Seriously, Why is it all like this? (Bringing some jazz back to the subforum)

[Undesired Walrus]

I've searched all over for a good thread that was started on 'Why' truthers believe all this, but cannot remember the name nor what the tags may have been. It was comprehensive and detailed.

I have the vague impression that many here believe this to be solely commited by those who have a grudge against the US. I can't really believe this, and I think it somewhat simplifies their motives.

It carries about as much debate as 'Why they hate us' debate (Although, only by us nerds), which is, surprisingly, simplified by both the left (foriegn policy) and right (Freedoms).

I am often reminded by the old 'Bush Wire'.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/story.jpg

You would be forgiven that it was absolute fact that the man had a wire feeding all the way up to his ear, rather than what is quite possibly a badly ironed shirt. This is a case in which only those who oppose Bush endorse it, whilst those on his side reject it. It fits with what we are believing about Bush's persona (I.e stupid), and finding this hole, it is satisfactory to fill.

But the badly ironed shirt is just so boring is it not?

This fits with how I felt when I saw that the JFK conspiracy was bunk. Really disappointed.

*

There is also the 'Inproportional event' theory, in which we cannot accept such vivid images (President shot) can be carried out by such a small cause (lone, motiveless nut).

This works for somebody like Troy from WV for example, who clearly is not very sharp so compensates an improportional event like 9/11 and fills the gap with dramatic language such as 'Jihadists who want to amputate my wife and children's heads' whereas some would do a conspiracy theory in its place.

*

But I think the far most compelling theory for their behaviour is that it makes one feel special. You are constructing a story that penetrates the skin of those planes and become important for becoming part of such a vivid story, rather than standing in the street watching the incredibly impersonal event of a plane slamming into a building. Perhaps it is the impersonal aspect of 9/11, I don't know.

What truthers fail to understand is that the events of 9/11 they have constructed is so far removed from what that day actually felt like. They have not been talking about September 11th 2001, they have constructed a completely different storyline, using archive footage that happens to be that day. I think this gives weight to the 'Story construct' theory.

*

Then there is Monbiot's theory, that they wish to surrender themselves into non-motivation, knowing deep down they are helpless, and wish to discover this so they can abandon actually working for a better world.

I just want to understand why I instantly believed JFK and the Moon based on emotion alone, rather than evidence.

[danielk]

I have the vague impression that many here believe this to be solely commited by those who have a grudge against the US. I can't really believe this, and I think it somewhat simplifies their motives.
Well, not solely. Also, we have a lot of US-based Twoofers around here, so this probably doesn't apply anyway. I've read many stories of Twoofers which went like this: "I too believed the official account and could never imagine them to do something horrible as this, but then I watched Loose Change and I saw the truth." Or something like that. I guess what happens here is that these people had never before been exposed to anti-US propaganda, or political propaganda in general, so they are simply overwhelmed. It all makes so much sense! They had never considered it before! (Hard to imagine for me as a European but there you go.) I guess this is also the reason many find Chomsky so compelling. (Disclaimer: It is not my intent to put Chomsky on par with Twoofers. Not even close. Okay?)

However, when it comes to European-based Twooferism, I have yet to see any of it that isn't embedded within a heavy anti-US mindset to begin with. It has calmed down somewhat, but a few years ago the climate was unbearable. What's really bad is that I feel the climate affects my reasoning in ways I don't really like. I considered myself to be among the anti-war crowd in the prelude of the Iraq war. I supported Schröder's opposition. Today I nearly vomit if I see his face, although I still believe the war in Iraq was wrong. When the topic of anti-Americanism first came up, I shrugged it off at first. Then I grew more and more uneasy, as I saw all the "no blood for oil" transparents which seemed too simplistic to me. The turning point was a couple of weeks into the actual war. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the cheering for dead American soldiers, and how people expressed their hope for a quagmire, I was forever disillusioned with the anti-war movement. My view was that now that the war was on, the sooner it was over the better. I felt pretty much alone with this sentiment. As a result I absolutely despise everything that calls itself "pacifist" or "leftist" these days and root for the US by default.

I know that's an irrational response, and I'm also exaggerating a bit. My goal was to illustrate by example how rampant anti-Americanism truly is among the German youth. It's the default stance. I can hardly imagine Twooferism in Europe to not be dominated by anti-American sentiment.

I just want to understand why I instantly believed JFK and the Moon based on emotion alone, rather than evidence.
Ooooh, you really did believe the moon conspiracy theory? That makes me really sad. You are one of my favorite posters on this forum, dammit! :boggled: On the other hand, I applaud you for your courage to follow the path of reason even if it goes against against your emotions. Reading your posts, I would really never have imagined something like that. I think that speaks for you.

[danielk]

A couple more thoughts on the actual topic: I agree with you that it mainly makes people feel special. What's really dominating is the feeling to be "in the know". The feeling you understand it all now. Just like "all history is a history of class struggles". It's very comforting in a world that's probably best described by chaos theory.

ETA: I concluded a while ago that humans are simply not "made" for thinking on a global scale. Over the course of human evolution, we have mainly lived in small groups. Village size is fine for us. While it is possible to think on a global scale, it requires a conscious intellectual effort. You'll notice how popular local news and especially "people news" are. It reduces the planet to village size, resulting in gross distortions.

ETA 2: To elaborate, I think conspiracy theories all follow these "village thinking" lines. We think they would need to be vast conspiracies in order to work, but that's not the perspective of the believer. In the perspective of the believer, A happened because B had a squabble with C. This reduces the complex nature of world events to a human scale.

[Axiom_Blade]

I think the majority of reasons are
1) Stupidity
2) Boredom
3) Desire to belong or be special
4) Insanity

Anybody can get pulled into it, but if you stay in after hearing the evidence against it, then you're one of those 4. I honestly think that most deniers are #2 or #3 (although I have met some that are, sadly, #4, and others that I had no choice but to conclude were #1!)

I don't think Bush-hatred alone explains it, but many of them do have a huge hate-on for Bush.

On the other hand, Monbiot offers an interesting theory:

Bayoneting a Scarecrow (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/20/bayoneting-a-scarecrow/)

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its hoard of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

[Undesired Walrus]

A couple more thoughts on the actual topic: I agree with you that it mainly makes people feel special.

Yes, and I think the classic truther line, 'Go back to watching American Idol' is more a statement about themselves rather than anybody else. They are desperate to escape their mundane lives, so they have to construct dramatic structure around events that are too disproportionate.

But I still do not feel that I have pinned down the exact cause behind trutheritis, as I cannot see how it can have multiple complicated goals. It has a root cause, but I still cannot find it.

What I think most truthers can agree on, and I'll have to use personal experience here (Sorry dan, look at my avatar to remind yourself how I have changed from moon hoax days!), is the feeling of completion, how everything fits. It is like a great empty vacuum has been filled with emotion and energy.

I just want to know why this gap exists...

[Tolls]

A couple more thoughts on the actual topic: I agree with you that it mainly makes people feel special. What's really dominating is the feeling to be "in the know". The feeling you understand it all now. Just like "all history is a history of class struggles".

That's my feeling on it (in an "I'm not a psychologist" sort of way).

On a similar note I've always wondered about the whole clinging to a disproven theory thing. The only thing I came up with was a sort of emotional attachment to whatever CT it happens to be...you know, the desire to not be shown to have wasted a chunk of their lives. The more investment given into a particular CT (indeed it applies to more than just CTs), the harder to get out of it.

[Undesired Walrus]

2) Boredom


Yes.

[GreNME]

I am often reminded by the old 'Bush Wire'.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/story.jpg

You would be forgiven that it was absolute fact that the man had a wire feeding all the way up to his ear, rather than what is quite possibly a badly ironed shirt. This is a case in which only those who oppose Bush endorse it, whilst those on his side reject it. It fits with what we are believing about Bush's persona (I.e stupid), and finding this hole, it is satisfactory to fill.

But the badly ironed shirt is just so boring is it not?

Actually, when I saw that image my first though was "it looks like type I or IIa body armor to me, and he doesn't look like he wears it very capably." Also not as exciting as the allegations, but a little more believable that a supposedly wrinkled shirt. I wouldn't have been surprised if both men in the debates had been wearing at least minor protections in a "just in case" sense. It was a pretty emotionally charged election year.

I just want to understand why I instantly believed JFK and the Moon based on emotion alone, rather than evidence.

The answer is in the question. You instantly believed them because, unlike the evidence-based scenarios, the conspiracy theories spoke first to your emotions rather than to your analytical mind. Politicians and salesmen know this trick well: get someone emotionally invested in something first and then they'll work out most of the justifications to it for you.

[danielk]

On a similar note I've always wondered about the whole clinging to a disproven theory thing.
Ah, well, but it's also a logical problem. Once you are in conspiracy mode, any evidence against the conspiracy has to be considered as faked and part of the conspiracy. In a way, it's misapplied skepticism. You need to trust someone to get out of the loop. Solipsism doesn't lead very far.

This reminds me of the book by Paul Watzlawick, "The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious: (the Pursuit of Unhappiness)" (http://books.google.com/books?id=UnlQAAAACAAJ). While the book isn't about conspiracy theories, it contains many examples of self-inflicted situations that are impossible to get out of logically. An enjoyable read.

[Drudgewire]

3) Desire to belong or be special
This can not be overstated. There are lots of folks who feel like outsiders, and easily latch on to a group or cause filled with others that don't fit in either, and in that instance it has much less to do with the issue itself than it does with belonging.

As for "being special," well count me among those who used that as the driving force behind my delusion. There HAD to be something going on, and since "I was smarter than most people" (protip: almost everyone who thinks this about themselves... isn't) it made perfect sense in my head that everyone else was too stupid or distracted to see what I knew had to be the case.

Took much self-reflection to get out of it, and a lot of it wasn't pretty. :o

[Cuddles]

On a similar note I've always wondered about the whole clinging to a disproven theory thing.

I don't think this is just a CT thing though. No-one likes to be wrong. The trouble is, the more wrong you are, the longer you have insisted you are right and the more forcefully you've insisted it, the harder it is to let go and admit it. If you've spent the last 6 years ranting about how the US government are mass murderers, it can be very hard to say "Sorry, I was wrong, nothing to see here.". Over and over again, politicians, scientists and many others will carry on insisting that they were right all along, even when they have descended into pure nuttery, simply because they can't admit that someone else was right and not them.

This is one of the main things I hate about politics. Almost all politicians seem to hold the view that the one unforgivable sin is making a mistake, and they will jump through the most ridiculous hoops to avoid having to admit to one. The mark of a great person is not being right all the time, it's admitting when you are wrong. If only more people would realise this, I think the world would be a much better place.

What I find interesting about the CTers is not that they cling to their beliefs, since that seems a pretty universal thing. It is how they managed to dig themselves so deep in the first place that they got to the point where they can no longer admit to being wrong.

[danielk]

Almost all politicians seem to hold the view that the one unforgivable sin is making a mistake, and they will jump through the most ridiculous hoops to avoid having to admit to one.
I couldn't agree more. I hate to see capable and sensible politicians wreck their careers by doing a single stupid thing, and incapable ones climbing to the top simply by being as passive as possible. I also hate this constant fear of alienating certain groups of voters. Take for example the religious loony in the recent Republican candidate questionnaire. Some people just need to be told to piss off and get a brain. I consider the lack of honest insults insulting!

Bah, I'm steering off-topic again. Sorry.

[Brainster]

Actually, when I saw that image my first though was "it looks like type I or IIa body armor to me, and he doesn't look like he wears it very capably." Also not as exciting as the allegations, but a little more believable that a supposedly wrinkled shirt. I wouldn't have been surprised if both men in the debates had been wearing at least minor protections in a "just in case" sense. It was a pretty emotionally charged election year.

What amused me was the notion that whatever it was, it helped Bush somehow during the debate. He was awful in that particular showdown.

I think Chip Berlet expressed it well in the History Channel special. These folks have rewritten the story of 9-11 so that they're the heroes. They fantasize that eventually, one of them will come up with the smoking gun (North of the Citgo! NORAD tapes! Blueprints to the WTC!) that will bring down the Bush crime family, and they'll be feted as the Woodward and Bernstein of the 21st century. And everybody they know will say those magic words, "You were right all along!"

[GreNME]

What amused me was the notion that whatever it was, it helped Bush somehow during the debate. He was awful in that particular showdown.

Yeah. Wasn't that the debate with the infamous "you forgot Poland" remark by him?

[Vincent Vega]

It wasn't 'badly ironed shirt'. It was ill fitting so it was pinned in the back to make it less baggy in the front just before the debate.

In other words the President can't dress himself. :boggled:

[StickMan2008]

Then there is Monbiot's theory, that they wish to surrender themselves into non-motivation, knowing deep down they are helpless, and wish to discover this so they can abandon actually working for a better world.

I just want to understand why I instantly believed JFK and the Moon based on emotion alone, rather than evidence.

You can use all the Bulverism you can muster but it doesn't excuse the fact that there are numerous anomalies that are unanswered before the attacks and efforts of tampering/spoliation afterwards.


People ask, how come after every big event there are conspiracy theories?


People are assuming that individuals are reacting to the event itself instead of the facts surrounding the event.


I don't think many pointed at conspiracy after 9/11. If anything if we acted on emotion it was accepting the official story and accepting it for radical changes in our foreign/domestic policy.


It's just after the story of the Jersey Girls, it's after people constructed timelines of events before and after 9/11 when people realized, the USG had foreknowledge of impending attacks, failed to intercept, and after the attacks tried to prevent any sort of an investigation before finally being pressured to have one of any kind . And the results were beyond unsatisfactory in addressing the original questions raised by those victims families and instead just provided more questions.

And here we are today in 2007, with the only explanation for the events revolving around a collapse initiation theory by NIST which has never been peer reviewed and has been scrutinized by many individuals with the same credentials but without the ties.


It's more than reasonable to demand an explanation to big time questions surrounding the most significant event in the 21st century that as stated earlier, we have based every single foreign/domestic policy off of since.


For such a significant event there should not be nearly as many unsubstantiated questions.

[Pardalis]

I am often reminded by the old 'Bush Wire'.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/story.jpg

You would be forgiven that it was absolute fact that the man had a wire feeding all the way up to his ear, rather than what is quite possibly a badly ironed shirt. This is a case in which only those who oppose Bush endorse it, whilst those on his side reject it. It fits with what we are believing about Bush's persona (I.e stupid), and finding this hole, it is satisfactory to fill.

But the badly ironed shirt is just so boring is it not?

I always assumed it was a pinworm who had lost its way. :con2:

[Brainster]

And here we are today in 2007, with the only explanation for the events revolving around a collapse initiation theory by NIST which has never been peer reviewed and has been scrutinized by many individuals with the same credentials but without the ties.

The same credentials? Shyam Sunder is the WTC lead investigator (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html) for NIST. His credentials include (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder):

Prior to joining NIST in 1994, Dr. Sunder held a succession of positions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) beginning in 1980: instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, principal research scientist, and senior research scientist.

Dr. Sunder holds a Bachelor of Technology (Honors) degree in civil engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (1977), a Master of Science degree in civil engineering from MIT (1979), and a Doctor of Science degree in structural engineering from MIT (1981).

Who, pray tell, has comparable credentials in the 9-11 "Truth" movement?

[StickMan2008]

The same credentials? Shyam Sunder is the WTC lead investigator (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html) for NIST. His credentials include (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder):



Who, pray tell, has comparable credentials in the 9-11 "Truth" movement?

The other side isn't limited to engineers. There are engineers, physicists, aviation experts, etc.

And someone's credentials doesn't exactly make them more objective.

Certainly not when the incentive to be objective is conflicted with the fact that they are reporting to a governmental agency.

Certainly not when they are limited to only one hypothesis that would account for the official story.

And because of these limitations they have been unable to conclude why the charactersitics of the collapse after initiation occurred.

The only thing they could muster was a computer generation with exaggerated conditions. And even still, it doesn't account for the destruction.

[Pardalis]

And you're the genius who said this:

The 9/11 Commission and the original pancake hypothesis was based solely off the myth that the steel core of columns didn't exist but what there was a mere hollow shaft.


Clearly you haven't read the NIST report, and have no clue of what you're talking about.

[Undesired Walrus]

The thing is StickMan, I think you know, deep down that what you believe in is absolute bunk. Trust me, I've been there.

The X-Files writer said it well in the BBC's 'Conspiracy Files'

'I think when you debunk conspiracy theories, its ultimately, disappointing. Because you are taking away people's security blanket and not leaving anything in its place. So I think people will watch your show, and their rational mind will think you're probably telling the truth, but their emotional side will feel empty and want something more.'

The 'holes' that you speak of are exactly the tactic creationists use to disprove evolution, when really they seek these holes because they want structure and order. They look at things and go 'what is it for'?

[Undesired Walrus]

It's just after the story of the Jersey Girls, it's after people constructed timelines of events before and after 9/11 when people realized, the USG had foreknowledge of impending attacks, failed to intercept, and after the attacks tried to prevent any sort of an investigation before finally being pressured to have one of any kind .

This is untrue. You simply need to read the 911 commission report. Numerous investigations, all over the world have been carried out. For starters, you need to look at the comprehensive German BKA report, which started very soon after the attacks. You guys always go on about the mainstream media, but you have become victims of the very thing you protest against.


For such a significant event there should not be nearly as many unsubstantiated questions.

You see, you have fallen into the trap again. You ask yourself 'Why are there so many unanswered questions?' because your emotional side clings to such an inadequate and unexplained event. To all your claims there are simple and mundane answers, but you choose to ignore them because your emotional side wants something more.

[GreNME]

You see, you have fallen into the trap again. You ask yourself 'Why are there so many unanswered questions?' because your emotional side clings to such an inadequate and unexplained event. To all your claims there are simple and mundane answers, but you choose to ignore them because your emotional side wants something more.

I think you're touching on a part of it.

The attack itself was something that, in reality should never have been able to happen. That is, as far as the perception of what everyday people, even average everyday people in other countries around the world, had been before 9/11 was that the US is (for better or worse) a nearly untouchable behemoth. Were you to ask a military strategist before 9/11 how one would conduct a limited attack on civilian and military targets against a nation who has the tactical advantages of location (only two neighbors, both friendlies, and oceans on two sides) and resources, they would tell you that it would have taken a group of at least a few dozen to successfully pull off an attack, and it would require huge investments and risks to get weapons and training in place to carry out an attack. They wouldn't tell you it's impossible-- anyone with sense knows there's very little that isn't possible, given sufficient time and resources-- but just about the only people who could have given a scenario even close to what happened on 9/11 would be those who had worked in intelligence and been privy to similar such tactics before. It wasn't an impossible thing to consider, and it wasn't even improbable-- it was insane, suicidal, and from any perspective outside of one that really tries to understand the mind of a group who reveres individual suicide among its members as a path to martyrdom, it's just plain ridiculous.

This is why it resonates the way it does in conspiracy theories. The event was, for everyone, an experience of extreme cognitive dissonance. Things went from being a horrible accident to an obvious attack to an outright act of war within just a couple of hours. It simply didn't make sense. Not rationally or emotionally. Most of the earlier questions and misconceptions that popped up had that "well that's what it looked like" quality to them and quickly blossomed from there. They became emotional outlets that tried to put an unbelievable situation into a believable perspective.

From there, the more long-standing and hardcore purveyors of paranoia just had to weave those questions and misconceptions into their already-formed quilt of conspiracy, laying the blame on this faceless, nameless organization where it just so happens that everyone who is a member is also someone the weavers of the conspiracy dislike, many of whom are even easy to dislike. These paranoia merchants use disenchantment, disillusionment, emotional appeals, and very vetted and filtered information to draw interest from people and possibly gain a few believers.

Conspiracy theory is the 'new'-- and by 'new' I mean just a few generations or so-- face of the "old time religion new prophet revival" craze.

[StickMan2008]

This is untrue. You simply need to read the 911 commission report. Numerous investigations, all over the world have been carried out. For starters, you need to look at the comprehensive German BKA report, which started very soon after the attacks. You guys always go on about the mainstream media, but you have become victims of the very thing you protest against.

Numerous investigations that differ substantially in the explanations enough to be mutually exclusive.

And all these investigations focus on the collapse of the towers and the most recent one only explains up to the point of collapse initiation. A pretty huge gap in information there



You see, you have fallen into the trap again. You ask yourself 'Why are there so many unanswered questions?' because your emotional side clings to such an inadequate and unexplained event. To all your claims there are simple and mundane answers, but you choose to ignore them because your emotional side wants something more.

I have pretty much taken emotions out of the entire equation. I objectively accept both sides as a possibility. How many people do that? Most are too stubborn in their ways to do that. Too much argument from incredulity to believe government could pull off 9/11 or too far in the CT that they are willing to believe anything for a CT and against the OS.

There are more than reasonable questions that have not been answered.

Deliberately refusing to listen to information from intelligence officials that could have prevented the attacks is more than mundane.

YOU are the one just making the assumption that such deliberation was not intended to allow the attacks to happen.

That this criminal negligence was not at all planned. That is an argument from incredulity/ignorance which is why there needs to be a new investigation where individuals who displayed that criminal negligence can be held accountable for that possibility

[tomwaits]

YOU are the one just making the assumption that such deliberation was not intended to allow the attacks to happen.

That this criminal negligence was not at all planned. That is an argument from incredulity/ignorance

The problem isn't that "we can't believe the gov't can do this" (although I really can't imagine how they could). You and other truthers can not explain any possible way that the gov't could destroy the buildings in this situation. That is not argument from incredulity on our part, it is a complete failure to produce evidence or make a reasonable theory that would suggest the gov't was involved. "Argument from incredulity" does not mean what you think it means.

[Undesired Walrus]

This is why it resonates the way it does in conspiracy theories. The event was, for everyone, an experience of extreme cognitive dissonance.

Ah, but see, this is Avery's favourite phrase. Often asked he replies he believes people cannot accept his proposal because of cognitive dissonance, something 'that big'. I suppose it must be difficult to understand if you have never believed conspiracy theories, but this 'big' event going all the way up to government 'fits' and 'fills a hole' which has been begging for explanation. It is intensly satisfying to feel you have escaped Plato's Cave, when really you have done nothing of the sort.

I just fail to realise why this hole can exist and be filled by such a massive claim.

[portlandatheist]

IMO, we're missing half the equation. We all understand the emotional appeal of blaming Bush but in blaming Bush/NWO/Zionists/Illuminati/reptiles/CIA/Skull & Bones/et al they are absolving Al Qaeda of any responsibility. I think this is a very important point, in fact, I think it's more telling who they are NOT blaming than who they ARE blaming for the attacks. Now this is only one factor of many, but I think SOME truthers have a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. It doesn't matter so much if Bush or Jews or other evil parties were responsible, what IS important is that we NEVER blame Al Qaeda, in fact, some of them, to a degree, identify with them and take on their grievances as if they were their own grievances. I may be dipping into politics here but this is not unique to truthers, I kind of think of it like this:
1. Complete denial of terrorist attacks (truthers)
2. Extreme apologists of terrorism. One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist" and their actions were justified due to political oppression and misguided foreign policy.

While it's certainly healthy to be self reflective and critical asking the question "What motivated them to do this?" And reconsider our foreign policy or other blunders, its a whole other thing to justify terrorism.
Perhaps its just my own personal experience, as my sister is a die hard truther, but she feels very uncomfortable when we talk about the terrorist attacks in southern Thailand, where she can neither explain the attacks as "false flag operations" or as "justified" due to oppression by the Thai government of misguided foreign policy so my diagnosis (in her case) is Stockholm Syndrome. She'll talk about 9/11, Spain, and Britain's attacks but can not stand discussing Thailand (we've both spent some time there). Why is it so hard to call a spade a spade for her in Thailand's situation if we both agree and are on the same page? Because its psychologically painful and/or cognitively dissonant for her to do so. Really, that says it all.
More info on Stockholm syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Many smarter people than myself have written on this subject.

[StickMan2008]

The problem isn't that "we can't believe the gov't can do this" (although I really can't imagine how they could). You and other truthers can not explain any possible way that the gov't could destroy the buildings in this situation. That is not argument from incredulity on our part, it is a complete failure to produce evidence or make a reasonable theory that would suggest the gov't was involved. "Argument from incredulity" does not mean what you think it means.

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

[AZCat]

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

It would help if you actually had some sort of proof to back up your claim. For example - at what "speed" would you expect a gravity-driven collapse to progress compared to an explosive-driven one?

(Bonus points if you use actual physics in lieu of truther physics)

[tomwaits]

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

Are you joking?

The mind-controlling aliens from planet newworldordericon-6 is far more consistant than your explanation.

(see how i did that? no evidence, just bizarre speculation. not very convincing, is it?)

[portlandatheist]

so Stickman,
To test my hypothesis, forget about 9/11 for a moment, and I would like to as you: Is Al Qaeda responsible for any terrorist attacks and if so which ones? Would you characterize their actions and goals as "terrorism"?

[Redtail]

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

Except for that pesky "No audio equipment picked up the sound of CD charges in the area" thing.

Oh And that "When would that have had time to place and wire the explosives" thing.

And the "How did the plane impacts and firs not set off the explosives and/or destroy the detonators" thing.

And the "What in the name of blue spider monkeys do you mean by 'neat' " thing.

[orphia nay]

so Stickman,
To test my hypothesis, forget about 9/11 for a moment, and I would like to as you: Is Al Qaeda responsible for any terrorist attacks and if so which ones? Would you characterize their actions and goals as "terrorism"?

Good question, pa. I like your angle, although I suspect there is an even deeper, or more overarching reason CTists believe in an inside job.

What I find interesting about the CTers is not that they cling to their beliefs, since that seems a pretty universal thing. It is how they managed to dig themselves so deep in the first place that they got to the point where they can no longer admit to being wrong.

Good comment, Cuddles. That made my latent thoughts on the matter rise to the surface.

All the CTists I've debated at other (wooish) forums have one thing in common. They gravitate towards "the alternative". They have a rabid hatred of the "mainstream media". And we all know how the most alternative ideas of the alternative media have flooded the web with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Twoofers are not merely "angry young men", because many of the CTists I've debated are adults - parents and granparents, both male and female. They all want to be special, as has been mentioned, and they all think the alternative is more probably the "real truth".

There's also the intertwined tendency to believe in something that's just so crazy it might be true. Perhaps they think they themselves are idiot savants, or that they could be a new Galileo who finds an earthshattering solution to all the questions that are "just being asked".

The fact that Twoof is now a rather mainstream alternative is one reason why the Twoof Movement is fragmented and apparently losing momentum. All 9/11 CTs want to be "more alternative than thou", it seems. That's also why I'm inclined to believe that those CTists who have not dug themselves in too deep will find their way out of the rabbit hole through the critical analyses shown in debunking websites, and/or through disillusion with the batcraptasticness of the Twoof.

[Dave Rogers]

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

If you only need an explanation beyond collapse initiation, that suggests that collapse initiation itself is not an issue. That, in turn, suggests a scenario where charges were placed in advance but not set off until collapse initiated due to fire and impact damage. That's an insane scenario. Sorry, but there's no other construction I can place on that. If you don't have a problem with collapse initiation, then straight away the CD theory has no ground to stand on.

The ejections? They don't look like explosions. No flame, and the time dependence of the ejection rate is all wrong; they increase steadily to a constant rate rather than having an initial pulse and a decay. Controlled demolition fails totally to explain them if you actually look at the details.

The speed of the collapse has been studied ad nauseam. It's exactly as fast as would be expected without explosives.

The "alleged secondary explosives" are not an anomaly that's explained by the CD theory, they are part of the CD theory. Suggesting that they support the CD theory is a circular argument. Secondary explosions, during a major building fire and collapse, are about as hard to explain away as regular comfort breaks after a powerful chilli con carne.

The totality of collapse is simply because gravity pulls things down instead of sideways, and because seriously damaged structures can't stay standing (eg. the core spires). The fact that the core collapse followed the floor/perimeter collapse, i.e. the collapse was not at all neat, shows that there were no explosions in the core during the main collapse. Charges on the perimeter columns would have been impossible to miss. With no charges on the core and none on the perimeter columns, where were the charges?

Nobody's joking. The evidence against the CD hypothesis is so overwhelming that most of us simply cannot understand how anyone can continue to believe it.

Dave

[TjW]

I think you're touching on a part of it.

The attack itself was something that, in reality should never have been able to happen. That is, as far as the perception of what everyday people, even average everyday people in other countries around the world, had been before 9/11 was that the US is (for better or worse) a nearly untouchable behemoth. Were you to ask a military strategist before 9/11 how one would conduct a limited attack on civilian and military targets against a nation who has the tactical advantages of location (only two neighbors, both friendlies, and oceans on two sides) and resources, they would tell you that it would have taken a group of at least a few dozen to successfully pull off an attack, and it would require huge investments and risks to get weapons and training in place to carry out an attack. They wouldn't tell you it's impossible-- anyone with sense knows there's very little that isn't possible, given sufficient time and resources-- but just about the only people who could have given a scenario even close to what happened on 9/11 would be those who had worked in intelligence and been privy to similar such tactics before. It wasn't an impossible thing to consider, and it wasn't even improbable-- it was insane, suicidal, and from any perspective outside of one that really tries to understand the mind of a group who reveres individual suicide among its members as a path to martyrdom, it's just plain ridiculous.
<snippage by TjW>


I think the motivations of the hijackers are particularly obscure to twoofers. Consider the number of dedicated first responders they're willing to accuse of being "paid off" or "threatened with the loss of their jobs" in order to cover up the conspiracy.
If they believe not a single one of the people who risk their lives daily could face up to the loss of a job, how can they believe that someone would be willing to die to make a point?

[The Doc]

With the Bush "wire", one thing struck me with that picture. With modern technology, one would have to question whether a cable would be needed at all... let alone one that thick.

[GreNME]

Ah, but see, this is Avery's favourite phrase. Often asked he replies he believes people cannot accept his proposal because of cognitive dissonance, something 'that big'. I suppose it must be difficult to understand if you have never believed conspiracy theories, but this 'big' event going all the way up to government 'fits' and 'fills a hole' which has been begging for explanation. It is intensly satisfying to feel you have escaped Plato's Cave, when really you have done nothing of the sort.

I realize it's a regular phrase for Avery, as well as others. They want to turn to everyone else and claim it is only they who do not believe the conspiracy theories who experienced the dissonance that day. They want to spread the idea that they are the 'enlightened' ones who can see the 'truth' behind the otherwise incomprehensible facade of that day. Other conspiracy theories feed into this and exaggerate it. It's practically a self-feeding cycle of paranoia once it gets moving.

I just fail to realise why this hole can exist and be filled by such a massive claim.

Because people are more comfortable when they're sure of a thing. The more absolute, the better.

--------

I think the motivations of the hijackers are particularly obscure to twoofers. Consider the number of dedicated first responders they're willing to accuse of being "paid off" or "threatened with the loss of their jobs" in order to cover up the conspiracy.
If they believe not a single one of the people who risk their lives daily could face up to the loss of a job, how can they believe that someone would be willing to die to make a point?

I think they can conceive of dying for a cause, but only for one they feel is 'just'. Add to that the allure of being the underdog revolutionary fighting against the greatest evil the world has potentially seen and the draw of the conspiracy theorist outlook becomes a bit more clear.

[Vincent Vega]

Are you joking?

The controlled collapse hypothesis is by far more consistent with the anomalies that were witnessed.

It would explain beyond collapse initiation.

It would explain the ejections, the speed of the collapse, the alleged secondary explosives, and the totality and neatness.

And you need to rethink your use of the term "anomalies".

[dudalb]

What I have problem with is why MIHOP is so much more prevalent in the Twoofer community then LIHOP. Both have not a shred of proof to support them,but LIHOP is not quite as over the top ludricous as MIHOP.
Maybe it is the whole "More Radical Then You" thing agian.

[danielk]

What I have problem with is why MIHOP is so much more prevalent in the Twoofer community then LIHOP. Both have not a shred of proof to support them,but LIHOP is not quite as over the top ludricous as MIHOP.
Maybe it is the whole "More Radical Then You" thing agian.
Ah, well, they might just be more visible. I have a feeling that at least in Europe, LIHOP is much more widespread than MIHOP. Heck, my former history teacher came close to believing in LIHOP. It's this whole "wouldn't put it past them" line of thought. And because it's so mainstream, it's not nearly as in-your-face as the MIHOPers are.

Funnily enough, a lot of people seem to endorse both. May I remind everyone of the "Whether it's MIHOP, whether it's LIHOP" song? I still crack myself up just thinking about it.

[Undesired Walrus]

The problem with LIHOP is that it is absolutely impossible to disprove. So far, they haven't proved anything rather than confusing the 21 year old Saeed Al-Ghamdi with a Saudi Airlines pilot, and making a very weak connection to the Pakistani ISI.

All that it takes now is the feeling that 'they just had to have allowed it to happen'.

[danielk]

(Sorry dan, look at my avatar to remind yourself how I have changed from moon hoax days!)
Darn, I fear I'm unable to decipher your Avatar, probably due to a lack of cultural knowledge. Do you have a keyword I could google for?

[Undesired Walrus]

It's Nixon having a look at Buzz, Armstrong and Collins in their tank, replaced with the forums favourite cult icon at the moment (Present in many avatars including Gravy's)

[tomwaits]

Michael Moore pretty much endorsed LIHOP in F9/11.

[Undesired Walrus]

Michael Moore pretty much endorsed LIHOP in F9/11.

Don't forget his dumb claim in his America-is-the-root-of-everything-bad montage from BowlingFC that 'Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3000 people'.

Care to provide a link to that Moore?

[timhau]

With the Bush "wire", one thing struck me with that picture. With modern technology, one would have to question whether a cable would be needed at all... let alone one that thick.

Yea. Especially since it's not like you need a device with massive range.

My first reaction was bullet-proof vest under a light-material jacket not cut to wear with a vest.

[tomwaits]

Don't forget his dumb claim in his America-is-the-root-of-everything-bad montage from BowlingFC that 'Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3000 people'.

Care to provide a link to that Moore?

There was a great moment on Charlie Rose where he pointed out a bunch of "facts" that Moore used on his movies and showed that they weren't at all correct and Moore just kept going "Look...it's all in the movie" and Rose was like "but that point is just not at all correct" and Moore just kept saying "Look, it's all in the movie" and then changed the subject really fast.