Thinking Responsibly

Westminster John Knox Press is publishing Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 by David Ray Griffin.  Griffin argues that the Bush administration planned September 11 to justify the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I haven't read his books, but I have listened quite a bit to University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barret who has been influenced by Griffin and is a member, along with Griffin, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11."

To believe their explanation for 9/11, you have to believe that the administration, the Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and the media - only to start with - are all hiding the truth or completely ignorant of it.  They want us to ignore what we all lived through to believe their conspiracy.  According to Barrett, United 93 was a hoax, so that means we have to believe that all of the family members who claim to have received the last calls from their loved one are either lying or duped.  (And where are their loved ones now?)  Barrett claims that at least some of the hijackers survived the collision with the World Trader Towers and have been seen since.

This story gave me an excuse to write about something I think about a lot.

When I hear these ideas, and many other kinds of ideas tossed into the mix of public discourse, I wonder how people get into a position to believe such outlandish ideas.  Yes, there are crazy, nutty, ridiculous ideas.  And we should try not to believe them.  And we don't believe them out of the blue - it takes time.

When I worked on my M.A. in philosophy I really enjoyed studying epistemology.  One sub-area is virtue epistemology.  I don't think that we can justify our beliefs with our personal virtues, but I think our personal, intellectual virtues and character do influence how we evaluate the facts, judge information, and form our beliefs.  And I think it takes some care to make sure we are responsible thinkers so we don't eventually find ourselves ready to believe nonsense.

This is something I try to be attentive to and examine myself to check that I'm the kind of thinker I should be.  It's something I try to cultivate and develop to be a better thinker than I am now.  It's something I worry about, being blind to my own irresponsibility to my duty as a thinker.

In our effort to believe true things we need to attend not only to information and reasoning, but the kinds of intellectual virtue that put us in a good position to be responsible thinkers.  Part of that virtue is also involves the holding our beilefs with the strength justified by the reasons we have, and practicing rational persuasion with a good character.  Certainly Christians should take this responsibility very seriously since true belief leads us to a right and rich relationship with God.

Comments

[alan aronson]

"When I hear these ideas, and many other kinds of ideas tossed into the mix of public discourse, I wonder how people get into a position to believe such outlandish ideas."

Yes we do wonder. We also shouldn't forget that, during the last election, STR defended the Swift Boat Liars. The 911 nuts are a side issue. The Swift Boaters were a dishonest campaign tactic that influenced a Presidential election. One hopes that there is a learning curve associated with epistemological reflection.

[richard baskett]

Have you looked into Griffin's claims? They really do have a compelling arguement. People that have looked into them, very intelligent people have come away really questioning 911.. Im fairly intelligent it definitely made me ask questions they were asking.

[William Wilcox]

One way people " get into a position to believe such outlandish ideas" is to accept unsupported assertions such as "The Swift Boaters were a dishonest campaign tactic" just because they hear it repeated over and over!

[alan aronson]

William, please, check out the story first. Rove was running the campaign and this sort of slime is SOP for him. How many times does Lucy have to pull the the football away before you understand what sort of folks they are? BTW, check out "Fiasco" by Ricks.

[Keith]

Interesting to note, Kevin Barrett is an Islamic convert.
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=92026

This would give him an idealogical reason to propmote conspiracy theories.

[Michael]

Griffin and other members of the 9/11 scholars for truth movement have reasons for the beliefs they hold which deserve close examination.

I have done this and while I am not wholly satisfied with their conclusions; most of their reasons have considerable merit and cast reasonable doubt on the official version of events enough for me to now reject it.

Just one example. Prof. Steve Jones (a co-founder of the movement) has published a peer-reviewed paper confirming that steel debris from the WTC crash contained thermate; a combination of sulphur and thermite - which is the explosive device used for controlled demolitions. The addition of sulphur to thermite has the cutting effect on steel that a hot knife has on butter. The conclusion drawn is that the buildings were planted with thermate which implies an inside job of some sort. Other evidence buttress this conclusion.

This is just one of many verifiable facts about 9/11 I have researched and which sadly, do not agree with the official version.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

A friend has already said that "Fiasco" might be a worthwhile and relatively balanced read, rather than the usual knee jerk anti-Bush rant.

Concerning the Swift Boat allegations, once again you avoid discussing the merits of an argument by associating it with something else and then condemning the argument.

I just don't think this is good method in argumentation. I belive it is known as the genetic fallacy.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your allegation about Rove is true, it still does not undermine the Swift Boat veteran's allegations concerning Kerry's leadership qualifications.

Michael,

Is there some reason why the sulphur and thermite might not have been on the planes? Or sulphur in the building and thermite on the planes? Or vice versa?

What are all other possible sources of thermite and sulphur that might have been present on airliners or in high rise buildings?

And if the sulphur and thermite were planted in the buildings, this means that there were others working with the highjackers coordinating the destruction of the WTC. Is there any evidence that such people exist? What would they have had to do within the structure to make this scheme work?

What evidence actually exists that anyone in the Bush Administration had anything to do with sponsoring this attack?

How much of this evidence relies on assumptions of evil intent on the Bush administration's part?

[Mike R]

Interesting read debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[alan aronson]

William, I get the impression you haven't looked at the Swift boat affair or are familiar with Rove's tactics. the notion that one has to ignore a person's past tactics or commit some sort of logical falacy is simply strange. Part of how we know things is based on experience. I'm not sure what your objections are here.

There are a whole range of books that simply describe the Bush Administration that don't bash. One doesn't need to "bash"; the truth is all it takes.

The questions on 911 are clouded by Griffin's speculations.

[alan aronson]

Just to clarify this, I'm not being partisan (for once). I don't like John McCain and I think he wouldn't be good for the country as a President however he served honorably and heroicly in Vietnam and Bush and Rove did the same thing to him in South Carolina in 2000 as they did to Kerry in 2004 and if you read the record Rove has a history of this going back.

[Michael]

Good questions, all of which I myself had when presented initially with information about doubts of the official version of events.

Anyway, it might be useful to explain my background. I'm from Britain where we had our own 9/11: the tube (subway) & bus bombings that killed 52 people. Certainly not on the scale of 9/11 but very traumatic for the country and for me personally since I was affected by the attacks. So I empathise with the pain of those who lost close ones on 9/11 and understand the confusion some of them must be feeling hearing the official events being questioned by various people sometimes to the point of implying govt. involvement in the attacks. Professionally, I'm an engineer with my primary expertise in telecoms & electronics and touching on the physics of materials so I can digest some of the techie evidence of the 9/11 scholars probably easier than the average person.

I'll do my best to answer your questions but realize that I had to work through a lot of material in order to reach verifiable conclusions so it's really a case of answers leading to more questions and so on: but ultimately, enough questions answered to know that the official version is more wrong than right. Let me know if you want sources for specifics as I can't provide them all at once in this reply.

>>Is there some reason why the sulphur and thermite might not have been on the planes? Or sulphur in the building and thermite on the planes? Or vice versa?

As part of his research, Prof. Steve Jones conducted extensive interviews with experts in the demolition industry and the consensus was that the collapse of the buildings had all the hallmarks of an expertly-constructed controlled demolition. Whether it was, is a separate question.

Elementary physics makes the nature of the collapse of the buildings - that is, just due to planes crashing into them and fuel from the planes burning them - difficult to accept.

Without the use of explosives, each successive lower floor of the buildings would have added some resistance to the collapsing floors above it. When you follow through with the calculations taking into consideration the structure of the buildings, the increasing total mass of the collapsing building as each floor gives way and the false claim that fires from the plane's fuel sufficiently weakened the steel cores to initiate the collapse; it is physically impossible for any of the buildings to fall in the time and with the evenness that they did.
I say false claim in the case of the fires because the burning temperature of jet fuel is far below the point required to weaken 'normal' steel, and certainly not the 'reinforced' steel used to build the towers. An employee at the laboratory which underwrote the reinforced steel used in the construction of the towers made this very point based on data the laboratory itself produced during tests on the reinforced steel before construction. The management was eventually pressured into firing him.

Calculations also show that all 3 buildings fell at freefall speed. WTC-7 for example fell in 6.5s, 0.5s more than freefall - this can be put down to air resistance, though this should be a whole lot longer if no explosives were involved. When you take into consideration that WTC-7, unlike the North & South towers, was not hit by a plane but still fell to the ground at freefall speed then the fact that there was no proper explanation by the official version of events for this anomaly is a huge gap in their story. Larry Silverstein - the WTC complex leaseholder at the time of the attacks - inadvertently let it slip when interviewed during a PBS documentary about the collapse that a decision was made to 'pull' WTC-7 on the day of the collapse and that they consequently 'watched it come down'. 'Pull' is industry-speak for controlled demolition and the context of his interview seems to imply that's exactly what he means. He has clammed up since and I don't think he has been questioned by the authorities in order to explain his comments.

In reply to your question, I'll concede the point that it's possible that residues of thermate may have been on the planes or in the building for whatever reason (though that's very unlikely because it is a particular specialized product - unlike thermite which you can buy off ebay - for a particular purpose that would not be in those places unless deliberately placed there).

The reason why it isn't what you suggest is that, part of Prof. Jones research determined that it would take approximately 1,000 pounds of thermate placed in known strategic points in the buildings to bring them down with the speed and evenness with which they came down. And according to industry experts, even with the right expertise, it would take considerable time (days, probably weeks) and full access to the towers to place the thermate correctly for the successful result. Not even standard thermite (normally used for demolition of concrete-built buildings) would have done the job on the steel-reinforced towers.

I know something of these materials and the physics involved so the 'controlled demolition' conclusion makes sense to me and the weight of evidence is extremely supportive of this view.

>> What are all other possible sources of thermite and sulphur that might have been present on airliners or in high rise buildings?

Probably none for thermate, thermite and sulphur combine in a specialized process to make thermate and you wouldn't expect to find residues of this anywhere unless deliberately placed there or in the aftermath of a controlled demolition using the material. I believe the material degrades quickly over time, so given sufficient time you always not find traces of thermate in a location even if it existed at some point. Besides, Prof. Jones obtained steel debris from the collapse of the towers from multiple sources and arrived at the same findings in all cases.

>> And if the sulphur and thermite were planted in the buildings, this means that there were others working with the highjackers coordinating the destruction of the WTC. Is there any evidence that such people exist?

Yes that's true and yes, such evidence exists.

>> What would they have had to do within the structure to make this scheme work?

As I mentioned earlier, full access to the building and sufficient time to strategically place the thermate. So the hijackers - assuming they placed the thermate - would have had to be able to not just enter the building without being noticed, but have full access to all parts of the building including the structural internals of the buildings and then would have had to be able to comandeer the building for lengths of time and probably evacuate parts of the building to reach some of the more inaccessible parts. The thing is that, evidence shows that some sort of 'refurbishments' were made to the building in weeks leading up to 9/11 which required evacuation of parts of the building.

>> What evidence actually exists that anyone in the Bush Administration had anything to do with sponsoring this attack?

There is plenty of evidence that supports the view that a very small element of the Bush administration, probably not including Bush, but definitely including Cheney had something to do with at least, facilitating parts of the attacks and at worst, orchestrating parts of it.

There is also enough evidence that shows that this could happen without the wider government apparatus, congress, e.t.c. knowing about it or being complicit - this modus operandi has been fine-tuned over a long time by past/present governments (not just the US govt.) and there is ample precedent where it has been used with information after the fact from sources directly involved attesting to its use.

>> How much of this evidence relies on assumptions of evil intent on the Bush administration's part?

Not completely sure and this is the main point. Because even among 9/11 truth seekers, opinion is divided and ranges from (1) elements of the govt. orchestrated the attacks; (2) elements of the govt. knew about the attacks in advance and facilitated it; and (3) elements of the govt. knew about the attacks and allowed it to happen.

The evidence I can conclusively verify definitely supports (2) and other bits of evidence I'm struggling with imply (1). Now it has been a long difficult road to the point were I'm willing to acknowledge either of these possiblities but there are many facts that cannot be denied and consequently at least imply (2).

I can go into verifiable details of some of the people allegedly involved, motives and opportunity for the crime, e.t.c as supported by my research. It will however raise many questions especially if you haven't examined any of the material out there at all.

If you want a brief summary of the problems with the official version of 9/11, a starting point is to watch the documentary, Loose Change 2nd edition. It's a 9/11 documentary that is accurate in it's assertions in most parts and provides a basic understanding of the issues involved. I recommend it because it is the most popular documentary out there, but not necessarily the most detailed, which is difficult to provide anyway without gettng bogged down in minute detail. Though it is the details which builds the evidence especially for claims about 9/11 of this magnitude.

P.S - By the way, a lot of information is now emerging that shows that the British bombings of 7/7 has many of the problems that 9/11 has. In fact the modus operandi of both attacks are exactly similar, as is specifically the Spanish and Indian bombings. I guess these attacks will be explained by some as orchestrated by Al-Quaeda, except that, the suspicion & evidence of some sort of govt. involvement/facilitation is present in all of them except the Indian bombings for which details are still emerging.

- I've read the Popular Mechanics article. It makes some good points, but the majority are fallacies.

"Without the use of explosives, each successive lower floor of the buildings would have added some resistance to the collapsing floors above it."

Michael. wouldn't the increased weight of each additional floor have increased the shear on each succeeding lower floor, thereby lessening the resistence time?

Also given the height of the impacts, a good wind plus all that fuel would seem, to me, to be capable of generating a good deal of heat and steel weakens well before it melts.

There are real questions around 911, but given the actors they would probably best be framed around competence and ideology.

[Michael]

Reading that back, I wasn't very clear but your observation is the point I am making. The floor below the one where the collapse starts will provide the greatest resistance to the collapsing floor above it and as you say, the resistance will decrease in proportion to the increasing mass of successive collapsing floors.

However, the resistance from the very first floor alone equates to a time far greater than the extra 0.5s it took WTC building 7 to collapse (i.e. 6.5 seconds) compared to freefall (6 seconds) so the collapse cannot be achieved without exceptional external force, in this case explosives of which there is incontrovertible proof.

>> Also given the height of the impacts, a good wind plus all that fuel would seem, to me, to be capable of generating a good deal of heat and steel weakens well before it melts.

It may seem possible, but in reality the physics makes it impossible. And certainly not in the evenly-spread, vertical implosion that brought all the buildings down in freefall speed.

>> There are real questions around 911, but given the actors they would probably best be framed around competence and ideology.

'Competence' allied to group-think was the official fall guy for 9/11 and has been trumpeted most loudly by the 'incompetent' actors themselves; and even then no one was fired - as if competence doesn't have a face. On the other hand, the actors have received large budgetary increases for their various departments, created so called anti-terrorism laws that agressively undermine the incomparable US constitution and have largely convinced the population to exchange liberty for security in a post 9/11 world.

9/11 is certainly about idealogy but not about a lack of competency.

[Mike L.]

"- I've read the Popular Mechanics article. It makes some good points, but the majority are fallacies..."

I've read the PM article myself, and most all of the contributors were also engineers, chemists, scientists, etc. I find it hard to believe that they would come to such different conclusions than yourself. Basically one would have to say they were all prejudiced, by their particular ideologies, to believe fallacies?
One also has to ask the question why Bin Laden and co. took credit for the attacks on the video. With all the hatred displayed towards the West by them, why would they ever cooperate with operatives inside our government, or even trust them? What you're suggesting is that there was a high level of collusion between some in our government & Bin Laden.

[Michael]

>> I've read the PM article myself, and most all of the contributors were also engineers, chemists, scientists, etc. I find it hard to believe that they would come to such different conclusions than yourself. Basically one would have to say they were all prejudiced, by their particular ideologies, to believe fallacies?

I have got to admit that the PM article threw me when it came out in march 2005 because I had reached certain conclusions by then - and the article was debunking those conclusions in what seemed a categorical manner. However, there is very little one can do to change certain facts - like mathematics & physics of materials - buildings either fall at freefall speed or they don't (so the height of a building plus time of collapse feed into the calculation). Any explanation as to why a building will fall at freefall speed without any exceptional external force to remove resistance has to fit into the calculations within an acceptable error margin. In the case of either the 9/11 official story or the PM article, no physically-possible counter-arguement is provided.

So just looking at the events surrounding the publication of the article, it's interesting to note that the principal author of the article is Benjamin Chertoff, cousin to Michael Chertoff - head of Department of Homeland Security. In addition, there was a purge of senior staff at PM by the owners in the months preceeding the article with some of those purged intimating that the situation had to do with the article itself. PM is owned by Hearst magazines - presided over by Cathleen Black who has deep political connections and is a member of the CFR, she is married to a person who has even deeper political connections; has been an assistant to a former director of the CIA, and served as a general counsel of the propaganda arm of the US govt. - the US information agency. Of course this doesn't prove anything but it suggests a conflict of interest and provides a necessary context.

Now getting to the PM article itself, it attempts to debunk 16 9/11 'myths'. A detailed read of the article against the background of the information I have verified to be true shows up glaring inaccuracies and plain falsehoods in some of the '911 myths' debunked in the article.

For example, PM employs a consistent method in debunking some 'myths' - they first outline a supposed '9/11 myth', but either pick a myth that even credible 9/11 truth seekers themselves discredit or they misrepresent a 'myth' put foward by a credible 9/11 truth seeker and then proceed to dismantle that misrepresentation. This is of course a straw-man fallacy.

To your answer your question, I don't think it's necessarily the case that most of the experts "were all prejudiced, by their particular ideologies, to believe fallacies" but I think there is something else going on here. I have read published research papers and have had small involvements with the media and whether it's academics, researchers or journalists, they can manipulate information, sources & references in a way that supports a pre-conceived notion they hold.

When you come at the PM article with a knowledge of the facts, then it's easy to see the straw-man fallacies; the plain falsehoods; the places where sources seem to have answered a straw-man question and PM has subsequently misused the answer, e.t.c

Just one example:
* PM presents a 'myth' that intercepts of hijacked planes are in fact not routine as 9/11 truth seekers claim them to be. The truth seekers claim, which is true, is that US flighter jets routinely scramble to intercept hijacked planes and that on 9/11 not a single fighter jet was scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked planes for up to 1 hour in some cases after it was known they were hijacked.

So PM quotes a 9/11 truth seeker: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

It then dismisses the claim only with this assertion without citing any sources: "In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

Which contradicts a published report that contains a quote from a Major Douglas Martin who is one of PM's cited experts!:

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001", Martin said.

Other official published documents support Major Douglas Martin, so in this case PM has either made a false claim or has not researched the facts adequately. Difficult to believe the latter since the Major is one of their cited experts.

A good site which goes through the PM article 'myth' by supposed debunked 'myth' is: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

In the end, almost all the claims by PM do not survive an examination of the facts as one straw-man fallacy after the other is exposed; false claims exposed and lack of cited sources for extra-ordinary claims on PM's part highlighted. The PM arguements against 9/11 'myths' that may have some merit are not even taken seriously by credible 9/11 truth seekers.

So, a conclusion that can be drawn is that this article is a hit piece to undermine claims by 9/11 truth seekers, paint them in a negative light and effectively end the debate. I don't think it has worked.

>> One also has to ask the question why Bin Laden and co. took credit for the attacks on the video. With all the hatred displayed towards the West by them, why would they ever cooperate with operatives inside our government, or even trust them? What you're suggesting is that there was a high level of collusion between some in our government & Bin Laden.

First, the history is that bin Laden was a CIA asset assembled together with other arabic fundamentalists through Pakistan intelligence to disrupt the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; some of them were subsequently used in the Balkans as well.
It's also a fact that a CIA agent met with bin Laden in July 2001, while he was undergoing treatment for kidney problems at an American hospital in Dubai - this was reported in mainstream papers all over Europe and in the Washington Times, i believe. Another fact is that bin Laden is one of many siblings from a very wealthy family. His brothers claim that they no longer fund him but there's evidence to the contrary. One of his richer brothers sat on the board of Carlyle group (one of the ten largest defense contractors) at the same time as George Bush snr.

So there's a lot of history here with bin Laden, elements of the CIA and some neo-cons that needs explaining. A lot going on here that I cannot fully explain at this point.

[John]

Where is the smoking gun and who held it? The scale of a conspiracy with such a myriad of players and moving parts, being written about here, is gargantuan.

How is it the secrets behind the 9/11 conspiracy are still secret? Were all of the perpetrators axed?

Given such compelling evidence, where is the hue and cry from the entire community of historians and scientists as well as the entire universe of TV, print, and radio journalists? To my knowledge, writers such as Molly Ivins, who has never written a kind word about the entire Bush family would be on such a story like a duck on a June bug, but that is not the case.

[Aaron Snell]

"like a duck on a June bug"

My vote for simile-of-the-month!

Thanks John! :)

[Michael]

Yes, it’s difficult to imagine that a conspiracy with an effect of such magnitude can be woven without people knowing and screaming about, the press shouting about it, e.t.c

The thing is that the modus operandi of the attacks from what we verifiably know is such that it seems very few people need to know details of the whole operation and another term comes in here – compartmentalization.

I’ll use an electronics analogy - in the industry we divide up the design of a complex microprocessor into compartmentalized parts. So each designer of each part does not need to know absolutely anything about what the designer of other parts are doing (especially for secure applications) – all he has to do is design the internals of his part, make sure they meet performance requirements and present communication signals at the interface of his part which are consistent with a pre-defined standard that will communicate with any other design that adopts the standard. So this way, a very complex design can be broken down into less complex compartmentalized parts – this is basically how computer, mp3, pda microprocessors and all such complex microprocessors are built. And this is exactly how a complex operation like 9/11 was carried.

As for the people in-the-know of some compartmentalized parts knowing after the fact what 9/11 was really about shouting about – they are shouting (in the US and outside); as for the journalists, tv & radio crying about – they are crying – but just not the mainstream press (with some exceptions). So there is a role of the mainstream press in acting as a gatekeeper that I’ll touch on. Understand that people defending the official line or writing hit pieces about it are not necessarily in on it but just defending the official position.

I’ll follow-up with more details later.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

I am aware of both Rove's tactics and the details of the Swift Boat allegations, so your impression is not accurate. Do you think that you may have a tendency to harbor these kind of impressions for anyone you disagree with?

I note that the title of this thread is thinking responsibly. I would recommend the following resource for anyone interested in thinking and arguing responsibly.

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/4294.asp?ai=21420&pc=Campaign&id=4294&d=Argumentation%2C+2nd+Edition

"I am aware of both Rove's tactics and the details of the Swift Boat allegations, so your impression is not accurate. Do you think that you may have a tendency to harbor these kind of impressions for anyone you disagree with?"

Now I am confused. If you are aware of Rove's tactics and the facts of the Swift Boaters then you know they are liars and the operation is the sort of sleezy thing that has happened in every race in which Rove found himself in trouble including South Carolina in 2000.

I have a rule of thumb: All negative political operations are essentially based on intellectually dishonest distortions if not out right lies. This is true regardless of party or philosophy. While Democrats are perfectly capable of doing this (Hahn in the 2001 Los Angeles Mayor's race), Republicans are usually more ruthless and Rove is simply beyond the pale.

I don't know what your experience is in political campaigns but mine is extensive and goes back to the 1960s.

"I note that the title of this thread is thinking responsibly. I would recommend the following resource for anyone interested in thinking and arguing responsibly."

If one uses the same tools to defend liars in a political campaign as one uses to advance the Gospel, ones actions might, in that case, be considered irresponsible. That is my only point.

"Fourth, there are three kinds of evidence that can be advanced to prove an argument that something is true: objective data, social consensus, and personal credibility. The same tests for truth can be applied to these types of evidence every time."

I'm not sure what point the reference you gave makes. Something is true or it isn't. Guess I'm old fashioned.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

I hope that you would recognise that assertions without evidence are not going to get you any where if you are looking to convince someone that your position more closely approximates the truth.

If you can't recognise logical fallacy in your argument it would help your thinking to study argumentation. Consequntly the recommendation for the video course which I own and found useful.

The Swift Boat vets had a case to make against the leadership abilities of John Kerry. I think that you can disagree with them without calling them liars.

I don't think that I need or want to defend Rove's tactics.

I have run for public office. I have worked on a Public Commission. I have participated in political campaigns and ballot initiatives. Have you? Nice to see that you are confident of your abilities and experience.

I have no use for your rule of thumb, sorry.

Anyway Rove has been very effective at what he has done. Don't you agree? Why do you have a problem with that? I also want to know why you have a problem with lying. Seems like if it works well for Rove you should be O.K. with the methodology. After all, you are a utilitarian.

What are the foundations of these moral assertions you make?

Nice to hear also that you do accept objective truth. But I want to know why you do. As a Christian, my foundation is the Creator God known through the Bible.

[Mike R]

I was going to respond to the conspiracy theory points laid out by Michael but I don't have the time and I fear it wouldn't do any good anyway. I wish he would apply as much "critical thinking" to the "Loose Change" video as he has to the PM article. I've watched the Loose Change thing and it is an hour of my life that I will never get back.

That thing is total B.S. It contradicts itself and takes a shotgun approach of "well what about this, and what about this and what about this?" with out actually looking for any of the answers to the questions they pose. I guess if they uses cool enough background music and the narrator speaks in a serious enough tone, people will buy into it.
There are several other anti"Loose Change" videos on YouTube. Give them a look.

[alan aronson]

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
While the Swiftboaters will one day have to account for their role in degrading our nation's reputation and inflicting four more years of incompetence and mendacity on our world, I do see the situation in a nuanced manner. Kerry ran an lousy campaign and should have anticipated a hit like the Swiftboaters. He should never have listened to his advisors about ignoring the issue and should have gone on the attack.

"I have no use for your rule of thumb, sorry."

William, just curious, when was the last time you saw a negative ad that told the truth? This is one of the things that is disapointing about the participation of religious folks in politics - their standards are often lower then secular folks.

I don't need some complicated reason for preferring campaigns that stick to the issues and avoid negative campaigns; we have only to look at the fruits of negative campaigns. Rove has been successful and we have the body bags and debt to show for it. Electing a person who will go down as the worst president in our history is real admirable.

My campaign experience is extensive and I have no interest in running for office. I know my limitations and I am happy to help elect good people.

I have had several occasions to use opposition research. I rejected all of the items as irrelevant and/ or unsupported.

Rather then wonder why I value the truth, perhaps you should question why you respect winning at its expense. The idea of getting elected isn't the acquisition of power but the achievement of the public good. So far Republicans are good at winning and bad at governing. What's the point?

At some point in the not too distant future I will have to account for my life. I am far from being a saint but to the extent that I have acted politically, I have a clear conscience. Lee Atwater repented on his death bed and asked forgiveness from those he wronged; if Rove's (who is Lee on steroids) methods are ok, why do you suppose he did that?

[Michael]

The reason I recommended Loose Change is because it's the most succinct and popular 9/11 truth documentary out there.
The creators explicitly say their aim was to identify the questions and problems surrounding the official story of 9/11 so on that score they do a good job.
It definitely doesn't provide enough details and context, but it does touch on all the main questions surrounding the official story of 9/11.
It does have a few problems when you examine it in detail which I have, but I'd say about 80% of the main points are accurate.

For an authoritative & exhaustive read of a sourced & referenced, why?, how? and who? of 9/11 with all the necessary context provided, I'd recommend instead a book by Mike Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil".

And for a video, the only one I can think of right now is a CSPAN's American Perspectives showing a panel discussion titled "911 and the Neocon agenda" discussing 9/11 issues.
On the panel are, Prof. Steve Jones (he authored a peer-reviewed study proving that thermate was used to bring down the towers in a controlled demolition), Prof. Fetzer, Dr (Lt.Col rtd) Bob Bowman (flew 100+ combat missions in Vietnam, later became head of the StarWars programme when it was still secret, and has a PhD in an Aeronautics-related field), Webster Tarpeley (award-winning historian and researcher on the nature of government intelligence and state-sponspored terrorism) and finally Alex Jones (a 'robust' independent investigative reporter best known for infiltrating 'Bohemian Grove' and also accurately predicting a 9/11-type attack in July 2001 on a live TV broadcast).

A search for - "Alex Jones" & CSPAN - on Google video pulls it up.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

The most important thing you said is that you will have to account for your life.

The most important thing to know, far beyond all the earthly political rangling, is who will hold you to account.

If you are not a Christian are you a theist of any sort? So far you have only proclaimed yourself as a utilitarian. I still don't know the source of your moral standards.

I don't understand who you think will hold you to account. If you are finally and absolutely dead and gone, the judgement of men will be of no concern.

It will be no surprise I recommend reading the Bible, trying to understand the truth it proclaims. Start with the New Testament maybe an NIV version. It gets right down to the solution to this problem of sin and the source of moral values.

Even saints don't have a clear conscience in a Christian view, because all have sinned and fallen short.

[Michael]

Hi William,

Another point I'd like to make is that the term "conspiracy theory" is a contradiction in terms when applied to 9/11 truth claims.

First, we know 9/11 was a conspiracy - whether that's 19 arab hijackers with boxcutters masterminded by a man in a cave OR whether that's a small element of the US govt. with the ability to make NORAD stand down.

So looking at the opposing claims:
On the one hand, the FBI know it is standing on such a shaky ground with the official 9/11 story to the point where it is not willing to say on it's Most Wanted List for descriptions of Usama bin Laden's that he is wanted for involvement in 9/11 - so they provide 'verifiable' evidence of other crimes he has committed instead.
On the other hand, scholars, researchers and others making claims about 9/11 'being an inside job' and provide detailed 'verifiable evidence' to back-up their claims.

So one claim is a conspiracy theory and the other is conspiracy fact! For one, the preponderance of provided evidence does not support the claim, and for the other it does. Take your pick.

I think the problem is that americans in particular and most other people - on average - are largely ignorant of the world around them, so the term 'conspiracy theorists' has been used by some (I'm sure not so in your case) to disparagingly label all 9/11 truth seekers and this has been effective (up to now) from discouraging people from researching the facts.
The thing is that when it comes to very controversial issues, most people will guage the consequences of holding a certain belief before considering whether or not those beliefs are true. People are afraid of labels and if one wants to attempt to hide the truth, creating a label for anyone who knows the truth can and does work. Hey, if it works against 'fundamentalist christians', it can work equally well against 'conspiracy theorists'.

So William, I have to question whether you think it's adequate that you dismiss 9/11 truth claims in one sentence and then associate it with the disparaging term, "conspiracy theories".

Is the issue something that deserves close attention; is it worth pursuing why eminent professors, former top-level government ministers, FBI whistleblowers, e.t.c are all making claims about 9/11 backed up by undeniable verifiable facts that point to a conclusion other than the oft-parotted official story.

Well I think it is, because in the words of a well-known christian apologist, "reality has a way of bruising those who don't take it seriously". So maybe this issue is not of eternal significance for you and me, but it was for 3,000 people in the first instance, for a further 2,000+ US/UK/allied military and 10,000+ civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan and it will define the world for better or for worse in ways that will directly affect us for many generations - it already has! The US and most of the western world are democracies and the direction we take will be determined by whether the people of these democracies allow this fraud to perpetuate as Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Perle/Abrahms/Wolfowitz and the neocon crowd say it will once they had their Pearl-Habour type trigger event (i.e. 9/11) OR whether we discover the truth and put a stop to it.

[Michael]

Sorry, that reponse was to Mike R.

[alan aronson]

"Even saints don't have a clear conscience in a Christian view, because all have sinned and fallen short."

Perhaps it's due to throw away lines like this that so many Christians have so damaged our nation recently. Christians in the nineteenth and early twentieth century actually tried to improve things in the here and now.

I don't think they felt the need to repent on their death beds for their political activities. I notice you ignored my question about Lee Awater and your seeming admiration for the political tactics that have enabled the senseless deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis.

If you want an example of how bad our media is, checkout Melinda's post on Ralph Reed from U.S. News and World Report. Reed has been exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite. That a major news source sees him as a possible Christian leader is a bit strange. One would think that we would welcome the coming liberation of Christianity that time and human mortality will bring us.

I've already read the Bible

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

This throw-away line, as you put it, expresses one of the central beliefs of Christianity. Mankind is fallen. All are sinful, and if you think otherwise you deceive yourself. It is all through the text.

Christ is the solution to this problem, not anything man can do, particularly through partisan political activity!

Alan,If you have read the Bible but you don't understand Christian doctrine, I think that maybe you should sit down and study it with a Christian friend to get a better feel for what it is about. Are you open to that?

I have been studying the Bible for a number of years but there is still much that I have questions about, things that I don't know or understand. I continue to learn.

I ignored your assertions from your previous post in my rely because I didn't consider them important to the central theme of the thread.

I don't feel it is productive to get pulled down into political rabbit holes.

I note that you have not replied to my questions concerning the foundation for your thought and moral assertions.

In this tread, I think that they are more to the point than anything you might want to say about Atwater, Rove or the Swift Boat vets.

You said " Perhaps it's due to throw away lines like this that so many Christians have so damaged our nation recently". Now that is what I would call a throw away line!

Just to peek down a rabbit hole for quick second, as you say "Reed has been exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite. That a major news source sees him as a possible Christian leader is a bit strange".

Yep, you have got that right. Reed, it seems, has lost the confidence of many Christians yet U.S. News doesn't seem to get it!

This does not mean that Christians think Reed is necessarily any less a Christian. It may just mean that due to his particular sins they do not consider him worthy of leadership any longer.

[alan aronson]

William, the thread was on epistemology and my point was that when the rubber hit the road, your analytical tools failed and you and STR among others were unable to distinguish between truth on the one hand and lies and dirty campaign tricks on the other. Either that or partisan interest trumped an interest in the truth. Either way, why would a non-Christian have confidence in a system of thought that blows off concerns about integrity and celebrates winning at any cost? If otherwise good people are led to elect bad people to govern them, that seems to at least impinge on epistemology.

Rabbit holes, feh. You folks simply can't blow off the fruit of your political values - not when the body bags are still arriving at Dover, Walter Reed is full and a country that never attacked us is spiralling into chaos, courtesy of us and while the neighborhood is crumbling, again courtesy of us.

It seems to me that what I believe is more important then why I believe it. If we agree that how one governs is more important then merely attaining power then why we believe that may be interesting, but in the end unimportant. If you disagree with the proposition then we can discuss the whys.

I don't know anyone with whom I could study and I'm not sure it would be productive as I know the Bible fairly well and just don't see myself as a Christian.

And, if one of my co-religionists repented on his death bed of that which I have professed to admire, I might reflect for a moment.

[John]

John Kerry did enough to shoot himself in the foot that Karl Rove doesn't need the credit.

Kerry's failure to sign the DD Form 180 giving complete public disclosure of his military records was his biggest political blunder and will haunt him as long as he is a candidate for anything.

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

I really don't know why you say some of the things you do. I have tried to get you to examine and support the foundations of your beliefs, your world view, but it seems you are generally reluctant to go there. So be it.

I am sorry that there is no Christian in your life that you could go to for insight into the Christian faith. This may be one reason why you are so alienated from Christianity.

You say: "your analytical tools failed and you and STR among others were unable to distinguish between truth on the one hand and lies and dirty campaign tricks on the other. Either that or partisan interest trumped an interest in the truth. Either way, why would a non-Christian have confidence in a system of thought that blows off concerns about integrity and celebrates winning at any cost?

This is simply untrue!

Melinda says in the original post:
"In our effort to believe true things we need to attend not only to information and reasoning, but the kinds of intellectual virtue that put us in a good position to be responsible thinkers. Part of that virtue is also involves the holding our beilefs with the strength justified by the reasons we have, and practicing rational persuasion with a good character. Certainly Christians should take this responsibility very seriously since true belief leads us to a right and rich relationship with God."

Notice the desire to know truth, the emphasis on the value of information, reason, intellectual virtue, responsibility, beliefs justified by reasons and rational persuasion with good character.

You continually construct a caricature of Christians. I don't know if you have had a bad experience in the past that has hardened you to the Christian message. You seem to have a stereotyped view of what Christians are, how they think, and how they behave. I don't recognise myself in most of what you say.

[alan aronson]

William, I have no problem with the Christian message; I just don't believe it. My problem is the hijacking of the religion by politically driven Christianists who have inflicted great damage on this nation. I can understand 2000 (kind of) but it was clear by 2004 that you all were supporting an incompetent and mendacious bungler. The Christianist position on Terry Schaivo was a further insult to the values of the country.

I understand your religion requires you to be concerned about my "soul". however my present concern is the survival of our Republic. If you want to focus my attention elsewhere, abandon Christianist ambitions and just be a Christian.

[Mark Simmons]

Just a few thoughts I have…

We all may disagree on such hot button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty or even universal healthcare, but when confronted we try to support our disagreement and offer a defense of our position. The strength of this defense is what makes dialogue so important and why it is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to sway people to your way of thinking. Contrary to public opinion, people can, and do, change their minds. It is true though that more often then not people are swayed by emotional appeals. Cold statistics of the number of starving children in Sub-Saharan Africa has less affect on donations than the pictorial images of just one or two desperate youths struggling to survive. Regardless, the point is that information, whether new or just presented in a new way, has a powerful impact upon what we believe- and thus what we do- with our lives and our valuables.
These beliefs are the primary motivating factor driving us to lobby our government for change. In America, we have a representational government that allows us to petition our Senators or Representatives to make the desired changes on our behalf, whether that be tax cuts, new roads, better education or even the kind of education being disseminated to our children. Arguably, one of the greatest reasons we differ in our opinions about such issues, aside from one’s economic status, involves our perception about what happens to you when you die.
This post-mortem paradigm significantly alters our actions as a direct result. People dress a certain way, refrain from such activities as dancing, drinking alcohol or even strap bombs to themselves to demonstrate their adherence to a particular world view. Wearing a long dress or refusing to patronize a tavern is a personal choice that we should protect for the cause of liberty, but strapping a bomb to one’s self and delivering vigilante style justice to people who disagree with your beliefs should be aggressively combated- whether this attack be against a crowd of Jewish teenagers or doctor at an abortion clinic.
As a society we cannot completely rule out murder as a means of enforcing our sense of justice upon others, but killing other people who simply disagree with one’s personal beliefs should not only be a last resort, but the prerogative of an elected governing body of a sovereign nation. Even then, in our imperfect world, reasoned debate should be the lynchpin by which all such grave decisions are made. Since no one of us has a monopoly on values, the proper role of philosophy is to place the onus of deciding such moral principles upon each individual’s conscience and then each individual makes his or her case by defending their reasoned belief. So I ask you, why then should it be any other way with all other issues? Why not engage in serious debate over the pros and cons of universal healthcare, gay marriage and abortion? And if one’s religion is the edifice of their respective opinion then they should likewise be made to make a defense for such a belief in the realm of reasoned debate. If they forfeit to do so then they should not be privy to dictating to others whom they should marry, when they should start a family or whether the children of their peers must study religiously-based “creation” science.
I enjoy this website because the people here generally believe in reason and STAND up for what they believe in by employing objective logic in their discussions and do not make incessant appeals to the Bible for the source of their beliefs without justifying it objectively just like any other book. Great site. Keep up the good work.