Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

Pebble: I could say the same about you. Your first comment is truly laughable - "All of 9/11 as reported in mainstream media and the official reports I find very plausible." But they contradict each other! If you actually thought about that statement at all, you'd notice this rather obvious problem. "creating ripples in the sea of credulity" indeed.

John Jackson: ignoring my question is like me talking to a brick wall, not a real conversation, its a fair comment. Walls are unresponsive.

"It's a really dumb question which shows a lack of understanding.." is however rather arrogant. "Just because you are convinced of your own intellectual superiority doesn't mean anyone else is" - likewise John, this can be said of yourself too. Your early resort to name-calling is noted. Will you respond to my question?

Some of the many statements regarding molten metal can be found in the documentary I did actually cite, although anyone who has done even superficial research into the alternative theory of 9/11 would be well aware of them, again, I'm not here to do your research for you, If you are unaware of the dozens of statements regarding molten metal, I suggest you must first research the subject which your discussing more thoroughly, rather than rely on me to inform you of the specifics of everything, page numbers and all. The NIST experiments I refer to are also very well known, those which Kevin Ryan formerly of underwriters labs comments on regularly.

"I fail to see how NIST's experiments have any bearing on you providing a coherent argument." - Quite, it has to do with YOU providing a logical explanation to my specific, focused initial question, although you prefer to ignore it, it seems. writing up a vast body of evidence at the first instance is unnecessary and illogical as I have illustrated, so "I suggest YOU give it a rest" - "unless YOU make a proper coherent argument, nobody can deal with it." You suggest this to me, but fail to do this yourself in the first place. Great technique!

you have ignored my question, repeatedly, while needlessly demanding a full explanation from me, which is not logical or necessary, while refusing to logically explain why anyone would believe NISTs conclusion despite their own experiments demonstrating the opposite. If you think the following quote doesn't apply more to you than me, your deluded.

you say "Now I'll be honest here. I'm no expert on 9/11 conspircy theories as the issue bores me senseless. The level of debate by conspiracy theorists is generally pathetic and it's a total and utter waste of time as it involves nothing more than endlessly going over the same crap like a dog chasing its tail."

I'm glad you admit your no expert. Nor do you supply critical thinking or good reasoning to my (very simple) initial question.

I suggest you look at your own argument, and try and answer my specific, focused question regarding NIST. I have already said 'most of the psycho-babble that psychologists and so-called skeptics is generally applicable to the non-conspiracy theorists, your statement illustrates YOUR own line of attack, clearly.

Ps: your answer to my quote which you end with also fails to incorporate any evidence whatsoever, instead you suggest that most people believe the official account (to some degree) as the evidence supports it, and the alternative theories don't stand up to scrutiny.' This is contradicted however even by the known polls which show a majority do NOT believe the official account, (since its been proven false in many places - ill get into later). Although, the number of people who believe in something is not necessarily testament to how true it must be, anyway, your opinion still ignores the facts, and polls in this case.

please point out my argument lacks logic to a greater extent than your own argument?

"Your approach so far has been par for the course unfortunately." My thoughts also.

Harryprice: I do indeed, although it may be at risk of non-copyright infringement, I'll be happy to supply quotes, etc. although it seems a little silly for me to post the full video and analysis here, since Dr French will likely remove it. perhaps I can find a transcript for you somewhere to discuss..

John Jackson: If you don't know what I'm referring to, then perhaps you should do some basic research into the alternative conspiracy theory to begin with. Everyone knows the experiment. Try searching 'Kevin Ryan', 'zero: an investigation into 9/11' by MEP Cheisa. search 'NIST experiment lies' or similar, people seem to think I should be doing their research for them.. this is basic stuff, if you don't know it, your not very informed.

Finally, SimonC: If you are unaware of the flawed experiments, I suggest you further your research, first. The experiments I am referring to are those well known experiments carried out by underwriters labs which showed that none of NISTs steel models collapsed due to fire, even when placed in hotter conditions, for longer than WTC were affected, still they did not collapse. As former underwriters labs Kevin Ryan has highlighted. I shall let you know of page numbers when I've scoured a '10,000' page book for them - for your benefit, and others in this blog who are admittedly uninformed of even the basic points of the opposing argument. It will not be immediate, but I shall find them for your benefit, saving you any work at all. I hope your own rigorous investigative skills will not be held back by my temporary lack of page numbers, of the NIST report.

many page numbers and sources are documented in the Documentary i cited, although I shall personally bring them each specifically to your attention when I get time.

[Admin]

I did some research into this bullshit back in November 2004.

Look on here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph...y_theories.php

The Kevin Ryan nonsense was easily dispelled (see near the bottom of the page).

And for your information, Mr. conspiracy theorist, you are the one who came on here to join in this topic so the onus is on you to back up what you say.

Here's a basic outline for you:

1. Choose one single piece of evidence that you believe makes a strong case against the 'official' version;
2. Present the argument that you think the evidence supports;
3. and then see whether anyone wishes to challenge it;
4. If so, then debate intelligently.

That's all we're asking!

Make an argument backed up with evidence and we will consider it - what's wrong with that simple request?

[SimonC]

I've read a certain amount about Kevin Ryan, while researching some of the 'alternative theories'.

It appears that his credentials with Underwriter's Laboratories may not be quite as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

one, perhaps you could swear less, It doesn't sound very objective of you, and its frankly rude. Two, you are also a conspiracy theorist, as any critical thinker would have realised.

The onus is on YOU since I asked my question first! 'that's all we're asking' - how many times? I'll look closer at my 'bullshit' when I get back in shortly. Thanks for such a valuable debate, Mr (official) conspiracy theorist.

You do realise that many intelligence officers, CIA officers, military commanders etc have said that its ridiculous to believe that anyone - other than an advanced intelligence agency - could pull this off? How do you believe it, logically - "is all we ask" ?! And I asked first I should point out - again.

[Admin]

The onus is on YOU since I asked my question first!

And you're trying to question other people's critical thinking capacity!

[SimonC]

You do realise that many intelligence officers, CIA officers, military commanders etc have said that its ridiculous to believe that anyone - other than an advanced intelligence agency - could pull this off?

So what? There's also an Apollo astronaut who has said he believes in aliens on the moon, and who takes Roswell seriously. There's a good reason for dismissing argument from authority as a logical fallacy.

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

yes jackson, thats what this blogs for.

SimonC, you have just associated 9/11 with UFO's, congratulations you win automatically, on O'reilly. There is indeed an argument for dismissing argument from authority as a logical fallacy, which is part of the overall reason I asked first the question -why do you believe the authorities version of events? Even their cover story of bin laden and al qaeda would reasonably implicate the CIA, no?

While I am awaiting the opportunity to find page numbers, and quotes, can you explain the ten points raised in the presentation '9/11 blueprint for truth' by means of fire? How did fire - for the first time in history, bring down three steel structured high rise buildings at near freefall speeds, symmetrically, and totally, through itself, leaving molten pools of metal at the foot of all three buildings, molten for weeks after 9/11, also showing other hallmarks of controlled demolition as they fell.

You see, I need evidence and a logical explanation to my first basic question before I accept the official 'authoritative' explanation, too. Are you going to answer my question, or prove the official theory, or just avoid that part which should be provable - concentrate on picking holes in my theory - rather than justify the official theory when asked, nice technique.

See, I don't offer a complete theory, the official theory does however pose a specific theory. Rather than spend your time on me substantiating my opinion, why don't we start by answering my question - what evidence is there to support the official theory, since the FBI has so little? What do supporters of this theory know that the FBI do not? How DO fires collapse three partially damaged buildings symmetrically? how can one logically suggest that is possible?

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

jackson, to be clear, you said: "Make an argument backed up with evidence and we will consider it - what's wrong with that simple request?"

Thats what I asked - first, will you?

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph...y_theories.php
Jackson, you pointed me to a local page about conspiracy theorists, it says:

"Paranoid conspiracy theories.

Valid conspiracy theories are those that are considered plausible. There are many conspiracy theories that are extremely implausible however...the New World Order, drug companies withholding cancer cures so they can keep selling expensive drugs..."

[under] "the nature of paranoid conspiracy theories..

Paranoid conspiracy theories are a prime example of irrational thinking..."


..You are presumably unaware that Rumsfeld was reported to have suppressed alternative, cheaper AIDS drugs in order to 'keep selling expensive drugs'? It's sourced in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. So this page is itself no testament to rational or critical thinking, logic, nor documented fact, and we've still yet to touch on NIST..

one of the links [in that linked page] I am looking at [nist response to kevin ryan], reasons:

"In fact, melting of the steel was not necessary to weaken its strength at the temperatures encountered...[and induce collapse]"

what it doesn't mention is the dozens of published eye witness [first responders, firefighters..] statements detailing 'literally molten steel' under all three downed wtc buildings several weeks after the attacks. Sure, its not necessary to have melted steel to have (possibly) bought down (2 of the 3) buildings, but molten metal WAS still produced somehow. How DO supporters of the official account explain the molten metal at WTC1, 2 and 3 if due to fire?

[Admin]

jackson, to be clear, you said: "Make an argument backed up with evidence and we will consider it - what's wrong with that simple request?"

Thats what I asked - first, will you?

But I'm not the one trying to promote any particular position - you are!

I know the standard routine for conspiracy theorists like you is to start with an unfalsifiable conclusion and then challenge others to falsify it; but we skeptics don't work that way.

We prefer those who are promoting a position on something to give a considered argument (i.e. well reasoned and supported with evidence) so that it can be examined for validity. The advantage of doing things this way is that if you do really have a good case then we won't be able to counter it.

Don't keep playing the 'shifting the burden of proof' game; present your case for consideration.

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

"I know the standard routine for conspiracy theorists like you is to start with an unfalsifiable conclusion and then challenge others to falsify it; but we skeptics don't work that way." Don't you?

Firstly, apparently I must point out, again, that all sides of 9/11 thinkers are conspiracy theorists in the generic sense, its not like one person did it all, is it?

Now, In thinking this way, you have again ignored the fact that my original question (why do supporters of the official theory believe it is not possibly an inside job, and otherwise exactly as the government tells us) is asking supporters of the official version to simply present their evidence - rather than rely on me to falsify it. Of course, by not presenting MY evidence here - It is ME who is using the unfalsifiable conclusion??! Your point is simply wrong. In reality, back on planet Earth, I'm very clearly and simply asking for supporters of the official theory to support their theory. Which doesn't even really address you unless your a supporter of that theory.. If they are none in here, I shall return later, as I have no burning interest in spending my time 'promoting' or justifying my position exhaustively to you positionless, opinion-less 'skeptics', rather I have a specific interest in observing critical thinking and logic specifically of those who do support the official theory, as my initial question makes very clear, despite your distorted claims of my 'shifting the burden of evidence' and 'unfalsifiable conclusion'. Neither are true, as I have shown. Most 'conspiracy deniers' psycho-babble most often applies perfectly to themselves.

Forgive me if I spoke to you as if you were supportive of the official conspiracy theory, I didn't realise there were people who were so unconvinced either way, sitting on the fence, as it were. The reason I ask for supporters of the official theory to answer my question first - to explain their thinking - is precisely because I will not play the 'shifting the burden of proof' game with people. How convenient that 'skeptics' do not 'promote' aka openly state their particular position - you are unable to be falsified, then, and cannot be questioned yourself on anything.. You believe the official theory unconvincing also? Your convinced by nothing? I am interested to discuss critical thinking with a supporter of the official theory, ideally. I thought I'd find some here.. presuming critical thinking leads people to likely conclusions of any kind. (unlike NIST said of its explanation of the collapses, incidentally.)


some of the evidence of controlled demolition, I find convincing, if not obvious.

Start with the presentation '9/11 blueprint for truth' which I already mentioned, maybe that could be a starting point for discussion - particularly the simple observational stuff - re: the (WTC1,2,7) three steel frame building 'collapses'. near freefall speed, uniform and symmetrical, total collapses through the path of most resistance, exhibiting blast-points, resulting in molten metal. WTC7 also exhibiting ten hallmarks of typical, classic controlled demolition. In this presentation the hypothesis of controlled demolition accounts for much of the observational, witness, physical evidence, while the fire hypothesis accounts for almost none of it.

I believe the very simple case put forward here and corroborated elsewhere, demonstrates that the fire hypothesis has 'only a [very] low probability of occurrence' (like NIST said of their own fire hypothesis) and fails to account for much evidence. The controlled demolition hypothesis does account for much more of it, and therefore has a much higher likelihood of occurrence. The observations not only demonstrate that controlled demolition is a possibility, they rule out the possibility of fire, and leave no other reasonable possible explanation other than controlled demolition, that I personally know of, at least.

Now, if any 'skeptic' does support the official theory (or have any opinion at all) in here (and judging by the one-sided title of the thread, they may well be here, if anon!) can they answer my first question, please? You have an interest in 'alternative' conspiracy theorists here, but why, I wonder, is the thread not titled "does anyone here believe either 9/11 story" how come no attention is being paid to the believers of the official conspiracy theory, despite having tried myself. Why so one sided? Clearly there are people in here that believe the official theory, they have copped out of the exact request that they demand of me. Not very objective.

Can nobody really present any evidence for my question (if you can't the US government really are in trouble!), whilst demanding my evidence to your questions, as well as claiming I'M the one 'shifting the burden of proof' - is frankly ridiculous self delusion. What you say I am guilty of, applies to you - as if you dont all (obviously) support the official theory..

..no opinion, no position, right?!

[Pebble]

Would like a little help understanding the precise conspiracy we are dealing with here.

The CIA, employed Bin Laden's group to hijack domestic flights and crash them into the WTC - that the flights actually crashed into the buidling is I believe beyond dispute. Were the unfortunates on the plane sacrificed, or have they been relocated with new identities?

Now, the CIA needed a spectacular, so given their detailed knowlegde of the nature of these buildings, they realised that the buildings would not collapse, so prepared demolition in advance, or are you claiming that during the couple of hours after the initial crash, they sent a crack team of lightning speed demolition experts in to bring down these structures in a controlled fashion? Again the people in the tower, were they just sacrificed, or relocated?

If they acted during the hours between the crash and the collapse, can you present any evidence that demolition experts can work this fast? If not, how did they rig the buildings without anyone spotting this in advance?

Finally, given the enormous consequences invovled if caught, what was the pay off to the CIA that made this risk worth taking? Was all of this merely a cover for crashing a plane into the pentagon? From what we have seen of CIA activity in trying to destabilise governments etc in the past, they do not inspire confidence as a group capable of carrying out such a task.


As best I can read this, it boils down to the buildings collapsed straight down after planes crashed into them. I/we/whoever do not understand why they did not fall over instead. Because this is not explained satisfactorially the real explanation must be X or Y or Z (slot in personal belief). Is there anything more to this?

[Harryprice]

I do indeed, although it may be at risk of non-copyright infringement, I'll be happy to supply quotes, etc. although it seems a little silly for me to post the full video and analysis here, since Dr French will likely remove it. perhaps I can find a transcript for you somewhere to discuss..

So is this a publicly available video? I'm just trying to find out where I can get more information on this particular subject. Thanks.

[Cuddles]

that the flights actually crashed into the buidling is I believe beyond dispute.

You never know, this nut could easily be a no planer.

I feel like I'm talking I'm to a brick wall here, perhaps with less logic than a wall has.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You should using more logic than a wall has. Your argument would probably make a lot more sense that way.

[skbuncks]

I feel like I'm talking I'm to a brick wall here, perhaps with less logic than a wall has. How did you all manage to ignore my question? Surely your not all prone to 'selective evidence', effortlessly ignoring half of it?

Here is you first question again

Let me ask this first question: It has been said that the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory is "non-falsifyable" which is problematic for psychologists, however, the Official version on the other hand is - and has been - thoroughly falsified. Why would anyone believe in such a thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory after it has been demonstrated as lies, Why ignore the evidence?

I pointed out in post 20 the flaws in the question. Perhaps you should revisit and then rephrase the question in a non-loaded logical manner.

One at a time please.. firstly, to pebble.

"All of 9/11 as reported in mainstream media and the official reports I find very plausible."

These reports are clearly contradicting in many, many places, how can someone find them ALL plausible. The mainstream media reports the evidence suggesting inside job occasionally, therefore you cannot accept all the evidence without raising some very critical questions, they are not all mutually supporting, like NISTs experiments as I will mention later.

Please pick two contradictory statements for discussion.

To skbuncks: "...is a load of pants" as an answer to my initial question gets no points for critical thinking, or logic, in my book at least. the 9/11 conspiracy theories was claimed to be "non-falsifyable" by a psychologist named Dr Chris French

He was wrong. However it would be helpful if you can provide a link to where her said this so that the quote can be read in context. And no, it is not my job to trawl the internet looking for it myself. You supplied the quote you supply the linky.

and I don't believe a word he says, although I have no reason to believe it is falsifyable until I have heard it be falsified, maybe thats flawed logic?

Yes, it is flawed logic. You clearly do not know what is meant by 'falsifiable'.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Falsifiable]This[/url] and http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Falsifiability]this[/url] may help. Note that falsifiable does NOT mean that a theory has been demonstrated to be false. Instead, and this is the crux of scientific investigation, falsifiability demsonstrates that a theoary has properties or makes predictions that can be demonstrated to be false. A non-falsifiable theory contains no such properties or predictions. With regards to 911 theories, both official and alternative, they are all falsifiable.

Of course evidence is the only important factor, but this is a blog set up by a psychologist in order to discuss critical thinking and logic with regards to evidence

What blog, you have yet to link to any. Again, I have better things to do with my time that hunt down blogs. You claim to have done the research so must have it booked marked in your favourites. It would only take you several mouse clicks to include the link so I wonder why you don't.

that's still no reason for me to need to write the whole body of evidence up, specific examples will do, as anyone with any logic or critical thinking will realise. Hopefully you can understand this somewhat obvious point.

I understand perfectly. Why don't we start with just one. Yes just one will do, and again please supply links to the supporting evidence. This should be accompanied by page numbers etc for written reports and time references for videos. This will ensure we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

You also say "Yes, the 'Official Version' is falsifiable. Claims of it being thoroughly falsified will have to followed with evidence of the same. I am certainly not going to take your word on it.

So, given that not even NISTs own experiments showed what NIST concluded, why do you not question them, rather than take them on their word? Is that very one sided, or illogical in the first place?

To which experiment are you referring? Linky with page numbers please.

I asked this question initially, you answered "..is pants". What an argument! Yet you focus on mine, despite me asking my question first. I was hoping to talk with people who have a reasonable amount of sense, capable of conversing in a grown up way.

No, you did not. This is your first question

Let me ask this first question: It has been said that the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory is "non-falsifyable" which is problematic for psychologists, however, the Official version on the other hand is - and has been - thoroughly falsified. Why would anyone believe in such a thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory after it has been demonstrated as lies, Why ignore the evidence?

You can tell because the part in bold states as much.

Wonderful quote by Zaphod Beeblebrox, most of the quotes I tend to value are more often US military, intelligence officers, pilots, engineers, architects - rather than fictional characters. I find they carry more weight in the real world, tell Zaphod I said hi.

I don't know is a valid response to any question I do not know the answer too. Zaphod was just more witty about it.

To john jackson - you have yet to answer my initial question also - "just one example will do".. the Docu '9/11 blueprint for truth' sets out a very small body of evidence in some detail, lets start there, you can explain the dozens of statements regarding molten metal? And incorporate much of this evidence into the official theory?

Yes

You again, demand I explain myself but don't place the same requirements of yourself in response to my initial questions. Interesting... Why do you demand I explain my position with supporting evidence despite the obvious fact that those who believe in NISTs version of events for example, are not even supported by NISTs own experiments? They're results support the alternative conspiracy theorists. How can anyone logically claim they do support the official account? I have initially challenged you to answer this with common sense, critical thinking and logic. Can you?

Your the one making the claims, the burden of proof is therefore upon you.

To SimonC: I did assume that you did not support the alternative theory, I appear to have been correct. Unlike French's predictions. I do not supply evidence for my initial statement, because I initially asked you a question, which demands specific evidence of you, not me. You must explain why for example - you support NISTs conclusion, despite their own evidence demonstrating the opposite.

No, he need not. You must demonstrate why you think the conclusions are wrong. Remember that bit about falsification above?

We needn't layout the entire evidence, since I'm sure I can highlight critical thinking, logic / or lack of, with smaller examples such as this, I have no interest in trying to convince you, that is for you to decide, based on your own research, I'm simply trying to highlight critical thinking and logic.

Using an illogical approach is an interesting way to do it.

In the first place I did this by pointing out that an overall full body of evidence is not logically necessary, the answer I get from you all is 'where's your evidence' having first ignored MY question entirely - please do not ignore my question again, If you can answer logically to my single question, then do so. If you cannot, say so.

No, you must state why you do not support the conclusions. Falsification anyone?

I've studied the experiment of Frenchs/Lemans in detail. It demonstrates the exact opposite of what they hypothesised. Its not simply that it was flawed in places, it was thoroughly flawed, its important to note that they deliberately lied, too. A flagrantly biased piece of propaganda. I'll return to the subject sometime.

Statements carry more weight if supported by a corroboratory link.

Can anyone answer my question? or will you all continue to pointlessly ignore my questions, and desperately demand that I must cover all the evidence to support my opinion! I asked first! I've never met such a group who can so easily ignore half the critical questions, critical thinking, logic..

So please answer my question - why believe NISTs conclusion - when even their experiments demonstrated the opposite of what they claim. How can logically not question, and agree with that lie? This is where we can discuss logic and critical thinking, I need not write hundreds of pages, you need only answer a single specific question with logic. Can you though? Will you bother

OK, once more. Why dont you support the conclusions of the NIST report.

This question requires much less evidence, opinion, reasoning of you than your subsequent questions of me, since I have logically focused in on specifics for the sake of time saving. Answers please...

You haven't logically focussed on anything, or indeed given any specifics.
So once more, please pick any one of the conclusions of the NIST report and state why you think it is wrong, for no other reason than THIS IS THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS.


skb