Concerning the WTC attacks

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

The politicians, Tony Blair, George Bush, and even Bush's opponent John Kerry all told their populations that 19 terrorist hijackers attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 and there is no visible dissent. From day one this has been the dogma. Only a "nut" would want evidence.

I would be interested in your theory about what you think really happened on that day.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

I would be interested in your theory about what you think really happened on that day.

Over 3,000 people were murdered and before we knew the names of all the victims, before we knew the number of victims, before any evidence was gathered, before investigative interviews were conducted, and before it was even decided who would investigate these homicides, the crime was solved, within hours, and the world was told who did it.

That is what did happen. And that conclusion, repeated ad nauseam, will likely always remain the generally accepted and popular "truth." Did I miss something?

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

I would agree with robindch that politicians influence public opinion. I would also agree with him that this influence is not total. If by shape you meant total control, then no, I don't think the politicians have sufficient control over public opinion to achieve this, hence protests against the war. If by general influence, then, of course, yes. That is the business they are in. They have to try and persuade the public that the course of action they are taking is the right one.

I think we are back to the term "generally accepted" again and what do we mean by "public opinion." From one of you saying "yes" the other saying "no" we have clarified the that you were both speaking of smaller percentages of people being "influenced".

By "generally accepted" I mean the widely held views! If we now agree it is not by politicians, because they do not have that kind of power, where do these widely held views come from?

robindch

> the crime was solved, within hours, and the world
> was told who did it.

I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots who flew the planes into the building. I believe that the question of whether they were following orders from somebody, or had been 'out-sourced' remains open, as it also does in the case of the Madrid bombings, the alleged claims of bin Laden, and those of the various interested governments and militaries, notwithstanding.

> If we now agree it is not by politicians, because they do not
> have that kind of power, where do these widely held views
> come from?

You're missing the point here, I think, because you appear to believe that strict segregation of 'lines of belief' exists within populations, when, in fact it doesn't (for example, while the pope may wish that every catholic in the would do as he asked, adherents tend to take input from other areas too, and many frequently ignore his latest papal bull).

This means that while, in theory, some very small section of the population (none I'm aware of, but I'm sure there're a few) might accept everything that some politician/religious leader/columnist/whatever says, in practice, people don't and usually tend to believe what they want to believe, sometimes at the prompting of other people, sometimes not. Also, if a wide selection of different people [politicians, pundits, men in pubs] are saying the same thing, as I pointed out a day or two back, then the chances are that it will propagate further still.

There also exists the possibility that a view is widely held, simply because it happens to be true -- how many people will deny that Wales won the Grand Slam the week-before-last?

I think if you wish to pursue this further, you'll have to be more specific and define what you mean by 'widely held views', and give a few examples -- the phrase is too generally applicable to too many things.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> the crime was solved, within hours, and the world
> was told who did it.

I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots who flew the planes into the building.

And you knew this immediately to be true because???

And do you think it is rational to never have any reasonable doubt about what happened when thousands of people are murdered at multiple crime scenes?

robindch wrote:

There also exists the possibility that a view is widely held, simply because it happens to be true -- how many people will deny that Wales won the Grand Slam the week-before-last?

I think think the fact that Wales won is a good example of a widely held view because very few, if any, will disagree. I think we have a common agreement on what is the meaning of a "widely held or "generally accepted" view.

Does the possibility also exist that a view that is "generally accepted" or "widely held" could ever happen to be false?

robindch

> And you knew this immediately to be true because?

Because I saw several videos, some real-time, of the planes hitting the buildings. Of course, the videos could have been faked, and my two friends who saw it happen could have been lying to me as well, but I doubt it. And the planes could have been flown by remote control, or by agents of Mossad, the CIA, the Illuminati, etc, etc, but I doubt these too.

> And do you think it is rational to never have any
> reasonable doubt about what happened when
> thousands of people are murdered at multiple
> scenes?

I haven't seen any remotely convincing theory, paranoid-conspiracy or otherwise, which can explain the observed facts better than the simple notion that a bunch of religiously-inspired nutcases took advantage of a close-to-non-existent security system to clobber the USA in a decidedly dramatic fashion. While there are plenty of unreasonable doubts to have, there are no reasonable ones.

At the risk of departing from the topic, I think I'll have to stand with SkepticOne, and ask you to explain your theory about what happened, and why the usual, uncomplicated and entirely logical explanation for WTC attacks seems to be unsatisfacory to you.

> Does the possibility also exist that a view that is
> "generally accepted" or "widely held" could ever
> happen to be false?

I think my answer to this is clear enough from my previous postings

- robin.

Turley

I do not think there is any dispute that planes crashed in to the buildings in New York City.

robindch wrote:

...And the planes could have been flown by remote control, or by agents of Mossad, the CIA, the Illuminati, etc, etc, but I doubt these too.

>I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots

Suicide is a unique crime because their is never a trial to judge the guilt or innocence. The victim is guilty of self-murder without a trial or evidence presented in court,. There is no jury, and no defense is presented to argue for the innocence of the victim.

Every homicide textbook, Vernon Geberth's for example, states that every unattended death is to be treated as a homicide until homicide can be ruled out. Suicide is not to be concluded until homicide is ruled out, precisely because murders are often staged to look like suicide. How did you rule out homicide in the cases of those 19 men you found guilty of self murder, without "ever any reasonable doubt?"

robindch wrote:

I haven't seen any remotely convincing theory, paranoid-conspiracy or otherwise,

I think you have. Your theory is the accepted conspiracy theory, "that a bunch of religiously-inspired nutcases took advantage of a close-to-non-existent security system to clobber the USA" and these 19 men conspired with a bearded man in a cave to commit mass murder with a plan that somehow knew the U.S. Air force would stand down and not intercept hijacked passenger planes flying around in U.S. air space. The conspirators planned that the hijacked American Airlines flight #77 would fly from Kentucy, over West Virginia, and Virginia, to Washington for 45 minutes, after planes had crashed in NYC, while the U.S. air force would do nothing to stop them. And the conspirators planned that Hani Hanjour, unable to fly a single engine Cessna (Prince George's Journal), would crash a jetliner into the Pentagon. The Washington Post reported the jet was flown with "extraordinary skill" and "like a fighter pilot," making "a 270 degree turn at full throttle." According to the BBC, NY Times, and Washington Post some of the hijackers are still alive and one is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. This man did take flying lessons in the U.S. and his name and photo did appear in the U.S. press naming him as one of the suicide pilots. He and other living "hijackers" were still officially named as some of the hijackers in the official 9/11 Report. Since some of the official suicide hijackers are still alive I would call it a "wild conspiracy theory."

The U.S. government and press conspiracy theory claims Bin Laden's vast conspiracy network of terrorists includes sleeper cells, and an army of thousands in sixty countries. I am wondering who does the payroll and expense accounts? And I wonder how do al Qaeda recruiters screen for CIA operatives trying to infiltrate their vast conspiracy.

And, I am not making this up, none of the suicide hijackers were listed on the passenger manifests. The passenger lists were posted by CNN News and not one of the hijacker's names was on the lists. At the time I personally contacted the airlines to inquire and a spokesman for United Airlines said they would not include the names of "those hijackers" with the brave passengers. The spokesperson for American Airlines told me if I wanted to know why the hijackers were not on their passenger list I would have to ask the FBI. I know we have been told thousands of times what happened, but if their names were not on the passenger lists and some of them are alive what is the best evidence you have that caused you to conclude, "I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots."

Robindch wrote:

I think I'll have to stand with SkepticOne, and ask you to explain your theory about what happened, and why the usual, uncomplicated and entirely logical explanation for WTC attacks seems to be unsatisfacory to you.

I do not have a theory about what happened. You have the theory, a conspiracy theory.

Robindch wrote:

> Does the possibility also exist that a view that is
> "generally accepted" or "widely held" could ever
> happen to be false?

I think my answer to this is clear enough from my previous postings

Can you be more clear. Are you saying a "generally accepted" or "widely held" view, like your conspiracy theory, could never be false?

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

I think we are back to the term "generally accepted" again and what do we mean by "public opinion." From one of you saying "yes" the other saying "no" we have clarified the that you were both speaking of smaller percentages of people being "influenced".

Public opionion I would take to mean the general mix of opinion held by the public.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

Public opionion I would take to mean the general mix of opinion held by the public.

Yes, I think you are right, but Pubic Opinion is always the dominant opinion that is intolerant of dissent. In some societies public opinion does not tolerate certain immoral behavior for example. If people cross the line they feel the pressure from the public opinion.

My previous post included this quote from The Tolerant Society by Lee Bolinger, in which Mark Twain called public opinion the aggregate of 'corn porn opinion' which he described as follows:

"Mark Twain called these beliefs 'corn-pone opinions': those opinions people hold, not because they have reasoned them out for themselves or because they are derived from first hand experience, but because a person 'must feel and think with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business properties.'

"To Twain corn-pone opinions derive from the 'inborn requirement of self-approval,' which, "as a rule has it's source in but one place and not elsewhere-- the approval of other people." Twain wrote that the aggregate of corn-pone opinions together make up Public Opinion which is held in reverence and some think of as 'The Voice of God.'"

I think the conclusion of most people regarding the events of 9/11 are "corn-pone" opinions they have not reasoned out. For example, Robin said there was never "any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots." This belief in "terrorist hijackers" is derived from thinking with the bulk of our neighbors.

When people think that Public Opinion can never be false it is held truly in reverence as "The Voice of God."

Obni

Turley wrote:

I do not have a theory about what happened.

Can I ask you to clarify one thing, do you believe that the attacks on buildings in the US on September 11th, using commercial airliners, were
1. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance? (a generally accepted view)
2. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?
3. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance?
4. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?

Turley wrote:

Are you saying a "generally accepted" or "widely held" view, like your conspiracy theory, could never be false?

I would back your point here wholeheartedly. Look at Catholicism in Ireland, for example.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

Yes, I think you are right, but Pubic Opinion is always the dominant opinion that is intolerant of dissent. In some societies public opinion does not tolerate certain immoral behavior for example. If people cross the line they feel the pressure from the public opinion.

I said "mix of opinions". There might well be a large range of opinion on a given topic. Public opinion would be the agragate of these sometimes contradictory opinions, hence we sometimes talk of public opinion being divided on a given issue.

KCF

Turley wrote:

>I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots

Suicide is a unique crime because their is never a trial to judge the guilt or innocence. The victim is guilty of self-murder without a trial or evidence presented in court,. There is no jury, and no defense is presented to argue for the innocence of the victim.

Every homicide textbook, Vernon Geberth's for example, states that every unattended death is to be treated as a homicide until homicide can be ruled out. Suicide is not to be concluded until homicide is ruled out, precisely because murders are often staged to look like suicide. How did you rule out homicide in the cases of those 19 men you found guilty of self murder, without "ever any reasonable doubt?"

For a start, I don't consider suicide to be a crime and it's certainly not the crime that people were concerned about on 9-11 (mass murder tends to put discussion of the 'crime' of suicide into the shade). Secondly, I think that if you have just piloted a plane into a building, there is very little room for doubt about your 'cause of death'.

Turley

Compare the comments of Mark Twain in my previous post, especially man's need for self-approval, his need to be approved by other people, and the "Voice of God" with the title of the orginal thread (How do you get a Skeptic to beat Britney, now that e-bay is bigger than god?). The opening comment on the thread seemed to be seeking more approval and more popularity. Is this how SKeptics behave, by seeking to be popular? Maybe this is why the popular view and public opinion are revered among the Irish Skeptics.

Obni wrote:

In making a point in a post, I conducted a web search for "Government controlled media" which produced 3.21 million hits. Political dissent is obviously healthy producing so many hits, for example 'nipple' produced slightly less at 3.19 million

A brief and very unscientific burst of search activity produced the following league table.
News 1,100 million
TV 266 million
Money 251 million
Science 219 million
Sex 107 million
E-bay 88 million
God 74 million
Evolution 34 million
Britney 10 million
Skeptic 0.9 million

With an Irish Skeptics meeting to be held soon "to discuss future directions and activities of the society", would anyone like to start kicking around ideas. Particularly, it would be interesting to hear from those not planning to attend the meeting.
For starters, can the cause of critical thinking be popularized in Ireland?

Most dictionaries define a "skeptic" as a person who doubts what is generally accepted and questions accepted beliefs. See Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic
But here at the Irish Skeptics boards the norm is to never question the accepted beliefs.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Compare the comments of Mark Twain in my previous post, especially man's need for self-approval, his need to be approved by other people, and the "Voice of God" with the title of the orginal thread (How do you get a Skeptic to beat Britney, now that e-bay is bigger than god?). The opening comment on the thread seemed to be seeking more approval and more popularity. Is this how SKeptics behave, by seeking to be popular? Maybe this is why the popular view and public opinion are revered among the Irish Skeptics.

I think that you are confusing two different notions here. A skeptical outlook on life is surely something that skeptics do want to popularise. However, this is not the same thing as saying that skeptics individually are seeking popularity. In fact, there are all sorts of reasons why promoting a skeptical outlook is unlikely to lead to personal popularity.

Turley wrote:

Most dictionaries define a "skeptic" as a person who doubts what is generally accepted and questions accepted beliefs. See Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic
But here at the Irish Skeptics boards the norm is to never question the accepted beliefs.

Again, I think you are failing to be sufficently precise in your concepts. The phrase 'generally accepted' is just a phrase and it is used to refer to many things. For example, when you say that the theory of evolution by natural selection is 'generally accepted' there is an implicit subclause "among sane scientists" as otherwise it would be inaccurate as there are obviously some people who don't accept it. I think it is true to say that skeptics are people who think that the fact that something is 'generally accepted' is insufficent to completely make up one's mind about it - as skeptics stress the need for people to examine the evidence themselves and come to their own decisions about matters. However, this is very far from rejecting everything that is 'generally accepted' - it's cloudy today, George Bush is an idiot, 2+2=4 and so on. In the case of 9-11 the simple fact is that there are no alternative theories available that are remotely close to being as plausible as the 'generally accepted' one. That says quite a lot considering the fact that most people would have thought the generally accepted theory to be wildly implausible if it had been suggested to them on 9-10.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

I said "mix of opinions". There might well be a large range of opinion on a given topic. Public opinion would be the agragate of these sometimes contradictory opinions, hence we sometimes talk of public opinion being divided on a given issue.

Your point can help clarify public opinion. Check your dictionary and you will find "Public Opinion" is the consensus with respect to an issue. Public opinion is the public sentiment and belief held by most people it is the voice of the people. Pundits do sometimes call public opinion "divided" but this is an oxymoron when two contradictory terms are combined as in a defening silence. It is not a mix of contradictory opinions. The belief in 19 terrorist hijackers is the consensus and belief held by most people. It is the public opinion.

Obni

Turley wrote:

Is this how SKeptics behave, by seeking to be popular? Maybe this is why the popular view and public opinion are revered among the Irish Skeptics.

If I were to lose the run of myself, and post a response claiming you were an arrogant whacko I would expect and deserve the censure of all other members of this site. Suggesting that all the members of ISS are sycophants, regardless of how politely you phrase it, is just as insulting. Is your agitation due to what you claim is a lack of enthusiasm for questioning popular views, or is it due to the enthusiasm with which people question your claims?
Seeking popularity by courting public opinion is indeed a vile practice, but so is seeking notoriety by countering public opinion when popularity is beyond your reach.

Turley wrote:

But here at the Irish Skeptics boards the norm is to never question the accepted beliefs.

There is a difference between questioning accepted beliefs, finding them to be largely true, and then accepting some or all of those beliefs, and the idea that any accepted belief must by definition be wrong.

So, once again do you believe that the attacks on buildings in the US on September 11th, using commercial airliners, were
1. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance? (a generally accepted view)
2. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?
3. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance?
4. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?

Turley

Obni wrote:

Can I ask you to clarify one thing, do you believe that the attacks on buildings in the US on September 11th, using commercial airliners, were
1. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance? (a generally accepted view)
2. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies outside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?
3. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, about which the US authorities knew nothing in advance?
4. Acts of terrorism carried out by agencies inside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?

I do not have enough information to form an opinion on any of the above. The determination of what happened was made prior to any investigation. To solve a homicide, multiple homicides, or mass homicides it is necessary to gather evidence and look all of the evidence and view the big picture. A criminal investigation would include interviews of thousands of people, some under oath. Papers and documents and physical evidence would have to be gathered and examined. With multiple crime scenes and thousands of victims it would be a huge undertaking that would take months if not years to fully investigate. Possible suspects would include anyone that could have carried out the crime. Nothing would be ruled out from the beginning.

But instead, as Robin stated very directly:

>I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots

Do you think it is odd that among "skeptics" that value reason, a conclusion is welcomed that never entertained any reasonable doubt?

Obni wrote:

I would back your point here wholeheartedly. Look at Catholicism in Ireland, for example.

Please explain.

Turley

Compare

Obni wrote:

There is a difference between questioning accepted beliefs, finding them to be largely true, and then accepting some or all of those beliefs...

Robindch wrote:

I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots

And what is the best evidence that the hijackers named in the official 9/11 Report were guilty? What convinced you? Consider "there was never any reasonable doubt" with Mr. Waleed Al Shehri pictured here ALIVE, from the BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Turley

Obni wrote:

Suggesting that all the members of ISS are sycophants, regardless of how politely you phrase it, is just as insulting. agencies inside the US, of which the US authorities were aware in advance?

I did not say or suggest all the members is ISS are sycophants.

I do not think there is any question that most members here strongly defend views that are generally accepted by the public. Most members here do not question widely held popular views of the public.

Can you think of an example of popular public opinion, meaning what is generally accepted, as in "Wales won the grand slam," "men landed on the moon," "19 terrorist hijackers," "men evolved from apes," "the earth is rotating," that most members here question or doubt? For the most part things that are questioned are also likely to be doubted by the general public, like hypnosis. Some people question the paranormal and some do not, so the paranormal should not be considered, "generally accepted."

robindch

> I did not say or suggest all the members is ISS are sycophants.

I would respectfully beg to differ -- please read the rather tetchy paragraph in your previous posting again.

> I do not think there is any question that most members
> here strongly defend views that are generally accepted
> by the public. Most members here do not question widely
> held popular views of the public.

According to the thread topic, posters should be discussing what the phrase 'generally accepted' means, not slagging off the group who are providing the forum where the posting takes place.

At the risk of being drowned out in the rising noise, my understanding of 'generally accepted' refers to a belief which is current in a population to such a degree, that, when one omits the combined number of 'don't knows + don't cares', the number of adherents exceeds the number of disbelievers. It's debatable whether or not one should discard the two groups of donts, but they're not usually a significant group, particularly when one considers the amount of noise that they generate (or, more accurately, don't generate) upon the topic.

> Can you think of an example of popular public opinion, meaning what
> is generally accepted, as in "Wales won the grand slam," "men landed
> on the moon," "19 terrorist hijackers," "men evolved from apes,"
> "the earth is rotating," that most members here question or doubt?

In the US, with ~45% claiming that something called 'god' created the earth at some point in the last few thousand years, with another ~40% claiming that 'god' created it more distantly, but still guided the process, and ~15% or so claiming that this 'god' entity had nothing at all to do with proceedings which can be explained by straightforward observation and thought, we can see that the ISS *do* in fact question 'generally held', not to say 'overwhelmingly generally held' views, and your assertion that they don't is false. See the two locked creationist threads.

The ISS has also questioned the 'generally held' views that CAM is useful, that telepathy exists, that ghosts roam the country haunting houses and many others. The ISS has, possibly wisely, held back from that other bete noire of 'generally accepted' views, and not debated much about the existence of 'god' for reasons which it's probably best not to speculate too much upon.

As I mentioned in some other thread some months ago, I think you're having difficulty distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable doubts concerning 'generally accepted' views (as defined above) as much as you are having difficulty distinguishing sources of accurate and inaccurate information and it might be worth spending some time debating these two points in addition to the thread topic.

- robin.

Turley

Robindch wrote:

> I did not say or suggest all the members is ISS are sycophants.

I would respectfully beg to differ -- please read the rather tetchy paragraph in your previous posting again.

Robin-
Is this the offensive phrase?

>Is this how SKeptics behave, by seeking to be popular? Maybe this is why the popular view and public opinion are revered among the Irish Skeptics.

People have suggested on another thread here that ideas might be sought that could make this group more popular, like Britney. Suggestions were made to "popularize" critical thinking, and some thought a name change might be good as long as the name did not put people off, and even cool T-shirts were sugggested to get folks to want to join "the gang." I never suggested that ALL the members here seek to be popular individuals but it has seemed that popular things are valued. Some have argued that this or that could not be true because everyone would have to be wrong or in on a big conspiracy.

I never called anyone a sycophant and I am sorry if I offended people by saying things that are not popular here. It has never bothered me that my views are not "generally accepted" because being part of the gang was never important to me.

I would agree with you that belief in God is "generally accepted" and has been throughout history. Belief in God is one "generally accepted" belief I find most people here are skeptical of and I can't think of another.

Overdoing Learning

Could it be I've learned too much?
If charged, I must confess.
My views would be more popular
If I knew much less.

I might vote for Democrats
Or for the GOP
And not have old acquaintances
Almost run from me.

Education's big with them,
And ignorance the foe,
Except for those disturbing things
That they don't want to know.
-David Martin

-Turley

Turley

robindch wrote:

... a bunch of religiously-inspired nutcases took advantage of a close-to-non-existent security system to clobber the USA in a decidedly dramatic fashion. While there are plenty of unreasonable doubts to have, there are no reasonable ones.

Why is it unreasonable to expect if a passenger was aboard an airplane, their name would be on the passenger list? Here is a passenger list:http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
Do you see the names of any "religiously-inspired nutcases?"

Myksyk

A fundamental problem here Turley is that you are defining (or quoting a definition of) 'skeptic' that does not reflect the use or meaning of it for skeptics groups generally. Your source seems to be defining skeptic with reference to old Greek philosophical skepticism which has nothing to do with modern scientific skepticism. Skeptics are not interested in whether something is genrally accepted or not, just whether it has any evidence to support it. A lot of claims that skeptics question are those that are in fact not generally accepted (extraordinary claims). The compulsive questioning of any and all claims (regardless of evidence) seems to be the raison d'etre of conspiracy theorists, not scientific skeptics.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

A fundamental problem here Turley is that you are defining (or quoting a definition of) 'skeptic' that does not reflect the use or meaning of it for skeptics groups generally.

Thank you for trying to help make the issue clear. Yes, I would like to define what we mean by skeptic. Sometimes I feel like I am not in on a little secret. Many dictionaries define "skeptic" as a person who doubts what is "generally accepted" (Websters) or "accepted oinions" (askOxford.com). And most dictionaries also define the term as a person who doubts religion and accepts atheism. As with many words "skeptic" has more than one definition.

This latter definition is consistent with what you have said about "skeptics groups generally" because I think it is generally accepted in this group to doubt religion and God.

Myksyk wrote:

Your source seems to be defining skeptic with reference to old Greek philosophical skepticism which has nothing to do with modern scientific skepticism.

The ancient Greek philosophical schools denied the possiblity of any real knowledge of any kind. So I would agree that does not apply here.

By adding the word "scientific" I think you really 'hit the nail on the head' as the charter for the Irish Skeptics states, "To promote a scientific and rational point of view." Science would exclude God, and it is popular to ignore God.

Perhaps a better title for the group would be Irish Scientific Skeptics as it better defines who is here, which returns to the original question from which the moderator cut this thread, "How to be more popular than Britney...

Myksyk wrote:

Skeptics are not interested in whether something is genrally accepted or not, just whether it has any evidence to support it. A lot of claims that skeptics question are those that are in fact not generally accepted (extraordinary claims).

And you do not think the vast conspiracy theory that 19 suicidal hijackers, part of the 60 nation, international terror network of Osama (lives in a cave) bin Laden, is an extraordinary claim? Is it ordinary? And what evidence supports this conspiracy theory?

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

This latter definition is consistent with what you have said about "skeptics groups generally" because I think it is generally accepted in this group to doubt religion and God.

I think this is probably a fair reflection of things but it is important to note that there are members of skeptics groups who are religious and do not see the two stances as mutually exclusive. Our stance is outlined in our website which states that a person's religious beliefs are their own business. We may however have some interest in testable claims made on behalf of those beliefs.

Science would exclude God, and it is popular to ignore God.

I agree that science excludes supernaturalistic explanations of the natural world. I'm not so convinced that it is 'popular' to ignore God as it is probably accurate to say that most of the world believes in a God of one sort or another.

And you do not think the vast conspiracy theory that 19 suicidal hijackers, part of the 60 nation, international terror network of Osama (lives in a cave) bin Laden, is an extraordinary claim? Is it ordinary? And what evidence supports this conspiracy theory?

I have to say that being a skeptic doesn't mean that you become interested in every possible issue that one might possibly be skeptical about. I haven't an informed position on this but am open to any evidence one way or another. I have to say that the scenario painted above does seem on the face of things to be more likely than most. Firstly, we know that suicide attacks are definitely used by this faction to meet its ends. We know that people have hijacked planes before. We know that airport security at that point was abysmal (reporters in the UK even after 9/11 were able to get suspicious packages onto planes with complete ease). Incidentally, Osama Bin Laden, as far as I'm aware, did not live in a cave at the time of these attacks I don't see it as an extraordinary claim that a small group of people could plan and execute this sort of attack against an essentially unprepared country (unprepared for terrorism on their own soil). We Irish have first hand experience of very small groups like the IRA, UVF, INLA etc causing terror-related havoc for decades.

Turley

Myksyk-
Like yourself I am not greatly informed about the 9/11 crimes, but we do not need to be experts in every way to apply reason to the simplest facts.

Please reconsider what you have said. The question specifically is, what is the best evidence that the 19 men named are "guilty" of the extremely wicked crime of mass murder. If you were on a jury would you convict those men based on the evidence you have offered below as "proof" of their guilt?

Myksyk wrote:

I have to say that the scenario painted above does seem on the face of things to be more likely than most. Firstly, we know that suicide attacks are definitely used by this faction to meet its ends. We know that people have hijacked planes before. We know that airport security at that point was abysmal (reporters in the UK even after 9/11 were able to get suspicious packages onto planes with complete ease)...I don't see it as an extraordinary claim that a small group of people could plan and execute this sort of attack against an essentially unprepared country (unprepared for terrorism on their own soil). We Irish have first hand experience of very small groups like the IRA, UVF, INLA etc causing terror-related havoc for decades.

You seem to be saying people do evil things, evil things were done, therefore those 19 men must be guilty.

If the official story is true there should be evidence that proves the individuals named are truly guilty. Some of the men named as officially being the guilty hijackers are still alive according to the NY Times, Washington Post and BBC news. Please look http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Furthermore none of these 19 men appear to have even been passengers. See passenger lists here: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tr...77.victims.html

Given the fact that these men are not named on the passenger lists and some of them are still alive how can we say there was never "any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots?"

Where is the evidence of their guilt? You would think someone would be skeptical given the absence of evidence.

The 9/11 crimes demonstrate that whatever is "generally accepted" and "popular" is what matters most. I do not intend to offend, but I have been disappointed that members of this board also tend to embrace whatever is popular as if it is "true." The Irish Skeptics claim to promote "critical thinking skills" and a "rational point of view." Theses high principles are not applied if there is never "any reasonable doubt," about the popular "truth," concerning 19 human beings that became a cause for war.
-Turley

robindch

> the vast conspiracy theory that 19 suicidal hijackers, part
> of the 60 nation, international terror network of Osama
> (lives in a cave) bin Laden, is an extraordinary claim?

Yes, of course it is -- see the excellent recent documentary 'Power of Nightmares' which discusses the extraordinary idiocy + dishonesty which surrounds most of these claims.

If you've time, it's also worth reading this fairly long article which talks about much the same thing, but at a more general level.

> the fact that these men are not named on the passenger lists

The lists posted on the CNN website are victim lists, and are not complete passenger lists -- please look at the file name of the page that you've quoted, which includes the word 'victim' (twice).

> how can we say there was never "any reasonable doubt about
> who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots?

Very easily: we know that planes hit the buildings + exploded; this means that the planes were flown there and deliberately crashed, which means they must have been under control, either remotely (impossible, I believe, on the aircraft concerned), or locally, by pilots (the remaining possibility); therefore, we can conclude, fairly safely, I believe, that it was the pilots in the cockpit who crashed the planes, deliberately, into the buildings. This means, by any reasonable definition, that they are suicide pilots.

The identity of the suicide pilots themselves is a completely separate issue and, as the FBI makes perfectly clear, is something which is open to question -- see this press release (which uses the word 'believe' seven times, and 'possible' twenty-four times).

> The Irish Skeptics claim to promote "critical thinking skills" and
> a "rational point of view." Theses high principles are not applied
> if there is never "any reasonable doubt," about the popular
> "truth," concerning 19 human beings that became a cause for
> war.

You're quite wrong here and, I think, mixing up two issues. The *identity* of the hijackers is one issue which is perfectly open to debate. However, the political + military ends to which the *fact* of the attacks were put is quite separate and, if the topic comes up, I expect that you'll find that most people around here have far more than 'reasonable doubts' about its rationality.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> the vast conspiracy theory that 19 suicidal hijackers, part
> of the 60 nation, international terror network of Osama
> (lives in a cave) bin Laden, is an extraordinary claim?

Yes, of course it is -- see the excellent recent documentary 'Power of Nightmares' which discusses the extraordinary idiocy + dishonesty which surrounds most of these claims.

If you've time, it's also worth reading this fairly long article which talks about much the same thing, but at a more general level.

Robin-
The introduction to the article you suggest begins,

"The events of September 11, 2001, have demonstrated the power of enmity. Nineteen suicidal terrorists willingly and knowingly gave up their lives and..."

From the very beginning the premise is that there were "19 terrorist hijackers." This premise is unproven.

robindch wrote:

> the fact that these men are not named on the passenger lists

The lists posted on the CNN website are victim lists, and are not complete passenger lists -- please look at the file name of the page that you've quoted, which includes the word 'victim' (twice).

You are quite right, but who decided who was the victim and who was the terrorist. How was it determined which passengers were "terrorists?" How did they rule out any accomplices among the other passengers? Normally when a plane crashes or a ship sinks the passenger manifest is published. None has ever been published that include the names of 19 people that we have been repeatedly told were on the plane, and some of them are ALIVE!

robindch wrote:

> how can we say there was never "any reasonable doubt about
> who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots?

Very easily: we know that planes hit the buildings + exploded; this means that the planes were flown there and deliberately crashed, which means they must have been under control, either remotely (impossible, I believe, on the aircraft concerned), or locally, by pilots (the remaining possibility); therefore, we can conclude, fairly safely, I believe, that it was the pilots in the cockpit who crashed the planes, deliberately, into the buildings. This means, by any reasonable definition, that they are suicide pilots.[

I would agree that the planes were flown remotely or by pilots. Remote control was ruled out by the U.S. authorites immedialey because on the very day they blamed "the hijackers". Remote control was ruled out without any investigation. The technology exits. The most advanced remote control technology with planes is in Israel. The U.S. uses remote control planes that fire machine guns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Citizens can purchase hobby remote control planes, why wouldn't the CIA have more sophisticated toys?
I think this method should not have been ruled out prior to any investigation, but it was. In fact the guilty were named prior to any investigation!

robindch wrote:

The identity of the suicide pilots themselves is a completely separate issue and, as the FBI makes perfectly clear, is something which is open to question -- see this press release (which uses the word 'believe' seven times, and 'possible' twenty-four times).

Are they telling us they do not know who was responsible? This is beginning to sound like the WMD's that American experts were so sure were in Iraq. If over 3000 people are murdered shouldn't we want to know who is responsible. And if investigators are content to make the absurd claim that living people flew aboard the planes and have no interest in the truth isn't something wrong?

robindch wrote:

> The Irish Skeptics claim to promote "critical thinking skills" and
> a "rational point of view." Theses high principles are not applied
> if there is never "any reasonable doubt," about the popular
> "truth," concerning 19 human beings that became a cause for
> war.

You're quite wrong here and, I think, mixing up two issues. The *identity* of the hijackers is one issue which is perfectly open to debate.

The only issue is what happened. Either the 19 terrorist hijacker theory is true or it is not.

If the "identity" of the hijackers is perfectly open to debate then can we agree that we do not know who crashed the planes by flying them from the cockpit (or remotely)? If we do not know who killed thousands of people then
there IS reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- AND WHO WERE the suicide pilots.

robindch

> From the very beginning the premise is that there were
> "19 terrorist hijackers." This premise is unproven.

I'm not aware of anybody except you believes that this premise *is* proven! The following is the first sentence from the FBI report which you don't seem to have read (my emphasis):

] The Federal Bureau of Investigation is today releasing
] 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers
] of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001,
] into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon,
] and in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania.

Note again, that this report is from the FBI, not from a report into the psychology of enmity by a freelance psychologist, nor a victim list published by a news organization (in which case, btw, it is traditional to omit the names of murderers, should they have been killed also during an attack). The report is also tentative and not declarative. Finally, the FBI can be regarded, safely, I think, as having access to the largest amount of information about the attacks, and are therefore can be considered a competent authority upon the topic, notwithstanding any doubts concerning their political leanings, and the uses to which the information they release is put.

I need hardly add that the report also says that eight of the alleged hijackers were Saudi (subsequently revised upwards), but Bush invaded Afghanistan + Iraq instead!

> The only issue is what happened. Either the 19 terrorist
> hijacker theory is true or it is not.

It could also be 'unprovable', or, given the actions of Bush and his gun-slinging, gung-ho, paranoid, fundamentalist military junta since the attacks, largely irrelevant, imho.

> If we do not know who killed thousands of people then
> there IS reasonable doubt about who committed the act
> -- AND WHO WERE the suicide pilots.

I've already said this (arrgghh!!) but at least we now seem to agree that there were suicide pilots; progress, I suppose!

Oh, sod this -- I give up -- It's a lovely day outside and I'm going out to enjoy it

- robin.

Turley

Robin-
I would add to my previous post that GPS guidance systems are now commonplace in automobiles. One would think this technology would be on passenger jets and GPS could have guided the planes to their targets. We have been told repeatedly the planes were used as missiles and missiles use GPS, not pilots. This method should not have been declared impossible without first investigating to rule it out. The instant solution to the complex crime with multiple crime scenes and a conspiracy beyond the 19 alleged killers should be absurd to a thinking person. But the mindless gullible masses believe whatever they are told as long as it is "generally accepted" and the popular view.

On one hand we must believe that the Americans are such dullards they ignored all the clues that could have prevented the disaster. But at the same time we must also believe that the Americans are so mentally acute they needed no clues to solve the crime instantly. I do not see any logic here. We violate a principle of rational reasoning when something can both be and not be at the same time.
-Turley

Turley

Compare

robindch wrote:

> From the very beginning the premise is that there were
> "19 terrorist hijackers." This premise is unproven.

I'm not aware of anybody except you believes that this premise *is* proven!

Robindch wrote:

I don't believe there was ever any reasonable doubt about who committed the act -- it was the suicide pilots who flew the planes into the building.

I am aware that the FBI at first clamed that they "believed" they had the names of who was responsible. They did not announce they had "proved" who was responsible. But in the end when the 9/11 commission Report (available online) confirmed the original "belief" and the very first solution became the official conclusion. We can split hairs that initially they did not say it was "proven" but what they said from the beginning remained the official story from the beginning to the end. This is standard operating procedure for the FBI.

Consider that they first "believed" Lee Harvey Oswald killed Presdent Kennedy within 45 minutes of the assassination. And whatya know after the Warren Commission and all the investigations that followed they all agreed with what they first believed. New facts can be found and new evidence uncovered but the conclusions remain the same.

Consider asst. U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez who resigned in disgust because he was told what the result was going to before his investigation began into the death of White House counsel Vincent Foster. Rodriguez said he knew what the result would be because he was told what the result would be. His successor Brett Kavanaugh reached the "correct" conclusion of "suicide" and became a U.S. federal judge.

Don't you know how the U.S. Dept. of Justice and FBI do investitgations? They know what result they want BEFORE they begin an investigation and they believe "hijackers," "Oswald," or "Foster" are guilty before they make it official.

Of course I knew the FBI first said they "believed". They always do!
How can a skeptic not know this?

davros

Turley wrote:

I would add to my previous post that GPS guidance systems are now commonplace in automobiles. One would think this technology would be on passenger jets and GPS could have guided the planes to their targets.

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

There was discussion after 9/11 that perhaps there should be a mechanism for controlling planes from the ground in the event of a hijacking, locking out the pilot completely. Implying, of course, that such a system does not currently exist.

My own take on believing what is "generally accepted" is that this is usually a good strategy. We don't have time to evaluate everything for ourselves. As a skeptic, I'm willing to alter my belief on the presentation of compelling evidence but my default position is not to dismiss absolutely every claim as unproven and unreliable.

So for 9/11, I believe the consensus view. If someone wants me to believe otherwise, let them set out the evidence for a competing theory. It's not enough to pick small holes in the current story.

I happened to be in Iran on 9/11. The local (government controlled) newspapers were anxious to absolve Muslims of guilt in the attack. I have a copy of the Tehran Times somewhere here from the days after 9/11 which explains why Osama Bin Laden could not possibly have directed events on that day and how far more likely suspects were American blacks or Native Americans in revenge for past injustices. Such theories don't continue to fly, however, as evidence accumulates. If we opened the book again on the Sioux Nation as culprits, I'm pretty sure we would have to dismiss the theory all over again for lack of evidence.

If it looks like a duck, etc. We don't gain much by asking ourselves every fortnight "Is it still a duck?" At this point, it will take a duck expert with thorough research to get us to reconsider. In the fields of alternative medicine and the paranormal, the ISS tries to be the duck expert.

I feel my metaphor is getting a bit ridiculous now so I'll finish :-)

KCF

davros wrote:

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

Development in airline navigation is moving towards embedding much of the intelligence in the individual planes. Ground-based air traffic control will feed high level information about routes and targets to the planes, but modern planes are already being kitted out with sophisticated autonomic management capabilities such as collision avoidance, ground detection and so on. European Airbuses already use much of these capabilities as standard. Of course, this isn't going to be too useful to terrorism by remote control.

The only planes that I know of that can be flown by remote control at the moment are spy drones and this is only possible as they don't have to carry out any complex maneouvres - just fly at a steady height over a particular coordinate. With Current technology it is essentially impossible to carry out something like 9-11 (high precision targetting with commercial airplanes) by remote control.

Turley

davros wrote:

It's technically possible and someday air navigation will work this way. But so far it hasn't happened. The air traffic control system is extremely conservative for safety reasons. The military are early adopters of all technologies - anything to give themselves an edge.

If you seach "global hawk" on google can see that the technology has been around for some time.

davros wrote:

There was discussion after 9/11 that perhaps there should be a mechanism for controlling planes from the ground in the event of a hijacking, locking out the pilot completely. Implying, of course, that such a system does not currently exist.

Could it be possibe that this implication was incorrect?

davros wrote:

My own take on believing what is "generally accepted" is that this is usually a good strategy. We don't have time to evaluate everything for ourselves.

I agree with you that we do not have time to evaluate everything. But the murder of 3000 people, in such a horrific manner, deserves more scrutiny than the a concensus view that the first impression was correct, especially when no investigation was done and no proof presented.

davors wrote:

So for 9/11, I believe the consensus view.

Most people believe whatever is "generally accepted" and popular because it is, well, "generally accepted" and popular.

davros wrote:

I happened to be in Iran on 9/11. The local (government controlled) newspapers...

Government controlled newspapers? Really? Did it say "government controlled" in the paper or can you know this just by looking at them? I am curious. Is there proof of government control or is this the "generally accepted" and popular opinion?

davros wrote:

If it looks like a duck, etc. We don't gain much by asking ourselves every fortnight "Is it still a duck?"

Call them "19 ducks" or "19 terrorist hijackers" what is the best evidence that convinced you Hani Hanjour was at the controls of a plane flying into the Pentagon? Were you convinced because it is "generally accepted" and the popular view that he did it?

If so, how something becomes "generally accepted" is a good question?

robindch

> the FBI first said they "believed". They always do!
> How can a skeptic not know this?

FFS, will you PLEASE take a quiet moment to read what I write, instead of quoting back to me what I wrote, as though I had never written it?

> Don't you know how the U.S. Dept. of Justice and FBI do
> investitgations? They know what result they want BEFORE
> they begin an investigation

> [...] no investigation was done and no proof presented.

IMHO, this discussion is now firmly in the area of wild + random + unsubstantiated allegations and I don't think it's likely to go anywhere useful.

If anybody feels like returning to the thread topic I'll be back. In the meantime, do have a good weekend folks

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

IMHO, this discussion is now firmly in the area of wild + random + unsubstantiated allegations and I don't think it's likely to go anywhere useful.

When you lack an effective, fact-based argument, other techniques must be employed, for example characterize your opponent of "wild + random + unsubtanstiated allegations." Then make a hasty retreat from the discussion.

My allegation that FBI and U.S. Department of Justice officials know the results of investigations before they begin is not "wild." It is supported by fact. The transcript of a taped telephone conversation of assistant U.S. attorney and deputy independent counsel Miquel Rodriguez is available online. He is currently an asst. U.S. attorney in Sacramento, California and people can ring him up verify the facts. Here is Rodriguez in his own words:

It's ah, the result is being dictated by a lot higher, um, authority than I think people really understand or appreciate and certainly more than I ever appreciated. What with this whole notion ah, you know, of, of doing an honest investigation, um, you know, you know, it's, it's laughable.

I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go. And then there's all so much fluff, and a look-good job, it's just, this is all, all so much nonsense and I knew the result before the investigation began.

That's why I left. I don't do investigations like that – do investigations to justify results. There's a – again, I don't think they can go back to the fact that, and it's just a fact for me because it was told to me, the result here has already been determined. It was determined long ago. Fiske himself indicated that he had determined the result before he had ever released a report. And that's the way all the investigations have resulted – its end oriented. Again, you know, I left for a very good reason. The results, you know, were dictated and I don't do that kind of work.

(break)

There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It’s very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme.

This is central to the fact that what is "generally accepted" and poularly true is not always based on investigative evidence, especially if the source of what is "generally accepted" is the FBI. Robin introduced the FBI as a source of the "19 hijackers" conspiracy theory.

I doubt that anyone cares but in case anyone is wondering why Miquel Rodriguez did not go to the press and expose criminal activity in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, he did.

I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and this – this matter is so sealed tight um, and, the reporters are all genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, – reporters are genuinely interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they've got a story and they're ready to go, the editors – and they – I've gotten calls back, I've gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what the hell's wrong, why can't, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn't think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.
They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again, I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with Labaton, or six hours with Labaton, and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there's a lot more, um, ah – I know, I know the New York Times has it – knows, and just won't ah, ah, I know that they won't do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me back. Reporters that I've spent a lot of time with called me back and said the editors won't allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had, ah, a certain take on all of this. And there's been story lines from the get-go.

Turley

I do not have a theory on what happened on 9/11 (other than the pubic was bamboozled). But I do have a theory on how something like the "19 terrorist hijackers" and other ideas become "generally accepted."

Things become "generally accepted" in the same way that the invention of the bathtub became "generally accepted." If anyone googles "invention of the bathtub" or just go to this link
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4422
they will learn my theory of how something becomes "generally accepted." (Robin should like this one)
-Turley

Obni

Turley,

My choice of title for the thread that spawned this thread was facetious, but was intended as a light-hearted title. The objective was to start a discussion about the development of ISS, not as a serious attempt to supplant Britney Spears in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Obni

Generally Accepted (GA).
Something is GA if the information provided by regular news sources or authorities is accepted by people not directly concerned with the issue or event.

GA: On Sept 11 four commercial flights were hijacked. One crashed into each of the two WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed en route to a target.
Nothing in your posts to date suggest you would disagree with this GA view of the events of Sept 11.

GA: The attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists of middle-eastern origin, some of whom had basic flying skills.
This is where you would oppose the GA view of the events of Sept 11.

There is a huge reservoir of resentment against the US across the globe, as a result of US foreign policy. An attack on the US by a group of middle-eastern anti-US terrorists is credible.

Did the FBI and the media rush to supply an increasingly demanding public/electorate with answers? Probably.
I'm sure the crippling economic implications of Us citizens refusing to return to work prompted the government to supply whatever answers they had as quickly as possible, seeking to give the appearance of an open-and-shut case.

Who the hijackers were, and who was behind them in terms of influence and finance has never been established as an undisputable fact.
The immediate 'hijacking' of the response to Sept 11th by the Bush administration to further its own agenda has only served to muddy the waters.

Were those answers clearly chosen to justify the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Hardly, with a majority of the people identified as hijackers being of Saudi origin. The last people the Bush administration would want to implicate are their friends in S.A.. Why not 50% from Iraq and 50% from Afghanistan (or 33% from each plus 33% from Iran)? Why fake evidence in a patchy manner when a full video of the terrorists talking about their intentions would have been simple to create and would have saturated the media coverage for weeks? If the CIA/Mossad planned an attack to influence world events why not something foolproof - a bomb at the superbowl - why risk a remote controlled drone/airliner crashing just off Manhattan Island and being recovered largely intact with 'Property of the CIA' or 'Made in Tel Aviv' stamped all over it.

Turley

Obni wrote:

My choice of itle for the thread that spawned this thread was facetious, but was intended as a light-hearted title. The objective was to start a discussion about the development of ISS, not as a serious attempt to supplant Britney Spears in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Obni-
I understand. I knew you did not intend to supplant Britney. In discussing the development of the ISS it may be useful to take a critical view of ourselves and of what we do.

Are there limits to our critical thinking and skepticism?

Skepticism and critical thinking are tolerated as long as they are directed at those things that are "generally accepted" popular targets for evreyone to doubt like, the paranormal, psychics, religion, and alternative medicine. By not accepting these beliefs we think like the bulk of our neighbors.

It is modern heresy to question, authoritatively affirmed, secular dogmas, asserted apriori, without proof. The name "skeptics" attracted me to this group because I imagined some individuals here might apply critical thinking to popular secular dogmas. But instead skepticsim of "generally accepted" pubilc opinion is not tolerated. Such skepticism is rebuked, and discussion is closed.

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

Turley

Obni wrote:

Generally Accepted (GA).
Something is GA if the information provided by regular news sources or authorities is accepted by people not directly concerned with the issue or event.

I agree completely.

But given the fact that "regular news sources" and "authorities" have provided false information in the past shouldn't there be skepticism?

Obni wrote:

GA: On Sept 11 four commercial flights were hijacked. One crashed into each of the two WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed en route to a target.
Nothing in your posts to date suggest you would disagree with this GA view of the events of Sept 11.

I agree.

Obni wrote:

GA: The attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists of middle-eastern origin, some of whom had basic flying skills.
This is where you would oppose the GA view of the events of Sept 11.

Yes. I am skeptical.

Obni wrote:

There is a huge reservoir of resentment against the US across the globe, as a result of US foreign policy. An attack on the US by a group of middle-eastern anti-US terrorists is credible.

A lot of things are credible and possible so why is only one explanation "generally acceptable?"

Obni wrote:

Did the FBI and the media rush to supply an increasingly demanding public/electorate with answers? Probably.
I'm sure the crippling economic implications of Us citizens refusing to return to work prompted the government to supply whatever answers they had as quickly as possible, seeking to give the appearance of an open-and-shut case.

What about the truth? Isn't it important to know what happened and who is responsible for mass murder?

Obni wrote:

Who the hijackers were, and who was behind them in terms of influence and finance has never been established as an undisputable fact.

If we do know know who hijacked the planes either by remote control or onboard we do not know the truth about what happened. How can we allow 3000 people to be murdered and blame 19 people that may be innocent? Where is our skepticism?

Obni wrote:

The immediate 'hijacking' of the response to Sept 11th by the Bush administration to further its own agenda has only served to muddy the waters.

Why is their no suspicion of those who have used the event to their benefit?

Obni wrote:

If the CIA/Mossad planned an attack to influence world events why not something foolproof -

If you control what is "generally accepted" you already have something foolproof. Have you ever seen Thomas Wintour's signed confession for the Gunpowder Plot, signed Thomas W-i-n-t-e-r. If you are going to forge a signature why not spell it correctly? If you are going to write James Forrestal's "suicide note" why not attempt to forge handwritting to look like Forrestal's? The answer is you don't have to.

It is already foolproof when even the ISS is not skeptical.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Skepticism and critical thinking are tolerated as long as they are directed at those things that are "generally accepted" popular targets for evreyone to doubt like, the paranormal, psychics, religion, and alternative medicine. By not accepting these beliefs we think like the bulk of our neighbors.

It is modern heresy to question, authoritatively affirmed, secular dogmas, asserted apriori, without proof. The name "skeptics" attracted me to this group because I imagined some individuals here might apply critical thinking to popular secular dogmas. But instead skepticsim of "generally accepted" pubilc opinion is not tolerated. Such skepticism is rebuked, and discussion is closed.

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

I feel that you are inaccurately and unfairly denigrating ISS here. Far from being 'not tolerated', this bulletin board is completely dominated by discussion of what you refer to as 'popular secular dogmas'. Indeed people here have spent a considerable amount of time and mental energy applying critical thinking to the various issues that you have raised, evidenced by the large volume of posts addressing 9-11 and the holocaust.

I think that you would be advised to consider the possibility that others have applied critical thinking to these issues, but arrived at different conclusions to yourself. It is not a very endearing trait to equate critical thinking with your own opinions.

Myksyk

Turley, I submit to you that 'generally accepted' within science means that there has been the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in favour of a particular idea or theory. Such a theory does not constitute 'public opinion' or 'popular secular dogma' with the implicit assertion that such theories are merely the mystical musings of modern-day equivalents of Aristotelian schools. Furthermore, the theory so accepted is not 'absolute' but should and will only be supplanted or modified in accordance with new evidence, not opinion (skeptical or otherwise).

It seems to me to be a reasonable and practical thing to have trust (well-earned) in the scientific framework and the social and intellectual structure which constitutes the scientific community (warts and all). It has proved itself time and again to be able to bend with the evidence, to be self-correcting and to attempt to control for its own biases; more than any other social institution. Perhaps it achieves this because there is no one person at the helm, no directing dogmatic personalities, just committment to particular methods and means of seeking truths about the way the world works.

Given that you must (correct me if I'm wrong) accept some 'generally accepted' ideas in science without having read all the original convincing material yourself, how do you decide to do so? What are the criteria by which you work? I can't accept that you only believe things which you have worked out for yourself. Science has worked out too much for any individual to become personally acquainted with in detail. You must place some faith and trust in science in some way, regarding some things; or are you backed into the bleak corner of know-nothing skepticism?

Obni

Turley wrote:

Questioning Anglican religious dogma was not tolerated in Elizabethan England. Today skepticsim of popular secular dogma is intolerable at ISS.

You certainly seem prone to romanticising your position. However, I reckon you can hold off on constructing your priest-hole for the moment; ISS won't have an organised persecution squad until after the next meeting.

Turley wrote:

What about the truth? Isn't it important to know what happened and who is responsible for mass murder?

Yes, of course it's important.
(GA) Someone organised an attack on US economic and government/military targets, with no regard to loss of civilian life.

Unless there is some vested interest in covering-up the real perpetrators identities, why would the official investigation come to the conclusion that it did?

Turley

Obni wrote:

Yes, of course it's important.
(GA) Someone organised an attack on US economic and government/military targets, with no regard to loss of civilian life.

Unless there is some vested interest in covering-up the real perpetrators identities, why would the official investigation come to the conclusion that it did?

Thank you for delaying the hanging, drawing, and quartering.;)

Before we ask "why it is" Aristotle tells us we must first know "that it is."

Aristotle's example being, first we must know that there is an eclipse, then we seek to know why it is.

The present situation is the opposite. The U.S. authorites and media have told us "why it is" the 19 terrorists committed the mass murders, because we were told "they hated the U.S." The authorities somehow already know the "why" before they know the "who it is" or "what it is." The FBI director Mueller admitted some of the official "hijackers" are ALIVE and the true identities may never be known.

Something is clearly wrong and worthy of our skepticism. Clearly the U.S. media and authorites have not offered proof to support their conclusion of what happened and who was responsible. This is a fact. Perhaps we might want to ask "why this is so?"

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I submit to you that 'generally accepted' within science means that there has been the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in favour of a particular idea or theory.

You make a good point. I agree.

But other matters also become "generally accepted" without the accumulation of convincing (often overwhelming) evidence in their favor. The theory of the "19 terrorist hijackers" has become a matter of public opinion or popular secular dogma without evidence or proof and deserves skepticism.

Myksyk wrote:

It seems to me to be a reasonable and practical thing to have trust (well-earned) in the scientific framework and the social and intellectual structure which constitutes the scientific community (warts and all). It has proved itself time and again to be able to bend with the evidence, to be self-correcting and to attempt to control for its own biases; more than any other social institution. Perhaps it achieves this because there is no one person at the helm, no directing dogmatic personalities, just committment to particular methods and means of seeking truths about the way the world works.

I agree completely. There are times when it is reasonable and practical to trust. And some things may not be true but they work so we use them and trust that they will work.

Myksyk wrote:

Given that you must (correct me if I'm wrong) accept some 'generally accepted' ideas in science without having read all the original convincing material yourself, how do you decide to do so? What are the criteria by which you work? I can't accept that you only believe things which you have worked out for yourself. Science has worked out too much for any individual to become personally acquainted with in detail. You must place some faith and trust in science in some way, regarding some things; or are you backed into the bleak corner of know-nothing skepticism?

Again I agree with you. You are reasonable to ask what is the criteria by which I work as it is impractical to doubt everything.

The criteria are simple really:
I do not place my complete trust in my fellow man as men can deceive and are subject to error.
If something works, it may be true or false, but as long as it works it is okay with me. I do not doubt that the 8:15 train will not be on time, if it is usually on time. Probability is practical. Measuring curves with straignt lines will work for me.

It is also probable that officials that have murdered and lied to us in the past will murder and lie to us again. Therefore knowledge of murders and lies that are officially concealed is practical.

When the unexpected happens and something does not work, such events invite doubt, critical thinking, and skepticism. 3000 homicides in one day is not normal. Invading countries, killing children and torturing people does not work. It is wise to be skeptical of those that justify killing our fellow human beings.

We need not be skeptical of every unusual event. Unusual events can happen. Government officials can jump out of windows or shoot themselves, presidents can be assassinated, and 19 men can commit suicide in one day using four airplanes. But when unusual events involve homicides that are solved prior to any investigation we should demand evidence and proof.

Science does not apply secret experiments as proof, a secret investigation is not proof. If the "19 terrorist hijackers" conspiracy theory is true there should be an accumulation of convincing if not, overwhelming, evidence in favour of the theory.

Turley

KCF wrote:

I feel that you are inaccurately and unfairly denigrating ISS here. Far from being 'not tolerated', this bulletin board is completely dominated by discussion of what you refer to as 'popular secular dogmas'. Indeed people here have spent a considerable amount of time and mental energy applying critical thinking to the various issues that you have raised, evidenced by the large volume of posts addressing 9-11 and the holocaust.

I think that you would be advised to consider the possibility that others have applied critical thinking to these issues, but arrived at different conclusions to yourself. It is not a very endearing trait to equate critical thinking with your own opinions.

Please specify don't characterize.

Obni

Turley wrote:

The U.S. authorites and media have told us "why it is" the 19 terrorists committed the mass murders, because we were told "they hated the U.S." The authorities somehow already know the "why" before they know the "who it is" or "what it is."

To the best of my knowledge, no law enforcement agency works on Aristotlean principles.
The old formula of motive, means, and opportunity are supplied in full by the GA explanation.
The motive: hatred of the US, due to US foreign policy in the region of origin of the hijackers and its support for Israel, and a resultant desire to damage the economy and government of the US.
The means: 4 standard commercial airliners flown using auto-pilot & manual controls into the selected targets.
The opportunity: the rather lightweight security on domestic flights within the US at the time.

Turley wrote:

The FBI director Mueller admitted some of the official "hijackers" are ALIVE and the true identities may never be known.

All that really means is that some of the hijackers shared names with other people by coincidence or identity theft. The photos provided by the FBI came from their files in an attempt to match the names, they were not presented as actual photos of the hijackers as they boarded the planes. I don't regard that as sufficient evidence to doubt the presence of 19 hijackers, some of whom may never be identified.

Turley wrote:

Something is clearly wrong and worthy of our skepticism. Clearly the U.S. media and authorites have not offered proof to support their conclusion of what happened and who was responsible.

What kind of proof would you require?
If an arrest in the next few days resulted in the discovery of a hoard of documents including hand-written plans, building blueprints, flight-paths, timetables, lists of identities real and adopted, PC's with numerous saved MS Flight Simulator replays of attempts to crash in the WTC, last letters to family members from 19 hijackers, records of from where the finances came, and an official command to start the operation by the mastermind behind the attacks, I get the feeling you would just dismiss it as FBI fakery.

Turley

Obni wrote:

The old formula of motive, means, and opportunity are supplied in full by the GA explanation.
The motive: hatred of the US, due to US foreign policy in the region of origin of the hijackers and its support for Israel, and a resultant desire to damage the economy and government of the US.
The means: 4 standard commercial airliners flown using auto-pilot & manual controls into the selected targets.
The opportunity: the rather lightweight security on domestic flights within the US at the time.

I think you are beginning with the premise that there were 19 terrorist hijacers.

Critical thinking should begin with the premise anyone could have committed these crimes and not with trying to justify the official result.
Many people may hate the U.S. policies but that does not mean that these 19 people, who we admittedly do not even know their names, hate the U.S. The argument seems to be:
They are guilty because they hated the U.S.
and the proof they hate the U.S. is
they committed the crime.

Everyone in Saudi Arabia does not hate U.S. policies, some do and some don't and some don't care. How do we know 19 people did?

I am not an expert on 9/11 facts but someone I knew from school died at the Pentagon and one thing that bothers me about that incident is that the jet was described as being flown with extraoridnary skill, like a fighter pilot, at full throttle, turning 270 degrees. Yet the "pilot" Hani Hanjour, who took flying lessons, was unable to fly a Cessna 175 propeller plane and his instructors said he was not capable of flying. This is incongruous and goes against concluding these men had the means. And would men described by the authorities as extreme "religious" fanatics go to bars to drink and watch naked women dance? Again this is incongruous with their motivation.

Obni wrote:

All that really means is that some of the hijackers shared names with other people by coincidence or identity theft. The photos provided by the FBI came from their files in an attempt to match the names, they were not presented as actual photos of the hijackers as they boarded the planes. I don't regard that as sufficient evidence to doubt the presence of 19 hijackers, some of whom may never be identified.

If we admit we do not know the identities of who these 19 people were how can we know their motives? I would think identifying the guilty would be important when 3000 people are murder in such a wicked manner. The official 9/11 Report is online and from the very beginning on the first two pages the 19 hijackers are named and there is no equivocation, they are identified and the Report does not claim their names may never be known. Again this is incongruous that hijackers are officially named and at the same time ALIVE. Something is wrong. By the way, the living "hijacker's" photos, ages, and backgrounds matched those of the dead hijackers exactly. One of them, became a pilot for Saudi Airlines and DID, in fact, take those flying lessons, in the U.S. He was the same man in every way, except that he is ALIVE. Something is wrong that he is still named in the official 9/11 Report.

Obni wrote:

What kind of proof would you require?
If an arrest in the next few days resulted in the discovery of a hoard of documents including hand-written plans, building blueprints, flight-paths, timetables, lists of identities real and adopted, PC's with numerous saved MS Flight Simulator replays of attempts to crash in the WTC, last letters to family members from 19 hijackers, records of from where the finances came, and an official command to start the operation by the mastermind behind the attacks, I get the feeling you would just dismiss it as FBI fakery.

They have not discovered any hoard of documents yet:

The hijackers "left no paper trail," FBI Director Robert Mueller said in the text of a speech the FBI released Monday. "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." ... Investigators have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards.
---From the L.A. Times, 4/30/2002

Since you mention FBI fakery, they have a history of doing just that. Just ask Geronimo Pratt (google his name) why he spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. When the lead investigators of the 9/11 incident have a history of concealing crimes of murder, why shouldn't we be skeptical?

KCF

Turley wrote:

Please specify don't characterize.

Specifically, pithy one liners such as the above are substitutes for thought. They're not funny, they're not meaningful and their regurgitation doesn't impress.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Since you mention FBI fakery, they have a history of doing just that. Just ask Geronimo Pratt (google his name) why he spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. When the lead investigators of the 9/11 incident have a history of concealing crimes of murder, why shouldn't we be skeptical?

COINTELPRO and the panthers are even more glaring examples of FBI criminality than that directed at the AIM. However, they don't help much in the search for a 9-11 conspiracy. They were examples of clandestine operations within the FBI against utterly vilified oppositional movements. They did not remain secret for very long. In these cases there were also clear and plausible counter-theories to the mainstream view of events, not just a collection of apparent anomalies in the evidence. Most importantly, they understood well that, in the event of the criminality being exposed, the FBI could defend themselves by claiming 'exceptional' circumstances, grave threats to national security, communist plots and so on. The victims of the criminality were also 'subversives' and the media could be expected to justify their treatment on the grounds of security.

On the other hand, the victims of 9-11 were regular citizens, and many of them were also members of the ruling elite (the upper floors of the WTC hosted an awful lot of very rich folks). This makes the situation remarkably different. If any really solid evidence of government connivance in the events did emerge, I don't think that it is exaggerating to say that the ideological underpinnings of the US state would dissolve quickly and we would see some sort of radical restructuring of the major state institutions. Considering the number of people who would have to have been 'in' on the plot, the chances of the truth emerging would be close to 100%. Even if you can swear FBI people to secrecy with some degree of success, it is much more difficult to get civilians to do the same and thousands of civilian experts would have to have been bought off. People have consciences. They write memoirs. They have religious turns of faith in the run-up to death and 'confess'. The US state conspiracy theory, although the most plausible alternative, is vastly less plausible than the generally accepted theory. We would have to believe that US state planners were so desperate for 9-11 to happen that they were willing to take a 99% risk of revolution in the near future. They're not that stupid.

Once again, there is little point in dwelling too much upon the details of the 9-11 events unless there is a plausible alternative theory to the generally accepted one. As I pointed out before, it is well known that any historical investigation will throw up many unexplained facts and seemingly weird coincidences. That's just a factor of the chaotic complexity of human society.