aren't we all, by definition, ignorant of what we don't know?







That is my point. I don't know. do you?

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
aren't we all, by definition, ignorant of what we don't know?

No.

I am aware that I know nothing of Quantum physics. Or nuclear power generation. Or writing computer code

.And many other things.

The difference between myself and many truthers is that I am aware that even though I know something of structural engineering now, as a result of researching how the buildings fell, that this STILL does not make me proficient enough to make sweeping proclamations about the speed of collapse, or how planes can't break through the ext columns, etc.

I am self aware enough to know that I need to defer to those that have a demonstrated proficiency in the subject matter. And to understand what the concensus is of a large body of those individuals. truthers, on the other hand, are ecstatic to find one guy that says what they want to hear and uphold his proclamations as the Holy Grail, with zero skepticism.

Bad for learning the truth, IMHO.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
aren't we all, by definition, ignorant of what we don't know?

The difference between myself and many truthers is that I am aware that even though I know something of structural engineering now, as a result of researching how the buildings fell, that this STILL does not make me proficient enough to make sweeping proclamations about the speed of collapse, or how planes can't break through the ext columns, etc.

but you are proficient enough to know that plane damage and fire were definitely the only cause of the failure? (i apologize if that is not what you claim. many do.)

I am self aware enough to know that I need to defer to those that have a demonstrated proficiency in the subject matter. And to understand what the concensus is of a large body of those individuals.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Although I wouldn't say that I defer. and your large body and my large body are different large bodies.

truthers, on the other hand, are ecstatic to find one guy that says what they want to hear and uphold his proclamations as the Holy Grail, with zero skepticism.
Bad for learning the truth, IMHO.

I am a complete skeptic. You could substitute "OS defender" for "truther" and be describing your own camp?

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
but you are proficient enough to know that plane damage and fire were definitely the only cause of the failure?

Yes.

I have studied what has been written by recognized professionals such as bazant, have read the opinions of the NIST report by organizations such as the CTBUH, and read criticisms of the NIST report by fire engineering experts such as Quintere. They ALL have written papers in engineering mags that have been read and discussed by other professionals in their field. The other pros have no real issues with plane impact damage+ fire protection removal by the impacts + uncontrolled office fires were the cause of the collapses.

And I believe the concensus of their expert opinions cuz I have studied what has been said by them. What I didn't know, Ilearned about. Do I remember it all NOW, and do I consider myself on their level? No freaking way.

Truthers however, believe that they are after researching via Google U. i've even read one dude say that he believes HE can design a highrise building, even though he has no experience with building anything more complicated than his backyard fence.

That's also a display of Dunning-Krueger if I ever saw it.

I am a complete skeptic. You could substitute "OS defender" for "truther" and be describing your own camp?

Nope.

Truthers are for the most part oblivious to their shortcomings. They cannot discern correct info from incorrect. i have no explanation for it, but it is apparent to everyone.

Some of my favorite frustrations about 9/11 are the fact that everyone seems to be painted with such a broad brush under the word *Truther*

Let's be clear.

I'm pretty crazy.

I believe in all sorts of stuff that would make most people *SCOFF* loudly at then instant *SMIRK* and *BURST OUT LAUGHING* and pointing and jumping up and down at how "different" I am and how could anyone possibly ever sincerely believe *insert 'zany' idea here*

Typical "Crazy Guy".

I don't mind. Laugh away! I encourage everyone to join me and "Go Crazy"! It's awesome! Lots of fun, I promise. But that's off topic for another thread.

But it's really silly to make large sweeping "Truther" assumptions about a hugely varied group of people based on what they "believe" about a certain aspect of "Nine Eleven Topics".

When searching for truth, I like the Oracle of Delphi's "Know Thyself" mixed with a healthy Socratic "The only thing I know is nothing at all" and a dash of general paranoia for good measure.

We're all on the same team here guys! This forum is such a nice haven to discuss anything you could possibly think of in an "alternative" realm, and varied civil discussions about brilliant topics are just a few clicks away

To help make discussion around here more...hmmm... positive? Maybe everyone should just stop and consider how silly it is to use the label "Truther" as a sneaky lil 'jab' at someone's belief system, and try to paint them with an extremely large brush that "therefore means they're clearly wrong"

But there seems to be this "tone of voice" per se, that's just instantly condescending, at least to my perception, that's used in certain scenarios quite frequently when the "LABEL" of "Truther" is put onto someone or something

How you can refer to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in shorthand form as "AETwoof" and not expect people to have an instant negative reaction however else valid your points may be? It's just unnecessary. Let people go to the site themselves and read the material. Calling it "Twoof" although indirectly, is pretty cheesy.

Also all the "Witch Hunter", "Go enjoy your witch hunt" comments.

Just doesn't move the conversation anywhere productive, ya know?

All of this can of course be said for the "OS camp" or whatever the opposite of a Truther is nowadays.

Who cares. Doesn't really matter, because no one should try to label the "other side" for all the same good reasons to not label people "Truthers" in the first place.

Discuss specific points or philosophies or theories all you like! Debate away! Let's forum this *insert expletive* up!

Let people decide for themselves who and what's REALLY crazy on a case by case scenario.

I'm sure there's enough common ground for us all to play on the playground and share ideas!

TLDR: Don't label people. It's silly.

I do also realise that the title of this may allude to ''Truther Movement'' but this is not, I was just illustrating my frustation with the search for the truth, just wanted to clear that up.

Originally posted by TheDagDa

Your post is a prime example of the condescending "Truther" suffix/prefix.

Thank you.

This thread itself has almost become a Self Fullfilling prophecy, people have demonstrated that the truth is only their perception, of which everyones is different but the saddest part is that it has also shown that the divides within our own community regarding 9/11, is the reason why the debat is not taken seriously out there in the public domain.

As I stated in a previous post, the title of thread was not about the ''Truther'' movements, it was to show my frustrations in the journey for the truth, whatever that may be & whatever consequences it may bring or not!

Self fulfilling prophecy!

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
A)
How do you know to which legitimate questions I was referring? I mentioned no gov't disinformation, planted aircraft wreckage, or fake eyewitnesses. I'm not going to give specific examples, because you won't consider them, although you will claim that you have considered them, and proven them wrong.

I have no idea what "legitimate questions" you were referring to. That's why I was asking what these "legitimate questions" were that you claimed to have. The point is that unless you've discovered something new that hasn't been seen in the last ten years, odds are there is a legitimate answer to your legitimate question. The problem is that time and time again, the truthers refuse to accept the answers as being legitimate. It would be one thing if they could offer a logical reason, but by and large it's entirely becuase they accuse it of "being planted by sinister secret agents" which is simply an exercise in pitiful excuse making for why they shouldn't believe what others tell them.

If you can show something to the contrary that you won't fall back upon the "it''s been planted by sinister secret agents" excuse, by all means, please post it.

B)
I'm forming my theories based on many sources, yes. I believe that I have the ability to form logical, reasoned conclusions based on the information that I have seen. and I trust my own judgement. Either way I'm being conned. You're theory could be the correct theory, and if it is, I'm being conned by the loony conspiracy websites and a lot of well meaning scientists. If your theory is incorrect, and mine is at least partially correct, I am being conned by my government. Hmm...Who has conned me before?

If you're going to go that route then you need to ask yourself, who has historically hijacked passenger aircraft for political/religious agendas, murdered innocent civilians for what we in the west would consider frivolous reasons to the poiut of being surreal, and have thrown their own lives away in suicide attacks against their perceived enemies. That Is what the 9/11 attack was, after all. Islamic fundamentalists can't NOT be on the top of the list of suspects...particularly when we see they're not being particularly repentent about their blind devotion to theology even after the attack. Who was it that rioted over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers, again?

Theories have nothing to do with it; it's what the evidence actually shows, and there's an enormous amount of evidence showing it was in fact a legitimate terrorist attack and preciously scant evidence showing it was a staged event...and the ones providing the preciously scant evidence, like Gage, Jones, and Avery, have been caught red handed at presenting false evidence in the past. I will givve you all the evidence of that as you would like.

you try to get the police to investigate. You tell all of your family and friends you go on internet forums that might relate. Most say "doctors don't poison children". It comes out on the news that some loony is accusing doctors of killing babies. The Discovery Health channel has a show on how doctors pledge the hippocratic oath and can't possibly kill. I could go on. but I would like to ask you to sincerely answer this: Would you demand that her body be exhumed for further investigation

Yes I would, absolutely...but then your analogy doesn't apply here because the hospital attendent informing me of the impropriety is by definition a whistleblower, and a whistleblower is by definition someone willing to come forward and offer evidence. I dont need to tell you that despite the ever growing pool of people accused of being involved in this conspiracy and/or coverup, not a single whistleblower came forward exposing this to be a staged event. No timetables, no documents, no tangible lists of conspirators, not even a prostitute coming forward revealing a customer told her how the explosives were smuggled into the buildings. ZERO. Using your own analogy, all we have in this case is some guy calling me up telling me "everything I know about my daughter's death is wrong and he'll tell me the REAL truth if I give him my money". I look into his credentials and find out he doesn't even work at the hospital- he flips burgers for a living and has no connection to the hospital whatsoever. In that case, what would YOU do- believe everything he says completely and without question, or brush him off as a self serving con artist trying to use your grief to rip you off?

If you're going to theorize these alternative conspiracy stories, that's one thing, but at least use analogies that actually apply.