Hey, My Mind Is Made Up,Don't Confuse Me With Facts....

[dudalb]

Over at the Internet Movie Database,in a totally off topic discussion about 9/11 Conspiracy theories, a guy posted this:

Why plan for something and not have test runs to make sure it would be successful before testing it live? The things that have happened in this century (bombs, curing diseases, etc.) were done after testing.

The US knew the A-bomb was going to work because it was tested-- numerous times. How would Al-Qaeda have tested dropping buildings with planes? Does Al-Qaeda have anyone that could promise based on scientific fact, or is there anyone documented before 9/11 that even theorized, that a plane can drop a tower?

I will go to my grave, stupid or smart, believing that the planes did not bring those towers down. I know because I know.

You can't plan a miracle. I'm sorry we can't agree. I promise not to try to change your mind again. It's just what I choose to believe.

In other words all the evidence in the world won't convince me that the The Airplanes brought down the towers. It was an Inside Job (the last being unspoken but pretty obviously implied).
I really don't know how to deal with this kind of mentality.
He is not a total loon, but seems to really WANT to believe the Bush Adminsitration was behind 9/11. And that desire to believe has, sadly overpowered all his rationality.
Sad, really. The guy actually is intelligent when it comes to film,so it's not like he is a total loser like so many of the Truthers.
It's fine to dislike the Bush Adminsitration, I have an immense dislike for them myself, but not to the point where you throw logic out the window.

[jhunter1163]

The A-bomb was tested exactly once before it was used. There were lots and lots of theorectical calculations, but only one test (Trinity).

[ellindsey]

The A-bomb was tested exactly once before it was used. There were lots and lots of theorectical calculations, but only one test (Trinity).

And that was to test the more challenging and complex implosion-type bomb. The gun-type bomb dropped at Hiroshima was never tested before being used in combat.

[Brainache]

What makes him think that AlQ wanted the towers to fall down? Wasn't that just a bonus for them? I thought the point was to crash the planes into them and just cause as much chaos as possible.

Is this just some different version of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?

[X]

He is not a total loon, but seems to really WANT to believe the Bush Administration was behind 9/11. And that desire to believe has, sadly overpowered all his rationality.


Most do.
I am starting to think that many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement are motivated to look for evidence of a conspiracy because they can't accept the alternative.
To clarify:
They do not want to or cannot accept that the United States of America, big and powerful as it is, was vulnerable to such a comparatively simple and highly devastating attack.
The concept that so much damage could be done to America so simply is not something they can accept.
So what's the alternative?
What must be the only group capable of damaging mighty USA?
Why, the USA herself.

That, I think, underlies the motivation of many raving "truthers".

This might not explain non-American "truthers", however.

[Drudgewire]

I will go to my grave, stupid or smart, believing that the planes did not bring those towers down.
As long as you're comfortable with option A who am I to judge? :p

[DGM]

The US knew the A-bomb was going to work because it was tested-- numerous times. How would Al-Qaeda have tested dropping buildings with planes? Does Al-Qaeda have anyone that could promise based on scientific fact, or is there anyone documented before 9/11 that even theorized, that a plane can drop a tower?

I don't believe that it was all that important that the buildings fell. After the planes hit it was all gravy after that. People would die, America would notice.

ETA Brainache beat me to it.

[Ranb]

.....In other words all the evidence in the world won't convince me that the The Airplanes brought down the towers. It was an Inside Job (the last being unspoken but pretty obviously implied).

So does this guy know that Bin Laden claimed it was assumed the towers would only collapse to the impact points and not completely?

Absolute statements like the one made in the OP are surely the mark of a loon. :)

Ranb

[Metullus]

And that was to test the more challenging and complex implosion-type bomb. The gun-type bomb dropped at Hiroshima was never tested before being used in combat.Which is why the US did not drop the bomb as a pre-announced demonstration of the destructive might of the new bomb in an unpopulated area; they were not certain it would work and could not risk a publicized failure.

[Mince]

You can't plan a miracle.


The terrorists didn't plan to bring down the towers...that was just a juicy bonus.



I will go to my grave, stupid or smart...


Oooooh! Oooooh! I know which one. Pick me! Pick me!

[fullflavormenthol]

The A-bomb was tested exactly once before it was used. There were lots and lots of theorectical calculations, but only one test (Trinity).
Too true. People don't pay attention to the history of things. Most of our atomic testing took place after the war, and that was the development of greater atomic weapons.

[defaultdotxbe]

Too true. People don't pay attention to the history of things. Most of our atomic testing took place after the war, and that was the development of greater atomic weapons.
even if you buy the port chicago CT thats still only 1 test of each design, lol

[johnny karate]

And let's not forget all that testing the U.S. government did using controlled demolition to bring down two 110-story skyscrapers...

[gumboot]

So now the collapse of the WTC due to fires and damage was not only planned by Al Qaeda, but a miracle to boot?

Wow.

[Brainache]

So now the collapse of the WTC due to fires and damage was not only planned by Al Qaeda, but a miracle to boot?

Wow.

Well they are very religious terrorists. Allah loves that stuff...

[lee5]

And let's not forget all that testing the U.S. government did using controlled demolition to bring down two 110-story skyscrapers...

Bingo!

I wonder what he would say to that.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What makes him think that AlQ wanted the towers to fall down? Wasn't that just a bonus for them? I thought the point was to crash the planes into them and just cause as much chaos as possible.

Is this just some different version of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?

The terrorists didn't plan to bring down the towers...that was just a juicy bonus.


That's the thing with conspiracy theorists: the overwhelming majority believe that the way things happen is exactly the way they are meant to happen; no coincidences, no accidents, no luck, no randomness.

Their delusions really are an exceptionally insane variation of religious belief. Their God is the all-powerful NWO/Illuminati/elites... and malevolent.

[Evilgiraffe]

That's the thing with conspiracy theorists: the overwhelming majority believe that the way things happen is exactly the way they are meant to happen; no coincidences, no accidents, no luck, no randomness.

I think this goes a long way to explaining CT'ists obsession with trivial "anomalies". Most are unable to comprehend that any analysis of chaotic events inevitably results in contradictory evidence.

In their eyes, the "failure" of the Official Gubmint Theory to account for trivialities must be evidence of some nefarious inside job. While in reality, the contradictions are much more likely to be the result of our imperfect knowledge of what happened that day. Human memories are fallible, a fact some truthers conveniently "forget" when quote-mining witnesses.

[Architect]

;3602037']Most do.
I am starting to think that many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement are motivated to look for evidence of a conspiracy because they can't accept the alternative.
To clarify:
They do not want to or cannot accept that the United States of America, big and powerful as it is, was vulnerable to such a comparatively simple and highly devastating attack.
The concept that so much damage could be done to America so simply is not something they can accept.
So what's the alternative?
What must be the only group capable of damaging mighty USA?
Why, the USA herself.

That, I think, underlies the motivation of many raving "truthers".


Seconded.

[Brainster]

One of the central tenets of any conspiracy theory is that everything that happened was intended. There are no coincidences to the paranoid.

[padragan]

I think this goes a long way to explaining CT'ists obsession with trivial "anomalies". Most are unable to comprehend that any analysis of chaotic events inevitably results in contradictory evidence.

In their eyes, the "failure" of the Official Gubmint Theory to account for trivialities must be evidence of some nefarious inside job. While in reality, the contradictions are much more likely to be the result of our imperfect knowledge of what happened that day. Human memories are fallible, a fact some truthers conveniently "forget" when quote-mining witnesses.

It's interesting that the same phenomena can be observed in basicly all online poker rooms too. I've yet to see one without players nagging about "the rig" and setups. It's exactly the same logic and inability to grasp how the real world and statistics work.

I wonder if there's a correlation between twoofers and rig believers?

[timhau]

And let's not forget all that testing the U.S. government did using controlled demolition to bring down two 110-story skyscrapers...

Of course not, that's hard to do without people noticing. But what if they brought down 11-story skyscrapers 10 times?

[Horatius]

One of the central tenets of any conspiracy theory is that everything that happened was intended. There are no coincidences to the paranoid.



Thay've even gone so far as to create the term "Coincidence theory/theorist (http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Coincidence_theory)" to dismiss anyone who does believe that coincidences happen. Google those terms, and see how often it's been used, particularly abut 9/11.

[fuelair]

Most of the posters I have read on Idmb are a touch light intellectually. This does not challenge that observation.

[dudalb]

Most of the posters I have read on Idmb are a touch light intellectually. This does not challenge that observation.

IMDB is a Jekyll/Hyde website. Some dicussions are really good, others are among the worse piles of stupidity I have ever seen. And it is one of the worst sites I have seen for intellectual posturing: Somebody trying to sound like he is a deep intellectual and a deep scholar of film when in reality he is just another obssesed fanboy who is pretty ignorant of film beyond picking up some termnology (which he often misuses).
I have found that the discussion releated to classic films and classic directors are usaully pretty good, but those on films which have a huge Fanboy following and/or current upcoming movies of the type that attract the fanboys (Comic Book based movies, Horror films,etc) are incredibly stupid.

[fullflavormenthol]

It's interesting that the same phenomena can be observed in basicly all online poker rooms too. I've yet to see one without players nagging about "the rig" and setups. It's exactly the same logic and inability to grasp how the real world and statistics work.

I wonder if there's a correlation between twoofers and rig believers?
Sure. Both need to believe that there is order in the world, and they believe in the perfection of their own knowledge. The poker player believes that he is so skilled at the game that he shouldn't be able to loose as badly as he is. He is unable to conciously take into account the random nature involved within a game of poker.

The CT'ist is unable to accept that there are things outside their grasp. We might see those buildings come down, and even though we cannot scientifically explain the physics to ourselves we can accept the event as self evident. Plane crashes into building-->Building burns-->Building collapses. To the CT'ist the mere fact that they can't explain the physics to themselves is proof that what they are seeing isn't real. The event is outside their knowledge, but they believe their knowledge to be so percise that there must be "something else" going on.

It is like how people perceive the media. They don't understand it, they don't know that they influence it as much as it influences them. So as a result they view it as a big scary unfeeling machine. That is to say many people if unable to know the small parts of the larger picture will fill in the blanks, and sometimes those blanks are bad information....hence the CT'ist.

[dudalb]

Sure. Both need to believe that there is order in the world, and they believe in the perfection of their own knowledge. The poker player believes that he is so skilled at the game that he shouldn't be able to loose as badly as he is. He is unable to conciously take into account the random nature involved within a game of poker.

The CT'ist is unable to accept that there are things outside their grasp. We might see those buildings come down, and even though we cannot scientifically explain the physics to ourselves we can accept the event as self evident. Plane crashes into building-->Building burns-->Building collapses. To the CT'ist the mere fact that they can't explain the physics to themselves is proof that what they are seeing isn't real. The event is outside their knowledge, but they believe their knowledge to be so percise that there must be "something else" going on.

It is like how people perceive the media. They don't understand it, they don't know that they influence it as much as it influences them. So as a result they view it as a big scary unfeeling machine. That is to say many people if unable to know the small parts of the larger picture will fill in the blanks, and sometimes those blanks are bad information....hence the CT'ist.


I agree with everything you say, but in the case of the 9/11 theories, you have to add a hatred of the Bush Administration that reaches absurb heights...aka The Bush Derangement Syndrome....to the mix.

[fuelair]

I agree with everything you say, but in the case of the 9/11 theories, you have to add a hatred of the Bush Administration that reaches absurb heights...aka The Bush Derangement Syndrome....to the mix.
If it helps, and it probably doesn't, I loathe Bush and all his BBoy handlers - but I do not have any reason short of insanity (The Official Disease of Troofers!!)(R) to think he or the BBoys were involved in any way except not being careful enough before and flubbing some things after (like the Iraq War)
9/11.
Also, with same caveat, the rumors that turned into the Troofer movement were around in the general public by 9/12 - because I started hearing them from my high school, none too politically active, students that day. And I explained that day to them why there was zero chance that was the case (and they were already quite aware of my opinions on Shrub - as they lived in one of the areas where the police blocking roads leading to polling locations occurred as I had also seen(the one's that some people claimed were just made up by some Florida voters.)).

[dudalb]

I think Bush is an idiot, but I also realise that such a thing as Bush Derengement Syndorme exist...hating Bush to the point of being willing to believe just about anything bad about them.
You are right about the rumors,but the difference between most people and the Truthers is when the rumors were proven false, most people rejected them, and the Truthers kept on beleiving them.

[Donal]

Sure. Both need to believe that there is order in the world, and they believe in the perfection of their own knowledge. The poker player believes that he is so skilled at the game that he shouldn't be able to loose as badly as he is. He is unable to conciously take into account the random nature involved within a game of poker.

A little off topic, but I've noticed something as I am an avid poker player.

The guys who seem to handle being on the wrong end of random chance with the most grace are the guys who seem best at removing random chance from the game.

In other words, the smartest and best players are the first to say "dookie happens" when they lose.

[fullflavormenthol]

A little off topic, but I've noticed something as I am an avid poker player.

The guys who seem to handle being on the wrong end of random chance with the most grace are the guys who seem best at removing random chance from the game.

In other words, the smartest and best players are the first to say "dookie happens" when they lose.
Completely agree. A person can be an extremely good player, but there is still a random element; and the most graceful I have viewed are also the ones that accept that there will always be that random element that can't fully predict.