I've read the website but haven't listened to any of the podcasts. I'll have to catch a few and check it out.<quoted text>Yea, Don't know if you ever listen to the podcast Skeptoid but it's short and entertaining, they have had them on the truth movement.
I thought this was interesting.
First of all, the phrase "official story" has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the "official story" is that the human body has 206 bones. The "official story" is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The "official story" is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the "official story", it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the "official story". In this sense, "official story" is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that's most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it's only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.
And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that's all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It's not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, "consistent with" is not "evidence of".
AND THEN it led to what we see here, any theory goes as long as the "offical story" is ruled out. All evidence supporting the offical story is planted or the strawman "Do you believe everything you are told?" is used.
They make excellent points though and looking at twoof and posts these guys makes with a logic filter is quite interesting and almost turns into a game of how many fallacies can you spot.
Of course twoof has exhausted a great deal of time and energy trying equivocate the term "official story" with "lie" so the intellectually lazy can simply say, "that's the official story" in regards to any evidence that doesn't support them as a form of semantic shift that lets their ideological brethren know to instantly dismiss said evidence.