What is "bad" you might ask?
Conspiracies
One of the many things that plague the internet are conspiracy theories -- bad science. In order to back up their ideas conspiracy-sellers use straw-man arguments, pseudo-science, outrageous claims that are not supported by any science, and convoluted ideas that result in a clusterf@ck of contradictions. If you challenge them in any way be prepared to be called a sheep, accused of working for the government, being called a RINO, or a number of other equally displeasing things but do not anticipate to be confronted with anything rational or logical. If you can find someone who is willing to engage you, prepare to be accosted with a barrage of truly illogical questions because the very act of asking a question is considered to be as good as offering sound explanations using physics and science.
I will mostly be covering the 9/11 conspiracy in this article. I will be mentioning a few other conspiracies as well. For the most part, they are all related in many ways. Bottom line, the people who believe in this stuff do not seem to trust anyone. There is a disturbing trend of paranoia and delusional thinking that is shared among followers.
One of the main issues that plague truthers is their inability to focus on any point. They move rapidly from the towers to the Pentagon, to WTC7 (their favorite), and then back again. They will even bring up conspiracies that have nothing to do with the topic, i.g. JFK, global warming, false flags, etc. Half the time, you cannot keep track of where they are, so you attempt to answer a question and if you somehow miss one or you haven't had time to answer as quickly as they would like, you are accused of avoiding a question. To make matters worse, if you cannot stay online for the entire time they are online (which surprisingly they can be on all hours of the day and night), it has nothing to do with you being employed with a family, it's because you are avoiding answering questions!
According to what I have read as of recent, the truther movement is dying but the few who remain, it seems as though nothing will stop them. The die-hard members that make up the core of this movement are truly outrageous. In addition, we have a new crop of truthers that are popping up. These are the people who were very young when 9/11 occurred and are just now investigating the issue. Since the internet is now saturated with conspiracies, all the information is new to them and they are being sucked into the drama and nonsense.
The following video uses comedic wit to expose the silliness behind the belief of a 9/11 conspiracy.
Many people from truther movement claim that they are only asking questions but, these questions amount to asking someone when they stopped beating their spouse. The problem with the questions themselves is that they mostly come from a distorted bias or made up fact. Some questions can only be described as nonsense; they are questions that simply do not mean anything.
Here is an example of some "questions" that I got from a truther recently:
Explain wtc7 47 stories collapsed in its own footprint at near free fall speed b/c of small fires for 8 hrs, explain molten steel pouring out the side of the towers as seen on footage, what normally occurring item would cause steel to pour like in a foundery. Where did the structure of the 40+ vertical steel girders go, how does sir issac newtons law enter into that? Thousands of architects and engineers have signed a petition for a new investigation b/c they have proven it impossible. The towers were built to withstand multiple impacts from fully loaded Boeing 707's which would've been heavier than the planes that did hit. Explain why all the video camera footage was confiscated and NOT shown the the commission. What about the guy that was in wtc 7 that heard explosions under him that was rescued, he was going to tell his story, he never got to.Before I begin to dissect this, I ask that you make note of how sporadic these questions are. He has questions about both WTC7 and the towers, and even brings up the videos from the Pentagon. As I mentioned above, this is a common behavior that is associated with truthers and any conspiracy theorists. They have a very hard time focusing in on one point. Instead, they just throw out a bunch of questions that are rooted in falsehoods.
While trying to answer these questions one at a time, I was repeatedly interrupted and accused on not answering all of the questions. How can someone expect another person to have all these questions answered for them in one response? Literally pages and pages of information have been available via the internet for years that have already answered all of these questions and more, yet this person wants me to have an essay typed up, addressing all these questions for him in a matter of minutes? This only further proves how unrealistic they truly are. Read on...
1) You'll notice that the very first question he has is nonsense. He has already made up his mind concerning how the towers fell and how fast. So he's not asking a question. He's demanding that I explain something that fits HIS desired outcome. Since his outcome is simply NOT the truth, any answer I give (which I did try to give), will not satisfy him. In order for me to answer, his conclusions must be right. That's just not possible.
Out of all the buildings, NONE fell on their own footprint. The fact that WTC7 was hit with so much debris from the tower should be enough to prove this. It's utterly absurd to think they did because anyone can obtain the videos of the towers falling and count for themselves. Free fall describes acceleration, not speed. One took 15 seconds and the other some 20 seconds. In addition, you can see the buildings fall slightly forward, depending on what angle you're viewing from. Anyway you slice it, watching the buildings come down and counting the seconds, there was no footprint or free fall. If you take the time to look at the videos of the towers falling, you can clearly see debris from the buildings falling faster. The debris is obviously falling without any resistance.
Specifically as it pertains to WTC7, the building caught on fire due to falling debris. There were indeed fires all around the building and some photos clearly depict the building practically defaced on one side. Again, there is nothing unusual here. Many buildings around the towers were also damaged. What is never mentioned is the amount of firefighters who witnessed the building badly damaged and that it did indeed have heavy fires.
I found this link quite interesting. It really covers just about anything concerning WTC7 and it also helps explain some other questions that were asked later on, as I shall explain. If you need even more, check out this site as well.
2) The second part of the question concerns "molten steel" and here again we see a conclusion embedded within the question. The conclusion is incorrect. There was no molten steel pouring out of the buildings because steel does not melt at the temperatures of the fires inside the building. For whatever reason the truthers have repeatedly insisted that the official story claims molten steel but nobody ever said that, nor claimed as such-- other than the truthers themselves.
A simple understanding of Physics will tell you that metals all have expansion coefficients. As a metal expands under exposure to heat, it loses its structure. While the temperatures were not melting steel, they were more than enough to cause the steel to lose its structure and when you couple that with the sheer weight of the floors above, it's actually amazing the buildings did not fall sooner.
In order to understand expansion coefficient, I use this simple example that many of us have done ourselves. I am almost positive this analogy comes from something I read years and years ago. I apologize that I do not have its source. If you have a pickle jar that you cannot open, an easy way to fix the problem is running the lid under hot water. The heat from the water does not melt the lid; it merely causes the lid to expand (lose its structure for a moment), allowing you enough time to loosen the lid with your hand. Now imagine even more heat and extreme pressure, that also creates heat, and one can easily bend that lid. While it's not steel, it's a metal and metals all have the same type of properties. Anyone who has taken a basic chemistry course understands this. It is the reason they are categorized as metals.
We know that for steel it is not possible to melt at the temperatures found in the initial fires at the WTC. Yet the truthers consistently ask the question with the assumption that us non-conspiracy subscribers are claiming this to be so OR, they are assuming that the molten metal has been proven to be steel; it has not. All signs of logic point to it not being steel. The molten metal that was said to have been observed is most likely aluminum mixed with glass from the window panes. The planes were made of such material and specifically we notice where the planes had made their impact is exactly where the "molten metal" was observed.
A question that I would ask a truther concerning the aluminum is this: If the molten metal is automatically ruled out as being aluminum, then where is the aluminum that the planes were made of? The aluminium did not just disappear. It would have indeed melted at those temperatures. The presence of molten metal does not prove that thermite or other explosive material was used. The presence of molten metal, specifically aluminum would indeed be expected as discovery.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.Now, what about after the buildings fell?
Dave Peraza, the engineer in charge of all Ground Zero cleanup: "I never saw pools or lakes of molten, or previously molten, steel. Neither in the subgrade levels, nor as material that was loaded onto trucks by the grapplers and cranes."There is a claim that pools of molten steel were observed for weeks after the attack. There could very well have been melted steel after the buildings came down. Fires smoldering under a pile of rubble could very well achieve very high temperatures. What is often missing from the conspiracy theorists is that when iron is exposed to heat, it begins a processes of oxidation, which can increase the heat. It would be expected that when you have a pile of steel coupled with heat you will observe oxidation reactions. In addition, we know that steel was cut by workers who were cleaning up the site after the attacks. For more pictures, please click here. The link will also show a demonstration how steel was cut and this link here offers an explanation of how pools of molten metal would have been observed by this sort of cutting. Given what we know, this is the most likely what was witnessed and as with all truther claims, it has been twisted to suit their needs for defending something sinister.
There is nothing odd about what happened. There was never anything found at the site to suggest thermite, nano-thermite, or super-thermite was used. Furthermore, if we are to accept that this molten metal is steel, it would be everywhere, pouring out of both buildings on all sides. The very idea that it did not ignite after the impact should be enough to prove it was not present.
While we are on the topic of thermite, when has this ever been used in a controlled demolition? Never. So, it seems very odd that a supposed orchestrated attack would even attempt to use something that has clearly never been tested before in this manner. Just think about that for a moment. If you were planning on doing something as attacking innocent people with the intention of covering up that deed, why would even consider using material that has not been proven to actually carry out said attack? In the case of what truthers are claiming, would it not be more logical to choose materials that were proven to work? If you were to buy a gun for protection, would you use some new model of gun or ammunition that had never been proven to protect anyone before? Of course not. It could end up being as effective as a water gun.
I did have a truther respond to this:
More fallacious logic, why would the govenment use a weapon that had never been used before? (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)Yes, and in that case, there was NO conspiracy, no attempt to cover anything up. We actually dropped warnings on the country, explicitly telling them we were going to nuke them. When it comes to the World Trade Center, according the conspiracy charlatans, the government was trying to cover the attack up so again I ask, why would they use something that has never been proven to even work correctly prior to the attack? Oh but, I'm the one using fallacious logic? Yeah, okay.
Steven E. Jones has claimed to have found active thermitic material. I have to wonder how it is that he was able to discover active thermite when thermite would have been activated at a much lower temperature. Is he suggesting that some of the thermite did not activate? If it did not, then how can one conclude it was still a controlled demolition? The thermitic material he found was not pure; it was found to have had contaminates of other elements which would not be possible. In addition, there is nothing odd about finding iron-rich microspheres. What he discovered was paint. The link I attach will explain the folly of his methodology.
Of course you would find iron-rich microspheres. In order to prove a demolition, you must first establish that materials were found that we would not expect to find.
There is yet another simple experiment that has been done that also proves the validity of finding iron-rich microspheres.
Another study that counters Jones' paper can be found here at this link.
3) The question of steel girders apparently is to show that some thermite straps were used to demolish the buildings.
Technological illiteracy is a frequent theme as well -- the invention of fanciful devices such as "thermite straps" to cut vertical girders for example (thermite is very hard to direct and usually burns straight down), "quiet" explosives, very-low-yield nuclear weapons, and even undetectable holographic projectors (favored by some of the no-planers) all figure into theories put forth by truthers.As I stated above you can see there were cuts made in the steel by workers cleaning up the site but truthers seem to gloss over this fact in order to support their wild claims.
4) Those thousands of architects and engineers?
Although 1,500+ people may sound like a lot you have to remember that this petition has been open for 11 years in both America and Canada who have population of over 311 and 34 million respectively. But at least they have 1,500+ qualified architects and engineers, or do they? It turns out that they are allowing students to sign their petition who by definition are not qualified. The deception does not stop there as they allow a good number of Chemical Engineers, Biomedical Engineering, Electrical Engineers, Electronics & Communication engineers and Computer Engineering to come onboard and sign. But at least they have engineering in the title. However, when you find out that they also allow Physicists, Chemists and Mathematicians to sign then you realise how small a number 1500 actually is. When you read that they allow people with bachelor of Fine Arts to sign then you realise how much of a joke this website and the people who use it in an argument are.This list is here. It's rather impressive however it's taken over a decade for them to gain a fraction of professionals to sign this petition. Many of these people are not even active in their field because they are senile and/or retired. The idea that this is some wide-spread belief among architects and engineers is laughable. I didn't notice any demolition experts on this list. None. You would think that they would announce that if any had signed, especially since one of their main arguments has been that the WTC towers and WTC7 was brought down with explosives.
5) The towers were designed the withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and should have survived the impacts. Of course this has been a line fed to conspiracy theorists as fact but once again, a little research coupled with logic proves the fallacy inside this statement.
Interestingly, the buildings DID survive the impact of the planes. What was not anticipated were the raging fires, coupled with the copious amount of jet fuel.
It's true that the towers were designed to survive the impact from a Boeing 707, but only if it was going at landing speeds (180 mph) and was low on fuel. The Boeing 767's that stuck the towers are not only larger then the Boeing 707, they stuck at a much higher speed, thus there was more energy transferred into the impact then what the buildings had been designed to withstand, nor did the engineers who had helped design the towers believe that the towers would be burning so intensely from so much jet fuel for the amount of time that they were.Here again, the theorist will try to make comparisons that simply make no logical sense. They try very hard to point to other events in order to bolster their claims but when one does just the tiniest amount of investigation, you will find that all of these comparisons make little to no sense.
Even IF the buildings were specifically designed to handle the exact events that occurred on 9/11, does that mean it was a guarantee they would survive? I do believe that the Titanic was bolstered to be unsinkable. The fact is, people can design all they want, it doesn't mean it will necessarily work. People make guarantees all the time; that doesn't mean that products do not fail. Truthers like to "hang onto" these quotes as if they are some sort of proof but in reality they prove nothing about the events that actually occurred.
6) This guy was hell bent on making an absurd point about videos that were confiscated but never viewed by the commission. What he doesn't seem to understand is that the 9/11 commission report was not created to debunk conspiracies; it was created to address the obvious, one being that the Pentagon suffered a direct hit from an American Airlines flight.
Those videos? Well it turns out that most of them did not pick up the actual impact at all. Many of the videos were not angled to show the impact. Some of the videos only covered footage after the attack occurred. The best video we have was taken from outside of the Pentagon. Unfortunately this camera is set up to take one frame per second. However, you can view the video and pause it to see the plane before it hit. It's not terribly clear but there is no denying a visible blue color that is not applied on missiles.
Once again, this shows that the information was indeed released; nobody was ignoring it except for the conspiracy theorists who want to pretend as if the government were hiding something from them.
The Doubletree video was released and it does not show anything. Unlike what the troofer fantasy would have you believe, it is clear that they were not in a position to capture the attack anyway.
Those videos? Well it turns out that most of them did not pick up the actual impact at all. Many of the videos were not angled to show the impact. Some of the videos only covered footage after the attack occurred. The best video we have was taken from outside of the Pentagon. Unfortunately this camera is set up to take one frame per second. However, you can view the video and pause it to see the plane before it hit. It's not terribly clear but there is no denying a visible blue color that is not applied on missiles.
The Doubletree video was released and it does not show anything. Unlike what the troofer fantasy would have you believe, it is clear that they were not in a position to capture the attack anyway.
7) His final point talks about some guy at WTC7 who heard explosions and never got to tell his story?
For whatever reason, the troofer movement is stuck on this idea that the buildings were brought down by demolition experts, which is why they refuse to view the reality. There were people in these buildings. How do we know this? We have extensive video of people jumping from those buildings; DNA has been identified; and human remains were found. Since people were working in this building, we know the power was on, as well as the gas. Explosions heard would be anticipated; there is nothing unusual about this fact. I would be more concerned if there were none. No explosions would mean the buildings were completely empty with utilities shut off.
There is another problem with their theory as well. Before any demolition, a huge "boom!" can be heard and THEN the building will come down. 9/11 did not have that. The explosions were sporadic and again, completely reasonable, if you can get out of the "government did it" mindset.
In the discussion of explosions, the truther presents themselves with yet another problem. If the building is rigged with silent explosives, why are they then turning around and insisting that people heard loud explosions? Which scenario would they like us to believe? That loud explosions did occur and this is proof of demolition or that the demolition was planned with silent explosive material?
In addition to the problems I mentioned before about thermite being used, there is another problem of explaining how it could be that literally tons of thermite somehow was able to be placed inside of the buildings without so much as raising an eyebrow? What kind of a demolition team would agree to plant thermite inside of buildings, never mention anything to anyone, and knowing that people would be inside of the buildings when ignited? Even IF they were to tell the team that no people would be harmed, wouldn't the team or teams be concerned as to WHY the government would ask for the buildings to be tore down? We're talking about the World Trade Center here, not some random buildings. In the case of the two main towers, it was also a tourist site where people went to visit and dine inside the restaurants.
Another amazing coincidence is that when you watch the buildings fall, you see they fail at the exact location of where the planes hit. So this further complicates the issue of having a controlled demolition. Are we now to believe that the explosives were meticulously set at the exact points of contact where the planes hit? If that is the case, why did the buildings not come down immediately? The heat and impact would have ignited the thermite.
Truthers demand that we believe that everyone is a complete sociopath/psychopath who posses no qualms of doing the unthinkable and keeping their mouths shut all because they "need their jobs" so badly. Come on. Would any of them do the same? I can only conclude that perhaps they would if that is something they could possibly relate to. Yes, people need their jobs but when we consider the large number of people who would have to remain complicit in such a plot, it is extremely unlikely that all of them would favor their jobs participating in a conspiracy that involved mass murder. Most people are simply not that shallow.
--------------------------------
More Bizarre Ideas and Claims From Truthers
"Why? If these conspiracy charlatans are looking for the truth, as they claim, why would they ever have to use any deception to prove a conspiracy?" Again, it's one thing to question, it's an entirely different tactic to use lies.
Omission of Facts
The truther movement likes to tell people that Silverstein ordered for the building to be pulled and that this comment proves that explosives were planted inside of the building. However, they omit the many details that surround this comment and take the entire quote out of context.
Of course, even when information is presented to the true believer, they will often dismiss the new information as being a part of the cover-up or they will deflect by saying this only covers one point and all the other supposed inconsistencies say otherwise. What they should be questioning is why would this point require omission in the first place?
In this video, Gage would like us to believe that Larry Silverstein told the fire department to "pull" the building. As I noted earlier, there is a major desire for truthers to hang onto this quote as some sort of proof that the building had explosives in it. Repeatedly, the movement has been told that demolition teams do not use this jargon. The fire department has explicitly stated that the term "pull" is used for when they are pulling their men form an area, in this case the WTC7 building.
Please make note of two things in this video. First the question stated that Silverstein said, "we decided" to pull it and as I quoted above, he said, "they decided." Next, Gage tries to tell the audience that nobody was in the building, that the fireman were already removed from the scene.
Now take a look at real footage from the WTC7 on 9/11. Not only are there fireman near, we can also plainly see a giant hole in the building created from the raging fires. Once again, truthers are lying. The building was badly damaged from the fires and the firemen were ordered to pull out of the area.
Silverstein's quote, the fire department, and the proof of damage from the building are all consistent with one another and the events that occurred that day. What is not consistent are the claims that are made by truthers like Gage who seem to have no problem with easily lying to his audience about where the fireman were that day.
Read about William Rodriguez here. He is the janitor who worked at the WTC and claims he heard explosions. His story is ever-evolving and changing.
Links to studies and examples of the behavior of structural steel in fires found here and here. The idea that no steel buildings have ever been destroyed by a fire is once again proven to be bunk garbage spread by truther charlatans.
Mistakes Happen! Perfection Would Actually Make Something Suspicious
Many people who demand answers seem to demand that everything should be perfect. People are not allowed to make errors in the conspiracy world. If there is the slightest misstep in words, actions, or recordings then these minor inconsistencies turn into "proof" that something nefarious is being covered up.
What many people do not understand is that mistakes or errors are so common that the absence of them would actually amount to having reasonable suspicion.
Many people like to hang onto early reports that were made in tv news broadcasts. I ran across a claim that the BBC said WTC7 fell before it actually did. Somehow this has turned into proof of prior knowledge. What so many people fail to understand is that early reports are just that -- early and they usually are not correct. The problem with news media is that all of them are desperate to be the first in reporting information. We saw this during the 2000 election, networks are just eager to get information out as soon as they can. It's their business. So many times they report too quickly because they are receiving their information from a third party.
Mistakes in reporting happen all the time. It does not mean that the reporters are being deceitful. All news stations and newspapers across this country have made mistakes in their coverage of events, especially when they are covering things live. I myself have made mistakes on this blog. I do my best to update stuff and correct any mistakes but, I did not make those mistakes on purpose or because I'm trying to misinform people. When I make corrections, I do so because I have learned new information, not because I'm trying to cover-up truth. Early reports are just a part of the business. Sometimes they are accurate, other times they are not. We must learn to recognize this.
The very idea that our government cooked up some elaborate plan to kill its own citizens and then took the time to tell someone over at the BBC is absurd. Why would the government do something so foolish? The implication here is just silly.
Here are few other conspiracies that I have run across...
The Hit Lists
We've all seen the "hit-lists" of our presidents. Clinton has one; Bush has one; and even Obama has one. These are lists that show people who have died while the respective presidents were in office. Usually these lists include a variety of people that can somehow be linked (no matter how weak that link may be), directly to the president. A best friend's cousin's boyfriend with a kid who knows a dude that is related to another lady who works at a store where the president visited in the month of October ends up dead and on that president's hit-list. "Oh! See! The president (fill in name here) is evil and had this person killed!"
People who have common sense understand that presidents do not get in office by being nobodies with no connections. Quite the contrary. The presidency IS a popularity contest and always has been. The more popular person wins and popularity comes as a result of being well known and well connected. Of course the president is going to know thousands of people, even millions of people have come across the likes of these men in some way. Guess what? Lots of people die as well. Many of these links will claim that the death of "such-and-such" was suspicious but most of these people died naturally and no, there was nothing suspicious of how they died or when. Don't believe everything you read. Look further, dig deeper. Common sense should tell you to do this but again, most people really do not have common sense and the ones that complain the most are the ones who typically have the least amount of it.
Vince Foster
I admit; I fell for this one -- Clinton had Vince Foster killed. It had to be true. Clinton is a scummy, shady guy and it only makes sense. Of course this story gave me even more "hate-food" for Clinton so it served a need for me and others who dislike the man and Hilary. However, a little investigating and reading led me to believe that this too was just another example of omitting information and using lies to suit the desires of conspiracy charlatans.
First of all, let's keep in mind that Kenneth Starr was the one who headed the investigation into Vince Foster's death. Starr is not a fan of Clinton but he is a well respected guy on both sides of the aisle. He is a no-nonsense man who has earned a great reputation for being fair and truthful. He found no link to Foster's death and the Clinton administration. What was found is that the police who handled this case did so in a poor manner. Much of the claims by conspiracy theorists amounted to misunderstandings.
You can read a bit about this case, here and here. This case was thoroughly investigated by many in the media and all over the country. The fact remains, nothing connects his death with homicide; he did commit suicide.
George Zimmerman
Any reader of this blog knows how much I defended this man. This case was a perfect example of how people took information that didn't "make sense" to them and then twisted meanings and ideas into a full-blown conspiracy.
There were people who insisted that George changed his story but just a cursory review of the interviews can tell you that he did what anyone does when they are telling a story of a previous event. When people are told repeatedly to tell a story of a stressful event, they will often end up adding a few details and they might miss a few details. Try it yourself. Try telling a story a few times and tell me how "exact" those stories are. They will not be exact but overall they will be the same. The major details will not change and such was the case with George Zimmerman. The police found George to be telling the truth and so did a voice stress test. Yet the people who were out for blood were only interested in hanging onto anything they could and using the word "bushes" vs. "darkness" became their justification for calling George a cold-blooded murderer.
Had George told perfect stories repeatedly, each time he was questioned or for his written statement, this would indicate a rehearsal of "facts" from a made up story, rather than someone who is simply relaying a story the best he can.
Zimmerman haters refused to accept that the police with all their training were indeed telling the truth and found no evidence that would warrant an arrest. No, they insisted it was a government cover-up. Mental gymnastics were performed to link George to the police; nothing was ever found.
The accusations never ended. Some actually came to the conclusion that Zimmerman had help from his friend; he called Frank first and then went after Trayvon. He somehow planned the entire episode because he was so eager to kill someone. He wanted to become a police officer at one time so this must mean that all the police were covering for him. The stories were utterly baseless and only further revealed that Zimmerman haters were nothing more than a group of paranoid people suffering from delusions, who were merely projecting their own racist beliefs.
Ultimately the trial was a joke. DeeDee, the star witness, was found to be a fraud and a liar. The entire case from the state was void of fact or meaning. It was a lot like watching a fish jump out of a tank and fall onto the floor while it gasps for air. The worst part? Most of the Tray supporters are STILL in the dark and either did not watch the trial or they just manufactured more delusions about the trial. They have convinced themselves the entire episode was orchestrated by the police and other government officials.
Problem With Conspiracy Theories
1) While conspiracies occur, they never remain hidden.
What is a conspiracy?
Conspiracies do exist and we have witnessed them. One of them was 9/11 where hijackers and bin Laden conspired to do our country harm by bringing down the World Trade Center along with the Pentagon. The other target was not reached since the passengers took control over where their final destination would occur.
So let's think about that for just a moment. The conspiracy was fully exposed and the actors conspired and carried out their plans yet their idealized plan did not come to fruition. They did indeed accomplish most of what they had intended but not all. This is the very nature of planning and executing any plan. So often, things simply do not run in a smooth perfect way (see Watergate), and as a result compromises are made, results can vary, which brings me to my next point...
2) Conspiracy theorists demand that we accept perfect execution coupled with an element of secrecy.
Analogy:
Ask anyone who has been in a stage play. I've been in many. We all rehearse, spend endless hours together forming connections, memorizing lines and blocked out movements, working with the rest of the production staff, i.g. lights, props, sound, and the plan is always to put on the best show possible. Yet, each show is unique. Sometimes mistakes happen --small and large -- but the actors and/or crew deal with it the best way they can. Then there are occasions when everything runs smoothly but still, each of those shows is unique. Ultimately there is no carbon-copy that can be made from show to show. Life is naturally random and although we see plans constantly being made, reality always has a way of reminding us that there are some things we simply have no control over.
Just because a show didn't go right one night compared to another, also does not mean that the cast freaks out and becomes paranoid that the show's failure is the result of a conspiracy. No, usually after the show the cast and crew will discuss what element(s) of the show went wrong and there is always an explanation - bad timing, equipment wouldn't work, human error, etc.
Since most stage plays are not performed for the purposes of causing wide-spread terror we cannot officially call this a "conspiracy" in any way, but what we can say is that even something as innocent as putting on a live production can be rather sporadic in producing the desired result.
3) Theorists seem to only think in false dichotomies, the either/or thought process that can get anyone into trouble. We've all done it before and it seems to be something that is natural for our brains. "If this isn't true, then this must be true."
A prime example of this thought process can be found among 9/11 "truthers." They claim that al-Qaeda didn't do it, so this means our government did. This is quite a logical leap for one to make but nonetheless this is what many claim. There are always different views of what occurred. A true skeptic will acknowledge this. Troofers also never consider that one side could be telling the truth. In any case, if someone is going to accuse the United States, then they can also accuse just about any other country -- say Saudi Arabia, at least that would make a little more sense since 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as being from Saudi Arabia. There was also one from Egypt; we could accuse Egypt as well. It all boils down to a person getting stuck in the "either/or" fallacy.
Another either/or thought that comes from truthers is, if I spend any amount of time debunking 9/11 truthers, I must be a government agent. Why can I not be someone interested in correcting people who are spreading lies? Why can I not just be someone who understands that the government did not kill innocent people, and I demand more proof that is scientifically sound before I go around calling people mass murderers?
I know I would not want to be accused of something so heinous with such little evidence coupled with absurd conjectures. "Do unto others" is a good motto to try and live by.
4) Theorists will interestingly support two completely different ideas, so long as the result shows a conspiracy. They have no scientific theory, instead they focus on "poking holes."This one is easy to reveal whenever you engage them in conversation.
Of course there are different types of conspiracies but generally they all have a running theme that involves evil forces - everyone in government and in some position of authority, including academics and science are assumed to be evil. These evil forces/people are working to control the entire world. What's their "endgame"? Well, this can range from leaders wanting mass genocide, desiring all of us to become their slaves, one-world government, new world order, lizard takeover, alien take-over, Illuminati mind control, and many others. Even more amazing is that the stories continue to change and almost everyone who "believes" has many different ideas and conclusions. One thing is for sure - it's always a conspiracy.
People who believe in a conspiracy will believe that the government orchestrated the entire day of 9/11 AND they will equally believe that the government merely allowed 9/11 to occur. These are two completely different conclusions because the events leading up to either would result in totally different actions taken by government officials. On one hand you would find that the government held meetings, hired demolition experts, made contacts with other local government officials, and governments throughout the world. The other story would require the government to first receive high priority intelligence, followed by a deliberate disregard of said intelligence, and cover-up of disregarding the intelligence.
In the case of JFK, they believe in several shooters. These might be CIA agents, FBI agents, the mafia, other government officials, and even the governments of Cuba or Russia. All of these conclusions are considered logical to the conspiracy theorist. However, how can they all be correct? They simply cannot offer you specific proof of the proposed scenarios. Even though each one of those ideas would result in a completely different chain of events, by completely different people, the theorist simply has no proof to offer, other than declaring the event a conspiracy because things just don't "sound right" to them.
This is not how scientific method works. Declaring a conspiracy and then picking and choosing whatever information suits your desired outcome, while ignoring or modifying other information that does the exact opposite is purely deceitful. In order to propose a logical theory, you must have a timeline of specific events and then present evidence that supports your conclusion.
Since theorists have shown they are not interested in providing an actual theory because they are lazy, they can only tell us they don't know exactly what happened, only that they "know" it was a conspiracy. Then they use anomalies as "evidence." They even try to point to other events and label them false flag operations, events that have nothing to do with false flags, nor the event they are discussing but, that doesn't stop them from trying.
Asking questions is fine but ultimately 9/11 truthers contradict themselves. We are to believe that Bush is both an idiot and a genius mastermind. Bush is a suck-up to liberals and he's a sociopath. Not all of these things can be true. He cannot be an idiot and a mastermind, nor can he care about liberals and be a sociopath but the truthers don't seem to understand this. They disregard all the other information in order to favor a more sinister version of events.
Not one of them can tell you when the explosives were planted and how it was done. There are no witnesses that have come forward to say they saw people going into the building with odd materials, or anything that supports this claim. They cannot offer anything that demonstrates with certainty that Bush either gave the orders or that he merely allowed the attack to occur. Surely someone knows, if they are correct. They cannot offer any proof of exactly who was involved and how the attack was carried out. They cannot provide any realistic explanation of how a missile was fired at the Pentagon. There is no evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon - no witnesses (yes they claim there are but a closer look reveals they used quote mining and manipulation), no remnants of a missile (ignoring the photographic and witness testimony that proves the plane's remains were there), and no logical explanations of where the passengers went. The many things they do claim happen are given with no proof. The audience is just merely to absorb everything they say without question; irony finds itself in full bloom.
Bottom line, a story line that makes sense and supports the facts that we know is not what conspiracies have to offer. You must have a story that "fits" together the pieces of the puzzle.They simply cannot offer this type of analysis because they are fixed on the emotions that are driving them to believe in a conspiracy.
5) What it's like talking to a truther?
It would be like asking someone on a beautiful day, "Why is the sky bright purple?"
Looking up, the person sees the sky is clearly blue and responds by saying, "The sky is not bright purple; it's light blue."
"No that's what 'they' want you to believe. It's bright purple and you still haven't answered the question! You're a sheep. You know nothing!"
"What are you talking about; it's blue and who is 'they'"?
"Shows you how much you know. You just believe the sky is blue because that is what you've been TOLD! You're such a sheep and you trust your government. 'They' is the government, that's who. It's the Illuminati. It's all these oil industry people. It's the pope; it's other world governments."
"That seems like a lot of people. How did all these people get together and decide to tell people the sky is light blue instead of bright purple?"
"Ugh. You're just stupid. I'm asking questions! I'm a patriot."
"I don't understand what being a patriot has to do with the color of the sky. Can you just explain why it is you think the sky is bright purple, as opposed to being light blue?"
"Obviously it's bright purple. How do you explain that?"
"Wait a minute. I don't think the sky is bright purple so how can I possibly explain that?"
As you can see, the question is nonsense since the sky is not bright purple but that doesn't seem to stop conspiracy theorists from insisting otherwise. Another point I wanted to demonstrate is how the theorist favors paranoia. Instead of accepting that nobody is trying to dupe or manipulate them, they are invested in the idea that there are people hell-bent on lying to them in order to control them.
6) Most of the conspiracy theories that have been around rely on utter lies to support their claims.
Since I've already pointed this out concerning 9/11, I'll demonstrate this using another conspiracy.
Take the JFK shooting. One of the main arguments concerns the "magic bullet theory" that demands JFK was sitting directly behind John Connally; he was not. JFK's seat was at least 3 inches higher and Connally was seated more towards the middle. The result is a straight line to where the shot was fired from. Once again, nothing magical about it. The only magic involves people who try to recreate events using false information. For more on JFK deceptions, click here.
This type of deception is found everywhere among conspiracies. Whenever they quote a witness, a simple check of the full statement will always produce some sort of deception. Either the quote is cut up and taken out of context or they will cherry-pick information that seems to support their conclusions while ignoring anything that clearly shows their ideas are just plain wrong.
Whenever I read about conspiracies, I constantly see misrepresentation of facts, and most of the time they flat out lie. So, the real questions are, "Why are they lying? What purpose does this serve? Why are they afraid the truth? Why do they refuse to show information that goes directly against what they are claiming?"
You would think that people who are claiming to seek the truth would not be so afraid of including ALL of the facts but this is simply not the case. They are much more concerned with proposing a conspiracy and what can only be described as cult-like brainwashing, preventing believers to seek facts from other sources. Once they can successfully open the door for people to question an event, the conspiracy theorist can then instruct their followers that all sources that discredit the conspiracy are those that come from liars who are trying to protect the conspiracy. The reality is quite the opposite.
One thing that is made abundantly clear when examining most conspiracy ideas is that they rely on false information in order to arrive at their false conclusions.
7) People who buy into conspiracies question everything BUT the people feeding them the conspiracy.
It's interesting to note how true believers almost refuse to question the information that is given to them by conspiracy theorists. In my recent discussion with some truthers, I found they repeatedly brought up criticisms of the 9/11 Commission report but their criticisms were completely unfounded since they had nothing to do with the report.
First of all the report did not cover the WTC7 building, including other buildings that were damaged and ruined, because they were casualties in the attack, not an actual target. The whole point of the commission was to investigate the attack, not debunk conspiracies so why would they entertain that? The same can be said of these supposed videos where it is claimed the commission did not see them. Why would it matter that they saw additional footage when they never questioned that it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon and not a missile? Why review videos that didn't even cover the actual attack? The points are all moot and amount to nothing.
The frequent criticisms of the 9/11 Commission report only further demonstrates that these believers have not even attempted to READ the report for themselves. If they haven't read the report, how can they objectively question what's in it? They are solely relying on information that has been fed to them and doing so without question. They have not attempted to gather any information that explains the physics of what happened as it pertains to either the buildings falling or the Pentagon being hit by an airplane. The explanations are sound and reasonable. Yet for some reason the truthers seem to be unaware of them; it can only be explained by the fact that they have not questioned the conspiracy theorists.
For people who are so hell bent on calling other people sheep, it seems rather odd that they have yet to investigate the charlatans who are peddling them conspiracies. If any of them were to simply look into any of the claims objectively, they would discover exactly how they are being lied to and ultimately how they have been manipulated into believing a bunch of bogus nonsense.
8) Emotional connection and ego -- Conspiracies appeal to the ego through emotions.
The brain naturally tries to find patterns whenever new information is confronted. It's a natural tendency that occurs and we are all susceptible. In fact, our minds do this constantly. We simply cannot pay attention to every detail around us, nor do we question the existence of everything we see around us. Our brains would be on overload constantly if we had to make sense of everything. A conspiracy can easily appeal to anyone who is suspicious of others and their government. It gives them a way to fill in the parts that don't make sense to them. It also gives them a victim status; they are just victims of an evil government. Instead of trying to fix the system, they can simply sit back and complain while telling everyone there is nothing anyone can do because "they" will never allow anyone to interfere with their plans, their ultimate take-over, etc.
In addition conspiracy believers tend to gain an enormous ego that comes from their perceived, new, superior knowledge. They often enjoy trying to talk down to people, insulting them, and insisting they have special or secret information that others do not have.
This is not a mistake. As I have shown above, the conspiracy theorist will use deceit in order to gain an audience and once they have done this, they appeal strongly to a person's ego through emotional triggers. An example of this is telling a person they are a sheep if they do not see what is in front of them. They will suggest that people are not being patriotic if they are not questioning their government. They will say almost anything to encourage the believer not to seek other resources because everything anyone else says is a lie or they are part of the cover-up; this is a method of isolating. These types of appeal ultimately amount to brainwashing individuals and worse yet, these are methods that sociopaths use against their victims.
I know all about sociopaths and I know first hand how they are masters of changing reality around an individual. Nobody, myself included, wants to believe they can be victims of such manipulation but unfortunately it can happen to almost anyone. First they lie and they lie repeatedly with great authority. They do whatever they can to appeal to your emotions so that you will become attached to what it is they are saying. Finally they isolate you; they go out of their way to tell you that you are alone, there is nothing you can do, nowhere to go. Trust no one -- except them of course. Their ultimate goal is to make you afraid.
The purpose of isolating someone ensures the victim stays connected to the lies and the appeal to the ego is vital because when someone has invested so much time into believing a certain way, it's very difficult for them to accept new information that contradicts what they have been told. The person will often dig their heels in, so to speak, and will refuse to listen to reason. This is why whenever you confront a truther with reasonable information they cannot refute, they will resort to ad hominem attacks. They simply cannot allow their minds to view new information with objectivity.
9) No calls of action.
You would think that if many people actually believed what the theorists believed, they would go out and tell the world. They would organize and find people to elect into office so that they could expose the government. Troofers should not be spending their time arguing online; they should be organizing but they do nothing of the sort because they have convinced themselves and other believers that it's just not possible; the country is already lost; there is no truth in politics; our vote does not count. In short, they enjoy being victims and encourage others to become one too.
Here it has been, over a decade and I have yet to see any of these folks go out and get their own degrees and publish any peer reviewed papers that support any of this conspiracy nonsense. Not a one of them has opened the door to educating themselves to prove their points. Oh but conveniently the conspiracy movement seems to think that all academics are also involved in a conspiracy. Interestingly enough, they try to appeal to authority by citing people in academia. Again, most of them end up talking in circles and unfortunately, those in academia who support conspiracies have been found to be retired, not educated in relative fields, or have been shunned by their peers.
10) Antisemitism. Here is the real truth. At the heart of the truther movement is a deep hatred of the Jewish people -- G-d's people. The evil forces that would work to destroy G-d's people are merely projecting their own, inner evil onto everyone else.
I have been labeled a Jew several times by truthers. The root of this movement reminds me of how Hitler was able to brainwash the youth in Germany. Insisting that Jews are the cause of all evil is the ultimate goal of this group.
As you can see, the hate seems to ooze from every pore on this young man's body. By the looks of his picture he appears to be very young, probably in his late teens or early 20's. There is nothing more frightening than to witness someone so young being influenced by lies and hatred of the troofer movement. To top it off, his profile also seems to suggest he's a pothead. Drugs and hate. I won't be surprised when I see this kid in the news for a vicious crime.
10) Appealing to Common Sense
People talk a lot of about common sense but nobody seems to know what it is. People like to throw this term around as if it legitimizes any of their claims but it simply does not. You have to have common sense first in order to use it.
11) If it doesn't seem right and a theorist cannot understand it, it could not have happened.
I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have seen sound explanations dismissed as being false because the explanation cannot be understood by the theorist. If it doesn't make sense to them, because of their obvious illiteracy in science, they will refuse to accept the information.
Just because someone does not understand something and how something occurred, does not mean it did not occur.
There are many people who do not understand how a computer works. Does that mean the computer does not work? For many it is obvious the computer works and they can tell you how, for others the very idea that they do not understand is enough for them to believe it doesn't work or that it's impossible.
12) There are too many "firsts" and this is not possible.
This is similar to the point I made above. It seems as though many conspiracy theorists have this idea in their heads that there are too many "first time in history" events that surround a main event equals a conspiracy. Obviously this type of reasoning is a fallacy of epic proportions and since their counter ideas would also result in a host of "first time in history" events, they disprove their own analysis.
Back to the 9/11 conspiracy ...supposedly it was the first time in history steel-structured buildings were damaged by fire (not true); it was the first time in history that a plane hit the Pentagon; it was the first time that steel was melted by fire (a dubious claim I already demonstrated as patently false), first time blah, blah, blah...you get the idea. However, none of this is proof of anything. In fact, most of their claims are bold face lies.
At the same time, the conspiracy theorist seems to buy into a number of delusions that would involve substantial "first time in history" events IF their claims were actually true.
It would be the first time in history...
Explosives were planted with no evidence to show they were there.
Explosives planted in buildings by demolition crews who were unseen and remain silent.
Thermite was used to bring down 3 buildings.
A missile was fired into a government building.
Faked emergency calls were created by the government.
Thermite surviving initial attack with fires.
Planting matching plane parts at the Pentagon immediately after a supposed missile hit the Pentagon.
Convincing hundreds of witnesses immediately after the attacks to say they saw an airplane hit the buildings and the Pentagon.
The government planting DNA of passengers and terrorists before the crashes occurred.
I mean, I could go on and on depending on the particular claim of course. Hell, some theories call for mini-nukes that were planted and even holograms invented to create the event.
The very idea of presenting anomalies that point to "first time in history" events while simultaneously supporting a plethora of them is the very definition of nonsense. Even IF there are first time in history events, this is simply not evidence that supports a conspiracy occurred.
---------------------------------------
While skepticism in our culture should be encouraged, we also need to understand that we need to be skeptical in all directions. When confronted with a conspiracy, one should question where the conspiracy is coming from and if what the person has to say makes any sense? What does the "other side" say in response to the claim? Could there be yet another explanation that has not been considered?
Is the person trying to scare you? Is the message one that subscribes to gloom and doom? Are they trying to isolate you by telling you that everyone is a liar or make you feel as though you have nowhere to turn or no ability to change anything? How emotional are they?
It is important to keep an open mind about all information but one should never favor the absurd over the rational.
What Can We Learn From Conspiracy Theorists?
Certainly there is a lesson here somewhere. I cannot help but at least try to find something positive from any person or new information I run across. So the question for me is what exactly can we learn from these people who buy into absurd conclusions?
On the surface, most of the answers that have been given by people in the media are superficial and illogical themselves.
Many on the left like to believe that only people on the right are truthers so they may play to their audience by claiming they have learned a confirmation that the right is stupid or anti-intellectual. However many on the far-left are just as likely to believe in the 9-11 conspiracy as well or even other conspiracies.
One thing we can learn is that politics does not seem to have any bearing on whether a person will invest their time into magical, conspiratorial thinking. It merely depends on the issue or more specifically the conspiracy. People on the left might be more likely to believe in the JFK shooting conspiracy or even the moon landing hoax. Those on the right may lean more towards believing that Vince Foster was murdered. When it comes to pseudo-sciences, this appears to be the same as well. Left leaning people are more likely to be associated with practicing astrology or new age religion whereas many conservatives enjoy good anti-science homeopathy. Paranoia, magical thought, and illogical conclusions can be associated with all types of people all over the political spectrum.
Another thing we can learn is how to better communicate our knowledge. If we can read what is being said, we can use that material to work from, just as I have done here, in order to address the very specific questions that are being asked. Instead of dismissing these people, we can grow as individuals if we take the time seek out why it is these people are wrong.
We can also learn to pause and look in our own mirrors. Are there silly ideas that we ourselves might believe in?
When we have an understanding of how these conspiracy snake-oil salesman operate, we can always keep in mind that the majority of the people we run across are not necessarily stupid, they have just been preyed upon by these charlatans. For many of these people, it seems as though nothing will penetrate their ego; they've been brainwashed to accept the irrational. If only a seed can be planted or at least one major lie can be exposed, this might just be enough to get the victim to question the conspiracy itself.
As I have stated previously, it is very difficult for these folks to focus in on one point. Their questions come from all over the place, hopping from one topic to the next. They react this way because this is how they've been trained. If they can lead a conversation and move it all over the place, they avoid ever having to deal with facts presented to them. You must get them to concede to at least one point as being utterly false.
The main reason we should work to dispelling these myths is out of respect for the victims. We have lost fellow Americans from tragedy and their deaths should not be used as a tool to perpetuate lies and create division among us.
Links -- Many of the links, I used above. The rest are great to view for more information.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265416
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c44_1386384864
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000887
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
http://fredhenstridge.blogspot.com/2011/09/debunking-truthers.html
http://implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
http://depts.washington.edu/chem/facilserv/lecturedemo/Thermite-UWDept.ofChemistry.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314
http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxljFOCZ6TU
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home#Debunking
Operation Northwoods
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
For whatever reason, the troofer movement is stuck on this idea that the buildings were brought down by demolition experts, which is why they refuse to view the reality. There were people in these buildings. How do we know this? We have extensive video of people jumping from those buildings; DNA has been identified; and human remains were found. Since people were working in this building, we know the power was on, as well as the gas. Explosions heard would be anticipated; there is nothing unusual about this fact. I would be more concerned if there were none. No explosions would mean the buildings were completely empty with utilities shut off.
There is another problem with their theory as well. Before any demolition, a huge "boom!" can be heard and THEN the building will come down. 9/11 did not have that. The explosions were sporadic and again, completely reasonable, if you can get out of the "government did it" mindset.
In the discussion of explosions, the truther presents themselves with yet another problem. If the building is rigged with silent explosives, why are they then turning around and insisting that people heard loud explosions? Which scenario would they like us to believe? That loud explosions did occur and this is proof of demolition or that the demolition was planned with silent explosive material?
In addition to the problems I mentioned before about thermite being used, there is another problem of explaining how it could be that literally tons of thermite somehow was able to be placed inside of the buildings without so much as raising an eyebrow? What kind of a demolition team would agree to plant thermite inside of buildings, never mention anything to anyone, and knowing that people would be inside of the buildings when ignited? Even IF they were to tell the team that no people would be harmed, wouldn't the team or teams be concerned as to WHY the government would ask for the buildings to be tore down? We're talking about the World Trade Center here, not some random buildings. In the case of the two main towers, it was also a tourist site where people went to visit and dine inside the restaurants.
Another amazing coincidence is that when you watch the buildings fall, you see they fail at the exact location of where the planes hit. So this further complicates the issue of having a controlled demolition. Are we now to believe that the explosives were meticulously set at the exact points of contact where the planes hit? If that is the case, why did the buildings not come down immediately? The heat and impact would have ignited the thermite.
Truthers demand that we believe that everyone is a complete sociopath/psychopath who posses no qualms of doing the unthinkable and keeping their mouths shut all because they "need their jobs" so badly. Come on. Would any of them do the same? I can only conclude that perhaps they would if that is something they could possibly relate to. Yes, people need their jobs but when we consider the large number of people who would have to remain complicit in such a plot, it is extremely unlikely that all of them would favor their jobs participating in a conspiracy that involved mass murder. Most people are simply not that shallow.
--------------------------------
More Bizarre Ideas and Claims From Truthers
"Why? If these conspiracy charlatans are looking for the truth, as they claim, why would they ever have to use any deception to prove a conspiracy?" Again, it's one thing to question, it's an entirely different tactic to use lies.
Omission of Facts
The truther movement likes to tell people that Silverstein ordered for the building to be pulled and that this comment proves that explosives were planted inside of the building. However, they omit the many details that surround this comment and take the entire quote out of context.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard BanaciskiFor more, please click here.
Of course, even when information is presented to the true believer, they will often dismiss the new information as being a part of the cover-up or they will deflect by saying this only covers one point and all the other supposed inconsistencies say otherwise. What they should be questioning is why would this point require omission in the first place?
In this video, Gage would like us to believe that Larry Silverstein told the fire department to "pull" the building. As I noted earlier, there is a major desire for truthers to hang onto this quote as some sort of proof that the building had explosives in it. Repeatedly, the movement has been told that demolition teams do not use this jargon. The fire department has explicitly stated that the term "pull" is used for when they are pulling their men form an area, in this case the WTC7 building.
Please make note of two things in this video. First the question stated that Silverstein said, "we decided" to pull it and as I quoted above, he said, "they decided." Next, Gage tries to tell the audience that nobody was in the building, that the fireman were already removed from the scene.
Now take a look at real footage from the WTC7 on 9/11. Not only are there fireman near, we can also plainly see a giant hole in the building created from the raging fires. Once again, truthers are lying. The building was badly damaged from the fires and the firemen were ordered to pull out of the area.
Read about William Rodriguez here. He is the janitor who worked at the WTC and claims he heard explosions. His story is ever-evolving and changing.
Links to studies and examples of the behavior of structural steel in fires found here and here. The idea that no steel buildings have ever been destroyed by a fire is once again proven to be bunk garbage spread by truther charlatans.
Many people who demand answers seem to demand that everything should be perfect. People are not allowed to make errors in the conspiracy world. If there is the slightest misstep in words, actions, or recordings then these minor inconsistencies turn into "proof" that something nefarious is being covered up.
What many people do not understand is that mistakes or errors are so common that the absence of them would actually amount to having reasonable suspicion.
Many people like to hang onto early reports that were made in tv news broadcasts. I ran across a claim that the BBC said WTC7 fell before it actually did. Somehow this has turned into proof of prior knowledge. What so many people fail to understand is that early reports are just that -- early and they usually are not correct. The problem with news media is that all of them are desperate to be the first in reporting information. We saw this during the 2000 election, networks are just eager to get information out as soon as they can. It's their business. So many times they report too quickly because they are receiving their information from a third party.
Mistakes in reporting happen all the time. It does not mean that the reporters are being deceitful. All news stations and newspapers across this country have made mistakes in their coverage of events, especially when they are covering things live. I myself have made mistakes on this blog. I do my best to update stuff and correct any mistakes but, I did not make those mistakes on purpose or because I'm trying to misinform people. When I make corrections, I do so because I have learned new information, not because I'm trying to cover-up truth. Early reports are just a part of the business. Sometimes they are accurate, other times they are not. We must learn to recognize this.
The very idea that our government cooked up some elaborate plan to kill its own citizens and then took the time to tell someone over at the BBC is absurd. Why would the government do something so foolish? The implication here is just silly.
Here are few other conspiracies that I have run across...
The Hit Lists
We've all seen the "hit-lists" of our presidents. Clinton has one; Bush has one; and even Obama has one. These are lists that show people who have died while the respective presidents were in office. Usually these lists include a variety of people that can somehow be linked (no matter how weak that link may be), directly to the president. A best friend's cousin's boyfriend with a kid who knows a dude that is related to another lady who works at a store where the president visited in the month of October ends up dead and on that president's hit-list. "Oh! See! The president (fill in name here) is evil and had this person killed!"
People who have common sense understand that presidents do not get in office by being nobodies with no connections. Quite the contrary. The presidency IS a popularity contest and always has been. The more popular person wins and popularity comes as a result of being well known and well connected. Of course the president is going to know thousands of people, even millions of people have come across the likes of these men in some way. Guess what? Lots of people die as well. Many of these links will claim that the death of "such-and-such" was suspicious but most of these people died naturally and no, there was nothing suspicious of how they died or when. Don't believe everything you read. Look further, dig deeper. Common sense should tell you to do this but again, most people really do not have common sense and the ones that complain the most are the ones who typically have the least amount of it.
Vince Foster
I admit; I fell for this one -- Clinton had Vince Foster killed. It had to be true. Clinton is a scummy, shady guy and it only makes sense. Of course this story gave me even more "hate-food" for Clinton so it served a need for me and others who dislike the man and Hilary. However, a little investigating and reading led me to believe that this too was just another example of omitting information and using lies to suit the desires of conspiracy charlatans.
First of all, let's keep in mind that Kenneth Starr was the one who headed the investigation into Vince Foster's death. Starr is not a fan of Clinton but he is a well respected guy on both sides of the aisle. He is a no-nonsense man who has earned a great reputation for being fair and truthful. He found no link to Foster's death and the Clinton administration. What was found is that the police who handled this case did so in a poor manner. Much of the claims by conspiracy theorists amounted to misunderstandings.
You can read a bit about this case, here and here. This case was thoroughly investigated by many in the media and all over the country. The fact remains, nothing connects his death with homicide; he did commit suicide.
George Zimmerman
Any reader of this blog knows how much I defended this man. This case was a perfect example of how people took information that didn't "make sense" to them and then twisted meanings and ideas into a full-blown conspiracy.
There were people who insisted that George changed his story but just a cursory review of the interviews can tell you that he did what anyone does when they are telling a story of a previous event. When people are told repeatedly to tell a story of a stressful event, they will often end up adding a few details and they might miss a few details. Try it yourself. Try telling a story a few times and tell me how "exact" those stories are. They will not be exact but overall they will be the same. The major details will not change and such was the case with George Zimmerman. The police found George to be telling the truth and so did a voice stress test. Yet the people who were out for blood were only interested in hanging onto anything they could and using the word "bushes" vs. "darkness" became their justification for calling George a cold-blooded murderer.
Had George told perfect stories repeatedly, each time he was questioned or for his written statement, this would indicate a rehearsal of "facts" from a made up story, rather than someone who is simply relaying a story the best he can.
Zimmerman haters refused to accept that the police with all their training were indeed telling the truth and found no evidence that would warrant an arrest. No, they insisted it was a government cover-up. Mental gymnastics were performed to link George to the police; nothing was ever found.
The accusations never ended. Some actually came to the conclusion that Zimmerman had help from his friend; he called Frank first and then went after Trayvon. He somehow planned the entire episode because he was so eager to kill someone. He wanted to become a police officer at one time so this must mean that all the police were covering for him. The stories were utterly baseless and only further revealed that Zimmerman haters were nothing more than a group of paranoid people suffering from delusions, who were merely projecting their own racist beliefs.
Ultimately the trial was a joke. DeeDee, the star witness, was found to be a fraud and a liar. The entire case from the state was void of fact or meaning. It was a lot like watching a fish jump out of a tank and fall onto the floor while it gasps for air. The worst part? Most of the Tray supporters are STILL in the dark and either did not watch the trial or they just manufactured more delusions about the trial. They have convinced themselves the entire episode was orchestrated by the police and other government officials.
JFK Shooting
No matter how much time has passed, no matter how many facts have been exposed, it seems as though this conspiracy will never end. It crops up practically every year and the believers are still very much stuck on stupid.
I will address some issues later on in the Problem With Conspiracy Theories section below but here is a link that covers all of the topics associated with this case and you can see for yourself how information has been purposely ignored or "adjusted" to suit conspiracy fantasies.
I will address some issues later on in the Problem With Conspiracy Theories section below but here is a link that covers all of the topics associated with this case and you can see for yourself how information has been purposely ignored or "adjusted" to suit conspiracy fantasies.
Marijuana Fantasies
I ran across a woman recently on Facebook who was batsh!t crazy supporting her pothead son. The conversation on her end was filled with logical fallacies, emotional appeal, anecdotal evidence, and full-on stupidity.
Here are some examples of her emotional rage: ***I just copied these straight off Facebook; errors are riddled throughout the entirety of her posts. I did have to censor her poor language.
You'll notice that all the people who advocate for marijuana have a deep-seated need to attack other drugs and alcohol.
You do not overdose on pot...pot does not kill...Heroin, Meth, Crack, etc...kill. I totally agree with [name redacted] that it should be legalized for medicinal use as it is a panacea for many medical conditions from shrinking cancer cells to Crohn's Disease...I know...I have seen with my own two eyes what "it" can do for Crohn's Disease and it's crippling symptoms...my son has it very "Severe & Significant" as the medical guru's have told us...yet, here in PA it is not legal...but, for his pain they offer very strong pharmaceutical legal patches or pills for it? This can create a medically induced (happens all the time) addiction to pain killers. My son thank God takes a 5 mg Percocet ONLY when he needs it...and suffers as he has told his PCP, GI Doc, Pain Doctor "I do not want a secondary problem with legal pain killers and have Crohn's Disease." He is only 24...SMART KID!!! However, he should not have to suffer when 3 hits from a joint takes away all pain and nausea AND gives him an appetite. Makes total sense to me. AND...I am extremely proud of him for his stance with this. Yet he has to suffer as it is not legal but helps so much with a tiny bit? I believe it is person to person...I know my son does not have that "additive personality." He know how to effectively manage his pain...and sadly some of that is through just suffering which is not right. It is very difficult to watch. Just my humble opinion...My gosh you people and your answers sound like this is a needle in your arm...NO...pot does not kill but Heroin can! Think like adults and not so damn closed minded...if you ever watched PAIN...real PAIN just go away for hours and even a day at time with just a small amount and had a loved one suffering...you might think different...OR if this was you. THINK OUT OF THE DAMN BOX ON THIS AND GROW A LITTLE IN YOUR RIDICULOUS COMMENTS BORN OUT OF NOT KNOWING A DAMN THING. Stupid is as stupid does....Forrest Gump. geshhhhh...Opiates also have medical benefits and are prescribed. However, we are not told to SMOKE them. Smoking provides no benefits.
You'll notice that all the people who advocate for marijuana have a deep-seated need to attack other drugs and alcohol.
I refer you my above content/comment. You are sadly mistaken in using pot for medicinal purposes. You have no damn clue what the hell you are talking about. There will ALWAYS be abusers look at the rate and deaths of Alcoholics in this country...and driving while intoxicated and some kill innocent people while driving. MUCH HIGHER than I am sure you expect. Alcohol is a substance that is abused more and more everyday as you can safely buy it. If you don't think people drink during the daylight hours and drive too...you are nuts. Alcohol is a substance that is abused too...but, prohibition legalized that and it has absolutely no medicinal purposes. NONE!!!Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933. Prohibition did not "legalize" alcohol. Actually moderate consumption of alcohol does appear to have health benefits. I'm not sure where she gets the idea that it provides "none."
Do you also understand that the huge conglomerate pharmaceutical companies do not want this as their research HAS SHOWN all different types of positive effects of marijuana - money my dear girl...it all comes down to money. Have you ever known anyone that is addicted to pain medication? I have. Medically induced addictions with M.D.'s in Pain Control Clinics. Money...it is all about the money. Don't be stupid and enlighten yourself...all you have to do is Google it!!!!!!! DO IT!!!
Educate you self before you pass judgement. Did you read about my son? Honestly it is the truth.Oh the irony is strong with this clown. Geez. Such anger. Such judgment and emotion! Put down the bong.
I PERSONALLY AM NOT A POTHEAD!!! Save your name calling for someone else. I speak of my son...as I have seen what it does for his very severe Crohn's Disease. It is amazing. Yet pain doctors offer him narcotics and Fentayl patches which are highly additive...he wants no part of that. He does suffer with the medication he is on now...but will not have a "secondary problem in being a victim of a secondary problem...that being a medically induced drug addiction." It happens all the time...by the way I am an R.N. [emphasis mine]
Of course when I confronted her with the hard data that nothing has been scientifically proven to demonstrate the benefits of smoking weed, she came back with excuses:
my son was prescribed Marinol...and believe me he will never take it again...as it made him SO HIGH...he hated it. The FDA...IS A JOKE -- they are passing drugs out there for everything anymore at an alarming rate.
Marinol is FAR FROM SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!
you Googled your side of your belief...now try the medicinal uses for Pot.
Interestingly, I did Google for "her" side and found benefits for THC, as I had previously told her. My problem was with her claiming that smoking marijuana had medical benefits; it does not.
Here comes the conspiracies:
I replied to her that the folks who desire to smoke marijuana are only doing so because it works faster and it's a different high. I understood she was a mother who felt sympathy for her child but there is nothing shocking about a son not confessing to his mother he likes the high from smoking marijuana rather than taking Marinol.
THE FDA IS IN BED WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES!!!!!!!! BELIEVE ME!!!!!!!Yeah? Where's the evidence? I see accusations. I don't see evidence.
there is a HUGE difference between a POTHEAD and my son.........HUGE DIFFERENCE. Don't you believe that they have had a cure for cancer...many cancers for DECADES??? I am sure they have...sure of it. So much money poored into R & D at these companies...but the magic cures will never be let out...BIG BUCKS and JOBS FOR EVERYONE WOULD BE NULL AND VOID.......Happy New Year. Bye. [emphasis mine]Interesting. Didn't this woman just say she was an R.N.? Is she telling us that she only went into the medical field for money and not to help people? I'm not sure.
I replied to her that the folks who desire to smoke marijuana are only doing so because it works faster and it's a different high. I understood she was a mother who felt sympathy for her child but there is nothing shocking about a son not confessing to his mother he likes the high from smoking marijuana rather than taking Marinol.
my son and I have a veryyyyyyy open relationship. He is extremely ill.........I have watched what it can do. Yes, in my 40's I hid nothing from my dying mother. She new me as a woman to woman on many levels before she passed...I was so blessed to develop that real relationship with her.
YEP..........OVER BIG BUCKS AND JOBS.......it is ALL just a game for them.........I do not trust the FDA nor do I trust pharmaceutical companies one bit. However, they do claim they are researching pot...they CLAIM THEY ARE...pppfffttt...Once the conspiracy thoughts come tumbling out, we see again the lack of trust from anyone, complete with paranoia and delusions.
MONEY........GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS ARE TWO IN A TWIN BED..........MAKES THE WORLD GO AROUND.......YOU GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR A&&HOLE TOO!!!!!!!!!! I WAS NICE UP TO NOW WHEN YOU INSULTED ME. F**K OFF.
First of all, this woman offended me in the worst of ways. I studied chemistry; I happen to know many people who work in pharmaceuticals, medicine, and drug research and development. For her to categorically characterize people who work in these fields as being cruel by holding back treatments of disease is sickening. I was appalled by her assertions and told her flat out that she was out of her damned mind.
This woman could not argue her point so she flew off the handle and decided to blame the government and medical professionals for her son's problems. Apparently she doesn't realize that many who are involved in drug research do so because they are motivated by the illness of a loved one; they are motivated to help people who are suffering. How unbelievably insensitive can a person be to accuse these great minds of our time of being active in covering up research or hiding cures? The nerve of her! If you're going to make accusations like this, then you damn well better have some PROOF and not this emotional rage and paranoia. The only people she is fooling are herself and other scientifically illiterate idiots.
Currently a major discussion in this country involves legalizing marijuana. Personally, I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I DO have major problems with those who chose to LIE in order to push their dreams of living in a pot-smoke haze. If you want it legal, just admit you want to get high and enjoy it for recreational purposes but please, for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing this "smoking weed cures the disease" rhetoric.
The fact is, SMOKING marijuana has not been proven to help anything. Smoking any substance has never been scientifically proven to be beneficial in any way. It is an inefficient delivery system. Drugs like Marinol and oils or sprays that contain THC have undergone rigorous testing and have been approved by the FDA. Through scientific research, they have shown to provide benefits for certain patients. In addition, I don't remember "voting" for their approval, do you? We did not need to vote for its approval because it was approved though the FDA. SMOKING marijuana however has not proven to be anything other than a hazard. Those that are claiming it to be beneficial because of anecdotal evidence do not seem to understand that if the patient is not responding to the other forms of THC that do not contain unknown contaminates (such as from smoking weed), they are ultimately NOT getting benefits from THC in general. They are merely advocating for the patient to get high and use for recreational purposes.
If you want to get high, at least be honest about it and please stop with these government conspiracies. Nobody is actively trying to hide research from you or your families. The very idea that people are wanting to keep the status quo over money is also ridiculous. Do you honestly think that pharmaceutical companies would not jump at the chance to just grow marijuana rather than spend time manufacturing drugs that require separation of enantiomers? The very idea that someone would think making drugs in a lab is easier and more cost effective compared to obtaining some expensive lighting and watering some plants is outright stupidity. If the science were there, we would NOT be voting on this issue. It would have passed the FDA easily.
The fact is, SMOKING marijuana has not been proven to help anything. Smoking any substance has never been scientifically proven to be beneficial in any way. It is an inefficient delivery system. Drugs like Marinol and oils or sprays that contain THC have undergone rigorous testing and have been approved by the FDA. Through scientific research, they have shown to provide benefits for certain patients. In addition, I don't remember "voting" for their approval, do you? We did not need to vote for its approval because it was approved though the FDA. SMOKING marijuana however has not proven to be anything other than a hazard. Those that are claiming it to be beneficial because of anecdotal evidence do not seem to understand that if the patient is not responding to the other forms of THC that do not contain unknown contaminates (such as from smoking weed), they are ultimately NOT getting benefits from THC in general. They are merely advocating for the patient to get high and use for recreational purposes.
If you want to get high, at least be honest about it and please stop with these government conspiracies. Nobody is actively trying to hide research from you or your families. The very idea that people are wanting to keep the status quo over money is also ridiculous. Do you honestly think that pharmaceutical companies would not jump at the chance to just grow marijuana rather than spend time manufacturing drugs that require separation of enantiomers? The very idea that someone would think making drugs in a lab is easier and more cost effective compared to obtaining some expensive lighting and watering some plants is outright stupidity. If the science were there, we would NOT be voting on this issue. It would have passed the FDA easily.
1) While conspiracies occur, they never remain hidden.
What is a conspiracy?
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.From this basic definition I found by doing a quick Google search of the word, we can plainly see that a conspiracy most certainly has a negative connotation to it, in that the desired end result is something that favors harm.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge
Conspiracies do exist and we have witnessed them. One of them was 9/11 where hijackers and bin Laden conspired to do our country harm by bringing down the World Trade Center along with the Pentagon. The other target was not reached since the passengers took control over where their final destination would occur.
So let's think about that for just a moment. The conspiracy was fully exposed and the actors conspired and carried out their plans yet their idealized plan did not come to fruition. They did indeed accomplish most of what they had intended but not all. This is the very nature of planning and executing any plan. So often, things simply do not run in a smooth perfect way (see Watergate), and as a result compromises are made, results can vary, which brings me to my next point...
2) Conspiracy theorists demand that we accept perfect execution coupled with an element of secrecy.
Analogy:
Ask anyone who has been in a stage play. I've been in many. We all rehearse, spend endless hours together forming connections, memorizing lines and blocked out movements, working with the rest of the production staff, i.g. lights, props, sound, and the plan is always to put on the best show possible. Yet, each show is unique. Sometimes mistakes happen --small and large -- but the actors and/or crew deal with it the best way they can. Then there are occasions when everything runs smoothly but still, each of those shows is unique. Ultimately there is no carbon-copy that can be made from show to show. Life is naturally random and although we see plans constantly being made, reality always has a way of reminding us that there are some things we simply have no control over.
Just because a show didn't go right one night compared to another, also does not mean that the cast freaks out and becomes paranoid that the show's failure is the result of a conspiracy. No, usually after the show the cast and crew will discuss what element(s) of the show went wrong and there is always an explanation - bad timing, equipment wouldn't work, human error, etc.
Since most stage plays are not performed for the purposes of causing wide-spread terror we cannot officially call this a "conspiracy" in any way, but what we can say is that even something as innocent as putting on a live production can be rather sporadic in producing the desired result.
3) Theorists seem to only think in false dichotomies, the either/or thought process that can get anyone into trouble. We've all done it before and it seems to be something that is natural for our brains. "If this isn't true, then this must be true."
A prime example of this thought process can be found among 9/11 "truthers." They claim that al-Qaeda didn't do it, so this means our government did. This is quite a logical leap for one to make but nonetheless this is what many claim. There are always different views of what occurred. A true skeptic will acknowledge this. Troofers also never consider that one side could be telling the truth. In any case, if someone is going to accuse the United States, then they can also accuse just about any other country -- say Saudi Arabia, at least that would make a little more sense since 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as being from Saudi Arabia. There was also one from Egypt; we could accuse Egypt as well. It all boils down to a person getting stuck in the "either/or" fallacy.
Another either/or thought that comes from truthers is, if I spend any amount of time debunking 9/11 truthers, I must be a government agent. Why can I not be someone interested in correcting people who are spreading lies? Why can I not just be someone who understands that the government did not kill innocent people, and I demand more proof that is scientifically sound before I go around calling people mass murderers?
I know I would not want to be accused of something so heinous with such little evidence coupled with absurd conjectures. "Do unto others" is a good motto to try and live by.
4) Theorists will interestingly support two completely different ideas, so long as the result shows a conspiracy. They have no scientific theory, instead they focus on "poking holes."This one is easy to reveal whenever you engage them in conversation.
Of course there are different types of conspiracies but generally they all have a running theme that involves evil forces - everyone in government and in some position of authority, including academics and science are assumed to be evil. These evil forces/people are working to control the entire world. What's their "endgame"? Well, this can range from leaders wanting mass genocide, desiring all of us to become their slaves, one-world government, new world order, lizard takeover, alien take-over, Illuminati mind control, and many others. Even more amazing is that the stories continue to change and almost everyone who "believes" has many different ideas and conclusions. One thing is for sure - it's always a conspiracy.
In the case of JFK, they believe in several shooters. These might be CIA agents, FBI agents, the mafia, other government officials, and even the governments of Cuba or Russia. All of these conclusions are considered logical to the conspiracy theorist. However, how can they all be correct? They simply cannot offer you specific proof of the proposed scenarios. Even though each one of those ideas would result in a completely different chain of events, by completely different people, the theorist simply has no proof to offer, other than declaring the event a conspiracy because things just don't "sound right" to them.
This is not how scientific method works. Declaring a conspiracy and then picking and choosing whatever information suits your desired outcome, while ignoring or modifying other information that does the exact opposite is purely deceitful. In order to propose a logical theory, you must have a timeline of specific events and then present evidence that supports your conclusion.
Since theorists have shown they are not interested in providing an actual theory because they are lazy, they can only tell us they don't know exactly what happened, only that they "know" it was a conspiracy. Then they use anomalies as "evidence." They even try to point to other events and label them false flag operations, events that have nothing to do with false flags, nor the event they are discussing but, that doesn't stop them from trying.
Asking questions is fine but ultimately 9/11 truthers contradict themselves. We are to believe that Bush is both an idiot and a genius mastermind. Bush is a suck-up to liberals and he's a sociopath. Not all of these things can be true. He cannot be an idiot and a mastermind, nor can he care about liberals and be a sociopath but the truthers don't seem to understand this. They disregard all the other information in order to favor a more sinister version of events.
Not one of them can tell you when the explosives were planted and how it was done. There are no witnesses that have come forward to say they saw people going into the building with odd materials, or anything that supports this claim. They cannot offer anything that demonstrates with certainty that Bush either gave the orders or that he merely allowed the attack to occur. Surely someone knows, if they are correct. They cannot offer any proof of exactly who was involved and how the attack was carried out. They cannot provide any realistic explanation of how a missile was fired at the Pentagon. There is no evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon - no witnesses (yes they claim there are but a closer look reveals they used quote mining and manipulation), no remnants of a missile (ignoring the photographic and witness testimony that proves the plane's remains were there), and no logical explanations of where the passengers went. The many things they do claim happen are given with no proof. The audience is just merely to absorb everything they say without question; irony finds itself in full bloom.
Bottom line, a story line that makes sense and supports the facts that we know is not what conspiracies have to offer. You must have a story that "fits" together the pieces of the puzzle.They simply cannot offer this type of analysis because they are fixed on the emotions that are driving them to believe in a conspiracy.
5) What it's like talking to a truther?
It would be like asking someone on a beautiful day, "Why is the sky bright purple?"
Looking up, the person sees the sky is clearly blue and responds by saying, "The sky is not bright purple; it's light blue."
"No that's what 'they' want you to believe. It's bright purple and you still haven't answered the question! You're a sheep. You know nothing!"
"What are you talking about; it's blue and who is 'they'"?
"Shows you how much you know. You just believe the sky is blue because that is what you've been TOLD! You're such a sheep and you trust your government. 'They' is the government, that's who. It's the Illuminati. It's all these oil industry people. It's the pope; it's other world governments."
"That seems like a lot of people. How did all these people get together and decide to tell people the sky is light blue instead of bright purple?"
"Ugh. You're just stupid. I'm asking questions! I'm a patriot."
"I don't understand what being a patriot has to do with the color of the sky. Can you just explain why it is you think the sky is bright purple, as opposed to being light blue?"
"Obviously it's bright purple. How do you explain that?"
"Wait a minute. I don't think the sky is bright purple so how can I possibly explain that?"
As you can see, the question is nonsense since the sky is not bright purple but that doesn't seem to stop conspiracy theorists from insisting otherwise. Another point I wanted to demonstrate is how the theorist favors paranoia. Instead of accepting that nobody is trying to dupe or manipulate them, they are invested in the idea that there are people hell-bent on lying to them in order to control them.
6) Most of the conspiracy theories that have been around rely on utter lies to support their claims.
Since I've already pointed this out concerning 9/11, I'll demonstrate this using another conspiracy.
Take the JFK shooting. One of the main arguments concerns the "magic bullet theory" that demands JFK was sitting directly behind John Connally; he was not. JFK's seat was at least 3 inches higher and Connally was seated more towards the middle. The result is a straight line to where the shot was fired from. Once again, nothing magical about it. The only magic involves people who try to recreate events using false information. For more on JFK deceptions, click here.
This type of deception is found everywhere among conspiracies. Whenever they quote a witness, a simple check of the full statement will always produce some sort of deception. Either the quote is cut up and taken out of context or they will cherry-pick information that seems to support their conclusions while ignoring anything that clearly shows their ideas are just plain wrong.
Whenever I read about conspiracies, I constantly see misrepresentation of facts, and most of the time they flat out lie. So, the real questions are, "Why are they lying? What purpose does this serve? Why are they afraid the truth? Why do they refuse to show information that goes directly against what they are claiming?"
You would think that people who are claiming to seek the truth would not be so afraid of including ALL of the facts but this is simply not the case. They are much more concerned with proposing a conspiracy and what can only be described as cult-like brainwashing, preventing believers to seek facts from other sources. Once they can successfully open the door for people to question an event, the conspiracy theorist can then instruct their followers that all sources that discredit the conspiracy are those that come from liars who are trying to protect the conspiracy. The reality is quite the opposite.
One thing that is made abundantly clear when examining most conspiracy ideas is that they rely on false information in order to arrive at their false conclusions.
7) People who buy into conspiracies question everything BUT the people feeding them the conspiracy.
It's interesting to note how true believers almost refuse to question the information that is given to them by conspiracy theorists. In my recent discussion with some truthers, I found they repeatedly brought up criticisms of the 9/11 Commission report but their criticisms were completely unfounded since they had nothing to do with the report.
First of all the report did not cover the WTC7 building, including other buildings that were damaged and ruined, because they were casualties in the attack, not an actual target. The whole point of the commission was to investigate the attack, not debunk conspiracies so why would they entertain that? The same can be said of these supposed videos where it is claimed the commission did not see them. Why would it matter that they saw additional footage when they never questioned that it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon and not a missile? Why review videos that didn't even cover the actual attack? The points are all moot and amount to nothing.
The frequent criticisms of the 9/11 Commission report only further demonstrates that these believers have not even attempted to READ the report for themselves. If they haven't read the report, how can they objectively question what's in it? They are solely relying on information that has been fed to them and doing so without question. They have not attempted to gather any information that explains the physics of what happened as it pertains to either the buildings falling or the Pentagon being hit by an airplane. The explanations are sound and reasonable. Yet for some reason the truthers seem to be unaware of them; it can only be explained by the fact that they have not questioned the conspiracy theorists.
For people who are so hell bent on calling other people sheep, it seems rather odd that they have yet to investigate the charlatans who are peddling them conspiracies. If any of them were to simply look into any of the claims objectively, they would discover exactly how they are being lied to and ultimately how they have been manipulated into believing a bunch of bogus nonsense.
8) Emotional connection and ego -- Conspiracies appeal to the ego through emotions.
The brain naturally tries to find patterns whenever new information is confronted. It's a natural tendency that occurs and we are all susceptible. In fact, our minds do this constantly. We simply cannot pay attention to every detail around us, nor do we question the existence of everything we see around us. Our brains would be on overload constantly if we had to make sense of everything. A conspiracy can easily appeal to anyone who is suspicious of others and their government. It gives them a way to fill in the parts that don't make sense to them. It also gives them a victim status; they are just victims of an evil government. Instead of trying to fix the system, they can simply sit back and complain while telling everyone there is nothing anyone can do because "they" will never allow anyone to interfere with their plans, their ultimate take-over, etc.
In addition conspiracy believers tend to gain an enormous ego that comes from their perceived, new, superior knowledge. They often enjoy trying to talk down to people, insulting them, and insisting they have special or secret information that others do not have.
This is not a mistake. As I have shown above, the conspiracy theorist will use deceit in order to gain an audience and once they have done this, they appeal strongly to a person's ego through emotional triggers. An example of this is telling a person they are a sheep if they do not see what is in front of them. They will suggest that people are not being patriotic if they are not questioning their government. They will say almost anything to encourage the believer not to seek other resources because everything anyone else says is a lie or they are part of the cover-up; this is a method of isolating. These types of appeal ultimately amount to brainwashing individuals and worse yet, these are methods that sociopaths use against their victims.
I know all about sociopaths and I know first hand how they are masters of changing reality around an individual. Nobody, myself included, wants to believe they can be victims of such manipulation but unfortunately it can happen to almost anyone. First they lie and they lie repeatedly with great authority. They do whatever they can to appeal to your emotions so that you will become attached to what it is they are saying. Finally they isolate you; they go out of their way to tell you that you are alone, there is nothing you can do, nowhere to go. Trust no one -- except them of course. Their ultimate goal is to make you afraid.
The purpose of isolating someone ensures the victim stays connected to the lies and the appeal to the ego is vital because when someone has invested so much time into believing a certain way, it's very difficult for them to accept new information that contradicts what they have been told. The person will often dig their heels in, so to speak, and will refuse to listen to reason. This is why whenever you confront a truther with reasonable information they cannot refute, they will resort to ad hominem attacks. They simply cannot allow their minds to view new information with objectivity.
9) No calls of action.
You would think that if many people actually believed what the theorists believed, they would go out and tell the world. They would organize and find people to elect into office so that they could expose the government. Troofers should not be spending their time arguing online; they should be organizing but they do nothing of the sort because they have convinced themselves and other believers that it's just not possible; the country is already lost; there is no truth in politics; our vote does not count. In short, they enjoy being victims and encourage others to become one too.
Here it has been, over a decade and I have yet to see any of these folks go out and get their own degrees and publish any peer reviewed papers that support any of this conspiracy nonsense. Not a one of them has opened the door to educating themselves to prove their points. Oh but conveniently the conspiracy movement seems to think that all academics are also involved in a conspiracy. Interestingly enough, they try to appeal to authority by citing people in academia. Again, most of them end up talking in circles and unfortunately, those in academia who support conspiracies have been found to be retired, not educated in relative fields, or have been shunned by their peers.
10) Antisemitism. Here is the real truth. At the heart of the truther movement is a deep hatred of the Jewish people -- G-d's people. The evil forces that would work to destroy G-d's people are merely projecting their own, inner evil onto everyone else.
I have been labeled a Jew several times by truthers. The root of this movement reminds me of how Hitler was able to brainwash the youth in Germany. Insisting that Jews are the cause of all evil is the ultimate goal of this group.
Jennifer would you like some proof of all the jewish ties, the jewish security companies in charge of not just the planes used but also the runways etc.? Or will you, like the rest of your kind, simply bat it away as logic and Truth is not on your side?
wouldnt have a jew in our midst would we? Jews and their zionist servants orchestrated 9 11 you see. Which is why most jews opinions on this subject our null and void frankly.That is just a small example of what was told to me in a thread on Facebook. This is also a guy who writes things like this for his statuses:
“The Jews have used this slanderous hoax to excuse them for monumental crimes against humanity and as a marketing tool and turned the ‘HOLLOWHOAX’ into a hugely profitable industry.
“IF – a CHRISTIAN American ‘goy’ expresses anger against the Jew who FACTUALLY murdered countless of our relatives, friends, family members or our ‘brothers and sisters in faith’ THAT BECOMES A HATE CRIME – and a trip to prison!
“Whereas – if it is a Jew who has committed these horrendous crimes against humanity – he is exonerated because of his ‘chosen’ ‘victim’ ‘persecuted’ status – so it is OK – because his demonic ‘religion’ not only allows – but encourages him to treat Christians like cattle (goy) – fair game – to be cheated – robbed or even killed.
“Isn’t it paradoxical – that the ‘chosen’ have accused us ‘goy’ of spreading hate against them by TELING LIES – when IN FACT, IF you BELIEVE that the words of the Holy Bible are truth and not fiction – the Son of God accused them of being the sons of Satan – whom HE deemed the father of all lies!
“SINCE WHEN – in ANY decorous society – IS TELLING THE TRUTH A CRIME! Only the Jew will consider truth a crime.”
ZIONISM IS JUDAISM, AND JUDAISM IS SATANISM!!!
10) Appealing to Common Sense
People talk a lot of about common sense but nobody seems to know what it is. People like to throw this term around as if it legitimizes any of their claims but it simply does not. You have to have common sense first in order to use it.
11) If it doesn't seem right and a theorist cannot understand it, it could not have happened.
I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have seen sound explanations dismissed as being false because the explanation cannot be understood by the theorist. If it doesn't make sense to them, because of their obvious illiteracy in science, they will refuse to accept the information.
Just because someone does not understand something and how something occurred, does not mean it did not occur.
There are many people who do not understand how a computer works. Does that mean the computer does not work? For many it is obvious the computer works and they can tell you how, for others the very idea that they do not understand is enough for them to believe it doesn't work or that it's impossible.
12) There are too many "firsts" and this is not possible.
This is similar to the point I made above. It seems as though many conspiracy theorists have this idea in their heads that there are too many "first time in history" events that surround a main event equals a conspiracy. Obviously this type of reasoning is a fallacy of epic proportions and since their counter ideas would also result in a host of "first time in history" events, they disprove their own analysis.
Back to the 9/11 conspiracy ...supposedly it was the first time in history steel-structured buildings were damaged by fire (not true); it was the first time in history that a plane hit the Pentagon; it was the first time that steel was melted by fire (a dubious claim I already demonstrated as patently false), first time blah, blah, blah...you get the idea. However, none of this is proof of anything. In fact, most of their claims are bold face lies.
At the same time, the conspiracy theorist seems to buy into a number of delusions that would involve substantial "first time in history" events IF their claims were actually true.
It would be the first time in history...
Explosives were planted with no evidence to show they were there.
Explosives planted in buildings by demolition crews who were unseen and remain silent.
Thermite was used to bring down 3 buildings.
A missile was fired into a government building.
Faked emergency calls were created by the government.
Thermite surviving initial attack with fires.
Planting matching plane parts at the Pentagon immediately after a supposed missile hit the Pentagon.
Convincing hundreds of witnesses immediately after the attacks to say they saw an airplane hit the buildings and the Pentagon.
The government planting DNA of passengers and terrorists before the crashes occurred.
I mean, I could go on and on depending on the particular claim of course. Hell, some theories call for mini-nukes that were planted and even holograms invented to create the event.
The very idea of presenting anomalies that point to "first time in history" events while simultaneously supporting a plethora of them is the very definition of nonsense. Even IF there are first time in history events, this is simply not evidence that supports a conspiracy occurred.
---------------------------------------
While skepticism in our culture should be encouraged, we also need to understand that we need to be skeptical in all directions. When confronted with a conspiracy, one should question where the conspiracy is coming from and if what the person has to say makes any sense? What does the "other side" say in response to the claim? Could there be yet another explanation that has not been considered?
Is the person trying to scare you? Is the message one that subscribes to gloom and doom? Are they trying to isolate you by telling you that everyone is a liar or make you feel as though you have nowhere to turn or no ability to change anything? How emotional are they?
It is important to keep an open mind about all information but one should never favor the absurd over the rational.
What Can We Learn From Conspiracy Theorists?
Certainly there is a lesson here somewhere. I cannot help but at least try to find something positive from any person or new information I run across. So the question for me is what exactly can we learn from these people who buy into absurd conclusions?
On the surface, most of the answers that have been given by people in the media are superficial and illogical themselves.
Many on the left like to believe that only people on the right are truthers so they may play to their audience by claiming they have learned a confirmation that the right is stupid or anti-intellectual. However many on the far-left are just as likely to believe in the 9-11 conspiracy as well or even other conspiracies.
One thing we can learn is that politics does not seem to have any bearing on whether a person will invest their time into magical, conspiratorial thinking. It merely depends on the issue or more specifically the conspiracy. People on the left might be more likely to believe in the JFK shooting conspiracy or even the moon landing hoax. Those on the right may lean more towards believing that Vince Foster was murdered. When it comes to pseudo-sciences, this appears to be the same as well. Left leaning people are more likely to be associated with practicing astrology or new age religion whereas many conservatives enjoy good anti-science homeopathy. Paranoia, magical thought, and illogical conclusions can be associated with all types of people all over the political spectrum.
Another thing we can learn is how to better communicate our knowledge. If we can read what is being said, we can use that material to work from, just as I have done here, in order to address the very specific questions that are being asked. Instead of dismissing these people, we can grow as individuals if we take the time seek out why it is these people are wrong.
We can also learn to pause and look in our own mirrors. Are there silly ideas that we ourselves might believe in?
When we have an understanding of how these conspiracy snake-oil salesman operate, we can always keep in mind that the majority of the people we run across are not necessarily stupid, they have just been preyed upon by these charlatans. For many of these people, it seems as though nothing will penetrate their ego; they've been brainwashed to accept the irrational. If only a seed can be planted or at least one major lie can be exposed, this might just be enough to get the victim to question the conspiracy itself.
As I have stated previously, it is very difficult for these folks to focus in on one point. Their questions come from all over the place, hopping from one topic to the next. They react this way because this is how they've been trained. If they can lead a conversation and move it all over the place, they avoid ever having to deal with facts presented to them. You must get them to concede to at least one point as being utterly false.
The main reason we should work to dispelling these myths is out of respect for the victims. We have lost fellow Americans from tragedy and their deaths should not be used as a tool to perpetuate lies and create division among us.
Links -- Many of the links, I used above. The rest are great to view for more information.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265416
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c44_1386384864
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000887
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
http://fredhenstridge.blogspot.com/2011/09/debunking-truthers.html
http://implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
http://depts.washington.edu/chem/facilserv/lecturedemo/Thermite-UWDept.ofChemistry.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314
http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxljFOCZ6TU
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home#Debunking
Operation Northwoods
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
0 comments:
Post a Comment