South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

April 26, 2018, 13:35:56 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

 (Read 28085 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2008, 13:11:34 PM »

Well well well. Just had a look at wikipedia's Jeff Rense article and couldn't see any major lists of references as promised? hmmm they don't even take his character apart either...
Logged
scienceteacheragain
godlike, humble, know-it-all
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2008, 13:40:53 PM »

The other thing you seem to forget is that history has shown that it takes only a single whistleblower to expose a huge cover-up like the one you're suggesting.  Where is he or she?


Although in late 2001 and for two to three years after that, the majority of Americans were convinced that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, recent polls have found that a majority of Americans now think that their own government had a hand in the events of 9/11.  Why would that be the case?  Well, since then, the evidence that Bush and Blair flat out lied about Suddam Hussein having WMD and Iraq being involved in 9/11 has become overwhelming.  Not only did they lie about it, but they colluded to manufacture evidence to persuade their respective countries' elected representatives (Congress and Senate in the US, House of Commons in the UK) to vote in favour of attacking Iraq.

Now the majority of Americans have made the connection, and concluded that if Bush could lie about Iraq having WMD and supporting Al Queda, then he probably lied about Osama bin Laden and Al Queda and 9/11 too.

Under these conditions, the White House and the State Department have still not produced solid evidence that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, even though their jobs are now on the line because of that and the lies propogaged about Iraq.




I smell something funny.
Show me the polls that most Americans believe their government had a hand in 9/11.
And pray tell, who's jobs are on the line because of 9/11 or Iraq?

You overestimate the ability for a government to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude.

Back to the original question of the post.
I believe there are two major reasons for people to believe cospiracy theories.
Some obviously make money off of them (for writing or selling books, giving speeches etc.). Many of these people believe what they are shoveling, and like with psychics, et al, there are some just taking advantage of others.  Go to Dealy Plaza in Dallas, and there are guys walking around selling books and stuff and telling you how JFK was REALLY killed.
Some (like a couple that have shown up here) seem to feel like they are smarter than the rest of us because they know what REALLY happened, even if there is no compelling evidence for it.  To say "the US government did it" is so ridiculously vague that one could not even refute the argument except to point out the evidence that it was a terrorist attack.
Finally, many people may never actually swallow the conspiracy line, but still find it fascinating.  Of course we do, just like a good book with a good conspiracy.
However, I would like to point out that to shovel out this nonsense is very insensitive to the survivors.  It is like a child being killed by a random car jacker and then you telling  everyone that it was actually one of the child's parents.  Frankly, it disgusts me.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2008, 13:55:14 PM »

Look I'm not going to be drawn into a senseless battle of wits here.
Then why make such a bold claim as, “The evidence that 9/11 was an engineered event by western intelligence agencies and the global elite is overwhelming?”  You won’t get a free ride on something like that, certainly not in this forum.  It’s very simple: either put forward this “overwhelming evidence” or retract your claim.  General hand-waving in the direction of one or two websites isn’t evidence of anything other than an expectation of gullibility.  If neither option suits you, you will then have to accept that people are entitled to dismiss without further ado your claim as just so much hooey.

But I shall seek out the document you mention.



Well well well. Just had a look at wikipedia's Jeff Rense article and couldn't see any major lists of references as promised?
The phrase I used was “prolific list of contributors.”  They’re listed down the right-hand edge.  Still, my bad: I should instead have written “911 truth movement participants.”



hmmm they don't even take his character apart either...
Really?  You don’t consider being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” pejorative?  Or mentioning that "[t]he Rense.com web page access is now restricted (as of 12/2007) from some users by the Websense firewall, which blocks the site under the categories ‘racism’ and ‘hate.’"

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 13:58:51 PM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2008, 14:39:43 PM »

Nope, Google doesn't turn up a "World's last chance" article of the kind Logic_Bomb describes.

Google search for »"World's last chance" Illuminati "Adam Weishaupt"«.

'Luthon64
Logged
scienceteacheragain
godlike, humble, know-it-all
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2008, 15:17:19 PM »

From http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

"
Conspiracy
Category: Conspiracies • Denialism Defined
Posted on: April 30, 2007 8:00 AM, by MarkH

Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
-Benjamin Franklin

What are denialist conspiracy theories and why should people be instantly distrustful of them? And what do they have to do with denialism?

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don't just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say "everything is the same" aren't interesting and don't get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution because we've been infiltrated by a cabal of "materialists" is even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind. Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments - the tinfoil hat.

"

Emphasis mine, and I fully agree.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 16:07:03 PM by scienceteacherinexile » Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2008, 15:34:47 PM »

This is what I found on google for "worlds last chance":
http://www.worldslastchance.com/, or is there another site with the document you mentioned Logic_ Bomb?
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2008, 16:53:19 PM »

No it's not that website. I have the document with the author's website on my PC at home, I will check it out and let you know tomorrow. It's an exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) document which traces the NWO from 1 May 1776, really worth the read if you are sincere about wanting to know what's going on behind the scenes. Here's a link to an interesting piece too: http://www.geocities.com/hankmcintyre/nwofacts1.html.

Anacoluthon I'm curious to know if you are open at all to a different viewpoint than the one you currently hold, because the simple fact of the matter is that there is so much information to support everything I've said (which really hasn't been much!). It's all out there on the www for anyone to find, if you'd care to look. Skip the mainstream media for a change and prepare to have your mind blown!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2008, 17:23:05 PM »

Anacoluthon I'm curious to know if you are open at all to a different viewpoint than the one you currently hold, …
Ah, yes, insinuate that your detractors don’t have an open mind.  But to answer your question, what do you expect I will say?  “No,” perhaps?  Of course I’m open to different viewpoints, but what you’re talking about are facts rather than viewpoints, and facts are by their nature verifiable.  It’s the interpretation of those facts on which we differ.



… because the simple fact of the matter is that there is so much information to support everything I've said (which really hasn't been much!). It's all out there on the www for anyone to find, if you'd care to look.
I see.  So accusing the “western intelligence agencies and the global elite” of mass murder, grievous bodily harm on a grand scale, colossal property damage, treachery, deception, collusion and a litany of lesser crimes is, in your estimation, “really not much.”  See, that’s where we differ: an accusation of such proportions as you have proposed absolutely demands a watertight body of evidence, not circumstantial arguments from incredulity, false dichotomy, and lukewarm speculation bolstered by fervid rhetoric.  And remember that the onus is on you as the claimant to prove your case, not on me or anyone else to disprove it.



Skip the mainstream media for a change and prepare to have your mind blown!
I have done so.  I have told you this.  I have also told you why I reject their contentions regarding the 911 event.

Now, what is your evidence?  And, once again, what evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2008, 17:43:38 PM »

Wow you're a tough cookie. I am not the originator/author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory (misnomer if ever there was one). Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com? You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there. If, after reading these, you are still unclear, please let me know so we can chat about it once we're on the same page. With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report's authenticity, as it has been debunked ad nauseam by experts from many fields of science, politics, etc. Now relax a bit, take your hard hat off and read some  Tongue
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2008, 18:38:46 PM »

I am not the originator/author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory …
But clearly you subscribe to it as proved beyond any reasonable doubt.  Why?



… (misnomer if ever there was one).
How so?



Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com?
For the third time, yes.



You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there.
And again, what “factual evidence” are you referring to?



If, after reading these, you are still unclear, please let me know so we can chat about it once we're on the same page.
You’re obviously confused over the issue of “onus,” “burden of proof” and “no free ride” I mentioned earlier so allow me to clarify:  It means that you present your case with the specific arguments plus supporting evidence that leave you convinced of what you’re proposing.  Any forum member then has the right of reply to present counterarguments and evidence.  What it decidedly does not mean is that – and I repeat – a general hand-wave at one or two websites (which, worse yet, also contain a glut of extraneous information) can be taken as a valid argument.  If it were so, I would be entitled to argue that fairies exist because a Google search returns 18,500,000 hits, many of which assert that fairies are real.  You will, I hope, agree that arguing thus is absurd.



With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report's authenticity, as it has been debunked ad nauseam by experts from many fields of science, politics, etc.
Well there we have it  – "[N]othing could convince me…," including, presumably, the debunkings and counter-debunkings of the “troofers.”  So there’s no point in debating then, is there?  What is your purpose here?

'Luthon64
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2008, 19:54:13 PM »

I just want to jump in for a second here and stop this ridiculous "where is the evidence?" / "have you been to the site?" loop that we are in here.

So let's talk specific examples.  There is a lot of text to wade through (quantity is no measure of "weight of evidence").

Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com? You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there.
So I picked an article at random from the 911 section entitled "Evidence MicroNukes Used On WTC".

Let me first bring to your attention that there is an impressive number of links in the articles, however, the vast majority link to other "troofer" websites (and thus are not independently verified facts), links to longer articles (with no indication of where in the linked document this evidence is to be found), and finally, a large number of broken links (but that's just the government shutting-up the detractors, right?).

The basic argument is that we know:
  • the US has developed nukes for demolition purposes,
  • the "fact" of successful development of Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices (with no corroborating evidence).

From these premises, the author goes on to say how MRR nukes were used in the WTC attack because (my emphasis):
Quote from: The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC. By Ed Ward, MD
There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of 'irregular cycles' (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems - RADIATION.

So wait; you can't use geiger counters to test Ed Ward's hypothesis because they were reduced radiation nuclear bombs (thus giving-off undetectable levels of radiation?) but there is enough radiation to cause cancer.  Hold-on, there is a minimum threshold for radioactive exposure to cause cancer, and the geiger counter can detect radiation levels far lower than that.  In order for the few people who have developed cancer to have been exposed (no matter how long or short a time period) to a level of radiation high enough to cause cancer, that level would be detectable by a geiger counter and would continue to be detectable today (actually, for the next 25 000 years).  But it isn't detectable because they were MRR devices.

Being a student of formal logic, I recognise this as a logical argument which boils down to the structural fallacy called a tautology.  This word gets bandied-around a lot on this forum, but this case can be conclusively shown as being such a fallacy with First Order Logic.  In layman's terms Ed is having it both ways, no matter which premises are true or false, the statement is always true.  Kind of like "The sun is shining or the sun is not shining".

And we all saw the news and how much dust and soot was around.  We know that the dust in the lungs of the rescuers caused emphysema, bronchial damage and infection and even cancer.  Why involve radiation?

Further in the quote we get to a section of logical leaps which draw the reader's attention to future evidence such as "responders should be checked for thyroid cancer" and "noting of birth defects [...] also needs to be done".  If this is not done are we hiding the truth?  This future evidence is cherry-picking in advance.  Selective statistics is a very easy practice; did you know that as many as 95% of accident victims ate bread earlier in the day (Arrive Alive doesn't warn us about that one!) or that everyone who ate eggs in 1566 (all around the world) later died?  You have to remember that in any normal population cancer happens.  So I could survey people using the lift at a shopping mall (expecting that at least some would have contracted ovarian cancer - probably because of the music being played in the lift) and as soon as I have found just one I can jump up and down saying "You see? you see?"

And I simply cannot let the last statement from this quote stand.  The only causes of these cancers is radiation?  I'm wondering if "M.D" doesn't mean Medical Doctor anymore.

With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report's authenticity

Socrates famously said; "Nothing can convince me but reason".  The most important words being the last two words.

I am many things; a believer is not one of them, I need evidence.  I am an atheist but no matter how much anyone goads me I will never say "Nothing can convince me of gods existence" without following it with something like "except if he poofed into existence in-front of me and turned my nose into a burning bush".

Anyone who says to me "Nothing can convince me" (without the important caveat; "but reason" or "except evidence") is immediately labelled an idiot in my book.

From my side; nothing can convince me of the 9/11 conspiracy except credible/verifiable evidence.

But please answer 'Luthon's longstanding questions first.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2008, 10:16:33 AM »

Good to see you back again, AAH.  Have you been very busy?

I just want to jump in for a second here and stop this ridiculous "where is the evidence?" / "have you been to the site?" loop that we are in here.
While the content of your post is impeccable, I’m afraid I must disagree with your approach because it entails you taking upon yourself the additional burden that, by rights, is Logic_Bomb’s to shoulder.  In other words, you are taking it upon yourself to seek out Logic_Bomb’s evidence and to examine it critically, leaving Logic_Bomb in the favourable position where, for each debunking you provide, all s/he needs do is say, “Oh, but there’s lots more.  Look again.”

Hence, and at the risk of being thought smug, allow me to cite from my own post (appropriate emphases added):
You’re obviously confused over the issue of “onus,” “burden of proof” and “no free ride” I mentioned earlier so allow me to clarify:  It means that you present your case with the specific arguments plus supporting evidence that leave you convinced of what you’re proposing.  Any forum member then has the right of reply to present counterarguments and evidence.  What it decidedly does not mean is that – and I repeat – a general hand-wave at one or two websites (which, worse yet, also contain a glut of extraneous information) can be taken as a valid argument.  If it were so, I would be entitled to argue that fairies exist because a Google search returns 18,500,000 hits, many of which assert that fairies are real.  You will, I hope, agree that arguing thus is absurd.

'Luthon64
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2008, 22:26:01 PM »

Good to see you back again, AAH.  Have you been very busy?


Thanks Smiley glad to be back.  Yes, I have been busy and somewhat inconvenienced.

I'm afraid I must disagree with your approach because it entails you taking upon yourself the additional burden that, by rights, is Logic_Bomb's to shoulder [and] leaving Logic_Bomb in the favourable position where [...] all s/he needs do is say, "Oh, but there's lots more.  Look again."

Absolutely, you are right.  The motivation was that I felt I had to do something.  Believe me; I do not do this as a usual practice because there are so many resources of woo on the 'Net that I can spend months researching an opponent's side only to be told that I was going to the wrong sites or not reading them correctly (having not been issued with a decoder ring which tells you to only read the first word of every sentence).

Thinking: maybe this is an extension to the "On the usefulness of debating fundamentalists" thread ...

There are two sides to this argument and either side wins "points" for their camp by not crossing the line to explore the opponent's world.  The reason I say this is because it most often leads to straw man fallacies.  We are not supposed to search for the evidence to shoot down (as I did) and Logic_Bomb can potentially claim that refusing to find the evidence for ourselves is a win for the woo-brigade following this twisted logic...

Quote from: Logic_Twister
It is exactly as I thought! You are so (set in your ways / myopic / closed-minded) that you will not review the evidence.  You are too afraid to follow the links that I have provided.


We all can see the glaring fallacy in that argument, but to the brigadier general and the more silent brigadiers it is perfectly sound logic.  Whether this opinion is aired here on this forum, or perhaps on a personal blog linking to the discussion, it distorts the meaning of your statements. All that I was trying to do was avoid such an easy out.

Perhaps misguided, perhaps pointless, but I think a little more constructive than the merry-go-round we were on?

At the very least, I thought that a few sceptics might like to share the laugh I had at the article.  I'm glad that you appreciated it Smiley
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2008, 13:39:54 PM »

Okay, yes, I see what you're driving at, AAH, but I would be strongly inclined to place a very, very low upper limit on the amount of effort that one should expend in such pursuits.  Besides, the "Noddy Badge Team Award for Resistance to Line-crossing" idea seems to me considerably less relevant than appearances might at first suggest for these two reasons:

  • Such line-crossing has already occurred, quite possibly on both sides of the debate, and
  • Imagine being a plaintiff and, on being asked to substantiate your claim, telling the magistrate or judge, "Oh, the evidence is out there, Your Worship.  The Court just needs to find it."  With a response like that you'll be lucky not to get slapped with a Contempt of Court fine (for time-wasting) very shortly after your case has been dismissed with costs.

But I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know and, in any case, it's probably moot anyway because Logic_Bomb seems to have left the building.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2008, 07:50:52 AM »

Perhaps Logic_Bomb, instead of just (as Luthon calls) hand waving in the general direction of all the mountains of evidence, I propose you pick one or two of the absolute best pieces of evidence for us and start a new thread where we can discuss them.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.433 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 06, 2018, 00:15:18 AM
Privacy Policy