right, all right, I admit it! When bin Laden flew from Sudan to Afghanistan, he made a stop in Yemen! Please, just make it STOP!

You are sounding a little psychopathic. Maybe you need to think deeply about torture.

Before I finish my research, JJ, would you consider withdrawing your claim that the "preferred narrative" is based largely on evidence obtained through torture?

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."

 

[MarkyX]

Rather unusual, wouldn't you say? Normal people don't enjoy making other people upset.

*raises hand*

 

[JohnG]

You appear to be working on the questionable assumption that if al Qaeda did it then then no-one else (Government and/or Big Business in the United States, Batman and Robin etc) could have been involved. That's what I was referring to as a black and white/ either or stance.

Just as you are continuing to miss the point of my last two posts. Maybe the third time will be the charm, though I don't have high hopes:

...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?

Sorry to sound like a broken record...actually I'm not that sorry seeing as you haven't addressed it yet. Let me give you a more concrete example of what I've been trying to convey to you in this thread:

If a schoolyard bully goes around stealing other kid's lunch money for years, would it really be so surprising if a small group of kids got together, decided they had enough, snuck up behind the bully and broke his nose? If the bully showed up in class the next day with his face bandaged and the band of kids were bragging about what they did, would your first thought really be "I bet the bully did that to himself" or even more perversely "I bet he conspired with the band of kids to have that done to him so that he'd have an excuse to bully them even more". Would that really be your default opinion? Might that be because your own small band of kids are too frightened and indecisive about what to do about the bully, so all you do is whisper rude things behind his back and pass notes around when the teacher isn't looking that describe what you'd like to do to the bully? And since that's all your group has the audacity and ambition to do, you assume that no other group could be more audacious or ambitious?

But getting back to your point (because that's the mature, polite thing to do when responding to someone's sincere question), I work under the "questionable" assumption that Al Qaeda was soley responsible for the 9/11 attacks for two reasons:

1. Well, partly because of knowing about Occam's Razor, living 43 years on this planet and seeing how the real world operates tells me that more often than not, the simplest solution is the best. Life is not like a James Bond movie (alas). It is not like an Agatha Christie mystery. It is certainly not like, uh "Batman and Robin" (since you mentioned them). To use an example I mentioned elsewhere, when Olympic figure skater Nancy Kerrigan was attacked, my first thought wasn't "Aha! I bet she orchestrated that herself to get Tonya Harding out of the way!"





oh, I said I have two reasons for assuming that Al Qaeda was solely responsible for 9/11, didn't I? OK, here's the other one.

2. There's no evidence to suggest anyone else but Al Qaeda was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It's a small point, but an important one, I think.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, partly because of knowing about Occam's Razor, living 43 years on this planet and seeing how the real world operates tells me that more often than not, the simplest solution is the best. Life is not like a James Bond movie (alas). It is not like an Agatha Christie mystery. It is certainly not like, uh "Batman and Robin" (since you mentioned them). To use an example I mentioned elsewhere, when Olympic figure skater Nancy Kerrigan was attacked, my first thought wasn't "Aha! I bet she orchestrated that herself to get Tonya Harding out of the way!"

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.