Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

<< < (7/9) > >>

Logic_Bomb (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...
scienceteacheragain (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.
Mefiante (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.’"

Mefiante (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"«.

scienceteacheragain (January 31, 2008, 15:17:19 PM):
From http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

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.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page