In a recent thread, forum member tanabear claimed that "[t]he official account is verifiably false on almost every single level", without realizing how far from the truth that claim is. I won't discuss the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the well-established facts about the 19 terrorists that flew the planes against the buildings, though. I want to focus on what the truth movement considers evidence.
There are many different 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some say there were no planes on 9/11, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were military ones, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes launched missiles, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were actually remote controlled, and there's a lot of evidence for that. Some say the WTC planes were real, but AA77 was not the plane that flew into the Pentagon. And some say all the planes were real, but still that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished. And that there is, of course, a lot of evidence for that.
That's just one example. Each of these groups believes that the evidence for their belief is incontrovertible, without realizing that, being mutually exclusive with the other options, their evidence must not be so clear as they think it is. A frequent conflicting hypothesis resolution technique is to claim that the other groups are made of disinformation agents working for the government.
This, of course, makes the 9/11 crowd look like a bunch of kooks living in a fantasy world. It's hard for anyone rational to be aware of these many conflicting claims and take any of them seriously. Personally I don't think any of the ones has any merit, but let's imagine for a moment that there's one that is correct. People would be dismissing it just because it would look just like any other of the mutually contradictory theories. Yet every group thinks theirs is the only true one.
Enter the Consensus 9/11 Panel. It seems to be constituted by a group of people who believe that the government intentionally intervened in 9/11, but they have realized the dangers of this schism, and focus their efforts in reaching a consensus on certain points that (they think) constitute evidence. Even if I don't agree with most points, and I think other points they reached consensus on are moot, I also commend them for identifying the basic problem and trying to seek a solution.
Unfortunately, the fact that they're basically not going anywhere and receive little attention from the truth movement, the big majority of which is being just charmed by the sweet words of a professional salesman, tells a lot about (1) how wrong tanabear's claim was, and (2) how hard the truth movement seeks to run away from the truth.
There are many different 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some say there were no planes on 9/11, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were military ones, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes launched missiles, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were actually remote controlled, and there's a lot of evidence for that. Some say the WTC planes were real, but AA77 was not the plane that flew into the Pentagon. And some say all the planes were real, but still that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished. And that there is, of course, a lot of evidence for that.
That's just one example. Each of these groups believes that the evidence for their belief is incontrovertible, without realizing that, being mutually exclusive with the other options, their evidence must not be so clear as they think it is. A frequent conflicting hypothesis resolution technique is to claim that the other groups are made of disinformation agents working for the government.
This, of course, makes the 9/11 crowd look like a bunch of kooks living in a fantasy world. It's hard for anyone rational to be aware of these many conflicting claims and take any of them seriously. Personally I don't think any of the ones has any merit, but let's imagine for a moment that there's one that is correct. People would be dismissing it just because it would look just like any other of the mutually contradictory theories. Yet every group thinks theirs is the only true one.
Enter the Consensus 9/11 Panel. It seems to be constituted by a group of people who believe that the government intentionally intervened in 9/11, but they have realized the dangers of this schism, and focus their efforts in reaching a consensus on certain points that (they think) constitute evidence. Even if I don't agree with most points, and I think other points they reached consensus on are moot, I also commend them for identifying the basic problem and trying to seek a solution.
Unfortunately, the fact that they're basically not going anywhere and receive little attention from the truth movement, the big majority of which is being just charmed by the sweet words of a professional salesman, tells a lot about (1) how wrong tanabear's claim was, and (2) how hard the truth movement seeks to run away from the truth.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2HRexuL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire