Questions. Simply.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. ... But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.

Fallacy: Middle Ground

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation Description of Middle Ground


This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning. Examples of Middle Ground

1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
2. Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
3. A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

 

[Quad4_72]

What I really would be looking for, is more co-operation between the sides. Right now you are in and endless situation. The other side makes claims, and the other side debunks them. Then comes namecalling and ridiculing. After that the wall between the sides grows even more.

You and I want to respect all relatives. But there are still families who still have questions. They still feel they have not been treated well in the aftermath. What good does this endless pickering do to them? Nothing.

I'm not trying to make the world a better place or anything. But I would like to see people sit on the same table. A bit like You with the LC guys. But it requires a lot. It requires that everybody must make sacrifices. Admit that they are not always right, maybe change their beliefs on major topics. Or even agree to take a look at a specific topic from another point of view. Maybe the families still have some very open issues? Let's find if there are any and see if we can make any conclusions. That would make more sense.

How to make the sides closer? I have no idea. But this endless namecalling and defending of own positions does nothing to the people who actually have had a part in this tragedy.

Thank You.

As great as that would be ref, there will not be any mutual agreement when it comes to the CTs and skeptics. CTs are just that, they believe in conspiracies. They rely on loose connections between political figures and bad guys to make up a conspiracy. They also rely heavily on coincidences as well.

Their tactic in convincing people that they are right usually comes down to deceit, lies, misconceptions, and taking everything out of context. They will do whatever it takes to convince someone of their argument, whether the facts are their or not. Whether they have to lie or not.

Did you happen to catch Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries? The bias and deceitful manner in which they present information goes as a testimony to the validity of what they actually believe. They set up these CT movies like a documentary and present their claims as if they were fact, but yet there is no real evidence to back up any of it. This is done intentionally to bring people to their side, a fantasy world of paranoia where they believe that the government is out to get overyone.

Most importantly, you know why there will never be just one side? Because as of right now, there are not even two sides. Hell, there are not 100 sides.

There is a skeptic side, in which all of the skeptics have relied on facts, scientific data, physics, chemistry, and actual evidence to bring them to a unified conclusion of what took place on 9/11.

Then, you have CTs. There is no one CT side. There are literally thousands of CT sides to take. Each CT believes a different theory and each CT has their own opinion of what happened on 9/11. You will never find a unified belief when it comes to CTs. That is also another testimony to the validity of what they believe. If they had simply relied on the facts and the evidence in front of them, they would not all believe something different. Instead, they have relied on personal biases towards government, personal political agendas, far fetched connections between the government and terrorists, and coincidences.

This is not how science works. With science, you analyze, research, and draw conclusions based on all of the evidence. Asking questions is not evidence. Far fetched ties to terrorism is not evidence. Coincidences are not evidence. Quotes out of context is not evidence.

So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory? There are literelly thousands of CTs out there, each one believing something different then the next. Why are you special? Do you have the magical powers of Google that none of the others have? Why do you know more than every single demolitions expert, sructrural engineer, chemist, and physicist who disagree with what the CTs say? What credentials do you have to question the NIST findings, a group of over 200 experts in their fields who have analyzed all of the evidence and wrote a 10,000 page paper in which you have undoubtedly never read?

 

[ref]

Most importantly, you know why there will never be just one side? Because as of right now, there are not even two sides. Hell, there are not 100 sides.

Then, you have CTs. There is no one CT side. There are literally thousands of CT sides to take. Each CT believes a different theory and each CT has their own opinion of what happened on 9/11. You will never find a unified belief when it comes to CTs. That is also another testimony to the validity of what they believe. If they had simply relied on the facts and the evidence in front of them, they would not all believe something different. Instead, they have relied on personal biases towards government, personal political agendas, far fetched connections between the government and terrorists, and coincidences.

So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory? There are literelly thousands of CTs out there, each one believing something different then the next. Why are you special? Do you have the magical powers of Google that none of the others have? Why do you know more than every single demolitions expert, sructrural engineer, chemist, and physicist who disagree with what the CTs say? What credentials do you have to question the NIST findings, a group of over 200 experts in their fields who have analyzed all of the evidence and wrote a 10,000 page paper in which you have undoubtedly never read?

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

You know ref, here you may be right. It is poor form for us to judge your stance without proof. I would have to read through all of your posts here, to get an accurate idea of where you stand, and even then it may not be enough, depending on their content.

It often helps when coming here to give a brief synopsis on where you stand on 9/11 in general, or on specific topics. It is true, that doing so will get you different attitudes in response, but heh, this is a skeptics forum. On the other hand, it might help avoid any misguided or misinformed assumptions on where you stand on the issues.

So many CTers come in here with agendas, etc...that when someone comes in here questioning aspects of the story as the public knows it, there can be the general assumption that that someone is likely a CTer.

TAM

 

[ref]

I actually would disagree with Chacal here, and say that I think there are sides to be taken. The reason i say this, is because we are talking about groups of people, who in cyberspace at least, have chosen a group of people they tend to agree with, and from them they seek knowledge. Those people they tend to defend. Now for some, the "side" thing is not as obvious or even chosen, but I think it is still there.

The sides, I believe are,

1. The REAL TRUTH side. Our side. A side that believes in FACTS, EXPERT OPINIONS, REAL EVIDENCE, and that these things not only provide us with the answers, but are PARAMOUNT to the REAL TRUTH.

2. The 9/11 truth movement side. A side that seems to place a lot of weight on inconsistencies and coincidences. These things are the keys to their beliefs. Add in a paranoia for all that is government and big brother, and you have the heart of their "side".

I am usually one of the first on this forum to act as an arbitor of peace and civility, but that does not mean I do not see this as a battle. It is. It is a battle to provide all who come here with the REAL TRUTH. If that means I have to take sides and debate against those who provide rediculous, ill concieved, ill evidenced theories, than so be it.

I don't see things changing. When I first started this stuff, I thought the CTers could be converted, could be made to see the light. This rarely happens, and I know now that this is not the goal. As a result, my desire to "help" the CTers has severely diminished. My goal now is to reveal the bullcrap in their lies, for all those with REAL questions to see.

TAM

You are growing to be my favorite poster because of your approach.

Because of course there are hundreds of variations of CT, LIHOP, MIHOP etc. But the basic divider is, believing in US gov and official evidence/not believing.

And most people approach 9/11 from one or the other viewpoint. Either the evidence based, report supported viewpoint. Or the questioning the official story, government involved in some way -viewpoint. The second one is then divided to smaller branches, but that is where you would start to draw your "organizational matrix".

 

[Horatius]

Ok where do I start. First. How do you know what I have read? You are assuming, again. Second. How do you know I believe in a CT? Have I claimed to know better that others? Never claimed to know better than any expert. So again all these words put in my mouth, for what?

I also know there are many sides, LIHOP, MIHOP, thousands of variations. But basically only two. US gov involved/US gov not involved. Of course it is more complicated, but at it's simplest that's the first dividing point.

What is lack of judgement from you, is to assume I believe in a CT, CD, claim NIST is wrong, never read anything, I claim to know the real truth, etc. That's your own mindgames.

Part of the problem is you haven't bothered to tell us what you actually do or do not believe. You've posted a few questions that look like you're a CTist, but you've also posted a few rebuttals to CTists.

Unfortunately for you, that's very similar to how some CTist have acted when they first arrived here. They want us to think they're honestly inquiring about 9/11, when in reality, they're just trying to set us up, so they can claim they "pwned" the JREFers, or some such thing. Because of this, some people start assuming everyone who looks like a Ctist is one, until proven otherwise.

If you want to be taken seriously, how about you try listing some of what you do believe about 9/11? That way, we at least have some starting ground. Also, post some clear questions about what you don't understand about 9/11. Questions that honestly try to clarify your understanding, and don't just look like veiled accusations or disguised versions of typical CT arguments.

As unfair as it may seem, you're walking into the middle of an ongoing discussion, and it's up to you to figure out what has gone before, and to distinguish yourself from that.

ETA: Or what TAM said.....Damn slow fingers!

 

[ref]

Your two options are the options of a westener. These people are religious fanatics and in their minds the mujahedeen are already dead. They hate life and love death. They are more resiliant and motivated than you and their numbers are growing and they are not going away soon.

If you would like to speculate why Osama didn't martyr himself in for example Torabora there could be several explanatoins such as he was more valuable to the cause alive. You might want to investigate the Jihadi movement and the mind set of them.

I am a westerner, you are a westerner. I don't need your obvious "terrorists hate life, they love death" stuff. What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.

Man, you are based in Finland and your hobby is debunking a Finnish 9/11 CT site. Since you are so suggestive, can you tell your own background on your Jihadi movement -knowledge and your research on the Muslim terrorist way of mind? First hand peace keeping activities or google?

 

[Horatius]

What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.

Did you miss where we addressed this question? I think it's that they simply didn't expect the response they got, in part because they didn't expect to be as successful as they were, but also in part because they got away with many previous attacks without serious reprisals. Getting away with the 93 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave them a flase sense of how the US would react.

Their bad.

 

[ref]

Did you miss where we addressed this question? I think it's that they simply didn't expect the response they got, in part because they didn't expect to be as successful as they were, but also in part because they got away with many previous attacks without serious reprisals. Getting away with the 93 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave them a flase sense of how the US would react.

Their bad.

I did notice that. But I was explaining to chacal what the real point was because he brought up his westerner stuff. I have acnowledged your answers as well.

 

[ref]

Your lack of research on your own is your problem; you ask first grader questions for veiled reasons you have not revealed (not totally). Your lack of preparation and dumb question are annoying.

I do not care how well you write and express yourself; your lack of facts and shallow research make your efforts seem fraudulent at best.

What is your game?

You show a total lack of transparency; and have failed to lay out your cards. You ask questions to people who are fed up with the trying to make small things about 9/11 into major evidence for some CT.

You now post lessons for all? What is your problem? You have the real dumb questions; you take a trivial item and try to imply it is a CT factoid.

Am I jumping to conclusions; in your case it does not matter since you are way to smart to be critiqued by mortals.

Sides, you think you can pick sides and discuss? The CT world is a fraud; you fell for it; your intellectual bull has failed you in a game of facts. Either you are incredibly fact challenged or biased politically to the point you do not care about facts.

Are you:

Fact challenged?

or

Politically biased?

Simple questions even a CT guy can answer. You have missed the train; the facts were available on 9/11, enough facts for flight 93 to make decisions and stop the terrorist; you have had 5 years to find facts and failed. Flight 93 heroes took minutes to make correct decisions; you have five years and make wrong decisions. You have failed to comprehend the basic facts of the case and you are still lost this very moment. Finish a degree in something like engineering and try again. Or learn to think and use facts.

I challenged you in the beginning with the small piece of "suspicious" evidence, you seem to have taken it to your heart.

Some simple things you can not have known. I have a degree. I can think. When have I used non-facts? You seem lost in some areas, desperate to blame me for something.

I don't live in there, so only way I can be politically biased is not to like your country's politics. And I don't like a lot of them but hell, neither do most of you guys.

Your lack of knowledge on how to judge people and eagerness to jump into conclusions is the most annoying thing here.

If I have a problem then let me have. It is with attitude like yours.

 

[Gravy]

I challenged you in the beginning with the small piece of "suspicious" evidence, you seem to have taken it to your heart.

No, you asked six questions. You are the only one who thinks the subjects of your questions are "suspicious."

Many people come here with the misconception that questions are evidence. They are almost always disappointed to hear rational answers.

 

[ref]

No, you asked six questions. You are the only one who thinks the subjects of your questions are "suspicious."

Many people come here with the misconception that questions are evidence. They are almost always disappointed to hear rational answers.

No, I meant the very beginning when I came to this board. The bandana issue. I was not disappointted with his reply at all back then. But he has a problem with me now.

 

[Parsman]

Ref the bandana "issue" isn't an issue at all - wouldn't you agree that in this life and on this planet coincidences happen, sometimes very weird ones but coincidences none the less. The bandana survived unscathed - to the sceptics here a coincidence and that is all.

 

[chacal]

I am a westerner, you are a westerner. I don't need your obvious "terrorists hate life, they love death" stuff. What is the actual matter here is, what choises would be left for the people committing these acts after 9/11. And what they considered before and after.

Man, you are based in Finland and your hobby is debunking a Finnish 9/11 CT site. Since you are so suggestive, can you tell your own background on your Jihadi movement -knowledge and your research on the Muslim terrorist way of mind? First hand peace keeping activities or google?

Thanks for a reply

No I havent been a peacekeeper. My point was that the way that these religious fanatics would think and react in the the situation were not reflected in your two choises. I hope you see what I mean and I don't need any special knowledge about them to tell you that. I have read what they have said and watched their videos. You seem to wonder about their choises after the attacs. Their choise is fi-sabeelillah (the path of Allah) Iman (faith) and Jihad. Their choises are the same as before the attacs such as stopping the humilation of Muslims, getting rid of corrupt secular regimes in Muslim countries, the liberation of Palestine and so on. These among other things. And thats what they are doing.


You said:

Because of course there are hundreds of variations of CT, LIHOP, MIHOP etc. But the basic divider is, believing in US gov and official evidence/not believing.

Do you have somekind of obsession to divide everything in groups or "choises"? You don't need US govs official evidence to see that the "official story" is by far the most logical one. Are the Dutch engineers who say that the towers collapsed due to fire weakening the structure US gov? Is a pilot who says that it ain't so hard to fly a jet in to a wall US gov? Or is the guy who went to Oprah explaining how he checked Atta in to the flight US gov? Are the firemen who say that wtc7 was expected to collapse US gov?

 

[ref]

Thanks for a reply

No I havent been a peacekeeper. My point was that the way that these religious fanatics would think and react in the the situation were not reflected in your two choises. I hope you see what I mean and I don't need any special knowledge about them to tell you that. I have read what they have said and watched their videos. You seem to wonder about their choises after the attacs. Their choise is fi-sabeelillah (the path of Allah) Iman (faith) and Jihad. Their choises are the same as before the attacs such as stopping the humilation of Muslims, getting rid of corrupt secular regimes in Muslim countries, the liberation of Palestine and so on. These among other things. And thats what they are doing.

Do you have somekind of obsession to divide everything in groups or "choises"? You don't need US govs official evidence to see that the "official story" is by far the most logical one. Are the Dutch engineers who say that the towers collapsed due to fire weakening the structure US gov? Is a pilot who says that it ain't so hard to fly a jet in to a wall US gov? Or is the guy who went to Oprah explaining how he checked Atta in to the flight US gov? Are the firemen who say that wtc7 was expected to collapse US gov?

So your knowledge background is dependant on the same stuff that I can find on the internet. What I find interesting is, can you then say to understand their thoughts any better than any other of your so called westerners? There are extremists and I wasn't questioning that. But thanks for the civil response.

I was making a simplification by stating the pro/anti US gov statement. Maybe too big a step, but I think most common people start questioning these things after seeing LC or other documentaries. And thus most people are involved in the thought of possible US gov involvement, and try to decide whether that is possible or not. But that seems to be the first dividing point; which perspective do people choose to take when they start their own research.

But nothing is simple, things can only be simplified in theory. But that is in many cases helpful to other causes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.

What IS it with these CT people??

Your plane has been hijacked, and it has just dawned on you that the hijackers are probably going to use it as a flying bomb. You know you are very likely to die soon. You have an opportunity to make a phone-call. Will you worry about the prize? Will you worry about whose credit card you use??

Get real, for crying out loud! It is OK to argue, but please TRY not to be utterly ridiculous.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was thinking from their perspective. How insane that may be. If you recall what I actually said was two options. Osama either thought they could take the US like they did Soviet Union in the 80'es, or he never even thought to fight but abandoned his old buddies and went hiding. That is all I said. Stop assuming anything beyond that, please.

And that one! So it doesn't appear all too rational for OBL & al to arrange this, so naturally it must be the US govt?? How insane would THAT be?

What is the most likely:

1) For a religious fanatic who believes that being killed in holy war will land him straight in heaven to plan to hit his pet hate where he expects it to hurt most?

2) For an elected government (president) to perform a wildly elaborate, high-risk operation, that, if disclosed, will secure the responsible eternal dishonour and probably a firing squad, and if it succeeds will give them some very doubtful political advantages?

Take your pick.

Hans

 

[ref]

And that one! So it doesn't appear all too rational for OBL & al to arrange this, so naturally it must be the US govt?? How insane would THAT be?

What is the most likely:

1) For a religious fanatic who believes that being killed in holy war will land him straight in heaven to plan to hit his pet hate where he expects it to hurt most?

2) For an elected government (president) to perform a wildly elaborate, high-risk operation, that, if disclosed, will secure the responsible eternal dishonour and probably a firing squad, and if it succeeds will give them some very doubtful political advantages?

Take your pick.

Hans

Hello Hans.

Show me the part, where I was speaking about the involvement of the US Govt. Then we may continue. But, since such part does not exist, we are not very well off are we?

 

[ref]

What IS it with these CT people??

Your plane has been hijacked, and it has just dawned on you that the hijackers are probably going to use it as a flying bomb. You know you are very likely to die soon. You have an opportunity to make a phone-call. Will you worry about the prize? Will you worry about whose credit card you use??

Get real, for crying out loud! It is OK to argue, but please TRY not to be utterly ridiculous.

Hans

Hi Hans once more.

This time you misunderstood my misunderstanding of another post. You seem quite hasty.

 

[DavidJames]

ref:
I didn't see you respond to the comments from this post.

Part of the problem is you haven't bothered to tell us what you actually do or do not believe...

If you want to be taken seriously, how about you try listing some of what you do believe about 9/11?