Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

9/11 deniers have pretty much the premise, that what they think to know about the American goverment and the image they have about the goverment, regarding its integrity, honesty and intents are what they percieve them to be.

So if actions unfold that might challenge such a view, they are quickly dismissed and they are ready to accept explanations that bend the laws of physic, if not rightout voiding them.

Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever. Science is the only truth. Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter. Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.


So in your opinion, which is the more reasonable approach, clinging to what you thought to know about a group of people or putting the truth of science above words and pervieved social bonds and loyalities?

Science is more reliable than word of mouth, but different demolition experts, architects, and engineers have defended both sides of the argument. I can honestly say I don't know if burning furniture and jet fuel can take down a building as massive as either of the towers, or if a weakened foundation can take down building 7.

A large network of people could never work together in unison in order to bring about significant change in the world. Which is why the 9/11 truth movement doesn't exist. Oh wait...

Science doesn't lie. We don't have mind power for nothing. The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence. I don't really use science to prove things. Instead I use common sense. The government just throw lies at us and since most people are apathetic about these kinds of stuff they'll just take it and believe it.

Originally posted by filosophia
A large network of people could never work together in unison in order to bring about significant change in the world. Which is why the 9/11 truth movement doesn't exist. Oh wait...

Exactly, and it's not like 19 guys with box-cutters could possibly kill tens of thousands of people and bring the entire country to a standstill. Oh wait...

Originally posted by Cassius666
9/11 deniers have pretty much the premise, that what they think to know about the American goverment and the image they have about the goverment, regarding its integrity, honesty and intents are what they percieve them to be.

So if actions unfold that might challenge such a view, they are quickly dismissed and they are ready to accept explanations that bend the laws of physic, if not rightout voiding them.

Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever. Science is the only truth. Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter. Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.


So in your opinion, which is the more reasonable approach, clinging to what you thought to know about a group of people or putting the truth of science above words and pervieved social bonds and loyalities?

Some "deniers" as you style them may indeed have a great deal of faith in the US government. But it's really just a Truther invention that anyone who isn't a Truther slavishly endorses anything the government says or does because they are frightened of the alternative.

You would certainly call me a "denier", and I think the US government is fairly venal, at least partially incompetent, and definitely self-serving. Where do I fit into your extraordinary categorisations?

I see Truthers as people who are desperately in need of a narrative to explain events in a way that they find satisfying, for intellectual and emotional reasons. They have a need to feel "initiated" and superior. Furthermore, it's often the case that they need to construct an antagonist (The government, Zionists, NWO, TPTB) that is so implacably evil and powerful that attacking it in a meaningful way is impossible. Thus they contract out of having to actually do anything of substance.

Far from sensibly cleaving to laws of science or physics - the basic understanding of which is low amongst Truthers - they tend to fit every eventuality into a preconceived notion of an "inside job". I've encountered hardly anyone in the Truth Movement who has a genuine understanding of the physical factors involved. Instead they appeal to authorities which it's plain to anyone without bias are untrustworthy.

Originally posted by filosophia
A large network of people could never work together in unison in order to bring about significant change in the world. Which is why the 9/11 truth movement doesn't exist. Oh wait...

What change has the truth movement achieved? It seems to me to be largely an irrelevance. Certainly a vanishingly small number of actual activists seem to exist.

You are opening up a huge can of worms here, the actual premise of your OP delves into the importance of FAITH in opinion making.

Not to get into the obvious religious nature of such a discussion, on a smaller level, it exists in almost every situation we face... especially those on ATS. (I say "almost" every situation, because cases like "gravity" are universally excepted, by hardcore religious zealots and atheist scientists alike.)

To the OP this has to do with the FAITH one holds in the sources of information. (Government sources vs. independent internet/journalistic sources for example.) And even the FAITH that particular scientific experiments have been done according to proper scientific method, and have actually yielded the results claimed. (i.e. were you a lab assistant on hand?)

The point is, if you are not a first hand eye witness to an event (and I would dare say video witness, but even this has been questioned in the 9/11 conspiracy) you are 100% dependent on the description of this event by a third party source. The amount of FAITH (or trust) you put in this source's account, will determine the amount of weight you give their interpretation of the events when creating your final (hopefully) objective opinion.

From my viewpoint, all sides of the 9/11 debate (minus some really whacky theories which I'm sure I don't have to get into) are based more heavily on FAITH than on SCIENCE.

Unless you were in one of the planes, a direct eye witness, or (subsequently) given direct access to the evidence and allowed to perform the forensic experiments yourself, you were not privy to the information required to make a 100% FACT based opinion.

the Billmeister

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Yes! I know I feel superior for being a Truther!!!!!!! Thank you for mentioning that!!!!

Originally posted by Billmeister
You are opening up a huge can of worms here, the actual premise of your OP delves into the importance of FAITH in opinion making...

the Billmeister

Of course one can never really be 100 per cent certain of anything. The existence of Korea, for example, could be a gigantic hoax. But if you have a balanced and nuanced approach it's often pretty simple to assess which sources are worthwhile and which are not.

Generally the ones used by the Truth Movement fall into the latter category.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You can fly to Seoul (Pyongyang, not so much), get down and actually physically (i.e. firsthand witness) confirm the existence of Korea. (I know what you are getting at though...)

However, when dealing with an event that has come and gone, the only remaining evidence and/or event description, can only come from third-party sources. Of course, common sense is not to be disregarded in opinion making, but from a very pragmatic point of view, this is also subjective to our specific upbringing (i.e. culture, education, religion etc...).

Some people view this as a sort of cop-out, but I believe that we should be agnostic (i.e. open to all possibilities) in every situation where direct. first-hand proof cannot be experienced.

That said, I agree that any FAITH-based opinion tends to filter information to give weight to what supports the chosen view and ignore that which does not... however, that can be said of both sides of this particular debate can it not?

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Cassius666
So in your opinion, which is the more reasonable approach, clinging to what you thought to know about a group of people or putting the truth of science above words and pervieved social bonds and loyalities?

I have absolutely no idea what it is you're asking. 9/11 deniers and 9/11 truthers are the exact same group of people. Truthers are those who deny the validity of the commission report so they attempt to "seek out the *real* truth behind the 9/11 attack" which really means they want to push their own personal theories onto other people regardless of what the facts are. Judy Woods and her "Lasers from outer space" claims and April Gallop and her "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are sterling cases in point of the truther/denier mindset.

In order to rationalize why they'e not getting anywhere with their conspiracy preaching the 9/11 denier/truthers/theorists/whatever always need to cling to the conspiracy dogma that everyone who dares to disagree with them must be goosestepping sheep who mindlessly swallows everythign the gov't tells them, so your question to us non truthers/deniers/theorists/whatever is as pointless as asking whether we'd want to be rich or be poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm willing to listen to the proposition that there was some form of conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack but I'n not willing to stick my head in the sand and pretend there aren't inconvenient facts out there that shows the claim is rubbish, as the truthers routinely do.

Until the conspiracy people/truthers/deniers.whatever grow up and acknowledge that people can mistrust the gov't AS WELL AS mistrust the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, these 9/11 conspiracy stories are going to be relegated to history's scrap heap of idiotic ideas, right next to the Y2K scare and pyramid power. Accept or ignore this at your own cost.

Originally posted by jrcris2011
Science doesn't lie. We don't have mind power for nothing. The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence. I don't really use science to prove things. Instead I use common sense. The government just throw lies at us and since most people are apathetic about these kinds of stuff they'll just take it and believe it.

If it's a choice between having to accept that science is lying, and having to accept that an administration so inept that it couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels is really some evil super genius who pulled off the most complex conspiracy in all of recorded human history with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act, I'm going to have to believe that science is lying. I will readily accept that 2+2 really equals five more than I can accept Bush having an IQ higher than a turnip.

Realistically, it's really less the case that science is lying and more the case that the people presenting the science to you are lying about what the science is. We both know you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites being run by lunatics like Alex Jones who insists the gov't is slipping mind control chemicals to people to make them into homosexuals.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jrcris2011
Science doesn't lie. We don't have mind power for nothing. The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence. I don't really use science to prove things. Instead I use common sense. The government just throw lies at us and since most people are apathetic about these kinds of stuff they'll just take it and believe it.

If it's a choice between having to accept that science is lying, and having to accept that an administration so inept that it couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels is really some evil super genius who pulled off the most complex conspiracy in all of recorded human history with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act, I'm going to have to believe that science is lying. I will readily accept that 2+2 really equals five more than I can accept Bush having an IQ higher than a turnip.

Therein lies your fallacy, assuming that the goverement you see on the media are the only people on the levers of power.

As for everything else you said, well points for honesty.

reply to post by Cassius666

9/11 deniers have pretty much the premise, that what they think to know about the American goverment and the image they have about the goverment, regarding its integrity, honesty and intents are what they percieve them to be.

Uh, isn't that pretty much true for everyone? Do you know anyone who doesn't believe what they think? I think I know what you are trying to get across - that to you "deniers" believe universally that the government is basically honest, but is that any more irrational that a "truther" believing that everyone and anyone associated with government is devoid of all moral integrity and capable of mass murder?

So if actions unfold that might challenge such a view, they are quickly dismissed and they are ready to accept explanations that bend the laws of physic, if not rightout voiding them.

This bending of the laws of physics - is this an established fact or an opinion?

Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever.

Well, its not the laws of physics that are on vacation all the time. Just because someone uses the magical phrase "physics" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that what ever follows that word is true.

Science is the only truth.

Nope, science is an intellectual process, that process is very complicated and not always executed properly. Again, simply labeling something as "science" does not make it so.

Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter.

Huh? Impossible is a very loaded word. Often confused with improbable. Two completely different ideas.

Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.

Again, science is simply a process and as the old saying goes "garbage in, garbage out". And yes, some people are lying.

So in your opinion, which is the more reasonable approach, clinging to what you thought to know about a group of people or putting the truth of science above words and pervieved social bonds and loyalities?

Before I declare a bunch of persons as large and diverse as representatives of the US government as mass murderers you will need to do much, much, much, much better than simply declaring that "science says so".

Originally posted by Cassius666
Therein lies your fallacy, assuming that the goverement you see on the media are the only people on the levers of power.

Ah, I get you now. You're one of those "secret shadow gov'ts are operating behind the puppet gov't we see on television" conspiracy people. Much of the context of your posts makes perfect sense now. So, are you one of the Jewish World Order conspiracy people, one of the "Satan worshipping numerologists" conspiracy people, or are you something else?

Personally, I cannot subscribe to the idea that some secret shadowy dictatorship is quietly controlling all our lives. Every despot in history from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to Kim Il Sung all prove that you never need to look beneath rocks and search through hidden references to find signs of secret dictatorships. Dictatorships are always blatant, and they always go out of their way to find you.

As for everything else you said, well points for honesty

Thanks but there's no need. Making the points that Bush has the IQ of a turnip and that these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites are churning out drivel is as unremarkable as saying water is wet.

reply to post by Cassius666


BRAVO! Completely agree with you!
It's ok. Keep knowing what you know, trust your instincts and ignore all the sleep-talking.
In the end, nothing will be able to undo what you know.
A person's instinct alone is more powerful than any "news" on the tube.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've encountered hardly anyone in the Truth Movement who has a genuine understanding of the physical factors involved. Instead they appeal to authorities which it's plain to anyone without bias are untrustworthy.

That is absolute nonsense. First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.

I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who understands Newtons laws of motion. Want to prove me wrong, debate me on it.

I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who doesn't give up debating me on physics and start throwing personal insults. In fact your post here is a personal insult, with no evidence to support it's claim.

If you think trusses sagging from heat can put a pulling force on the much more massive columns they were attached to, then you are the one who has trouble understanding the physics involved in collapsing buildings.
If you go on and think that failing trusses can cause complete global collapse through the path of most resistance, ignoring laws of motion and moment conservation, then you are truly acting on nothing but appeals to authority and faith.
If you think a building can naturally fall into it's own footprint, with all four outer walls landing on top of the rest of the demolished building, then you are probably physics challenged.

If you think this can happen...



Then you are completely lost. That is NOVA's representation of the NIST report.

reply to post by ANOK

First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.

We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.

Originally posted by hooper

We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.

LOL an appeal to authority is an appeal to authority. You can't go around claiming people do that when you do it yourself, and admit it. As to what 'authority' is credible is down to opinion, this is why it's not a credible form of debate. You appeal to authority because you can't make a credible argument yourself. You can just say 'read this', or 'watch this', and think you've made a valid argument. I thought we were here to debate each other, not someone else's work by proxy.

Newtons laws of motion is a repeated because you all keep ignoring it, because if you truly apply the laws it makes your opinions and the NIST report nonsense.

If you truly understood the physics then you would also be using the laws of motion to explain your points. The laws of motion are the laws of motion, and are the most relevant physics to collapses, momentum and collision. Your obvious fear of the 'phrase' is very telling.

Tell me, what other laws of physics should we be applying to this problem?