In other words, "if you disagree, you're a big stoopid thicko". You're clearly not up for reasonable discussion, you're just soap-boxing.

Well, that and whining about the possibility of being buried, as some kind of reverse-psychology downmod defence.

I have made similar comments before, hoping for some type of discussion, and had my comment buried so that no one would even see it, which makes discussion impossible. So I was actually hoping that my comment would somehow remain visible.

This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about. You just can't reason someone into having different beliefs.

I think that for people to take on a radically different worldview usually requires some extraordinary circumstances, maybe some luck, and some type of emotional subconscious trigger.

Anyway, if you actually want to discuss it, which likely will go in circles since these are belief systems, what do you think a state is, or what the war on terror is?

"This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about."

I would hope that reason and logic take precedent over existing belief. At least among the somewhat rational subset of individuals that tend to lurk in these corners.

Depends on what you mean by "belief"/ Some things that people refer to as "beliefs" are probably more properly called "principles". And if two people disagree on fundamental principles, it's hard for them to reach any sort of agreement, even if they both use rational reasoning and logic. They're starting from different places, and trying to go to a different place, and overlap may be rare.

Take, for example, somebody with a utilitarian "what matters most is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" view, vs. an individualist anarchist whose fundamental principle is "no one should use force or fraud to force someone to do something against their will."

On many issues, those two people just aren't going to be able to agree on much, even if they both use logically sound arguments.

Also, on a different note, there is research out there (I don't have citations at my fingertips, sorry) suggesting that it's pretty rare for people to change deeply held beliefs, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. It seems to be a facet of human nature that we don't change beliefs very easily.

That's just the nature of beliefs. They are default terminals in our reality comprehension frameworks. Not easily replaced.

You're making extraordinary claims regarding the parallels with the Reichtag fire. I won't ask for extraordinary evidence, just reasonable evidence.

The part I don't get is why it seems to matter so much whether 9/11 was an unexpected attack or a planned conspiracy, or whether it was anticipated but not orchestrated by the government. The effect is all that matters, and the effect was, in fact, exactly the same as the Reichstag fire... which is itself not universally agreed to have been sanctioned by the Nazis.

Really? Exactly the same? Socialists taking over and dismantling democracy?

Oh, may be to start doing something to stop such horrible things from happening again. No?

Some Nazis on the night where terifed that it was the start of a counter revolution from the left - read Alex Kershaws Bio of Hitler.

Evidence of what, exactly? Comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire is an analogy, and - to anyone familiar with the history of both - the analogy seems to fit. No, the outcome here hasn't (yet) been as dramatic as electing a Hitler and establishing a Nazi empire. But the generalized point of "dramatic event seen as attack on country is used to justify expansion of government power, new limitations on civil liberties, etc." seems to clearly be common to both situations, no?

OTOH, I was a firefighter for a decade or so in the 1990's, and we spent a lot of time studying building collapse, because collapsing buildings are one of the biggest threats to firefighter health & safety on the fireground... and everything I saw on TV on the morning of 9/11 was 100% consistent with what we were taught about how and why buildings collapse.

So color me extremely skeptical of any of this "9/11 conspiracy" stuff, at least as far as the details about the tower collapse.

I am not an expert and I have no idea what actually happened on 9/11. It is up to each of us to form an opinion using the evidence that we have available.

This sounds noble, but in fact it is the way of madness.

Information does not stand on its own. Without the right background knowledge and experience you cannot assign any level of certainty to a deduction you make from a piece of information.

Just because you are capable of interpreting some of the information and forming reasonable deductions from those pieces does not mean you have an accurate holistic assessment. Your ignorance of the entire picture, while unintentional, will invariably lead you to make incorrect assumptions about the pieces you have not considered or do not understand.

An informed populace is, on the whole, a good thing, but the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" still rings true. You simply have to accept that you will not, in your lifetime, be able to understand absolutely everything that anybody knows (never mind all that there is to know), and that you must cede your opinions about such matters to those who do, and if there is reasonable dissent, then you will have to reserve judgment altogether.

Yes, of course you have to identify the "experts" in order to know what their perspective is. In this case, the vast majority of knowledgeable people have settled around the consensus that the "official" explanation (two planes crashed into the WTC) is indeed plausible.

But you ignored my second point entirely: if there is (reasonable) dissent, then you can't just pick one side and say they're correct. In fact, by not knowing the underlying science, you can't even participate in the debate. So there's no point in saying "a bunch of engineers and architects have signed their names to this paper saying it's all a conspiracy" when you have no idea why that's the truth (if it were).

Finally, spreading uncertainty and doubt (what about what I said is spreading fear?) is a good thing where false certainty and false wisdom prevail.

See? That's sophistry. Instead of explaining (or rather, thinking about) how one would identify knowledgeable people, you skip to what they are allegedly saying. Also, citation needed.

"In fact, by not knowing the underlying science, you can't even participate in the debate."

But here's the thing, I do, and I do have eyes. So I'm all up for the debate, but it's mostly hand-waving like you just did. 9/11 was stonewalled and swept under the rug. I payed attention back then and nothing new came up since then, you didn't post anything either.

"what about what I said is spreading fear?"

You cannot possibly know everything, better ask the experts. (Who are the experts? Ask the expert experts?)

1. Defer to the majority opinion of qualified engineers, if one exists.

2. Hold no opinion whatsoever.

3. Become a qualified engineer.

I am currently doing (1) because I believe a majority opinion exists and that opinion is "airplanes hit the WTC on 9/11". If that is not true, then I would accept evidence to the contrary (high statistical confidence, random sample, repeated by multiple sources).

I could do (2), which would be perfectly legitimate, but I do not feel it is necessary (I am not aware of any dispute among even a sizable minority--I define sizable here to be at least a third who either disagree or are uncertain).

In order for me to do (3), I would need to take a few years off work and study engineering full time. Even then, I may not have what it takes to become a qualified engineer. Unless you are willing to pay for this option, you can't fault me for it. I am not pretending to be an engineer.

We live in a world of finite possibilities. I am no more demanding that you should understand advanced mathematics (what I know most about) than you should demand I understand civil engineering and materials science. I would expect you to accept a consensus of mathematicians on such matters, just as I've accepted (what I believe to be) the consensus of engineers.

That's what I like to call living in the realities of an imperfect world.