8 ms·

I'm not familiar with any of these people or groups. Why is this a "pass"?

h2odragon 5y ago
Because these groups are often painted as or perceived as having an agenda other than truth; unlike say when the WWF says a species is endangered or when people who have issues with "urban sprawl" happen to be large urban landholders. In other words its a "these people can't be heard because of who they've been accused of being" argument.
- Bud 5y ago
  No, it's because they are fucking wackjobs. That's a fact. It's not an accusation. And it's not because of any bullshit about "who they are accused of being"; it's because of their wackjob argument. They are promoting a conspiracy theory that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9...
  - hsousa 5y ago
    How is that not an accusation?
  - Lammy 5y ago
    Yeah I think we should believe the unbiased explanation and give a $7-billion no-bid contract to the Vice President's private military contracting firm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      Instead of vagaries, actually connect the dots. The outcome of 9/11 in terms of the gov't seizing the opportunity was going to happen either way - you need a better argument than "look what happened after".
    - Bud 5y ago
      This kind of feverish laziness and total disregard for intellectual rigor is, of course, precisely what allows the wackiest conspiracy theories to spread.
  - swader999 5y ago
    How about building 7?
    - Bud 5y ago
      The collapse of building 7 is the subject of wackjob conspiracy theories as well, even though its collapse has been conclusively explained by studies done by real engineers.
      - swader999 5y ago
        I'd like to read some of these if you have links?
nyokodo 5y ago
> Why is this a "pass"? Not the OP but I’m not reading 109 pages of analysis from 9-11 truthers in order to work out whether their conclusions are correct. That’s not the genetic fallacy either, I’d love someone else who I trust to do it and get back to me with what they find.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I'd love that, too. The trick is figuring out whether the "trusted" person is really unbiased, or whether they have a bias in either direction. Making it harder, whichever side that the expert disagrees with will claim bias, whether or not there was any...
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    > The trick is figuring out whether the "trusted" person is really unbiased It’s impossible to avoid bias, however whether the bias is bad or not depends on the bias and the situation. My go tos are people whose biases I think are either actively helpful (e.g. experts in a field who I’ve previously vetted), irrelevant to the topic (e.g. an NYT journalist talking about cheesecake in pre-war Cambodia), or who have a history of self-deprecating humility to the naked truth regardless of where it leads them but also not incredulous but humble to their intellectual limitations (very rare but occasionally stumbled upon).
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  I studied structural engineering. The 2008 NIST report changed my view. Beforehand I thought the 9/11 A&E for Truth movement may have had some valid points. I suspected it was due to poor construction inspection or possibly corruption but I didn't rule out conspiracy completely. But when I read the report and it explained the mechanisms for failure I was completely convinced. Heat expanded the beams which pushed the exterior columns out of plane which, in conjunction with the heat, caused their failure. I don't know a single engineer that has read the report that disagrees with its findings. All of this to say, there are plenty of engineers that may have signed on to the original pledge that may have read the report and changed their minds. I never signed it, but I don't recommend buying into their claims. We have reasonable answers now.
CPLX 5y ago
Brandolini’s Law

Because these groups are often painted as or perceived as having an agenda other than truth; unlike say when the WWF says a species is endangered or when people who have issues with "urban sprawl" happen to be large urban landholders. In other words its a "these people can't be heard because of who they've been accused of being" argument.

Bud 5y ago
No, it's because they are fucking wackjobs. That's a fact. It's not an accusation. And it's not because of any bullshit about "who they are accused of being"; it's because of their wackjob argument. They are promoting a conspiracy theory that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9...
- hsousa 5y ago
  How is that not an accusation?
- Lammy 5y ago
  Yeah I think we should believe the unbiased explanation and give a $7-billion no-bid contract to the Vice President's private military contracting firm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    Instead of vagaries, actually connect the dots. The outcome of 9/11 in terms of the gov't seizing the opportunity was going to happen either way - you need a better argument than "look what happened after".
  - Bud 5y ago
    This kind of feverish laziness and total disregard for intellectual rigor is, of course, precisely what allows the wackiest conspiracy theories to spread.
- swader999 5y ago
  How about building 7?
  - Bud 5y ago
    The collapse of building 7 is the subject of wackjob conspiracy theories as well, even though its collapse has been conclusively explained by studies done by real engineers.
    - swader999 5y ago
      I'd like to read some of these if you have links?

nyokodo 5y ago

> Why is this a "pass"? Not the OP but I’m not reading 109 pages of analysis from 9-11 truthers in order to work out whether their conclusions are correct. That’s not the genetic fallacy either, I’d love someone else who I trust to do it and get back to me with what they find.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'd love that, too. The trick is figuring out whether the "trusted" person is really unbiased, or whether they have a bias in either direction. Making it harder, whichever side that the expert disagrees with will claim bias, whether or not there was any...
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > The trick is figuring out whether the "trusted" person is really unbiased It’s impossible to avoid bias, however whether the bias is bad or not depends on the bias and the situation. My go tos are people whose biases I think are either actively helpful (e.g. experts in a field who I’ve previously vetted), irrelevant to the topic (e.g. an NYT journalist talking about cheesecake in pre-war Cambodia), or who have a history of self-deprecating humility to the naked truth regardless of where it leads them but also not incredulous but humble to their intellectual limitations (very rare but occasionally stumbled upon).
3pt14159 5y ago
I studied structural engineering. The 2008 NIST report changed my view. Beforehand I thought the 9/11 A&E for Truth movement may have had some valid points. I suspected it was due to poor construction inspection or possibly corruption but I didn't rule out conspiracy completely. But when I read the report and it explained the mechanisms for failure I was completely convinced. Heat expanded the beams which pushed the exterior columns out of plane which, in conjunction with the heat, caused their failure. I don't know a single engineer that has read the report that disagrees with its findings. All of this to say, there are plenty of engineers that may have signed on to the original pledge that may have read the report and changed their minds. I never signed it, but I don't recommend buying into their claims. We have reasonable answers now.

CPLX 5y ago

Brandolini’s Law