Perhaps an Alternative View Would do?

Apparently the 9/11 conspiracy movement is still going strong.  It’s too bad, cause those that waste their time on this pet subject could really do a lot of great things if they devoted as much time and energy to anything else.  But the reason why conspiracy theories always have a decent movement attached to them is simple, conspiracy theories attempt to explain the seemingly unexplainable.  That and they also play with our emotions.

Dangerously long post ahead…

After a tragic and horrific event such as 9/11 happens people become very emotional and their minds start racing a mile a minute to explain what happened.  We want answers and we want to seek the truth.  So much so, that when a complex theory that attempts to explain everything comes along, it looks as tasty to our brain as a chocolate cake to a fat kid.

If you watch 9/11 conspiracy films, and I have seen most all of them, they all follow the same pattern:

  1.   First they start off with a statement of the event that happened and how they grieve for the loss as well.  And will usually follow this up with an American flag and how as citizens it’s our right to have answers and to seek them.
  2.   Then you get the line, “We compiled the evidence you decide”.  Well hell, this is wonderful right?  They are unbiased and leave the decision making up to us.  That’s how it should be.
  3.   Then comes the dramatic music and the soft spoken narration, which is usually a female voice that has an appealing quality to it.
  4.   Followed by loads of facts BS.

It’s all a bunch of BS to get you to buy into someone else’s pet theory.  To me it’s nothing more than good advertising and knowing how to play to your audience.  But in some cases it’s just downright criminal.  Take the article linked right before this sentence, Popular Mechanics does an excellent job explaining the myths of 9/11.

But the one piece of info that hit me the hardest was this:

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: “The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.” Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying “there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The article continues, “Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.”

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process “pancaking,” and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. “When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, “but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

The poor guy gets mis-quoted and now his reputation is on the line.  I have read other accounts of the same guy not giving out quotes anymore, even to defend himself, cause the conspirators take it and use it to their advantage.  Not caring for the fact they are ruining Romero’s career.  He is somewhat of an outcast now in his field for the whole fiasco, or at least he was as of 05.

Which is why I have disgust and udder disdain for conspiracy theories.  They have and do ruin careers of scientists and good people.  And it’s just a shame because it means there will be less and less individuals who will be willing to take on these crackpot theories in the future for fear of having a ruined career.

But you don’t have to take my word for it…  It’s a conspiracy, the government sank the Titanic

Or there is always this gem…  Despite the sarcasm, Maddox makes an excellent point.  If the US gov or some faction of the US gov had no problem killing 3000 people and getting away with it.  How is it possible they could let a college student uncover the truth?  When all they would have to do is shut him up.

Or this funny one, “Dont be Fooled, What Seems Simple is Usually a Complicated Conspiracy.”

But if you got time to kill here is a link to the PBS show Democracy Now where there was a debate between the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, the Editor of Debunking 9/11 Myths (A book put out by Popular Mechanics) and the creator and write of the Loose Change “Documentary” with the researcher for this “Documentary”.

If you choose not to watch I can spare you the details.  The Loose Change guys come off as pompous arrogant assholes that lose their “cool” when their ideas are challenged.  They were scoffing at nearly every counter-point the Popular Mechanics guys offered and even laughed at a couple points as well.  The Popular Mechanics guys obviously not only knew what they were talking about, but were very respectful and handled themselves and the content well.

What I really want to do with this post is hopefully open some eyes into the world of conspiracy theories, specifically 9/11.  It’s hard to let go of them, I understand this well, but in the end conspiracy theories are a waste of time.  Conspirators claim to be no experts, but rather just a sort of journalist presenting evidence.  But if this is the case, why do conspiracy theories leave out evidence, misquote experts, dismiss evidence presented by experts, and just flat out lie?  If their theories are as strong as they claim then there is no need for this right?

Feel free to comment on your beliefs, I would be interested to hear them…

54 comments

  1. I can only assume you are short of traffic, and are trying to drum up posts, even trolls.

    What will happen is a load of people will show up screaming that Pop. Mech is in the pay of the government. I’ve seen plenty of sites with experts in the field explain all the physics, and loads of trolls make fools of themselves. This is the problem if people actually think they kave rights, and politicians cave in. We end up not being able to distinguish between ‘everyone is born equal’ and ‘everybody has equal rights for their views on ‘x’ to be taken seriously.’  Its creationism all over again- you will get similar arguements- Think about what happens when a YEC is confronted by Carbon dating. Same will happen here.

    But while we’re waiting this needs answers!

  2. Hum, what? Trolls?

    Why can’t people understand that steel heated to 1500*f does not need to melt or have explosives to buckle and collapse under a few thousand tons of weight?

  3. Actually, LH, I’m quite proud of Webs. When he first showed up he was quite into the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The fact that he authored this entry gives one hope for others of a similar mind.

  4. The Bush White House screws up everything they touch.

    I imagine that if they HAD done 9/11, by now there would be a dozen insiders spilling their guts on international TV.

  5. I’ll second Les.  Good work, Webs.

    Hussar, that link is hilarious- and unfortunately a pretty accurate analogy.

    Why are people attracted to conspiracy theories?  I don’t know, but I suspect part of it is a disaffection with the powers that be and a desire to find patterns that lead to hidden truths.  People often subscribe to more than one such belief- for instance, many Lords’ Witnesses (the Bible Code guys who have predicted the nuclear destruction of New York around fourteen times now) also swallow the 9/11 conspiracy crap.  Of course, they say that the ultimate lever-puller, behind Bush & Co, is Satan.

  6. There are people who are working a learning curve on conspiracy theories, like Webs – he isn’t going to stay convinced for long of any theory that isn’t factual.  And there are nuts who drop in and paste in a long rant, and then disappear.  We’ll probably see some of those.  There is absolutely no point in arguing with them.

  7. unfortunately a pretty accurate analogy

    The funniest bit is the comments after
    “Hey dudes it a movie” or explaining the actions of the characters.
    Ha! They swallowed that part of the conspiracy hook line and sinker.  The Luke-Anakin-Obi Wan triangle seems a little tooooo polished for my liking

  8. There would not have been a 9/11 had it not been for the incompetence of the current administration/congress, those that came before, and all airlines. Immediately after the first ever hijacking occurred, all planes should have been upgraded with strong lockable doors or a separate hatch for the pilots. This kind of thing should have been prevented decades ago! Stupid monkeys.  cool smirk

  9. Hiya Spocko!  While lockable doors to the cockpit seem, in retrospect, an obvious idea, they wouldn’t have helped in the first hijacking, or in a number of subsequent ones, where the hijackers threatened to blow up the plane.  My wife’s cousin Martin, who is a pilot for Austrian Airlines, has been issued a gun, and told that in case of an attempted hijacking, he is to lock the door, ignore whatever goes on in the passenger compartment, and fly the plane to safety.

  10. I think the allure of conspiracy theories is that there are a number of examples where it appears there was a conspiracy in place, and while the attacks of September 11, 2001 are NOT an example of this, there remains a number of very questionable actions taken by the government throughout history to imply that it is entirely plausible to assume the government has hidden valuable information from the public. One notable example would be the Pentagon Papers, and the fact that the State Secrets privilege has been invoked

    abused

    by the current aministration more so than in any other period of American History lends credibility to the notion that our government may be hiding more than we know. While I do believe that the *official* explanation is the most credible and is, in fact, what really happened, I like many others, no longer trust my government. In light of many events, I believe that THIS is what allows most conspiracy theories to thrive.

  11. Spocko: Immediately after the first ever hijacking occurred, all planes should have been upgraded with strong lockable doors or a separate hatch for the pilots. This kind of thing should have been prevented decades ago! Stupid monkeys.

    Yeah.  Or even if people had fought back, but that has changed.  We’d always sort of imagined hijacking as the province of harmless kooks.  “Take this plane to Cuba” hey, nobody is that desperate for a good cigar!  But an individual dying, or even a whole planeload of people dying, is far from the worst that can happen.  Everyone understands that now.

    Which makes me think the next big attack won’t even involve planes.

  12. Uh, I hit “preview” just to make sure my urls were working, and it -posted- my entire spiel in this thread.

    Sorry guys.

  13. I’ve commented more than once elsewhere that the appeal for many of conspiracy theories is an ego boosting one.  After all if you can see “the truth” when most others don’t then you must be more intelligent and perceptive than “the sheeple,” and if you state your conspiracy beliefs publically you must be braver too, since you’re putting yourself at risk.  Of course there’s not much threat from a conspiracy that doesn’t actually exist.

  14. My personal opinion is that conspiracy theories spawn out of fear.  The world’s a scary place.  Shit seems to happen.  It’s much more comforting, in a way, to think that *someone*‘s in control of things, via a vast, powerful, knowledgable, secret conspiracy, than to think that it’s as random as it appears to be.

    (And, yes, I’m well aware that’s the same argument used against theism. grin )

    Once bought into a conspiracy theory, *most* folks can’t turn back both because ego becomes involved, because there’s a supportive network of fellow believers, and because it means facing up to that fear and conquering it.

    (And, yes, ditto.)

    I think the best argument against most conspiracy theories in general, and this one in particular, was hinted at above:  “three can keep a secret if two are dead,” and this Administration in particular has shown itself as incompetent at keeping secrets as it has in most other endeavors. 

    Unless, of course, that incompetence is just feigned in order to throw people off the scent.  Aha!  That’s it!

  15. Unless, of course, that incompetence is just feigned in order to throw people off the scent.  Aha!  That’s it!

    If the current administration is feigning incompentence, they’re doing a heckuva job.  tongue wink

  16. LH: that link was fantastic!

    Moloch: Trolls don’t bother me, I would be happy to discuss the issue with any one of them.

    Les and Zilch: Thanks for the kind words it means a lot to me.  It wasn’t easy for me to writethis post or to tackle this issue coming from where I used to stand.

    I think Zilch makes a good point.  And to me it would make sense that Satin was behind it, Bush aint smart enough. LOL

    Dof:

    There is absolutely no point in arguing with them.

    With the ones that are on a clear rant I agree.  There is no point.  But the ones that appear to want a real discussion, there might be some hope.

    ***Dave:

    Once bought into a conspiracy theory, *most* folks can’t turn back both because ego becomes involved, because there’s a supportive network of fellow believers, and because it means facing up to that fear and conquering it.

    I think this is another great point and really goes a long way to help explaining the conspiracy thinker.  For me it was hard to face up to the fact and just swallow my pride.  And with many people I think they see this as a hurdle to high to overcome.  Admitting you’re wrong is never an easy thing to do.  Which is why I try to realize that ideas I have are just that, an idea and not a belief.  I think many people would do good to drop their beliefs and just think.  Ideas can be changed but beliefs are what we fight and die for.

  17. Where do we stand on the Kennedy’s?

    I read ‘On the trail of the assassins’ by Jim Garrison (On whick Stone based JFK, with Costner as Garrison).  There are just enough niggles in there to make me go ‘I wonder…”
    There was a tree in leaf that blocked the LoS.
    Oswald used to sit in Marine Barracks espousing Marxism, yet was assigned to the highly sensitive US base- from where Powers made his fateful flight.
    There were multiple sitings of Oswald on the same day in different places that he couldn’t have been at all. His description changes at these.
    No one debreifed him when he returned from the USSR.

    It would have been interesting if it had gone to trial. Oswald had been questioned for 12 hours with out counsel.  If a lawyer had made a move to dismiss under this would the judge have stuck to the law? Would he dare to?

  18. Was just Googling for JFK. Unfortunately 9/11 tends to blanket the search because of ‘conspiracy’. Found this on WTC. Unusual for a ‘ct’ because 1) He doesn’t say ‘Cover up’ much- just says ‘look- this doesn’t seem right’. and 2) He is actually a structural engineer in the 70’s.

    The only point he make I can’t answer is when he says the towers took 10 seconds to fall, which is just enough time under free fall, and should be longer because the slowing effect of the floors underneath- there would be a dip in momentum as each floor is broken. That is true. What I don’t know is if it really took 10 seconds.

    Height- To roof 417m
    Object in freefall:
    Distance travelled after 9 seconds 397m
    Distance travelled after 10 seconds 490m

    What happened to the storeys above the crash site? Obviously the distance fell was from the crash point, not the roof. Did the roof keep travelling down under momentum, thus pancaking the floors in the ‘broken bit’ AFTER it had reached ground level?

  19. Whats the non-conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination anyway? Was Oswald just a nut?

  20. Doh!  I mistyped the title, but the link still goes to the right place. 

    The thread starts out in a discussion of Fred Phelps’ band of whackos, but drifts off into a much longer discussion of WTC and 9/11.

  21. I like the Single Plane Theory.

    An indestructible aircraft flew through both towers, skipped off the Pentagon, and then knocked another plane into the ground in Pennsylvania before returning to the secret airbase clandestinely administered by super intelligent aliens.

    Illegal aliens.

  22. Whats the non-conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination anyway? Was Oswald just a nut?

    Yes.  Freind of mine says of course Oswald did it, its just that if you are the most powerful nation on earth, its hard to absorb the fact that the CinC is vunerable to a nut with a WW2 rifle.

  23. Reading only one pro JFK conspiracy theory book is pointless, as there are multiple conspiracy theories, all of which disagree on multiple points with each other.  Jim Garrison for example is considered a flake by much of the pro JFK conspiracy camp.

  24. When the towers collapsed, the floors above impact were intact, at least until they disappeared behind the smoke. When the first (I believe) collapsed, it slightly twisted at the point of impact. I watched a lot of footage, some slow motion, because I was also grabbed by this conspiracy theory. I agree with comments made about the allure of conspiracy theories, but a lack of education (or knowledge) is very fertile ground for these things.

    9/11 occurred during my anti-television years, so I didn’t see the towers fall until two days later – after the shock. I also saw them fall one immediately after the other (footage). It looked odd to me, that they both fell straight down, and I had no understanding of how that would happen. Shortly thereafter, I heard demolition theories, and understand, my President was claiming it happened because some really evil people “hate freedom.” ( ?!! ) It felt a little twilight zone… ish.

    I wanted a better response to the conspiracy theory than “Well, surely not,” and so I went looking for information. It took a lot of time because I had to stop quite often to look up information offered as “fact.” It was tedious. Had I not been so driven by a need to understand, I might very well have walked away believing there was something very wrong about how those towers fell.

    Just a note, considering the link left by Webs: I recall some firefighters and at least one civilian survived the collapse of the North Tower, in stairwell B. About a year ago, I mentioned that to a Demolition Believer, a guy who was once the biggest skeptic I knew, “Wouldn’t they have heard the explosions?” (It seemed reasonable to me.)

    His response, “They could have been paid.”

  25. 9/11 could’ve been avoided if ground control had the ability to override manual commands via a hidded box, alternatively an automatic system could do so when a plane strays too far off path

  26. That would be terribly convenient…If I wanted to crash a plane all I’d have to do is find the signal needed and radio it in. No more suicide attacks, just bored high school students with the proper equipment and programs could manage it. Yay.

  27. My thoughts exactly MisterMook.  The problem with an event like 9/11 committed by terrorists is that there is usually not a quick fix solution.  If people want to bring down a tower, they will find something to get the job done.

    Most terrorist attacks don’t take intelligence or special knowledge, but creativity.

  28. I recall some firefighters and at least one civilian survived the collapse of the North Tower, in stairwell B. About a year ago, I mentioned that to a Demolition Believer, a guy who was once the biggest skeptic I knew, “Wouldn’t they have heard the explosions?” (It seemed reasonable to me.)

    His response, “They could have been paid.”

    Indeed, Justice.  This is the conspiracy theorist equivalent to the “goddidit” argument.  Whenever discrepancies threaten the inviable Word, why examine the evidence?  Just invoke the all-powerful Designer- or Conspirator.

  29. MM+Webs – could try encrypting the signal, besides radio control doesn’t achieve martydom

  30. You could try encrypting the signal, but I think even a modest look at the various DRM/media industries would be enough to give up the ghost on the concept that encrypting anything is surefire.

    Look at this way, no matter what the decryption/acting signal would more or less have to be “flying free” where anyone in the world could look at it and then you’d just have to watch to see what the plane did in response. Half of your encryption BS down the drain, wasted because even a directed laser can be intercepted and read with the right equipment.

    A lot of military equipment that operates on the same principles works best because it assumes that signal intelligence on a battlefield is spotty and that you get to blow up people when you see that they’re listening to you. You probably can’t manage that much control in a civilian environment, and even if you could you’re still running into the whole “civilian control of technology” issue.

    So you’ve got these ground controls over your aircraft, do they only work in your country or do the rest of the world get to use them too? If the rest of the world doesn’t get the tech, what happens when our planes fly overseas? Well, someone climbs onboard and steals the tech for security reasons. Wouldn’t want the Americans to crash a plane into a military base and blame it on the terrorists cracking the code, would we?. Say you give it to everyone. Then Bill calls up his brother Tom who calls up his cousin Ted, and everyone gets to take a look at the tech and soon everyone knows exactly how it works and it’s useless because you’ve got to turn it off for security reasons.

    If you must have this sort of technology, I’d make it a sealed computer over some sort that ran a program which merely told the plane where it was allowed to “go down.” Going down outside a flight path inside the city, as declared by a set map that exists on the hard drive? The plane can’t do it and locks controls out until you aim it for the suburbs or Farmer Ned’s fields.

    That way you’d still have some trainable options for the pilots in the course of a failure, there wouldn’t be any option for interfering with a signal, and hopefully it wouldn’t be anymore visible in daily use than the fly-by-wires that prevent pilots from stressing out the plane and snapping it in half on take-off. It wouldn’t prevent someone from causing fatalities, but at least it would hopefully limit them except in cases of plane failure. It might even serve to limit pilot error crashes…or it might cause them. I know a few acquaintances that fly passenger jets, but that’s really my experience limit for what piloting them actually entails.

  31. Maybe not perfection but if encryption makes it more difficult and an autopilot also intervened when straying too far then it’s an improvement – the auto could just be a self-righting thing, doing what it needed to to get back along the original vector, and if necessary, land. With a telescope you might see how the plane was responding but you would need someone close to your intended target to signal to the plane in time to direct it (assuming you had figured out the encryption at an earlier stage of flight). The pilot might also be able to signal if he notices unexpected signals and switch to an alternative encryption that was pre-set on the ground before flight, there could be many of these. In addition you could use satelites so that only signal that has authorisation to use a satelite, coming in from an angle that couldn’t happen from the ground, for ground control’s part in this.

    It may look sometimes that things can be gotten around but there is sometimes a way if the resources are available – which you are correct in that a civilian environment probably couldn’t maintain.

    Regarding which country gets control – each country could have their own encryption set, the plane could automatically switch to the one applicable, and it could be just in the interests of protecting homeland targets. It could be part of the deal that if you fly into that country, that country has the right to intervene should it need to under the eyes of international law – as soon as the plane left the airspace it would come under another country’s control. International airspace wouldn’t matter providing it’s targetless.

    Just like nuclear missile silo’s, their use is entirely in the hands of the government, secret services and military – I would expect this system to be much the same. Sure, you have little option but to trust them, but same goes for nukes and same goes for human pilots (who could be very hidden terrorists themselves)

    An auto system may well be a consideration, but one final option (that I can think of) is for the plane to send a distress signal saying essentially ‘please shoot me down if you see me getting too close to those buildings’ to the air force if it looked necessary, certainly it could be escorted so the military if it sends a distress signal so they can shoot it down if they really needed to

  32. give up the ghost on the concept that encrypting anything is surefire.

    You know something the online payment providers don’t.  If you could crack any encryption you wouldnt need to kill people.  You’d just have to let Wall Street know- bang goes the Globalised Economy.

  33. Never thought of that – imagine the shift in world power there could be if insanely large amounts of money were shifted from the US to, say, iran. Also citizens will have interests in manipulating the market

  34. Which is why you are supposed to report finding large Prime numbers to the CIA (they are used in encryption).  Watched a programme about Primes- one theory on plotting them is a little shaky. If it ever proves to be wrong then PayPal is out of business.

  35. Conspiracy theories – you mean like Al Queida?  That’s a wacky conspiracy theory if I ever heard one – that a major world religion plots to fly airplanes into buildings in countries clear across the world from their sphere of influence. 

    Or the Republican party – do you know there’s people who belive that a gigantic organization exists, funded by the United States, that conspires to rewriteAmerican laws, undermine the Constitution, and fill political offices with wacky “true believers”.  Bizarre, isn’t it?

  36. My irony meter is out of whack, Frank, so I don’t know if you’re serious.

    That’s a wacky conspiracy theory if I ever heard one – that a major world religion plots to fly airplanes into buildings in countries clear across the world from their sphere of influence.

    First of all: it wasn’t “a major world religion”, but rather members of Al-Qaeda, who did the plotting.  Secondly: the “sphere of influence” of terrorists is wherever they can buy plane tickets to- the whole world.  And this particular “wacky” conspiracy theory is well supported by the facts.

    Ditto for the Republicans:  as much as I’d like to think that there are no Republicans, I’m afraid there’s ample evidence for their existence, their funding, and their intentions.  Hard to believe, I know, but then there are people who think that the world is six thousand years old.

  37. Given sufficient time for technological advance, encryption of any sort could be broken in a relatively short period of time. A single attempt at reverse engineering could force an upgrade of the system.

    The reality is, we had safety measures in place. Lots of them. But all of them failed. Most of them failed due to inaction and a breakdown of the chain of command.

    It was unlikely to happen the first time. I’d like to think the US is safer now, but I’d be lying to myself.

  38. Webs’s article: Which is why I have disgust and udder disdain for conspiracy theories.  They have and do ruin careers of scientists and good people.  And it’s just a shame because it means there will be less and less individuals who will be willing to take on these crackpot theories in the future for fear of having a ruined career

    That is emotional bias, it doesn’t change the past and so doesn’t affect what happened, whatever that may be. I do agree though that it’s wrong to exploit someone at their cost, that’s just the people making the theories though, it’s not connected to those events.

    The debunking article linked to clearly had bias and that undermines my trust, but regardless of that I couldn’t be bothered to analyse details, and so I’m not going to draw any conclusions on the subject out of laziness, but I will point out bias

    They were scoffing at nearly every counter-point the Popular Mechanics guys offered and even laughed at a couple points as well

    Which undermines my trust of those particular theorists too, because it’s not an explanation

    But if this is the case, why do conspiracy theories leave out evidence, misquote experts, dismiss evidence presented by experts, and just flat out lie?  If their theories are as strong as they claim then there is no need for this right?

    Agreed, it should fit in 100% and make sense through engineering and science, but there can be disagreement even within the people of a field, and concencus doesn’t necesserily guarantee reality, because scientists can also be vulnerable to popular mind virii, as you already know. Ultimately concencus or common recognition of an unknown should also occur if everyone knew everything, but know that concencus can occur on a common assumption/misconception (generally speaking)

  39. I do agree though that it’s wrong to exploit someone at their cost, that’s just the people making the theories though, it’s not connected to those events.

    Actually it is connected, if I understand what you are saying.  One main reason why conspiracy theories are bullshit is because they quote mine.  And the theory is based around the mined quotes.  As is the case with the 9/11 conspiracy.  So the fact that scientists lives get ruined by these bullshit theories is a direct result of the conspiracy theory.  Not some innocent little side reaction.  Please don’t trivialize this impact, it’s a little more serious than you may think, but maybe you have to work in education to realize this.

    The debunking article linked to clearly had bias

    If you are referring to Maddox’s website, that was kinda the point.  He is just being an hilarious ass.  It’s what he does.  But the funny thing is, he’s right…

    but there can be disagreement even within the people of a field, and concencus doesn’t necesserily guarantee reality

    The problem with the 9/11 conspiracy is there is no disagreement of scientists.  People claiming to be scientists are trying to present evidence otherwise, but they are all shown to be full of crap.  If people actually read the literature on the issue rather than a 23 year old’s website, they could easily see the evidence for themselves. 

    But the reason why they don’t read the literature on the issue is because psychology plays a HUGE role in conspiracy theories.  It creates a situation where someone has a large emotional investment and this makes it hard for people to see or believe or understand the other side.

    because scientists can also be vulnerable to popular mind virii

    I know what your getting at here, but if the scientist has a bias then he simply is not a scientist.  The reason why some scientists appear to have a bias is because they have spent plenty of time analyzing a specific topic only to have crackpots say their life’s work is BS.  Or to have the media completely ignore their research (which is the case with Global Warming).

    Ultimately concencus or common recognition of an unknown should also occur if everyone knew everything, but know that concencus can occur on a common assumption/misconception (generally speaking)

    Agreed but in the case of 9/11 conspiracies, this is not the case.  And no one is asking everyone to know everything.  In fact all I ask is that people read the literature and look at the evidence without saying, “Bullshit, this came from the same government that committed these atrocious acts!”

  40. Webs: Actually it is connected, if I understand what you are saying

    I mean whatever the theorists say, doesn’t in itself change what actually happened, whether that happens to agree with the theory or not.

    I can hate the theorists and what they do to people, but that doesn’t change my approach to their proposal because the same proposal could’ve come from anyone and would just be as true/untrue regardless of who said it

    He is just being an hilarious ass. It’s what he does. But the funny thing is, he’s right…

    Maybe so, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I admit I don’t know him and ‘twas just first impressions

    The problem with the 9/11 conspiracy is there is no disagreement of scientists

    Maybe so, I havn’t looked into it, but it’s a general point because as you know you still get anti-evolution and anti-climate change scientists

    is because psychology plays a HUGE role in conspiracy theories. It creates a situation where someone has a large emotional investment and this makes it hard for people to see or believe or understand the other side

    I can see how they are vulnerable to exploitation, not knowing any better and having needs that lead to bias towards the theory that explains all and eases the pain, at least to start with (granted, they may not bother to look at the truth later when brain huunger wears off). I agree people need to be wary of the theorists so as to spot manipulation, but all ideas need fair consideration. Perhaps being a victim to a manipulation trap is one of those mistakes that people are determined to make before they’ll learn.

    but if the scientist has a bias then he simply is not a scientist.  The reason why some scientists appear to have a bias is because they have spent plenty of time analyzing a specific topic only to have crackpots say their life’s work is BS

    At least not in the mindframe of scientist at that time on that issue. I know people who slip the net and, on issues outside their field retain silly views through determination or who lack emotional knowledge.

    Throughout history there have often been common views that would seem absurd to question even within science, such as the world being flat, everything being classical physics, atoms not being splittable, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applied in a different way, that might be hard to identify whilst we’re still within it. Some thought is avoided today through the excuse of suppposed meaninglessness (time before BB or existence of imaginary multiverse, etc), or the supposed meaningless of questioning the fundamentals, the point where reason appears to break as the hierarchy/string reaches an end, it merely exists

    ps. I was generally speaking, as you know

  41. but all ideas need fair consideration

    9/11 Conspirators were given consideration and all points they have ever made have been debunked and proven to be scientifically wrong.  Popular Mechanics did a good job at that.

    Throughout history there have often been common views that would seem absurd to question even within science, such as the world being flat, everything being classical physics, atoms not being splittable, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applied in a different way, that might be hard to identify whilst we’re still within it. Some thought is avoided today through the excuse of suppposed meaninglessness (time before BB or existence of imaginary multiverse, etc), or the supposed meaningless of questioning the fundamentals, the point where reason appears to break as the hierarchy/string reaches an end, it merely exists

    You are right, however ulcers are a much better example than the “World is Flat” story.  Most historians agree that only a select few would of believed the world is flat as there was little to no evidence to believe it was flat.  Anyways, 9/11 conspirators and conspirators on other theories have been well debunked and shown their ideas are scientifically wrong.  So why do we need to give their ideas anymore consideration?  How does giving their theories a forum help the scientific process any?  How does it help the healing process for the victims?  How does it help bring closure to the issue?

    And yes I do understand you are speaking generally.  I just wanted to make it clear that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have no leg to stand on.  And we don’t need to give them anymore forums to present their ideas.

  42. Without looking into the details myself I cannot say, but interesting is the human need for closure you mentioned – it’s a common need, but why? People cannot seem to withstand permanent unknown, which I admit has driven me somewhat, to escape the hell of confusion and unpreparedness.

  43. If anyone wants to know what it feels like to drop a pre-existing belief, American History X does a good job showing the emotion involved. I just got another chance to see this film and the hole part where Edward Norton’s character explains his jail experience pretty much sums up the emotion involved to a “T”.

    If nothing else, it’s just a phenomenal flick…

  44. Read The Road to 9/11 by Peter Dale Scott. It will give you an entirely new view of 9/11 and it can’t be debunked.

Leave a Reply