A Suggested Form for Serious Consideration of Conspiracy Theories

[Bolo Boffin]

A poster at JREF, orphia ney, produced the following form for starting a thread that questions the "official version" of 9/11. I found it an extraordinary document, and thought I'd bring it over here, though with some modifications for DU.

I'm not saying that people should use this here, although that would be nice. I'm not a moderator here, so I wouldn't even think of trying to enforce this here.

What I'm asking you is to tell me why you wouldn't use it, in a material way. (No, my proposing it isn't material.) Read this over - what exactly does anyone find objectionable in this form? Is it the declaration of a theory to be tested? Is it proper sourcing? Is it the statement that you're willing to be proven wrong, and admit so?

What would keep anybody who questions the 9/11 "official version" from using this basic form for submitting their

Hello, my name is xxx. I am interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and I am skeptical of the "official version of events".

I learned about the "official version" by _____________________ (insert details as appropriate, such as "reading the NIST/FEMA/9/11 Commission Reports; reading prisonplanet.com; watching "Loose Change"; etc etc").

The evidence that I have seen does not seem to add up to the story that says that 19 hijackers brought the world's most powerful country to its knees.

I am testing the theory that ______________________.

The strongest evidence towards this theory, in my opinion, is:

A) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
B) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
C) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
etc.
(fill in the blanks with your choices)

I wish to find out the truth, and if this evidence can be proved to be false or irrelevant, I will understand that I have been mistaken in thinking my theory and/or sources were correct.

Sincerely,
xxx.

Everyone is free to comment on this thread, and I will respond to all who comment.

On edit: formatting

[wildbilln864]

1. What would be...

the motivation for response? :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Do you have any problems with answering any of those questions, wildbilln864? n/t

[wildbilln864]

3. Anyway, here ya go...

Hello, my name is wildbill. I am interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and I am skeptical of the "official version of events".

I learned about the "official version" by all of the following: "reading the NIST/FEMA/9/11 Commission Reports; reading prisonplanet.com; watching "Loose Change"; etc etc").

The evidence that I have seen does not seem to add up to the story that says that 19 hijackers brought the world's most powerful country to its knees.

I am testing the theory that ____The Bush/PNAC cabal are murderers.

The strongest evidence towards this theory, in my opinion, is:

A) The Bush/PNAC cabal are a bunch of lying, sociopathic greedy crooks. (Source: personal observations)
B) The Bush/PNAC cabal are liars. (Source:personal observations)
C) Recent history. (Source: recent history)
etc.
(fill in the blanks with your choices)



edited for omitted blanks.
I wish to find out the truth, and if this evidence can be proved to be false or irrelevant, I will understand that I have been mistaken in thinking my theory and/or sources were correct.

Sincerely,
wildbill :hi:

[wildbilln864]

4. next...

question. :bounce:

[Bolo Boffin]

8. OK.

You want to show the "Bush/PNAC cabal" to be murderers. I think there's a case to be made for that.

Whatever Bush and his associates in PNAC are, though, they are not a cabal. Cabals are secret organizations by definition. We know everybody involved in PNAC - Jeb Bush is a signatory to the one paper of PNAC that we always see that one single quote about "a new Pearl Harbor" from. Points for derogatory rhetoric, but there must be plenty of words that are more accurate. Why have your argument tripped up for incorrect word usage?

A major problem is that all of your statements are unbelievably broad generalizations. You provide no actual evidence for any of them - what specific personal observations convince you that the Bush/PNAC group are yada-yatada? What specifically in recent history says anything about anything?

Also, none of your too-broadly-stated evidence leads anyone to conclude your testable theory - that the Bush/PNAC crowd are murderers. Someone might be a liar and a lying, sociopathic greedy crook but still not be a murderer. It doesn't follow.

Finally, if you want to show the Bush/PNAC group to be murderers, you don't need 9/11 CT to do it. You can point to the verifiable lies behind the initiation of the Iraq War and its continuance. And that's going to make your case for you, in a way that will be much more persuasive to a lot more people.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Let's see an example of how an expert such as yourself would use this tool,

Bolo.

Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. As I replied below,

I'm open to finding something very similar that I could use. I didn't expect to actually deal with "completed papers" right now - the thread was more about discussing the ideas behind it.

But yeah, I'd fill out a form like this. I'd take some time with it, though, as I'd expect anyone to.

[wildbilln864]

12. also...

besides old Jeb, there is Armitage, Wolfowitz, Bolten, Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, and quite a few other members of the Bush administration who've signed papers published by the PNAC!

And IMO, the PNAC's papers and probably even their existance are not known about by the general public. It's no secret, but it isn't talked about much. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

31. But enough people know about PNAC that precludes the Bush/PNAC crowd from being a "cabal".

There's got to be a better word you could be using, one that is accurate and yet still gets your point across.

[LARED]

24. The problem here is you are

trying to create a process that forces a hypothesis into a structure that will determine if the evidence supports that hypothesis. It's an excellent idea, but it totally useless within faith based science, a hallmark of 9/11 CT'ers.

On the other hand I would love to see this method applied to issues of who knew what and when, and why the intelligence systems failed. Given the nature of intelligence it is likely impossible to prove or disprove complicity, but it would be quite educational.

[file83]

5. One does not "test" a theory. One might test a hypothesis.

If you are going to be serious about this, then you don't use terms of science. 9/11 isn't a law of nature. It was a criminal act. Crimes get investigated. You don't "test" investigations. You investigate a crime, discover evidence of various types and strengths, and depending on the investigator, people will reach different conclusions. A set of these conclusions are called a "case".

Since there is no court to present these "cases" to, the court of "public opinion" is the only one available at this time to evaluate all these various cases (or developing/evolving investigations).

That's why I wouldn't use this form - it's fundamentally flawed.

[wildbilln864]

7. an excellent assessment, file83...

!
:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

30. That's just semantics, file83.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a police detective developing a "theory" about his murder investigation, and testing it against the facts.

You owe the court of public opinion a little more respect -- even more, you owe your own positions more respect -- than to use ill-concieved arguments and cheap rhetoric. The scientific method is the greatest human invention ever to overcome our own natural tendencies toward confirmation bias. The principles of the scientific method are adaptable to any human endeavor, from hard science experiments to discussions focused on building facts and consensus at a political discussion board. That is what the form is about, and though the particular form I presented is tailored to the 9/11 CT crowd, anyone should be able to fill out the basic information and submit their view to criticism.

I'm busy working on a presentation myself, the one I announced below. I'm going to put a couple of days into it, because I feel that the point is important enough to merit some careful attention on my part.

In the meantime, I reject your semantic argument, and invite you to point out any other flaws you think you see in the form.

[file83]

44. You're right, semantics are NOT important. So I suggest we use this form:

Hello, my name is xxx. I am interested in 9/11 conspiracy recipes and I am skeptical of the "official version of ingredients".

I learned about the "official recipe" by _____________________ (insert details as appropriate, such as "reading the Joy Of Cooking/Rachel Ray's Easy Meals/Jamie Oliver's The Naked Chef; reading epicurious.com; watching "The Iron Chef"; etc etc").

The ingredients that I have seen do not seem to add up to the meal that says that 19 hijackers brought the world's most powerful country to its knees.

I am testing the recipe that ______________________.

The strongest ingredients towards this recipe, in my opinion, is:

A) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
B) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
C) ___________________________ (Source: ______________)
etc.
(fill in the blanks with your choice of spices!)

I wish to find out the tastiest meal, and if these ingredients can be proved to be yummy or repulsive, I will understand that I have been mistaken in thinking my recipe and/or sources were cooked correctly.

Sincerely,
xxx.

That should work. Afterall, it's just semantics, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Get serious. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

6. It seems reasonable except it would need to be very long and detailed

to go over all my points.

Why wouldn't OCTers want to do the same thing? I haven't seen you use this form to prop up elements of the official story.

I'll do a test on you though using your form. you can agree or refute. It's going to be abbreviated though, because I don't have the time to present all the evidence and source it all. There is a lot.



Hello, my name is JQC. I am interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and I am skeptical of the "official version of events".

I learned about the "official version" by watching the attack on TV, news reports, articles, 9/11CR NIST Report, Books, Terrortime line, various other sources.

The evidence that I have seen does not seem to add up to the story that says that 19 hijackers acting alone as a cadre brought the world's most powerful country to its knees.

I am testing the theory that the 9/11 Commission is compromised and their report is a sham.

The strongest evidence towards this theory, in my opinion, is:

A) Both Co_chairs of the 9/11 commission said the FAA, NORAD and the Pentagon all lied repeatedly (Source: Their book)
B) Max Cleland resigned form the 9/11C and said the Commission was compromised. (Source: Max Cleland.)
C)The Commission allowed subpoenaed evidence to go unrelinquished, allowed witnesses to testify without being under oath, were severely restricted as to what evidence they could obtain from many government sources, and omitted evidence and testimony that didn't conform with the conclusions of the report.

(sources, 9CR, Terrortimeline, NYTimes, WaPo, NIST.

I wish to find out the truth, and if this evidence can be proved to me to be false or irrelevant, I will understand that I have been mistaken in thinking my theory and/or sources were correct.

Sincerely, JQC

Now how's about you do the same as to why you support the "Lone Cadre" theory? (If you do)

By the way, Have you read the Peter Lance Timeline, his book Triple Cross or Hopsickers book Welcome to Terrorland yet? I think I asked you that before but got no response.

I'm going to have to use your form and source a theory totally from those two sources as well as Tarpley's Synthetic Terror just to get someone from the OCT to read them I suppose. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

10. You don't have to stop at C...

...I'd like more specific sourcing if I could get it (take your time; the stronger and more specific the examples, the stronger the case), and I'd like to spend more time on this one than I've got right now.

And the "similar form" for people on our side of the discussion is completely within your rights to ask for; it's something I wish I had, but I don't have the time (really!) to produce one (since the form I brought is tailored toward an alternate approach).

Anyway, more ABC, go for it. This is another premise with a lot of merit.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Your reasons for not submitting to the same process is weak, Bolo.

Make time, or just admit you don't feel you need to prove your opinions but that you feel other do. That would at least be honest.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. JQC, you don't know my life.

I am at work. I was on break when I posted that. I'm happy to make the time when I get off, which will be in an hour or two.

I have not refused to submit at all.

[dailykoff]

15. It's OCTs who should have to jump through extra hoops,

not us. After all, this is a Democratic message board, and the its OCTs who are defending a Republican administration, and an unbelievably corrupt and murderous one at that.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Not at all.

This is not a defense of a Republican administration at all, not at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. In fact, this is what I'll submit a form on.

I'll figure out the form, and the "theory" I'll be testing is this:

Defending the official version of events is not a defense of the Republican administration.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. I think all participants who "buy in" to the form should be held equally

responsible to the form.

Especially the proposer of the form.

Especially on this board.

Hoops are cool, unless they suck.

[LARED]

25. I'm a little sick of that nonsense

After all, this is a Democratic message board, and the its OCTs who are defending a Republican administration, and an unbelievably corrupt and murderous one at that.

No one is defending a Republican administration.

[hack89]

26. No - it is you that is providing cover for the Bush administration.

As far as I know, every one of us OCTrs agrees that Bush committed impeachable offenses prior to 911. We also pretty much agree that the 911 commission was bi-partisan white wash designed to avoid political embarrassment to Republican and Democrat alike - how else can you explain it? The 911 truth movement allows the Bush apologists to label all opponents as moonbats and ignore us.

The CT argument that opposition to MIHOP is supporting Bush is dishonest.

[dailykoff]

34. Only in the self-serving pretzel logic of OCTs. (n/t)

[dailykoff]

16. p.s. "JREF" is a site run by a magician, not a journal. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

19. A magician and a noted skeptic.

No claim was ever made that the site is a journal.

[G Hawes]

21. You should join the conspiracy theory forum there dailykoff

and put your theories up against them. They have a lot of real live professionals there in numerous fields who will provide actual evidence to support their assertions, and they will insist that you similarly back up your assertions with more than "because i said so" and "because i saw it on the internet somewhere" but that should be no problem for you, right?

[John Q. Citizen]

22. I'm not so easily impressed. Or so technically inclined. My interests lie more

in the human geography aspects. I'm not sure how many experts JREF has on journalism, political science, geography, psychology, demography, linguistics, Latin American Studies, and related fields, but I'm glad their are engineers and computer science folks out their who take pride in knowing more than everybody else.

I have a brother who is a mid level tech manager for a major corporation and he has a relatively high degree of tech knowledge in his field and I'm well acquainted with the JREF system of ego ordering.

It's not that it's a problem, it's just sometimes a hassle, know what I mean?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard perfectly intelligent rational humans who pride themselves on being logical come off looking like jackasses. The weird thing is, if you listen to the whole rap, you often learn something, but you have to suffer a lot of stupid ego tripping to get there.

My brother is a very smart guy who is often wrong about many things, but he's also right about many things. The key is to ask him questions about the areas that he's usually right about, and just ignore the areas that he's wrong about.

As a corporate human, my brother adapted to his environment, and while his views may not be the same as his bosses, they are in the same ballpark. This has a noticeable effect on his thought processes, and in many ways makes him extremely sharp about a lot of stuff. It also makes him very blind to a lot of stuff.

So I guess it's the same all over, in a sense.

You know, my Bro does have an awesome collection of live Dead shows. He trades all over the place via the web. For years.

It's funny, before the war started, I made my pitch why it was a very stupid and counter American-well-being move. His reply was kind of obscure, he didn't really come out against the war, but he did wonder why the bush administration wanted to benefit Iran to such an extent. He made that point. That somebody wanted to help Iraq.

So my brother isn't ignorant, and I still wonder about his question, because it was a very good question.

See, my brother is kind of caught between his intellect, his circumstance, and his experience. Just like everybody. He knows the fix is in all over, and he also knows he's part of the fix. So he does his best to live with it. Arguing about abstract quantification helps him cope, I think. He's also mellowed with age.

So yeah. JREF. Great.

[Kingshakabobo]

27. That's one of the more intellectually dishonest OR ignorant statements I've seen here.

Randi was trained as a magician but he has been using his raining to bust frauds for the last several decades. I saw him speak 20 years ago when I was in college.....He is, quite Amazing.

I find it VERY interesting that you use the same 'dismissal' technique as some of the channeling/physic/faith healing hucksters he pursues.

Go to his forum and read "The Challenge" logs. He has a million dollars waiting for anyone who can prove their paranormal abilities.

Also, here is a video of Randi busting a faith healer by the name of Peter Popoff. Funny thing, Popoff is back in business after being thoroughly humiliated on "The Tonight Show w/Johnny Carson"....Just goes to show you, there is always a market for stupidity. No wonder people such as the loose changers can still peddle a video after it has been debunked and is, admittedly, full of errors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

[dailykoff]

33. Is he a magician? Yes. Is JREF a journal? No.

OCTs just trade on the fact that it sounds like one. Now that's dishonest.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Look, you. Point out any post of mine that claims JREF is a journal.

Do it right now. Now would be good.

[dailykoff]

36. Try again, you. I said "trade on," not "claim." (n/t)

[dailykoff]

37. p.s. I'm out of this nutty thread which will be my first ever to ignore.

See ya.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Can't hack being asked for actual evidence?

Figures. Bye.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. That is utter crap.

Why don't you try for the million dollar prize with those impressive mind-reading skills.

[wildbilln864]

28. Again I'll ask Bolo...

which conspiracy theory do you believe? Do you believe the government/PNAC CT?
And why?
Thank you.
:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

29. I've told you: I believe the same things about 9/11 that Dennis Kucinich does. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Does Dennis believe in the ' lone cadre theory?'

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Why don't you ask him? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

42. I'm asking you because you said you and Dennis are of one mind. So what

is that mind you are one of?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. On a recently deleted thread, Bryan Sacks posted a link to a Vince Foster murder CT page.

And this was not to show how foolish it was - it was an out-and-out endorsement.

I'd love to see Mr. Sacks fill out the above form to defend that particular CT here at Democratic Underground.

[Bryan Sacks]

43. out and out endorsement is strong. Good presentation of evidence, better

I'll get round to it, boloboffin. Promise you :)

[Lithos]

46. Locking

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

Enough of the personal commentary.