• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptics For 911 Truth

scooby said:
What we have here is a similar kind of problem.
Click to expand...

And if you had the first clue what you were talking about, you'd know why that makes a reinvestigation of 9/11 less necessary rather than more so.
 
scooby said:
True but the police don't.

Invariably you will find them saying stuff like "Let's drag them back in and ask them again." or "Forensics? I knew there was something we forgot, let's re-open the case!"

What we have here is a similar kind of problem.
Click to expand...

So are you ever going to share what this new evidence is?

It can't be the complete rubbish that is on Truther websites, can it?

Because as a certain eccentric seaside chap might say: "You have no facts! Get some facts and then you might have something. All you have is lies from the loons who should be called Liars for 9/11!"
 
scooby said:
True but the police don't.

Invariably you will find them saying stuff like "Let's drag them back in and ask them again." or "Forensics? I knew there was something we forgot, let's re-open the case!"

What we have here is a similar kind of problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, police say things like that - when they have an open case. This case, however, is considered shut [by most sensible people] apart from bringing in the "perps" (OBL and any others involved in the planning and execution of the attack). It would be like continuing to look for evidence in the murder of JFK...oops!
 
uk_dave said:
Scooby, can you list the parts of the official account you are skeptical about, together with the parts of the official account you are not skeptical about, please?

Ta very much.
Click to expand...

No this would be counter-productive.
 
stilicho said:
That's a good start. You are smart to be sceptical of appeals to authority.

If, for example, the SEC, FAA, NORAD, the Port Authority, NIST, Logan Airport security, and FEMA all told you that you better go ask Dick Cheney what really happened, then you better run for cover.

But they didn't.

The reason you're confused by uncertainty is because that's how the world actually works. You can "catch" anomalies because there isn't any conspiracy here. The FDNY isn't a pawn in some gigantic and incomprehensible neocon plan. Instead, it's a fire department.

That's the same reason you won't ever discover a consensus among your 'truther' friends. Alex Jones frequently contradicts Mike Ruppert. Gerard Holmgren's focus is entirely unlike Greg Palast's. Victor Thorn and Eric Hufschmid can't agree on much of anything. And then there's Chris Bollyn, who thinks that cops in Chicago are trying to kill him.

I think you know they're not conspiring. Just as you know the 'officials' aren't either.
Click to expand...

No, people aren't confused about 911. They were for a while, I think it's clear that was the objective. But now they're dissatisfied, dissatisfied with what they feel was an inadequate investigation, and are withholding judgement until a new one is enabled - very different things. And there's a large number of them. I think skeptical would be the best way to describe them. Have you ever heard of a thing called a 'meme'?
 
stateofgrace said:
Pagan.

Did Bush? personally plants all the explosives inside WTC1?
Did Bush personally plant all the explosives inside WTC 2?
Did Bush personally plant all the explosives inside WTYC 7?
Did Bush personally hijack Flight 77 ?
Did Bush personally hijack Flight 93
Did Bush personally hijack Flight 11
Did Bush personally hijack Flight 175?
Did Bush personally rig all these planes with remote controls?
Did Bush personally fly Flight 77 over the Pentagon ?
Did Bush personally plant the black boxes from this flight at the Pentagon?
Did Bush personally plant the passengers body parts at the Pentagon ?
Did Bush personally plant the passengers personnel events at the pentagon?
Did Bush personally knock over the lamp posts at the Pentagon?
Did Bush personally shoot down flight 93?
Did Bush personally rig the crash sit at Shanksville to look at this plane crashed there?
Did Bush personally take the photograph of the smoke plume of flight 93?
Did Bush personally write the NIST report?
Did Bush personally write the 911 commissions report?
Did Bush personally plant evidence?
Did Bush personally remove evidence?
Did Bush personally fake evidence?
Did Bush personally make fake phone calls and pretend to be the passengers?
Did Bush personally fake the UBL confessions?
Did Bush personally fake all the evidence presented at the Moussiliou trial?
Did Bush personally remove all the steel at GZ and ship it off to China?
Did Bush personally order WTC 7 to be demolished?

And it goes on and on . The answer is no, somebody else did,according to you and your theories other people did this and much more. You can kid yourself all you like that everybody here is simply a Bush supporter but you are accusing many people of being involved in mass murder.

Even if you say , well he just ordered it, then somebody carried out his orders, somebody, many people are covering up those orders.

It means nothing to you, you are totally incapable of grasping this, it is beyond your limited scope of reasoning, I feel sorry for you, seriously.

You contribute nothing to this thread , as you equally contribute nothing to this forum. You simply keep parroting the same BS over and over again. Simply trying to take the moral high ground and say ¨hey look at me guys, I don’t like Bush and because you don’t agree with me you all love him ¨. Your arguments lack any credibility and simply show your utter childishness. Maybe just once could actually venture something substantial to a single thread, maybe just once you could actually act your age and not your shoe size. And maybe just once I will give a damm about what you think.
Click to expand...

If you ever get to walk within the corridors of power, or indeed get a decent job, there will come a time when you are taken to one side and the magic word is whispered in your ear - delegation.

I believe there's a song about it in the 'elite' version of Sesame Street, it certainly runs strong in the House of Bush.
 
scooby said:
No this would be counter-productive.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you produce anything of substance since you arrived here - just game-playing, rhetoric and sophistry. I don't think you have anything - that's the only way I can think that it would be "counter-productive" for you to be specific.

You certainly haven't displayed much by the way of skepticism, as it is commonly understood here - ie the rigorous testing of specific evidence in an attempt to determine the truth of an event or situation.

So, again, a challenge:

Please source a single statement from one of the many official accounts of 9/11 that we should be skeptical of. Also, source evidence to back up your skepticism - or at least provide a coherent argument as to why that statement should be investigated further, and how.
 
scooby said:
If you ever get to walk within the corridors of power, or indeed get a decent job, there will come a time when you are taken to one side and the magic word is whispered in your ear - delegation.

I believe there's a song about it in the 'elite' version of Sesame Street, it certainly runs strong in the House of Bush.
Click to expand...

Condescending and pathetic. Doesn't answer a single substantial point.

I'm still waiting for a serious argument from you.
 
scooby said:
If you ever get to walk within the corridors of power, or indeed get a decent job, there will come a time when you are taken to one side and the magic word is whispered in your ear - delegation.

I believe there's a song about it in the 'elite' version of Sesame Street, it certainly runs strong in the House of Bush.
Click to expand...

Yes my friend I know all about the word delegation, in my job, although it is none of your business it is used all the time. This is what happens when you work in a hazardous environment.

When working offshore with other highly qualified engineers, we work in teams and as such responsibility is delegated to various members within that team. Each and every team member is responsible for the work that they have been delegated. Once a team member has accepted the responsibility they has been delegated he/she is fully responsible to see that whatever task he/she as accepted is carried out in a safe and responsible manner.
Equally so nobody can forcibly delegate any work upon somebody else. Unless the person who has taken on the task is fully comfortable with their ability to carry out the work in a safe and proper manner they can refuse the work load without fear of repercussions. Nobody can be forcibly delegated work against their will.
Each team member can at any moment call a halt to a job, because either they have safety concerns or they feel they are unable to perform the work that as been delegated to them.

So you were telling me how Bush delegated all this responsibility to others whom simply accepted their responsibilities and carried out their orders without question, please carry on I am all ears.

Actually once you leave school and stop watching Sesame Street, get some qualifications and start working in the real world you will learn all about this.
 
Last edited:
Larry Lovage said:
pagan, you clearly have no idea what real "critical faculties" are, and are completely unworthy of the title "skeptic". The "official" conspiracy theory is backed up with mountains of evidence, including video confessions by the perpertrators, and by their mentors. To assume that the 19 identified hijackers did not in fact hijack the planes, in the face that they were known Al Qaeda trainees, is an abrogation of Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

I like Occams Razor - the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.
Had a lot of use lately, Occam's Razor.
 
Dave Rogers said:
You'd have to ask every skeptic individually, there isn't a standard manual of procedure.

I had a number of problems with the official story, all of which turned out to be a result of knowing next to nothing about it other than what I heard from a family member who'd read Griffin and watched Loose Change. When I actually tried to find out some information for myself I immediately discovered there was actually nothing to them.
Click to expand...

Yeah it wasn't like that for me to be honest. It was evident that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark well before 911 and what was really going on was clear within a year. I was pleased when Griffin turned up, and Loose Change certainly drew attention to the issue. I think Griffin gives one of the most thoroughly researched descriptions of the situation. I consider his "911: The Myth and the Reality" presentation to be one of the best ... http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
 
scooby said:
Yeah it wasn't like that for me to be honest. It was evident that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark well before 911 and what was really going on was clear within a year. I was pleased when Griffin turned up, and Loose Change certainly drew attention to the issue. I think Griffin gives one of the most thoroughly researched descriptions of the situation. I consider his "911: The Myth and the Reality" presentation to be one of the best ... http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Click to expand...

Now it's starting to make sense.

You think being a skeptic means making up your mind about something before you look at any evidence and just accept what people like DRG tell you.

Is that what an "Advanced Skeptic" does? If so, I'll stick with the regular kind of skepticism thanks. You know, the kind where evidence is required.
 
scooby said:
I like Occams Razor - the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.
Had a lot of use lately, Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...
Not quite true, scooby doo - Occam's Razor says that hypotheses should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
In other words the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one.

Have you really applied this to 9/11? REALLY?
 
scooby said:
No that would be bad science.
I wouldn't want to lead your investigations.

Give us the list you came up with all by yourselves - I'd be curious as to how it compares with other lists.

What are the skeptics top 10 problems with the official story?
Click to expand...

I've been giving this some thought over the weekend, because there was a point at which I was skeptical of the official story of 911, largely because I didn't know anything about it. I was also skeptical of the conspiracy theory, though. I had the conspiracy theories outlined to me by a family member, as I said earlier, but even as he explained it to me I could see it was riddled with internal contradictions and didn't really make sense on any level. However, there were, as I recall, nine points he raised that made me suspicious of the official story. Below, I'll list, firstly, what those points were, and secondly, how they resolved themselves based on what I found out.

The concerns were, in no particular order:
1. Hijackers weren't on the passenger manifests.
2. WTC7 collapsed after only minor fires.
3. Clear evidence of demolition squibs was seen in the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
4. The hole in the Pentagon wasn't big enough to have been caused by a 757.
5. Some of the hijackers are still alive.
6. There was an explosion in the basement before the first plane hit.
7. There wasn't any wreckage at Shanksville.
8. Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted in 15 minutes.
9. Silverstein admitted that he ordered the demolition of WTC7.

What I found out was:
1. Not true.
2. Not true.
3. Not true.
4. Not true.
5. Not true.
6. Based on a single account from someone who didn't see the first plane hit, and therefore couldn't compare times directly. Probably not true.
7. Not true.
8. Not true.
9. Not true.

Which pretty much killed the conspiracy theory for me.

Asking what are the skeptics' top ten problems with the official story is as disingenuous a trick as Intelligent Design proponents asking biologists what are the top ten problems with Darwin's theory of natural selection; it suggests that those top ten problems are comparable in severity with the corresponding top ten problems with the alternative explanation. It would be more useful to define some kind of critical level for the severity of a problem with an explanation; for example, if two out of over a hundred eyewitness accounts disagree with the observations of all the rest, that's a sub-critical problem, whereas if every eyewitness account is incompatible with a suggested explanation, that's a critical problem. On that scale, I would submit that skeptics don't have a "top 10 problems with the official story", because they, like I, have looked at the problems they thought existed and found them to be at worst sub-critical. On the other hand, as far as I've seen, every individual component of every variant of the "inside job" theories has at least one critical flaw.

I doubt whether you, Scooby, will pay much attention to the meaning of this post, because by your own admission you believed the government guilty of complicity in 911 even before it happened - a remarkable feat for anyone professing any level of skepticism. However, I've taken note of that admission, and will remember it any time you accuse anyone else of pre-judging an issue.

You say you're more of a big picture guy, but there has to come a point, when you see that none of the pieces fit the big picture, that you realise you're doing the wrong jiigsaw.

Dave
 
Last edited:
scooby said:
I'm skeptical and I know it was an inside job - what went wrong on here?
Click to expand...

Not a very skeptical attitude. Perhaps you meant to say:

"I'm skeptical and I believe I have strong evidence that the government participated in the 9/11 attacks in the following ways:[list ways government was involved]. I believe this because of the following evidence I have uncovered:[list of evidence, preferably with links to any online sources for evaluation]."

Or you could just keep on tootin' that horn about "skeptics for truth". Whatever. I think pagan will join you.
 
Dave Rogers said:
<snip>
Asking what are the skeptics' top ten problems with the official story is as disingenuous a trick as Intelligent Design proponents asking biologists what are the top ten problems with Darwin's theory of natural selection; it suggests that those top ten problems are comparable in severity with the corresponding top ten problems with the alternative explanation.<snip>
Click to expand...
This is very true and I wish I had picked up on this over the weekend (thank you for doing so). It is directly related to an article I seem to need to reference on a regular basis in this subforum:
...
Not even wrong. What could be worse? Being wronger than wrong, or what I call Asimov's axiom, well stated in his book The Relativity of Wrong (Doubleday, 1988): "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Asimov's axiom holds that science is cumulative and progressive, building on the mistakes of the past, and that even though scientists are often wrong, their wrongness attenuates with continued data collection and theory building. Satellite measurements, for instance, have shown precisely how the earth's shape differs from a perfect sphere.
The view that all wrong theories are equal implies that no theory is better than any other. This is the theory of the "strong" social construction of science, which holds that science is inextricably bound to the social, political, economic, religious and ideological predilections of a culture, particularly of those individuals in power. Scientists are knowledge capitalists who produce scientific papers that report the results of experiments conducted to test (and usually support) the hegemonic theories that reinforce the status quo.
...
Click to expand...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000
 
And still I am left in the dark as to what was "woo" about my post. I guess I'll have to wait for the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom