• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Fledermaus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark F.
 
NWO_Spook said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Which at this forum would be whom exactly?
 
ozeco41 said:
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:
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.
Click to expand...

My emphasis in red:

1) Examples being?

2) Is that to say you do not believe in shills & disinformation?
 
NWO_Spook said:
When it comes to 9/11, I don't. That is a copout and a form of ad hominem that is used far too liberally by those of a less than rational disposition.
Click to expand...

Isn't a shill someone who receives compensation?

I haven't seen a dime nor do I expect to... Been called shill more often than I can count.
 
Fledermaus said:
Isn't a shill someone who receives compensation?

I haven't seen a dime nor do I expect to... Been called shill more often than I can count.
Click to expand...

A 'shill' usually refers to marketing. It's a tactic where a seemingly unaffiliated individual endorses a product on its merits, but in reality, that person is paid to endorse said product. This has become a term for individuals who are paid to 'infiltrate' political fora in an attempt to further the aims of a particular political party. Now, in regard to 9/11, why would the democrats employ people to infiltrate this site and defend an event that occurred during a republican term?

As most things in truther land, it doesn't make sense. It is merely a form of ad hominem that has no basis in fact. The accuser would never know a true 'shill', and the audience would be unaware of the presence of 'shills'.

On another site, I am a 'Zioshill' for my efforts to eliminate the disease that is anti-Semitism, never mind I was raised a Catholic and am now an Atheist.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
When it comes to 9/11, I don't. That is a copout and a form of ad hominem that is used far too liberally by those of a less than rational disposition.
Click to expand...

With 9/11 you don't, so that means there are other topics where you think shills exist. Such as?
 
Fledermaus said:
Isn't a shill someone who receives compensation?

I haven't seen a dime nor do I expect to... Been called shill more often than I can count.
Click to expand...

Me too :mrgreen:
 
NWO_Spook said:
That wouldn't be very ethical now would it?
Click to expand...

This is an anonymous political message board where thick skin is a prerequisite. Let it loose, man.
 
Jango said:
With 9/11 you don't, so that means there are other topics where you think shills exist. Such as?
Click to expand...

In heated debates regarding current contentious issues, it is possible that they exist, but I don't know for sure. It's not as black & white as you wish to paint it, for I merely acknowledge the possibility of their existence, but for 9/11, no, as it is a dead issue except to a few fringe enthusiasts who do not have a large enough demographic to warrant such a programme. See my reasoning posted earlier on the subject.
 
NWO_Spook said:
In heated debates regarding current contentious issues, it is possible that they exist, but I don't know for sure. It's not as black & white as you wish to paint it, for I merely acknowledge the possibility of their existence, but for 9/11, no, as it is a dead issue except to a few fringe enthusiasts who do not have a large enough demographic to warrant such a programme. See my reasoning posted earlier on the subject.
Click to expand...

They're not exclusive to just contentious issues, man, some exist in the customer review world like Amazon for example.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Sorry, I won't be baited into such an exercise.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you've done this to me before - make a comment and then not want to discuss it to its foundation.

Pro-tip: don't make comments that you don't wish to discuss on an Internet message board.
 
Jango said:
No offense, but you've done this to me before - make a comment and then not want to discuss it to its foundation.

Pro-tip: don't make comments that you don't wish to discuss on an Internet message board.
Click to expand...

No offense, but don't ask such a question as my response could incur an infraction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom