Skeptisism vs Cynicism on 911

[SYLVESTER1592]

After looking at other threads in the conspiracy forum, I like to present two questions:
1) Has skepticism about the conspiracy theories reached the level of cynicism?
2) To what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true?

For reference of the definitions:
The dictionary:
Cynical (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0839900.html)
Cynic (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0839800.html)
Skeptical (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0446700.html)
Skeptic (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0446600.html)

Now, which one do you feel applies? I think after 6 years, everyone already made up his/her mind in many cases, based on previous experience, background knowledge, personal reasons and scientific review. Some of the conclusions are detailed and well founded some are based on a general perception and everything in between. I agree that it may be very frustrating to hear twoofers speak, but we give them a chance anyway. That is amendable but to what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true.

The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it. True skeptics are in some way, to some level, really fence sitters in my opinion, as opposed to a true cynic. The million dollar challenge is a good example of this. Up to this day no one has yet presented convincing evidence of the paranormal or homeopathy to be true… but if they could, it would certainly be worth a million dollars. I personally don’t believe they can, but I feel that doesn’t make me a cynic yet as long as I am able to doubt myself.

I often look back and find out that I have changed my mind, found a new perspective. I tend to regard a change of mind under the guide of a skeptic point of view amendable, rather than a sign of weakness. Similarly, gaining insight by losing a well argued point to a skeptic is really progress rather than a loss. I do not expect a conspiracy theorist to “admit defeat” neither would they expect it from me, but rather to remain honest about what he believes to be true and either change his mind in the face of evidence or at least consider the evidence before making up his mind. This also works the other way around.

This is just my opinion,

SYL :)

PS. I am looking for the opinion of the forum rather than another animated debate. I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts. Lists of links to websites and short provoking questions to the original poster do not fall under that category. Answer the two questions in your own words presenting your own opinion, any position is acceptable. Do not attack other members in the thread, but of course feel free to respond to the arguments. I have added my opinion to anticipate the expected questions.

Good luck

[Gravy]

PS. I am looking for the opinion of the forum rather than another animated debate. I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words)Damn! I could only think of 373 words.

that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts.Crap! I just directly referred to the OP.

Lists of links to websites and short provoking questions to the original poster do not fall under that category.Ouch! I lose. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Answer the two questions in your own words presenting your own opinion, any position is acceptable. The burden of proof remains on the conspiracists...

Good luck...and luck has nothing to do with it.

[SYLVESTER1592]

This is what I'm looking for:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2675389#post2675389

I think luck refers to the chance to succeed at presenting a well written post such as this.

So, Good Luck. Give it a shot, I'm sure you can do it if you try.

SYL :)

[Gravy]

This is what I'm looking for:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2675389#post2675389

I think luck refers to the chance to succeed at presenting a well written post such as this.

So Good LuckAs I said, luck has nothing to do with it.

Do you agree that the burden of proof of conspiracy theories is on the theorists and not on other people?

[SYLVESTER1592]

Do you think you can write a decent comprehensive essay on it? I'm sure I'll believe you. I still have done so in the past.

[ConspiRaider]

PS. I am looking for the opinion of the forum rather than another animated debate. I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts. Lists of links to websites and short provoking questions to the original poster do not fall under that category. Answer the two questions in your own words presenting your own opinion, any position is acceptable. Do not attack other members in the thread, but of course feel free to respond to the arguments. I have added my opinion to anticipate the expected questions.

I had penned a 652-word reply that would have brought the house down. But then you said a civil response and I don't have a lawyer. And I didn't want him and/or her to retain a third of the prize money on contingency.

There is money involved, yes? I like both money and winning, together.

[Quad4_72]

Im not quite sure what kind of opinion you are looking for here. Over 6 years, mounds of evidence has been gathered and put together to support the official story of 9/11. It has all been backed up by experts in all the relevant fields and widely accepted worldwide. The conspiracy theorists have presented deceits and lies over the past 6 years, pushing an agenda. Not one shred of evidence has been produced by the nutters. Every single one of their claims have been debunked countless times.

So has the skepticism become cynicism? Hardly. I am STILL waiting for just ONE fact from the CFs. Just one.

Am I a missionary for what I "perceive" to be true? Not in the least. I defend science and the facts. There is no fact in conspiracy theories, as we have seen over the past 6 years.

[Gravy]

Do you think you can write a decent comprehensive essay on it? I'm sure I'll believe you. I still have done so in the past.Second time: do you agree that the burden of proof of conspiracy theories is on the theorists and not on other people?

[SYLVESTER1592]

Sorry, just boasting rights... :D

[SYLVESTER1592]

I had penned a 652-word reply that would have brought the house down. But then you said a civil response and I don't have a lawyer. And I didn't want him and/or her to retain a third of the prize money on contingency.

There is money involved, yes? I like both money and winning, together.
Sorry just boasting right ... :D

(Forgot the qoute)

[Brainster]

1. Speaking only for myself, I'm skeptical about new claims, but becoming more cynical about claimants. I used to doubt it when somebody would post the "socks" graphic, but after seeing it turn out to be right so many times I'm inclined to believe it than not. I guess you could say that my skepticism has switched direction on that point; I used to be skeptical about claims that newbies were just socks, now I'm skeptical about claims that they're not.

The problem is that there's really very little left that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. I'd love to see something new that has at least some validity, but about all we've seen this year has been the "North of the Citgo" claim and the "WTC 7 BBC script" claim, neither of which increased my respect for the 9-11 Deniers, as the arguments were ridiculous on their face.

2. As I have given two high school lectures on the mistakes of 9-11 Denial, I could be perceived as a missionary for the official story. However, I also stress that the kids should always strive to be skeptics but not cynics, as it seems to me that the Deniers are the cynics. Remember, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas both asserted in the debate with Gravy and Pomeroo that there was nothing that could falsify their beliefs.

[ConspiRaider]

Sorry, just boasting rights... :D
Oh, okay.

Well now boasting I can do without a lawyer.

I can write better than anybody!

"BETTER THAN ANYBODY!"

See? Told ya I could write it...

[SYLVESTER1592]

Second time: do you agree that the burden of proof of conspiracy theories is on the theorists and not on other people?
I have posted my opinion in the OP. I think it's clear I have an opinion (how could I not), and the answer is yes. So please, everyone, put the paranoia back in the refrigarator. As I stated, I´m not looking for the highly animated debate, but for well written posts from both sides.

I hope that clarifies it...

SYL :)

[Gravy]

The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it.That may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. If a conspiracy theory isn't supported by evidence, and if it makes no logical sense, it doesn't get a "chance" and it is no one's job to "disprove."

Do you agree or not? Can you name a 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been dismissed by us without cause?

[beachnut]

True, the burden of proof does lie with the CT people who make up the false information on 9/11. This is not an opinion based voting scam.

[Quad4_72]

Can you name a 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been dismissed by us without cause?

Hmmm. I don't think that we have gave Magz a good enough chance with his theory that a jet fighter shot a missile at the incoming airliners, missed, and it then hit WTC7 causing the building to collapse. :p

[Gravy]

I have posted my opinion in the OP. I think it's clear I have an opinion (how could I not), and the answer is yes. So please, everyone, put the paranoia back in the refrigarator. As I stated, I´m not looking for the highly animated debate, but for well written posts from both sides.

I hope that clarifies it...

SYL :)No, that doesn't clarify it. In your OP you said that a conspiracy theory should be given a chance until it's disproven. Here you seem to be agreeing with me that it's the job of the conspiracists to prove their theories, not ours to disprove them. Can you clearly state which you believe?

[Alareth]

What? There was nothing in the copy of the JREF CT course syllabus that said I'd be required to write an essay.

False advertising I say.

[SYLVESTER1592]

That may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. If a conspiracy theory isn't supported by evidence, and if it makes no logical sense, it doesn't get a "chance" and it is no one's job to "disprove."

Do you agree or not? Can you name a 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been dismissed by us without cause?

Wow,
I see you have an opinion, well founded, very clear. Now write it down...
If there is some pledge of alegiance you want me to take, then I'll will state what I have stated elsewhere. I think there are no unexplained questions left.
I also believe many other people don't think so. Now it's clear you have a very well described position on this. All I would like is that you write it down comprehensively in a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own. Can you do that?

SYL :)

[TobiasTheViking]

Wow,
I see you have an opinion, well founded, very clear. Now write it down...
If there is some pledge of alegiance you want me to take, then I'll will state what I have stated elsewhere. I think there are no unexplained questions left.
I also believe many other people don't think so. Now it's clear you have a very well described position on this. All I would like is that you write it down comprehensively in a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own. Can you do that?

SYL :)

why don't you do it yourself? why should he spend time and effort to try and disprove your delusions when you won't even make the smallest effort to prove it yourself...

If you put some energy into your delusion, i'm sure gravy will put energy into showing you why it is wrong.. but.. you don't, so no one intends to put the effort in.


On another note.. could you please write a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own, proving to me that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn under my bed?

[SYLVESTER1592]

No, that doesn't clarify it. In your OP you said that a conspiracy theory should be given a chance until it's disproven. Here you seem to be agreeing with me that it's the job of the conspiracists to prove their theories, not ours to disprove them. Can you clearly state which you believe?
Did you know from day one that it was all bunk? Or did you check the facts and came to a conclusion. I suspect the latter...
Basically you looked and listened first, right?
You made your judgement later.
How is that different from what I and many others have done or profess?
I don't see what the confusion is about... Sorry

SYL :)

[Gravy]

Wow,
I see you have an opinion, well founded, very clear. Now write it down...
If there is some pledge of alegiance you want me to take, then I'll will state what I have stated elsewhere. I think there are no unexplained questions left.
I also believe many other people don't think so. Now it's clear you have a very well described position on this. All I would like is that you write it down comprehensively in a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own. Can you do that?

SYL :)I'm sorry you couldn't answer that simple question. I hadn't even assigned you a minimum word count.

[SYLVESTER1592]

why don't you do it yourself? why should he spend time and effort to try and disprove your delusions when you won't even make the smallest effort to prove it yourself...

If you put some energy into your delusion, i'm sure gravy will put energy into showing you why it is wrong.. but.. you don't, so no one intends to put the effort in.


On another note.. could you please write a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own, proving to me that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn under my bed?
I wrote my opinion in the OP 400 words, civil, standing on it's own.
Please do the same. I like to read it... seriously, no catch.

SYL :)

[ConspiRaider]

Wow,
I see you have an opinion, well founded, very clear. Now write it down...
If there is some pledge of alegiance you want me to take, then I'll will state what I have stated elsewhere. I think there are no unexplained questions left.
I also believe many other people don't think so. Now it's clear you have a very well described position on this. All I would like is that you write it down comprehensively in a post 400-1000 words long, civil and able to stand on its own. Can you do that?

SYL :)
(bolding mine)

I just did a word count in my TLA-nominated post called Hooftie The Buckling and it's 722. Critics and Albanian milkmen agree that no conspiracy theory can stand against it, regardless of discipline or issue.

I hate to be repetitious and I already achieved the height of heights with the aforementioned Hooftie. Hooftie even uttered "Oook" just before he crossed over, so that's covered too.

[Gravy]

I don't see what the confusion is about... Sorry

SYL :)The confusion is about the burden of proof. I say its on the conspiracists. You seem unwilling to make a commitment about that.

[TobiasTheViking]

I wrote my opinion in the OP 400 words, civil, standing on it's own.
Please do the same. I like to read it... seriously, no catch.

SYL :)

it doesn't stand on its own as it has nothing of value in it...


but if you want me to write 400-1000 words that don't actually say anything of substance.. why not...

[SYLVESTER1592]

Sorry this is going more rapidly then I can keep up with:

This is an answer to Gravy

I think the answer was clear from my OP.
Is it that unclear?
I belief the answer to what I believ is that there are no unexplained questions left. But does that mean the future is fixed? No.
I will look at everything at least once, then start to make up my mind

SYL :)

[TobiasTheViking]

you call that an answer???

No where in there do you state one way or the other if the burden of proof is on the 9/11 deniers...

i'm going to sleep.

[Gravy]

Fifth time: is the burden of proof for a conspiracy theory on the theorists or is it my job to disprove a theory?

[SYLVESTER1592]

The confusion is about the burden of proof. I say its on the conspiracists. You seem unwilling to make a commitment about that.

Still suspicious, I see. The burden of proof is on the conspiracists, does that make you want to write your essay.
I have an opinion too Gravy, not necessarily completely the same as yours. can you accept that? I'm a scientist and as such, I will look at a hypothesis. That does not mean I will agree with it. But I will look at it and give it a chance. If it fails, I reject it.

The next question whether I think they have something to look at, well I think I have answered that. The question is what is new.

Now how about writting your post.

SYL :)

[gumboot]

Putting it simply, I openly investigate any new 9/11 Conspiracy claim I come across. Thus far, all new claims have failed under the most cursory of examinations.

The vast majority of 9/11 Conspiracy Arguments I come across are not new at all. They are old; very old. I have already investigated them. I will not consider anew the possibility that a 757 did not hit The Pentagon for the 325th time. It was wrong the first time, and it's still wrong now.

The phenomenon you are describing is more, I believe, a reflection of the "repeat old claims ad nauseum" behavior of the truth movement, not a reflection of cynicism from skeptics.

-Gumboot

[ktesibios]

As I said, luck has nothing to do with it.

Do you agree that the burden of proof of conspiracy theories is on the theorists and not on other people?


The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it.

It looks to me like that ought to answer your question, Gravy. Unless my ability to read English has mysteriously disappeared, SYLVESTER1592 is saying that anyone who doesn't accept a conspiracy theory is obligated to disprove it- and beyond any doubt at that- or else to accord it equal status with all other candidate explanations for the event in question, irrespective of the weight of available evidence.

I wonder how s/he would set the standard for the common case of a CT buff throwing down a load of old, familiar, already-examined-and-found-wanting claims and demanding "prove me wrong"? I'm curious- the cost of feeding the invisible pink unicorn in my kitchen is getting tiresome... ;)

[Hyperviolet]

Sorry this is going more rapidly then I can keep up with:

This is an answer to Gravy

I think the answer was clear from my OP.
Is it that unclear?
I belief the answer to what I believ is that there are no unexplained questions left. But does that mean the future is fixed? No.
I will look at everything at least once, then start to make up my mind

SYL :)

I understand your point of view, and that your just trying to be objective and free of bias.

However, if i say "The Earth is really cube shaped" - there should be no expectation for you to take me seriously or even consider my deluded outlook unless i provide real evidence of this claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Also, if after my cube theory is debunked and then i say "Aliens live in the core of the earth" - should you be expected to take me seriously, especially after my last claim was wrong?

You have to draw a line somewhere. If real evidence is submitted: it will be tested truly and fairly. Until that, there is no reason for anyone here to write an essay on why Aliens dont live in the core of the earth.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Fifth time: is the burden of proof for a conspiracy theory on the theorists or is it my job to disprove a theory?
You have to give me some time to reply Gravy
It's just me answering everybody.
I think I have answered you in the previous post
I'm not trying to ignore you, I think that's clear.

SYL :)

[SYLVESTER1592]

Putting it simply, I openly investigate any new 9/11 Conspiracy claim I come across. Thus far, all new claims have failed under the most cursory of examinations.

The vast majority of 9/11 Conspiracy Arguments I come across are not new at all. They are old; very old. I have already investigated them. I will not consider anew the possibility that a 757 did not hit The Pentagon for the 325th time. It was wrong the first time, and it's still wrong now.

The phenomenon you are describing is more, I believe, a reflection of the "repeat old claims ad nauseum" behavior of the truth movement, not a reflection of cynicism from skeptics.

-Gumboot
OK, I'll accept that. Write the post. I have seen your work and know you can.
Come on Gumboot, help me out here.

SYL :)

[Gravy]

Still suspicious, I see. The burden of proof is on the conspiracists,THANK YOU. I'm not a dentist, you know. Perhaps you should amend your OP, since it seems to say the opposite.

does that make you want to write your essay.No, I stopped taking essay assignments with word counts in high school.

I have an opinion too Gravy, not necessarily completely the same as yours. can you accept that? Sure. I have no idea what opinion you're talking about, but you're welcome to it.

Now how about writting your post.All done, teach.

[Stellafane]

Here's my two cent's worth:

...1) Has skepticism about the conspiracy theories reached the level of cynicism?

I don't think so. However, you may have a stronger point if you're referring to skepticism about conspiracy theorists. When I see a new one posting here, I have to fight off the impulse to automatically think, "Here we go again." Not that it's an entirely unfounded impulse -- after all, just how many times have we seen CTers come here and do one of the following: (1) come out with both guns blasting, all conjecture and insults, or (2) start off with some "I'm a skeptic, I'm just asking questions" ruse, which quickly morphs into full frontal denier mode as soon as the poster is challenged. The one thing both approaches have in common is an utter disregard for actual dialogue; the goal apparently is for us to listen and agree, nothing else. See this enough times, and it's virtually inevitable to conclude all 9/11 CTers are like this, so the next new one gets painted with the same old brush. That's cynicism of a sort I suppose, but it may be arguably justified.

2) To what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true?

"Missionaries" is sort of a loaded word in a skeptic forum. I think we're missionaries when we're so invested in our views, we're no longer open to logical, verifiable information. I for one believe few if anyone here has reached that point. Show us some actual, solid evidence that the CTers are right, and I believe most here would seriously consider it. The thing is, the CTers don't have any -- real evidence that is. All they present is the same tired, old speculation, misinformation, misinterpretation, errors, and plain old lies that have been debunked 1000 times over. We have every right to continue to reject this stuff until something new and far more solid comes along, something that can stand up to scrutiny. Hasn't happened yet, not by a long shot.

...For reference of the definitions:
The dictionary:
Cynical (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0839900.html)
Cynic (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0839800.html)
Skeptical (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0446700.html)
Skeptic (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0446600.html)


Thanks, I think I get it.


...Now, which one do you feel applies? I think after 6 years, everyone already made up his/her mind in many cases, based on previous experience, background knowledge, personal reasons and scientific review. Some of the conclusions are detailed and well founded some are based on a general perception and everything in between. I agree that it may be very frustrating to hear twoofers speak, but we give them a chance anyway. That is amendable but to what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true.

I think I already answered this above.

...The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it.

This is where we seriously diverge. We are under zero obligation to give any idea a chance until it has been disproved beyond any doubt. In fact, the exact opposite is true. As skeptics -- indeed, as rational thinkers, however we may refer to ourselves -- it is our duty not to give any theory any consideration whatsoever until and unless there is a reason to believe it may be true. Simply because a theory hasn't been disproved "beyond any doubt" is absolutely no justification to give it even a second's worth of attention. There are literally an infinite number of ideas that haven't been disproven beyond any doubt. Theories that have actual facts to back them up, now that's a much rarer and more valuable commodity. As others have pointed out -- innumerable times -- the burden of proof rests with the theorist, not with the debunker. Failure to understand this simple but critical concept is probably the ultimate reason CT theories exist at all.

...True skeptics are in some way, to some level, really fence sitters in my opinion, as opposed to a true cynic.

I'm not sure I agree. There's nothing wrong in believing one thing is true and another untrue, if there's evidence to back that up. An open mind is not a sieve; thoughts and beliefs are allowed to stay in once in a while.

...I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts.

Well, I hope I've given you civil, anyway.

[gumboot]

OK, I'll accept that. Write the post. I have seen your work and know you can.
Come on Gumboot, help me out here.

SYL :)


I've written the post. You, in fact, quoted it in its entirety.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

OK, I'll accept that. Write the post. I have seen your work and know you can.
Come on Gumboot, help me out here.

SYL :)Yes, Gumboot, now that you've expressed your views, say the same thing with many more words. I know you can. Remember when we used to call you "Ol' boilerplate"?

[SYLVESTER1592]

Like I said no personal attacks, I´m not looking for the animated debate. If this is your point. Write it down in the post, follow the rules and convince us in your own words of the validity of the argument either for skeptisism or cynisism.
Thank you

SYL :)

(Sorry forgot the qoute again, going too fast. This one is for ktesibios)

[SYLVESTER1592]

I understand your point of view, and that your just trying to be objective and free of bias.

However, if i say "The Earth is really cube shaped" - there should be no expectation for you to take me seriously or even consider my deluded outlook unless i provide real evidence of this claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Also, if after my cube theory is debunked and then i say "Aliens live in the core of the earth" - should you be expected to take me seriously, especially after my last claim was wrong?

You have to draw a line somewhere. If real evidence is submitted: it will be tested truly and fairly. Until that, there is no reason for anyone here to write an essay on why Aliens dont live in the core of the earth.
Good point.
You are catching my drift. Write the post, please do...
Rules in the OP, Good luck

SYL :)

[SYLVESTER1592]

THANK YOU. I'm not a dentist, you know. Perhaps you should amend your OP, since it seems to say the opposite.

No, I stopped taking essay assignments with word counts in high school.

Sure. I have no idea what opinion you're talking about, but you're welcome to it.

All done, teach.
Too bad

[SYLVESTER1592]

Here's my two cent's worth:



I don't think so. However, you may have a stronger point if you're referring to skepticism about conspiracy theorists. When I see a new one posting here, I have to fight off the impulse to automatically think, "Here we go again." Not that it's an entirely unfounded impulse -- after all, just how many times have we seen CTers come here and do one of the following: (1) come out with both guns blasting, all conjecture and insults, or (2) start off with some "I'm a skeptic, I'm just asking questions" ruse, which quickly morphs into full frontal denier mode as soon as the poster is challenged. The one thing both approaches have in common is an utter disregard for actual dialogue; the goal apparently is for us to listen and agree, nothing else. See this enough times, and it's virtually inevitable to conclude all 9/11 CTers are like this, so the next new one gets painted with the same old brush. That's cynicism of a sort I suppose, but it may be arguably justified.



"Missionaries" is sort of a loaded word in a skeptic forum. I think we're missionaries when we're so invested in our views, we're no longer open to logical, verifiable information. I for one believe few if anyone here has reached that point. Show us some actual, solid evidence that the CTers are right, and I believe most here would seriously consider it. The thing is, the CTers don't have any -- real evidence that is. All they present is the same tired, old speculation, misinformation, misinterpretation, errors, and plain old lies that have been debunked 1000 times over. We have every right to continue to reject this stuff until something new and far more solid comes along, something that can stand up to scrutiny. Hasn't happened yet, not by a long shot.



Thanks, I think I get it.




I think I already answered this above.



This is where we seriously diverge. We are under zero obligation to give any idea a chance until it has been disproved beyond any doubt. In fact, the exact opposite is true. As skeptics -- indeed, as rational thinkers, however we may refer to ourselves -- it is our duty not to give any theory any consideration whatsoever until and unless there is a reason to believe it may be true. Simply because a theory hasn't been disproved "beyond any doubt" is absolutely no justification to give it even a second's worth of attention. There are literally an infinite number of ideas that haven't been disproven beyond any doubt. Theories that have actual facts to back them up, now that's a much rarer and more valuable commodity. As others have pointed out -- innumerable times -- the burden of proof rests with the theorist, not with the debunker. Failure to understand this simple but critical concept is probably the ultimate reason CT theories exist at all.



I'm not sure I agree. There's nothing wrong in believing one thing is true and another untrue, if there's evidence to back that up. An open mind is not a sieve; thoughts and beliefs are allowed to stay in once in a while.



Well, I hope I've given you civil, anyway.
Thank you, good effort.

I'm gone take a breather, I'm beat... (it's 4.30 in the morning over here)
I will check in later to read and if needed reply to all the rest.

SYL :)

[3bodyproblem]

I understand your point of view, and that your just trying to be objective and free of bias.

However, if i say "The Earth is really cube shaped" - there should be no expectation for you to take me seriously or even consider my deluded outlook unless i provide real evidence of this claim.

I also understand what you are saying, but do some 20-30% of people think it is a cube? Are there forums upon forums of people who constantly address this issue? To be fair, more than a few "twoofers" exist, some aren't crazy, and some have a genuine concern for about the things this government has done in the past. Getting a picture of the globe and explaining the world is round is a lot easier to do than explaining how 2 of the largest buildings on the planet were hit by a plane and fell in an hour. There is a wide variety of "Twoofer", from "no planers" to "WTC 7 was probably a CD". It would be much easier if they were all "no plane" 'ers. I can dismiss, or draw the line on a "no plane" 'er but it really isn't so easy to dispel a "WTC fell down, thats kinda weird" 'er.

[Hyperviolet]

I also understand what you are saying, but do some 20-30% of people think it is a cube? Are there forums upon forums of people who constantly address this issue? To be fair, more than a few "twoofers" exist, some aren't crazy, and some have a genuine concern for about the things this government has done in the past. Getting a picture of the globe and explaining the world is round is a lot easier to do than explaining how 2 of the largest buildings on the planet were hit by a plane and fell in an hour. There is a wide variety of "Twoofer", from "no planers" to "WTC 7 was probably a CD". It would be much easier if they were all "no plane" 'ers. I can dismiss, or draw the line on a "no plane" 'er but it really isn't so easy to dispel a "WTC fell down, thats kinda weird" 'er.

Yeah, im not referring exclusively to Sept 11th theories.

Im just touching on Syl assertion that he'll give anything a fair test with an open mind and skeptical viewpoint. This is an honest but not very practical method. Some things need to earn peoples sincerity.

[Gravy]

I also understand what you are saying, but do some 20-30% of people think it is a cube? Are there forums upon forums of people who constantly address this issue?Please avoid the argumentum ad numerum. Most Americans believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm) in Hell. That doesn't mean they've got evidence of it.

I can dismiss, or draw the line on a "no plane" 'er but it really isn't so easy to dispel a "WTC fell down, thats kinda weird" 'er.What's to dispel? The burden of proof is on them. If someone presents evidence that disproves the official version, then they've accomplished something. Otherwise they're just flapping their gums.

[3bodyproblem]

Yeah, im not referring exclusively to Sept 11th theories.

Im just touching on Syl assertion that he'll give anything a fair test with an open mind and skeptical viewpoint. This is an honest but not very practical method. Some things need to earn peoples sincerity.

Absolutely. I personally have a hard time just dismissing people who have genuine skepticism about certain events on 9/11 and government complicity. Then you combine that with books like John Perkins: "The Secret History of The American Empire" and all of a sudden things aren't so clear.

[3bodyproblem]

Please avoid the argumentum ad numerum. Most Americans believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm) in Hell. That doesn't mean they've got evidence of it.

Lol, sorry about the number, I have no idea what that number actually is. I just know it's higher than the number of people that think the earth is a cube, and lower than those that believe in hell.

What's to dispel? The burden of proof is on them. If someone presents evidence that disproves the official version, then they've accomplished something. Otherwise they're just flapping their gums.
Yah, but I was always the kid that got brought up to the front of the class to explain it to the rest. I just hate seeing people having trouble understanding something. I want to understand how they think and why they think the way they do. I'd like to help them in the process. Some aren't worth the bother, but some are. I'm not sure how to tell the difference until you give them a chance.

[negativ]

You make it sound like cynicism is bad. Obviously, I speak only for myself (for, who in their right mind would agree with me?), but one can only be "skeptical" of claims of flying microwave ovens for so long.

Let's be honest: The 9/11 conspiracy meme is the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Scientology. THAT is quite an accomplishment.

The microcephalic mouth-breathers who eagerly bend over and take every single word ever printed on websites like prisonplanet.com and the LC forums demonize everyone who dares to disagree with them by calling them sleeping sheeple or whatever the hip agitprop phrase is these days. They divide the world (more accurately, they divide a few hundred people who read certain internet forums) into Us vs. Them, where of COURSE everything BRAVE and NOBLE is Us, the free-thinking faithful slurpers of the Alex Jones nozzle and the Dylan Avery spigot. Heretics are excommunicated at best, or accused of being "disinfo" (i.e. "in league with the devil") at worst. So far, apostate ex-truthers aren't actually being murdered as far as I know, but that's probably only because the Faithful are too lazy. In this, they are exactly like every single religious cult ever to infest the earth.

Never for half a picosecond will the CTers ever stop to wonder just how it could be that a website like prisonplanet -- hosted on servers in the US, served by ISPs in the US, and paying taxes to the US Internal Revenue Service off its significant merchandise sales can continue to function without so much as a 30 minute-long DDOS attack, "convenient" DNS resolution problems, or even slow ping times, never mind IRS audits, trumped-up child porn raids, or mysterious accidental deaths attributed to auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong.

Right this very moment, BUSH'S OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A FAR MORE THOROUGH ANAL PROBE THAN ALEX JONES OR ANY OTHER SNOT-GURGLING "TRUTHER" EVER HAS.

I could drive you to a neighborhood in my city where ratting out a small-time coke dealer would land you in some serious hurt. You can find neighborhoods like this all over the US, I'm sure. Your dead ass could turn up in pieces in an industrial park, and the police would get bored investigating after a while, because it's "just another drug deal gone bad". After a while, you'd fade from the back pages and that would be that. Yet SOMEHOW CTers think that they can BLOW THE WHOLE THING WIDE OPEN OMG LOLZ, and not only do they not get poisoned by every waitress, they don't get driven to an out-of-the-way place by every cab driver, they don't get beaten within an inch of their lives on the way out of the convenience store and warned to keep their flap shut.

In China, people go to Hard Core, No-S[rule8] Prison for merely suggesting in blog posts that their government doesn't in fact poop tulips and fart talcum powder.

Yet it never crosses the little peanut minds of CTers that they're getting away with accusing what they apparently believe to be the single most evil and omnipotent power ever to grace the earth of savage crimes they only the CTers have noticed.

I speak for nobody but myself, but here is my humble curse upon you CT types:

MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF INSATIABLE RECTAL ITCH.

There is very little more fitting for the CT cultists than to end up as heaps and piles of dead, hemorrhaging Troofers in a black-shirted pile, each one with cheese graters, brillo pads, rusty iron shards, and discarded syringes jammed uselessly into their unquenchable itching aft port, their "INSIDE JOB LOLZ" banners smeared with bloody, finger-painted pleas to "make it stop" and "please kill me".

That's just me, of course. I'm a little cynical.

[beachnut]

Like I said no personal attacks, I´m not looking for the animated debate. If this is your point. Write it down in the post, follow the rules and convince us in your own words of the validity of the argument either for skeptisism or cynisism.
Thank you

SYL :)

(Sorry forgot the qoute again, going too fast. This one is for ktesibios)
It makes no sense. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing real to offer. That points to fraud and worse. I am not skeptical about it or cynical, they just have nothing to offer on 9/11. Just lies. What do you call that.

There is no question, they are all spewing false ideas. They are cynical people who make up stuff about others. They are the skeptics who do not believe airplanes can cut through steel even as it happened. The 9/11 truth movement sucks at research and critical thinking.

[AZCat]

It makes no sense. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing real to offer. That points to fraud and worse. I am not skeptical about it or cynical, they just have nothing to offer on 9/11. Just lies. What do you call that.

There is no question, they are all spewing false ideas. They are cynical people who make up stuff about others. They are the skeptics who do not believe airplanes can cut through steel even as it happened. The 9/11 truth movement sucks at research and critical thinking.


I beg to differ. The 9/11 truth movement has one thing of real value to offer: an apology (to who, we all know).

[beachnut]

I beg to differ. The 9/11 truth movement has one thing of real value to offer: an apology (to who, we all know).
Yes


Just replace skepticism/cynicism with disgust and we would have a real OP. They are disgusting cult members spewing false information.

[SYLVESTER1592]

I’ll respond to all the past comments I missed so far

Thank you 3bodyproblem and hyperviolet, I try to keep a skeptical viewpoint.

Good post by negative, fits the rules and eventhough they are not my views, well written and I understand why you feel as you do. Good job.

AZCat and especially Beachnut, glad to see ya…
I see what you mean beachnut, but I like to stick with my OP. I like to see opinions on this specific subject. Negativ showed how a post like this can be written. Your point of view sounds interesting as well. Is it different from the dichotomy of either skepticism or cynicism? How and why? I like to read more about that…sounds interesting. How did you come to that viewpoint? Something specific or more a general perception of 911 truthers?

I also like to see ktesibios’ views on this especially since I like to see all views.
Like I said I’m a skeptic not a cynic, …

I have reasons to prefer skepticism to cynicism, hyperviolet has caught on to the reasons for it. Cynicism does not work for me, not for me personally, not in my work, not in the way I think and not in the way I want to live. It ends all progress. But I understand the choice for it by others especially concerning 911, that makes it interesting. I look forward to see hyperviolet's views most, but anyone else expressing that view is also valuable to me.
3bodyproblem, I already know how you feel about this, but feel free to join in

I'll read and look forward to the posts

SYL :)

[hellaeon]

You make it sound like cynicism is bad. Obviously, I speak only for myself (for, who in their right mind would agree with me?), but one can only be "skeptical" of claims of flying microwave ovens for so long.

Let's be honest: The 9/11 conspiracy meme is the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Scientology. THAT is quite an accomplishment.

The microcephalic mouth-breathers who eagerly bend over and take every single word ever printed on websites like prisonplanet.com and the LC forums demonize everyone who dares to disagree with them by calling them sleeping sheeple or whatever the hip agitprop phrase is these days. They divide the world (more accurately, they divide a few hundred people who read certain internet forums) into Us vs. Them, where of COURSE everything BRAVE and NOBLE is Us, the free-thinking faithful slurpers of the Alex Jones nozzle and the Dylan Avery spigot. Heretics are excommunicated at best, or accused of being "disinfo" (i.e. "in league with the devil") at worst. So far, apostate ex-truthers aren't actually being murdered as far as I know, but that's probably only because the Faithful are too lazy. In this, they are exactly like every single religious cult ever to infest the earth.

Never for half a picosecond will the CTers ever stop to wonder just how it could be that a website like prisonplanet -- hosted on servers in the US, served by ISPs in the US, and paying taxes to the US Internal Revenue Service off its significant merchandise sales can continue to function without so much as a 30 minute-long DDOS attack, "convenient" DNS resolution problems, or even slow ping times, never mind IRS audits, trumped-up child porn raids, or mysterious accidental deaths attributed to auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong.

Right this very moment, BUSH'S OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A FAR MORE THOROUGH ANAL PROBE THAN ALEX JONES OR ANY OTHER SNOT-GURGLING "TRUTHER" EVER HAS.

I could drive you to a neighborhood in my city where ratting out a small-time coke dealer would land you in some serious hurt. You can find neighborhoods like this all over the US, I'm sure. Your dead ass could turn up in pieces in an industrial park, and the police would get bored investigating after a while, because it's "just another drug deal gone bad". After a while, you'd fade from the back pages and that would be that. Yet SOMEHOW CTers think that they can BLOW THE WHOLE THING WIDE OPEN OMG LOLZ, and not only do they not get poisoned by every waitress, they don't get driven to an out-of-the-way place by every cab driver, they don't get beaten within an inch of their lives on the way out of the convenience store and warned to keep their flap shut.

In China, people go to Hard Core, No-S[rule8] Prison for merely suggesting in blog posts that their government doesn't in fact poop tulips and fart talcum powder.

Yet it never crosses the little peanut minds of CTers that they're getting away with accusing what they apparently believe to be the single most evil and omnipotent power ever to grace the earth of savage crimes they only the CTers have noticed.

I speak for nobody but myself, but here is my humble curse upon you CT types:

MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF INSATIABLE RECTAL ITCH.

There is very little more fitting for the CT cultists than to end up as heaps and piles of dead, hemorrhaging Troofers in a black-shirted pile, each one with cheese graters, brillo pads, rusty iron shards, and discarded syringes jammed uselessly into their unquenchable itching aft port, their "INSIDE JOB LOLZ" banners smeared with bloody, finger-painted pleas to "make it stop" and "please kill me".

That's just me, of course. I'm a little cynical.


You know, this is the best summary of the complex density of stupid that the truth movement is.

You my friend, are a total LORD OF ALL FEVERS AND PLAGUES. Legend.

My two cents on the op?

Skeptical : If you believe in no plane theories, how do you account for the witnesses?

Cynical : If you believe in no plane theories, how do you account for the witnesses? You retards.

I find it hard not to be cynical when such outlandish accusations are presented. I dont see why it should approach skepticism when its not getting past simple logic issues. Some things require a better understanding of science. Some things like 'the plane flew through the smoke and away from the pentagon' are totally retarded and deserve scorn. They are not theories based in anything close to reality. They deserve cynicism and ridicule because it would only find a home next to 'the earth is flat' and other gems like 'I speak to dead people'.

Skeptical: If you follow the scientific method to the letter, removing bias and your own humility to accept the conclusions, determined or not, you will find many things about reality you never ever realised, one being that there is no 9/11 NWO conspiracy.

Cynical: If you think thousands of people were paid off to commit a huge crime, al queda dont exist and there were no planes, your a retard.

I dont need to be skeptical or nice to people who push these theories.

[Brainster]

I’ll respond to all the past comments I missed so far

Cough, cough!

[SYLVESTER1592]

1. Speaking only for myself, I'm skeptical about new claims, but becoming more cynical about claimants. I used to doubt it when somebody would post the "socks" graphic, but after seeing it turn out to be right so many times I'm inclined to believe it than not. I guess you could say that my skepticism has switched direction on that point; I used to be skeptical about claims that newbies were just socks, now I'm skeptical about claims that they're not.

The problem is that there's really very little left that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. I'd love to see something new that has at least some validity, but about all we've seen this year has been the "North of the Citgo" claim and the "WTC 7 BBC script" claim, neither of which increased my respect for the 9-11 Deniers, as the arguments were ridiculous on their face.

2. As I have given two high school lectures on the mistakes of 9-11 Denial, I could be perceived as a missionary for the official story. However, I also stress that the kids should always strive to be skeptics but not cynics, as it seems to me that the Deniers are the cynics. Remember, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas both asserted in the debate with Gravy and Pomeroo that there was nothing that could falsify their beliefs.
Cough, cough!
:D I'm sorry Brainster... missed that one while posting a comment to Gravy.
I have a feeling it works for most in the forum like that. You slowly shift from skepticism to cynicism. I suspect it applies to both sides, but still think it's wrong to give into that.

I might have missed a few more that were not directly aimed at me during all the hectic posts.

SYL :)

[jhunter1163]

My US$0.02 on this:

I don't feel that I personally am cynical at all; I don't have enough emotional investment in this place to be that way. I don't feel that I've contributed enough to the debate to have earned the right to be cynical. I come here to read the latest posts, be enlightened or entertained, or sometimes just stand in awe of the factual grasp that some of the major-league posters have on the events of 9/11 (since that's what a good 80% of the threads here are about anyway).

Certainly, though, some of us are cynical; maybe that was inborn, or we have been made that way by constant, irritating repetition to the same tired factoids and arguments. I've seen the pattern a hundred times. A new poster comes in, asks "what about (insert thoroughly debunked factoid here)?" Twenty people jump on the guy and beat him to death with facts, with a side order of ridicule.

I don't have a problem with the fact-beating. This is the big leagues of skepticism, and you'd better be ready to defend your arguments WITH FACTS. Sadly, though, the truthers can't defend their arguments, so they are treated rather more cynically than others would be.

This is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation forum. Its very purpose is to educate people regarding critical thinking. We're not missionaries for our beliefs. We don't HAVE "beliefs" as much as we have conclusions we've reached by logic, analysis of the facts, and research. We're missionaries for critical thinking.

Pretty much everything the truthers bring to the table has been critically examined and found wanting; I can understand a certain degree of cynicism when it gets brought back to the table for the hundredth time. Not from me, though; I'm just a member of the peanut gallery.

Didn't quite make 400 words, sorry.

[3bodyproblem]

Good post jhunter, well done.

[SYLVESTER1592]

My US$0.02 on this:...

I'm just a member of the peanut gallery.


I agree with 3bodyproblem, good post. Welcome, how do we join the club...? :D

SYL :)

[Cuddles]

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

[Stellafane]

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one? In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

Good question, but consider this: In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?

[SYLVESTER1592]

In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?
It gives the opportunity to present an argument with a background to get a better insight in the critical thought that went into it. It makes the poster think about their arguments and helps the reader to follow the train of thought not just posting one liners and referring to websites to present your opinion. Just stating something is wrong or ridiculous and running away without being able to present the critical thought that is the standard of this forum is not what I consider to be a good post, even if it’s true, even if I agree with it or even if I don’t. I want to hear your arguments in a comprehensive post.

It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…

Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL :)

[chipmunk stew]

<snip>

There is very little more fitting for the CT cultists than to end up as heaps and piles of dead, hemorrhaging Troofers in a black-shirted pile, each one with cheese graters, brillo pads, rusty iron shards, and discarded syringes jammed uselessly into their unquenchable itching aft port, their "INSIDE JOB LOLZ" banners smeared with bloody, finger-painted pleas to "make it stop" and "please kill me".

That's just me, of course. I'm a little cynical.
But how do you really feel?



Nominated for its...uh...colorful and vivid use of language.

[Cuddles]

It gives the opportunity to present an argument with a background to get a better insight in the critical thought that went into it. It makes the poster think about their arguments and helps the reader to follow the train of thought not just posting one liners and referring to websites to present your opinion. Just stating something is wrong or ridiculous and running away without being able to present the critical thought that is the standard of this forum is not what I consider to be a good post, even if it’s true, even if I agree with it or even if I don’t. I want to hear your arguments in a comprehensive post.

It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…

Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL :)

So basically what you're saying is that you don't care whether anything is actually true or supported by facts, as long as people waffle on for hours without actually saying anything it must be good. As I think I demonstrated quite well, posting 420 words does not mean a post is any more informative or useful than posting 21.

If you really expect people to concede to your demands for waffle instead of just posting what is actually relevant, or even just whatever the hell they feel like, then your stay on this forum is going to be rather short and depressing for you.

[chipmunk stew]

Skepticism and cynicism are not mutually exclusive, as a variety of posts in this thread have demonstrated.

Skepticism doesn't mean being agnostic about everything.

[SYLVESTER1592]

So basically what you're saying is that you don't care whether anything is actually true or supported by facts, as long as people waffle on for hours without actually saying anything it must be good. As I think I demonstrated quite well, posting 420 words does not mean a post is any more informative or useful than posting 21.

If you really expect people to concede to your demands for waffle instead of just posting what is actually relevant, or even just whatever the hell they feel like, then your stay on this forum is going to be rather short and depressing for you.

Show us the critical thought that went into your argument for skepticism or cynicism in the OP. It's an opportunity, not a demand. There is no obligation to post here. If you can clarify the critical thought that went into forming the argument you present and show it to the readers, you have lived up to the standard of this forum. It has nothing to do with waffle... I'm a bit disappointed that you think so.

If you feel you can present a critical thought, describe how it's constructed and why you believe it's right in a way that helps you think about these questions to help the reader understand your position, then mission accomplished.

If you feel you can't or don't want to, there are other threads to choose from. In other forum threads on different subjects, skepticism is the rule. Even Mr. Randi himself is a skeptic, if you ask me, and not a cynic. I like to think he is a better representation of what this forum is about.

Please, if you can write the post.
If you choose otherwise, so be it...

SYL :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Skepticism and cynicism are not mutually exclusive, as a variety of posts in this thread have demonstrated.

Skepticism doesn't mean being agnostic about everything.
Quite. And moreso, the point of modern skepticism is to not remain forever neutral:
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

[SYLVESTER1592]

Skepticism and cynicism are not mutually exclusive, as a variety of posts in this thread have demonstrated.

Skepticism doesn't mean being agnostic about everything.
I agree.
I have made aslightly different choice, but I think that for me it's more a wish to remain skeptical then being cynical. Cynicism has as much a place in science as religion in my opinion, so I try not to be a cynic. I admit it's not always easy...

SYL :)

[beachnut]

I have noticed a lack of orthodoxy and following rules here when it comes to debunking people and sheep in the 9/11 truth movement. No rules are followed, there is a respect for authority that is lacking. Many have not come up to the 400-1000 rule of this thread's opening post. If you can not follow rules the members of the cult on 9/11 truth will see we are not really shills and agents for the official 9/11 story, but people who use critical thinking and logic to understand 9/11. I repeat, if certain people do not start being more regimented on this debunking of those who have joined the cult known as 9/11 truth, the member of that cult will discover we are not shills and sheep for the man, or woman. The leaders, experts and cult members of 9/11 truth may see though our facade of ridicule! They have limited capacity to discover our ridicule is based on facts and evidence. This is due to the fact reading and research, and more importantly comprehension are not required to be a member of 9/11 truth.

Members of 9/11 truth movement see their attackers as skeptical people who have no minds and just repeat the official story. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the use of facts and evidence to support the debunking of their misinformation. They must think we are cynical of their ideas and unable to accept the "truth" since we are mere sheep in the machine of the official story NOW system of closed minds and people unable to think outside the box. The 9/11 truth cultist are unable to see they are wrong. They think those who take their misinformation and refute it are cynical shills working for the official story. They fail to see the turth movement as the propaganda machine for lies about 9/11. They actually have become the closed minded locked in the box cultist they label the rest of the world as. They are lockstep marching to the chant rant "9/11, inside job" as they use the dead of 9/11 as hostages to for their chant, "we do this in memory of those who died". Lost in a cult, no way out, they see the disgust from outside as skepticism and cynicism, they fail to see how they have fallen for the lies of a fraudulent cult called 9/11 truth.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Quite. And moreso, the point of modern skepticism is to not remain forever neutral:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
Thanks for the link Arkanshade.

I think that's right. It refers back to the OP. The number of chances we give to a claim. I'll look at anything once...

Oh BTW welcome

SYL :)

[gumboot]

I fully and completely stated my opinion on the matter without requiring anywhere near 400 words.

I have been known to post rather long posts in these subforums at times, but these are generally a result of very thorough investigation, complete with appropriate evidence.

You asked for opinion, not an investigation. I see no need to express my opinion in any more words than the minimum required.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

I fully and completely stated my opinion on the matter without requiring anywhere near 400 words.

I have been known to post rather long posts in these subforums at times, but these are generally a result of very thorough investigation, complete with appropriate evidence.

You asked for opinion, not an investigation. I see no need to express my opinion in any more words than the minimum required.

-Gumboot
Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule.

[chipmunk stew]

Show us the critical thought that went into your argument for skepticism or cynicism in the OP. It's an opportunity, not a demand. There is no obligation to post here. If you can clarify the critical thought that went into forming the argument you present and show it to the readers, you have lived up to the standard of this forum. It has nothing to do with waffle... I'm a bit disappointed that you think so.

If you feel you can present a critical thought, describe how it's constructed and why you believe it's right in a way that helps you think about these questions to help the reader understand your position, then mission accomplished.

If you feel you can't or don't want to, there are other threads to choose from. In other forum threads on different subjects, skepticism is the rule. Even Mr. Randi himself is a skeptic, if you ask me, and not a cynic. I like to think he is a better representation of what this forum is about.

Please, if you can write the post.
If you choose otherwise, so be it...

SYL :)
While people often post fantastic posts that could be entered in an essay contest or submitted as an assignment, these posts are the exception and are almost always the result of inspiration, not artificial constraints.

This forum, like most internet forums, is primarily a discussion forum. Clarification of one's position and the path they took to get there is acheived very efficiently through the sharing of ideas--far more efficiently than through sitting in front of a blank screen and trying to capture it all at once in 400-1000 words.

You probably have an essay assignment you need to complete and are looking for someone to do your work for you. :D

[SYLVESTER1592]

Thanks beachnut...
A bit hard to read, but I expected that your opinion would be more complex to comprehend immediately. I have to read it a few more times, but think I get the idea.

Thank you

I'll read the rest later...

SYL :)

[3bodyproblem]

Belligerent Skepticism is certainly not constructive. It seems to be a by product of the overindulged imagination of the Conspiracy Theorist here in this forum.

[ConspiRaider]

I have noticed a lack of orthodoxy and following rules here when it comes to debunking people and sheep in the 9/11 truth movement. No rules are followed, there is a respect for authority that is lacking. Many have not come up to the 400-1000 rule of this thread's opening post. If you can not follow rules the members of the cult on 9/11 truth will see we are not really shills and agents for the official 9/11 story, but people who use critical thinking and logic to understand 9/11.
By golly you're right. And I'm ashamed of myself for squandering words, appalled at my breezy brevity my own damned self. What will people say about my...

DR. FRANKENSTEIN (pronounced Fronken-STEEN)
Reputation, reputation!

INGA
You've got to stop s(th)inking about it, Herr Doktor. Vhy look! You haven't even touched your food!

DR. FRANKENSTEIN
(palms plate repeatedly)
There! I've touched it! Happy?!?

[SYLVESTER1592]

While people often post fantastic posts that could be entered in an essay contest or submitted as an assignment, these posts are the exception and are almost always the result of inspiration, not artificial constraints.

This forum, like most internet forums, is primarily a discussion forum. Clarification of one's position and the path they took to get there is acheived very efficiently through the sharing of ideas--far more efficiently than through sitting in front of a blank screen and trying to capture it all at once in 400-1000 words.

You probably have an essay assignment you need to complete and are looking for someone to do your work for you. :D
:D

No I past my essay assignments long ago... It's called a PhD thesis and 10 hypercritical old guys question you on it.... :D

Look at it as an opportunity and a tool, nothing else...
You can post when you like, if you have a clear opinion and think about it, most can produce a good post.

I like to read it. No catch, no agenda. Just curious. I posted my idea's and have been very open and straight forward about it, putting myself in harm's way. I just like to see a good effort...

SYL :)

[negativ]

By golly you're right. And I'm ashamed of myself for squandering words, appalled at my breezy brevity my own damned self. What will people say about my...

DR. FRANKENSTEIN (pronounced Fronken-STEEN)
Reputation, reputation!

ELSA
You've got to stop s(th)inking about it, Herr Doktor. Vhy look! You haven't even touched your food!

DR. FRANKENSTEIN
(palms plate repeatedly)
There! I've touched it! Happy?!?


...
...

Blücher!!

[R.Mackey]

You make it sound like cynicism is bad. Obviously, I speak only for myself (for, who in their right mind would agree with me?), but one can only be "skeptical" of claims of flying microwave ovens for so long.

[...]

I speak for nobody but myself, but here is my humble curse upon you CT types:

MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF INSATIABLE RECTAL ITCH.

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel. :D

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2430316#post2430316), this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful. :D

[beachnut]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel. :D

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful. :D
472, but if you count the symbols which are worth 1000 words, that puts you over by 472. :D:D or 1472, if you count :D:D. Both.
Outstanding, and if written in one short coffee brake, even more qualified for excellence. Time and space.

[SYLVESTER1592]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel. :D

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2430316#post2430316), this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful. :D
Thank you Mackey. Great post, well argumented.
Nominated!

SYL :)

PS. A link to the Carl Sagan story is found here (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/st-drag.html) (for those who haven't read the book)

[Gravy]

It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…

Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL :)It's twoofer Tuesday. Less talk, more rock, please. :)

[SYLVESTER1592]

:D Wrong thread Gravy.
But if you feel you can outdo Mackey... Go for it

SYL :)

[ConspiRaider]

It's twoofer Tuesday. Less talk, more rock, please.
Eleven-fifty in the A.M. here at KJRF and time to turn over if you're getting some of that good old Southland sunshine down there in Huntington or Bolsa Chica or close by in Redondo or maybe up in Malibu. Use that sunblock! We're setting a record for the driest Los Angeles in history so don't soak up too much of the hot stuff, folks.

Hey the Blue Crew is in Chavez tonight looking to make it two in a row against the Mets. It'll be Hong-Chih Kuo going up against John Maine, should be a good one. And don't forget to pick up a nerf Dodger Blue Twoofer Bat by the concession stands next to Gate A, D and G when you show up at the ball park.

Here's Two fer Tuesday on KJRF, your station for music, news, traffic, sports and skepticism on 102.8 FM. Joan Baez and "The Night They Drove Old Dylan Down", and then Abba's "Super Twoofer"...

[beachnut]

...Oh, it's in your eyes...

That was "in your eyes", Peter Gabriel,

Moby is next with "run on", advice for truthers that are skeptical and cynical, or even cynical and skeptical, or even disbelieving and distrustful, or unconvinced and contemptuous just -

Run On

Lord God Almighty let me tell the news
my head got wet in midnight dew
great God i been down on my bended knees
talking to a man from galilee
michael spoke and he sound so sweet
i thought i heard the shuffle of angels' feet
He put one hand upon my head
great God Almighty let me tell you what He said


go tell that [B]lonesome liar
go tell that midnight rider [???]
tell the gamblin', ramblin' backslider
tell them God Almighty gonna cut 'em down

[chorus:]
you might run on for a long time
run on, ducking and dodging
run on, children [?], for a long time
let me tell you God Almighty gonna cut you down
you might throw your rock [?], hide your head
work in the dark with your fellow men
sure as God made you rich and poor
you're gonna reap just what you sow

[chorus] x3
some people go to church just to signify
trying to make a date with a neighbor's wife
brother let me tell you just as sure as you're born
you better leave that woman alone

[bridge]
[chorus] x8

next... (only 249 words, but if you do all the chorus, we be over.)

[SYLVESTER1592]

This thread is about skepticism or cynicism (take another look at the OP). :D
I don't really know the song, so maybe I didn't get it completely.

Will check later

SYL :)

[3bodyproblem]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel. :D

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=#post), this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful. :D

Good Post. I nominated this post (I don't know where it went when I did?) In any event, I think the subjective nature of the Gravy line needs to be explored, and perhaps the name of the line as well.

[beachnut]

Good Post. I nominated this post (I don't know where it went when I did?) In any event, I think the subjective nature of the Gravy line needs to be explored, and perhaps the name of the line as well.
You mean here? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2685038#post2685038 at post 145 ! hi

[T.A.M.]

"The Dragon In My Garage" is my favorite part of that book...which is an excellent text, and a "must read" in my books.

As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, perhaps a return near the aniversary...I still haven't decided, but as of late I am more angry with the truthers, less sad for them, and this is not me.

TAM (potential cynic)

[SYLVESTER1592]

You mean here? [link was left out as it may be percieved as a violation of forum rules] at post 145 ! hi
Beachnut you can change your link to the right post. I recommend you do...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2684986#post2684986

Thank you

[SYLVESTER1592]

...As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, ...


There are a lot of us leaning towards cynicism lately. Sad to loose a skeptic.
I think you'll be missed, so I hope you don't...

SYL :)

[3bodyproblem]

First times a charm. Thanks Beachnut

[SYLVESTER1592]

I have now stuck in this thread for 24 hours straight.
I think all questions about the OP have been answered sufficiently to understand the purpose. I have presented my opinion and supporting explanations to all of those who requested it.

I have seen many good posts and 2 of the 90 posts got nominated within 24 hours of the start of the thread. So much for anyone thinking that no one would put time or effort in writing a comprehensive post according to the OP. I guess not everyone is cut out for this, but I since I'm not a cynic... I don't underestimate the members of this forum. I have seen many other good posts as well. Thanks for all the supporting comments and for all the good contributions to this thread, ... :wackyjiggy:

Keep it up. :wackyradar:
I will check back into this thread from time to time to read the thread and comment if needed.

Please remember the OP ... ( that means keep it in mind, stick to it, not Rest in Peace :wackyskeptical: )

:wackynotworthy: I think Mackey won thus far, but anyone who can write a better post is more then welcome. I would really like to read it

Thanks so far and good luck,

SYL :wackysmile:

[hellaeon]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel. :D

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2430316#post2430316), this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful. :D

For Sly1592, this is exactly what I was trying to say but in a much better control of language!

[hellaeon]

"The Dragon In My Garage" is my favorite part of that book...which is an excellent text, and a "must read" in my books.

As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, perhaps a return near the aniversary...I still haven't decided, but as of late I am more angry with the truthers, less sad for them, and this is not me.

TAM (potential cynic)

I think this is just a reflection on the recent posters and arguements put forth TAM, as R.Mackey wrote, some arguements dont deserve a skeptical analysis because they start off absurd.

TS1234 - no planes - absurd.
Lyte Trip - plane flew over pentagon - absurd.
and to a lesser posting extent - MaGZ - missles that no one saw - abusrb.

The first two are heavy posters of the forum and so its not that your critical, its just that the arguements and theories put forth are completely stupid and they are sprouted regularly by these two morons.

My two cents.

[deep]

Despite claims to the contrary, I very rarely see the regulars of this forum evaluate 9/11 evidence objectively.. and believe it or not, I don't fault them for it, because I can somewhat relate to their perspective.

I personally don't believe in anything considered paranormal, so whenever I come across someone who claims to have 'proof' that a ghost is haunting their barn (or whatever), I evaluate the situation similarly to how the people here evaluate evidence related to 9/11. If they have photographic evidence that has been checked out by a professional, I question the credentials of the professional. If someone suggests a one-in-a-million occurrence that would explain what the person saw, I assume that's what happened and (personally) dismiss the original claim. Since I know deep down that true paranormal events are impossible, I'm really only seeking a possible explanation.

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation. Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT, yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical.. :)

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?

[Gravy]

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation.How do you know that? Can you give an example?

Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT,You should avoid making such extreme exaggerations.

yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).Perhaps you can give an example of such a supporting statement that does not make sense.

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical.. :)It strikes me that the "debunkers" here believe what is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Do you disagree? Can you give an example of a conspiracy theory that was dismissed here without examination or cause?

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?I can't think of a major conspiracy theory, or a major portion of one, that's been validated by the introduction of new evidence here, nor do I assume that such a thing should have happened.

[deep]

How do you know that? Can you give an example?


Sure, ironically, there's one in the first section of your Loose Change critique. I can't find the link right now, but I just read it less than 48 hours ago. You were referring to the pilot who claimed it would be very hard for a novice pilot to navigate a 757 like the official story claims, and said, "but so-and-so is a conspiracy theorist ....", and dismissed what he said.

It strikes me that the "debunkers" here believe what is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Do you disagree? Can you give an example of a conspiracy theory that was dismissed here without examination or cause?


No, you certainly do examine them, but you don't use the same standards to evaluate evidence that doesn't support your argument when compared to evidence that does. There are examples of this everywhere, including throughout your Loose Change critique. You don't reference sources to the same degree you demand that they do, etc.

Look, like I said, I'm really not interested in arguing this. I made a contribution to this essay thread, and it is what it is. Feel free to disagree with it.. which I know you will, because that was really my whole point -- you can't see your own cognitive bias.

I can't think of a major conspiracy theory, or a major portion of one, that's been validated by the introduction of new evidence here, nor do I assume that such a thing should have happened.


Thanks.

[Gravy]

Sure, ironically, there's one in the first section of your Loose Change critique. I can't find the link right now, but I just read it less than 48 hours ago. You were referring to the pilot who claimed it would be very hard for a novice pilot to navigate a 757 like the official story claims, and said, "but so-and-so is a conspiracy theorist ....", and dismissed what he said.Nope. Here's what I said:

Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash. He also believes that the other 3 flights were not piloted by Arabs, because they wouldn't have the skills. I believe that Russ Wittenburg wouldn't have the skills to be an investigator.I backed up my statements with a mountain of evidence in the following 30 pages of that paper. Wittenburg has backed his no-plane claim with no evidence.

No, you certainly do examine them, but you don't use the same standards to evaluate evidence that doesn't support your argument when compared to evidence that does. There are examples of this everywhere, including throughout your Loose Change critique. You don't reference sources to the same degree you demand that they do, etc.As I said, an example would be helpful. I'm trying to learn.

Look, like I said, I'm really not interested in arguing this. I made a contribution to this essay thread, and it is what it is. Feel free to disagree with it.. which I know you will, because that was really my whole point -- you can't see your own cognitive bias.I appreciate that you're responding to the OP, but if you want to be taken seriously you'll be able to do more than express an opinion. I did what skeptics are supposed to do: asked you to support your positive claims with evidence.

[orphia nay]

You make it sound like cynicism is bad. Obviously, I speak only for myself (for, who in their right mind would agree with me?), but one can only be "skeptical" of claims of flying microwave ovens for so long.

Let's be honest: The 9/11 conspiracy meme is the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Scientology. THAT is quite an accomplishment.

The microcephalic mouth-breathers who eagerly bend over and take every single word ever printed on websites like prisonplanet.com and the LC forums demonize everyone who dares to disagree with them by calling them sleeping sheeple or whatever the hip agitprop phrase is these days. They divide the world (more accurately, they divide a few hundred people who read certain internet forums) into Us vs. Them, where of COURSE everything BRAVE and NOBLE is Us, the free-thinking faithful slurpers of the Alex Jones nozzle and the Dylan Avery spigot. Heretics are excommunicated at best, or accused of being "disinfo" (i.e. "in league with the devil") at worst. So far, apostate ex-truthers aren't actually being murdered as far as I know, but that's probably only because the Faithful are too lazy. In this, they are exactly like every single religious cult ever to infest the earth.

Never for half a picosecond will the CTers ever stop to wonder just how it could be that a website like prisonplanet -- hosted on servers in the US, served by ISPs in the US, and paying taxes to the US Internal Revenue Service off its significant merchandise sales can continue to function without so much as a 30 minute-long DDOS attack, "convenient" DNS resolution problems, or even slow ping times, never mind IRS audits, trumped-up child porn raids, or mysterious accidental deaths attributed to auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong.

Right this very moment, BUSH'S OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A FAR MORE THOROUGH ANAL PROBE THAN ALEX JONES OR ANY OTHER SNOT-GURGLING "TRUTHER" EVER HAS.

I could drive you to a neighborhood in my city where ratting out a small-time coke dealer would land you in some serious hurt. You can find neighborhoods like this all over the US, I'm sure. Your dead ass could turn up in pieces in an industrial park, and the police would get bored investigating after a while, because it's "just another drug deal gone bad". After a while, you'd fade from the back pages and that would be that. Yet SOMEHOW CTers think that they can BLOW THE WHOLE THING WIDE OPEN OMG LOLZ, and not only do they not get poisoned by every waitress, they don't get driven to an out-of-the-way place by every cab driver, they don't get beaten within an inch of their lives on the way out of the convenience store and warned to keep their flap shut.

In China, people go to Hard Core, No-S[rule8] Prison for merely suggesting in blog posts that their government doesn't in fact poop tulips and fart talcum powder.

Yet it never crosses the little peanut minds of CTers that they're getting away with accusing what they apparently believe to be the single most evil and omnipotent power ever to grace the earth of savage crimes they only the CTers have noticed.

I speak for nobody but myself, but here is my humble curse upon you CT types:

MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF INSATIABLE RECTAL ITCH.

There is very little more fitting for the CT cultists than to end up as heaps and piles of dead, hemorrhaging Troofers in a black-shirted pile, each one with cheese graters, brillo pads, rusty iron shards, and discarded syringes jammed uselessly into their unquenchable itching aft port, their "INSIDE JOB LOLZ" banners smeared with bloody, finger-painted pleas to "make it stop" and "please kill me".

That's just me, of course. I'm a little cynical.

Just read this, and nominated it for The Language Award straight away.

[orphia nay]

There are a lot of us leaning towards cynicism lately. Sad to loose a skeptic.
I think you'll be missed, so I hope you don't...

SYL :)


I don't think becoming cynical towards a certain field of investigation means no longer being a skeptic. There are plenty of things going on in the world to be skeptical towards besides something that happened nearly 6 years ago.

I really am now cynical of 9/11 conspiracy theories, because I have analysed them, researched them, and seen them debunked countless times.

Any new 9/11 conspiracy theories/theorists seem to reference the general claims of the Truth Movement, but put an individual spin that can be debunked using critical thinking, skepticism and a little research.

The general claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been thoroughly debunked. These are:

Osama Bin Laden had nothing do with 9/11;
Controlled Demolition at the WTC using Explosives;
Controlled Demoliton at the WTC using Thermite;
Controlled Demolition at the WTC using Energy Weapons;
No Plane at the Pentagon;
Missile at Shanksville.

Any new theories are based on at least some of the above refuted claims, and while analysing a new spin on those theories requires skepicism, deep cynicism is warranted because the main claims have already been debunked.

The Truth Movement is a flimsy, haphazard castle built on quicksand, and new claims never build a new foundation to stand on.

I remain a skeptic towards any claim, such as the Paranormal, but I am highly cynical towards 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I know that doesn't meet the 400 word limit, but in my opinion, brevity is a virtue, and you did ask for our opinions.

[beachnut]

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation. Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT, yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical.. :)

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?
OMG, your first post was pure fiction at JREF. You failed to find facts people have used to show truthers are nuts or not correct? That could be the sign of shallow research.

I can give you some facts on the nav stuff. But not one pilot in the truth movement has a clue about 9/11, and most make up stuff, false information for the clueless cult members of 9/11 truth to believe. If you have not read 3 or 4 months of posts, you are lost, and I can see how someone could miss the debunking with facts, but you seem to ignore facts.

I doubt the truth movement will ever find some new evidence to change anything. The truth movement is similar to negative education, dark ages type return to flat earth ideas. Being a truther is like never thinking out of the box, and having not a closed mind, but a mind without logical, or rational thought. I guess I am cynical about all tuthers. Darn the OP. Short on words but very cynical that you will never admit the 9/11 truth movement has no facts.

Do you have any to prove the Navigation "expert" pilots statement?

[deep]

Nope. Here's what I said:
I backed up my statements with a mountain of evidence in the following 30 pages of that paper. Wittenburg has backed his no-plane claim with no evidence.


His beliefs have nothing to do with his opinion as a pilot with regard to the possibility/impossibility of that maneuver. You've presented no evidence to refute his claim as a professional pilot, instead stating his other beliefs, then stating that you don't agree with them, and dismissing the original statement.

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

[3bodyproblem]

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

You will undoubtedly be directed to Dr. Geenings new paper and "concrete comminution" for some clarification on this. It would appear that what you stated is the exact opposite, someone has posted how natural collapse is the only way in which the WTC buildings could basically turn to dust.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.
Please start a new thread and show that this occurred.

[deep]

You will undoubtedly be directed to Dr. Geenings new paper and "concrete comminution" for some clarification on this. It would appear that what you stated is the exact opposite, someone has posted how natural collapse is the only way in which the WTC buildings could basically turn to dust.


..and I would just counter with the response to his paper showing how his own calculations do not support the official story. I'll save us all some time by not creating another thread, because at the end of the day, we're both just going to believe who, and what, we want to believe.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Thank you Orphia Nay and deep44

(Notice: For off topic fights: take them elsewhere)

For the reasons of the constraints of the OP, look at my discussions with cuddles and chipmunk stew in this thread. I think the results are encouraging, so I like to stick with it.

SYL :)

[deep]

I can give you some facts on the nav stuff. But not one pilot in the truth movement has a clue about 9/11, and most make up stuff, false information for the clueless cult members of 9/11 truth to believe. If you have not read 3 or 4 months of posts, you are lost, and I can see how someone could miss the debunking with facts, but you seem to ignore facts.


Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

Have a look at the thread started by R. Mackey on the "Gravy line" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84621)
I think you can continue this discussion there...

I like to maintain the character of this thread. I think it is fair and open to any viewpoint and I like to keep it that way,...

SYL :)

[beachnut]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.
How cynical of you.

If you believe in 9/11 truth movement ideas and conclusion on 9/11, you have no specifics or facts to support them. You are arguing a point you have lost. The "expert" pilot was not an expert, he gave a false statements about the terrorist not being able to do the simple navigation of 9/11 (just dial in 4 numbers and point the plane; a monkey can do it). I am telling you a kid who has never flown could fly and navigate to the WTC towers and the Pentagon. Where is the tough stuff? Therefore the "expert" pilot moves into the liar column of 9/11 truthers. A crowed place in truther land.

I do not need an official story to understand 9/11, why do you even bring it up? You keep bring that up. I am sorry, but you may need to bring up some official story, but I can see liars without it. Why are most people in 9/11 truth unable to research and check things out?

No I do not care what the official story is, it has to be verified too. But why is the official story verifiable, and the 9/11 truth stuff not? Facts? If the official story has 19 terrorist killing 8 pilots to steel 4 airplanes to crash into target and they only hit 75 percent. Then the 75 percent terrorist were better at being terrorist that the zero percent 9/11 truth movement is at being skilled logical thinkers. Zero for 9/11 truth, 75 for terrorist.

You opinion is noted, but you seem biased toward the zero fact truth movement. And you opinion is not based on fact. The expert pilot you speak of makes up stuff and all his statements are support for 9/11 truth. Maybe you are fooled by these so called experts. But the pilot must be biased like you appear to be, and unable to make rational statements about 9/11. I am a ATP rated pilot with 34 years of experience, your "expert" pilot did not do well on the topic of 9/11; he failed. You picked the wrong side, you should be more skeptical if not cynical of the those who make up false information know as 9/11 truth.

If you need some help with flying stuff, I am it. What evidence are you skeptical about, or even cynical? This is the skeptoid, cynoid thread!? I can help you remove that pesky pilot stink from the 9/11 truth BS if you need help.

Please test my skeptical/cynical abilities to expose any truth pilot you have! ? Do not pick Russ, he is too easy to expose.

beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.I am very skeptical about this. This is a lie. The WTC did not turn to dust. The collapse was gravity driven after a cripling impact and fires destory the WTC. I need zero inputs from anyone on that. I can check other peoples work and have experience doing so. I also know the dust on 9/11 from the WTC was mostly wallboard. I now must be skeptical about your ability to understand anything 9/11. The above statement about dust is wrong. See? http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12100/12190/image187.gifpiles of dust? Why is the truth movement full of false information?

[Minadin]

... at the end of the day, we're both just going to believe who, and what, we want to believe.

If I just believed what I wanted to believe, there would be no reason at all for people to pay me to design their buildings, as I'm no longer any more expert than your average layman. I would lose my credibility as an architect. Things would fall down and people would die.

In Gravy's paper above, since the gentleman in question is using his status as a pilot to establish his credibility in the matter, it's perfectly reasonable to examine how credible he has been on various topics - most pertinent if they are related, of course. However, because the guy is making fallacious claims based solely on an appeal to his own authority - not providing any verifiable evidence whatsoever - we become suspicious. I would not do that in my line of work. I can't imagine any expert who would - and very few who could get away with it even if they wanted to. The people paying for your expertise don't usually buy the "Because I said so" line that parents often give their children as explaination. You still have to support your conclusions.

I suppose that's the sort of thing that usually makes cynics out of skeptics - even if it's only on one particular issue. Any time anyone makes an unfounded statement that is outside the norm and refuses / neglects to back it up with any sort of evidence, it deserves some cynicism. Contrastingly, I think that you'll find that on the rare occasion that a newer forum member brings up some odd theory that they think might be true, and provides the reasoning / evidence behind their belief, they receive a much more measured reaction from the skeptic crowd here.

Skeptics love to look at evidence. If you give them some, they'll go tearing into it so that they can judge the proposed position for themselves. They might decide that it's incorrect, they might tell you that it's wrong or illogical. But they'll at least tell you why they think so, that's what they delight in. Conspiracists who come here and throw out a number of wild claims without backing it up, who don't provide evidence, who repeat (usually several) long-debunked claims; they get chewed up, rather than their posts disseminated, because there's no real substance for the skeptical person to delve into.

[Gravy]

His beliefs have nothing to do with his opinion as a pilot with regard to the possibility/impossibility of that maneuver.False. His crackpot belief that it was a missile, not a plane, that people saw has everything to do with what he says about its maneuvers.

[Minadin]

Dang, only 390 words. Unless this post counts, I'm under.

[hellaeon]

Your statements illustrate my point almost perfectly. You wonder why there is "zero evidence" supporting alternate explanations of what happened on 9/11? Because the moment any expert comes forward with anything that doesn't support the official story, they cease to be an expert in your eyes, and you dismiss whatever they've said. Using that approach, of course there isn't any evidence. In fact, using your logic, I could say "there's zero evidence to support the official story".

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't waste my time arguing the specifics about 9/11 with anybody here.

Remember just because they are an expert dont mean they are correct or there calculations are correct. There are posters like R Mackey who have shown where the 9/11 scholars and experts are wrong.

This is the scientific method at work, each scientist working to further advance a conclusion to its most accurate.

Bear in mind a lot of 'experts' in the truth movement are out of there depth (Theologans, dental techs) and trying to use their authority in those areas in areas out of there depth as if it lends weight to their arguements - which are shown to be incorrect by the relevant field experts.

For example im an Analyst Programmer. What use would my calculations or opinion be if I said 'That looks like a CD'. Having said that - what on earth would Dylan Avery's qualifications be?

The reason the NIST report is agreed upon by very much the entire building industry out there is because the findings and calculations are shown to be sound and the evidence points to it being the most likely conclusion. You cant argue with the rules of reality. There initially was errors that once found were recorrected to be more accurate.

With this in mind, a true scientist will see his error and thank his colleague for pointing it out, something severley lacking in the 9/11 'experts'.

I realise a lot of posts (like many of mine) do attack the poster but the ones that attack the arguement, have always stood up to scutiny. Peer review will always stand above an expert no matter what. If your calculations are wrong - they are wrong - deal with it.

I highly suggest reading some good stuff by people like Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer. Books for guys like you and I, simple to read and absord yet tell it how it is. I started to really thrive on science a few years back, but Sagan single handedly turned me into a lover of it overnight once I understood how and why it works.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Skeptics love to look at evidence. If you give them some, they'll go tearing into it so that they can judge the proposed position for themselves. They might decide that it's incorrect, they might tell you that it's wrong or illogical. But they'll at least tell you why they think so, that's what they delight in. Conspiracists who come here and throw out a number of wild claims without backing it up, who don't provide evidence, who repeat (usually several) long-debunked claims; they get chewed up, rather than their posts disseminated, because there's no real substance for the skeptical person to delve into.
Dang, only 390 words. Unless this post counts, I'm under.

Thanks Minadin, I think that’s true. Many truthseekers stick to their argument even after their “facts” have been debunked. I think it stems from some sort of distrust, making this a “us versus them”conflict. The 10 words don’t bother me, the 400 words is more of an opportunity. I think you presented the background for your opinion very well.


Bear in mind a lot of 'experts' in the truth movement are out of there depth (Theologans, dental techs) and trying to use their authority in those areas in areas out of there depth as if it lends weight to their arguements - which are shown to be incorrect by the relevant field experts.

With this in mind, a true scientist will see his error and thank his colleague for pointing it out, something severley lacking in the 9/11 'experts'.
I realise a lot of posts (like many of mine) do attack the poster but the ones that attack the arguement, have always stood up to scutiny. Peer review will always stand above an expert no matter what. If your calculations are wrong - they are wrong - deal with it.

I think truthers take criticism very personally and are not really used to peer-review. I think that’s where my two questions stem from. We tend to get cynical after a while and to outsiders it may seem as a sort of “missionary role for the official theory”. This may even put real skeptics off, like T.A.M. for instance. But the same argument can be made for the truthers. As you can see from a post in here even people who comment more favorably of the truth movement, are in fact, to some extent cynical and may even be promoting their belief. I call it belief, because the presumed anomalies to support their claims have not reached the level of “evidence” under careful scrutiny..

Except for excerpts, I haven’t read Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer yet, but most certainly will. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

How cynical of you….
You opinion is noted, but you seem biased toward the zero fact truth movement. And you opinion is not based on fact. The expert pilot you speak of makes up stuff and all his statements are support for 9/11 truth. Maybe you are fooled by these so called experts. But the pilot must be biased like you appear to be, and unable to make rational statements about 9/11. ….
You picked the wrong side, you should be more skeptical if not cynical of the those who make up false information know as 9/11 truth.

I think you hit the nail on the head…

As some others in this thread have suggested cynicism is found on both sides and skepticism fades. And it could very well be argued that what remains is a missionary role. Of course I agree that a skeptic view should be led by evidence and suspect that the truth movement may be misled either on purpose or by mistake by a lack of a good grasp of what “evidence” implies.

I'm starting to find out that there are many more people in here that initially started out at the side of the truthseekers, but after thorough research and after looking at the evidence rejected the truth movement. Further confrontation and further research made them even more skeptical or even cynical. Cynicism/ skepticism , eventhough confronting for truthers, may shock them into looking more skeptically at the suggestions made by the 911 truth movement or on the other hand drive them towards cynicism and make them discard any other point of view. They hang on to the truth movement even when the evidence should clearly lead to a rejection of the arguments made by the truth movement (no-planers, laser beams, CD,...).

SYL :)

[hellaeon]

You present a well thought out post Sylv.

I'd like to say that initially though when the 9/11 debate came to the fore thanks to Delphi ote :) , the truth seekers rejected any immediate alternate theory from anyone in that we over here suddenly became agents and shills for the government and James Randi himself was targeted for slurs although he was and I believe never is involved in any forum discussions.

It was this kind of reaction that I believe everyone from here was not quite ready for. We were used to people going 'really? oh wow, thats great, now I know better' or at least having a civil debate. All of a sudden a simple explanation for a branch in the 9/11 conspiracy tree was met with hostility and threats. People here think they are doing people a service by giving them education and tools to go further but a complete rejection of this approach was unusual.

At times a rebuttal of a crazy theory only led to a more complex and crazy theory.

There is also the huge lack of respect shown to victims on the day not in the general sense as us JREFers tend to put forth as a whole but individual cases were astonishingly horrible.
LC forum members laughing at the infamous picture of the lady in the wtc hole - which spurred Mark Roberts to produce the work he has.
Avery laughing at people on the plane because he likes to think of himself as a regular rambo.
Accusations of victims and their families lying about their unfortunate position during 9/11.

All this behaviour was pretty astonishing to come across.

I think all this contributed highly to the cynicism. With this in mind, I think its an excellent reflection on this forum that we have remained as civil as we have.