Inside the Truther Mind

[aggle-rithm]

Very often in the conspiracy theory section, JREFers become exasperated at the tendency of "truthers" to present contradictory evidence in support of their arguments. When asked, "How does this fit into your theory?", they reply, "I don't have a theory. I just want the truth!"

This, of course, creates a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the minds of rational thinkers. Unfortunately, truthers don't seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance at all. They seem to be perfectly happy to let conflicting ideas co-exist in their paranoid and twisted minds.

I have a theory on how they can do this. It has to do with how people organize beliefs into categories.

For a rational person, ideas are categorized according to how well they fit with previously existing ideas. Such a person may have a mental "bag" in which he/she places ideas about, say, World War II. When new information becomes available, it is put into the bag based on how well it fits with other ideas that are already in there. Ocassionally, it is necessary to clean house, pull out everything, rearrange it, and discard some of it to allow a new idea to "fit". This would be the case with a somewhat murky idea like "the Soviets were one of the Allies". Most of the time, however, if it doesn't fit, it is merely dismissed as being invalid. The idea that the Holocaust didn't really happen would be an example of this.

Now let's look at how truthers organize ideas. Like a rationalist, a truther puts ideas into a bag that defines a category of belief. However, a truther organizes beliefs not according to theories, but according to conclusions. Thus, if the conclusion is that the US government was behind 9/11, then the following two ideas are not in conflict:

1. Flight 93 did not really crash.
2. Flight 93 was shot down by US fighter planes.

A rationalist would say that these are mutually exclusive ideas, but a truther doesn't see it that way. To him, both ideas support the conclusion. They can't BOTH be true, of course, but it doesn't matter. The goal is to gather as much "overwhelming evidence" as possible to support the conclusion. Internal consistency is necessary ONLY if there is a theory...and the truthers don't have one! They have only a conclusion, and their belief is that if you gather mountains of "evidence", some of it has to be true, even if large portions cancel each other out.

If you read through the CT forums long enough, you will see that my theory has a lot of explanatory power, if nothing else. I think that part of the reason that we have such difficulty engaging in useful discussion with CTist's is that we have trouble imagining what it is like to conceptualize ideas this way. If you analyze the patterns of their posts, it will become clear that, however their minds work, they don't work like most of ours do.

On the other hand, it could be that they are all just trolls.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

On the other hand, it could be that they are all just trolls.

Bingo.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Very often in the conspiracy theory section, JREFers become exasperated at the tendency of "truthers" to present contradictory evidence in support of their arguments. When asked, "How does this fit into your theory?", they reply, "I don't have a theory. I just want the truth!"

To be fair, this is a normal and even praiseworthy tendency when you have a set of beliefs that are in conflict. The appropriate thing to do is to take the firmest beliefs and look to see what conflicts with them (and throw that out).

I think it was Sherlock Holmes who said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." If one knows, for whatever reason, that the official story is impossible, then there's nothing wrong with seeking out possible alternative stories, even if they conflict with each other. If I know that my dog was at the vet's that the time your flower bed was dug up, then I don't have to make sure that all my alternative explanations are consonant with each other.

Of course, if you're going to apply this, then it helps if you can actually demonstrate to the satisfaction of the onlookers that the official story is genuinely impossible. But this can be more challenging than it appears. You may not take my word that my dog was at the vet's, and you may not believe that my vet's kennel is genuinely escape-proof.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by drkitten

If one knows, for whatever reason, that the official story is impossible, then there's nothing wrong with seeking out possible alternative stories, even if they conflict with each other. If I know that my dog was at the vet's that the time your flower bed was dug up, then I don't have to make sure that all my alternative explanations are consonant with each other.

Yes, but they don't have alternate stories or explanations. They have only disjointed "facts" (which may or may not be true) that cast suspicion on the "official story". They avoid at all costs putting these facts together in any coherent way. In fact, one of their leaders (David Ray Griffin, if I'm not mistaken) has cautioned his followers to avoid even trying to speculate on what happened on 9/11.

Why? Just because the moment they hear themselves saying what they believe, they know immediately that it's all nonsense. There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

[JihadJane]

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Yes, but they don't have alternate stories or explanations. They have only disjointed "facts" (which may or may not be true) that cast suspicion on the "official story". They avoid at all costs putting these facts together in any coherent way. In fact, one of their leaders (David Ray Griffin, if I'm not mistaken) has cautioned his followers to avoid even trying to speculate on what happened on 9/11.

Why? Just because the moment they hear themselves saying what they believe, they know immediately that it's all nonsense. There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.

Perhaps they did. However, they were both able to present a narrative that describes what they believe happened on 9/11.

Are you so able?

Quote:

You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

I know that paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a fragmenting of personality accompanied by loss of cognitive ability, paranoid delusions, and an inability to distinguish internal thoughts from external reality.

If you believe that there is a possible narrative that implicates the US government and doesn't sound pathologically paranoid and out of touch with reality, then please demonstrate it. Personally, I believe that if such a narrative existed, then millions of truthers, including thousands of qualified engineers, pilots, and intelligence operatives, would be able to articulate it after eight years of searching for "the truth".

I am ready to be proven wrong.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[Hypatia]

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. That is, we don't believe a claim unless there is proof.

Re: the mindset of CT believers, they seem to have their minds on "auto-believe", which is to say they'll believe any claim which fits, emotionally, how they wish to see the world, and they don't require credible evidence. They place no burden of proof on claimants.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Hypatia

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. That is, we don't believe a claim unless there is proof.

Re: the mindset of CT believers, they seem to have their minds on "auto-believe", which is to say they'll believe any claim which fits, emotionally, how they wish to see the world, and they don't require credible evidence. They place no burden of proof on claimants.

In other words, they adhere to a Credo Consolans. It's a way of looking at reality that I can sympathize with (as a former adherent), but can no longer respect.

[Merko]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

They have only a conclusion, and their belief is that if you gather mountains of "evidence", some of it has to be true, even if large portions cancel each other out.

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

All of this makes perfect sense to these people, because the one test of whether something is true or not in their minds, is whether it leads to the conclusion 'absolutely nothing should be done politically to curb global warming'.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Merko

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

All of this makes perfect sense to these people, because the one test of whether something is true or not in their minds, is whether it leads to the conclusion 'absolutely nothing should be done politically to curb global warming'.

The global warming deniers have always interested me. I feel they fall into two camps:

1. I don't want to believe in global warming because it is too frightening.

2. I don't want to believe in global warming because the steps needed to head it off/minimize it will negatively affect my quality of life, the amount of money my company makes, etc.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Merko

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

Yes, the mindset is similar to that of the guy who says, "The food here is terrible! And the portions are too small!"

It only makes sense in the context that he wants to complain about something, and the specific facts of WHAT he is complaining about are unimportant.

[Biscuit]

Another mental hoop they jump through is assuming that if someone had a motive (almost always profit) then it validates all the circumstantial evidence they have gathered.

For example - Larry Silverstien (sp?) said "pull it", larry held the insurance policy, larry would make a lot of money, larry demolished the world trade center buildings... all of them.

Forget that WTC7 damaged other buildings on it way down and was not controlled, forget that it was hit with debris, forget that it burned for hours, forget that any chargers pre set up would have blown while it was burning, forget that no one could have rigged it the day of, forget that nearly every building commercial and private has insurance on it and a benefactor, forget all of it. Larry stood to make a lot of money so Larry did it.

Iraq war follows the same line of thinking. Bush could make a lot of money for fellow oil men so he must have caused 9/11 in order to do so. I refer to this, predictably, as underpants gnome logic.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Unfortunately, truthers don't seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance at all. They seem to be perfectly happy to let conflicting ideas co-exist in their paranoid and twisted minds.

QFT.

Denialism blog just had a very interesting post on the psychology of crankery.

Someone should really feed the data from a decent and well constructed sample of internet trolls and loons on a range of subjects and from a variety of forums into a proper psychological model, and demonstrate exactly how all of these guys think. Because as you say, it clearly isn't how the rest of us think.

Alternatively, there's always the Stundies...

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.



You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

what foregone conclusion is the NIST working with?
that the buildings failed due to being struck by large fast moving planes and the fires ignited by the impacts or something else?

explosives are ruled out by the video/audio evidence alone
lack of signs of anything destroyed by explosives det cord tensioning cable pre-weakened beams etc etc

im sure they did look at those possibilities but ruled them out in the initial steps

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Perhaps they did. However, they were both able to present a narrative that describes what they believe happened on 9/11.

So what? What does being able to present a narrative prove? It’s not difficult to write a story (with or without computer assistance).

Quote:

Are you so able?

There isn't enough information in the public domain to present a narrative accurately representing what actually happened. However, speculating that powerful people are able to operate covertly is hardly a sign of mental illness.

Quote:

I know that paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a fragmenting of personality accompanied by loss of cognitive ability, paranoid delusions, and an inability to distinguish internal thoughts from external reality.

If you believe that there is a possible narrative that implicates the US government and doesn't sound pathologically paranoid and out of touch with reality, then please demonstrate it. Personally, I believe that if such a narrative existed, then millions of truthers, including thousands of qualified engineers, pilots, and intelligence operatives, would be able to articulate it after eight years of searching for "the truth".

I am ready to be proven wrong.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are only speaking in terms of your speculative beliefs.

You have made an extreme claim - that "Truthers" are either trolls or suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - it is up to you to back it up . It's not up to me to prove your speculation wrong. Prove it right!

Originally Posted by Hypatia

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Perhaps Hypatia can help you. Does she think her husband is either suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is a troll?

Originally Posted by Justin39640

what foregone conclusion is the NIST working with?
that the buildings failed due to being struck by large fast moving planes and the fires ignited by the impacts or something else?

explosives are ruled out by the video/audio evidence alone
lack of signs of anything destroyed by explosives det cord tensioning cable pre-weakened beams etc etc

im sure they did look at those possibilities but ruled them out in the initial steps

I haven't seen any evidence that they did thoroughly investigate those possibilities.

The forgone conclusion was the narrative that was established very shortly after the attacks - namely that they were perpetrated by terrorists alone.


“Of course, this was the great blessing of our first president, George Washington — the original George W. … The greatest trait of Washington was to see things as they were and not as he wanted to see them. That was George W. Bush’s gift when it came to this war. He immediately upon being told of the attacks knew that this was war and that we were being attacked existentially by radical Islam.”

- Tim Goeglein, a former special assistant to President Bush.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/11/...goeglein-bush/

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The forgone conclusion was the narrative that was established very shortly after the attacks - namely that they were perpetrated by terrorists alone.

Got any link for that? I always thought they investigated what happened after the planes hit and what led to the collapse.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by tuc0

Got any link for that? I always thought they investigated what happened after the planes hit and what led to the collapse.

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

"The investigations"? Irrelevant. You were talking about NIST.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

So what? What does being able to present a narrative prove? It’s not difficult to write a story (with or without computer assistance).

And yet, truthers refuse to do this when asked.

Quote:

There isn't enough information in the public domain to present a narrative accurately representing what actually happened.

It doesn't have to be completely accurate in every detail. Just a general narrative, like this:

In 2001, Islamic terrorists who had been training in the United States with funding from al Qaeda hijacked four airliners, successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

See how easy that is? Why can't you do it?

Quote:

However, speculating that powerful people are able to operate covertly is hardly a sign of mental illness.

No one is suggesting that it is. First, "speculating the powerful people are able to operate covertly" hardly represents the truther position. Second, I haven't said that truthers are mentally ill. However, among the problems I have already described, truthers seem to have problems wrapping their minds around the concept of "simile":

Quote:

There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

Do you know of any other type of organization that has shown a willingness to target civilians in peacetime without any direct provocation, even at the cost of lives on its own side?

ETA: This is a perfect example of another problem with truther thinking: They can't seem to be able to focus on more than one thing at a time.

The example we've all heard many times is this:

Truther: No high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire alone!
Skeptic: But it wasn't just fire; there was also structural damage.
Truther: No high-rise building has ever collapsed from structural damage alone!

etc., etc.

JJ seems to have difficulty conceptualizing my theory as a whole, and is instead focusing on individual aspects of it.

The theory states that truthers categorize ideas according to their relationship to a foregone conclusion, while rational thinkers categorize them according to consistency with a theory. The fact that a rational thinker might formulate the theory based on a hypothesis (what JJ calls a foregone conclusion) is irrelevant. The key point is not that there is a bias towards a certain hypothesis, it's that for truthers, internal consistency is not important.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

See how easy that is? Why can't you do it?

You didn't make up that narrative yourself, though, did you? Where did you get it from? How do you know that it is complete and truthful?

Quote:

No one is suggesting that it is. First, "speculating the powerful people are able to operate covertly" hardly represents the truther position. Second, I haven't said that truthers are mentally ill. However, among the problems I have already described, truthers seem to have problems wrapping their minds around the concept of "simile":

You weren’t talking about “the truther position”. You said:

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I presented a possible narrative, namely that that powerful people are able to operate covertly. Does that sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Do you know of any other type of organization that has shown a willingness to target civilians in peacetime without any direct provocation, even at the cost of lives on its own side?

The Mafia and similar criminal organizations, nation states, their agencies and proxies. (The US, in various South America countries, for example)

Quote:

JJ seems to have difficulty conceptualizing my theory as a whole, and is instead focusing on individual aspects of it.

I am focussing on your thinking processes. You have presented a crude, smearing equation between twoofers and schizophrenia. It’s gutter rubbish.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by tuc0

"The investigations"? Irrelevant. You were talking about NIST.

Are you suggesting that NIST didn't conduct any investigations?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Are you suggesting that NIST didn't conduct any investigations?

Investigations into who attacked the USA on 11 Sep 2001? I don't believe they actually did. Perhaps you have some documentation on why the NIST was doing the FBIs job?

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Investigations into who attacked the USA on 11 Sep 2001? I don't believe they actually did. Perhaps you have some documentation on why the NIST was doing the FBIs job?

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

You didn't make up that narrative yourself, though, did you? Where did you get it from? How do you know that it is complete and truthful?

That's the good thing about reality. You don't have to make stuff up!

As to it being complete and truthful...I made no requirement that it be complete in every detail. Just that it be consistent with the facts and internally consistent. It also helps if it is simple and straightforward.

Quote:

I presented a possible narrative, namely that that powerful people are able to operate covertly. Does that sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

What you presented is not a narrative that explains 9/11. Such a narrative would sound like this:

In September, 2001, powerful people covertly caused four planes to be hijacked. The hijackers successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

Does this represent your position?

Quote:

I am focussing on your thinking processes. You have presented a crude, smearing equation between twoofers and schizophrenia. It’s gutter rubbish.

No, I presented a simile to make a point, which is that truthers avoid stating a theory out loud because it would make them sound crazy.

Just like you are avoiding stating a theory.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

[8den]

Funny I was picturing a cavernous space with a soft echo, empty but for a tumbleweed and a few faded "Paul '08" posters.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

That's the good thing about reality. You don't have to make stuff up!

As to it being complete and truthful...I made no requirement that it be complete in every detail. Just that it be consistent with the facts and internally consistent. It also helps if it is simple and straightforward.

As with all narratives, someone did make it up. How do you know it's truthful?

Quote:

What you presented is not a narrative that explains 9/11. Such a narrative would sound like this:

In September, 2001, powerful people covertly caused four planes to be hijacked. The hijackers successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

Does this represent your position?

My narrative is as far as it is possible to go in explaining 911 without a thorough investigation. Unless there is a major political unheaval in the US it is safe to assume that such an investigation will never happen.

Your narrative is so incomplete that it reads like a schoolboy cartoon. Why bother?

Quote:

No, I presented a simile to make a point, which is that truthers avoid stating a theory out loud because it would make them sound crazy.

Just like you are avoiding stating a theory.

Yes, I know what a simile is.

In your abstract speculation about "Truther" motivation you very specifically suggested that they don't (plenty do!) state their theories because "There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic." (My bold) Are you now retreating from that position into a watered-down, generic "crazy"?

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

Discussing physical evidence that no longer exists is pointless but the forgone conclusion eradicated the need to examine the possibility of additional sabotage - an irrational position considering how the buildings had been previously attacked.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Their investigations into what happened to the buildings were influenced by forgone conclusions about who attacked them.

You are making up things to suit your rhetoric again, JihadJane.

Totally, completely and utterly wrong. The investigations into what happend to the buildings could've been conducted by scientists from Venus who had no knowledge whatsoever of the conclusions being drawn in the press and in government offices.

For the purposes of the NIST investigation, Batman and Robin could've been flying one plane and Wonder Woman the other.

In your fantasies it's important that they started out with some a priori conditions, but that's just plain false. Wrong. Incorrect.

I am open to being shown evidence (not your rhetorical musings) to the contrary.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

You are making up things to suit your rhetoric again, JihadJane.

Totally, completely and utterly wrong. The investigations into what happend to the buildings could've been conducted by scientists from Venus who had no knowledge whatsoever of the conclusions being drawn in the press and in government offices.

For the purposes of the NIST investigation, Batman and Robin could've been flying one plane and Wonder Woman the other.

In your fantasies it's important that they started out with some a priori conditions, but that's just plain false. Wrong. Incorrect.

I am open to being shown evidence (not your rhetorical musings) to the contrary.

I agree, it was irrelevant to the NIST computer modelers etc. who was flying the planes, even if it was Cinderella and The Seven Dwarves, with on-the-ground scenes assistance from Goldilocks . However the tasks that the scientists are set to perform are not irrelevant. These things are set by other people - crudely put, to find out how plane impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

You are proving his point here. You have retreated as far as you can, so that you don't sound "crazy" to rational people and still maintain that you have a "narrative". The problem is that "911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly" isn't a narrative, it is irrelevant speculation (you even call it a "theory" in the very next sentence; theory does not equal narrative). It explains nothing, it is worth nothing.

And to answer your question: Yes, it does.

Edit: Sure, you have your fall-back position "Unless there is a major political unheaval [...] such an investigation will never happen" but that is also worth nothing. It's just a way for you to reduce cognitive dissonance.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Originally Posted by JohnG

The global warming deniers have always interested me. I feel they fall into two camps:

1. I don't want to believe in global warming because it is too frightening.

2. I don't want to believe in global warming because the steps needed to head it off/minimize it will negatively affect my quality of life, the amount of money my company makes, etc.

I would suggest two other groups..

3. Habitual contrarians: if most people believe "A" they will insist that "B" is correct. The amount of evidence for "A" is immaterial. The most important thing for this group is to believe that they are smarter than everyone else.

4. Those that will believe "B: because they can't stand the people who believe "A." If Al Gore says "A" then they will insist that "B" is correct. (I suspect this pattern is common on every part of the political spectrum. I use the Al Gore example because we're discussing Global Warming.)

Of course, some people will fall under more than one of these groups to different degrees.

I also considered a 5th group, those that refuse to believe "A" because they do not understand it.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I agree, it was irrelevant to the NIST computer modelers etc. who was flying the planes, even if it was Cinderella and The Seven Dwarves, with on-the-ground scenes assistance from Goldilocks . However the tasks that the scientists are set to perform are not irrelevant. These things are set by other people - crudely put, to find out how plane impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

You, of course, have something to lend credence to this revised claim. Like a document or the instructions given to NIST? 'Cuz I'd really like to see the proof for that, lemme tell ya!

I'll tell you what. Here's the release from 2002 explaining their mandate after taking revisions/suggestions from interested parties. Maybe you'll cite us the portion that says, "And make sure to only look into damage that could have occurred by planes being flown into the towers and subsequent fire damage - and nothing else, understand!"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

[~enigma~]

inside the truther mind we will find out if singularities are actual objects...

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Myron Proudfoot

I would suggest two other groups..

3. Habitual contrarians: if most people believe "A" they will insist that "B" is correct. The amount of evidence for "A" is immaterial. The most important thing for this group is to believe that they are smarter than everyone else.

4. Those that will believe "B: because they can't stand the people who believe "A." If Al Gore says "A" then they will insist that "B" is correct. (I suspect this pattern is common on every part of the political spectrum. I use the Al Gore example because we're discussing Global Warming.)

Of course, some people will fall under more than one of these groups to different degrees.

I also considered a 5th group, those that refuse to believe "A" because they do not understand it.

Yup, those too.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Not really. From the scientific viewpoint it didn't matter whether the planes were flown by terrorists, Israeli operatives, circus clowns, or remote control. NIST was concerned with the mechanics of the structural failures caused by the collisions.

that was my point when i first quoted her
NIST is there to understand the mechanics of failure to help reduce the chance of the same thing happening in the future (IE: improve quality of life by preventing death lol)

at that point to the NIST whether the collision was intentional or accidental doesnt matter
the airspeed impact angles etc etc was all that mattered to the NIST
all ideas were considered and CD was ruled out early (including 7 in their report)

hence why i left the 911 commission report out of my RE (as its politics and CJ more than science as the NIST is)
oranges and apples my dear lol

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by tuc0

You are proving his point here. You have retreated as far as you can,...

Retreated from where?

Quote:

... so that you don't sound "crazy" to rational people and still maintain that you have a "narrative". The problem is that "911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly" isn't a narrative, it is irrelevant speculation (you even call it a "theory" in the very next sentence; theory does not equal narrative).

I think aggle-rithm was using the two interchangeably, but I can't be bothered to check back. Theories are possible explanations and and are usually speculative.

Quote:

It explains nothing, it is worth nothing.

If you say so

Quote:

And to answer your question: Yes, it does.

Why?

Quote:

Edit: Sure, you have your fall-back position "Unless there is a major political unheaval [...] such an investigation will never happen" but that is also worth nothing. It's just a way for you to reduce cognitive dissonance.

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table. Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

You, of course, have something to lend credence to this revised claim. Like a document or the instructions given to NIST? 'Cuz I'd really like to see the proof for that, lemme tell ya!

I'll tell you what. Here's the release from 2002 explaining their mandate after taking revisions/suggestions from interested parties. Maybe you'll cite us the portion that says, "And make sure to only look into damage that could have occurred by planes being flown into the towers and subsequent fire damage - and nothing else, understand!"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-14.htm

Thanks for the link. The forgone conclusion is contained in the first paragraph, namely that the disintegration of the building was due to structual failure and “progressive collapse”, caused by the terrorist attacks (“...the structural failure and subsequent progressive collapse of several World Trade Center (WTC) buildings following the terrorist attacks ...”).

[tuc0]

*sigh*

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Retreated from where?

From a position that would offer a narrative. (not that I'm saying you ever had one)

Quote:

I think aggle-rithm was using the two interchangeably, but I can't be bothered to check back. Theories are possible explanations and and are usually speculative.

I'll let him speak for himself, but it doesn't matter how he used it. A narrative is a story. It describes a sequence of events. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. Yours is and has neither. It's not even a theory, because it lacks specific details.

Quote:

If you say so

No! It doesn't matter that I say so, it just is. No explanation of anything whatsoever.

Quote:

Why?

A purely subjective reason. People who suspect unseen forces behind historical events just seem crazy to me.

Quote:

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table. Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

See? It worked. Cognitive dissonance was reduced.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I have presented you with as detailed a speculative narrative as is possible with the information available, i.e.: 911 involved people in positions of power, acting covertly. That's my theory. Does it sound "crazy" to you?

Then we are 100% in agreement! The leadership of al Qaeda, which includes Osama bin Laden, can certainly be described as being in positions of power, and they certainly acted covertly.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I am not seeking to explain anything. That would require all the facts being on the table.

This is exactly what I find so interesting. Despite the fact that this is obviously very important to you, you won't even TRY to speculate as to what happened on 9/11.

I believe that you have some very specific suspicions about who you think is behind it. I also believe that you will throw up all sorts of specious verbal roadblocks to avoid answering any direct questions about these suspicions that you have.

You're doing it as we speak!

Quote:

Instead we are given a narrative about the plot, many of the "facts" of which were established to be supposedly true by unsubstantiated, third hand reports of information gleaned by torturing people.

Appeal to emotion noted.

Another common truther tactic.