ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th September 2016, 04:06 PM   #41
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Dave, I have seen the evidence!
So has Criteria.
You apparently haven't.

This puts you in a more uncomfortable position than us: We can be rather confident that Criteria was right (that a certain member has been convicted of certain wrongdoing involving a child - again, I am not subscribing to the rhetorical "expose" nor necessarily to the "molester" - MM called out the member on the crime, and the crime did involve a minor and a sexual motive, so while the wording may be hyperbole, he is essentially right). You assert a negative - that there is no evidence. There is - you just haven't seen it, and we are prevented by ISF rules from showing it to you. So you must remain ignorant. You should accept at this point that you are ignorant.
You may remain skeptical - you are not obliged to trust my word. But then you have cause to at most say "I don't know if Criteria is right". It would be foolish to claim he is wrong - you assert a negative you can't prove.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 04:51 PM   #42
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Now explain to me how Criteria being right, and being certain that he is right, is dangerous, while some debunkers being wrong, and being certain that they are right, is not!?
I'm sure there must be an R.D Laing 'Knots' that is relevant here. Something like:

Everyone knows that Jane is always wrong.
If Jane says something that happens to be right, it becomes wrong
because Jane said it, because Jane is always wrong.

Even if Jane says that she is always wrong, which is right, that becomes wrong,
because Jane said it and Jane is always wrong.

But just because we now know that Jane is sometimes right,
(because Jane said she was always wrong and Jane is always wrong),
that does not mean that Jane is right about anything
because everyone knows that Jane is always wrong.


That's only slightly sillier than the goalpost moving displayed in this thread: 'It's not that he might be right, it's that he's so certain he's right', 'Yes, but he IS right! There IS evidence!', 'But he can't present it due to forum rules.', 'But THAT WAS HIS POINT!', 'But he's wrong about so many other things...' etc, etc,...

Originally Posted by Oystein
The question asked by the OP is ill-posed and silly, Criteria's attempt at "Tu quoque" doubly so.
+1 'Tu quoque' is the logical fallacy no-one ever seems to notice, although it's constantly used by both sides (think irony meters blowing up). The current, 'Whose avoiding questions the most' exchange in the WTC Dust thread is a good example.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 06:09 PM   #43
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Truther or non truther. You never really know what people are truly capable of.

On the other hand a small minority of my friends have alternative views of what happened on 911. These are people I've known since we were pretty much kids. I'd hardly call them dangerous.
Playing Games is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:42 PM   #44
boggis the cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 163
This argument about what a member of the forum may / may not have done is a good example of why conflating criminality in one area (alleged or 'proven') with assumed dishonesty in another is foolish.

It is the same type of argument you get about credentials and competence. Just because you are competent or have relevant credentials in one area of expertise, it does not follow that you have competence in another. Nor does it follow that you can't be competent in more than one area of expertise. (Nor that you are competent simply because you have a qualification of some sort...)

And so on.

You should factor in past experience (remembering that prejudice is a factor), but try to review the argument being made. Easier said than done, of course, but it seems that this is possibly being pushed aside in this thread in favour of axe-grinding.

(Being new to these forums, I have less accumulated experience / prejudice, so am presently at a slight advantage in any discussion. Maybe.)
boggis the cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 11:21 PM   #45
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,092
In an attempt to steer this discussion back to safer ground, let me try this:
We have seen examples posted of both truthers and debunkers who have committed crimes. With this last, the poster who allegedly committed a crime of abuse, we surely need to consider whether this crime was committed because he was a skeptic,or whether he was a skeptic who also committed a crime. The same applies to the truthers listed earlier in the thread. Did they commit their respective crimes because they were conspiracy theorists, or were they CT believers who committed crimes.
Now, and this is just mu opnion, I see no reasin why skepticsm itself should lead to a criminally-inclined mindset. Skepticism is about not assuming anything, but relying on evidence to form a qualified opinion, which is subject to revision in the light of further evidence.
The mindset of conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, is surely more paranoid, and less connected with reality. I would guess that this would lead to acting out of belief that governments were out to get you, or that Freemasons deserved to die etc.
This, I think, is a more valuable and productive direction for this conversation, IMHO.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:47 AM   #46
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Dave, I have seen the evidence!
So has Criteria.
You apparently haven't.
True. I'm prepared to take your word that it exists, though, in which case I withdraw the assertion.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 03:48 AM   #47
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Are 9/11 Truthers dangerous?

Yes.

So are 9/11 Debunkers. So are pacifists. Everyone is dangerous. We have the power to do bad things, and that is dangerous. We live in a constant threat that someone does something that affects others negatively. That's human nature.

Now, are 9/11 Truthers dangerous for being truthers?

No.

Paranoid people have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. Paranoid people are especially dangerous (as in, they are more likely to do something that affects others negatively than the rest), but it's because of their paranoia, not because of what they believe. It doesn't really matter what exactly they believe, because one thing or another is the trigger for the actions that some of them take. In one case it's their 9/11 belief, in another case it's the tinting of the windows of the cars.

So, I think that blaming their 9/11 belief is putting the cart before the horse. There may be more paranoid people among them, and therefore more dangerous people, but that's because paranoid people tend to embrace conspiracy theories, not because those that embrace conspiracy theories tend to be clinically paranoid.

ETA: To try to put it clearer: I think that those who are colloquially paranoid, as opposed to clinically paranoid, are not any more dangerous than Average Joe. I'm paranoid (in the colloquial sense) about some things. Everyone is.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 26th September 2016 at 03:53 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:21 AM   #48
BaaBaa
Semi-literate hench-person
 
BaaBaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
All of the Sandy Hook Truthers are truly vile and contemptible human beings.
FTFY
__________________
"Damn, i think you are illeterate"
BaaBaa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:21 AM   #49
RandyK47
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 84
I've never given much thought to Truthers being dangerous but have found a few who are everything from interesting to minimally annoying to downright insulting. Because I was at the Pentagon on September 11 I've been engaged in everything from thoughtful and sincere questioning discussions to outrageous claims and verbal attacks on my truthfulness and integrity over the years. Obviously the former doesn't bother me but over the years the latter has made me reluctant to engage. But back to Truthers being dangerous in the physical sense? Probably no more so than any other segment of our society.
RandyK47 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 10:11 AM   #50
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,704
Both of these responses pretty much, if somehow combined, encapsulate my thinking.

Prediliction to conspiracism may be a symptom, and not an underlying cause, and predilection to violence may also be a symptom, of another syndrome such as paranoia. Note that most believers in any particular Conspiracy Theory are not clinically paranoid.

Skepticism is in not a symptom of the same syndrome of which prediliction to violence is also a symptom, in my experience, because I don't see a causal link. Being a skeptic however, if I am shown sufficient evidence I will revise my opinion.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In an attempt to steer this discussion back to safer ground, let me try this:
We have seen examples posted of both truthers and debunkers who have committed crimes. With this last, the poster who allegedly committed a crime of abuse, we surely need to consider whether this crime was committed because he was a skeptic,or whether he was a skeptic who also committed a crime. The same applies to the truthers listed earlier in the thread. Did they commit their respective crimes because they were conspiracy theorists, or were they CT believers who committed crimes.
Now, and this is just mu opnion, I see no reasin why skepticsm itself should lead to a criminally-inclined mindset. Skepticism is about not assuming anything, but relying on evidence to form a qualified opinion, which is subject to revision in the light of further evidence.
The mindset of conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, is surely more paranoid, and less connected with reality. I would guess that this would lead to acting out of belief that governments were out to get you, or that Freemasons deserved to die etc.
This, I think, is a more valuable and productive direction for this conversation, IMHO.
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Are 9/11 Truthers dangerous?

Yes.

So are 9/11 Debunkers. So are pacifists. Everyone is dangerous. We have the power to do bad things, and that is dangerous. We live in a constant threat that someone does something that affects others negatively. That's human nature.

Now, are 9/11 Truthers dangerous for being truthers?

No.

Paranoid people have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. Paranoid people are especially dangerous (as in, they are more likely to do something that affects others negatively than the rest), but it's because of their paranoia, not because of what they believe. It doesn't really matter what exactly they believe, because one thing or another is the trigger for the actions that some of them take. In one case it's their 9/11 belief, in another case it's the tinting of the windows of the cars.

So, I think that blaming their 9/11 belief is putting the cart before the horse. There may be more paranoid people among them, and therefore more dangerous people, but that's because paranoid people tend to embrace conspiracy theories, not because those that embrace conspiracy theories tend to be clinically paranoid.

ETA: To try to put it clearer: I think that those who are colloquially paranoid, as opposed to clinically paranoid, are not any more dangerous than Average Joe. I'm paranoid (in the colloquial sense) about some things. Everyone is.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 02:53 PM   #51
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,436
some of the Truthers such as the ones on the Let's Roll conspiracy page are just a bit detached from reality and ultra paranoid If they see survivors or families of victims as government agents, I could see their insane paranoia drive them to harm others. Question is how many have acted out their violence? Stalking seems the worst, like the nutcase who stalked Buzz Aldren

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
__________________
Formerly known as Titanic Explorer
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 02:48 PM   #52
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The truly dangerous people are those who wish to suppress the truth.

I could list some dangerous members from your group (and give ample reason), but since they have not been banned here, I would get banned.
God man! You do carry on with some garbage.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 04:18 PM   #53
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I'm sure there must be an R.D Laing 'Knots' that is relevant here. Something like:

Everyone knows that Jane is always wrong.
If Jane says something that happens to be right, it becomes wrong
because Jane said it, because Jane is always wrong.....
If you want a real-life multi-year running example try this thread:OOS Collapse Propagation Model

It started before you became a member Giorgio - the OP was Major_Tom who made some technically correct observations BUT he was declared to be a truther by the resident claque - and as "everyone knows truthers are always wrong".

The ongoing mental gymnastics of denials led me to frame what I called "The Blue Sky Syndrome" - briefly stated "If a truther claims that 'the cloudless daytime sky is blue' some debunkers will line up to denounce the assertion as false".

Even had a couple of smilies: and
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 05:29 PM   #54
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
... was Major_Tom who made some technically correct observations BUT he was declared to be a truther by the resident claque -...
Major Tom was wrong, it was not CD, and he never retracted his CD claims. He also has no clue why the filters used by femr2 are/were silly...

Major Tom thinks the WTC was CD, guess he was not a truther, he was just plain wrong. He never retracted his original claims bombs were planted. He offered photos of steel not damaged by explosives as evidence for steel damaged by explosives. Why can't 9/11 truth retract their claims, and state in the clear 19 terrorists caused the damage on 9/11.
Just plain silly not to retract the BS and nonsense of CD.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 07:55 AM   #55
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Major Tom was wrong, it was not CD, and he never retracted his CD claims. He also has no clue why the filters used by femr2 are/were silly...

Major Tom thinks the WTC was CD, guess he was not a truther, he was just plain wrong. He never retracted his original claims bombs were planted. He offered photos of steel not damaged by explosives as evidence for steel damaged by explosives. Why can't 9/11 truth retract their claims, and state in the clear 19 terrorists caused the damage on 9/11.
Just plain silly not to retract the BS and nonsense of CD.
Major Tom may or may not believe in CD - which does not change the fact he made some technically correct observations about the collapse which are still correct no matter what other incorrect views he may have.

That I believe was the whole point. Just because he is wrong about CD does not make him globally wrong about everything.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 08:09 AM   #56
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Major Tom may or may not believe in CD - which does not change the fact he made some technically correct observations about the collapse which are still correct no matter what other incorrect views he may have.

That I believe was the whole point. Just because he is wrong about CD does not make him globally wrong about everything.
The main issue I took with Major Tom after he stopped trying to argue for a CD was that he seemed not to accept that anyone else had ever made the same observations as him before he coined an abbreviation for them. As far as I recall, several people made comments well before he came to the forum to the effect that the actual collapse progression was far more complicated than the simple Bazant model suggested, and that an internal cascade collapse of the floors must have preceded the perimeter column collapses; MT often seemed more concerned with claiming credit for being the first one to see this than with reasonably discussing its implications.

And I see, on reviewing the thread, that Newtons Bit said much the same thing in post #3.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 08:27 AM   #57
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The main issue I took with Major Tom after he stopped trying to argue for a CD was that he seemed not to accept that anyone else had ever made the same observations as him before he coined an abbreviation for them. As far as I recall, several people made comments well before he came to the forum to the effect that the actual collapse progression was far more complicated than the simple Bazant model suggested, and that an internal cascade collapse of the floors must have preceded the perimeter column collapses; MT often seemed more concerned with claiming credit for being the first one to see this than with reasonably discussing its implications.

And I see, on reviewing the thread, that Newtons Bit said much the same thing in post #3.

Dave
Not questioning that Major Tom has some off-putting personal quirks (Mark said being very kind). Just in agreement with Oz that being a Truther or marked as a Truther shouldn't automatically tag him as being always wrong.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:32 PM   #58
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Not questioning that Major Tom has some off-putting personal quirks (Mark said being very kind). Just in agreement with Oz that being a Truther or marked as a Truther shouldn't automatically tag him as being always wrong.

Exactly Mark. A point I made repeatedly to both sides of the nonsense. And copped dishonest personal attacks from both sides.

M_T made - from memory - four or five technically correct claims framed in a posting style which I counselled him against on many occasions on this forum and one other forum. No matter how obnoxious his style those CORRECT technical assertions he made DO NOT become false either because:
A) He had been declared to be a truther; OR
B) His style was offensive - deliberately so from late 2010 onwards BTW BUT let's not think about who started it - read that thread; OR
C) He made a pro truther claim or two a couple of years back and won't explicitly denounce them at beachnut's demand; OR
D) He got something else wrong.

When he says "the daytime cloudless sky is BLUE" I think he is correct and no amount of posturing or debating trickery will make him wrong UNTIL those disagreeing falsify the blueness hypothesis OR post a valid hypothesis for a sky colour other than blue.


(And no apology to those who don't do metaphor or analogy. )

MEANWHILE - back on the OP

I doubt if many are dangerous. The demographic sector is small and the main risk IMO is wasting effort of those who pursue them in argument.

I see no reason why the risk of them resorting to acts of physical violence is any higher than other marginal and minority groups. But IMO somewhat higher than the "normal population"....
...I won't even attempt to put a number on it.

Last edited by ozeco41; 18th October 2016 at 05:20 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.