"Irreducible delusions" and "reasonable doubt": Why we can't move forward?

[Bonobo]

It's been a while since I've been in here. Much of that has to do with the fact that this is not a good place for people that are in doubt.
I say this because I think that most people still hanging around here are certain one way or another. I know you won't believe me, but I am not certain either way. Perhaps some of you that have been arguing one side or the other for so long are no longer even able to understand what this feels like or even believe it is possible. Rock solid certainty? I have that kind of confidence in almost nothing, but particularly such a mess like this.

What I wanted to discuss was the issue of
1) "Irreducible Delusion", which I saw very well expressed by the Aeronautic Engineer, Mackay, in part 1 of the Szamboti/Mackay debate. and
2) "Reasonable doubt" and its related issue "burden of proof"

I think these issues can be discussed rationally without partiality irrespective of which side you come up on. So let me just start and I would appreciate others helping keep the ball rolling if you fid it is a subject worthy of looking into.

With regards to 1) "irreducible delusion", I completely agree that this can be a major factor in how thinking evolves and may lead one down wrong paths. If it is true that people who doubt the official story are victims of this kind of "irreducible delusion" fallacy in thinking, what do you think the linchpin of it might be? What might the irreducible issue/delusion be that has set off the wrong chain of deductions? Perhaps if we could have a discussion of this, it might be a fruitful conversation? (Please however put in a separate OP d because THAT could get really ugly and will just destroy the value of THIS thread)

With regards to 2) Reasonable doubt, I bring up the issue because I think it is highly relevant and even vital to come to an agreement about what we are trying to prove. Again, I think this is a conversation that must be had, with no animus or aggression, and can be agreed upon irrespective of position. In fact, it MUST be agreed on in order for a fruitful conversation to take place, I think.
If, for example, it was agreed upon that throwing reasonable doubt on the "official story" was sufficient, than that is ONE thing. If the "CT'ers" (or whatever) has the burden of proof to show an alternative theory that is then subject to the burden of proof is a far separate thing.

I want to keep this short and will end this here. But I would like to propose that we use this OP for a while to discuss the above 2 issues IN THEORY AND WITHOUT PERSONAL RANCOR. Afterwards or even in parallel, we can other threads that discuss the particulars that will create fire and flames, but can we have one thread that first discusses coming to a common understanding of purpose?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I think that 95% of irreducible delusions in the 9/11 Truth movement are energized by one thing

And that is making the assumption that by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks, they will be able to undermine the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Notice that I said "common understanding" and not "official story." There is no single source controllable by any group of people on Earth from where we get our knowledge of what happened on 9/11. The nature of all these events were much too public, and even the event most sheltered from the public eye (the crash of United 93) was soon understood by the release of phone calls to loved ones, the information from the plane's FDR and CVR, and the combined witness of the hundreds of people who helped clean up that terrible site.

It is a fool's errand to attack these combined witnesses. Yet the 9/11 Truth Movement does so in its misguided attempt to resist the current Middle Eastern wars. Since they believe these buildings to have been controlled demolitions, and since al-Qaeda could never have set those charges, the implication of the American government's culpability is clear. So they will continue to twist evidence, misunderstand statements, cherrypick their data, pretend a common cause with every other opponent of their chosen targets, and move the goalposts whenever it suits them and with barely any acknowledgment of having done so.

The common understanding of 9/11 must be replaced by any means necessary, because it appears to them that this is the quickest way to stop the wars in the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, by adopting such shoddy reasoning and destroying their own reputations, the 9/11 Truth movement is only bringing its laudable goal into disrepute. Any serious activist against the war would do well to shun these conclusions and seek more effective arguments against the war.

I've quoted those paragraphs from my debunking site at ae911truth.info, changing just a word or two for the current context.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Interesting diagnosis Dr. Bolo

Problem is, a huge number of us weren't buying it well before there were any wars. FAIL.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Please remove your rancor from this discussion. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

5. Ok, I pledge to maintain the same level of respect for OCTers as is granted to CTers.

I'm just sayin your analysis is wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. The threat of retaliation was apparent from the very first knowledge that this was terrorism.

So I respectfully reject your argument.

I'll propose another reason that backstops the 9/11 Truth movement -- prior association with conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, etc. Is that a more comprehensive and less time-sensitive reason for you?

[whatchamacallit]

9. Sorry wrong again

I can't speak for the "movement", as you seem to think you can, but if it had turned out to be an "act of war" by a definable enemy (ie country), I would have supported retaliation. On other conspiracy theories, I have no opinion on most and am somewhat neutral regarding JFK. I reject your rejection.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. I hope you do not think that I am arguing in favor of the war in Iraq

since I protested against that war.

The invasion of Afghanistan I did support grudgingly, but not what it became, not what Bush turned it into through seven years of neglect. If it had gone after Osama bin Laden and gotten him and then gotten out (or gotten busy actually trying to help the Afghan people build a country that could resist the Taliban), that would be one thing. What we got was another thing entirely. I'll take the abuse for supporting the Afghanistan invasion because I did. But the war in Iraq was simply wrong all the live-long day.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. "reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof"

As I understand them, these are legal categories, and they shouldn't pertain to discussions here. "Reasonable doubt" is all well and good if O.J. is on trial, but it's problematic if one is trying to understand events.

Critics of the NIST account should try to offer better explanations of the observables. Some believe that they have. I don't.

[LARED]

7. I don't believe there is a single linchpin....

Based on the diverse group of people we see manifesting Irreducible Delusions around 9/11, I would conclude some of the following as a root cause

1. Maintaining an irreducible delusion can be profitable. There are a number of authors that can't possibly be so dim witted that they cannot recognize mistakes and incorrect conclusions they made. Admitting to these types of human failures is not profitable.

2. Some frankly have mental health issues. Judy wood is one example.

3. Maintaining an irreducible delusion provides psychological comfort if one strongly believed. History is replete with groups of like minded people that continued to hold onto beliefs or modified those beliefs to hold on a core element even after incontrovertible evidence was provided proving them wrong. IMO there are strong similarities between many so called truther belief systems and faith based belief systems.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. physics

Some people, when they look at the towers collapsing, see controlled demolition, and can hardly believe that the collapses happened any other way.

In order to participate in the 9/11 Truth movement, probably it's helpful to combine this physical intuition with some ideological predispositions. But I think the physical intuition is relatively autonomous.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. That's something the monolithic design of the towers encourages

There's not much of a reference point in most videos for people to grasp just how massive those upper sections are. That's something subtly encourage by off-scale illustrations like Gage's cardboard boxes or the ones where a person's hand is holding up the upper section by the antenna like it was a toothpick.

[noise]

12. Reasonable doubt?

There is nothing reasonable about doubting authority. If the government's evidence isn't sufficiently convincing then the fault lies with the delusional doubter who obviously would not be convinced by any proof.

[LARED]

13. So are no planers simply doubting authority? Or is there

something else the drives them to the no-plane CT?

[noise]

14. CIA disinfo campaign

Right? :)

Admit it, that is the answer you are looking for.

[LARED]

16. No, that was not the answer I was looking for.

I was challenging you to defend your statement.

[noise]

15. I don't pretend that all skepticism of 9/11

is legitimate. The reason I previously posted "one need not be a member of the 9/11 truth movement to question 9/11" is because of concerns about the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

What I object to is the apparent satisfaction of some with the conduct of the government. Most notably the acceptance of the lack of transparency. Is it asking too much for powerful officials to account for their conduct?

[LARED]

17. No it's not a problem at all to ask for accountability

I don't think anyone is making the argument that irreducible delusions are related to asking for accountability.