South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 18, 2019, 17:51:57 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: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   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 29940 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« on: October 17, 2006, 09:14:42 AM »

People usually like to believe weird things because they need to. It fills some emotional gap or creates a sense of belonging to something or some group. I can understand that people will want to believe in warm fuzzy things like going to heaven or the easter bunny, but I have trouble figuring out just what's in it for people to believe that the WTC was demolished by the US government and not terrorists.

Any thoughts?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2006, 11:39:19 AM »

At the risk of stating the obvious, conspiracy theorists are usually completely hooked on confirmation bias without being aware of it.  Just about any fact can be suitably bent to fit in with the theory, and thus provide further "confirmation."

I suspect that the basic motivation for believing in conspiracy theories is much the same as that for believing in a personal god and devil: essentially, so that one can declare, "It's not my fault!" when something bad happens.

When things go wrong in our lives or with our plans, it is comforting to "know" that these happenings were beyond our control, and also how to avoid a recurrence of them in the future.  We are blameless if something bigger than us is responsible for our misfortune, something we cannot possibly hope to exert any influence over.  When, in addition, we can assign to that agent a deliberately evil or destructive agenda, our own innocence seems even more unblemished, we seem even less culpable, and we can denounce it with even greater confidence, justification and righteousness.

In a nutshell, "Don't look at me - I'm OK.  But just look at what they have done!  Shocking."

And, no, I don't know how to begin addressing such a mindset.

(My 64 cents' worth, if it matters at all, comes from many interactions with a close relative who is a conspiracy nut.  Angry )

'Luthon64
Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2006, 14:45:35 PM »

Even though I agree in principle with what Luthon64 is saying(I actually find it quite plausible, and a good viewpoint old chap...), I feel he might be generalising a bit....

A lot of things can be considered conspiracies, even by those who were not involved at all, or those who could not really care about who is to blame....

Then again, in hindsight, some things are a just to weird to be coincidental....
http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/6/19/33/
Why would David Icke lie about a thing like that?? Grin Grin

Me, I'm still trying to find out If I can drink TAB or Sprite Zero because of the Asparteme conspiracy..  Roll Eyes

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2006, 15:50:55 PM »

A lot of things can be considered conspiracies, even by those who were not involved at all, or those who could not really care about who is to blame....

If you believe it, then you are getting involved and do care. Which is why I want to understand the motivation behind the belief. Even if you are not directly involved.

Then again, in hindsight, some things are a just to weird to be coincidental....
http://www.davidicke.com/content/category/6/19/33/
Why would David Icke lie about a thing like that?? Grin Grin

Coincidence in itself proves nothing. And why wouldn't David Icke lie? There is a lot of reasons he might choose to do so. And even if he genuinely believes what he is saying, it does not prove him right.

Me, I'm still trying to find out If I can drink TAB or Sprite Zero because of the Asparteme conspiracy..  Roll Eyes

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html
Now this I can understand. It will effect you personally if it turns out to be harmful, so caution is in order. But being careful is different from accusing the parties involved as being part of a conspiracy.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2006, 16:01:52 PM »

When some people, who are not directly involved in some event, also believe that there is a conspiracy about that event, this is really just a further bit of confirmation bias on the part of people who are prone to believing in conspiracies: "Look, there's another conspiracy!  The fact that it exists is more proof that all the other conspiracies I know about are, in fact, real."  In other words, it's useful for "proving" one's objectivity.

However, it is hard to see how someone who doesn't really care about whom to blame for something can believe that there is a conspiracy about that thing.  This curiosity needs some explanation.  (ETA: I see you have already spoken about this, bluegray V.)

Human beings are very, very adept at inventing after-the-fact "explanations" for just about anything that happens to or around them.  Also, one will always find individuals who turn their passions, good or bad, into their livelihood.  It's merely a case of taking those passions a few steps further than most other people.  David Icke is one such individual, but possibly not the best example - Pat Robertson may well hold that dubious distinction.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 16:04:09 PM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2006, 17:01:54 PM »

I made the wrong assumption that you knew , has seen or has read about Icke, that's why I used him. My mistake.
He was debunked, but more for his radical approach, even though some of his conspiracies could not be debunked...
When some people, who are not directly involved in some event, also believe that there is a conspiracy about that event, this is really just a further bit of confirmation bias on the part of people who are prone to believing in conspiracies: "Look, there's another conspiracy!  The fact that it exists is more proof that all the other conspiracies I know about are, in fact, real."  In other words, it's useful for "proving" one's objectivity.

However, it is hard to see how someone who doesn't really care about whom to blame for something can believe that there is a conspiracy about that thing.  This curiosity needs some explanation.  (ETA: I see you have already spoken about this, bluegray V.)

I was saying that if someone does NOT care about who is to blame, it can not be said that he is conspiring - just because he makes a reference to the "so called" conspiracy.
Knowledge of does not equate acknowledgement or approval.

Still don't know If I can drink Tab..

Luthon....Do you know anything about the aspartame saga??
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2006, 17:43:00 PM »

I made the wrong assumption that you knew , has seen or has read about Icke, that's why I used him. My mistake.
He was debunked, but more for his radical approach, even though some of his conspiracies could not be debunked...
Well, I have encountered David Icke's name several times in the past, but haven't kept up to date with his comings and goings.  There are higher profile crackpots out there.  And, just as a point of order, it would be a mistake to assume that because a few conspiracy theories of Icke's (or anyone else's) could not easily be shown to be duff, that those are the ones that are true.


Still don't know If I can drink Tab..

Luthon....Do you know anything about the aspartame saga??

I'm afraid I don't.  The sum total of my knowledge in this context is what I have heard some time ago about the furore through the proverbial grapevine - and that is very little, apart from such titbits being generally unreliable.  You see, it's a topic that isn't of any great consequence to me or mine as we hardly ever consume such beverages.  Here are some search results from Quackwatch - you may find some useful info there.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 17:44:36 PM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2006, 18:01:58 PM »

I have got a few videos on David Icke, and in the beginning he sounded quite enigmatic and convincing, but when he started to attack/belittle people instead of issues, I lost Interest. He did a series of 3 videos on Credu Mutwa, the Zulu Historian, which I found quite interesting....



WYou see, it's a topic that isn't of any great consequence to me or mine as we hardly ever consume such beverages.  Here are some search results from Quackwatch - you may find some useful info there.

'Luthon64


Thanks for the link... will check it out.....

BTW.
Quote
we hardly ever consume such beverages

Do you always talk like that, or do you occasionally have a drinkGrin
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2006, 18:26:42 PM »

BTW. Do you always talk like that, or do you occasionally have a drinkGrin
Glo dit of dan nie - soms raak ek selfs getrek!

'Luthon64
Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2006, 08:56:45 AM »

 Grin

You surprise me!!!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2006, 09:28:59 AM »

Which part?  The Afrikaans, or the thought of an ostensibly pompous ass getting platzed?  Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
Logged
qrios
Meneer
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Get the facts first - you can distort them later!


« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2006, 09:32:14 AM »

I think it was the Afrikaans!!! Roll Eyes
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2007, 16:34:30 PM »

Still don't know If I can drink Tab..
Luthon....Do you know anything about the aspartame saga??


I'm afraid I don't.  The sum total of my knowledge in this context is what I have heard some time ago about the furore through the proverbial grapevine - and that is very little, apart from such titbits being generally unreliable.  You see, it's a topic that isn't of any great consequence to me or mine as we hardly ever consume such beverages.  Here are some search results from Quackwatch - you may find some useful info there.


Mm, plenty has been written about the subject of Aspartame.  What you'll find on Quackwatch is pretty much what you'll find on the official Aspartame website that the manufacturer provides.  They claim that the product is safe, and that the FDA has approved it, so one need not be concerned about the ravings of a few loonies.

Of course, that does not reveal that the process by which Aspartame was approved by the FDA was highly irregular.  It also happens that Donald Rumsfeld was hired by G.D. Searle to get the product through the FDA because of his contacts on the Capitol.

Most of the time, Aspartame is ok.  One tends to consume it in small quantities, and the vast majority of people are not sensitive to the metabolic breakdown products of the ingredient that is not on the label, methanol, in particular formaldehyde and formic acid.  Methanol is 10% of Aspartame.  Some people are highly sensitive to the methanol metabolites and get symptoms ranging from headaches to those mimicking MS and Lupus.

The problem with the FDA and the approval process in general is that of lack of transparency.  "Trust us.  We are experts".

Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2007, 16:40:26 PM »

I have trouble figuring out just what's in it for people to believe that the WTC was demolished by the US government and not terrorists.

Why do you believe that the WTC was demolished by terrorists?  Because you saw it on TV?  Because George W. Bush said so?

What proof have you seen that it was a group of Al Queda terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the twin towers?

Either way, it was a conspiracy.  People think that it's smart to label ideas that originate outside of the mainstream media "Conspiracy Theories", pronounced with a sneer.

It isn't smart at all to be closed minded and believe only what you see on TV or read in YOU magazine.  Or Popular Mechanics, for that matter.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 17:10:04 PM by bluegray V » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2007, 17:09:50 PM »

It isn't smart at all to be closed minded and believe only what you see on TV or read in YOU magazine.  Or Popular Mechanics, for that matter.
Neither is it smart to hold forth, sans offering any evidence, with belligerent finger-pointing and lukewarm mockery, and expect to be taken seriously.  Especially when there's a confluence of evidentiary lines.

It's just a thought, though.

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2007, 17:21:16 PM »

Especially when there's a confluence of evidentiary lines.

It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.

You're dodging the bullet here.  Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11.  The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.  Why should anyone believe them?
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2007, 17:28:14 PM »

Why do you believe that the WTC was demolished by terrorists?  Because you saw it on TV?  Because George W. Bush said so?
No, and I never actually said I believe that. Although most indications point in that direction.
What proof have you seen that it was a group of Al Queda terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the twin towers?
I never said I had any. But still it's a likely explanation.
Either way, it was a conspiracy.  People think that it's smart to label ideas that originate outside of the mainstream media "Conspiracy Theories", pronounced with a sneer.
We've been through this in the other thread haven't we? Please stay on topic. What do you get out of believing it was the US Government and not Al Queda terrorists?
It isn't smart at all to be closed minded and believe only what you see on TV or read in YOU magazine.  Or Popular Mechanics, for that matter.
If they publish good evidence in YOU magazine, I'll believe it. Same goes for Popular Mechanics.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2007, 18:17:18 PM »

It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.
Which is what they have done to the satisfaction of many experts from a diversity of disciplines.  But not, apparently, sufficient to your exacting standards.


You're dodging the bullet here.
No, I'm afraid you are.  You contest the official version of events with nothing so far but loose conjecture, a suitably affected mien of righteousness and lots of hot air.  It is, as you say, "incumbent" on you to provide evidence that the current account is wrong.  In this regard, it works the same way science does: a new theory must be thoroughly convincing before the old one is abandoned.


Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11.
I'm not an investigator, and so no doubt will fail to provide you with evidence you consider compelling ("proof" is the domain of mathematicians, logicians and philosophers).  Nevertheless, there's much been written on the Internet about the subject that a sincere search will reveal.  Google exists for this purpose.


The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.


Why should anyone believe them?
You may wish to direct that question at yourself.

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2007, 23:29:36 PM »


The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.

So we're back at "Trust us.  We're experts".

These are the same people who told the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD. 
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2007, 07:09:05 AM »

So we're back at "Trust us.  We're experts".
Not quite.  What you conveniently disregard, as pointed out to you before before, is the multitude of independent experts' assessments.  I'll grant you that any one of them may be mistaken, but all of them together and in the same way?  Or, worse yet, they're colluding to deceive the world?  I think not.  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?

And, more importantly, you keep shying away from presenting a credible alternative.  You expect that you will be taken seriously when all you can do is keep shouting, "Liars!" without offering any evidence that your accusation is in fact sustainable.

You're starting to sound like a stuck record.

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2007, 15:48:56 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?

There are a number of mechanisms that operate when it comes to decision making in a group.  One of them is that when a dominant leader states an opinion, the majority of the rest of the group tend to agree with that opinion.  Once George W. made the pronouncement, "Osama did it" and the news media, notably CNN and Fox News ran that hundreds of times, it was hard for anyone to offer a contrary opinion.  Also, at a time when saying anything that could be construed as "Anti-America" was roundly condemned and your job could be on the line for it, those who dissented with the "official version" of events mostly chose to keep silent.

You appear to be pushing the straw man argument hard.  It really does not matter how the twin towers and building 7 were demolished.  What really matters is why.

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.


Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2007, 15:49:41 PM »

The method of propaganda being employed here is called the "Big Lie".  The following quote is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

---

Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

---

Just for the record, I agree with the opinion of many analysts that there is no threat of global terrorism.  The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2007, 10:33:33 AM »

My turn to be the stuck record, okay?

And, more importantly, you keep shying away from presenting a credible alternative.  You expect that you will be taken seriously when all you can do is keep shouting, "Liars!" without offering any evidence that your accusation is in fact sustainable.

All you've provided thus far is further accusation, backed, at best, with flimsy circumstantial speculation that is indistinguishable from a rant.

On the one hand, you credit "them" with the wilyness to construct this "Big Lie" of yours (without telling us the "Big Truth"), on the other "they" are too stupid to heed the lesson of Watergate.

Now, which is it?

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 10:35:27 AM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2007, 10:59:15 AM »

One wonders what inventive spin the CTists will put on this:
Quote
The 31 plots that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he helped organise, according to a defence department transcript of a statement he made during a hearing at Guantanamo Bay prison:

<...snip...>


  • The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.

<...snip...>

Could it be a forced confession, obtained under torture or duress?  Is Khalid a hypnotised or brainwashed patsy, perhaps?  Maybe it's all staged to "bring about closure," and Khalid will quietly disappear into a life of luxury, courtesy of assorted US government agencies, after a suitable show has been put on.  Or is it merely an old-fashioned double-cross the US is pulling on one of its own in pursuit of "plausible deniability" now that tempers are flaring?

The mind reels with possibilities.

It would be asking way too much that the 911 CT lobby consider Khalid's statement at face value: as the admission of a pathological terrorist with much deranged hate for the world in his heart, and murderous bouts of carefully composed rage its only vent.

But that possibility's just too simple.

'Luthon64
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 19:28:51 PM »

The evidence that 9/11 was an engineered event by western intelligence agencies and the global elite is overwhelming. If you want to be enlightened, visit www.rense.com and prepared to be blown away!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2008, 10:39:35 AM »

Interesting, then, that Jeff Rense is so often described as a loon, whose stock-in-trade, like a fringe low-circulation newsletter, is racism and hate speech.  Oh, but I forget: it's all part of a big conspiracy to discredit Rense and to manipulate the population-at-large, keeping them dumb.

ETA: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 10:50:50 AM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2008, 13:20:47 PM »

Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL. Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue? Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2008, 13:39:11 PM »

Oh well if it's on rense.com it must be true then? LOL.
As your name suggests, your logic has bombed with this one. By your logic, someone must be right if their views are rejected? People like Rense are not taken seriously because they have no evidence for what they are arguing. Besides, it's been tried, knocked, and sensible people have moved on.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2008, 14:02:10 PM »

Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL.
The truth isn’t guaranteed, of course, but the nature of Wikipedia makes it a credible resource.  You must have missed the prolific list of contributors to the article, and you’re also entitled to correct any factual errors it contains.  Please go ahead and do so.

Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue?
Please do!  Copernicus had lots of solid evidence to back up his claims.  Bill Gates had the acute foresight to bet on the right horse.  Jeff Rense, on the other hand, has neither good evidence nor good horse sense, despite your earlier averment re “overwhelming evidence”.  Were it so overwhelming, you can be sure that a major US newspaper or two, if not one of several independent investigative bodies, would have picked up on it.

Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
Oh, I have tried the "troofers" but I found their ill-conceived rants, badly constructed argumentation, poor grasp of scientific principles, manufactured coincidences and energetic finger pointing quite unconvincing, not to mention morally repugnant.  They rely on emotive humbug to evince an emotional response, not a rational one.  We all like a good scapegoat for our own bad fortunes; why not make one up with blacker-than-black morals?

So my question still stands:  What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

And, what bluegray V said. Smiley

'Luthon64
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2008, 12:38:51 PM »

Look I'm not going to be drawn into a senseless battle of wits here. If you want to believe the mainstream media (all owned by the global elite) then that is your choice. If you want to knock rense.com without delving into the NUMEROUS reports with FACTS on 9/11 etc., then you can also try www.infowars.com. I was not promoting Jeff Rense as an individual, there are hundreds of contributors with unquestionable credentials that submit articles to his site. And if you really want to honestly seek the truth behind the global conspiracy, google for and download a document called "World's last chance", detailing the rise of the Illuminati and global elite since its' official inception on 1 July 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. If you can't find it on the net, let me know and I will email the doc to you.
Logged
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: 3748


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: 3748


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: 3748


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: 3748


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: 3748


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: 3748


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 2.708 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 20, 2019, 06:42:27 AM
Privacy Policy