'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

[Dillinger4]

I don't swallow anything up whole. I've just seen a bunch of videos that you have never watched, because you already know the truthi, that look like good videos from several different angles of the twin towers blowing up without any planes crashing into them, and I've seen other videos of eyewitnesses saying they didn't see any planes crashing into them, - and I've seen videos of planes crashing into the towers, in which the planes look fake, including one where the plane's nose pokes through the other side of the building. (And that was on the news ffs.) .

And you somehow think you're qualified to comment despite never having looked into the matter at all yourself.

And you base your extraordinary faith on an alleged unanimity of expert opinion, that in fact doesn't exist, except in your own fantasy.

You have looked into the matter and watched some youtube videos on the internet. Some of them confirm your views. Some of them don't.

You have not proved anything. except that you have watched some videos that suggest different things.

And then based off this, you have the temerity to claim that somebody elses views are fantasy.

You sir, are insane.

 

[editor]

I don't swallow anything up whole. I've just seen a bunch of videos that you have never watched, because you already know the truthi, that look like good videos from several different angles of the twin towers blowing up without any planes crashing into them, and I've seen other videos of eyewitnesses saying they didn't see any planes crashing into them, - and I've seen videos of planes crashing into the towers, in which the planes look fake, including one where the plane's nose pokes through the other side of the building. (And that was on the news ffs.) . .

Please explain why thousands of people - if not tens of thousands - clearly saw a plane hit the tower with their own eyes. Please explain how the live TV footage was doctored. Please explain how this footage could possible be fabricated well enough to fool every just about everyone on the planet.

Except the loons of course.

Thank you.

 

[Demosthenes]

I could say the world is flat. I could find some person on youtube who says he has been to the edge of the world. I could find a website that backs my views.

However, this doesn't make it true. It doesn't falsify all the data, of earth seen from space, of all the people who have traveled around the world etc.

It just means there is one nutter who wants to believe it so much, he will blind himself to all the evidence contrary to his views.

Yeah, and you're suich an impartial and proper academic thinker, that you're the only person I've yet managed to find doing a D.Phil who thinks that using sources from youtube should be ruled out of a phd without any further discussion of the matter.

 

[Dillinger4]

Yeah, and you're suich an impartial and proper academic thinker, that you're the only person I've yet managed to find doing a D.Phil who thinks that using sources from youtube should be ruled out of a phd without any further discussion of the matter.

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me.

I never ruled out using youtube as evidence. You, and my friend, just do not seem to be treating it as rigorously as one should. You are not engaging with it critically.

For example, you wouldn't use anecdotal evidence that is counterfactual and unfalsifiable.

I thought I had made this clear.

You can't use "somebody said so it must be true" as evidence. You weigh it up against everything else. Why can't you do this?

 

[Demosthenes]

Please explain why thousands of people - if not tens of thousands - clearly saw a plane hit the tower with their own eyes. Please xplain how the live TV footage was doctored. Please explain how this footage could possible be fabricated well enough to fool every expert on the planet.

Thank you.

Well you haven't provided any evidence for this claim. I think you should.

But I assume it's true that lots of people saw or heard a plane. What seems to be the case though is that no-one saw it hit the towers.

But maybe they did. It's perfectly possible. I wouldn't rule it out. Why don't you go and find some live eyewitness evidence that someone other than someone reading a script on the news did see a plane hit the towers with their own eyes. If you're right, the evidence must exist. So it must be findable. Unfortunately I haven't yet found it. (I did the same for you, - go on, do us a favour. )

You're always on about this fooling every expert on the planet.

This claim that there is a unanimity of expert opinion is straightforwardly total rubbish.

Except on the insane and self-reinforcing delusional system where by definition, everyone who disagrees with you is a conspiraloon, fruitloop, or liar, and therefore, not a credible expert.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm an eye witness of sorts. I saw the second plane hit on TV.

Your next line is of course: But it could have been doctored!

Not practical, too many variables, if you don't understand what that means after a short period of thought then i'll explain why it's impractical.

 

[Dillinger4]

Oh, and I would warn against using inductive logic in your case. Maybe you should try and prove your point deductively. I would find that far more convincing.

Inductive reasoning has been attacked by many philosophers, and is not generally accepted as valid.

 

[Demosthenes]

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me.

I never ruled out using youtube as evidence. You, and my friend, just do not seem to be treating it as rigorously as one should. You are not engaging with it critically.

For example, you wouldn't use anecdotal evidence that is counterfactual and unfalsifiable.

I thought I had made this clear.

You can't use "somebody said so it must be true" as evidence. You weigh it up against everything else. Why can't you do this?

Oh right, my mistake, - Somehow I got the impression that although you've never seen what this guy's doing in his phd, you knew that because he was using youtube sources, it was obviously a load of worthless non-academic rubbish.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well you haven't provided any evidence for this claim. I think you should.

But I assume it's true that lots of people saw or heard a plane. What seems to be the case though is that no-one saw it hit the towers.

But maybe they did. It's perfectly possible. I wouldn't rule it out. Why don't you go and find some live eyewitness evidence that someone other than someone reading a script on the news did see a plane hit the towers with their own eyes. If you're right, the evidence must exist. So it must be findable. Unfortunately I haven't yet found it. (I did the same for you, - go on, do us a favour. )

You're always on about this fooling every expert on the planet.

This claim that there is a unanimity of expert opinion is straightforwardly total rubbish.

Except on the insane and self-reinforcing delusional system where by definition, everyone who disagrees with you is a conspiraloon, fruitloop, or liar, and therefore, not a credible expert.

No. The onus is on you to prove something, against a widely accepted view. And you cannot do this.

 

[Dillinger4]

Oh right, my mistake, - Somehow I got the impression that although you've never seen what this guy's doing in his phd, you knew that because he was using youtube sources, it was obviously a load of worthless non-academic rubbish.

For a start, its an undergraduate dissertation.

and yes, for the record, everything he told me was a load of worthless non academic rubbish.

Sarcasm does you no favors.

 

[Demosthenes]

Oh, and I would warn against using inductive logic in your case. Maybe you should try and prove your point deductively. I would find that far more convincing.

Inductive reasoning has been attacked by many philosophers, and is not generally accepted as valid.

God, you're philosophically sophisticated.

Unfortunately, as deduction seems to be incapable of proving anything, Cumulative induction is all we've got. And while it's not capable of providing certainty, pretty much all human knowledge is based on it, except what we get from direct perception.

 

[editor]

But I assume it's true that lots of people saw or heard a plane. What seems to be the case though is that no-one saw it hit the towers.

You're a fucking brainwashed idiot and I can't be arsed with your weird reality denial any more.

 

[Dillinger4]

God, you're philosophically sophisticated.

Unfortunately, as deduction seems to be incapable of proving anything, Cumulative induction is all we've got. And while it's not capable of providing certainty, pretty much all human knowledge is based on it, except what we get from direct perception.

And you doubt the direct perception of thousands, against all the mountains of evidence, and accept the apparent evidence of a view based on incredibly dubious sources?

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm an eye witness of sorts. I saw the second plane hit on TV.

Your next line is of course: But it could have been doctored!

Not practical, too many variables, if you don't understand what that means after a short period of thought then i'll explain why it's impractical.

Well, go ahead. But, in normal terminology, - eyewitness tends to mean someone who was at the event, and saw it with their own eyes, rather than through the lens of someone else's camera.

Do go ahead and explain. I suspect all it means is, you think it's impractical.
But, go ahead.

And while you;re at it maybe you could post some links to some films of what really happened. And show the same event from a few different angles so that it's obvious to everyone, that there's no reason to doubt.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well, go ahead. But, in normal terminology, - eyewitness tends to mean someone who was at the event, and saw it with their own eyes, rather than through the lens of someone else's camera.

Do go ahead and explain. I suspect all it means is, you think it's impractical.
But, go ahead.

And while you;re at it maybe you could post some links to some films of what really happened. And show the same event from a few different angles so that it's obvious to everyone, that there's no reason to doubt.

No. Once again, the onus is on you to prove any suggestion you make.

 

[Demosthenes]

And you doubt the direct perception of thousands, against all the mountains of evidence, and accept the apparent evidence of a view based on incredibly dubious sources?

What direct perception of thousands. You assume there is, just like I always did. There must be, no. Can you provide any live eyewitness evidence for your claim.?. I haven't even seen one live eyewitness report of someone saying they saw a plane hit the towers.

And like I said earlier, I''ve looked around, -(as far as I can tell you haven't, or else you'd post a live eyewitness link to show me) And I tried a different route, asking my mate who lived in new york, if he'd met any eyewitnesses. He said he had, - and none of them said they saw planes. (well I'm not sure whether he said they didn't see planes, or whether they didn't see planes hit the towers.)

Not that that's a knockdown argument. - If someone perceived something, then that's a lot more important evidence than a bunch of other people saying they never perceived it.

God, I seem to be repeating myself. Better stop.

 

[Dillinger4]

What direct perception of thousands. I haven't even seen one live eyewitness report of someone saying they saw a plane hit the towers.

And like I said earlier, I''ve looked around, -(as far as I can tell you haven't, or else you'd post a live eyewitness link to show me) And I tried a different route, asking my mate who lived in new york, if he'd met any eyewitnesses. He said he had, - and none of them said they saw planes. (well I'm not sure whether he said they didn't see planes, or whether they didn't see planes hit the towers.)

Not that that's a knockdown argument. - If someone perceived something, then that's a lot more important evidence than a bunch of other people saying they never perceived it.

God, I seem to be repeating myself. Better stop.

Your insane.

 

[Demosthenes]

No. Once again, the onus is on you to prove any suggestion you make.

Why.I'm the one who doubts the official version and finds the whole matter pretty confusing. You're the ones who claim you know what happened. . I've stated what I've seen on a bunch of videos, and what conclusions they make plausible.

You've all said I'm talking rubbish. I've posted links to things. You haven't looked at them, but ask for more evidence, even though all evidence that you don't agree with is tainted.

You've made claims that you hold are self-evidently true. E.g. thousands of people saw plane hit the towers with their own eyes, and then declined to offer any evidence for what you think.

 

[Demosthenes]

Your insane.

you're a twat.

 

[Dillinger4]

Why.I'm the one who doubts the official version and finds the whole matter pretty confusing. You're the ones who claim you know what happened. . I've stated what I've seen on a bunch of videos, and what conclusions they make plausible.

You've all said I'm talking rubbish. I've posted links to things. You haven't looked at them, but ask for more evidence, even though all evidence that you don't agree with is tainted.

You've made claims that you hold are self-evidently true. E.g. thousands of people saw plane hit the towers with their own eyes, and then declined to offer any evidence for what you think.

See, now you have established me as somebody who doesn't accept your 'truth'. So everything I say is now diametrically opposed to you, and cannot be accepted.

Here is a quote from David Hume.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

 

[Dillinger4]

you're a twat.

That is like, your opinion, man.

Whereas my claim that you are insane is based on cold, hard fact, backed up by the data of your insane claims and lack of logic.

 

[Demosthenes]

See, now you have established me as somebody who doesn't accept your 'truth'. So everything I say is now diametrically opposed to you, and cannot be accepted.

Here is a quote from David Hume.

God you're philosophically inept.

Hume actually claimed to think that it was impossible for us to have certain knowledge of causation, or even of the existence of the external world.

Do you call that sanity?

And calling someone insane, is actually a very unpleasant thing to do. Presumably, you think I should be locked up or put on drugs or something? If it weren't for the fact that I meet enough people these days, who confirm my view that I'm not insane, I might even worry about what you think.

In fact, your view is based on pure prejudice, and it's people like you who lock people up because they have ideas that you don't like, and then call them mad. The Soviet Union did much the same thing.

On balance, I reckon you've got shit for brains.

 

[Dillinger4]

God you're philosophically inept.

Hume actually claimed to think that it was impossible for us to have certain knowledge of causation, or even of the existence of the external world.

Do you call that sanity?

And calling someone insane, is actually a very unpleasant thing to do. Presumably, you think I should be locked up or put on drugs or something? If it weren't for the fact that I meet enough people these days, who confirm my view that I'm not insane, I might even worry about what you think.

In fact, your view is based on pure prejudice, and it's people like you who lock people up because they have ideas that you don't like, and then call them mad. The Soviet Union did much the same thing.

On balance, I reckon you've got shit for brains.

Excellent. This is exactly the route Fela Fan took. Unable to prove anything, he also took to making ad hominem attacks against me.

I make no claim one way or another about 9/11.

Why can't anybody accept critical assessment of the sources they are using to make a claim to having 'the truth'.

Jesus fucking wept. Honestly.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, go ahead. But, in normal terminology, - eyewitness tends to mean someone who was at the event, and saw it with their own eyes, rather than through the lens of someone else's camera.

Do go ahead and explain. I suspect all it means is, you think it's impractical.
But, go ahead.

And while you;re at it maybe you could post some links to some films of what really happened. And show the same event from a few different angles so that it's obvious to everyone, that there's no reason to doubt.

To generate the imagery of the planes hitting in real time is impractical in the extreme. You don't have the background knowledge or the caring to develop it to understand why but in terms of computational power needed it would be incredible. Just C&Ping a bit of plane into the image would be a piece of cake, getting the imagery so precise that it can't be detected as a fake years afterwards is as near to impossible as i've ever heard.

If it were generated before hand then it would be impossible, yes i do mean impossible, to match it up to real time events.

Either way you've got a huge conspiracy involving every camera crew in the area.

So, there's why it'd be difficult/impossible to do.

Now, how would it be dangerous as a tactic? For a start all you'd need would be one camera showing the side the planes impacted that didn't show a plane. You'd have thousands of people who would not have seen the second plane. The conspiracy would be very large indeed, including the NIST, umpteen TV networks and all the people at the render farm that was shut down to generate the imagery.

Then again you don't care about the balance of probability, you're one of those: "But it's possible!" idiots.

But here's something for you: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q7DYJMPGQpc

 

[Dillinger4]

He is incapable of accepting the simplest explanation.

 

[jonH]

He is incapable of accepting the simplest explanation.

which is?

 

[Dillinger4]

which is?

That airplanes flew into the buildings, rather than vast conspiracy of being fooled that they did.

Is that really difficult?

 

[jonH]

That airplanes flew into the buildings, rather than vast conspiracy of being fooled that they did.

Is that really difficult?

But whose Idea was it? Someone in Hollywood?

 

[Dillinger4]

But whose Idea was it? Someone in Hollywood?

I would say, on balance, no.

 

[jonH]

who dreamt up the idea?? i want names