I Was a Truther... What Brought Me Back to Reality?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So there is hope for a rational World after all. But it is a damn slow process convincing one person at a time.

Welcome to Reality, dc1971.

Here. Have pony.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by dc1971

Great Orphia! Thank you for the link!

Cheers, dc.

I've been working my way back through the threads, and haven't done 2008 yet, a very busy year for the 9/11 forum, so the list is missing any ex-truther threads from then, I'm afraid.

If any oldtimers can remember any individual ex-truthers posting then, their names might be helpful in finding more threads to tag.

"Ex-truther" is one of my pet favourite tags, as is "truther psychology".

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by LashL

Hey, dc1971, Michael Shermer has sent a Twitter (tweet?) saying, ""From 9/11 Truther and believer in all things conspiratorial to rational skeptic. An honest, self-reflective narrative:" with a link to this thread.

How cool is that?

I'm so proud! I told Michael Shermer about this thread (we're friendly because I wrote the 9/11 article for Skeptic Magazine last September). He told me he loved reading the posts but I didn't realize he tweeted it too!

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

I'm so proud! I told Michael Shermer about this thread (we're friendly because I wrote the 9/11 article for Skeptic Magazine last September). He told me he loved reading the posts but I didn't realize he tweeted it too!

Hey, thank you so much Chris! It is an absolute honor!

Should I go far as to say you, Dr. Shermer, and those who I mentioned previously saved me from a world of anger and paranoia?

[AJM8125]

Excellent OP and good on you dc. I really mean it.

Though I was never a truther, I did have certain questions that led me down a similar path. Nice to see it worked out just as well, if not better, for another.

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Excellent OP and good on you dc. I really mean it.

Though I was never a truther, I did have certain questions that led me down a similar path. Nice to see it worked out just as well, if not better, for another.

Yes. Thank you so much.

I'm preparing yet another thread for the Forum Community to which I will be taking the opportunity to apologize for some of my previous nasty comments and personal attacks on other various subforums. I feel bad, I really do. I don't act like that with people face to face so I should not act like that PERIOD!

[ref]

Originally Posted by dc1971

I'm preparing yet another thread for the Forum Community to which I will be taking the opportunity to apologize for some of my previous nasty comments and personal attacks on other various subforums. I feel bad, I really do. I don't act like that with people face to face so I should not act like that PERIOD!

That's a great, honest thing to do.

[gabeygoat]

very cool thread, and very cool honesty. enjoyed very much.

[Joey McGee]

What brought me back to reality was trying really hard to understand thermite and getting the JREF forum in all of my google searches. The post I remember most was about how worthless the thermite paper was, and the scandal at the journal it was published in.

I managed to retrace my steps just now, I remember it like it was yesterday, but it feels like another lifetime. Shocking to me that it was only 2.5 years ago. My truther search terms first brought me to "Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked". Luckily just a few posts down on lucky post #7 16.5 linked to "Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper".

The more I tried to find reasons to dismiss those arguments against the paper and the journal, the harder I failed. I started to understand how science actually worked just from that thread and analysis. It made sense finally why these people could be adamant they were doing real science when it was really something quite the opposite. "Another soul saved...by PROPER CITATION!!" indeed. I next watched every rkowens4 video after hearing about that channel here. When I saw the one where the building bows and then snaps it was over, I was done. The small bit of evidence I'd seen was more than enough to win out over the absence of evidence the truthers had shown me.

I felt it in my gut, I felt sick. I'd lost a lot due to this conviction and I knew that well. I lost friends, a job, opportunity costs in life and business, because I was very into the new world order/911 scene. I didn't fully realize it at the time, but I'd gained something that to this day is still more important than all of that; this forum, the skeptical science community and the chance to live a life without the trappings of a "believing brain". Yep, Michael Shermer came next to help with the other assortments of woo that resided in my skull and it wasn't long after that I was beginning to understand the naturalism of Dennet and the evolutionary biology/psychology of Dawkins.

At the time I thought that my beliefs were empowering, good, and made me happy to be pursuing. But in retrospect I see how it was hollow, driven by paranoia and fear, and poisonous to my soul.

[Orphia Nay]

That's another great post, thanks Joey.

It's a real shock to the system to discover one has been hoodwinked, but it's invaluable to learn for oneself how a person can be fooled by illogic. I wonder if ex-woos actually have a deeper understanding of some issues than those who never fell for the myths.

[cjnewson88]

Ignoring the derail by Clayton..

This thread kind of reminds me of this video by RonaldoDeLosMuertos

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Good watch.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I next watched every rkowens4 video after hearing about that channel here. When I saw the one where the building bows and then snaps it was over, I was done. The small bit of evidence I'd seen was more than enough to win out over the absence of evidence the truthers had shown me.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. There's nothing like a good laugh to start the day!

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Edx

Or like a Roman or something

In Britain, "Ghosts" of Romans are commonplace. In the US, not so much unless perhaps you are a Mormon.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by dc1971

What can I say to this? What should I say to this?

Take the homeopathic approach ("like cures like") and say something that makes absolutely no sense.

Your OP is teh coolness, and if the incurables can't see it, it's their loss.

[dc1971]

I would ask that if you're going to respond to the trolls, that it's not done on this thread. I'm sure there will be more comments from their camp but just ignore them in this thread. It will do nothing but create a very negative vibe. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I felt it in my gut, I felt sick. I'd lost a lot due to this conviction and I knew that well.

This really resonates with me. Truthers feel this deep down, and that's why they're so angry. They're fighting themselves.

And the Lihoppers feel it but still want to take it out on their pet hate, the gubmint.

Instead of moving on with their lives and learning valuable lessons, they are angry, angry people.

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

This really resonates with me. Truthers feel this deep down, and that's why they're so angry. They're fighting themselves.

And the Lihoppers feel it but still want to take it out on their pet hate, the gubmint.

Instead of moving on with their lives and learning valuable lessons, they are angry, angry people.

I have finally realized there is just no talking reasonably to them. It's predictable what will happen if you engage in any type of debate. Time to move away from that for good. I've learned my lesson.

[twinstead]

A lot of truthers think that there are only two choices politically: either believe the government was in on 9-11 or be a shill for the government. What they don't realize, of course, that it is possible to both NOT believe that 9-11 was an inside job and have serious issues with the the way the government conducts itself.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by dc1971

I have finally realized there is just no talking reasonably to them. It's predictable what will happen if you engage in any type of debate. Time to move away from that for good. I've learned my lesson.

You know first-hand I guess. I'm still trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to engage them when and how I think best.
I think if people are willing to confront them, at least confront their ideas and perhaps their behaviors, it can sometimes be productive. Often not though.
It helps that I have my own channel, so I can limit trolling and abuse. People come and have their say, but if they won't respond reasonably or just keep denying everything, I tell 'em to move on.
I figure if you're not prepared for an honest dialogue, why RU posting?

I agree with you about not engaging the serial trolls here. Anyway, speaking of the effect of trolls, we're OT....

[Joey McGee]

You gotta pick your battles, but I can make a case that we can do better with influencing the afflicted. This is a metaphorically cancer-causing virus, it evolved, it hijacks the mind, it slowly turns it into a useless, complex mess of mutating memetics. It's vicious and like cancer, there is no ultimate cure for all of it, and very difficult to treat. Like hopes for personalized cancer therapy being dashed by our new understanding of the genetic complexity of tumors, we are learning that it's not so easy just to figure someone's beliefs out and tell them what they need to hear in a predetermined way.

But that doesn't mean it's impossible or that we should give up researching and trying to treat the affliction. We do have peer-reviewed evidence exploring how to influence people without making things worse, an entire scientific field of ethical influence. (see The Debunking Handbook) We have much to learn. It's something we have to own up to and start taking seriously. You gotta pick your battles but I do think we all tend to backwards rationalize our unwillingness to work on this issue for understandable emotional reasons.

Being that extreme into these beliefs and woo practices is almost like being on drugs, it hijacks your mind so effectively, they appeal to so many triggers at the same time. It's a huge secret no one knows about except for you, the truth movement.. It's an incredibly powerful evil that runs the world and has the ability to stage these huge events and you and your patriotic buddies are going on against them with only the power of your souls and the truth. The elite are planning a massive cull of the population so they can takeover and fly around in their spaceships and live forever (Alex Jones) and we could potentially stop this etc. So much of what they say is in a self-congratulatory manner.

I think that's why many ex-woos and cultists (say... Steve Hassan) have such a great insight. Once you accept the fact these theories are all wrong you're depriving yourself of that stimulation and you need to find new sources, everything in your life becomes a comparison of your new and old way of living that results in deep insights.

[cjnewson88]

9/11 truther are a cancer.. I like it.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

9/11 truther are a cancer.. I like it.

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You gotta pick your battles, but I can make a case that we can do better with influencing the afflicted. This is a metaphorically cancer-causing virus, it evolved, it hijacks the mind, it slowly turns it into a useless, complex mess of mutating memetics. It's vicious and like cancer, there is no ultimate cure for all of it, and very difficult to treat. Like hopes for personalized cancer therapy being dashed by our new understanding of the genetic complexity of tumors, we are learning that it's not so easy just to figure someone's beliefs out and tell them what they need to hear in a predetermined way.

But that doesn't mean it's impossible or that we should give up researching and trying to treat the affliction. We do have peer-reviewed evidence exploring how to influence people without making things worse, an entire scientific field of ethical influence. (see The Debunking Handbook) We have much to learn. It's something we have to own up to and start taking seriously. You gotta pick your battles but I do think we all tend to backwards rationalize our unwillingness to work on this issue for understandable emotional reasons.

Being that extreme into these beliefs and woo practices is almost like being on drugs, it hijacks your mind so effectively, they appeal to so many triggers at the same time. It's a huge secret no one knows about except for you, the truth movement.. It's an incredibly powerful evil that runs the world and has the ability to stage these huge events and you and your patriotic buddies are going on against them with only the power of your souls and the truth. The elite are planning a massive cull of the population so they can takeover and fly around in their spaceships and live forever (Alex Jones) and we could potentially stop this etc. So much of what they say is in a self-congratulatory manner.

I think that's why many ex-woos and cultists (say... Steve Hassan) have such a great insight. Once you accept the fact these theories are all wrong you're depriving yourself of that stimulation and you need to find new sources, everything in your life becomes a comparison of your new and old way of living that results in deep insights.

I don't really want to brew over this chapter in my life too much, however I will say that upon my reconsideration I was still a fairly bitter guy. I still am. You could say I feel I've been had. However, I want to close this chapter for good and move on. I feel the best way to do this is ignore those who consider themselves to be the 'truth seekers', and also cut back on my engaging in political discussions. I don't find it to be all that healthy.

I have other interests that are far more constructive than picking fights with truthers on internet forums. I love music, I'm an on and off musician by trade, I love video games, comics, and I also dabble in video production and creation as well as have a love for graphic design. These are the types of things that keep me occupied in my spare time and I want to be more involved with those interests. Yes, politics is an interest of mine as well. I also have an interest in world history as well as ancient cultures. However, I feel once I engage myself in those interests it ends up going down a road that's rather negative.

Then again, it is okay to have passion for the things you believe in. The problem is, I tend to get nasty and raise my blood pressure and that's not okay. I think this is as good of time as any to just break away from the bad juju that's known as the 9/11 Truth Movement and from various political discussion on the internet and focus more on my own convictions (if that's a word I can use). There is a wonderful Entertainment/Movies/Music/Computer Games as well as a Computer User subforum here that are both very informative and positively interactive.

Anyway, my time here is spent. I look forward to seeing most of you over at the Entertainment and Computers subforums. I know I'm in need of help on a gaming issue, so I guess we'll chat soon!

Thank you folks!

DC

[alienentity]

Good luck and take care. I should really move onto something more productive as well, although I do enjoy many of the people on this forum.

[Huttosaurus]

Originally Posted by dc1971

In spring of 2009, I returned to school for my Bachelor's Degree. My major was Network Administration with an emphasis on Information Technology. Every class I took, for each assignment, I had to write a paper and it had to be formatted specifically in APA format. This means that I had to have references to all information included in my papers, I had to have a table of contents, running head, title page, and if I would quote anything directly I would have to include it in my list of references. It's a rather arduous process but it had to be done in order to avoid plagiarism. . .

. . .Physical, empirical, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is important when presenting conclusive research. You cannot just say what you believe happened is what happened or what you believe is what makes the world go around.

Knowing this, and learning about proper research to get my Bachelor's is what turned on the light for me. If you're going to make claims, you have to be able to back them up. You must provide references, and be able to explain those claims in your own words if you are asked to do so.

This and always looking for primary sources and context for information are possibly the most valuable skills my undergrad science tutors taught me, because they can be applied to anything. I was fascinated by mysteries and the unknown as a kid, and inclined toward the conspiratorial, but got into science before I went down the full conspiracy path.

Seeing "Loose Change" in 2006 was an eye-opener for me, but not in the way it's makers intended. I'd been vaguely aware of the conspiracy ideas beforehand, but I watched it and started asking questions, questions about why technical details I knew to be demonstrably wrong were being presented as fact, why footage I knew to be unrepresentative was used as evidence, about their subject matter expertise, about their research methodology, about their fact checking skills, about their rush to assumption of 'obvious' truths, and about how they reached their conclusions. None of those questions had good answers for the agenda they were trying to push, and I've been an inside job skeptic ever since.

[zorro99]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Your story reminds me a bit of what happened to me when I was, umm, maybe a young teen. I had bought a book about the Bermuda Triangle at a used book store, and I was regaling my brother with all the amazing evidence it presented.

Was it the one by Charles Berlitz? I remember that one, and The Philadelphia Experiment, about a Navy ship that disappeared and reappeared and all the crew went crazy. As a kid, they seemed real and fascinating and I don't regret reading those because I learned to think critically.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by zorro99

Was it the one by Charles Berlitz? I remember that one, and The Philadelphia Experiment, about a Navy ship that disappeared and reappeared and all the crew went crazy. As a kid, they seemed real and fascinating and I don't regret reading those because I learned to think critically.

I saw a TV show on that as a young kid, totally believed it was probably real. Screw those TV companies man!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Huttosaurus

...
Seeing "Loose Change" in 2006 was an eye-opener for me, but not in the way it's makers intended. I'd been vaguely aware of the conspiracy ideas beforehand, but I watched it and started asking questions, questions about why technical details I knew to be demonstrably wrong were being presented as fact, why footage I knew to be unrepresentative was used as evidence, about their subject matter expertise, about their research methodology, about their fact checking skills, about their rush to assumption of 'obvious' truths, and about how they reached their conclusions. None of those questions had good answers for the agenda they were trying to push, and I've been an inside job skeptic ever since.

This.

I have never been a "truther" or otherwise a CT proponent, but I vaguely would assign some none-zero probabilty to this or that CT (JFK, Lockerbie). And why not?

I didn't see any LC until perhaps 2008; at the time I was shown several such videos in rapid succession by some nerds at a social community. LC2 and Zeitgeist among them. It didn't tale long for me to find some things that were fishy and didn't compute, and said so to the nerds. Who called me all sorts of things, most of all that I was "uncritical" because I would believe "governments" or "disinfo agents" when in fact it was them who uncritically believed movie makers.

So I began researching. Stopped videos every 15 seconds to look up whether the claims or conclusions presented held any water. Some did, but I found that on average every 45 seconds I would find some inaccuracy, ommission, non-sequitur or outright deception. In all of these movies (not counting opening credits and long footage of non-subject matter; e.g. one film early on had some minutes of a George Carlin routine which I already knew and loved) the density of ******** was so enormous, I quickly sensed there was a methid to them. Sometimes, a fact would be attributed to a source, when the source actually contained the exact opposite! Not something vaguely different - the exaxt, clear opposite.

I confronted my truthers with long lists of such obseverved falsehoods, and often links to sources to prove my claims, and asked them if it didn't worry them that they were being lied to. They had basically two lines of defense:
- One was denial - sometimes refusing to even read what I wrote
- The other was a declaration that the government side lied even more, so they were ok with some "inaccuracies" if only they went in the "right" direction.

I didn't have the vocabulary then to express all the fallacies: "quote-mining", "moving goalposts", "false dilemma", "strawman". But learned quickly when I discovered the JREF forums as a good debunking source.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by dc1971

Hey, thank you so much Chris! It is an absolute honor!

Should I go far as to say you, Dr. Shermer, and those who I mentioned previously saved me from a world of anger and paranoia?

I took the same lecture series that Shermer took, V-50 Volitional Science, in the early ‘80s from Andrew Galambos, NASA engineer and astrophysicist. Galambos took the methods that made science an accruing knowledge success; laws of nature and propositions need to be true 100% of the time, precise operational definitions of words, integration with all other science knowledge and internal consistency, self correcting verification and falsification, and applied them to human and animal-biological action (which I believed couldn't be done but I was wrong). I differ from Galambos (definition of objective and subjective knowledge - epistemology, some portions of morality) and in other matters, but these are minor. His construct provides the means to correct his mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy and Christianity and wrote more about them than he did about science, yet his science contributions were seminal and are everlasting.

Epistemology : How do you know you're right.
The reason truthers are wrong is because their epistemology is subjective instead of objective as tfk noted. This leads to all the uncorrectable errors that witch doctors make compared with scientists.

DC welcome back to the rational side. We have French pastries, they don't.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by zorro99

Was it the one by Charles Berlitz? I remember that one, and The Philadelphia Experiment, about a Navy ship that disappeared and reappeared and all the crew went crazy. As a kid, they seemed real and fascinating and I don't regret reading those because I learned to think critically.

I would have said that I have no idea -- but yes, I think it must have been. I don't know the other book, however.

Yes, I'm glad that I read that (and Chariots of the Gods, and Worlds in Collision...) and didn't immediately decide that they were not to be taken seriously. I'm perhaps especially glad that I initially perceived Velikovsky as an expert in multiple fields, somewhat as some people seem willing to trust David Ray Griffin. Sometimes when I get especially frustrated with woo consumers, it's salutary to remember that I've been there, done that. (Well, some of that. I don't think I was ever cut out to be a you're-a-shill-if-you-disagree paranoid conspiracist.)

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

"I took the same lecture series that Shermer took, V-50 Volitional Science, in the early ‘80s from Andrew Galambos, NASA engineer and astrophysicist. Galambos took the methods that made science an accruing knowledge success; laws of nature need to be true 100% of the time, precise operational definitions of words, integration with all other science knowledge and internal consistency, self correcting verification and falsification, and applied them to human and animal-biological action. I differ from him (definition of objective and subjective knowledge - epistemology, some portions of morality) and in other matters, but these are minor. His construct provides the means to correct his mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy and wrote more about alchemy and Christianity than he did about science, yet his science contributions were seminal and are everlasting.

The reason truthers are wrong is because their epistemology is subjective instead of objective as tfk noted. This leads to all the uncorrectable errors that witch doctors make compared with scientists.

DC welcome back to the rational side. We have French pastries, they don't."

bolding is mine

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

But then you effectively state the opposite is true.

How do you maintain the position that someone well known here to have an opinion strongly biased in favor of the Official Story, has never been refuted, and has not been influenced by biased opinion?

Such virtuousness is very rare.

MM

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

To be charitable, that isn't a very good translation. Epistemology isn't about deciding whose opinions are "biased"; it's about methods for distinguishing facts from nonfacts.

Here is how the OP put it:

Quote:

If you're going to make claims, you have to be able to back them up. You must provide references, and be able to explain those claims in your own words if you are asked to do so.

That isn't a definition of objective epistemology by any means, but it gives the flavor. Not everyone here seems to like this flavor. For instance: When is the last time I saw a JREF critic of the truth movement challenge another critic on facts? At least twice so far this morning. When is the last time I saw a JREF, umm, "9/11 truth seeker" challenge another one on facts? I don't remember. When is the last time I saw a JREF critic acknowledge error? This morning. When is the last time I saw a JREF "truth seeker" acknowledge error? I think C7 did once a few weeks ago; I can't think of any other instances. That doesn't support a sweeping generalization about who embraces what epistemology, but it might at least help you to get the point. Maybe it will seem less subjective than assessing the extent to which people support their claims.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But then you effectively state the opposite is true.

How do you maintain the position that someone well known here to have an opinion strongly biased in favor of the Official Story, has never been refuted, and has not been influenced by biased opinion?

Such virtuousness is very rare.

MM

This misrepresentation seems closely related to your mistranslation.

Whoever said that anybody here "has never been refuted"? That's utterly missing the point. Did you notice that word "uncorrectable"? The point of objective epistemology isn't to assert -- contrary to all experience and common sense -- that some people never make errors; it's to look for ways to identify and correct errors.

When it comes to discussing what happened on 9/11, I do not worry about whether people here are "strongly biased." I just want to see them address issues of fact. I don't think that is hopelessly naive. Expecting it might be.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

No, it goes waaay deeper than having a "biased opinion". Truther wrongness is much more epic than merely being biased. Bias is disliking Dubya and sneering about the cockup of WMDs and the Iraq War. Wrongness is reasoning backwards from the Iraq War to decide that 9/11 was an inside jerb because maybe, possibly, therm*te coulda-woulda-shoulda been used to Bring Down The Towers, despite the glaring lack of evidence to support such a claim.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Quote:

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
"I took the same lecture series that Shermer took, V-50 Volitional Science, in the early ‘80s from Andrew Galambos, NASA engineer and astrophysicist. Galambos took the methods that made science an accruing knowledge success; laws of nature need to be true 100% of the time, precise operational definitions of words, integration with all other science knowledge and internal consistency, self correcting verification and falsification, and applied them to human and animal-biological action. I differ from him (definition of objective and subjective knowledge - epistemology, some portions of morality) and in other matters, but these are minor. His construct provides the means to correct his mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy and wrote more about alchemy and Christianity than he did about science, yet his science contributions were seminal and are everlasting.

The reason truthers are wrong is because their epistemology is subjective instead of objective as tfk noted. This leads to all the uncorrectable errors that witch doctors make compared with scientists.

DC welcome back to the rational side. We have French pastries, they don't."

bolding is mine

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

But then you effectively state the opposite is true.

How do you maintain the position that someone well known here to have an opinion strongly biased in favor of the Official Story, has never been refuted, and has not been influenced by biased opinion?

Such virtuousness is very rare.

MM

my bold on MM

[def.] bias: A preference that inhibits impartial judgment.
[def.] opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

For instance , how do you know you are right on the thermite question.
The Harrit et al data shows chips that are red steel primer paint (red layer -matches primer paint color seen on structural steel, with kaolinite - layered silicate clay, on gray hematite - magnetic iron oxide, with a 3 mil layer that has insufficient energy to melt steel, and does not have by far the iron/aluminum proportional content of gel-thermite. Yet their conclusion is that the chips are thermite .
Their conclusion is the result of a preference that inhibits impartial judgment and not substantiated by proof (biased opinion). [subjective]

Millette’s conclusions are impartial, substantiated by proof. [objective]
Oystein and Sunstealer’s conclusions are partial (skeptic of the truther CD claims) but substantiated by proof. [objective]

It doesn’t matter whether one has a truther or skeptic preference, all their propositions have to be substantiated by rational proof.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

The reason truthers are wrong is because their epistemology is subjective instead of objective as tfk noted. This leads to all the uncorrectable errors that witch doctors make compared with scientists.

bolding is mine

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

Why do you write things that are vague & ill-defined to the point of meaningless?

"9/11 truth seekers…"?

I don't see anywhere that BA suggests that "all the 9/11 truther seekers are wrong".

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who posts here, on both sides of the issue, considers themselves to be "9/11 truth seekers".

And "wrong about what?" And "right about what?"

Perhaps clearer definitions of your terms would help your contributions to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But then you effectively state the opposite is true.

Your first comments are far, far to vague to even have "an opposite".

Originally Posted by Miragememories

How do you maintain the position that someone well known here to have an opinion strongly biased in favor of the Official Story, has never been refuted, and has not been influenced by biased opinion?

My epistemology was well in place (but still adjustable) long before 2001. It is utterly unrelated to:
the events of 9/11/01
anyone's conclusions about those events.

My conclusions are strongly (not blindly) biased in favor of:
experts ...
… when they are talking within their fields of expertise,
… when the specific topics under consideration are objective (i.e., have only one right answer).
… when the specific topics under consideration are well-understood.

I am not in any way "biased in favor of the Official Story".

It just so happens that the gubbamint & I derived our conclusions about the story from the same source: engineers talking about engineering, the FBI talking about FBI stuff, REAL historians talking about the history of the groups involved, etc.

And my epistemology distinguishes between events that can be replicated (failure of test specimens in a lab) from one-off events that can never be replicated or known for certain (e.g., historical events, things discussed in private, people's motives, etc.).

___

The myth that those who disagree with you just blindly accept "The Official Story" is simply the Truthers' "Official Story".

Do you blindly accept THAT official story, MM?


tfk

[Huttosaurus]

Originally Posted by tfk

The myth that those who disagree with you just blindly accept "The Official Story" is simply the Truthers' "Official Story".

I see this constantly from CT proponents: If you don't accept my alternative you must just blindly follow the official line / whatever the government tells you (usually with a reference to being either asleep or a sheep).

What I find amusing is that while accusing someone of uncritically swallowing the party line they expect someone to uncritically swallow whatever it is they are pushing.

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

bolding is mine

To translate for those too bored to look, what you are opining is that all the 9/11 truth seekers are wrong, why?, because theirs is a biased opinion.

But then you effectively state the opposite is true.

How do you maintain the position that someone well known here to have an opinion strongly biased in favor of the Official Story, has never been refuted, and has not been influenced by biased opinion?

Such virtuousness is very rare.

MM

Mirage, I appreciate your response to my thread.

Previously I mentioned the attitude and mindset of a typical truther or "truth seeker". Maybe there are some exceptions to the rule that I have yet to see (it's quite possible you're one exception, I don't know) but until then, my impression of a typical "truth seeker" let alone conspiracy theorist is one of sanctimony.

I don't want to create a negative vibe with this thread, however I don't want to refrain from being honest. I have engaged in some outright disgusting dialog with those who say they're "seeking the truth". When confronted with the basic skills needed for research and observation they will make nasty comments, be rude, be inconsiderate, and be downright ignorant when asked just a simple question. Some have even lied and I have caught the lies when trying to explain their position. It's not nice.

If you were to come to me tomorrow with a picture of a detonation cap or a wire and say "this was found at ground zero one day after 9/11", I would have to ask who told you that? Or I would ask for some sort of reference, authentication of the photograph, or to verify a location of what area of ground zero that detonation cap was found.

Taking it one step further, if you were to say to me that Shyam Sunder presented a detonation cap from ground zero - here is a picture of the cap - here is a description of the location where it was found - here is a picture of the location where it was found - he has a list of several different witnesses who were able to view the detonation cap - then that would be verifiable evidence to some sort of detonation that occurred at ground zero.

At that point, that would be enough for me (and quite possibly many thousands of Americans and the world population) to revolt and resort to a populist upheaval. The problem with what the Truth movement was and is now is that not one single shred of evidence like this has been presented. And if evidence hasn't appeared after so many years, it's most likely that it never will.

I do have respect for your concern and your passion. I have my own issues with government and various legislation that has been signed in the last few years. I was especially disgusted with the Bush administration and how legislation was on hyper-drive during those years. I find it intimidating that at the age of 40, people have to show ID in order to buy cigarettes now. I'm not a smoker, I don't have to really worry but it's the principal behind it that has me pooching my face. Also, I could get in to other issues of government including technology advances in law enforcement that seem to do more harm than good, and the advancement of the welfare state but that all deserves another thread.

The point is that we live in a country of dissent and it is a healthy thing. However, when it gets to a point where misinformation and outright lies become the center of a populist movement, then there's a very unhealthy problem.

I cannot stress enough the power of the internet. Every person out there has the power to speak to an audience, show their creations, set up their own web space, and share their lives with the world. However, where there's Spider-Man there is Venom. The internet has become a wide pipe for rumors, bad information, conspiracy theories, rude behavior in forums, lies being posted on a daily basis, and a platform for alternative news sources that are a platform for hate speech and anti-government propaganda. The more people get to using the internet, the more people can spread bad rumors. In the last year, this material has really upset me and I have lost some friends because they just won't listen to me when I try to explain it to them rationally. I had to resort to irrational behavior and bad temper and it cost me dearly. **SIDE NOTE: Please refer to my mention of cock roach eggs on envelopes and using Coke for cleaning batteries.

In any case, I hope you can understand what I'm saying here. I'm sure you're not going to agree with me 100% but maybe you could at least consider there's a world outside of 9/11 Truth if just for one second.

I've rambled long enough. Thanks once again for your response.

DC

[cantonear1968]

I've never been a truther.....except for the 5 minutes after watching Loose Change it took me to google some of their claims. But I was heavy into the Global Warming issue on the denier side. It was actually delving into 9/11 that made me realize the error of my ways because I was using the exact same arguments, with little references, that all truthers make: the govt is evil, they're all "in on it", lots of experts in dissent, "just look at the evidence". It was the exact same mentality that I see in the trutheres I argue with. To take my confession even further, it may have been the exact same egoism that made me believe "I know something you don't".

I never really went back to the GW issue and haven't looked at in several years. It's a hard admission to face that I allowed myself to think that way. It's, in my opinion, where most truthers are or will be soon; just a dirty little secret that they will try to forget about as they move out of college.

[Chorduroy]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

my bold on MM

[def.] bias: A preference that inhibits impartial judgment.
[def.] opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

For instance , how do you know you are right on the thermite question.
The Harrit et al data shows chips that are red steel primer paint (red layer -matches primer paint color seen on structural steel, with kaolinite - layered silicate clay, on gray hematite - magnetic iron oxide, with a 3 mil layer that has insufficient energy to melt steel, and does not have by far the iron/aluminum proportional content of gel-thermite. Yet their conclusion is that the chips are thermite .
Their conclusion is the result of a preference that inhibits impartial judgment and not substantiated by proof (biased opinion). [subjective]

Speaking of Harrit and biased opinions .... a couple years ago there was a link on this forum to an audio recording of Harrit being interviewed by a conspiracy-type.

Harrit states in the interview that "as soon as I saw footage of the WTC7 collapse, I knew it was a controlled demolition".

Wow.


Talk about a biased opinion. I suspect he would have concluded thermite even if they red chips were Lay's Ketchup.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Chorduroy

Speaking of Harrit and biased opinions .... a couple years ago there was a link on this forum to an audio recording of Harrit being interviewed by a conspiracy-type.

Harrit states in the interview that "as soon as I saw footage of the WTC7 collapse, I knew it was a controlled demolition".

Wow.


Talk about a biased opinion. I suspect he would have concluded thermite even if they red chips were Lay's Ketchup.

It's interesting how often people make comments like the one you quote, apparently not realizing how it undermines their credibility. (It bothers me when people on any side of this issue say they immediately "knew" things that they can't really have known. Of course, some such assertions are more ridiculous than others.)

I suppose that Harrit is more wedded to CD itself than to any particular mechanism -- so it's at least possible that he could move on to some other hypothesis. Ideal is to postulate that 'all sorts of methods are possible' without having to say very much about any of them.