Originally Posted by
James R
Welcome to sciforums, ScyentsIzLief.
You've been here for about 2 seconds and posted 11 posts, and already you're criticising the moderation of this forum.
Not an auspicious start to your time here, I'd say.
Not to mean any disrespect, but if you deny the evidence (as you are doing) what does that say about you?
Unless he's in on the conspiracy (who knows, perhaps he turns into that evil bunny that dog turned into in one of those movies at night
), it just means he doesn't believe in said evidence...
Aren't mods suppose to be objective?
The term "objective" is a little hard to pin down, but let's take wiki's introduction to the term:
************************************
Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.
************************************
The problem with 9/11 is that it is a very mind dependent and emotional issue and can make even a relatively objective person become subjective. I have always felt that the best antidote towards being subjective on an issue is to deeply analyze the viewpoints of the other side. This is why I tend to spend most of my time here in sciforums, where there are people who believe the official story to be true instead of in a 9/11 alternate story focused forum where most will not criticize the official story. I've now even posted a few times in JREF, which is clearly an official story focused forum.
You're essentially insulting the 9/11 truth movement. There is absolutely nothing pseudoscience about facts that the towers fell at free fall speed...
In terms of the nearly free fall speed of the falling towers, I don't believe anyone is claiming it as pseudoscience, but many apparently believe that steel framed high rises can do this, even if they have never done this before or since.
, steel being melted by fire, explosions etc.
As to the steel being melted by the fire, it's impossible, which is probably why the official reports assiduously make no mention of it as it would destroy their theory that the office fires were the only factor in bringing down the buildings.
As to the explosions, again, the official reports make no mention of them and to many here, that's all that matters.
What WAS pseudoscience was the mod's decision to put the thread here.
Pseudoscience is defined by wikipedia as:
"
Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status."
Perhaps the reason they put the thread here is the very last factor in that list- scientific status. We would like to believe that scientists are objective, but the fact of the matter is that scientists are frequently just like everyone else, complete with biases and the like. This is particularly the case when they don't look at an issue much, although it can also be the case even after looking at an issue for a while. Key to maintaining a particular viewpoint is dismissing claims that contradict it as 'absurd', 'stupid', '[insert favourite insult here]' instead of admitting that if the contradictions were true that the opposing view might be true.
If you sincerely believe that the government would not do this to us, that's your issue. But, IMO, the actual event should be treated objectively. Limiting one thread and putting it in pseudoscience is an insult to the people who researched all the evidence and the people who died there.
The problem here is, who determines what is objective? And upon what do they base their criteria? You know, there is one thing I would -really- like. I would like to hear the reasoning of the administrator or mod who decided that the 9/11 issue should be in pseudoscience. As to Stryder's reasoning for creating this 'mighty tangle', it's pure bunk. He seems to think that the WTC tower collapse theories can be mixed with the WTC 7 collapse theories can be mixed with the pentagon attack theories can be mixed with the aircraft theories, etc, etc. To me, what makes the most sense is that he simply dismisses all alternate story theories as bunk and would like to see them as little as possible, trapped inside his mighty tangle. There is -one- bit of reasoning that I do agree with; that is, if you came to the pseudoscience forum for a reason -other- then discussing 9/11, you might find it a bit difficult to find said other threads. I proposed a solution ages ago, which was to create a conspiracy sub forum. But when I brought it up, instead of discussing my proposed solution, James et al simply dismissed the 9/11 alternate stories and left it at that.
I do feel strongly about the 9/11 truth and I think that since none of us are behind the attacks, we should all try to find the real truth. Everyone knows a poorly funded organization located in a 3rd world nation, like Al Queda, could not have succeeded in 9/11 if the U.S. didn't let it.
Well, clearly -some- people were behind the attacks. But perhaps no one here was
. As to how well funded Al Quaeda is, I'm not sure, but I definitely agree that they couldn't have planted explosives in the twin towers and the pentagon and the tons of other things that allowed the attacks to be successful on that day.
As to finding the truth, official story believers believe they already know the truth and that all this alternate story talk is the falsehood. From what I've seen, many 9/11 official story believers simply can't believe that elements of their own government would play a part in the events of 9/11. This doesn't mean, however, that they can't be persuaded. Many people who originally thought that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the people who were quickly foisted into the mainstream media spotlight as the culprits have since changed their mind; they include notables in the 9/11 movement such as Steven Jones, the creator of the documentary '9/11 mysteries' and not so notables such as myself