posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:06 PM
I don't think you're a troll. I think you bring up legitimate questions. First, the labels..... "truther"/"debunker"..... almost begs one
to fit into one arena or the other doesn't it? I reject that, and I kind of think you do too. What happened to finding out what really happened?
Okay, at this point, I am serruptitiously labeled "fence-sitter" haha!
I've looked at a lot of the evidence. Things that are posted almost always are slanted in one direction or another. Who are we trying to
convince? An analogy: A long time ago, in a country where people watched television for entertainment, and worked their tails off for their
children's future, perhaps enjoyed simple pleasures and fullfillments, we had a thing called news. It was NEVER the WHOLE news, but what it did
portray was the action items of the previous day. It came on once a day, around the dinner hour. People tuned in to find out what happened.
There might've been much that was not discussed, but it was reported with a sense of integrity. [insert wavy lines as we return to the present].
Today, I can watch seven different news feeds relational to the same story and arrive at at least three different conclusions. There is an active
spin put on things. Not always, but often. This used to be called an editorial. We expected it to be controversial. That's entertainment.
So now, when we debate conspiracies, I think that much of the time, we envoke rhetoric and attempt to persuade, rather than to report. I miss the
times when we sought the truth of a thing.
I have seen reports on facets of 9/11 that involved math and physics. I followed the math, made notes of my own. They were not flawed mathematics,
but then the interpretation of those proofs..... we are lead into the trap by the bait of math, and once accepted, then told what it means. I find
some of those things to be speculative, but put forth as proof. I almost want to petition that discussions surrounding 9/11 have the words
"truth", "proof" and "fact" to be striken from the report.
Here's where things come apart. AX puts forth evidence toward their theory, and having compiled other items that resonate well or support the
theory, they label it as "fact", and challenge BZ to refute it. That causes BZ to accept the validity of the theory in order to refute it, when
really, AX has simply put forth a theory that has mislabeled it as fact. BZ siezes on a minor chink in the argument, and having provided evidence
that supports that insignificant flaw, then labels the entire theory as "false" by having demonstrated a possible inconsistency.
It happens over and over again, ad naseum. When did it become more important to be right, than to find the truth? "DO YOUR RESEARCH".... I hear
all the time..... often followed by an invective that is meant to infer that the individual is stupid for not having arrived at the same [mass]
I offer a solution. Let a discussion ensue with a moderator [or arbitor, doesn't have to be a MOD], someone who is committed to being impartial,
and also committed to enforcing previously agreed upon rules. Guidelines which are designed to keep the focal point on the logic, the evidence, and
away from the personalities and hyperbole.
Why are most of us invested in one view or another? Is the previous question begging the question, making an assumption and rolling it into a
conclusion? Perhaps so, but I think it's on the right track. I'm not avocating reducing 9/11 to a logic debate, but dammitall, most of what I
see degrades into people sniping at each other, each thinking the other fools or demented, or...... my favorite slur..... "asleep". Wake UP! [and
agree with me]. I think groups can do amazing things, the sum of the cognative thinking more than its parts, but group decisions are often nothing
more than a vote, with the most votes being deemed "correct"...... or...... dare I say it? I dare...... "truthful".
The preceeding rant was an editorial. Thank you OP for the space.