20 replies to this topic

[frenat]

Common sense would tell you that if your plan is to tell people that a 757 crashed into the building and there is a 757 that will go missing that you crash a freaking 757 into the building.

[Obviousman]

Noteaph on Jun 24 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:
There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story
(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Excuse any grammar faults as Im a Dutchy, dont really write in English that much ;-)

Godspeed to all

Salus populi suprema lex

I'm unsure why you especially pick me out, but I feel honoured. Thank you!

There are indeed capable and / or qualified people who profess doubts regarding various aspects of 9/11. They do indeed voice their doubts - sometimes quite strongly.

Why should we believe them?

Well, firstly, they are qualified. That means they should have their opinions listened to and evaluated. Should they automatically have their opinions taken as fact? NO. It means they should be listened to, because they have qualifications in the subject area. You should then seek the opinion of more people in the subject area, continuing until a clear consensus is obtained. Once this is obtained, you can be in a position to decide the veracity of various claims.

If, however, the claims by one (or a minority of qualified people) are refuted by the majority of qualified people, then those claims or opinions should be disregarded or treated with a degree of suspicion with respect to their veracity.

Another aspect to consider is the qualification of people who make the claims. What are they qualified in? A professor in philosophy is indeed a learned person... but their opinions regarding technical matters in a field such as physics or mechanical engineering or aeronautics is no more valid than anyone else's unless they are supported by a consensus of professionals qualified in that field.

I urge people to always consider these facts when evaluating the various 9/11 claims.

[flyingswan]

Noteaph on Jun 23 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:
There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story
(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Have you read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things"?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Believe-Wei...7125&sr=8-1
He includes a chapter "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" which addresses the question you raise, and his answer is that, all too often, intelligent people use their intelligence to confirm their beliefs rather than to test them.  You only have to look at the posts of the more intelligent conspiracy believers on this forum to see this in action.  When confronted with evidence that their theory is wrong, their reaction is to look for reasons to disregard that evidence, and being intelligent, they can always come up with something, however unlikely.
Here's another link on this unscientific way of testing a theory:
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

[SphericalMiracle]

Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic.  The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING.  They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.

[flyingswan]

SphericalMiracle on Jun 24 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic.  The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING.  They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.

Pseudo? Having "mundane explanations to EVERYTHING" is a pretty good definition of a sceptic.  A sceptic only looks for an extraordinary explanation if a mundane one doesn't apply.  Ever heard of Occam's razor?

[Obviousman]

Noteaph,

If you look at my last post and apply those principles to the "Scholars for 9-11 Truth", I believe you'll find that:

- A number of the members are not scholars in the normal meaning of the word;

- Those that are scholars mainly come from fields not directly applicable to 9/11 (philosophy, etc); and

- Those scholars that are in the related fields espouse theories that are NOT supported by the large majority of their peers.

Hope this helps.