The Attack of the Straw Man

9/11 conspiracy skeptics like me get accused of using "the Straw Man Argument" all the time. But I think these charges are bogus.

As we all know, the straw man fallacy involves cooking up a phony argument, falsely ascribing it to your opponent, and knocking it down.

Oddly, the most common straw man argument you see these says is the Truther one about "How could a guy in a cave in Afghanistan have possibly Engineered 9/11." Truthers use this line all the time, and obviously think it's brilliant.

But--since no government official, surrogate, or apologist in the world has EVER said 9/11 was engineered by a guy in a cave--we have here the perfect straw man argument.

Now we can see why Truthers often accuse skeptics of using the straw man argument--and we can also see why the charges are wrong.

1. The Truth Movement is full of silly arguments, so there's no need to invent even sillier ones.

2. No two Truthers have the same theory regarding 9/11, so conspiracy skeptics rarely know precisely what their opponents' arguments are.

To elaborate on the second point...

Any 9/11 conspiracy skeptic soon discovers that no two Truthers in the world entertain exactly the same set of beliefs about 9/11. Some Truthers think 9/11 was an inside job; but others (LIHOP) don't. Some think planes hit the Pentagon--others don't. Some think GWB knew; others don't. Some think the alleged hijackers are alive. Others dismiss this as poppycock. Some think the passengers on the planes were gassed and the planes radioed in. (As long as no one has to actually prove anything, what the heck?) Some think criminal elements of the government did it; others think the Jews, the Reptoids, or the aliens did it.

And so on--into infinity. Logically, this means all the Truthers in the world--with the possible exception of one--are wrong. How's that for a quick debunk? But I digress...

There are literally thousands of pieces of 9/11 lore, and each and every Truther in the world picks through this smorgasbord of goodies and selects the ones he or she fancies. Since there's no evidence to prove any of it, you can take what you want.

So again...some Truthers think controlled demolition brought down the towers. Others think it was a Star Wars beam weapon. Others think there were no planes. Some think a drive-by UFO took it down. Some say there were nukes.

Truthers put up lists of coincidences, anomalies, and smoking guns of 9/11--but every single list is different!

The truth is, the Truthers fight with one another constantly over every single aspect of the 9/11 story--a fact you can verify with a quick look around the web.

This brings us back to the skeptic, seeking to show why all of these bits of 9/11 lore are doubtful or fanciful. Let's say he just got done debunking someone who thought there was molten steel at the site. Now he's talking to another Truther, and he brings up the molten steel.

"AHA!" the Truther cries, capering about excitedly. "That's a STRAW MAN argument, you ignorant sheeple! I never said there was any molten steel at the site. Only crazy, bogus Truthers--who are all CIA agents--talk about molten steel. Boy, have I got you!"

You see what happened. The Truther falsely accused the debunker of using a straw man argument, when the poor skeptic's only shortcoming was his inability to read the Truther's mind. For the skeptic, it is impossible to know exactly what set of beliefs the individual Truther holds.

That's why there are so many accusations of the straw man fallacy from Truthers. But it's not the skeptic's fault the Truthers can't get their story straight! If a debunker launches into a bit of 9/11 lore to which you don't happen to ascribe, he's just proving that he's not psychic.

My advice to Truthers is to stop using your favorite line about a guy in a cave, since it involves a logical fallacy.

And my advice to fellow skeptics is to always quiz the Truther about his precise claims before debunking. Otherwise, the straw man will get you.

If they knew about it and didn't stop it, they're complicit. Wouldn't it still be an inside job if a cashier knew that someone was coming to rob the store and didn't report it or do anything else to stop it? Accessory before, during and after the fact?

I don't get the mental disconnect in some of you official story proponents. You seem to lack the ability to think something all way through to the end.

Color me surprised... :sarcasm:

Your title refers to my "first mistake," but never goes on to mention any others. You seem to lack the ability to think something all way through to the end.

opinion and not worth going over. Maybe I should have said "the *biggest* mistake"? Would that make you feel better, or do you thrive on your petty mistakes being pointed out to you? I can agree to disagree with someone about a matter without having to mention that matter. Have you ever tried that?

I'm flattered that you mimic my words though.. maybe they'll sink in to you at some point...

So why couldn't you list any more?

Probably because you had none to mention, but wanted to make it sound like you saw a thousand errors. You were engaging in a little rhetorical legerdemain.

What part of "I can agree to disagree with someone about a matter without having to mention that matter" did you not understand? Do I need to find smaller words for you?

You cling tightly to the title "Clown Prince of the Debunkers", don't you?

Aren't you just precious!

"I can agree to disagree with someone about a matter without having to mention that matter" makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't mention the matter, how can you agree to disagree about it? Or does this involve mind-reading?

It means I just don't don't mention it. What's so hard to figure out about that? I can read something and think to myself "hmmm, That doesn't sound quite right to me, but no big deal, whatever floats your boat"... and it's something too petty to mention. In other words, I agree with *myself* to disagree with *you*, without having to bring that disagreement up to you...

Do you understand anything about NOT being petty? Try it sometime, ok?

You possess the same arrogance as those who would have me believe the tale they told. You and others buy the tale, and so there is conformity to a theory. I don't buy it, nor do many others, but we don't pretend to know the truth. Your dispelling of 9/11 skepticism owing to lack of a cohesive theory is the true strawman here.

Your reasoning is parochial. You are like a religious zealot who believes in the literal revealed word of your holy book, and you scoff at those who can't buy your dogma because they cannot tell you the true nature of God.

The reality of it is that Truthers are the ones acting like religious zealots.

There's the cult of the no-planers

The cult of the DEW's

The divine order of controlled demolition

The most Holy union of radio controlled planes disciplines.

Then there is the eternal order of missiles.

I could go on, but the one thing in common is all these group hold to particular dogmas about 9/11 that are not reveled in the known narratives of that day. And they cannot establish any evidence that provides for an exegesis of their beliefs. They are the ones scoffing at the rest of the world for not understanding so called reveled knowledge unique to whatever 9/11 quasi cult they are members of.

This is the essential OCT strawman: the elision of this obvious distinction.

9/11 skepticism, as expressed in the writings of Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson and many others, is a rational enterprise which seeks to found claims in evidence and, typically though not always, avoids speculation beyond supportable evidence. The claims made by skeptics are always subject to revision when new, better information becomes available.

9/11 skepticism is superior to the official view of 9/11 because 9/11 skepticism does not avoid the suppressed knowledge of deep-state linkages with organized crime and official enemies that make up the background of 9/11, and tries to offer a more comprehensive explanation of the events of that day than the often useful, but ultimately inadequate, theories that emit from the left-structuralist camp.

9/11 'Truthers', on the other hand, are epistemologically dysfunctional in the ways LARED and other OCTs so eagerly point out. But they are not the spiritual brethren of 9/11 skeptics; in fact, to the most extreme 9/11 'Truthers', 9/11 skepticism is treasonous. 9/11 'Truthers' are the spiritual brethren of other kinds of 'true believers' of all stripes. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, singular about the version of 'true belief' seen in 9/11 'Truthers', and nothing about it that warrants the discrediting of 9/11 skepticism.

Some left structuralists, who are often the loudest denouncers of 9/11 'Truthers', ironically demonstrate similar epistemological deficits to those of the 9/11 'Truthers' they detest, in their inability to assimilate evidence anomalous to their guiding orthodoxy. Many OCTs on this board have demonstrated that very proclivity.

The best point LARED and the OCTs have on this score: some of the same people act like 9/11 'Truthers' on some occasions, and 9/11 skeptics in others. This is indeed confusing and (to my thinking) regrettable, but ultimately of no importance in understanding the distinction between 9/11 skepticism and the 'true belief' demonstrated by 9/11 'Truthers'. Good-faith inquirers can easily make a distinction between the two. When distinctions fail to be made again and again, particularly when the obvious distinction I've just articulated is presented again and again, it is appropriate to question the 'good faith' of the person who continues to fail to draw the distinction.

When you try to pin a Truther down, he'll announce that he's different form all the other, nuttier, Truthers. You just did exactly what I'm talking about.

LIHOP is inside job, Perry.

I made a conceptual distinction between true believers and skeptics, and spoke little about actual positions people hold. You failed to grasp that.

I've noticed that the OCTers have much more difficulty dealing with "9/11 skeptics" (as you call them).

When does skepticism become idiocy (ie a Truther) or vis versa?

Who decides?

At what point does believing in the illuminate or similar organizations (real or imagined), or believing there are deep-state linkages with organized crime and official and unofficial enemies - cross over? There are a number of smart articulate DU'ers that spin fabulous authoritative sounding tales based on the thinest bits of information. It sounds great, but once examined closely the gap between a "bark at the moon CT" and their speculations based on so called skepticism bridges no great gap.

To the more practical minded it can be a difficult distinction to understand.

Also there is a significant number people that use skepticism or CT'ism to mask an irrational hatred for Bush. I don't like his politics or policies but I don't think he or anyone in his administration are mass murders of there own citizens. Do you?

You state there are obvious distinctions between skepticism and 9/11 truthers. Sure there are many that are obvious, but there are many not so obvious.

A call for "9/11 Truth" can mean either:

1) We have not been told the truth, and we need an independent investigation to find out the truth.

or

2) We *KNOW* the truth - 9/11 was an inside job!

These two concepts are very different.

If my understanding of the history of the 9/11 Truth movement is correct, the original intended meaning was something along the lines of the first meaning above. Originally, if I'm not mistaken, the movement's main aim was to support the 9/11 families led by the Jersey Girls.

If my information about the history of the movement is correct, then "9/11 Truth" originally meant something along the lines of what you're calling "9/11 Skepticism."

However, the movement subsequently attracted a lot of people with a more dogmatic approach.

Is the above correct, as far as you are aware?

Jon Gold, in his video "9/11: Press for Truth," has apparently been trying to revive the first meaning of "9/11 Truth," as distinct from the second meaning.

Although I think the dogmatism was there from the outset. The visually provocative works of people like David von Kleist, Eric Hufschmid, the Loose Change guys and some others really accelerated the growth of the dogmatic element, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206255&mesg_id=213922">Bryan Sacks wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206255&mesg_id=213886">my post about the two meanings of "9/11 Truth":



Then perhaps an important part of the remedy might be more visually provocative works by people like Jon Gold, in consultation with responsible researchers like Paul Thompson?

Anyhow, I agree with you about the importance of distinguishing between responsible researchers, such as Paul Thompson, and "9/11 was an inside job!" dogmatists.

However, I question your strategy, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206255&mesg_id=206324">in this earlier post of yours, of using the term "Truther" to refer exclusively to the dogmatists.

My problem with this is that you thereby, on a semantic level, surrender the entire "9/11 Truth movement" to the dogmatists as well. After all, some of the people you would classify as "9/11 skeptics," such as JackRiddler, do identify with the term "9/11 Truth" as well (see his sig line).

I also don't think it's a good idea to surrender semantic turf in response to the vilification of a political movement's name by its enemies. That, to me, is like a liberal disowning the word "liberal" as a way of distancing oneself from right wing stereotypes of liberals. Or like the many people who have said, "I'm not a feminists, but ..." (followed by a statement of a position which does fit standard dictionary definitions of "feminism").

It seems to me that you could still make the vitally important distinction between responsible researchers and dogmatists without surrendering semantic turf to the dogmatists. You could say, for example: "Alas, the 9/11 Truth movement has to a large degree been taken over by unreasonable dogmatists, but I regard that as a betrayal of the movement's original purposes."

It may well be that the term "9/11 Truth" has outlived its usefulness, and that a new name would be better (such as, perhaps, "9/11 Accountability movement"). However, it's one thing to de-emphasize an old label; it's quite another thing to collaborate in the vilification of the old label.

I refer to the small group of 9/11 forum dwellers who seem unable to leave here, spending the bulk of their time and posts on DU to counter alternative arguments with a mix of evidence that is by no means conclusive and a tone of scorn and arrogance typical of the "true believer".

You have concluded that based on what you saw on 9/11, and what you have heard or read since then, that there is no doubt as to the events surrounding 9/11, yet you are unable to move on from here.

The piece in common to "Truthers" is that the official story is not believable. The various cults that you very humorously define are working postulations, with evidence being sought to support or reject those ideas.

The driving force behind these postulations is deep seated conviction that something is truly amiss here. We see the OCT as a part factual/part fictional construct and we seek to distinguish fact from fiction.

Your truth is based on information released by the Bush administration, the CIA, the FBI, and other governmental agencies, and investigations by potential cronies in the 9/11 commission, FEMA and NIST. These have not been open investigations, nor can I fairly say they have been independent.

Your certainty and self-righteousness is disturbing to me, and your attitude is insulting. I find the OCT mindset in this forum to be very much like the religious right.

A Truther calling an OCTer "fanatic" is funny--definitely one of those pot-kettle things.

which you proved by identifying with either a pot or a kettle.

But the bottom line is that there was no CD, planes did impact the buildings, Bin Laden took responsibility, they collapsed via known although not completely understood processes. I have the experience and knowledge to understand what I saw happen to the WTC. If you don't like it that I am certain about some things then put me on ignore. BTW, how is your certainty and self-righteousness there is a cover up different?

The 9/11 commission report is a report designed to provide and narrative of events, political cover, perhaps cover negligence, but more likely just to prevent the good old boys club in DC from providing fodder to beat each other up. It was not a criminal investigation, It was not an engineering investigation, It was a political investigation. It blames no one and excuses everyone. BTW it is hardly surprising.

If you want to go through life believing that an administration has the power to control and silence institutions and large as FEMA and the NIST when 3000 American citizens were murdered, enjoy your paranoia.

Do you have a link for that?

Thanks,

Ghost

The F.B.I. couldn't find *any* conclusive evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks of 9-11. Nothing that would stand up in court.

But even if he did claim responsibility, so what?

Anybody can claim anything they want to, but that doesn't necessarily make the claim true.

That looks like a pretty straight up denial, doesn't it? Do you even *know* what a 'non-denial denial' is?

Once again, your lack of comprehension shines out like a beacon in the fog...

He didn't plan the attacks. He authorized them and helped arrange funding for them and helped pick the people who would carry it out.

KSM planned the attacks. KSM and the hijackers themselves executed the attacks, an alternate translation of the Arabic word Osama uses there.

A classic non-denial denial. It's like Cheney denying that he outed Valerie Plame. Well, he didn't. He got Scooter and Karl Rove to do the dirty deed.

I wouldn't be surprised, but he's proven to be a pretty astute fellow and as such I wouldn't put it past him to see the lunatics like the No-Planers and Twoofers on this board and jump on their bandwagon.

In any event, even if the FBI doesn't have enough to pin 9/11 on him directly, he is still wanted for the Tanzania and Kenya bombings and, as they say in FBI-speak, as a suspect in other bombings (and I would wager those would include 9/11)

and the man who supposedly pulled it off denies it?? The man who could mobilize a large following of jihadists, just by admitting responsibility, denies that responsibility??

Come on man, I *know* you can think deeper than that...

you don't know much about human nature. That or your reading compehension sucks. The latter, probably.

In the last post I pointed out Laden is a pretty astute fellow - he was a fair businessman in his day and it doesn't take a rocket scentist to know that public opinion and PR goes a long way in this world - terrorist or not. Plus, I'd bet he is well versed with the 4th law of thermodynamics - if the heat's on someone else, it ain't on me.

His denials and sloughing responsibility off on http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/">"people {with} personal reasons" occures immediately after the event, in late September 2001.

It took a few years, but bin Laden did pony up to his role in this thing in the fall 2004 videotape. An ego like his would not be denied!. I'm sure you'll understand that remark.

You can read about it http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=18491&d=9&m=9&y=2002">here
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11,_2001_attacks">here
or http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html">here
or http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=73440786122161&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=c1b79b4f,4744c795&FORM=CVRE4">here
or http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html">here

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you *that* gullible?

Wait...dont' answer that.

Strike that question. We don't want to bruise an already black-and-blue ego.

Worshiping at the alter of Fox News now, are we?

And as far as the NYT article goes, do you always quote bylines that also appear regularly on National Review and WSJ authors?

Taheri is in a minority in believing bin Laden dead. Its kind of like these absolute idiots (don't get all up in a tizzy now) who say AA 77 didn't hit the pentagon but overflew the thing. The 2 or 3 witnesses they dredged up are far, far outweighed by those who did claim they *saw* an aircraft hit the building.

You'll fall for anything, won't you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not the one who had their post deleted for multiple references to right-wing web sites.

My post was deleted for calling you a "precious little boy", I would imagine...

I've posted that same story, with the same links, a few times before, and it's never been deleted...

Anything else you need cleared up?

hey! I have an idea! Let's all go play in the street! You first, Ghost!

That's your two choices... because the Bush Administration was the first to blame Osama... are you a Bush supporter/apologist? Your posts and positions answer *that* question...

You want to play games instead of focusing on the issue? I'll beat you every time, son.... maybe there's a reason you were whining on another thread about being "banished to a debate only forum"... maybe the owners/moderators over there saw through your bullshit too...

just sayin'....

...who question the events, explanations and potential motives for the crimes of 9/11 over what they insist are such people's "beliefs," which of course is a transparent attempt to appeal to the anti-religious stripes found among the dem party.

Basically, I perceive it this way: I find the authoritarian aspects of humanity to be the most dangerous thing we face as a species, which desperately needs to re-group and figure out better approaches to existence, examining ourselves, human social systems, etc.

Now, if I walked into a group of right wingers {those deeply mired in their own authoritarian tendencies} having a discussion and joined in, we would surely disagree with one another on many fundamental points, but the fact is, I would still be able to connect with at least a few of them on some common ground.

This, however, is where some OCTers seem to be stuck, as one gets the distinct impression that for them, anyone who lends any degree of credence to the inside job idea is automatically disavowed, "crazy," "delusional," not part of the "reality based community," "tinfoil," etc...they seem to have no shortage of such self aggrandizing epithets, nor any hesitance in their want of using such words specifically against those they disagree with. This in and of itself often appears to be their sole motivator. Many have observed the hateful glee in which some of these types go on the attack, which speaks volumes re intent.

I mean, when one considers the psychological motive for needing to label entire groups of people from all walks of life as "crazy," well, I tend to not take such perceptions and views very seriously ... cause I get the feeling that there is something else altogether motivating such actions and desires.

I prefer to live an evidence-based life. The "truth movement" fails the evidence test miserably. It's almost comic. No one is sayng don't question the "official story". But, if you can't provide evidence, don't expect to be taken seriously.

...so you ascribe to the lone Arab with a box cutter theory?

You've written more than one line!

How did you do it? Why?

Unfortunately it is full of exactly what you claim to be criticizing -- strawmen.

I didn't get through more than a few sentences because I keep thinking of your constantly writing a few months ago, something to the effect that "anyone who thinks Hillary won't be the nominee is delusional."

Given that, I can't for the life of me think of any reason to read what you've written.

With a side order of ad hominem.

Because all we have to do is look at your horrible teevee show, which is nothing at all but preposterous, incoherent non sequiturs.

Can you now see why establishing a style of crazy non sequiturs and drive by one line thread disruption may have a certain blowback effect on how your original posts are regarded?

to try to get a point across to you which seems to be whooossshhhing right over your head?

"But--since no government official, surrogate, or apologist in the world has EVER said 9/11 was engineered by a guy in a cave--we have here the perfect straw man argument."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/10/mil-011011-usia01b.htm

Straw man???

Whenever a Truther refers to the "official story," you should be suspicious. Truthers love to create bogus, strawman versions of the official story and knock them down. When a Truther refers to the official story, it's anyone's guess as to what he means.

I already cited the "guy in a cave meme" as a whopping big straw man argument. The same goes for the oft-heard "never in history have steel-frame buildings been brought down by fire."

Again, no one ever claimed the Towers, or WTC7, were brought down by fire. The Towers were hit by planes, and WTC7 was hit by a huge chunk of falling building.

The problem, of course, is that there is no document entitled "The Official Story." When a Truther refers to the"official story," it is essential to pin him down and find out what he's talking about, i.e., how does he know this is the official story, what are his sources, etc.

necessarily a monolithic entity.

Bush, for example, blames Bin Laden but the FBI doesn't. There are a number of contradictory sources for what we call the OCT.

:shrug:

The only exception to this would be some form of LIHOP.

bin laden masterminded 9-11 and bin laden was holed up in a cave prior on or after 9-11

us government officals requested active support from Pakistan to help capture bin laden in afhanistan not specifically a cave but on the run.

officials in the white house and media

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You believe that Osama, KSM and 19 assorted unknowns conspired to successfully bring down the two tallest buildings in the USA and managed to crash a plane directly into the just reinforced wing of the Pentagon almost an hour after the attack was obvious.

And that's no straw man.

Bringing down the buildings wasn't their intent according to Osama himself. The chances of hitting that wedge were 20%, which is hardly unthinkable. And the attempt to stop the planes is on record well enough that the actual attacks were not all that obvious -- Flight 77 had been lost to ATCs for over thirty minutes.

Your statements are nothing but straw men.

87.345% of statistics are made up on the spot.

On the other hand, the chances of simple facts being countered with 9/11 CT bullshit is 100% around here.

86.3456% of facts are made up on the spot.

15.234% I think.

15.234% probability, I think this probabilty increases the 20% probabilty of hitting one side by 5.387%.

an unimpeachable source if there ever was one.



except it's not. The chances of hitting the ROOF isn't being factored in here, or did you forget the Pentagon has a roof?

Thanks Bryan.

Who better to understand the intent of the attack than Osama, being recorded among friends as he explained the plot?

And I do believe the wedge includes the roof. It's all wedge. Wedge One, roof, walls, corridors, and all.

20%.

two tallest buildings in the USA by accident.

Does that make it all better?

How is hitting the roof of a wedge not hitting the wedge? If a plane hit the roof of your house, would you deny that the plane hit your house? You're making an unbelievably stupid argument here.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are the one who is making an unbelievably stupid argument here. What a surprise.

not the same thing as hitting the wedge. Duh. That's like claiming that hitting the roof of a house isn't hitting the house. Last I checked, the roof was a part of the house. You took your shot and missed yet one more time.

Think Duderstadt will apologize, mhatrw?

It wasn't 20% of the building that was being reinforced, SDuderstadt. It was much less: only the facing of one of the five outer wedges. So there was NOT a 20% chance of hitting the reinforced part of the building, as Bolo claimed.

show me where he was talking about specifically hitting the recently reinforced wall. You're inserting a distinction that Bolo never made.

why don't you simply stick to what Bolo actually said?

If the plane had hit the unreinforced part of the wedge (say, the roof), NO ONE WOULD EVER HAVE REMARKED ABOUT THE REINFORCEMENT. No one cares, and no one has made a point about the fact that the plane hit the same wedge that was being reinforced. The point is, and has always been, that the plane hit the REINFORCED PART, not the same wedge where the reinforcements took place.

Ol' Joe knows this, and tried to elide the statistical improbability of it by using a transparent deception, as he often does (maybe his God is keeping score of them all!) Then you came to carry his water. But badly, SDuderstadt. You'll have to get better at it! (Hope it doesn't keep you both out of heaven!).

If you look at the post that Bolo responded to, it simply mention the wedge that had recently been reinforced. Period. Bolo's observation was 100% correct. Quit trying to overcomplicate this and just accept the fact that you fell flat on your face yet one more time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you?

Whether we're referring to a "wing" or a "wedge", do you guys really deny that the roof is not part of either? If a plane crashed into the roof of a house, would you tell a reporter that the plane did not hit the house?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is not psrt of the structure. It's truly comical.