Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo
by Jim Fetzer
I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP. I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do I intend to. People are free to make their own choices. – Rob Balsamo
Those words might seem to be a peculiar way for the co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth to introduce a thread about an article written by a core member of his own organization, but that is indeed the case. The article in question, “The official account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon is a fantasy”, by Dennis Cimino, was the third of a series on the four crash sites that are the foundation for what the government has told us about 9/11. Since the Pilots home page declares that,
Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts — since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today — and the United States Government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.
it might have seemed appropriate for Rob Balsamo to have actually read—even repeatedly, but certainly carefully and in detail—studies that advance extensive and detailed proof that all four of these crash sites were faked and fabricated, especially when the organization he heads “concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots”. But that was not his attitude or approach, which in the course of this thread led him to commit serious blunders that, in my opinion, raise serious doubts about his competence for his role. It grieves me to say this, but this conclusion appears to be inescapable.
In particular, as I shall demonstrate, while declaring that Pilots does not and will never accept “NPT” and “video fakery”, it becomes clear that he does not understand either concept, where the positions he asserts to be his and Pilots are logically inconsistent with this stance. The place to begin, no doubt, is with definitions of the concepts that matter to this inquiry, beginning with the nature of rationality, which requires distinguishing between “rationality of belief” and “rationality of action”. Those concepts in turn provide a framework for analyzing the arguments that Rob Balsamo has advanced in the course of this thread and the extent to which they properly qualify as rational or not.
so much of the problem with 911 and other truth groups: they do not take the time to go back to school to learn what "truth" is: it is avoidance of logical fallacies and principles of scientific reasoning. If they are not going to learn good methods to "truth" , then I say why do they bother? What is frustrating in conspiracy research is it is hard to tell which people are just not aware of this, and which are but are intentionally misleading.