RoR: Forum

Response to John's Post 17:

John wrote,
"Monart Pon, perhaps you can tell us which conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 that you give credence to and why? You criticize Bidinotto and myself for using arguments from intimidation, but that is way too easy a cop out since you have not provided on this forum what conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 that you ascribe too. Where could we even begin to discuss or offer a counter-argument when you have not offered a conspiracy theory to begin with? Your only criticism is that we don't give credence to conspiracy theories about 9/11 yet what is it that you have a problem exactly?"

----
If you're referring to my commentary on Bidinotto's article, that was my main aim: to expose the intimidation and ridicule being used to discourage independent investigation of, and expose the unproved claim that, the official government version of 9/11 was all true and the whole truth. Secondarily, I offered leads and links for a start of investigation. My purpose was not to present my theory of 9/11 (I don't have one to present yet, but I surely don't believe the official version.)

One should not dismiss someone's suspicions about the official theory, or ridicule his motives for seeking the truth about 9/11 -- one should not, especially, if oneself hasn't given the official theory sufficient, an independent scrutiny. (Is that not the psycho-epistemology of Rand readers who eventually discover the truth about philosophy: objectivism?)

9/11 was mass murder and destruction, a horrific crime that should be investigated as such, diligently and persistently, until all the surviving perpetrators be brought to trial and justice (government and/or Al Qaeda). The way to do that is to seek evidence and truth from all places and witnesses. Seek it, we must, and not accept the official version with so little question.
---

John also wrote,
"If you think Occam's Razor cuts both ways you have failed to grasp the principle. When we have a set of facts before us, the theory or explanation that is the simplest one is the one more likely to be true. I don't see how you could characterize that as cutting both ways? That seems nonsensical to me."

---
Occam's razor can be used to cut away unneeded complexity, but, with a slip of the knife, it can also be used to cut away needed complexity.

The simplest explanation for 9/11 may be supposed to be the official version. But that "simplest" explanation, with a little initial (unbiased) scrutiny, will reveal too many inconsistencies, coincidences, and improbabilities, to be explained by that "simplicity" alone. More "complexities" needs to be admitted for investigation, and not be cut away without due consideration. Not cut away, surely, for the sake of fear or in submission to intimidation.

Post 81

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 7:54am

In #79 Monart Pon writes:

Truth is not determined by who says it or where it's said; it's determined by one's own thinking primarily on the facts, not on the credentials or venue. What "credentials" did Ayn Rand have?

This is true. Truth is not determined by who says it or where, but, since information comes at a cost, these are strong influences on reliability.

The parallel to Rand is questionable. She wrote as a philosopher, not as a reporter or historian. Philosophy's low-level data are observations available to everybody, not hidden facts that need digging out by professionals whom we can't automatically trust to get things right. One's own thinking can only come into play afterward. When Rand did cite the latter kind of fact, she gave reputable sourcing, most often the NY Times (this was decades ago). Read her commentaries in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, Voice of Reason or Philosophy: Who Needs It?. Had she cited fringey, disreputable sources or traded in conspiracy theories (Pearl Harbor was available in her day, as were Robert Welch's assertions that Ike and Earl Warren were Soviet agents), I wouldn't have taken her seriously then or now.

Peter

Post 82

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 3:23pm

Monart Pon wrote:

The simplest explanation for 9/11 may be supposed to be the official version. But that "simplest" explanation, with a little initial (unbiased) scrutiny, will reveal too many inconsistencies, coincidences, and improbabilities, to be explained by that "simplicity" alone. More "complexities" needs to be admitted for investigation, and not be cut away without due consideration. Not cut away, surely, for the sake of fear or in submission to intimidation.

There is a general consensus amongst thousands of civil and structural engineers on what brought down those towers. Monart, only in your paranoid mind and your fellow conspiracy theorists' minds are there any inconsistencies or improbabilities.

You never bothered addressing any of the analysis I gave, that's just too easy. It seems you'd rather imagine there is more complexity when there is no evidence of such a thing.

No more articles from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I've already amply demonstrated they lie, distort, and are clueless on the subject matter they discuss. It's like debating a room full of Creationists.

Post 83

Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 12:10pm

One million dollars is being offered by millionaire businessman, Jimmy Walter, to anyone who can prove the fire-and-pancake theory of the WTC collapse, i.e, that the collapses were not due to controlled demolitions.

Go ahead, John, use your intimidation and your "thousands of civil and structural engineers", and go claim it.

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

Post 84

Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 12:48pm

Response to Post 81.

Nonetheless, credentials and venue are secondary in ascertaining truth. If highly credentialed experts made claims that contradict your own best judgement, do you surrender your judgment to them, without closely examining the grounds for their claims, just because they are "experts"? Experts have claimed that altruism and collectivism are true. Experts have made claims about global warming, the ozone layer, DDT, AIDS, asbestos. But your judgment of the truth should come from your own thinking about the facts and logic, not from thinking about the credentials.

BTW, for those who didn't get the significance of Post 76: the quotations were from Ayn Rand in "The New Fascism: Rule By Consensus", The Objectivist Newsletter, May and June 1965. Was she being "anti-American", "leftist", "paranoid"?

Post 85

Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 8:22pm

Response to Post 82.

John wrote, "You never bothered addressing any of the analysis I gave, that's just too easy. It seems you'd rather imagine there is more complexity when there is no evidence of such a thing."

---

My purpose here was never to address your "analysis"; my aim was, if you recall the original post, to expose the tactics of intimidation and ridicule used in Bidinotto's article and in your posts to dismiss and discourage first-hand, independent investigation of the official version of 9/11.

Your "analysis" was little more than a cut-and-paste of various versions of the official fire-and-pancake theory, with all its inconsistencies, contradictions, distortions, and omissions -- while avoiding evidence that would complicate the "simplest", officially desired theory, such as evidence for some type of controlled demolition.

Have you seen, dare you see -- with sincere care and unafraid attention -- such presentations as Kevin Ryan's (mentioned in Post 60), and the books mentioned in my original article?

Post 86

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 8:34am

Response to Post 61, where

Steve wrote the only sentence that's without (much of) his usual bullying and intimidation (what's he afraid of?):

"Where did the Flight 91 people go, then, kookaloons?"

Very few critics of the official theory claim that any of the planes were empty of passengers. So Steve's question applies only to those few.

There is no one overarching alternate theory that all critics advocate. Some decline to state any theory (about means, motive, and opportunity) and only address the contradictions of the official theory. But no-one should be assumed to be speaking for anyone else or any group.

Some critics are biased like the supporters of the official theory, but the persuasive critics are the scholarly, scientific, honorable ones, who don't start with belief in a theory and then find evidence to support it or avoid evidence that refutes it. Instead, they examine the evidence, the witnesses, and the alibis, while watching out for contradiction, inconsistency, improbability, etc. And they do not substitute intimidation for reasoning.

Whether or not any of the planes were empty -- whether any Al Qaeda did actually, physically, crashed the planes (forcing the pilots to, or flying the planes themselves) or whether some/all the planes were remotely, electronically hijacked (and by whom, from where?) -- whether the towers collapsed only because of impact and fire or actually by controlled demolition -- whether the violation that morning of standard procedures for suspected hijackings, along with the multiple airwar games co-incident with the hijacking, were only coincidences -- these and other questions do need to be answered, because there is evidence to justify asking them.

Post 87

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 10:30am

Uhh, Monart, basically you just made a big fancy post re: Flight 93 that says "I don't know". What about it? Why don't you call up the Beamers and scream about electronic hijacking and ask them why they are in on the conspiracy to hide their son?

Because it's ridiculous.

Just answer the question, Pon, without fancy dodges...where are the passengers from Flight 93?

Additionally, if the government is able to pull off something like this, why are people like you permitted to live and question it? If you attributed as much intelligence to the government now as you do for them "accomplishing" 9/11, you'd be either dead or tortured. Think about it!

One of the few things I fear is honest to Galt insane tin-foil hatters such as yourself, in response to your question.

So, Monart, is our government also responsible for Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, ad infinitum? You see, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that Islamic fundamentalists have been trying the "big one" for years, and on 9/11 they hit their perverted jackpot. As a matter of fact, something that happened on 9/11 was what was SUPPOSED to happen on the first WTC attack. In the first attack, the chemicals in the truck were supposed to vaporize and be sucked up into the ventilation ducts of the North Tower, killing, well , thousands...the chemicals burned instead. What makes sense, Mr. Pon, is to weave 9/11 into the story of the multiple attacks prior to that Tuesday and the continued Islamic attacks after that date....Indonesia, Spain, attempts by Richard Reid. 9/11 fits into the theory of a low-grade attack on the West by Islamic fundamentalists that has been going on since the mid to late 70s. Frankly, my reason does not permit me to buy into the theory that all the OTHER attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists, but 9/11 is special.

For the rest of the reasonable people (Baker, Humphrey, you are excused with the court's thanks) I HIGHLY encourage you to check out the website from the so-called "millionaire" Pon provided...insane text, fifth-grade level writing and random formulas and pictures all over the place, coupled with webpages that are way too long all just scream amateur shenanigans, and why would a millionaire post such an amateurish webpage? Oh, and Pon, for a supposed millionaire, it seems strange he has to hold out his hand for donations to run commercials...shit, man, late-night TV ain't that expensive.

Mr. Pon, why do you conform every shred of evidence to conform to your theory that the government did it? You see, you're little more than a hypocrite...and that little bit more is a nutjob.

(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 12/03, 11:49am)

Post 88

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 12:08pm

And for those of you conflating the idea that "conspiring" (what the terrorists did) and "conspiracy theory" are the same, you should be ashamed for committing the logical fallacy of "equivocating". Conspiring to commit an act is not the same thing as what "conspiracy theory" means in common parlance, and conflating the two is disingenuous. Or, as Wikipedia put it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Although al-Qaeda "conspired" to execute the attacks on the World Trade Center in the legal sense, a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy, in which the attacks were executed by powerful groups often including government agencies or an alleged secret global network

AKA Nutjobbery 101.

Post 89

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 3:29pm

Monart Pon offered the following link as "proof" of a conspiracy.

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

It's the same crap! And I'm being kind calling it crap. They even site former BYU professor Steven Jones as an expert! If you recall, Steven Jones was the "cold fusion" physicist that wrote a paper alleging proof Jesus Christ appeared in Ancient South America.

The same crap that has been debunked before is listed in this website, such as evidence of sulfur found in the WTC as proof thermite was used, but the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC was sulfur based dry wall!!! Thermite isn't even used for building demolitions! It doesn't even explode! But that doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorists. To them evidence of sulfur is evidence of thermite, ignoring the fact that buildings have dry wall in them. How is that evidence? It's not. It would take a civil engineer or construction manager even, 5 seconds to realize the stupidity in citing sulfer as evidence of thermite. If they can't take the 5 seconds to intelligently reason out the simplest explanation for sulfur at the WTC why should anything else they say be bothered with? It's a level of analysis one would expect from a fifth grader.

And the site includes once again "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" including a physicist who believes the US military launched anti-matter missiles at the planet Juniper!

Monart Pon slings around the argument from intimidation at everyone but he is guilty of the worst kind of fraud, that of intellectual evasion and posts links to outright childish analysis of the WTC collapse. It's just as ridiculous as debating with a creationist. Conspiracy theorists just put there theories like a CD on "repeat", saying the same thing over and over again while ignoring the refutations right in front of their nose.

Post 90

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:04pm

Pon states above:

"One million dollars is being offered by millionaire businessman, Jimmy Walter, to anyone who can prove the fire-and-pancake theory of the WTC collapse, i.e, that the collapses were not due to controlled demolitions."

He gives the link:

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

At the link, the article states:

"The first person to prove explosives were NOT used in all of the above with a full, detailed mathematical analysis covering all of the points above will receive $1,000,000. The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."

I can't resist asking, instead of all the name-calling, which proves nothing except name-calling, anybody need a cool million? That's a lot of money.

Michael

Post 91

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 8:24pm

MSK -- thanks for highlighting the fact that the 'gentleman' in question is asking us all to prove a negative; that way, he can claim that his theory confirms to the facts because we couldn't disprove his mad-hattery.

And it's hilarious that somehow lawyers are qualified to judge scientific evidence of the events of 9/11...what the hell? how are lawyers even remotely involved in what is clearly a scientific question?

Post 92

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 6:44am

This entire debate has reminded me of just how irrelevant the question of "whodidit?" is anyway. Ultimately, bad ideas brought down the towers. They are:

1. People in the government should do whatever they please.
2. The government should be an empire that sticks its nose into everyone's business.

The principles which are opposed to this are:

1. People are in the government to protect the citizens in the exercise of their individual rights as individuals.
2. The government has strict limits and only covers the area within its physical boundaries.

If the government was based on the second set of principles, the WTC "attacks" would not have happened.

What principles do people on this board believe?

Post 93

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 9:35am

Okay...I've been following this thread, and I've understood what debaters on both sides have been saying...until now. Chris, you've officially lost me:

This entire debate has reminded me of just how irrelevant the question of "whodidit?" is anyway.

Isn't that the point of conspiracy theories? To expose the real culprit behind them? How can that (suddenly) be "irrelevant"?

Ultimately, bad ideas brought down the towers. They are:

1. People in the government should do whatever they please.
2. The government should be an empire that sticks its nose into everyone's business.

Again...I'm confused. Please explain in detail. (Or is this just the standard, Libertarian stance of "911 happened to us because we didn't mind our own business in world affairs, so Osama bin Laden was justified in sending his minions over to take out the Towers and the Pentagon, and whatever the intended target was of Flight 93" ?)
If so, then never mind. You don't have to explain; I am already familiar with that argument...it's the reason that so many card-carrying Libertarians (myself included) felt a need to break away from the Party and support the Republicans in 2004 (undeniably and woefully imperfect as they are.) To literally bend over backwards and become an Osama apologist was a bit too much for some of us to take.

1. People are in the government to protect the citizens in the exercise of their individual rights as individuals.
2. The government has strict limits and only covers the area within its physical boundaries.

If the government was based on the second set of principles, the WTC "attacks" would not have happened.

Once again...is your argument (at this point) that if only the U.S. was a properly behaving, good little superpower, Islamofascists would have no reason to hate us? That they would've "left us alone"? Why are Libertarians unwilling to admit the simple fact that these people are fucking nuts, and that short of our demise as a nation, and the entire world falling under sharia rule, nothing will ever satisfy them?

Chris, I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone on this board who "disagrees" with the 2nd set of ideas you presented...but even a perfectly reasonably and justifiably-acting government (fashioned from our wildest dreams) would still have the perfectly unreasonable and unjustifiable Islamofucking fascists to deal with.

Hate the current administration all you want; many (even on this board) will agree with you. Have a wet dream when Hillary becomes President in '08, if you must. But please don't pretend that creatures like Osama and his ilk can ever be reasoned with like rational human beings. (Please remember that Osama sees no difference between Bill Clinton and GW Bush...911 was planned during Clinton's administration. One White, Christian, American Capitalist President is the same as another.)
Or do you maintain that Osama had little, if anything, to do with the "attacks" (as you characterize them)?
Like I said, I am confused, Chris. Please explain in more detail so I can understand what you're saying.

With respect,
Erica

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 12/04, 11:14am)

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 12/04, 11:16am)

Post 94

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 11:34am

I'm a part-time (or "closet") conspiracy theorist, myself. I mention this to give credence to my own opinions on the matter. In other words, because I think like a conspiracy theorist, I feel qualified to make comment here. The trouble with all conspiracy theories is that they can't ever be disproven -- as the "theorists" can always (and often do) fall back to the claim that the missing, 'indicting' evidence had been destroyed by the "perpetrators" in question. This makes dealing with conspiracy theory somewhat of a conundrum. In my mind, it comes down to a matter of personal investments.

How much am I personally invested in uncovering any given, potential conspiracy? This is a question that I have to ask myself as I travel through life with my limited energy and time. Monart's original theme here is that we should not 'accept' arguments from intimidation (ie. a fallacy that Rand, more than any other author, made 'public'). In this vein, Monart has attacked the Bidinotto article, accusing it of relying on this fallacy of intimidation (in place of rational argument). Phil Coates, in response, has rationally defended the Bidinotto article, so I will not go into that. My purpose in this post is more understandingly defined as a meta-purpose, it doesn't involve the details, per se, but the psycho-epistemology of it all. How much value does a given conspiracy theory represent to an individual?

One of the things that stalwart consipiracy theorists have to think about (and I'm speaking from a position of great familiarity with the subject), is whether or not the outcome -- if ever known -- will indeed have an impact on their personal lives. I have spent some of my limited time and energy entertaining conspiracy theories. "Follow the money" is my guiding principle. There are 3 areas that dominate 'money trading' in today's economy: Food, Drugs, and Energy. In each of these 3 areas, there have been instances that might lead one to suspect recent skull-duggery. Here are examples ...

In the area of Food, carbohydrates are the most profitable -- and the staunch antagonist to carbohydrate foods, Robert C. Atkins, M.D., recently met his demise while travelling to work.

In the area of Drugs, David Horrobin, a researcher who publically chastised pharmaceutical science in a review article (for it's dismissal of all evidence of any cheap, natural remedies for human ills), recently met his demise.

In the area of energy, Eugene Mallove, editor of the "Unlimited Energy" magazine, was killed in his home just after setting up a meeting to speak with Congress about potentially tapping energy that would free us from our 'addiction to oil.'

Other examples, like Wellstone's "timely" demise, and the rumor that certain and large groups of people chose not to show up for work at the twin towers on 9-11, certainly bring questions to my mind. In the end, however, I have to ask myself: What have I to personally gain from all the digging and the proselytizing? I am not sure about any level of involvement of our current administration with the massacre that occurred on 9-11. The reason that I am not sure is that I have too much respect for epistemology (ie. for how it is that man can truly know what it is that he claims to know).

There are adjunctive 'reasons to believe' that coincide with both sides of this debate. For example, a reason to believe that our government had nothing to do with 9-11, is that we are currently the greatest country in the world (ie. our government is the best that there is -- and, hopefully, the 'best there is' wouldn't be capable of such a heinous act). Of course, the rebuttal to this 'reason to believe' is that it is improper to rest on laurels. Just because we've always been the best thing in existence, does not mean that say, tomorrow, we will continue to be so (ie. we could turn sour). In Dean Gore's recent thread, there is a quiz that asks if you'd support your country no matter which way it leads. I believe that readers know where I stand on that.

Also, an adjunctive reason to believe that our government had "something" to do with 9-11, is the unprecedented growth in government size that has occurred under the current administration -- an administration that has proclaimed opposite intentions. In this vein, John McCain, in his speech at the GOP dinner party, decried the current administration for pandering to the public and increasing the Welfare State more than even previous, Democratic administrations have. And, as Rand has alluded, welfare and warfare go together like 2 peas in a pod -- adopt one and you'll soon need the other.

Regardless of these 'reasons to believe' I think it proper to question the question. What is there to gain (from the digging and proselytizing)? In the current case, while I myself sit in suspended judgment, I do not see concrete value in the question. Monart's call to be on guard for arguments from intimidation still stands as a reasonable proposition, but the arguments from the "theorists" on this thread fail to capture my personal interests. Why? How come, a (closet) conspiracy theorist as I am, am I not enticed to join in on their side? In short, it's because I don't see that there is anything in it for me. Sound selfish? Yup. I'll admit to that, and I do so shamelessly. I have conspiracy theories, I simply 'manage' them so that they surface when I can see a value to that. Here is a question for the "theorists" here in this thread ...

What is there to gain by this digging and proselytizing?

Ed

Post 95

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 10:20pm

Ed asks -- of the benefits of indulging in hidden-conspiracy theories: "What is there to gain by this digging and proselytizing?"

A. You get to hang out with and find a home among kooks.

B. You get a nice, almost-like-indigestion feeling of possession, of having ingested Truth.

C. You get met with, alternately, disdain, disgust, incomprehension and ridicule . . .

D. You get to claim you have done 'research.'

E. You get a discount coupon to Conspiracy-a-Go-Go.

F. You get to feel superior to all the dupes who accept the so-called 'official version.'

-- as Monart Pon points out earlier in this thread, there is no single 9/11 'hidden conspiracy' theory, there are many, some edging a mere half millimetre into paranoia, some quite over the edge into delusional thinking. There is no coherence to the manifold claims. It is like playing connect the dots. Although some of the dots are missing, some smudged, some not dots at all . . . Monart and fellow-conspiracists draft a detailed picture of doom, populated by hordes of evil actors. Rational people find dots and smudges, conspiracists see monstrous patterns . . .

I might add a final benefit to this type of conspirary mongering:

G. If you are an honest and rational inquirer, you can have your thesis, hypotheses and arguments dissected and returned to you corrected and refuted -- and you regain an ability to think, reason, weigh evidence and reach solid conclusions.

What offends me about the varieties of 9/11 hidden conspiracies is that the adherents do not play by the normal rules of inquiry: they do not set a goal of truth, and let the chips of investigation fall where they may. Instead, they choose the truth, and then seek information that confirms their conclusion.

In the views of Susan Haack, my favourite philosopher of science, logic and reason, Monart's, Chris's and Mark's inquiries into the occult truth of 9/11 are revealed as "sham reasoning." The conclusions come first: "the official version of the attacks is wrong; planes could not have brought down the WTC; hidden forces are at work."

I would merely laugh and make fun of Monart and his fellow occultists if their quest was not gussied up in false finery of 'reason.' I commend John Armaos for his attempts to offer counterevidence and refutations to Monart. I have had long experience of maniacs propounding theories of dangerous utility (Recovered Memory, Satanic Ritual Abuse, Critical Theory), know how intractable is paranoid thinking, and hope that Monart and fellow travellers will come out from their trance.

Here's an excerpt from Haack's "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism":

A hundred years or so ago, C. S. Peirce, a working
scientist as well as the greatest of American
philosophers, distinguished genuine inquiry from "sham
reasoning," pseudo-inquiry aimed not at finding the truth
but at making a case for some conclusion immovably
believed in advance; and predicted that, when sham
reasoning becomes commonplace, people will come "to look
on reasoning as merely decorative," and will "lose their
conceptions of truth and of reason."2

This is the very debacle taking place before our eyes:
genuine inquiry is so complex and difficult, and advocacy
"research" and politically-motivated "scholarship" have
become so commonplace, that our grip on the concepts of
truth, evidence, objectivity, inquiry has been loosened.
I want to talk about how this disaster came about, and
the role played by the phenomenon Barzun calls
"preposterism" in encouraging it.

Let's keep our grip on Rebirth of Reason.

WSS

Post 96

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 6:12am

Instead, they choose the truth, and then seek information that confirms their conclusion.

I think both sides are guilty of doing this. In fact, many people do this with regard to many things in their lives.

Post 97

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 6:56am

WSS,
Nice post. I would add another benefit for some conspiracy theorists:
H. You get noticed by people.
For some people, being noticed is worth whatever price they pay.

Thanks for the link to Haack's article. I didn't know she had published in The Skeptical Inquirer. I agree with you; she is a very good modern philosopher of science.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 98

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 7:52am

Since my essay "It's a Conspiracy!!!" provoked Monart to open this thread -- and since he and others have now provided additional examples of conspiratorialist thinking -- I wonder if some of you might reread my original essay, then decide the merits of my critique of conspiratorialists.

Post 99

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 8:53am