It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
To me, there are two kinds of people with respect to 9/11.

Those who believe every single aspect of the official story. No questions asked, no need for any further investigations - case closed. If this is you, then you're a government story believer.

Then, there's everyone else. As long as some aspect of the official government story nags at your inner core, then by definition, you have to be a truther, as you're seeking the truth. Whatever that truth is, you have doubts and questions about the official story.

There's a lot of infighting amongst truthers. Many have their own pet ideas with what happened. That's fine, whatever. Their common goal is seeking the truth, even though some of them go about it in strange ways. I'd prefer that truthers research to find the truth, rather than assume a truth and then twist facts to support it, but life's not that perfect. There are a couple of truthers in this forum who really have no idea and look foolish - often. I don't care how ridiculous some truther theories are... they can say what they like. Their particular pet theory isn't the one that's being sold in History books.

I find it interesting, that over the last few months an influx of new ATS members (and even some alleged government spooks) are trying to blur this clear distinction. Their methods involve false logic and obvious generalisations that just aren't true.

For example, one new member has posted in many threads stating a belief in the government story and used many put-downs (earning multiple Moderator Warnings) to ridicule people seeking the truth. However, this same person then stated that the only hidden fact was that Flight UA93 was shot down. Yes that's right... how can one be a government story believer, yet also casually accept that Flight UA93 was shot down and not even think twice to question the cover-up?

You either accept all of it, as a government story believer, or you question some of it and become a truther. I can't see any consistent logic taking any other stance. If one of you can, then please point it out to me. Serious, I'm willing to consider other positions. I'm trying to figure out why some people obviously contradict themselves.

Some government story believers even try to convince us that there is no official government story... ah-huh. Sure. If that makes them sleep well at night, then so be it.

Similarly... some of the government story believers like to group all truthers in the same basket, thinking that they all have the same beliefs. For example, visit some threads that involve CIT's work. You'll see how some government story believers want to label everyone posting there as flyover believers. It's easier for these government story believers to reduce their argument to one point, so they make the fatal mistake of thinking that everyone supports that one point!

It shows the desperation that some government story believers cling to, when they need to lump people together, in such an uninformed way, to make it easier for them to 'debunk' the many valid questions that are asked about 9/11. There are currently quite a few government story believers who generalise and speculate about other people's beliefs - when they don't have the right to do so. They need to build the strawman argument, when in many instances it's not valid to do so.

When reading other threads, keep your eyes open, look for the false claims and who's making them. I haven't mentioned member names in this thread, however, I can support all of my examples with links, if need be. I'd rather not attack anyone personally.

There are some 'classy' government story believers who do attempt to sell the spin, without the insults and rhetoric. I respect those couple of people. The rest... well, they're struggling when they can't differentiate between lots of people asking many varied questions.

The next time one of you government story believers makes a false assumption about what I believe, I'll be adding your quote here in this thread to point out your logical failings.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Have at them Tezza!

I'll be checking in regularly mate.

IRM



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This is a bit OT, but everything you just said there applies to the so-called 'birther' conspiracies as well. There is far too much generalization going on in threads on this website. People really need to expand their minds and realize that not everyone fits into this little 2-foot by 2-foot box the generalists have constructed.

Chrono



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
To me, there are two kinds of people with respect to 9/11.

Those who believe every single aspect of the official story. No questions asked, no need for any further investigations - case closed. If this is you, then you're a government story believer.


What "government story?" Speak up, man.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government story?" Speak up, man.

The one that you believe, jthomas.

The one that you try to defend in the threads that you visit.

Yep, that's the one.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You either accept all of it, as a government story believer, or you question some of it and become a truther. I can't see any consistent logic taking any other stance.............

Similarly... some of the government story believers like to group all truthers in the same basket, thinking that they all have the same beliefs.


you're clearly contradicting yourself here, on one hand you're pushing the view that you either believe the government or you don't at all, then you claim some sort of fault in the GSB's when they assume you disbelieve all elements of the government story.

there is no back and white, there's not even a grey area, the whole thing is a spectrum and there are all colours and shades involved.

for instance, flight93 being shot down is the most credible CT, the cover-up might even be understandable, who wants to admit to shooting down civilian traffic, even if you do it for the right reason. it's not a shock that people can assimilate that idea and still believe the rest of the official story.

it always struck me that any drive to lump all truthers into one single group would be the best cover-up stratagem, to me, associating someone pointing out real holes in the story with people who believe the planes were holograms is a damn good way to discredit them.

so i'm curious, why exactly is it that you would want to push this view? why do you want anyone for whom "some aspect of the official government story nags at your inner core" to be associated with groups that believe clearly outrageous CT's? why do you wish so strongly to label them the same?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
you're clearly contradicting yourself here, on one hand you're pushing the view that you either believe the government or you don't at all, then you claim some sort of fault in the GSB's when they assume you disbelieve all elements of the government story.

No contradiction at all.

In my OP I asked how a person could believe the official government story, yet still doubt parts of it. It doesn't make logical sense.

You generalise way too much. I don't claim that all government story believers make generalisations - I stated that some do.

It is a fact that some government story believers in this forum will lump all truthers together in their posts and misrepresent what those people believe. I routinely have government story believers try to tell me what I believe about 9/11. Every single time I challenge them to quote me, none have been able to support their false assertions.


Originally posted by pieman
for instance, flight93 being shot down is the most credible CT, the cover-up might even be understandable, who wants to admit to shooting down civilian traffic, even if you do it for the right reason.

Perfect example. NO COVER-UP IS UNDERSTANDABLE. For anyone to state that a cover-up is understandable is an insult to all of the people who were murdered that day.

In the case of the alleged Flight UA93 (assuming it was a real flight with real people on board), either they were murdered by terrorists, or in the case of your example, they were murdered by a government shoot down.

Thanks for highlighting the hypocritical argument that many government story believers use to justify attempts to obfuscate the truth.

Casual readers to the thread will note how some people are prepared to accept a comfortable 'let's roll' lie, rather than deal with the harsh truth.

Thanks for your post, pieman, you strengthen my argument with that admission.


Originally posted by pieman
so i'm curious, why exactly is it that you would want to push this view? why do you want anyone for whom "some aspect of the official government story nags at your inner core" to be associated with groups that believe clearly outrageous CT's? why do you wish so strongly to label them the same?

If a person believes most of the official story, yet has some doubts about one aspect, then to me, they're a truther. There are unanswered questions that linger for them. They know that something isn't quite right, or they wouldn't be asking themselves those questions.

A person does not have to believe any particular theory to be a truther.

The word truther does not imply that one has to believe any crazy theory. Many truthers do choose to believe other theories and argue for them, but they don't need to.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government story?" Speak up, man.

The one that you believe, jthomas.

The one that you try to defend in the threads that you visit.

Yep, that's the one.


C'mon, man, speak up. What is your so-called "government story?" How can you claim there is one if you can't even tell us what it is supposed to be?

Sheesh...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Thanks for your post, pieman, you strengthen my argument with that admission.


that was an observation, not an admission.

i'm pointing out the fact that some people can assimilate that type of fact. some people can assimilate that the CIA set up terrorist organisations yet trust the CIA to counter the same terrorist organisations.

my point is, some people accept things you can't stomach and some people can't stomach believing things you accept. there's all sorts of colours and shapes involved.

there really is no need for the hostility.


The word truther does not imply that one has to believe any crazy theory.


yes it does, it implies it to most people, sorry, but it does. maybe not to you or your peer group, but it does to most people.

this is a world of brands and labels, how you brand yourself is how you're percieved.

"truther" brand means you think a holographic projection hit the WTC.

you can either accept that and label yourself apart from "truthers" or deny it and wallow in a mire of public ridicule regardless of how good your evidence or water tight your story.

you seem switched on enough to know this so i wonder why you'ld wish to associate yourself with a defunct brand.

[edit on 30/7/09 by pieman]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas




C'mon, man, speak up. What is your so-called "government story?" How can you claim there is one if you can't even tell us what it is supposed to be?

Sheesh...


I think he means this one THE 911 COMMISION REPORT



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This is an interesting insight into your psyche.

There is a tremendous handicap in discussion boards such as this --- the lack of vocal tone, facial expression and other subtle cues that we Humans use to communicate. Typing electrons on a screen, back and forth, may seem as if it resembles the age-old custom of written correspondence, but it doesn't.

This is why I started this post with the sentence above. One can quickly form impressions of another based on this imperfect method of communication, and not know that the impression is totally mistaken. It's "eye of the observer", tainted by the observer's own biases.

For instance, this comment of yours surprised me, based on my previous impressions of you, through these boards:


I'd prefer that truthers research to find the truth, rather than assume a truth and then twist facts to support it, but life's not that perfect.


That is a logical approach, and one would expect logical people to follow that route. Unfortunately, we know that isn't the case.


I don't care how ridiculous some truther theories are... they can say what they like.


Really? Because some of YOUR comments seem downright caustic towards people who point out simple logical errors in those sorts of "ridiculous" claims --- ones that even you would label as 'ridiculous'. As you said, it makes some of them look foolish. Why do you feel the need to defend them?

Still, tezzajw, you tend to persist in this vein:


(and even some alleged government spooks)


And, without the need for quoting tags, you continually are throwing around the term 'alleged' when referring to the airplanes and other things, and you disparage what you call the 'official government story' so often I've lost count...but it's there to see, in your OP.

What's your angle? Because, darned if I can see it.

I'm trying not to bring up any of the specifics of the events being debated (even though you did) because I sure as ... ermmm....'shoot'...don't wish to ruin your "topic".

But, if I may be indulged:


You either accept all of it, as a government story believer, or you question some of it and become a truther. I can't see any consistent logic taking any other stance.


I can't see the logic in those two sentences. First, you threw the "government story believer" out again as if it's an epithet, then the illogical jump to saying that any question of 'some' of this (I'll abbreviate it as 'OS') makes the person an automatic "truther"??? I think pieman mentioned that that view was too black and white, and I agree there.

"Questioning" a story is really just a way of fact-checking. As more facts are checked, and maybe new ones discovered, then that elusive thing we call "truth" draws nearer. It's really more about expanding the understanding of an event, for better comprehension, not about cherry-picking and 'kangaroo-courting' something to death, to suit a particular agenda.

Certainly, if people see something that didn't sit well with them, they surely should look into it, but in the case of this instance, it has grown into a creature similar to Medusa --- with the added complication that she has opened Pandora's Box. BUT, unlike those mythical analogies, we;re dealing this time with another kind of myth, the kind that begins in someone's imagination, and is spread to others who don't exeercise sufficient critical thinking skills to see the flaws in the argument, and we're off down the Rabbit Hole. (Mixing metaphors, I know. "Allegedly" So, sue me.)

This comment is unfounded:


It shows the desperation that some government story believers cling to, when they need to lump people together, in such an uninformed way, to make it easier for them to 'debunk' the many valid questions that are asked about 9/11.


...as I've been trying to say. It's not 'desperation', but 'exasperation' because those "many valid questions" you mentioned are easily explained, but the explanations are ignored. It's not 'debunking' --- well, it is, technically, because if the original "valid question" is based on bunk beliefs to begin with, then 'debunking' fits as a descriptive. I think of it more as education, though.

It's as if you had a child who kept thinking (believing) that 2+2=5 Overly simplistic example, yes, but it is the heart of what seems to be happening here. Because the reason that child believes 2+2=5 is because there is a peer group around her who also believes it, and they refuse to accept, or see, the error in their math.



When reading other threads, keep your eyes open, look for the false claims and who's making them.


Could not agree more!


NOW, a few final tidbits from your OP:



I'd rather not attack anyone personally.


What to you differentiate as 'attack'? Dripping sarcastic innuendo? Does that cross the line into 'attack'?


The next time one of you government story believers makes a false assumption about what I believe...


Or, the best defense (defence) is a goot offence? Making direct, unspecified threats? And, YOU never make 'assumptions' about what others believe??

Irony, thou doest flourish!



[edit on 30 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadoralive

Originally posted by jthomas




C'mon, man, speak up. What is your so-called "government story?" How can you claim there is one if you can't even tell us what it is supposed to be?

Sheesh...


I think he means this one THE 911 COMMISION REPORT


That couldn't be it. The 9/11 Commission Report was not released until July 22, 2004, nearly 3 years after the event, but the terms "government story" and "official story" had already been in use since shortly after 9/11.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
That couldn't be it. The 9/11 Commission Report was not released until July 22, 2004, nearly 3 years after the event, but the terms "government story" and "official story" had already been in use since shortly after 9/11.


that's splitting hairs, the government didn't wait that long after 9/11 to invade afghanistan. there was an official narritive right from the day 1.

the official story is some terrorist highjackers related to al quieda and osama bin laden took over some passenger jets and flew them into some buildings, details of the story were filled in by various government sources since then.

to say there isn't an official line on it is insanity.

[edit on 30/7/09 by pieman]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by jthomas
That couldn't be it. The 9/11 Commission Report was not released until July 22, 2004, nearly 3 years after the event, but the terms "government story" and "official story" had already been in use since shortly after 9/11.


that's splitting hairs, the government didn't wait that long after 9/11 to invade afghanistan. there was an official narritive right from the day 1.

the official story is some terrorist highjackers related to al quieda and osama bin laden took over some passenger jets and flew them into some buildings, details of the story were filled in by various government sources since then.

to say there isn't an official line on it is insanity.

[edit on 30/7/09 by pieman]


Splitting hairs? That's the oddest thing anyone has written yet.

In fact, the so-called "Official Story" is a 9/11 Denial Movement canard, and always has been. There is no "official story." It's standard methodology of all denial movements to hide behind that made-up canard specifically to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. We've all known that all along.

There is only the conclusions from the massive evidence from hundreds of different lines of independent evidence, millions of documents, and thousands of disconnected eyewitnesses, the vast majority of which never originated with, now was ever in control by, the government.

But the 9/11 Denial Movement can never admit that since they know full well they cannot refute the evidence. And as 9/11 Deniers here have consistently shown, they never have refuted a single bit of that evidence.

It's far simpler for you all to "pretend" that it's all just a "government story" so you don't have to face the reality of dealing with actual evidence.

This has been so blatantly obvious that it is one of the key reasons that the 9/11 Truth Movement has been known by its real name - the 9/11 Denial Movement - since 2002. It's the quicksand upon which the the 9/11 Denial Movement's house of cards is built on.

And it's why your 9/11 Denial Movement has never gotten anywhere and will never go anywhere except into the trash bin of history.

So continue with your folly and smoke and mirrors. We'll just keep reminding you of reason and reality.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I always wonder why people would even want to accept the OS. I think if I was American, I'd be happier knowing it was an inside job because otherwise it's like admitting the US has the worst defense system on the planet, the worst airline security system on the planet, the worst investigative agencies on the planet and so on. Not to mention the world's worst architects and builders that must have made these WTC buildings out of papier mache!

If people can hijack planes willy nilly and fly them around at leisure and crash them into buildings at leisure, I'm surprised it's not 9/11 every day! The US must be No. 1 on the hit list for any terrorist organisation these days because it's just laughable how easy it is to attack. I know that's a horrible thing to say, but if it wasn't an inside job, then the alternative is pretty frightening.

If I was American, and as terrible as 9/11 was, I would prefer to believe it was an inside job because otherwise I would just be thinking, OMG, I'm living in a country that can't defend itself at all! I guess in my mind I would just have to try and justify their actions by saying that, "At least they hit the buildings when they weren't full." "At least they waited a while before bringing the towers down, so that people had a chance to escape." "At least they brought the buildings down nice and neatly, so that more people weren't killed in a sideways collapse." Of course, when all said and done, there is no justification.

I notice debunkers very rarely put their true location in their profiles, so I don't know if the majority of them are American or not, but I just wonder about the ones that are American and believe the OS then they must be happy with the way that nothing was done to stop any of the events that day and that seems weird!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Mark_Amy, if I may be so bold, your post falls neatly into the category of the OP's headline.

He talks about the generalisations made by so-called "debunkers", but in fact your post was replete with generalisations that are all well wide of the mark!!
(Sorry, couldn't resist the pun)

Suffice to say, the paradigm of September 10, 2001 and previously has now changed. The pendulum has swung. BUT, your depiction of a Country that was vulnerable and weak is disingenuous, as it oversimplifies the nature of the facts of the events.

By your analogy, the UK was equally impotent at protecting herself, all through the IRA horrors, and even as far as 7/7/2007, when you would think the mindset and paradigm shift after witnessing 9/11/2001 would have made a difference. AND, consider the number of CCTV cameras in London???

Also, a thought: Even the (arguably) best-trained and best-equipped fighting force in the World is still seeing causualties at an alarming rate, in the Middle East.

I think your allusions to an unprepared and 'defenseless' America is rubbish.





[edit on 30 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


"There are some 'classy' government story believers who do attempt to sell the spin, without the insults and rhetoric. I respect those couple of people. The rest... well, they're struggling when they can't differentiate between lots of people asking many varied questions. "

Copy that OP! Star and Flag for your well written post. I was thinking the same thing yesterday after posting a few comments on a couple of threads and being insulted to high heaven for it. But the thread I thought about writing would have been an incoherent rant solving nothing. So thank you my friend. If I may be so bold as to call you that.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's standard methodology of all denial movements to hide behind that made-up canard specifically to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. We've all known that all along.


so it's your point of view that there was no official narrative offered, the facts and evidence were merely presented to the public so that we could all draw our own conclusions without any influence from officialdom


kay!! that's an interesting point of view.

i feel enlightened.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by jthomas
It's standard methodology of all denial movements to hide behind that made-up canard specifically to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. We've all known that all along.


so it's your point of view that there was no official narrative offered, the facts and evidence were merely presented to the public so that we could all draw our own conclusions without any influence from officialdom


kay!! that's an interesting point of view.

i feel enlightened.


You are still under the illusion that the "facts and evidence" all came from the government.

Why am I not surprised that you still don't get it.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by tezzajw
 


"There are some 'classy' government story believers who do attempt to sell the spin, without the insults and rhetoric.


Yet no one can tell us what this so-called "government story" is supposed to be after 8 full years.

Why don't you give it a try, Hazelnut?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join