The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15:213:1219]

[Thoreau72]

Why can't truthers just admit that they have no alternative theory?

Because a detailed alternate theory is not necessary.

One does not need to know how a card trick is done to be fooled by it. False Flag, the events of the day were magnificent sleight-of-hand.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Because a detailed alternate theory is not necessary.

That much is obvious.

 

[ozeco41]

Because a detailed alternate theory is not necessary.

That is strictly true procedural logic. The necessary feature is rigorous falsification of the extant default claim or hypothesis. Provision of and "alternate therory" is strictly redundant to the falsification BUT it is often an efficient and valuable aid to falsifying the original.

Demanding "alternate theory/hypothesis/explanation/whatever" is one of the procedural shortcuts which have become popular in the arsenal of debunker tactics. And, btw, rarely corrected by truthers.

Another one BTW is the repeated demands for "evidence" when the requirement is for "proof of a claim" (however that may be stated to be PC within the several schools of debate protocol.)

And the proof requires two (or three - depends how we classify) "legs":
1) Reasoned argument - the main "leg";
2) Backed by the necessary evidence; AND
3) Such of the evidence as needs validating being either validated or capable of being validated if legitimately challenged.

 

[Mark F]

Because a detailed alternate theory is not necessary.

One does not need to know how a card trick is done to be fooled by it. False Flag, the events of the day were magnificent sleight-of-hand.

And conveniently allows the conspiracy theorist to avoid the chore of thinking, which we all know causes a headache and anxiety in conspiracy theorists.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

That is strictly true procedural logic. The necessary feature is rigorous falsification of the extant default claim or hypothesis. Provision of and "alternate therory" is strictly redundant to the falsification BUT it is often an efficient and valuable aid to falsifying the original.

Demanding "alternate theory/hypothesis/explanation/whatever" is one of the procedural shortcuts which have become popular in the arsenal of debunker tactics. And, btw, rarely corrected by truthers.

Of course it's not necessary, but it cuts to the chase: even truthers realize that anything they can come up with will be many multiples more implausible than anything the "official story" and that any rational person well compare the two stories and discard the conspiracy theory.

They don't want that to happen, so they can't give their alternative. Asking for it is a nice way to obviate the issue.

 

[ozeco41]

And conveniently allows the conspiracy theorist to avoid the chore of thinking, which we all know causes a headache and anxiety in conspiracy theorists.

Only causes headaches for those who attempt it and can do it but are not good enough to deal with the issue before them.

 

[ozeco41]

Of course it's not necessary, but it cuts to the chase: even truthers realize that anything they can come up with will be many multiples more implausible than anything the "official story" and that any rational person well compare the two stories and discard the conspiracy theory.

They don't want that to happen, so they can't give their alternative. Asking for it is a nice way to obviate the issue.

Sure. There is another perspective. If a truther cannot even support the bit or bits of his argument there is no way he will come up with a comprehensive reasoned alternative which coherently addresses all the relevant bits. That is a Grade 3 challenge minimum. Solving 9/11 technicals like WTC collapses needs at least Grade 4 thinking. And the typical truther is usually stuck in Grade 1. So letting them off the "Alternative Theory" stage - which is Grade 3>>4 is the easy way of letting them try to lift their present grade 1 up to Grade 2. Once they get to that level they may be able to progress further with more training and practice.

So letting them do it bit by bit is a gentle entry into reasoning - little kiddy steps easer to take than going straight out full on professional grade argument.

Meanwhile my purpose was actually challenging HD to come up with another bit of "bet both ways ambiguity" to attribute the failing to debunkers by implication. And without him repeating his fall back of alleging I am using "sophistry" which is HD code for "Your argument is too good for me ozeco".

 

[Fledermaus]

Because a detailed alternate theory is not necessary.

One does not need to know how a card trick is done to be fooled by it. False Flag, the events of the day were magnificent sleight-of-hand.

The post you responded to stated: Why can't truthers just admit that they have no alternative theory?

You haven't provided ANY real theory, detailed or not.

 

[Thoreau72]

And conveniently allows the conspiracy theorist to avoid the chore of thinking, which we all know causes a headache and anxiety in conspiracy theorists.

Not really Mark.

The chore of thinking in a rational and analytical manner is what the truther is all about. For example, how could there really be a Boeing present when no pictures show it, and so many people who were actually there were unable to see it?

How could one be present when 12 years later many of the players reveal just how Miller came to making his 'amended' contradictory statement?

Or, how could the damage observed at WTC be present when the official cause is listed as burning office furnishings?

Analytical thinking, being able to see beyond what some tell you.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Hahaha

 

[Mark F]

Not really Mark.

The chore of thinking in a rational and analytical manner is what the truther is all about.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

I think I may have crapped myself on that one!

For example, how could there really be a Boeing present when no pictures show it, and so many people who were actually there were unable to see it?

A fine example of why the above is so absolutely freakin' hysterical.

How could one be present when 12 years later many of the players reveal just how Miller came to making his 'amended' contradictory statement?

Cause that's a demonstrated lie. Again proves that Truthers don't think.

Or, how could the damage observed at WTC be present when the official cause is listed as burning office furnishings?

Analytical thinking, being able to see beyond what some tell you.

Oh its a lot more than that, and you have a long way to go.

 

[Bob0627]

Not really Mark.

The chore of thinking in a rational and analytical manner is what the truther is all about. For example, how could there really be a Boeing present when no pictures show it, and so many people who were actually there were unable to see it?

How could one be present when 12 years later many of the players reveal just how Miller came to making his 'amended' contradictory statement?

Or, how could the damage observed at WTC be present when the official cause is listed as burning office furnishings?

Analytical thinking, being able to see beyond what some tell you.

Just saying that "truthers" don't think is irrational nonsense and they know it. If they didn't, they would never question anything. First, they categorize anyone and everyone who doesn't buy the official story as a "truther", which they try to convolute into a derogatory term (all truthers are liars). Second, they're saying they ALL don't think because they don't swallow the official propaganda (only those who don't think just swallow propaganda). Note how this is all doublespeak. George Orwell would be proud of himself if he were alive today.

 

[michijo]

Since Jimmy Carter's days they trained dangerous Muslims known as mujahideen to fight a sort of cold war proxy battle. They never ever learned from their mistakes up until Bill Clinton allowed these mujahideen illegally into the Serbian war. Hasan Cengic, a Bosnian, helped fund 9/11:

Republican Riot » Bosnia Helped Fund the 9/11 Attacks on America

This guy was a major part of the process:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

One big mistake US made was to strand some Mujahideen in former Yugoslavia where they might be killed rather than helping them out. Two such surviving mujahideen flew planes into American buildings.

I also believe that the USA prompted Bosniaks to attack a Serbian wedding, allowing them to believe that NATO would support them immediately. But rather NATO did nothing for a long time. This can be why the Muslims turned against us.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/analysis/a09.incl

Bin Laden directly aided the Bosnian Muslims, both financially (weapons procurement) and with training

 

[Fledermaus]

The chore of thinking in a rational and analytical manner is what the truther is all about.

An opinion not supported by your own postings.

For example, how could there really be a Boeing present when no pictures show it, and so many people who were actually there were unable to see it?

Simple. The EVIDENCE of the Boeing that includes:

Debris consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
RADAR tracking consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Landing gear consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
A wheel consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
An engine consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
DNA consistent with Flight 77 passengers on the scene.
Luggage and personal effects consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Damage to the building and building facade consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
EYEWITNESS reports on the ground consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
PHONE CALLS that ENDED with impact consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.

Ignoring all of the above is hardly rational and analytical.

How could one be present when 12 years later many of the players reveal just how Miller came to making his 'amended' contradictory statement?

You have EVIDENCE he 'amended' s supposedly contradictory statement? What? All you have is the word of a known liar? Depending on the statements of a known liar while clearly discounting the statement of the man that was there is hardly rational and analytical.

Or, how could the damage observed at WTC be present when the official cause is listed as burning office furnishings?

Hmmm... Looks like SOMEONE is ignoring a lot in what he CLAIMS is the "official cause". Strawmanning the "official cause" is rarely rational and analytical.

Analytical thinking, being able to see beyond what some tell you.

Indeed... And all the "rational and analytical" exploration you have done has been based on what liars, hucksters and charlatans such and Gage, Balsamo and Bollyn have fed you.

 

[Fledermaus]

Just saying that "truthers" don't think is irrational nonsense and they know it. If they didn't, they would never question anything. First, they categorize anyone and everyone who doesn't buy the official story as a "truther", which they try to convolute into a derogatory term (all truthers are liars). Second, they're saying they ALL don't think because they don't swallow the official propaganda (only those who don't think just swallow propaganda). Note how this is all doublespeak. George Orwell would be proud of himself if he were alive today.

No, they show themselves to be incapable of thought based on the STUPIDITY they introduce regularly to the discussion....

EXAMPLE: Bleating about "molten steel/metal" equals controlled demolition while never thinking about whether or not anything molten REALLY indicates explosives.
EXAMPLE: Missiles into the Pentagon
EXAMPLE: Mini-nukes in the WTC towers

 

[Mark F]

Just saying that "truthers" don't think is irrational nonsense and they know it. If they didn't, they would never question anything. First, they categorize anyone and everyone who doesn't buy the official story as a "truther", which they try to convolute into a derogatory term (all truthers are liars). Second, they're saying they ALL don't think because they don't swallow the official propaganda (only those who don't think just swallow propaganda). Note how this is all doublespeak. George Orwell would be proud of himself if he were alive today.

Conspiracy theorists do not think (apply the process known as reasoning). As Oz would put it they exhibit Grade 1 thinking when Grade 3 or 4 is required - or even Grade 2 would be helpful. We see countless examples of that here on these forums. This is why conspiracy theorists consistently avoid being specific, dodge direct questions, etc, etc, etc,... Being specific and direct requires thinking (reasoning), which CT's don't (won't) do. It is because they do (can) not think that they become conspiracy theorists.

This has nothing to do with honesty. One can say things with honesty that are obviously and blatantly wrong if they are unable/unwilling to apply the logic and reasoning required to determine they are wrong or to understand well reasoned points presented to them.

Of course CT's do not understand that they can not think. They insist they can and do but their efforts do not reflect this.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Since Jimmy Carter's days they trained dangerous Muslims known as mujahideen to fight a sort of cold war proxy battle. They never ever learned from their mistakes up until Bill Clinton allowed these mujahideen illegally into the Serbian war. Hasan Cengic, a Bosnian, helped fund 9/11:

Republican Riot » Bosnia Helped Fund the 9/11 Attacks on America

This guy was a major part of the process:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

One big mistake US made was to strand some Mujahideen in former Yugoslavia where they might be killed rather than helping them out. Two such surviving mujahideen flew planes into American buildings.

I also believe that the USA prompted Bosniaks to attack a Serbian wedding, allowing them to believe that NATO would support them immediately. But rather NATO did nothing for a long time. This can be why the Muslims turned against us.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/analysis/a09.incl

Actually wahabbism never really was accepted in Bosnia, even as jihadis tried to make it into Afghanistan: The Sequel. Of course some were swayed, but in general it met with a LOT of pushback and by the time of 9/11 most jihadis had given up trying to turn Bosnia into a front of their religious war. Chechnya is actually kinda the same way (to a lesser extent).

 

[Bob0627]

Conspiracy theorists do not think

Thanks for validating my point about those such as yourself.

 

[Mark F]

Thanks for validating my point about those such as yourself.

Rubbish.

What I posted was factual commentary based on observed behavior. People who are attracted to conspiracy theories (doesn't matter if it is 9/11 or something else) are attracted to them because they either do not or can not perform the process known as reasoning. It is because they do not reason that they are attracted to conspiracy theories. Personally I find this pattern of behavior fascinating and think it deserves more study. But I am not making a judgment on anyone, just an observation.

This has nothing to do with questioning authority - any idiot can do that. Conspiracy theorists don't do it well and in the long term their inability to do it well - by supporting obvious nonsense conspiracy theories and bogus technical claims - undermines what may well be entirely well-founded political concerns.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

And no one ever will.

Thanks for confirming you've been sold and have nothing to ask.

That's ok, you bought the one that counts for you.

So, NO ALTERNATE THEORY from Bob once again....

Only sniveling about others accepting reality over lunacy.

 

[Jango]

Rubbish.

What I posted was factual commentary based on observed behavior. People who are attracted to conspiracy theories (doesn't matter if it is 9/11 or something else) are attracted to them because they either do not or can not perform the process known as reasoning. It is because they do not reason that they are attracted to conspiracy theories. Personally I find this pattern of behavior fascinating and think it deserves more study. But I am not making a judgment on anyone, just an observation.

This has nothing to do with questioning authority - any idiot can do that. Conspiracy theorists don't do it well and in the long term their inability to do it well - by supporting obvious nonsense conspiracy theories and bogus technical claims - undermines what may well be entirely well-founded political concerns.

Be specific, how do you define 'reasoning'?

 

[Jango]

Actually wahabbism never really was accepted in Bosnia, even as jihadis tried to make it into Afghanistan: The Sequel. Of course some were swayed, but in general it met with a LOT of pushback and by the time of 9/11 most jihadis had given up trying to turn Bosnia into a front of their religious war. Chechnya is actually kinda the same way (to a lesser extent).

Chechnya is a powder keg waiting to burst because of Russian-Muslim interactions.

 

[Fledermaus]

Be specific, how do you define 'reasoning'?

To form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information .

rea·son·ing
ˈrēzəniNG/
noun
noun: reasoning; plural noun: reasonings

the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Rubbish.

What I posted was factual commentary based on observed behavior. People who are attracted to conspiracy theories (doesn't matter if it is 9/11 or something else) are attracted to them because they either do not or can not perform the process known as reasoning. It is because they do not reason that they are attracted to conspiracy theories. Personally I find this pattern of behavior fascinating and think it deserves more study. But I am not making a judgment on anyone, just an observation.

I too find this pattern of behaviour fascinating. I once merely judged people who believed this sort of nonsense as idiots, and indeed many are, but there is some problem in the reasoning process for others as they clearly exhibit intelligence. Perhaps some have been wronged by 'da gubmint' at some point and the subsequent bias is so strong that it influences the reasoning process? Some evince mental problems, but others are intelligent and stable and yet they subscribe to the most irrational of stories-those individuals fascinate me.

This has nothing to do with questioning authority - any idiot can do that. Conspiracy theorists don't do it well and in the long term their inability to do it well - by supporting obvious nonsense conspiracy theories and bogus technical claims - undermines what may well be entirely well-founded political concerns.

The belief that those who do not ascribe to CT's do not question gubernatorial policy is an absurd conclusion driven purely by bias. No reasoning what so ever was employed in order to arrive at such a moronic generalisation.

 

[ozeco41]

Rubbish.

What I posted was factual commentary based on observed behavior. People who are attracted to conspiracy theories (doesn't matter if it is 9/11 or something else) are attracted to them because they either do not or can not perform the process known as reasoning. It is because they do not reason that they are attracted to conspiracy theories. Personally I find this pattern of behavior fascinating and think it deserves more study. But I am not making a judgment on anyone, just an observation.

This has nothing to do with questioning authority - any idiot can do that. Conspiracy theorists don't do it well and in the long term their inability to do it well - by supporting obvious nonsense conspiracy theories and bogus technical claims - undermines what may well be entirely well-founded political concerns.

Those are the two big failure points of the truth movement.

1. Do not or cannot reason AKA do not or cannot think. To be pedantic it is usually false reasoning rather than no reasoning. Flawed reasoning. Reasoning by wrong processes. The common central issue is use of divergent reasoning processes which guarantee that no solution will be reached when converging processes of reasoning would move towards a solution. I expressed it briefly some time back:

....3) Yet again truthers cannot think - as in cannot apply a converging process of reasoning which is required to arrange multiple factors and supporting evidence into a coherent argument focussed towards a single clear outcome. That is a bit wordy so I'll keep using "cannot think" as shorthand...

Multiple examples in the posts of Jango and BmanMcfly. Both use it to take focus off a specific statement/claim or one that should be specific. Using set theory language the focus changes from the specific issue or sub set of issues to a broader set where one or more exceptions are located. Then those exceptions asserted as proving the original example wrong. False logic. (An analogy: Claim "The cows in this small paddock are brown". Response "There are many other paddocks and some of the cows in them are white.") AND to make it even foggier the claim is usually expressed by innuendo rather than explicit statement. (Extend the analogy. "You cannot prove that there are no black and white cows.") (Yes - it wouldn't be a legit truther response without the "reversed burden of proof". :roll: )

The big issue with any person who plays that game is to decide whether it is:
a) their inherent thinking or reasoning process which is flawed; OR
b) whether it is simply an affectation of ignorance for purposes of debating trickery.

For myself I treat it as the former until the latter - deliberate dishonesty - is clear. Back "in the day" when I was managing engineers and other applied scientists I met many technical persons who were not strong in reasoning skills once they moved outside their comfort zone of routine technical processing. The phenomenon is not rare. But it is more evident in truth discussions because those who do not have the reasoning shortcoming will quickly learn the truth and leave the truther camp. So those left and still active will be disproportionately overrepresented.

2 Undermining well-founded political concerns. Another one I've commented on previously and IMO the "#1 Failure of the truth movement". I have no doubt that there are many issues of genuine concern still remaining unaddressed in the political arena of decision making related to 9/11. And the focus which truthers maintain on nonsense claims such as CD at WTC are ensuring that the political aspects don't get reviewed. Put simply - for those who believe in shills and disinfo - the AE911TEuth organisation could easily be a well conceived and successful Government "Sting" operation. Using CD at WTC as the foundation of a strategy is a sure fire guarantee that the strategy will not succeed. And the concerns in the political arena will not get addressed. Political naivety.