Image: Matt Collins
After a public lecture in 2005, I was buttonholed by a documentary filmmaker with Michael Moore-ish ambitions of exposing the conspiracy behind 9/11. “You mean the conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to attack the United States?” I asked rhetorically, knowing what was to come.
“That’s what they want you to believe,” he said. “Who is they?” I queried. “The government,” he whispered, as if “they” might be listening at that very moment. “But didn’t Osama and some members of al Qaeda not only say they did it,” I reminded him, “they gloated about what a glorious triumph it was?”
“Oh, you’re talking about that video of Osama,” he rejoined knowingly. “That was faked by the CIA and leaked to the American press to mislead us. There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since 9/11.”
Conspiracies do happen, of course. Abraham Lincoln was the victim of an assassination conspiracy, as was Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, gunned down by the Serbian secret society called Black Hand. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy (although some conspiracists think Franklin Roosevelt was in on it). Watergate was a conspiracy (that Richard Nixon was in on). How can we tell the difference between information and disinformation? As Kurt Cobain, the rocker star of Nirvana, once growled in his grunge lyrics shortly before his death from a self-inflicted (or was it?) gunshot to the head, “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.
Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition.
Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both equally fictional.
See what we're tweeting about
143 Comments
Add CommentThe oldest conspiracy is one that is still believed by billions of people...religion. They are slic...I am notslic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople often believe in conspiracies because they are the most logical explanation. And scientific models don't necessarily translate. As Shermer invokes the JFK assassination we can start there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one considers that the CIA may have been behind the murder of Kennedy there are immediate problems with investigating the hypothesis. One problem isn't that "people can't keep their mouths shut" as G. Gordon Liddy told Shermer. In fact, there is a book out titled SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED that investigates the many people who have talked. Rather, the problem is to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying. My suggestion to Shermer is that Liddy is not very reliable and his history in intelligence would give him a motive to be dishnoest in these matters.
Another problem is that the CIA (and I'll use the organization here as the American intelligence community generally) has large and publicly unknown resources to influence the media. One need only review findings of Congressional investigations of the seventies. So reporting, or for that matter the general opinion as reflected in the media, has been influenced to some unknown extent by CIA allies in the press. When Stone's "JFK" came out about 90% of Americans believed there was some kind of conspiracy to kill JFK but it was nearly impossible to find that opinion within mainstream media commentary.
Why should the CIA be suspected? Because they have been behind many coups and assassinations before and after JFK's murder.
In 1992 then-CIA Director Robert Gates refused to declassify a report about the man who posed as Oswald in Mexico City a month and a half before the assassination. If someone were posing as Oswald, trying to create a myth of Oswald getting in touch with the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate before the assassination, then Oswald simply was not a lone nut. That there were reports of another Oswald in the Dallas area and a third in New Orleans on the same day suggests the intelligence practice of using doubles with the same identity.
While many documents are still classified (like tax and work records of the Oswalds) there has been a lot of new information declassified in the 1990s, almost all of which seems to be ignored by the mainstream which is quite content not to "go there".
When Shermer invokes JFK's murder as an example of paranoia and conspiracy theory he gives "rational thinking" a bad name. It is sometimes rational to mistrust people whose business is deception.
Please read about operations Mongoose and Northwood to get some insight into the proclivity of people with power to conspire to deceive the public. Note that the only reason that Operation Northwood came to light is that Robert McNamara kept a copy of a secret document which was supposes to be destroyed. The public would never have been the wiser had it not shown up in his papers after his death decades following this plan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than look down upon those who question what is presented to them by the media and government, you might try some questioning yourself.
Regarding 9/11, take a very close look at the videos of the three World Trade Center buildings collapsing. Are you really seeing three unprecedented, fire-induced collapses of structures made largely of steel? Unprecedented events require careful examination. Without hard evidence it is relatively easy to dismiss correct conspiracy theories. Even the fire departments admit that evidence that would normally be carefully examined in the event of a collapsed structure in a fire was deliberately destroyed.
How is it that our massive air defense system was unable to pursue even one of four airplanes known to be hijacked? How easy it was to slam one into the pentagon! By gosh we are defenseless!
Regarding your disbelief in the possibility of keeping something earthshaking secret, consider the two years of secrecy involving thousand of people that created the first atomic bomb. Most of them didnt even know what they were working on.
Conspiracy theories are not all crazy. They are frequently formulated from undeniable facts that are conveniently brushed aside by groups and interests that have the power to do so and the need to hide the facts. You don't have to silence everyone who might come forward with information; you only need discredit them as you attempt to do in your article.
the.. funny thing with conspiracy theories is that once you put yourself into, it's like losing your path deep in the forest at night:you never know if you are taking the right way out, meaning, never know-and can never prove- that what you believe on some fact is truth. It's just a suggestion, maybe perfectly matching to one's way of seeing things, but yet a suggestion, not a proven truth. So - i think- we gotta be very carefull, realists and scepticists when we're in front of a new "explanation" on some -heavy social importance usually- fact. For example, 9/11 and all the theories came out for that devastating day. From M. Moore's documentaries to "Zeitgeist"... cult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your time
The black helicopters are coming for you Bob and Too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mystery here. The answer to this question was presented over a century ago by P.T. Barunum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did the government keep the Manhattan Project and D-Day a secret? According to Shermer is would be impossible for so many thousands to stay quiet. How did the 19 flight school dropouts and their assistants keep a secret? How does Shermer decide which conspiracy is improbable and which gets his stamp of approval?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin my opinoin the reason conspiriacies are easy to suspect but hard to prove is that humans regularly engage in conspitorial behavior, have you ever attened a work "meeting" or professional confrence? If so look up the definition of conspiracy. They are everywhere but most are realitivly benign and ineffective
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny. I knew this would bring out the nuts!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is really a direct relationship between the size of a conspiracy, the age of the conspiracy, and what they hope to accomplish.
For example, the Kennedy assasination has at least some plausible parts. A few select people within an organization the size of CIA could pull it off. But would they be dumb enough to send multiple shooters which would make it an obvious conspiracy and at the same time have a plan to blame a single person? Now that doesn't make sense. It's foolish and too risky, yet they planned multiple "doubles" in multiple locations at the same time? So while it's possible to say that maybe Oswald had help from some CIA people, it's another thing to say it was driven by the whole of the CIA.
Which brings me to 9/11. The first thing missing is "motive". Assuming "we" did it, what was the goal? To destabilize the region and drive up gas prices? To use it as an excuse to stumble into a political quagmire? I don't think so. We already had plenty of justification to go after Osama and the Taliban. 9/11 wasn't used as justification to go after Saddam either. We did that without ever staging an attack on us from him. He was walking and quacking like a duck so we shot him. a 9/11 style conspiracy would be much more difficult than an assasination. It would involve many more people and would take much longer to plan which makes it less likely already. Why didn't we stop it? Because we were caught off guard. We weren't expecting it. We don't just fly military jets all over the place all the time to defend the borders. We launch them when we see a threat. Coming from outside the country there is plenty of warning. Here, we didn't even know for sure what was happening till the second jet hit. With thousands of jets in the skies, even launching jets to intercept takes time and they have to identify which of the thousands of jets are the targets. So you take off knowing there have been two jets crashed in New York into a civilian target and there MIGHT be more hijacked commercial jets out amongst the thousands of jets in the air. Which ones do you shoot at? Which targets do you defend? The next target could be the pentagon, or Coney Island, The White House, or a ball game.
And then faking Osama videos? Well, Osama has been after us a long time.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRDH said: 'No mystery here. The answer to this question was presented over a century ago by P.T. Barunum.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn which direction? The dis-information that is spread on the internet and elsewhere that give incomplete facts, is enormous. Knowing what information has been changed is difficult but not impossible.
911? Waaay too many problems there, including:
Lack of wreckage at two sites (feed that "it burned up" garbage to somebody else, as it would be the first . . ever.). Size of hole in Pennsylvania and pentagon, do not match the aircraft size.
Perfectly laid over telephone poles leading up to the Pentagon.
Controlled blasts of all three buildings in NewYork.
Experts and firefighters told to keep thier mouth shut.
And much much more. Just because you don't want to believe we are capable of this doesn't make it not true. Morever, it is assumed that conspiracy theorists all are paranoid, and believe the government is out to get them.
I in fact, do not. I would tell you that they had their reasons, ones we don't necessarily know about, and are probably in our best interests in the long run. The implications of THAT is what really needs to be explored.
Ask the hard questions regardless of the drivel you get in the news. Try it yourself.
Anybody remember a reflector being put on the moon?
How about the Swine flu? Does anybody know anybody personally who has had it? Could be, but I'm up to 200 people and there families friends etc . . .NONE.; Is this a problem? Not necessarily. There either is or isn't, either way, the indications are that you better get that shot if you can.
Statues on Mars? A lot more than that, LOOK FOR YOURSELF.
Pictures of the moon are all distance shots or blurry, same from Mars rover. Why? Really. Maybe they need my $200 Walmart camera, as it would take better pictures than the smack NASA peddles.
Impactor on the moon to search for water. Wha?? What about the pictures of water on the moon? What about other types of detection?
Anybody noticed anything weird with the climate in their area this year? Hmmm. Lost that rosy glow in the evenings?
I could give a rats *ss about any of this except for the fact that there are CONFLICTING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.
The people that believe there is deception going on DO THIE HOMEWORK! They are not just making stuff up. They are not stupid(for the most part), and some are respected scientists and government employees. You discount them why? Because you don't want to beleive? Thats GOOD! Please do your own research and present it to all of us!
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goerin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChew on that, and then tell me why people put stock in the theories.
Conspiracy Theories are like sex; they are natural, fun and easy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural because one of the main functions of the brain is to create patterns out of events. The better that an animal (including humans) can anticipate a fear or flight situation the more likely it is to survive. Humans are compelled by nature to find an explanation in random events. Some of us are more compelled than others.
Humans love a good original story.
Conspiracy theories are easy. They have the advantage of the believer not needing a lot of knowledge; a little of this and little of that, embellished by a little of this and a little of that from another conspiracy theorist and voilá you have got a great story line.
I believe the reference was to "There is a sucker born every minute." Often attributed to PT Barnum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting that the "sucker" quote could work for either side of this particular debate. He seems to using the old trick of misleading double meanings, 'hiding in the shadows' as it were....
Hmmmm.
Wonder what that is about. Someone should investigate.
Area 51 and the Manhattan Project were kept secret, but they aren't secrets anymore. What goes on in top secret military projects are always inevitably released to the public, assuming they aren't still classified as top secret. The best way to keep something secret is by having a top secret location that is outside of civilization in the middle of nowhere, ergo, no president in his/her right mind would be able to keep a largely public event like the events on 9/11 a secret, it just wouldn't be possible. Furthermore, presidents would never plan on attacking their own military headquarters nor would they attack their nations trade system either (whence comes taxes but by trade?). I can't believe the rotten absurdity of the conspirators for the attacks on 9/11/2001.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So there's a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, the more people that would have to be involved, the less likely it is true." mmm. The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is the less likely the general public is going to believe it, and I think any government, corporation, bank or any other institution that might have an interest in a conspiracy takes this into account. I mean how many people did it take to pull off the Chilean coup? There is the CIA, IMF, the US treasury the entire Chilean military and many more I am sure. Does that not count as a conspiracy? We all know this information to be true. Look in Canada, every three years there is a economic crisis and the only answer is selling off government owned assets. This in itself is a conspiracy. To what end? So multinational corporations can walk in and buy companies that the tax payer built, for next to nothing. And the conspiracy is much deeper obviously because more vicious economic take overs have taken place in China, Argentina, Chili, Poland, Bolivia and the list goes on. And at the bottom of it all, the IMF, the very institution that was supposed to keep economic crisis from happening. The bottom line is, we the people are being lied to at every corner of our world by so many different liars (not all are liars in the true sense, some actually believe the garbage that comes out of their mouth.) that its hard to trust anything any one says. So in a nut shell I would not put it past bush to kill people to further is own aim, or Cheney to overthrow a government so his company Halliburton can buy up Iraqi oil fields, the very thing that would allow any government in power in Iraq to stave off economic crisis. Would I put it past Stephen Harper to invent economic crisis to sell off more of Canada to highest bidders. (in which the tax payer sees none of the benefits). No I would not put it past anyone of them. The surest sign that conspiracy thrives is that every time someone reads the writing on the wall there is someone there to tell that person that they either crazy or seeing things. The biggest problem with the world today is the staggering amount of ignorant people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor some it's more reassuring to believe there is a black hand somewhere than to accept that most things just happen and are beyond anybody's control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor most people it's more reassuring to think that there is a black hand somewhere than to admit that certain things just happen and are beyond control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an uncomplicated theory: US funnels untold millions to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan during the Cold War. Freedom fighters (Al Qaeda) but some money in the bank. 20 years later they use it to plan an attack on the US. Ta-Da! It's called blowback and the US won't admit that it happened. So you're all wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an uncomplicated theory: US funnels untold millions to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan during the Cold War. Freedom fighters (Al Qaeda) but some money in the bank. 20 years later they use it to plan an attack on the US. Ta-Da! It's called blowback and the US won't admit that it happened. So you're all wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly a very superficial analysis in this article. Adds very little to the debate on conspiracy theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think also that there is a sense of power in feeling that you have privileged or secret information, that you are smart enough to figure it all out. It makes us feel important. It is also more comforting for us to believe that there are evil forces controlling events rather than just randomness and chaos. Complexity and chaos are much more scary for most people than some imagined evil government force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, you're just making it too simple! It has to be complex, that way no one can follow it, and there fore when you DO follow it, you're a genius. Or, something like that. I'm not paranoid, I don't know how it works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with most conspiracy theories is they fail Occam's Razor. 9/11 conspiracy? To complex, requires special ops that rig the buildings, too many people involved, all run by the moron at the top...honestly, if GWB was involved in a coverup, I can totally see him in a press conference admitting to it just to make himself seem more intelligent.
But, let's propose a simple alternative: GWB and Cheney were aware of the attack in advance, which is well documented, and they saw an opportunity to take a country divided by the 2000 election and get them united behind their "leader". So, they ignored the intelligence. They chose to allow the attack to happen so they could take advantage of the patriotism that would sweep the nation thereafter and use it to go after Daddy's biggest failing (putting Saddam in power in the first place) and perhaps make a ton of cash (Halliburton) in the process.
FYI: I work for the Illuminati Network and have posted this as disinformation. Can you hear the heads of the crazies spinning now?? :)
Article: Paranoia Strikes Deep
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the article Mr. Shermer paraphrased a comment from Mr. Liddy stating, in part, "bureaucrats are incompetent". While in certain circumstances I agree but the majority of government employees are honest and hard working. However, when "keeping your mouth shut" offends your morel and ethical base few options are left open. You can end your career by standing up for your values or you can "leak" the offense. Remember, no one likes a snitch. Which would you do? Possibly be blacked-balled from further government service, promotion and/or civilian careers or just anonymously leak it out. We should thank the moral and ethical person who just cannot stand idly by while sinister works are afoot.
Both sides to this argument agree that there are way too many stupid people on this planet. I have to agree with both sides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis doesnt just explain conspiracy theories; it is a near perfect explanation for the origin of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo it is less likely that a highly organized, state of the art military or intelligence service pulled off 9/11 than a foreign religious leader with few resources? BTW - Bin Laden was an operative of that military/intelligence group. Even in the best case scenario the CIA and military are responsible - even without a conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood evening, Earthlings, this is Jim Illuminati speaking (on behalf of the rest of us, of course). Whatever you believe, it is we who have made you think that way. If you think you have disproved it, then we arranged everything so that you would anyway. Try Scrabble, it's easier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrackle... fizzz... bleep
J Illumianti
My question is why are there so many books and articles about "Why people believe in conspiracies?" I've never seen a title framed thus: "Why don't more people believe in conspiracies?" Your article is insulting, particularly the part about Oliver Stone's JFK. Don't you have a clue about how many people died as a result of the Kennedy assassination? Do you remember Dorthy Killgallen? Well, What happened to her? Was that random accident? NOT! Get a clue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon
dgjohnsonstein@yahoo.com
Thank you,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdon
Thank you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forget that it is QUITE possible that, indeed, some USA government agency could have been behind it simply by supplying the money. Yes, faking Osama videos is rediculous, particularly if you already owned him. Particularly if he didn't KNOW he was owned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of nuts, have you looked in the mirror today?
Don
That is absolutely correct. Have you read that book about Roosevelt showing how Pearl Harbor was a trap created by Roosevelt? Very interesting. I forget the name, sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon
Maybe so, and particularly for some people who should maybe get a life, but it does not make all conspiracies false. You yourself could name ten conspiracies that are KNOWN to be true. Does it take that much imagination to understand that some conspiracies might not be provable or even known about? Patterns for survival are nice, but that disproves nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are absurd! If, (and that's a big 'if') there were a government conspiracy behind 9/11, then it's purpose has to be about money. Follow the money to 1.) bigger militatry budget, 2.) Oil, 3.) a muzzle for Americans and just possibly a spy camera in every home. There is definitely a possibility that there was a conspiracy to do these 3 items and more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Another related, but as of yet unpublished report by Christopher French of Goldsmiths University of London and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway reached very similar results. When they surveyed more than 1,000 British adults they not only found that 9/11 conspiracy believers subscribed to other well-known conspiracy theories, but even often agreed with an invented theory introduced to them during the survey"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Conspiracy theory believers share psychological traits'
- Ft. Lauderdale Science News Examiner, Anna Sanclement
I would like to shake your hand. Thank you,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon
Well, I agree, it is a strange phenomenon when people hold onto beliefs that are not supported by facts. I would, however, have to say that I don't think you picked conspiracies that highlight this phenomenon very well. Many people have asked very challenging questions about JFK & 9/11; reasonable, "non-crazy" questions. There's really no need to suggest that they need tin foil hats or black helicopters are coming, those tactics just shrug off reasonable debate based on some interesting and difficult questions. Some better conspiracies to use to highlight this strange phenomenon might be the "birthers" movement or the "Obama-care" "death panels."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI knew it! This is just the crap I was telling my wife about. If we don't them to stop, and stop real soon now, we're doomed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you watched any shows on tv lately? I mean there it is--the whole plot against us--in color!
Quick, shut your tv off. Hurry. Don't let the bastards know, either.
Going by the fake reports and staged news presented by corporate media, conspiracies are far more trusthworthy than "official reports". It was after all Bush gang which provided evidence that 9/11 was done by Al-Qaeda, Iraq had WMD, Saddam and Osama are good friends. Conspiracy theorists had dispute with all of them. Now, on most of the counts, conspracy theorists are vindicated and lie of CIA and FBI is exposed. Falsehood is all around, truth has to be sought and doscovered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat gets me is why doesn't Cheney just 'fade away'? I've never heard of an ex VP staying so involved after the fact
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 planes knocked down 3 buildings. Explain that one. I've yet to hear anybody else explain it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and building 7? The BBC reported that it collapsed before it did, and the owner of the building said in a PBS interview "we decided to pull it". Are all buildings in New York pre-wired for demolition so you can "pull it" on any given day?
Excellent post by "Bob in Pacifica". All a "A skeptic's take on the public's fascination with disinformation" demonstrates about himself is how thoroughly a person can be manipulated to completely swallow undefendable explanations of horrific events ( mass murder, tyranny, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "classic" example of the completely gullible conspiracy theorist offered first in this article is the individual wanting to talk about 9/11 NOT being the work of a bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists. How many Engineering, Architectural, and Medical experts testifying that the US Government's explanation for 9/11 making no sense would it take to get through this "skeptics" thick head? Hundreds? Hundreds of these professionals HAVE risked their careers to inform non-experts of the scientific realities behind the Twin Towers controlled demolition (http://www.ae911truth.org/).
I look over my life and sometimes wince at some of the choices that I made while exploring relationships, professional choices, etc. But it takes courage and the willingness to risk in order to truly LIVE life, and not just take the "safe" path of convention and living within the proscribed limits of the herd.
But I thank God I never chose to put my name to an article this gut-less, that panders so obviously to the establishment. Obviously the author never understood William Wallace's credo: "All men die, only some men truly live". The hundreds of scientists, engineers etc risking their careers through their association with www.ae911truth.org are truly living. Pandering to the establishment with articles like this is an excellent example of the second half of the William Wallace quote!
The reason people believe in conspiracies is that they need something to believe in. Also conspiracies help us overcome the mind numbing boredom that we encounter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama is not an American. To say "America helped train the Taliban (to fight the Russians)" is American Self-Hatred; what do you hear if you say that "America tacitly supported Iraqi weapons in the past"? - You Lie!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think conspiracies serve a good purpose. They are an extreme balanced by the people who want to deny objective data for their own agenda. Some think the Global Warming deniers fit this role. They are also media-friendly because although they may not always sell outrageous headlines they will maintain sponsors such as Disney (Sorry Bill Maher, there is such a thing as too incorrect).
Objectivists can stand in the middle and try to balance the two. They are allowed to be non-partisan. At the outset they are neither for nor against but open conduits of data and reasoning. Living in the calm eye of the storm, passionless and rational, we can see both extremes. Ironically these battling dark clouds provide tragedy and comedy to brighten our lives... otherwise we would be boring Vulcans.
The Key problem with conspiracy nuts is that they are good at speculating and asking questions but refuse to believe any reasonable fact based answers. Or if they do believe the answers they simply ask more questions or come up with new theories. When those questions are answered clearly and unequivocally they simply invent a new theory and ask new questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, "Truthers" as they call themselves will say, "Well steel doesn't melt until 2400 degrees F. Jet fuel only burns at 1/2 that. Thus, no melted steel, no collapse." Okay, but steel looses 1/2 its strength and that was enough to cause the building to fail. "Truthers" respond, "well no steel building has ever collapsed because of a fire." When you point out that MANY steel buildings have failed and this statement is verifiably false they then say, "Well the owner of the building said, 'Pull it' and everyone in the demolition business uses the term 'pull it' to mean bring down the building. When you point out that NONE of the few companies like Controlled Demolition use the term 'pull it' to describe the act of setting off the explosives and bringing down the building the "Truthers" respond, "just look at the building falling down, it looks EXACTLY like the scenes on TV when they implode a building. When you point out that no it doesn't look like a controlled demolition, first because the first failures were at site of where the plan struck and second since the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors and in a controlled demolition the lower floors are exploded first.
Simply put, no amount of evidence, reason, or explanation will EVER satisfy these people. So when I meet "truthers" I ask questions, I don't let them ask them. Like, if the planes that hit the twin towers were radio guided by the CIA, then what happened to the original planes and passengers? If they were killed how, where, and by whom? Once they say, "I don't know." or they admit they don't have a shred of proof I simply tell them that once they have some actual evidence they can come back and talk to me until then STFU.
Finally, when you encounter a "truther" simply ask for their theory, then ask for actual evidence. Since they have no real evidence or evidence that is completely and rediculously easily refutable, you simply have to ask question after question until they come to the conclusion that they don't know jack.
Regards
Ok, What if UFO's are not UFO's but nothing is done to disclose or debunk what many of us may have indeed seen? Once in April 1984 during the cold war, then again hours before the burnup of a returning shuttle in February 2004, I observed moving spots of light dancing in the sky reactive to my physical impulses. If this is not set up to discredit people having credibility to talk openly about what many more of us may indeed have seen, then I need to remind myself only of bulldozer spending campaigns at each occurance when public concensus was lacking due to a shortage of information and while electronic blogging was still in its infancy. Canadian TV media was publicly joking about Americans staring at the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a suggestion for some of the commenters here...concentrate more on having fun in your life. Maybe you won't need to concoct your little fantasies for your entertainment. Go fishing. Fly a kite. Skate the rails. Do figure 11's down the ski hill. Swim in the waves. Actually I think you should swim with the sharks and play on the freeway. Life will never be fun for some of you. Please go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome ideas seem SO off that one could be excused for imagining then to have had covert intent behind them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat disappoints me, about the comments and the article is no one seems to want to answer the question actually asked. WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES? Every one seems to get bogged down in proving or disproving specific incidents. The interesting thing is the fact that people do this and that there seems to be an innate need for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what I think... Hopefully it can start a conversation.
I think we all ave a mind for conspiracy, at least on some level. It does not have to be Elvis wrestling a alien at area 51. Take a moment and recall some of those embarrassing moments when you thought maybe your friends had all conspired to not invite you to a party, or call you on your birthday. My point, these sometimes foolish thoughts happen to most of us, sometimes there may truth there, but mostly it is just our self centered ego trying to make sense of not being center of the universe.
Ok...The article talks about our minds searching for patterns. If the pattern doesn't fit our experience then we look elsewhere for answers. But I think what you are referring to is what we call imagination. Our possibly unique ability to go beyond our experiences and think new thoughts. The problem comes when we refuse to accept the facts and continue to believe the possibilities. Dreams are a very interesting example. The bizzarre stuff that goes on at night in my head may be an example of uncontrolled imagination gone wild. Sometimes dreams bug me all day...but I never believe they are true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're not top dog you have to keep an eye out for him. We are socially complex. Our top dog could be a collective. What we don't know can threaten our survival. Aren't these CT's not perfectly natural in terms of the 'facts of life', natural selection etc? But there are a bunch of folk who can get away with the "top dog' act now and again and this strong beast might be a collective. This beast might be there only by virtue of birth and have a cruel psycological issues which lead to vendetta. This beast might just be gready, or have soggy brains innitiating the execution of things so obscene that thinking people can't help but wonder if there a covert with intent somewhere. That covert intent might seem threatening to us as a result of it's seeming omnitpotence. Survival is the big important thing and we make a noise about the threat among our own. Does this noise-making then become a way of displaying? It does, because we write about it online like I am doing saying this and that, all leading nowhere in the end. Conspiracy theories are like little intellectual industries!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, having seen and read about it one can have no doubt as to the fishiness of 9 /11. What a terrible mess though, so clearly misdirected. Such a waste of the real thing. So shameful. If there was a secret intention behind that I hope the pertpetrator/s gets eaten by incurable syphalis.
“Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example: New Orleans, Katrina, flooding & flood victims. Believe it or not, there is an ongoing very successful conspiracy by a government organization and a certain professional industry in regard to the actual cause of the flood, deaths and damage.
Myths and misunderstandings about Katrina, New Orleans and flood victims stemmed from journalists parachuting in with preconceived notions and lazy but flowery language and they often reported fiction by accident. Also, countrymen and politicians used the problems of flood victims as partisan political fodder.
One widespread myth was that the levees were blown up. It is also a myth that a barge caused a breach. Many more big myths led people to believe a natural disaster caused the deaths and destruction.
The leader of the organization responsible for the catastrophe actually testified before congress in June of 2006 that their organization and its employees were responsible. The three official levee failure investigation reports clearly identified that same organization as solely responsible for the floodwall and levee failures. Then, in January of 2008 a federal Judge, S. Duval decided that organization was responsible for the 1000+ deaths and at least a hundred billion dollars of damage and untold suffering of hundreds of thousands of US citizens, but also declared that party has immunity. These are simple irrefutable facts.
Meanwhile, the responsible organizations leveraged dozens of well-accepted myths to try to get history to record something else - anything else. A major professional organization pitched in to help with the conspiracy because their membership was very dependent on the responsible organization and because their reputation and funding was at stake too.. The party at fault even hired a PR firm, for just $6M, to try to promote the myths and help defend against the truth for the sake of what they call 'image improvement' but is really an attempt to get them off the hook in history books and to trick most of the public into continuing to give them their trust and to remain a very major recipient of Congress’ pork barrel spending.
Yes, it has been a very successful conspiracy against citizens of the United States of America. This conspiracy was cheap and easy to pull off. Read more about it at Levees.org
Regarding the conspiracy reported in my previous post, people should know that our outfall canal floodwalls fell down without even being overtopped (at less than half their design loads) because of negligent engineering in the design of those floodwalls' foundations by engineers employed with the US Army Corps of Engineers as reported in the official levee failure investigation reports and reported to Congress by Corps leadership in June of 2006 and as decided by US 5th District Judge S. Duval in January of 2008. Bad engineering, human error... by the feds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHurricane wind and the storm category rating of the storm had virtually nothing to do with the failures of the flood control structures. It was about the storm surge induced height of the sea water, but not about the height of the levees as they failed without being overtopped or not even nearly overtopped.
The levee failures and subsequent flooding were NOT because of our corrupt local levee boards and politicians or because of weak soil, barges, wind, rain, land elevation, subsidence, climate change, levee heights, budgets, democrats, republicans, crime, an act of God, school buses, our culture, environmentalists, neighborhood groups. It wasn't even caused by FEMA, our Sewage and Water Board or our state's Department of Transportation, or our poverty, lack of education or any of the other red herring issues very successfully promoted by so many. No one blew up any of the levees or floodwalls. The flood was not at all the fault of flood victims.
The levees did not fail because they were 'overwhelmed'. Federal engineers made lots of big stupid mistakes. Our disaster was the worst engineering catastrophe in the history of North America and the engineers that designed and built and were responsible for those failed levees are the same engineers tasked to rebuild our storm surge protection system. And, the federal government gives us no choice (and never did), but to accept the Corps' work.
In regard to my previous posts about the Katrina myths and their relation to this conspiracy, let me tell you some of the many myths and misconceptions that made the conspirator's work easy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people don't know that 90% of the metro area evacuated before the storm? It was the most successful evacuation of a metropolitan area in this country's history.
They don't know that the Lower Ninth Ward is but only 2 of the 140 square miles (in just Orleans Parish) that flooded when our flood control structures fell down.
They don't know that 70% of New Orleans home owners had flood insurance? - a rate higher than almost anywhere else in the country.
Do they know that the flood, proportionally, killed just as many rich, middle class and poor as well as black, white, Hispanic and Asian New Orleanians? The only demographic that suffered more than the rest were our elderly who suffered the worst, by far. Did you know many thousands of New Orleanians died in the months after the storm from stress and depression, and are still dying?
Did they know that 50% of New Orleans is above sea level?
Do they know ships must travel 96 miles upriver from the Gulf to reach the Port of New Orleans? - we are not a 'coastal' city.
Do they know the Corps and a few oil companies are also responsible for the loss of our south Louisiana wetlands that use to serve as our storm surge buffer?
Do they know that New Orleans has a higher percentage of residents that remain lifelong residents of their hometown than any other major metropolitan area in the US?
New Orleans residents always knew that one day our levees and floodwalls would likely be overtopped and we worried they might breach if overtopped - but that IS NOT what happened. They failed long before the water reached the height of the tops of the walls. They broke at loads way smaller then they were supposedly designed to survive.
CCR,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was aware of many though not all of the facts you are stating. The one issue that you have not discussed and is the fact that the levees were always considered at great risk. This has never been a mystery and no one as far as I know has ever tried to argue that the levies were adequate. As far as I know the levees were never designed to survive anything beyond a category 3 hurricane, thus although they may not have even met this standard, they were destined to fail at some point.
What really concerns me is that environmentalists are using Katrina to argue that large portions of New Orleans should be abandoned. As you have so rightly pointed out the disaster in New Orleans was largely an engineering failure. Countries all over the world have built adequate levees and safeguards that are far more ambitious than those required by New Orleans, if we fail to build adequate protections for New Orleans in the future it is largely a political or engineering failure, and not a failure in know how or technology.
Regards
Joe Dokes
People believe in conspiracies because we live in a world today where deceit is a way of life, especially in government. Everyone knows that the truth is a rare treasure which is not often present in American politics. We also live in a world world where fear and paranoia are used as tools to shape public opinion and pressure people into certain perspectives, no conspiracy there just effective marketing. This is in many ways an insane world so in my view conspiracies both real and imagined are a natural result. Often people come up with conspiracies because they are not provided with the truth so are left to piece events together on their own wondering why the truth is such a guarded secret. 9/11 is a great example, I have no idea what happened and don't subscribe to a conspiracy theory but I also know that the official story is one of the most ridiculous and improbable conspiracy theories out there, very few really believe it. This is obvious to anyone who has an open mind and really investigates the claims made in the official story many of which cannot possibly be accurate, some violate the laws of physics and some are so improbable that it would be more likely to say that martians were behind 9/11. I don't know what is being hidden here although I do know that if the official story were true it should stand up to scrutiny and critical thinking which it doesn't. I think we should be asking why we are left to resort to conspiracies when the truth would be so much more healing for everyone, no matter what it revealed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSob Sob Sob...I feel so sorry for you...NOT!!! Just like the So Cal wildfires every year, you people want to live in an area that is prone to disaster. Just like tornado alley. Just like New York. Why should I feel sorry for you when you blame everyone but yourself? You are the people who live there. A chick named Katrina caused it. Get over it. I'm tired of my tax dollars and insurance premiums being given to you people who live in disaster areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKurt Cobain wasn't the first to make the comment about being paranoid, I have a tee shirt with that on it that I bought before he was even born.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of craziness, how about the Discovery channel or the History channel? One can watch 'documentaries' about Nostradomus, the Bermuda triangle, Ghost Hunters, Edgar Casie, UFOs, the list is endless and in my opinion, takes away all of their credibility on anything else they offer. And I love people who will quote 'facts' that they saw on one of these shows, as Nostradomus predicted I would, right after he predicted WWII.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjoedokes said " the fact that the levees were always considered at great risk" and "never designed to survive anything beyond a category 3 hurricane"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said you read my stated "facts" and that I didn't address the fact that everyone knew the levees were inadequate, but I addressed exactly that very specifically. I'll say it again. First, the category of the storm had absolutely nothing to do with anything - it is all about the height of the storm surge water on the levees and floodwalls. Everyone knew and still knows that one day we will see catastrophic flooding. We knew and accepted that if our levees were not TALL enough, eventually they would be overtopped and we would flood. We worried they might fail if overtopped, but we totally trusted they wouldn't fall down like cheap movie props at storm surge heights many feet less than the height of the floodwall. I.E. We agree with you the catostrophic flooding is an eventual certainty, but the storm surge during Katrina did not raise to top of the floodwalls - not even close they failed at less than HALF their design load. Engineers made incomprehensibly stupid mistakes - that is the only reason New Orleans flooded between the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal and the 17th street canal - the heart of the city.
It is true that levees in New Orleans East and St. Bernard and the Lower Ninth Ward (but not on the IHNC), some of those levees were overtopped, 'overwhelmed. It is fair to say those areas were devestated by a natural disaster, but completely incorrect to say a natural disaster or too powerful of a storm flooded the main part, the heart of the city.
you said: "they were destined to fail at some point."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, at some point, but not at less than half the design load, not at many feet below the height of this engineered flood control structure. Mother nature did not cause them to fail. They were supposedly built to hold back water almost all the way to the top of the wall. This ain't rocket science. To say Katrina caused these walls to fail is like saying traffic caused a bridge to fail. It was the engineering.
notslic: said: "Sob Sob Sob...I feel so sorry for you...NOT!!! Just like the So Cal wildfires every year, you people want to live in an area that is prone to disaster. Just like tornado alley. Just like New York. Why should I feel sorry for you when you blame everyone but yourself? You are the people who live there. A chick named Katrina caused it. Get over it. I'm tired of my tax dollars and insurance premiums being given to you people who live in disaster areas."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the ignorant pawn of the conspirators and they have you fooled into blaming the conspirator's victims for their fate - that is what this article is about you know. Of course you think you know what you are talking about, but you have been manipulated into believing your facts. Ours is a very successful conspiracy - the real thing - irrefutable. And, you are one of their myth believers.
You don't get it. You knew they would fail and you stayed. You can blame all you want, but each person is in control of their own destiny if they choose. Guess who pays? Those of us who are prudent in choosing a safe place to live. I don't care which engineer failed in their task. I'm smarter than YOU for not living there. Adults should not be wussie crybabies. You are SLIC...I am NOTSLIC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotslic said: "ou don't get it. You knew they would fail and you stayed. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike 90% of the metro area, we evacuated before the storm. Sir, you believe a lot of myths spread by the conspirators. Why on earth do you think any citizen of New Orleans knew our levees might fail without even being overtopped. Who told you that crazy myth?
If a bridge collapses and drivers die, is it their fault?
"notslic"? :shrug:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"notslic"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:shrug:
The number of conspiracy theorists demonstrates the alarmingly high prevalence of DSM-IV-TR 301.00 cluster A, subtype: borderline in the population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese cases are prevalent on web forums and comments pages you visit, and some may have even infiltrated your friends, family and colleagues at work; they are projecting their thoughts into your head, listening in on the words you say, and often looking at words you have written.
There is an 80% chance that you are within 30 feet of one of them as you are reading this and there is significant chance that YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.
If suspect someone of this condition, you MUST STRICTLY adhere to these guidelines:
DO NOT argue with them. This will only confuse them and cause them considerable anxiety and emotional discomfort. You may subsequently find yourself experiencing a high degree of annoyance and irritation.
YOU MUST AGREE with absolutely everything they say. This will form a firm foundation for their fragile grasp of reality.
BUILD ON THEIR IDEAS with pseudo-rational constructs and quoting authoritative sounding sources.
DO NOT allow them to coerce you into their way of thinking. If you find your self believing them, just stick your tongue firmly in your cheek and try to nod your head sagely.*
IF YOU FIND YOURSELF trying to reason with them and you suspect they are not listening to you, simply stare at an imaginary point on the horizon just above one of their shoulders (you can achieve this in an enclosed space by fixing your eyes on a point and allowing your eyes to gently drift apart - like looking at one of those 'Magic Eye' illusions. If they are not present stare behind the nearest object in front of you); open your eyelids as wide open as you can possibly get them, and with a fixed facial expression allow some saliva to dribble from the corner of your mouth.*
*These will work even if you are not in direct line of sight or webcam, or with vocal communication. Studies have shown that they are receptive to subtle cues from electronic text based transmissions.
THIS IS THE ONLY PROVEN WAY to protect yourself from the thought patterns they are conveying and preventing THEM from feeding on your mind.
Well, his mistake was to include the JFK incident with the rest of the conspiracies. I mean, at least there is some sort of evidence suggesting that it wasn't entirely a "clean" assassination. As far as relating that to all conspiracies is insulting, because most (like 9/11) have absolutely no evidence attached to them. They rely on the same thing that religion does and that is whole pile of events that have to solution or answer, and immediately assigning them to a ultimate decision maker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's always... "well, this doesn't make sense", or "that couldn't have made that hole".... so, it's gotta be god or a conspiracy. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that LIFE in general is weird and not everything has to make sense, but that doesn't give you an excuse to point your finger at an imaginary being/organization.
The point is you have to come at it in a scientific way. I'm not saying nothing is a conspiracy, but if you can't prove anything with evidence (and just pointing out that the media/government are lying isn't evidence), then it's not worth much. The JFK case had evidence (maybe all circumstantial, but there was some), but the 9/11 "evidence" just consists of a few idiot who basically claim they see a MADE BY THE CIA sticker in the really low res pictures of the wreckage. And claiming that the hole in the pentagon doesn't fit the plane, again, is not evidence. If it is indeed true it's definitely something to look closely at, but it is definitely not evidence! If anyone actually believes that's evidence, then please don't ever become a lawyer or a judge.
Well, his mistake was to include the JFK incident with the rest of the conspiracies. I mean, at least there is some sort of evidence suggesting that it wasn't entirely a "clean" assassination. As far as relating that to all conspiracies is insulting, because most (like 9/11) have absolutely no evidence attached to them. They rely on the same thing that religion does and that is whole pile of events that have to solution or answer, and immediately assigning them to a ultimate decision maker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's always... "well, this doesn't make sense", or "that couldn't have made that hole".... so, it's gotta be god or a conspiracy. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that LIFE in general is weird and not everything has to make sense, but that doesn't give you an excuse to point your finger at an imaginary being/organization.
The point is you have to come at it in a scientific way. I'm not saying nothing is a conspiracy, but if you can't prove anything with evidence (and just pointing out that the media/government are lying isn't evidence), then it's not worth much. The JFK case had evidence (maybe all circumstantial, but there was some), but the 9/11 "evidence" just consists of a few idiot who basically claim they see a MADE BY THE CIA sticker in the really low res pictures of the wreckage. And claiming that the hole in the pentagon doesn't fit the plane, again, is not evidence. If it is indeed true it's definitely something to look closely at, but it is definitely not evidence! If anyone actually believes that's evidence, then please don't ever become a lawyer or a judge.
Thank you Barney Mcgroo...I shall attempt your thoughtful and merciful techniques when confronted by the blame squad. Crescent City geek...You still don't get it. I don't believe any myths and I could care less about your crybaby attitude. If you didn't know of the danger, then why did you evacuate? Common sense has no place in a conspiracy theorist's mind. Who are you blaming here? The ACOE? Good luck...they have immunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBob says, "It is sometimes rational to mistrust people whose business is deception." Which statement in and of itself is irrational, since it's always rational to mistrust the known deceptive arts practitioners to some degree. But we need to force ourselves to do so in an objective manner, putting aside if at all possible what we either want badly to believe, or badly not to. The "probable" becomes clearer if we can approach things with our "rational" abstract thinking processes. And the probable should be our first assumption, with the improbable always being more suspect than the probable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefending oneself first against the least probable dangers is just what terrorists and the like would want us to do.
As to Liddy, he "knows" about the weakness of conspirators, having been ratted out, but nevertheless he's now a public participant in the birther conspiracy (if not others in which he's yet to be caught at).
Experienced man never believe in the plot theory which is contradict to the common sense and never believe in the absence of plot for the same reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, J. Kennedy was killed by the financial mafia and CIA? the probability of the chain of killings was close to zero, but 11/9 attacks were not inspired by CIA, because to hide such event is not possible.
Dear Michael, I'm sad for you and hope one day your eyes will open and the light of widom will take away clouds from your mind. Dig deeper in your research befor posting your opinion. Ability to write doesn't mean to pollute some undeveloped minds. Respectfully, Oleg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is another interesting paper on the same & related subjects:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.publiceye.org/conspire/toxic2democracy/index.html
I suppose this could be confirmed by statistical methods. It seemed to me , even as far back as grade school, that the probability that human beings are capable of masterminding elaborate schemes that remain secret is next to zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat prevents people from realizing the ' truth ' of the matter is continuing ' magical ' thinking and a need to be ' hoodwinked' . This may indicate intellectual laziness or psychological ' weakness' that , unfortunately, are conditions far more powerful in the land than any perceived conspiracy.
if a conspiracy affects millions of people, that doesn't mean that they've all been bought. direct orders and payment are not the way to put things in motion without being exposed. you only have to nudge a few people and influence a few others with mere words. it only takes a few smart people to pull the strings. even those who work directly for them do not have to be informed of the agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is ironic that the physical evidence is completely ignored in this article from America's foremost journal of popular science. The THREE World Trade Center towers that fell on 9/11 collapsed much too fast to be explained by "pancaking". In fact, the minimum time for collapse from the top down is sqrt(3) times the free-fall time. This limit attains if there is zero structural resistance. All 3 towers fell faster than this, proving that the "legs" were pulled out from under the bottom of the buildings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimultaneous collapse of the bottom and top portions of the building is improbable, and three such collapses are more than enough cause to initiate an investigation. There is every reason to investigate the possibility that the buildings were wired in advance for controlled demolition, and such an investigation should be welcomed by Shermer.
The greater the amount of information in circulation is at present, the less people communicate with each other. This truism causes society to fall into a trap. The problem becomes even more serious when the lack of true communication is replaced by partial information which leads to the emergence of half truths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new sciences of knowledge teach us that the notion that truth sprouts only in the field of reason is not true. Reason must be accompanied by the emotion that supports or reinforces it. It is only under such conditions that truth is accepted.
Emotion is an essential factor of every discourse, every process of interpretation of reality, every act of modification of society. This is why the relentless efforts made by thinkers of different fields hadn’t, apparently until now, found a valid rationale that would explain why there prevails a dangerous dichotomy between scholars and scientists, between pure scientists and technologists, between technicians and politicians.
If the new cognitive science is right, humanity is not currently suffering from lack of logical capabilities but instead, from an overabundance of them. To quote Luis A. Damasio who has studied the problem exhaustively, it suffers «…from a scarcity of emotions that should inform the display of logic.»
At least a lesson can be learned from Damasio’s thinking which those who do intellectual work or those who are frequently found in these fields without being properly equipped for it have unfortunately not learned: lack of emotion is so harmful for rationality as the excess of emotion.
It truly doesn’t seem that reason will benefit in any way by ignoring emotion. Instead, emotion might help us reason correctly, especially concerning personal and social matters, guiding us at times towards the most advantageous position for us within the area of possible decisions. But it is not necessary for emotion to replace reason or to decide for us either.
In practical life scientists and scholars who explore the field of politics, who normally state «half truths» and who are responsible for the well known «conspiracy theories» are not persons «in abstract» but «situated beings» (as set forth by Christian thought as a reflection of the old Jewish ethics.)
Indeed, all of us are «situated» beings in relationship to our piers, in countries with given interests and committed to causes built upon their own ends. This is the foundation of the «ideologisation» of the collective task. And it is a new trap into which we, post-modern, human beings, have fallen.
And the worst part of this scenario is that such «ideologisation» makes us fall inevitably into «electoral politisation» where any trace of truth is more difficult to find.
The problem, once having arrived at this point of politisation, is that the beliefs or certitudes of human beings have an effect on their convictions. And their convictions make them construct truths, such truths, however, not being objective but subjective, deeply subjective.
When a scientist or a scholar has adopted a position with respect to society it may be asserted that she or he has left the realm of radical certitude to fall into the field of ideology. And this step, which is inevitable, implies that each one puts in check, in serious check, her or his relationship with truth, since every task, every intellectual discipline, is defined by its partiality and its positive character, that is, by its setting the boundaries to an area of reality.
Although the knowledge derived from science or that is extracted from erudition is sufficient for itself, it is not sufficient as knowledge to be shared by humanity as a whole. Therefore, it is easier to take shortcuts and to believe half truths. One of those half truths that have invaded society is, precisely, that about conspiracy theories.
In order to be able to live within the realm of truth, human beings need a more radical truth than that which the fenced-off realms of knowledge or science offer them. They need something that reaches beyond. They need to know or at least speculate about which the sense of life is. Can we find such truth? This appears not to be possible.
The greater the amount of information in circulation is at present, the less people communicate with each other. This truism causes society to fall into a trap. The problem becomes even more serious when the lack of true communication is replaced by partial information which leads to the emergence of half truths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new sciences of knowledge teach us that the notion that truth sprouts only in the field of reason is not true. Reason must be accompanied by the emotion that supports or reinforces it. It is only under such conditions that truth is accepted.
Emotion is an essential factor of every discourse, every process of interpretation of reality, every act of modification of society. This is why the relentless efforts made by thinkers of different fields hadn’t, apparently until now, found a valid rationale that would explain why there prevails a dangerous dichotomy between scholars and scientists, between pure scientists and technologists, between technicians and politicians.
If the new cognitive science is right, humanity is not currently suffering from lack of logical capabilities but instead, from an overabundance of them. To quote Luis A. Damasio who has studied the problem exhaustively, it suffers «…from a scarcity of emotions that should inform the display of logic.»
At least a lesson can be learned from Damasio’s thinking which those who do intellectual work or those who are frequently found in these fields without being properly equipped for it have unfortunately not learned: lack of emotion is so harmful for rationality as the excess of emotion.
It truly doesn’t seem that reason will benefit in any way by ignoring emotion. Instead, emotion might help us reason correctly, especially concerning personal and social matters, guiding us at times towards the most advantageous position for us within the area of possible decisions. But it is not necessary for emotion to replace reason or to decide for us either.
In practical life scientists and scholars who explore the field of politics, who normally state «half truths» and who are responsible for the well known «conspiracy theories» are not persons «in abstract» but «situated beings» (as set forth by Christian thought as a reflection of the old Jewish ethics.)
Indeed, all of us are «situated» beings in relationship to our piers, in countries with given interests and committed to causes built upon their own ends. This is the foundation of the «ideologisation» of the collective task. And it is a new trap into which we, post-modern, human beings, have fallen.
And the worst part of this scenario is that such «ideologisation» makes us fall inevitably into «electoral politisation» where any trace of truth is more difficult to find.
The problem, once having arrived at this point of politisation, is that the beliefs or certitudes of human beings have an effect on their convictions. And their convictions make them construct truths, such truths, however, not being objective but subjective, deeply subjective.
When a scientist or a scholar has adopted a position with respect to society it may be asserted that she or he has left the realm of radical certitude to fall into the field of ideology. And this step, which is inevitable, implies that each one puts in check, in serious check, her or his relationship with truth, since every task, every intellectual discipline, is defined by its partiality and its positive character, that is, by its setting the boundaries to an area of reality.
Although the knowledge derived from science or that is extracted from erudition is sufficient for itself, it is not sufficient as knowledge to be shared by humanity as a whole. Therefore, it is easier to take shortcuts and to believe half truths. One of those half truths that have invaded society is, precisely, that about conspiracy theories.
In order to be able to live within the realm of truth, human beings need a more radical truth than that which the fenced-off realms of knowledge or science offer them. They need something that reaches beyond. They need to know or at least speculate about which the sense of life is. Can we find such truth? This appears not to be possible.
I get what you say about individuals sometimes using emotion to make more thoughtful decisions. Charity is a great example of this. However, emotions also make people make bad decisions all the time. Greed and jealousy never make people make good decisions. On the large scale, societies won't progress unless rationality is the driving force. True altruism and empathy are based on rational thinking, not emotion. Bill Gates is a good example of this. Religions use guilt and threat of damnation (fear) to coerce people. If, as you say, we are evolving toward more rational thinking, that is a good thing and I welcome it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe government knew in advance what was cooking and did nothing about it. That is not conspiracy, it is not even neglect. It was a cool calculated decision to have an excuse to enter a war that would only benefit, both the oil companies and the industries involved in warfare...... but, conspiracy..... of course not...!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Law! With your name I bet you know the legal definition of a conspiracy! It is an agreement between 2 or more people to engage in an illegal act, along with an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Since the president is sworn to protect the country from all enemies, his failure to do so is treason. The overt act would be leaving Washington to go read with school children...creating an alibi before the crime took place. Since someone had to tell him of the danger, there is a co-conspirator. The treason resulted in 3000 deaths. Thus...felony murder, if treason can be found to be an inherently dangerous felony. Even by sticking to your alleged facts, a conspiracy under the law exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow for the conspiracy theory...If GWB indeed knew of the inevitability of the attacks, he lied to the people and congress regarding responsibility and motive, thus spreading the misinformation for the purposes that you stated. It is the classical conspiracy theory, whether based on the facts you allege or on the CIA bringing down the buildings.
I remember the look on GWB's face in the video of him being told of the attacks. It is hard to distinguish whether he was overcome with the tragedy or with guilt. I really think it took a few minutes for his 2 brain cells to communicate before he got up and left the kids. But I don't think we will ever truly know his motives or all the facts.
This reminds me of a law school exam question, many years ago and far, far away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLack of emotion is so harmful for rationality as the excess of emotion.
What?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most truthful statement that 9/11 truthers can make is that the 9/11 commission report is flawed to the point of indicating a cover up. The investigation was delayed 14 months by the administration and has so many omissions and misinformation it is proof in itself of a conspirisy to misinform. Why? The Osama Bin Laden tape was released three months after the event. Why? The Secret Service allowed the President to remain at his photo op event for an hour after it was concluded that we were under attack. Why didn't they determine the President might be at risk? The 9/11 Commission Report excluded information on Building No. 7. Did they know that Larry Silverstein admitted to having the building "pulled" in a television interview? The NIST recently concluded that "furniture fires" caused the collapse of Building No. 7. Do they not know of this same interview? The 9/11 Commission Report is a conspiricy theory with no proof of the 19 highjackers or Osama Bin Laden's leadership in the attack. They conclude that history was made that day when three highrise buildings collapsed because of fire and four airplanes crashed with no recognizable airplane parts to be found.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more thing, to answer kfreels. For a motive read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" by the Project for a New American Century released September 2000. You'll read about the need for a "new Pearl harbor" to proceed with this agenda. You should know Unical wanted to run a pipeline from the Caspain Sea to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan. You should also know that Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA and his employment was never severed. You should also follow the money. Who has gained financially from 9/11. Larry Silverstein, Haliburton, Eric Prince of Blackwater, all of the Oil Corporations, many other security corporations, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, etc... There is so much motive I would question your ignorance on this matter.
Let's not forget the original conspiracy of Lucifer in his denial of the Christs of God, the sons and daughters of God, who were to have dominion over all of the creation including the Angels. Their souls were created in Spirit of God's Sacred Fire after His image and likeness and they evolved for eons before ever taking their first incarnation. They were intended to continue their development in the earth and then return to God in the ritual of the Ascension. They are "spiritually connected" to God via spiritual centers called chakras (wheels), energy vortices that receive the Light of God and like step-down transformers, deliver it to the organs and other systems of the physical body. Jesus said that we do not live by bread alone. Within their Heart of hearts called The Secret Chamber of the Heart chakra, there burns and Unfed Threefold Flame of God's Power, Wisdom and Love. This is the Portal to the kingdom of heaven and access point to their Higher Mind, the Christ Mind, that they are intended to put on and become as part of their development in the earth. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is within you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLucifer would have none of that and he was cast out of heaven with his bands of angels. Lucifer created an anti-Christ godless, soulless race, subservient to him and his fallen angels. They have no conscience, no remorse, limited free will and are pre-programmed to persecute the children of God. They are like ants in an ant colony. They move about independently but their sole purpose is to further the colony and its dominion over the children of God. They are not of God, have never known God and have no "spiritual connection" to God. They deny the existence of God and do not recognize the authority of the children of God. Jesus called them "the tares among the wheat". Both Jesus and John the Baptist rebuked them on sight calling them the seed of the wicked one. In the Old Testament they were still in separate tribes. The warfare between the children of God and these "tares" was for the purpose of eliminating them from the earth. In disobedience to God's warning, the children of God intermarried with the "tares" and thus the genes of Christ were mixed with the genes of anti-Christ. We have had this "warring in our members" ever since. We must consciously decide which attributes we want "to be or not to be". Those fallen angels and "tares" are still among us.
The only way to defeat them is for the children of God to quickly gain their Christ mastery and do the things that Jesus did and more.
Adrenaline.....and beneath the deluge of details that are strung together lies that single pervasive class of neurotransmitters that so effectively relieves depression, brings tension and life to the muscles, and activates the neural net to find those most obscure connections that might, just might, bring order to the chaos and predictability to the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have to wonder, if consipracy theorists see so much connectivity in our public world, what must they see in the randomness of their personal lives as they deal with their neighbors, bank, doctor, and grocery store? (Personally, I'm quite sure my wife and mother-in-law are conspiring against me. )
Like a hypocondriac is the last person to succumb to an illness, the conspracy theorist, must be the least likely to be taken by surprise or even inadvertantly taken advantage of in his or her personal life. That is, if they let anyone close enough to actually have a personal life. They may not seem very happy, but they sure aren't depressed either. (bi-polar personalities in their depressive cycle excluded.)
I know I sure feel much better when I'm railing against some rightwing conspiracy. And I've never heard Savage, of The Savage Nation, more alive then when he was railing against the conpirators that kept him from being able buy chicken feet at the butcher shop.
Carlton...You are a victim of the oldest conspiracy theory known to civilization. If the bible is your only ammunition, you are shooting blanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisItfitzme...I also enjoy seeing both sides, and being entertained by them both. I watch Jeopardy, switch to Bill and Kieth during the commercials and then can't decide which maniac to watch after final Jeopardy (but I never watch Dennis Miller). Hannity is hard to watch because he's not very entertaining and absolutely predictable. Madcow is too nice in her cynicism and too butch in her appearance. I really miss Russert on Sunday morning. I think Joy Behar will be good..."Who cares?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisItfitzme..If you don't knoe who Joy is...ask your mother in law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsiracies are not revealed because the media-include Scientific Amereica- does not investigate them. There are logical, numerous and very scientific holes in the Kennedy and 9/11 cases that you could put a truck sideways through but they are never even mentioned let alone debated in any depth or openess.I used to support the vietnam war when I was 16 and only relied on main stream media. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never occured, I didnt notice too much outrage at this recent admission. Was this a successful conspiracy? Have you as editors and contributors read widely on Kennedy and 9/11 ? Lets see an in depth analysis. point for point, of 9/11 in SA, the physics, engineering. seismic, chemical etc, etc. Of course you you wont be able to investigate the video evidence for the Pentagon crash or investigate the engine part numbers ,etc, etc. Go ahead and decimate the 9/11 conspiracy with an OPEN and ONGOING debate and exposure. You are the scientists, you can expose the truth better than anyone, put us out of our misery once and for all, but I could put my house on it that you will NOT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsiracies are not revealed because the media-include Scientific Amereica- does not investigate them. There are logical, numerous and very scientific holes in the Kennedy and 9/11 cases that you could put a truck sideways through but they are never even mentioned let alone debated in any depth or openess.I used to support the vietnam war when I was 16 and only relied on main stream media. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never occured, I didnt notice too much outrage at this recent admission. Was this a successful conspiracy? Have you as editors and contributors read widely on Kennedy and 9/11 ? Lets see an in depth analysis. point for point, of 9/11 in SA, the physics, engineering. seismic, chemical etc, etc. Of course you you wont be able to investigate the video evidence for the Pentagon crash or investigate the engine part numbers ,etc, etc. Go ahead and decimate the 9/11 conspiracy with an OPEN and ONGOING debate and exposure. You are the scientists, you can expose the truth better than anyone, put us out of our misery once and for all, but I could put my house on it that you will NOT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst a plug for my 1999 book, MAXIMUM DISTRUST; UNUSUAL STORIES OF INJUSTICE, UNBALANCED THINKING and MOB PSYCHOLOGY IN AMERICA, Kroshka Division of Nova Science Books.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruth is debatble. When societies become culturally and socially fractured a thousand flowers bloom, as Chairman Mao would put it. When I was young in the 1950's and 1960's we had three television networks that basically parroted each other, because everyone had the same general point of view on most topics. Hollywood produced movies that rarely had unconventional social messages or interpretations. Most newspapers were bastions of conventional wisdom.
Today I have 150 TV channels to choose from, the Internet, and a huge selection of foreign film titles to choose from. It's a wonder that the Flat Earthers don't make a strong comeback.
How funny for Shermer to dismiss the 9/11 Truth movement after a--real or imagined?--talk with Michael Moore, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie tacitly took part in the 9/11 cover-up. Shermer's true challenge would have been to take the bull by the horns, send his readers to the slide show of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and critique its contentions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it has already be written, it is one thing for a scientific magazine to mock conspiracy theories. How about confronting one? If and when AE911Truth is exposed as an error or a hoax, the 9/11 Truth movement is likely to lose much steam.
Scientific American and other mainstream media, worldwide, are largely responsible for the growth of 9/11 Truth. They have mostly ignored it. Otherwise, they have ridiculed it or demonized it, with plenty of ad hominem attacks. Had they exposed enough evidence to debunk the contention that the 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers were demolished, they would not need to resort to dirty tactics to marginalize 9/11 Truth; reasonable people would do it on their own.
Love,
Hi all. deafening silence on the challenge to put us out of our misery on 9/11, if its so obvious and easy to knock these myths on the head then lets demolish the myths clinically and scientifically in open forum. But we wont, because the media is totally silent on this subject. Just on this point, I hear from non mainstream media reports that there were 9/11 protests over in the States. We here in oz probably get more US news than you do (at least it feels that way at times), but no mention anywhere of such protests. Was it covered in MSM in the States?. I believe it was well covered on Russian media. Just an observation. How do we disprove these things if we dont discuss them fact for fact? Hey, hows that article on the demolition of 9/11 myths going, cant be too hard can it? BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS in the world should be able to wrap it up in about ten minutes and we can all get back to real science. Going by the number of hits here it should about double circulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the backup Dan, but let the sloppy scientists do their own research, or do we have to hand it to them on a platter? Oh and by the way, who was fooling around with nano thermite at ground zero? Anyone at Scientific American got any NANO thermite in the lab? I wonder who has NANO thermite. Who was that pesky Scandanavian scientist who published his research in a scientific journal recently? Why dont you do a demolition job on this obvious fraudster ASAP! How could this rubbish be published? OH, you didnt see this on the news? I wonder why? Please any EXPERT in the field please demolish this latest article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, OK I was a science teacher, you need to be spoon fed ( or more probably you are not interested-(( its not in the exam, not good career choice)), and you wont do your homework, but hey this one goes boom big time) wake up and show some interset. Here I'LL help you, d o - a - g o o g l e- s e a r c h on nano thermite 911. The first three hits will keep you busy. You should be able to find the published scientists here. Try the first video ( dont want you to lose interest) Niels Harrit as on Danish TV. (hey it gets on the media over there!) Now write me a few lines to denounce his obviously flawed work. If you want better grades read his and other papers and submit a more balanced critique. All great minds welcome, including those at Scientific American. Still no takers on that demolition of 911 conspiracies? Does anyone at SA read this stuff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero...How ya goin' mate? I remember the Paul Hogan show from when I lived there. And Cricket tests that last a week. Come on...do you think you really have more access to truth than we do? What we really have is more kooks to vent their views on the internet! I saw it live while it happened. Yes, there really were jets flying into the buildings. Yes, I had friends die in the collapses. Yes, our president was reading with children while it happened. We have so much here to properly criticize (so do you)...don't waste your time with the kooks. Gooday, mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear notslic..... I agree lots of nut on the net, but also lots of really intelligent, questioning and inquiring people. I am simply questioning the pure science of 911. The pure science does not add up, lots of pure science does not add up and no one addresses it in a logical, rational, scientific or open way. You can have an event where on minor aspect may not fit but here you have about ten areas that apparently dont add up, chemical residues, seismic data, telecommunications from aircraft, rates of descent under gravity, conservation of momentum, fire temperature, molten metal, questionable computer simulations, structural integrity of steel framed buildings, statistical chance of first instance ever of not one but three steel framed buildings collapsing within hours of each other. There are many other areas that cause concern but are not truly scientific. We have equal access to the truth , or at least information, in OZ. This information is not discussed openly and freely in the media. No one doubts that two planes flew into two buildings. I may have doubts about two other planes however. One, the Pentagon, I have not been privy to all the footage that must exist and the second I have not fully researched, jury still out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero... You are no Gold Coast Yabbo. Sorry, mate, but I've drained the whisky bottle tonight and I'm wishing for a bottle of Bundy or a 1/2 dozen 4X. Fosters is for tourists. Bed time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear notslic...Sorry to keep you up but you have appaling taste in beer. Any true scientist worth his salt would have worked out by now that Coopers Green is the go (and you can get it in New York/ New Jersey.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to introduce a couple a well-worn aphorisms: the truth is often stranger than fiction, and many people are capable of almost anything . These facts make the most unlikely theories worthy of at least a quick "smell test", I would argue.
Now, since you seem to have rejected the idea of 9/11 being a home-grown conspiracy, I'd just like to ask you if you have visited the website patriotsquestion911.com. I'm guessing you haven't, since you're so certain of your skepticisms. The fact that many expert and highly respected military, intelligence, aertonautics, engineering and science professionals find great difficulty accepting the official version of events should give any thinking person pause. I challenge you to read some of the testimony and questions of these individuals, and then come back to the issue and tell us all how certain you are of the absurdity of our suspicions. I mean really, if Kean and Hamilton write a book and say that they "werre sert up to fail", what do you rest your belief in the official story on, exactly?
Please.... scientific, enquiring, open minded, critial, analytical, science based researchers clear this oh so simple task up for us. This must be an open and shut case. I know it will destroy your career if you give the wrong answer (how can there be a wrong answer in such basic, physical science?) so do it by proxy you are , or can be anonymous in a forum such as this. What better place than here ?Please dont forget to read the basic facts under debate . (listed elsewhere along with websites) How can no capable expert take up the challenge. I must admit there is a fair bit of reading but this is at the basis of our work. Come on you can't call it all a conspiracy without reading the material and then debunking it. Or can you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaims of skepticism, honored by appearances in a "Scientific" magazine, potentially intelligent, yet I feel I have just been swept into the "conspiracy theory" wastebasket. Let's try "science" first. Because it is highly unlikely (really highly) that ANY of the World Trade Center buildings were demolished by aircraft flying into them, perhaps Mr. Schermer should take an hour or two to simply watch a DVD produced by Architect Richard Gage, of San Francisco. There are NO conspiracy theories proposed therein, simply an analysis of what happened and how it happened, using chemical, physical, and engineering evidence. If, upon completing this task (the DVD can be found at www.aep11truth.org) he feels that there is no evidence for conditions which would require there be some kind of co-operation amongst a wide-ranging froup of individuals, i.e. conspiracy, I guess, he and I must be blessed with completely different thinking machines. Mine works pretty well, by the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would be the problem in approaching the whole 9/11 matter as a study in both critical thinking and scientific method?
Try it, as they say, You'll like it.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Leissring
I don't mean to be smart with you, Zero, but I am curious as to why you are so intersted in this topic?...10,000 miles away and all. Don't you blokes have your own conspiracies to wonder about? Coopers? What state is that from? I spent most of my time there in Brisbane and Melbourne when I wasn't out bush on the Moomba Pipeline. S.A. has the best tawny port I ever drank. And you can't beat the Bundy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear not slick Yes we do have our cover ups and dirty deeds but they are the usual stuff of greed power and passion. The Whitlam dismissal had a few stories floating around about a coup master who oversaw the Chilean job did a fly in fly out, unions asked wether they woul protest etc. but small beer really (Whitlam was a socialist with a massive reform programme that still has positive moral and political reverbe rations today, however he was making rumblings about the ANZUS alliance and the secret American bases scattered over Australia. He also pulled us out of Vietnam. The alliance and bases are still intact but Whitlam went in a "controversial dismissal". Why am I interested? I have in laws in the States and one just missed the hit in NY because his radiator boiled. We as Aussies are probably your staunchest allies and have backed you up in Korea, Vietnam,Iran and Afghanistan, you did save our arse in WW2 after all espescially at the Coral sea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a lot in common and a lot of differences. I recently spoke to a human shield who went into Iraq and she showed us the pictures and told us the stories that you dont get on the imbedded and sanatised media--Too numerous and soul destroying to even think about-- we dont get Vietnam like coverage anymore, its all self censored and spun now. But if you are a military buff you know women and children die like flies but you dont count them. If my country is at war I have a right to know that the killing of innocents is (impossibly ) justified. The reasons for the war in Iraq made no sense to me as an outsider- unjustifiable--we could have taken out ten worse regimes. Again both wars did not add up (except for oil and if you are a cynic, opium). This focused my attention on 911 broadly, How can a Cessna nearly get shot down ages ago and in an age of terror four jets, fully monitored, fly around for ages and not a plane is lauched. This just led to a few science sites and more and more questions. It semms pretty simple to me .Scientists just Question, question question is there another way? Got to fly. Will discuss beer later. Catch ya.
part from that not a lot going on. Sorry not slick must have pushed the wrong button and lost my 1000 word dissertation on Australian alcohol, took me an hour. Youll have to wait 24 hrs for me to reply. Until then I think these SA jokers would rather pick up a black snake than take a rational look at a "conspiracy" theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZERO...Ok, mate, I've had a look at some of your stuff. First of all, I don't doubt that GWB and gang thought that they might further their cause if they ignored intel regarding an eminent attack. But I have concerns, logistically, about whether a demolition was even possible. That's a lot of thermite and a lot of people would have had to be involved. I see it as impossible to hide the trail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two factors that I want you to consider. First, everyone that backs the demolition idea is trying to make a quid off it. The Danish guy is totally unbelievable for me. Everyone else is either trying to sell a book, get lecture dates or get hits on their website to sell pop-ups. Second...and this is one that nobody has mentioned yet, I think. What about the IMPACT of the planes. Everyone talks about the fire and the temperatures of jet fuel, etc. Those buildings were never designed to take the impact of a fully loaded jet doing 3 or 400 MPH. This was never even thought of during the design. I've been in a 17 story building during a mild earthquake and the amount of movement is very dramatic. But, the building was DESIGNED to sway when the earth shifted. The movement came from the bottom and dissipated on the way up. The impact of the jets at WTC was near the TOP of the buildings and created a type of stress that was not designed for, which reverberated DOWN.
OK...those were just my thoughts. Now for my opinions. As for nano-thermite...total bullshit. Demolition? Total bullshit. Underlying motives of GWB for ignoring warnings? Very possible, but we will NEVER know. Still a VALID conspiracy, mate, even if not a demolition.
About me...I'm not a scientist, I'm a lawyer. I come to this site to learn. I know that you cats are true locals on your beer. I prefer the bitters. Lived in Brisbane for 6 months so 4X was the first to come to mind. For the world, I'll take a Guinness every time. It's not just a drink, it's a meal! (I think I made that up!)
Most Aussies, I think, would not like to admit that you are our closest allies. Bloody septic tank yanks. I agree with you. I also have trouble trying to validate my government's actions. Truth be told, I wish we could be more isolationist and concentrate on improving things right here at home and let the world sit in its shit for awhile until they miss us.
Cheers, mate.
Zero...sorry you have yank in-laws, mate. I had Oz in-laws for awhile and they hated my guts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers.
Dear Not slick, and all other readers, good to see you read some articles. Try to stick to material written by scientists or articles including verifiable facts, numbers, times, graphs etc. secondly you have to begin to take on a science based mindset. Follow the money or power is always a good philosophy to give you a hint as to where to look, however reputable scientists are not in it for the money (like teachers), they just like investigating, asking questions, throw ideas into the ring, chew the fat, throw ideas back and forth, tear the facts apart and try to come up with a concensus view that fits the facts. You have to put on your science hat and not you lawyer hat, list the facts and discuss the facts, you have to avoid emotion and attempting to sway the jury or push your idea or agenda. Have a look at some of the arcitects and engineers sites, I'm sure you will find that they were designed to survive such aircraft impact, they were impressive structures. It's not about liking the Danish guy, its about his science. Does his EVIDENCE for nano thermite stack up or not, debate the evidence, the facts presented in the paper, not what he says. Next analyse what other researchers say or get published, and on and on . You do the same for each heading of dispute. I find the law perplexing and unfair, every dealing I have had with it has left a sour taste. You cant effectively defend yourself, you can be utterly innocent and still convicted and if by chance you do prove yourself innocent the court costs for success are greater than the fine. I dint understand it and I cant discuss it. I feel it is a giant stitch up that is totally biased against the poor, marginalised and even the middle classes, by government, the rich and corporations--so i really cant discuss it, but science is more my field. I want to discuss these "facts" but they are not mentioned mainstream, not discussed mainstream and not even discussed openly in forums and publications like this. What's a boy to do! You have to be suspicious when such explosive material is not aired. Mabey thats why its not. Ok, our discusion of Coopers and your "all Aussie Adventures" will have to wait, as usual I have to grab a coopers and finish my largely unpaid schoolwork. PS If you like Stout, Coopers is second only to Guiness brewed in Ireland. Hey, some dust storm yesterday, at 6am I thought we had either been nuked, moved to mars or on an acid flashback to the Tangrine Dream. To quote some local vernacular--she was a ripper mate! Lets not get on to climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero...I have to say that there are conspiracies regarding climate change. We had 6 dust events on the western slope of the Rockies this year. People who have lived here their whole lives had only seen a few in their lifetimes. The 14,000 foot peaks of the San Juan Range were blanketed in red Utah dust and it created a melt-off like never seen before. I've only lived here 5 years, but this is the first time that I have seen no snow on those peaks through the summer. I have about 1/4 acre of concrete driveway and the stains are still there after all the rain we got this year. Good luck cleaning your house and your outdoor stuff, mate. On the conspiracy issue, I know that there are cycles and we are constantly in one or another. I do believe the science that says we are having an impact, but it is hard to tell how much or if we can do anything about it in the short term. Long term, fossil fuels have to go and electric generation must be made CO2 neutral. But I don't think there is any widespread conspiracy to create panic, as is suggested by the right wingers over here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack to WTC...Even assuming that your science is true, how do you get around the fact that the WTC is an incredibly busy place, with high security since the bombing there a few years ago? As one article said, "that's a lot of thermite". Also, it is very volatile stuff and wouldn't it be natural that there is a lot of iron and aluminum, sorry, aluminium, in the rubble? There is no precedent for a fire of this magnitude in such a building. Think about the void in the structure that the impact and initial explosion created.
Sorry, mate. As for the inside-job demolition theory, I'm still going with Occam's Razor here. But I still don't think it impossible that GWB ignored warnings to further his own agenda. Go back about 25 comments and see my answer to Mr. Law about this STILL being a conspiracy under the law, just not a demolition conspiracy.
You seem to also think that the legal system is a conspiracy. Let me offer that it is simply a flawed system. However, the common law based system that we both share is in fact the best on the planet, even with its flaws. Look at what they do to foreign "drug traffickers" in Bali. Eventually, after a little more human evolution, we'll work the kinks out. I spent almost 20 years as a sole practitioner going up against the biggest law firms in the world, who were representing the richest corporations in the world,automobile manufacturers. I have had every dirty trick in the book played on me.
Yo notslic and other searchers scientifica.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, had another dust storm today, not as bad as the Tangerine Dream, but you could look at the sun and it was just like the moon. Two in a row, the Quinella. The pet Budgie feels right at home. OK back to the business at hand. I note that i nave not been killed in the stampede to scientifically demolish the supposed sticking points of 911. Mabey we should just talk about beer and be done! now Notslic, dont jump the gun, dont ask how they got thermite any where. What we have to do is to nail down for certain if Nano Thermite was present, if it was then you ask all the other questions,which are not really scientific but more investigative in nature. If nano/t was there then thats that. We then have to look at every other questionable aspect purely from a scientific, mathematical, engineering etc. in a dispassionate way. After the science is done, then the games can begin.
Thermite is very stable you can mix it up and jump on it and it wont go off, you need something like burning magnesium ribbon to set it off. Yes you can get iron and aluminium in the building, but these scientists are talking about actual grains of nano/T . Now nano thermite is not just any thermite, from what I READ (not know) Nano thermite is not readily obtainable and is more like weapons grade super thermite and not available to the general public. Can anyone correct or confirm this? I also believe it can be painted on to steel in order to cut it on ignition.
Notslick, there is every precedent for such a fire, look at the other steel framed buildings at the 911 site that were totally consumed by fire, but did not collapse. You dont hear much about these other buildings, go and research them.Anyone would think only two buildings collapsed. The real doozie was the third building that collapsed in a similar way with no plane impact and no serious fire. As for the fire in the building it was just a fire, extensive but low temperature. The thermal mass of the central core of steel, have a look at the plans, would need a massive amount of energy to get anywhere deformation temperature. These buildings were well engineered and built to withstand the fire and aircraft impact. (Any engineering commentators here?) The aircraft impact looked huge but the physics of the impact were minimal, above mosquito bite, but easily survivable. Most of the hot fire from fuel was on one side and thus both buildings should have failed one one side, its real hard to get a random event like fire to produce three perfectly symm. drops nd
Dear not slick et al. I give up. This is the second time I have tried to talk about C..pers beer and twice I lost the lot. No more tonight Josephine, just get a bottle and get it in ya! I know they have it over there and you have contacts-use them. Know its in NY. Pale Ale is to die for, Stout, died and went to heaven. Learnt to use the Queens English, alu-b-minium. You understand. Just taking the Mickey, you must have copped a lot of it over here. Hey no movement on this science site, can you recommend a good law site where I might find intelligent life, you could guide me through Law thought 101. I dont know what you have to do over there to get a good argument going, would have had your block knocked off by now, but not even a nibble. The New Scientist site is pretty good too, some of the quantumesque comments are truly witty, I didnt know physicists did jokes. Say who decided the character limit, is it square root of pi or something? Why not use a round number? Hey liked your micro beer in the states, people friendly too ,even in NY. How did you get along with the flora and flora in the Great South Land, most blow ins from the States hate the spiders and snakes and such. When asked about bears they say they are harmless unless you annoy them-each to his own. Ill stick with the creepy crawleys any day.Hope the full strength beer was to your liking. All the best, dont want to offend the gate keeper. Last time I put some jargon in to keep the computer gatekeeper happy, sure as- not many scientists read this stuff. "0"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear not slick et al. I give up. This is the second time I have tried to talk about C..pers beer and twice I lost the lot. No more tonight Josephine, just get a bottle and get it in ya! I know they have it over there and you have contacts-use them. Know its in NY. Pale Ale is to die for, Stout, died and went to heaven. Learnt to use the Queens English, alu-b-minium. You understand. Just taking the Mickey, you must have copped a lot of it over here. Hey no movement on this science site, can you recommend a good law site where I might find intelligent life, you could guide me through Law thought 101. I dont know what you have to do over there to get a good argument going, would have had your block knocked off by now, but not even a nibble. The New Scientist site is pretty good too, some of the quantumesque comments are truly witty, I didnt know physicists did jokes. Say who decided the character limit, is it square root of pi or something? Why not use a round number? Hey liked your micro beer in the states, people friendly too ,even in NY. How did you get along with the flora and flora in the Great South Land, most blow ins from the States hate the spiders and snakes and such. When asked about bears they say they are harmless unless you annoy them-each to his own. Ill stick with the creepy crawleys any day.Hope the full strength beer was to your liking. All the best, dont want to offend the gate keeper. Last time I put some jargon in to keep the computer gatekeeper happy, sure as- not many scientists read this stuff. "0"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou didn't answer the question: "Why Do People Believe In Conspiracies?" Could it be that some of us are programmed by our DNA to be pre-disposed to see conspiracies in the world around us? I suggest that the answer is yes. Just as the population shows a range of characteristics - height, weight, strength, intelligence, etc. - it seems obvious that behavioral characteristics will also have a wide range across the population. And that belief systems such as religiosity, paranoia, liberalism vs. conservatism, etc. could also be pre-disposed by genetics. So some portion of the general population might be emotionally compelled to see sinister and evil forces at work. Personally, I think it is far more damning that we allow individual lunatics to change the course of world history - Archduke Ferdinand, Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy, are all prominent examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDepends upon the definition of conspiracy. 911 is not a conspiracy if you take even a cursory scientific (or even non - scientific) look at it. Nothing adds up. It is only a conspiracy to those who do no research, as is was the case for so many NEW scientific breakthroughs now and in the past. I dont know why people believe in conspiracy theories. I also dont understand people who have obviously done no research and condemn anything that the 'authorities or media' condemn, ignore or slate as a conspiracy. Get an open and scientific, inquiring mind. Not one person has taken the challenge to debunk 911 point for point in an open scientific forum. There is more open mindedness and debate in a high school science forum than between supposedly great minds. I can now see why the world ' or at least humanity' is on the verge of the greatest cascade of calamities of its own making, and only about 1% gets it. Good luck and thanks for all the fish "0"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy people believe in conspiracies? There is a motto saying that without smoke there is not a fire which is a simple explanation for the reason to believe in that. let's analyze this statement the other way around and also put some more questions for a future analysis too. we have the historical backround. We are talking about conspiracies, many incidents which occured in history which also make someone reallize that are truly exist. Firstly, conspiracies created from people who have power based on the sector or organization in which they are working. Secondly, what's the reason of not opening every file and every action of all the countries so the people know the truth? Thirdly, what's the role of the secret services and politicians in the creation of the conspiracy belief? Fourthly new world order and globallization. That's a few thoughts based on your skeptical attitude towards to conspiracy based on your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConspiracy theories provide order and clarity to what otherwise are, for many people, unsatisfactory understandings of events and motives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConspiracy theories are problem-solving devices. But the actual problem is not revealed in the textual details of the specific narrative under scrutiny. The actual problem is the need to explain one's sense of impotence, i.e. why one's ideas, values, public policy preferences and political candidates always seem to be ignored, de-valued, ridiculed, or defeated (especially over long periods of time).
For a detailed discussion, see my article Purpose of Conspiracy Theories here:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/ct-1
Mr. Shermer calls paranoid whoever see a suspect of conspiracy in any case.. It would be much more decent from him to teach people the Discourse on the Method (René Descartes, 1637), in which the first of his four steps is to doubt everything. This means to be a very skeptic. A systematic doubt is good and sound, but to call paranoid any person who can reach conclusions (synthesis, by means of induction) after rigorous analyses (deductions) is dishonest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like people to read this: duhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/172797-the-global-oil-scam-50-times-bigger-than-madoff?source=side_bar_comments
Sincerely...
Zanato
Your generalized sumnations may red Ok to some or stick in the gullets of those who have more specific understandings of events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the comment you have shared is at best just a view point - without much to add. With your condemnation implied to Michael Moore then your lack of intelligent analysis relegates your subjectiveness. Look at the bigger picture and view what is happening. Is the widening of the income gap and domination of wealth by a few accidental. Start again friend.
Your logic is not impressive as the generalizations discount many recent and disturbing events as being possible. Your perspective is aligned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question of why people believe is the most fundamental one which inquires into the perspective of the belief.
Often commonsense and everyday observations are shaped by how you have been groomed, what you have habitually subscribed to, and how you review your standpoint with some objective references.
Any fool can argue as to how they are right. It is who is fooled by the argument that bears some analysis towards understanding or the situation.
So much propaganda is disseminated by selfish interests and aspiring would be prophets that patterns are often more reliable that specific utterances.
It's a combination of being mentally retarded, wanting to advocate the most contemptuous allegations against someone hated anyway, and a group swarming mentality. That's the 9/11 conspiracy group in a nutshell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA combination of hate, irrational (maniacal) thoughtlessness and joining the frenzy against George Bush, the United States government, the United States in general, jews, republicans...whatever.
It becomes payback time for the conspiracy enthusiasts against those they most hate and fear.
If you were in a position of leadership that required of you the safekeeping and advancement of hundreds of millions of people inside and outside of your national borders that were plugged into the world wide web reading blogs about conspiracies with links to boundless (some real) information, and all the while trying to fend off the aliens...what would you do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another disinformation editorial by the Jewish controlled world COBOL. We who are in the know know that you leader is Elvis Presley (A secret Jew) That in 2012 he will return in a UFO and Lead the New World Order along with Mother Teresa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell a lot of people can keep their mouths shut till they get caught and plea bargain. Here the latest MEGA CONSPIRACY unfloding in the news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axH24KWxjVDE
I could have told you this story 2 years ago and would have been labled as a nut.
Your article is an insult to science.
Here is a big conspiracy that is unfloding as we speak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axH24KWxjVDE
What would you say to this Mr.Shermer?
100s or people invloved at top levels of finance and politics.
It is nice to have an objective view discussing conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's no wonder we can't find common ground as a nation when there are so many people out there trying to confuse and manipulate our way of thinking. I agree with notslic's comment. This is not some new phenomenon. Look at all the people who have been blinded by religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's no wonder we can't find common ground as a nation when there are so many people out there trying to confuse and manipulate our way of thinking. I agree with notslic's comment. This is not some new phenomenon. Look at all the people who have been blinded by religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the government is corrupt. Any thoughts on the Illuminati?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo to all those who believe all consiracy theroists are nuts let me ask you this... What would have happened to the U.S. if Smedley Butler had said yes to the offer he received from George Bush's grand daddy (Prescott Bush)and the other conspiritors who are all well known corporations still around today. Even after the plot was exposed nothing happened... people were too distracted by the great depression. Today the number of distractions are innumerable to the point where something like 9/11 could be executed right in front of our eyes and the perp-a-traitors who control more and more of the media just point the finger at a brown skinned guy in a turban, wave the American flag, chant a few rounds of USA, USA, and off we go to war!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould the U.S. be better or worse off today if we had never invaded Afganistan and Iraq? No conspiriacies??? Where are the WMD's? The whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place was proven to be a lie! But no problem... we hated those people anyway, right? Does anyone actually know anyone from Iraq? If you ask them many will tell you how much better things were before we inavaded and spread Democracy.
9/11 really was an inside job. The evidence is simply too clear. Here's a link to some of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144746
How do you keep a conspiracy a secret? If the people involved know they will be killed if they talk, not a threat to kill but an absolute certainty that you will be killed (and family)would work pretty good. Also pictures of you having sex with children would work pretty good too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who is involved in a consipacy always claims that anyone who discovers the conspiracy is crazy. There is a name for this, it is called the Martha Mitchell Effect. Do a search on the Martha Mitchell Effect and see how governments cover up conspiracies, this is documented proof.
If you doubt that there are groups of people capable of pulling off conspiracies right in front of everyones eyes, search for Captain Morgan and Freemasons. Check out enough articles and you will find one with the full documented details. Read this to see how the low level of this group can succeed at conspiracy to murder. Just imagine what conspiracies the people at the top could pull off.
There are a lot of incorrect conspiracy theories but there are some that are partly correct and others that are correct. There is information, misinformation and disinformation that you need to sort through before you can draw a conclusion/opinion. If you read enough you will soon see that there is credibility to some of these theories. One thing for certain is that our world contains evil bastards that will, at the very least, conspire against us. To refuse to acknowledge this is just foolish. I believe Martha Mitchell would agree.
If you want to know if a conspiracy theory is real, read all the information, do some research and think for yourself, do not be swayed by opinions only just the facts. There is a lot of information on these subjects, some hundreds of years old, some thousands of years old and some from this week. There is a lot to learn before a decision can be made and I doubt that many have bothered to do the research, although many seem to think they know the truth. Read all the information and I think you may be surprised. You will be surprised to find that it is much bigger and more complicated than anyone could make up and has been going on since the beginning of mankind.
The solution is to become one of the evil bastards, not join a secret society of conspirators but read and learn what happens and what will happen, then you will know what to do to profit from their conspiracies. If others want to dismiss this information and call the messenger crazy or paranoid, go right ahead and dismiss all conspiracy theories, but you will suffer and others will prosper.
The question implies that if you believe in one conspiracy, you must believe them all because you are a person that has a mental problem that causes them to believe in fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople believe a conspiracy theory if it makes sense, if there is enough proof to cause them to believe this conspiracy is real. Their decision to believe or not believe if something is true is based on evidece/proof. If they are incorrect in their belief as to the authenticity of the conspiracy, it is because the information/facts/evidence was incorrect.
The belief in a conspiracy is logical and rational based on the evidence. If new evidence is obtained or old evidence is overturned then the belief will change to disbelief but it is only based on facts and evidence.
After fiding credible evidence that a conspiracy did take place, a person may look beyond the initial explaination of other events to look for evidence of another conspiracy which is normal and rational.
Why do people not believe any conspiracy theories?
Why would someone believe it is impossible for more than one person to work together towards a common goal and not tell THEM about it?
You are implying that conspiracies do not exist, that it is impossible for more than one person to work towards a common goal without telling you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to make an informed response, maybe you should do some research or do you just naturally know all things.
If you keep yourself busy enough doing fun things, you will probably will be much happier than you will finding out the truth. Your belief that all things happen by random accidents and the ignoring of the facts may make for a happy sheep. If you are content as a happy sheep.
If you don't want to know the truth why are you posting instead of following your own advice and going out and having fun. Do you want to make everyone a happy sheep also?
The truth is out there, although it takes a lot of time to sort through the vast amount of information, misinformation and disinformation.
I have not read all information on all conspiracies but I have read enough to know that things are not always as they seem. There may be a lot of incorrect conspiracy theories but some of them are very credible, large and scary.
The evidence is there you just have to sort through it which may take years.
All conspiracy theories are not correct, maybe none are a 100% correct but there is definitely evidence that the major events that have taken place through history are not purely coincidence or random occurrances, that there are people behind the scenes pulling the strings.
I have written only one official IQ test in my life, although not a genius (138, genius is 140) I did score higher than 99.6% of the people who took the test.
If you don't believe me and think you are one of the .4% that figure stuff out better than me, go ahead and spend a couple years researching and then form your own conclusion.
But to be uninformed and preach as the knower of all things is just plain wrong.
Conspiracy theories are great for one thing: detract from the conversation at hand. We are living in a time where one could submit to Google one question and receive so divergent answers. The "Information Age" has delivered... information?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe never said correct information; our bad.
So now you have the constant barrage of trees obscuring your view of the forest. One link will say something that the next link soundly refutes. In this way, I think that we have created global group-think. If you like the link, and the conclusion, you will likely go there to reinforce your preconceived ideas. If you don't agree, you can always find something out there to defend your stance.
It isn't enough that there is so much information, but the conspiracy fan boys are prolific to say the least. Debunking is arduous, boring, and often unappreciated work. Researching, verifying, and categorizing your ideas is pretty damn bland for the majority. It is even more frustrating when it doesn't even make an impact.
My Dad told me something that I thought was very interesting: "It must be true! It's in print." He was joking, but the sentiment is one I am familiar with. We have people looking in religious texts to counter scientific information. People have been doing this for a while before the Internet. The game hasn't changed, but the venue has gotten huge.
We are at a time where truth and fiction commingle. If there ever was a time to conspire, it is now. By the time they get to uncover YOUR misdeeds, you should be long dead. You have the proverbial invisible ring by being white-washed against all the other conspiracies.
So how does one find out the truth? Is there such a thing? Well for starters you can just read documentation (boring), News (not always accurate), and journals (not quite a boring as documentation). You may also find people who REFERENCE their material. This goes a long way to establishing credibility; unless you are a fan of Glenn Beck, in that case you just believe anything that can be fabricated with chalk dust.
I best stop for now before I conspire with you further about the conspiracies conspiring to create further conspiracies to hide the true conspirators from their conspiratoration.
People believe in conspiracies for little reasons like the dumbing down of Scientific American, for example. What are you trying to hide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn well written comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said. Starting a war is easy if you are in power. Blair went to war with Iraq using false information despite the public's opposition to it. Later he admitted it was false but he still hasn't faced any war crimes charges. Instead, he is the Middle East peace envoy even though he was involved in two protracted wars there.
Don't believe Shermer is really a skeptic just because he says he is. He is a lousy logician and mouthpiece for the status quo, limply starting his article with an ad hominem assertion, painting the filmmaker to be a nutcase. Then he cites G. Gordon Liddy, "the problem with government conspiracies" (I thought these don't exist, Mr. Shermer), "is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut." Shermer's reliance on this cliché from Liddy about government workers being incompetent undermines his own argument. Liddy, as well as anybody, would understand the idea that you do not question your superiors (he is the poster boy for that). Lies handed down from above are rarely questioned by those who like keeping their jobs. Competency and the idea that secrets need to kept in order to conspire are false conditions contained in Shermer's argument. Secrets did not need to be kept to get into a war in Iraq. Most just do what they are told. Conspiracy being infeasible because of human incompetence is just a red herring of an argument here. Readers join together; we need to go skeptic on The Sceptic, he's a poseur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@kfreels - You too, are fond of the ad hominem attack, "I knew this would bring out the nuts." It's not easy to avoid easy fallacious argument when your case lacks validity. I happen to think it's far-fetched to think that 13 guys with box cutters could make three planes disappear from radar and bring down the Towers with such precision. Please don't site the flight school story (a story so convenient and easily fabricated. There's a documentary interviewing workers at a diner at the airport there that is spooky). So many of the little, propagandistic details around 9/11 have proven to be hogwash, like "let's roll." The GTE operator who took that call, in the press a while later, said she was ordered not to speak to anybody about it for 3 days. And what about the coroner in Pennsylvania saying there were no signs of human anything and the crash site looked to him like a "someone dug a pit and dumped salvage in it?" He has had to hem and haw to change his story. If you watched the news when 9/11 happened, OBL did not take credit, and experts were saying that, based on his cool response to the attack, they didn't think he was responsible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd motive? You do know Haliburton is in the business of fixing oil wells in Iraq among other lucrative things? Money is amongst the oldest and most classic of motives for murder.
Why wasn't the president whisked to safety when the attacks occurred. You really think not scaring the children was a good explanation? I will not go ad hominem on you, but I can't help thinking it.