For those in the audience who aren't familiar with "argument from ignorance", wikipedia defines it as "...a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." For a while I've watched you, and I've found that time and again, you engage in arguments from ignorance: the official story is true because it has not yet been proven false. To be honest, I don't see much of a difference between "argument from incredulity" and "argument from ignorance"; they both seem to apply to your arguments against doubting the official story's narrative on Atta's/Satam's passport. Actually, the notion that 19 arabic men hijacked 4 planes hangs on the flimsiest of evidence. Many of the alleged hijackers have reported being alive since 9/11 and vehemently deny having had any involvement in the events of 9/11: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html What do I look like, a reporter ? I'm not even a U.S. citizen. I just thought I'd draw a little attention to something that I definitely think deserves more of it. There is definitely something to find out; I've already asked the question: was there any recording of the alleged individual who dropped off the passport. I say alleged, because I haven't even seen any evidence that the passport exists, let alone that someone dropped it off at a police station. No. I just thought of this issue as I was responding to your post. Again, I'm not even a U.S. citizen and I have more then enough things to deal with in my own life. Again, I'm just putting this out there to get people thinking of the many questions surrounding 9/11 that remain unresolved. You should. You see, unlike the mainstream media, with its massive budgets and legions of staff, the 9/11 truth movement is almost entirely composed of people who don't get paid a dime for investigating 9/11. The sheer volume of things that happened on 9/11 is massive, and tracking down all the relevant things that happened would take a well staffed team a very long time to accomplish. In regards to the largest paid investigation of 9/11 was, to quote a passage from wikipedia: "The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#.22Set_up.22_to_fail) What reason, other then it being the official story, do you have reason to believe it's real? You seem impervious to evidence, a text book example of arguing from incredulity. But I'll review the evidence once more, since you seem to have forgotten it. There's the fact that even mainstream media sources (hardly bastions of doubt when it came to the official story) found it hard to believe that this passport survived the fiery plane crash to flutter to the ground. I've already mentioned the fact that the identity of the passport morphed from Atta's to Satam al-Suqami, but you didn't even bat an eye. Could you give me a single reason why you think this site is "so bad"? For those who are unfamiliar with the term confirmation bias, google defines it as "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." Something which I definitely think Blues suffers greatly from . Did you even click on those links, or were you too busy typing "Confirmation bias noted" ? I can't even prove the passport (Atta's, no wait, Satam's, supposedly) exists, or, if it does, that it was ever in the aircraft that crashed into the world trade center. Can you? Blues, perhaps you might consider how little can actually be proven. Faced with the unproveability of many, many things, one is left with gathering evidence and figuring out what is the most likely explanation for various events. As to evidence suggesting the trial was not exactly well done, I ask you once again, did you click on the links I posted regarding the trial? How fortunate for you that most truthers are not so stringent when it comes to the official story proving -its- claims. All we ask is that the claims they make sound like the most likely explanation. Thanks for the explanation. I disagree with your notion that it's no one's business. I've spent years discussing 9/11 with those who disagree with my views. I think it's only natural that I'd want to know why, though it is ofcourse up to all involved as to whether they want to state for the record what their motivations for participating in these discussions are. I gave my own motives first as a sign of good faith, and I'm thankful that you gave yours. And for the record, I and others in the 9/11 truth movement have spent years trying to -remove- the lies spread concerning what happened on 9/11.
Read this carefully: You stated that you found it hard to believe that the passport could survive, no? That is an argument from incredulity. No 'if', 'buts' or 'maybes'. They are not the same people. Why hasn't a single hijacker wandered into Al-Jazeera to make his claim? WRH is a garbage site that didn't fact check very well owing to the names. It's not hard to check facts out. I have degrees in Journalism and Ancient History & Classical Languages, and do it every day. So in essence, you have nothing but personal suspicion and no concrete evidence. That is not enough. I tend to find things out before I libel people or organisations. Why would the FBI need to plant a passport anyway? To frame the guy? Oh. not that old crap again. Look up what the commissioners said upon the completion of the report and read John Farmer's 'The Ground Truth'. To your other point, I have being studying media for years, thanks and I'm well acquainted with its workings and the failings of the independent media. Independent media don't have to answer to anyone when they're caught lying. Don't try to elevate the independent media above the mainstream because that is clearly false. What other reason, other than it being published on crank sites, do you have to believe it's fake? No, I have high standards of evidence. So what? So what? Poor fact checking, much like Rense or Prison Planet. Alternative media is rather short of ethics. Condescension noted. LOLOL You're unable to prove it is fake, therefore I can dismiss your contention. I'm sure you would think it's my problem, after all, I'm not the one taking the document's supposed fraudulent nature on faith, that's you. Now you're starting to get it. That is why I am here. 9/11 cannot prove its claims. I call that 'opinion' and I assess the individual stating thus for confirmation bias. Yes, they in no way presented conclusive evidence that the evidence for the trial was faked. I thought they were fairly low level sources actually. I've never met a truther that had any credible evidence that wasn't manipulated,misrepresented, or misunderstood in order to prove the point. Most do not even know the mechanics of the collapse of 7WTC, so they attack the NIST instead. That's intellectual mendacity. And to suggest that the US government committed 9/11 in order to invade a country that it didn't need a pretext for is ludicrous to say the least. I think 9/11 truth gets so caught up in the minutiae of the immaterial, that they miss the empirical evidence. A 'can't see the forest for the trees' scenario. You can, but such enquiries invariable turn to accusations of 'shill', and I avoid such childishness. I personally don't care, and I try to limit any personal details as I already have had cranks looking for me. Yes, all I want to do is limit the spread of truther lies and intellectual mendacity. It's destructive and a distraction from the real issues regarding 9/11.
That's such an impressive and honorable endeavor, how is that going for you? Calling everyone you disagree with and especially all credentialed experts you disagree with "cranks" must be so convincing.
Yes I know you're such a wonderful expert at name calling. That's about the extent of your expertise.
I find that refusing to question a piece of evidence, however questionable it evidence may be, comes mighty close to being an argument from incredulity. And this is where your failing to question the apparently fireproof, identity morphing passport found by an anonymous source really stands out. I've already gone over this with you in post #24 in this thread: Alright, I think it's time I put up the definition of "argument from incredulity" for those not familiar with the term. rationalwiki.org defines it as: "The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen." In other words, it's the fallacy that just because a person can't understand how something could happen, it therefore didn't happen. By that definition, the mainstream media was not, in fact, making an "argument from incredulity". They were suggesting that it was -hard- to believe, but not something that couldn't be true no matter what evidence was presented before them. Given the fact that even some mainstream media sources have found Atta's, no wait, -Satam's- passport fluttering free from a fireball incredibly improbable, it's only natural that Eleuthera is similarly not impressed. What is odd is the fact that you seem to find nothing strange about it at all. Have you ever thought that it is atleast -slightly- suspicious that an identity morphing passport survived the aircraft's inferno? Failing that, have you never atleast wondered how is it that they somehow misidentified Satam's passport for Atta's? It's not like the names are even vaguely similar. If you haven't, I'd say that the person who is truly arguing from incredulity is you. Partial points. Since some of the people listed are fictional characters, you would be partially right. Let's get into an example, this time from an article in another article at another site, The FBI’s Blunder: 9/11 Hijack Suspects Alive and Well | TopInfoPost: *** Abdul Aziz Al-Omari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot) The identities of two men with the same name have been cobbled together to create an FBI “terrorist”. Both are Alive! The first has the same name, the same birth date as one of the FBI “terrorists” but has no idea how to fly. The second has the name Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and a different birth date, but is the person pictured by the FBI and is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. Here are some quotes from the world’s media concerning them. Omari Number 1 “A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft.” – ABCNews “I couldn’t believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.” – Telegraph 23rd September 2001 “The name (listed by the FBI) is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York,” Abdul Aziz Al-Omari told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. “Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case” – New York Times “Saudi Embassy officials in Washington have challenged his identity. They say a Saudi electrical engineer named Abdul Aziz Al-Omari had his passport and other papers stolen in 1996 in Denver when he was a student and reported the theft to police there at the time.” – BBC “Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months.” – Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 (translate) Omari Number 2 Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media. “Abdul Aziz Al-Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines” – BBC 23rd September 2001 “A pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking (*) as well as being dead (*) and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.” – Independent 17th September 2001 This Al-Omari lives with his wife and four children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.*** The article goes on to list 5 other hijackers who reported to be alive and well and having nothing to do with 9/11. Many of these stories were run in the BBC. Here's one of the BBC articles, linked to from the article above: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well | BBC The fact that you are apparently unaware of this doesn't change the fact. Well then, you certainly seem experienced in this type of thing. Perhaps you are even a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. as well. Personally, I'm not a U.S. citizen and don't even live there. Why not file that FOIA request yourself? Again, you're looking at this backwards; it's the official story that needs to be provide substantive evidence for its claims. Failing this, there is no reason to trust them. Even reporters in the mainstream media found it hard to believe that Atta's passport would survive. Here's an excerpt from a 2002 article in The Guardian: **In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.** Source: Uncle Sam's lucky finds | The Guardian Your [argument from in]credulity appears intact however. It seems when it comes to being a supporter of the official story, you are up there with the best of them on this one. You seem to have little trouble libelling truthers -.-. I'm just pointing out the fact that even mainstream sources found the apparently fireproof, morphing identity passport to be highly improbable. That's usually the reason to plant evidence, isn't it? That, or distract people from finding out the truth, or a combination of the two. I like how you put "guy" here. Even the passport's identity has morphed in time and yet no official has even attempted to explain how this morphing occurred. Are you suggesting that the two co-chairs of the Commission didn't think the Commission was set up in a way that ensured that it would fail? I'm not sure why you keep on doing this type of thing; if you can't be bothered to find your own evidence, I'm generally not going to go looking for it for you. I'm the first to admit that independent media generally has little if any budget to work with. A lot of volunteer hours going into it. That being said, there is also much less censorship in alternative media, and reporters in the field can report on what they think is important, not what their boss tells them they can cover. Now, this can certainly lead to some very bad reporting, due to the fact that you don't have thousands if not millions of people checking their sources. On the other hand, it can also lead to some excellent reporting that most if not all mainstream news sources wouldn't touch. I believe this is definitely the case with many stories regarding 9/11. There you go libelling the work of those who don't agree with the official story again, sigh -.-. As I imagine you know full well, I don't see the sources I cite as "crank sites". I could, ofcourse, lower myself to your level and call your non mainstream sources "crank sites" as well, but I don't think it would lead us anywhere productive. I think your dodge is telling. Since you have yet to answer my question, I will simply assume that you have no reason, other then it being the official story, to believe that the identity morphing passport is real. And as to your question to me, I never said the passport was necessarily fake. You see the difference? Officials initially claim to have found Atta's passport in the Ground Zero rubble. Then it morphed to that of Satam Al Suqami. There is no story published as to why the identity morphed from Atta to Suqami. No one seems to have bothered trying to find out if there was any evidence of a man walking into a police station with this identity morphing passport. These are questions that any major news organization worth their salt should investigate. And yet, it apparently still hasn't been done after almost 15 years. Really Blues? Even mainstream reporters were all but snickering at this passport fiasco. Here's perhaps the most memorable video quote from a reporter on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpwGr8hu0Q Nothing to see here eh Blues ? It's easy to bandy about terms like "poor fact checking". What's harder is to actually show some facts a site got wrong. It's the difference between making an accusation and actually providing some evidence to back it up. Ofcourse. You can declare that creationism is real until proven otherwise and dismiss the theory of evolution while you're at it, based on the same grounds. It doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of solid evidence strongly suggesting that creationism doesn't hold water, but you are well within your rights to dismiss the theory of evolution all the same. What would I think is your problem? And as noted above, I am willing to consider the possibility that an apparently fireproof passport morphed from Atta's to Suqami's, though I think that any rational person would consider this possibility to be very slim, and the possibility that something fishy is going on here to be very high. Blues, haven't you noticed how little I have claimed to know anything with certainty? To be honest, I feel sorry for you at this point. I'm not the one who clings to an official story regarding the events on 9/11 based on the flimsiest of evidence. That would be you. I imagine you meant the 9/11 truth movement? Assuming that's the case, I'd like to point out that the 9/11 truth movement is mainly about questioning the official story. It has many different theories as to what really happened, and not all of them agree with each other, but its main goal is to get us to question the official story and demand new investigations, not to prove any given alternative. What I think is patently clear is that the official story regarding 9/11 has not only been unable to prove many of its claims, but it has even morphed over time as some claims have been so implausible they simply had to be replaced. I know that even you admit that some events regarding 9/11 should be reinvestigated, when you say that you would like a new investigation regarding the WTC building collapses, for instance. Google defines an opinion as: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." It's a term that's not very well defined, because it doesn't rule out that an opinion can be based on fact or knowledge, just that it's not necessarily based on these things. For this reason, I prefer speaking of theories; Merriam Webster has multiple definitions for theory; here's the one that I am using: "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events". Can theories be wrong? Certainly. But this goes for all theories, not just ones that go against ones blessed by governmental organizations. One should look to find theories that make the most sense, regardless of whether governmental organizations agree with them or not. Fair enough. Would you atleast agree that they casted doubts as to the legitimacy of the trial? Or atleast, that's what you believed. Or -you- don't understand the mechanics of the WTC7 collapse, so you attack truthers instead. Who can say ? You think the U.S. congress would have just invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11 was a pretext? Or perhaps official story supporters are the ones who are caught up in the minutiae while missing the larger picture? I must admit that I'm not keen on the prevalence of official story supporters being called shills, just as I'm not keen on official story supporters suggesting that certain truthers are just in it to scam money off of people. This doesn't mean I don't believe that there isn't room for some shills and some alleged truther scammers. What it -does- mean is that I think many people's standards of evidence when it comes to these types of things are frequently depressingly low. I've done my best to try to get people to see reason on this on both sides of the fence. Stating one's motivation for being in a 9/11 forum is generally not a ton of personal information . But I hear you when it comes to divulging anything that's truly personal. Put simply, 9/11 is a topic that is a very controversial subject and given this fact, it's frequently a good thing to place some distance between opposing sides. I could, ofcourse, follow up by saying that all I want to do is limit the spread of OCT lies and intellectual mendacity, but I don't see how it'd help this conversation. What I think we -both- want is to get to a place where more people agree on what really happened on 9/11. That, I think, is a worthy goal.
