Recently I have found that apart from the hardcore debunkers, many of whom appear to be government stooges, there are a number of individuals, who have taken a look into the 911 truth debate and yet remain hoodwinked by the official lies and debunker disinformation. I call these people '911 truth deniers', or 'evidence deniers'.
Trying to connect to these people, who have bought into the debunker and official arguments is very difficult - considering the amount of misleading material they have taken on board. It is a long and difficult process to undo all the brainwashing. Even pointing out solid bits of smoking gun evidence, not adequately dealt with by the debunkers, like the freefall of WTC7 or the melted steel and concrete, has little initial impact upon them.
The best course of action is to be as rational as possible and draw the denier into examining their reasoning. The awareness argument goes kinda like this:
We must agree that a rational belief is one where your conclusions are drawn from substantiated evidence. We must therefore substantiate all points from which the conclusion has been based. We can test each point of evidence to ensure the conclusion is sound. In doing this we must avoid circular arguments (ie melted steel is impossible because the fires could only "warp" steel. Ed- that is not the argument being made by truthers - that conventional fires caused the melting.)
There are 4 basic problems with the 911 truth deniers' confidence in their debunker/official sources that one can explore in the debate:
1st - The most important problem is that the information/arguments they use do not hold water when examined carefully. Often their core positions consist of misleading or wrong analogies and outright falsehoods. They deny key empirical evidence revealing the inside job whilst their own core claims lack substantiated empirical evidence.
2nd - There are reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of many of the leading debunkers. Commonly cited people like 'arch debunker' Mark Roberts of JREF and James Meigs of Popular Mechanics have questionable ties to the establishment and to figures who are suspects in the 911 cover-up. Roberts, who is allegedly qualified as a NYC tour guide (although there is no evidence he worked as one) operated as a full-time debunker online for a number of years which raises questions as to how he performed both roles. The JREF forum, in which he features promintently, is linked to the US defence industry. Meigs via Popular Mechanics is tied to Michael Chertoff (who had a hand in releasing Israeli suspects captured on 911). However, the backgrounds of these people are not so important when compared to the claims they are making and whether these claims are valid ones. Nevertheless, understanding the likely reason for making misleading statements is illuminating, especially for those caught in the web of misinformation.
3rd - The truth deniers are often unaware, or unresponsive, to the fact that leading Debunkers, namely Dr Frank Greening, actually admit that the truthers are correct on many, if not most, of their key points. The truth deniers also tend to have a similar level of ignorance when it comes to the NIST reports and the fact that their conclusions have been shown to be invalid/unsubstantiated.
4th- Truth deniers have often bought into the emotive ridicule laden language employed by many Debunkers and are are taught to a priori dismiss evidence and the scientific method with their adherence to debunker/official statements. Rather than thinking deeply, they have been brainwashed into reacting emotionally, with indignance or arrogance, rather than acting with a cool head. This psychology makes it very difficult for the truth denier to address the first 3 points.
We must try to unmake these people as best we can. Their belief of the Debunker disinformation they often parrot - the false claim that it is they who are following the scientific method, when this is not true - must be exposed. The fact is that truth deniers are simply following arguments based upon authority, omission and ridicule rather than hard fundamental scientific principles. Rather than following the scientific method we find that, upon examination, the arguments they put up - those made by hardcore Debunkers and the official accounts - are predominantly a travesty of reasoned debate.
Furthermore, amidst this mess of misunderstanding, the 911 truth deniers, who are trapped in a web of disinformation, all too often have no idea about the broader political landscape in which they live. They fail to understand that many Government institutions (including science focused ones) are not at all trustworthy and are subject to corruption and political bias as much as any organisation - more so when we are talking about the military industrial complex (National Security State) that is the United States of America.
If we can be patient, and explain each of these aspects to the truth denier, it is very likely that we will be able to get them to see the light. It might take some time though !
Einstein wrote: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
- Spookyone
spookyweather.blogspot.com
Trying to connect to these people, who have bought into the debunker and official arguments is very difficult - considering the amount of misleading material they have taken on board. It is a long and difficult process to undo all the brainwashing. Even pointing out solid bits of smoking gun evidence, not adequately dealt with by the debunkers, like the freefall of WTC7 or the melted steel and concrete, has little initial impact upon them.
The best course of action is to be as rational as possible and draw the denier into examining their reasoning. The awareness argument goes kinda like this:
We must agree that a rational belief is one where your conclusions are drawn from substantiated evidence. We must therefore substantiate all points from which the conclusion has been based. We can test each point of evidence to ensure the conclusion is sound. In doing this we must avoid circular arguments (ie melted steel is impossible because the fires could only "warp" steel. Ed- that is not the argument being made by truthers - that conventional fires caused the melting.)
There are 4 basic problems with the 911 truth deniers' confidence in their debunker/official sources that one can explore in the debate:
1st - The most important problem is that the information/arguments they use do not hold water when examined carefully. Often their core positions consist of misleading or wrong analogies and outright falsehoods. They deny key empirical evidence revealing the inside job whilst their own core claims lack substantiated empirical evidence.
2nd - There are reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of many of the leading debunkers. Commonly cited people like 'arch debunker' Mark Roberts of JREF and James Meigs of Popular Mechanics have questionable ties to the establishment and to figures who are suspects in the 911 cover-up. Roberts, who is allegedly qualified as a NYC tour guide (although there is no evidence he worked as one) operated as a full-time debunker online for a number of years which raises questions as to how he performed both roles. The JREF forum, in which he features promintently, is linked to the US defence industry. Meigs via Popular Mechanics is tied to Michael Chertoff (who had a hand in releasing Israeli suspects captured on 911). However, the backgrounds of these people are not so important when compared to the claims they are making and whether these claims are valid ones. Nevertheless, understanding the likely reason for making misleading statements is illuminating, especially for those caught in the web of misinformation.
3rd - The truth deniers are often unaware, or unresponsive, to the fact that leading Debunkers, namely Dr Frank Greening, actually admit that the truthers are correct on many, if not most, of their key points. The truth deniers also tend to have a similar level of ignorance when it comes to the NIST reports and the fact that their conclusions have been shown to be invalid/unsubstantiated.
4th- Truth deniers have often bought into the emotive ridicule laden language employed by many Debunkers and are are taught to a priori dismiss evidence and the scientific method with their adherence to debunker/official statements. Rather than thinking deeply, they have been brainwashed into reacting emotionally, with indignance or arrogance, rather than acting with a cool head. This psychology makes it very difficult for the truth denier to address the first 3 points.
We must try to unmake these people as best we can. Their belief of the Debunker disinformation they often parrot - the false claim that it is they who are following the scientific method, when this is not true - must be exposed. The fact is that truth deniers are simply following arguments based upon authority, omission and ridicule rather than hard fundamental scientific principles. Rather than following the scientific method we find that, upon examination, the arguments they put up - those made by hardcore Debunkers and the official accounts - are predominantly a travesty of reasoned debate.
Furthermore, amidst this mess of misunderstanding, the 911 truth deniers, who are trapped in a web of disinformation, all too often have no idea about the broader political landscape in which they live. They fail to understand that many Government institutions (including science focused ones) are not at all trustworthy and are subject to corruption and political bias as much as any organisation - more so when we are talking about the military industrial complex (National Security State) that is the United States of America.
If we can be patient, and explain each of these aspects to the truth denier, it is very likely that we will be able to get them to see the light. It might take some time though !
Einstein wrote: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
- Spookyone
spookyweather.blogspot.com
