Why do CTers get so angry when questioned?

[nicepants]

I know I'm not the only one whose noticed this, as I've discussed it with other members on a number of occasions.

Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs. Personally, I believe in the generally accepted "OT", and if someone questions me, I respond in a clear, civil manner. It seems like the CTers....particularly of the CIT variety, tend to go absolutely bonkers with the personal attacks, name-calling, and accusations of treason against anyone who questions their theories.

I think this would actually hurt their cause, more than help it. Since the biggest hurdle for them seems to be convincing large numbers of people who will have these types of questions, alienating them by attacking them seems like the last thing you'd want to do when you want someone to join your team.

Thoughts? I'd especially like to hear from truthers who behave this way. What is it that makes you so angry?

ETA: Their behavior in this regard is eerily similar to that of Scientologists.

[DavidJames]

I know I'm not the only one whose noticed this, as I've discussed it with other members on a number of occasions.

Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs. Personally, I believe in the generally accepted "OT", and if someone questions me, I respond in a clear, civil manner. It seems like the CTers....particularly of the CIT variety, tend to go absolutely bonkers with the personal attacks, name-calling, and accusations of treason against anyone who questions their theories.

I think this would actually hurt their cause, more than help it. Since the biggest hurdle for them seems to be convincing large numbers of people who will have these types of questions, alienating them by attacking them seems like the last thing you'd want to do when you want someone to join your team.

Thoughts? I'd especially like to hear from truthers who behave this way. What is it that makes you so angry?

ETA: Their behavior in this regard is eerily similar to that of Scientologists.For those that this would apply to, I submit the answer is found within your quote below: I know Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs.Bolding is mine.

[CHF]

Cuz we're just asking questions about the 9/11 inside job, Ok?????? :mad: (yes - "9/11 was an inside job" is a question)

Why don't you ever ask the government about the bombs and thermite? Why you asking me instead? Cuz it's my theory??? You are such a shill!

But seriously....why do they get so angry?

I'd say it's for the same reason why religious nuts get mad at their beliefs being questioned or mocked. I mean how can anyone question "God's word" and not represent the forces of Satan?

[SkepticGuy]

Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs.

First, you need to understand the psychology of the beast. "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're primarily comprised of activists who would otherwise be preoccupied with protests against the World Bank and other anarchy-inspired issues.

With that in mind, the activist is inherently angry and more interested in filling their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

Activists (9/11 Truthers) are more concerned with who is paying attention to them.

Pure conspiracy theorists are more concerned with who is paying attention.

So if you disagree, you're not paying attention to them... hence the anger.

[nicepants]

But seriously....why do they get so angry?

I'd say it's for the same reason why religious nuts get mad at their beliefs being questioned or mocked. I mean how can anyone question "God's word" and not represent the forces of Satan?

Without delving too far into religion, I've never gotten angry when someone had legitimate questions about my religious beliefs. I realize that there are some people who do, but they're doing more harm than good by acting like that.

With that in mind, the activist is inherently angry and more interested in filling their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

I guess that's it...even with religion, you'll have your religious people, and your activists. Well said.

[16.5]

I always considered it simply a cover up for their own inadequacies.

This CIT nonsense is a case in point.

CIT: North of Citgo, blah blah blah our witnesses were misled on the fact that the plane hit the Pentagon blah blah blah.

Response: What is your flight path?

CIT: (shrilly) We don’t need any stinking flight path.

Response: Well, we think you do because any path NOC is impossible, and here is math:

CIT: CIA shills! Swear words!!!!

Response: Yeah, we’d still like the Flight path.

CIT: Head Asplodes!!

And..... Scene!

Fin.

[T.A.M.]

Answer to OP:

1. Mostly young
2. Rebellious hatred for authority
3. Sense of sekrit knowledge for purposes of elevating their otherwise insecure, fragile egos.
4. Activist nature (see SGs post above).
5. Government hatred.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

I like my CTers shaken, not stirred...

[StoneWT]

Memorizing a few CT facts allows the individual to be 'smart' and 'important'. When you challenge his theories, you are challenging his self-worth. I've met numerous people that were extremely pleasant when you initially discussed CT's with them. Disagreeing and offering concrete reasons caused them to erupt in fits of rage. Some of the folks hallucinated personal attacks and conferred arch-enemy status on the debunker. They need excuses to stop them from considering that their info may be wrong.

[jhunter1163]

LCF is kind of a haven for nutters. Lyte Trip and the rest of the Special High-level Investigative Team can stay over there and feel smug and special because they know something we don't know. When some mean ol' JREFer comes in and points out that the thing they "know" is wrong, their smugness and specialness is taken from them, and they react like four-year-olds whose favorite blankie is taken away.

I used to think that, on some level, they knew they were wrong but were just playing the game to shill for their video. Now I'm not so sure. I think that at least some of them really, in their heart of hearts, believe this stuff and really think that we're all government plants.

I'm not sure which is sadder.

[VespaGuy]

Sticking with the psychology, here's a personal anecdote that I find appropriate.

A few years ago, a girl I was dating told me she heard a wild story from a co-worker and she couldn't wait to pass it along to me. The stiory goes like this: a young girl was dog-sitting for a woman who was traveling. While the woman was away, the dog passed away. The young girl was instructed to bring the dog's body to be disposed. Since the girl had no transportation, she put the dog in a suitcase and boarded the subway. A man on the subway inquired about the suitcase because the girl was struggling to lift it. The girl, embaressed about the dead dog in the suitcase, lied and responded that she was transporting computer equipment. The man offered to help, and when the girl reluctantly agreed, the man pushed her down and ran off with the suitcase thinking it was computer equipment, but instead running off with a dead pooch.

Sound familiar? It did to me. Mostly because I love urban myths and I've read everything written by Jan Brunvand. But there are good odds that you've heard a variation of the story as well.

Anyhow, I let her finish the story, and I told her that it sounded like an urban myth to me. She immediately became angry (seriously!) and said, "no way, it happened to my coworker's best freind!". I asked her to verify this with her freind when she returned to work, to get more details. (And, as I predicted, it didn't happen to her friend's best friend... it happened to her friend's best friend's friend. And I'm sure you could keep going down the road and not find the source. But I digress...)

I began thumbing through my Brunvand books until I found the story. The entire time, my girlfriend was fuming at me "why do you have to be such a spoil-sport?! Even if it is in one of those books, it doesn't mean it really didn't happen to her freind!!". She was honestly upset at me for ruining her story.

I ended up finding the story (with some minor details changed) in one of my books. My girlfriend actually pointed at the details and said things like "but that says it was a golden retreiver! My freind said it was a black lab".

So, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that she was kind of like the Truthers and I was the mean ol' debunker, ruining her fun.

I think the anger stems from a combination of things:

First, the person feels like they are privy to some amazing "knowledge" that nobody else knows about. In the case of my girlfreind, it happened to a friend-of-a-friend (the origin of all urban myths), that's almost first-hand, right? To the truther, it's something they saw on youtube, or read on a forum. Some of the anger comes from the realization that their 'knowledge' wasn't as special as they thought.

Secondly, the person's story is easily and immediately debunked. In the case of my girlfreind, it took less than 5 minutes. In the Truther's case, well... have we seen anything new in 5 years? It's all been debunked. Anger comes from the quick smack-down, and possibly a bit of inward anger for being foolish enough to believe it themselves. (In my girlfriends case, I sensed it. I brought up the story at another time, and she was very embarresed...especially when others said "I've heard that before!".)

Anyhow, that's my take. Sorry for the long post. But thanks to anyone who trudged through it all.

[thebestodb]

you guys forgot to tell people to stop smoking pot. geez you guys are forgetting all the basics.

[Alareth]

Following up on what Vespa Guy said, I run into something similar at work all the time.

I'll have people come in to buy things that we either do not sell, or simply doesn't exist such as adapters to play an 8mm cassette in a standard VHS vcr.

Without fail the response is, "My friend/cousin/brother/mother bought one here!" and all the anger is directed at me and not the person that gave them the incorrect information.

[Alareth]

double post

[GodisEnergy]

Simple Answer = Fustration.. Its very fustrating and pychologically intimidating having the beleif that it was an inside job when everyone else LAUGHS AT YOU
Its much more easy pychologically to think in a Group ,
We are apes we think in groups.

[Alareth]

Simple Answer = Fustration.. Its very fustrating and pychologically intimidating having the beleif that it was an inside job when everyone else LAUGHS AT YOU

Ever stop to think that there is a valid reason for being laughed at?

[stateofgrace]

Simple Answer = Fustration.. Its very fustrating and pychologically intimidating having the beleif that it was an inside job when everyone else LAUGHS AT YOU
Its much more easy pychologically to think in a Group ,
We are apes we think in groups.

Oh poor you, everybody laughing at the fearless twoofer who copies and pastes the same long debunked rubbish onto internet forums.

When you get off your butt, get out of your basement and actually do something other than whinging and moaning that everybody is laughing at you, maybe and only maybe then will somebody will give you the attention you so desperately crave.

[Pato2747]

Ever stop to think that there is a valid reason for being laughed at?

Alareth, you deserve a statue.

</offtopic>

I have met truthers that acted very calmly when questioned. I had the chance to have a little chat with one, and man, he truly was respectful. He put claims (Even though, they have been debunked long time ago), I debunked the claim, and the cycle again. No words like "WAKE UP, YOU SHEEP!" or stuff that would violate Rule 10.

Even when he signed off, he said, "No hard feelings". The first time that a truther ever said that to me.

[Magenta]

Memorizing a few CT facts allows the individual to be 'smart' and 'important'. When you challenge his theories, you are challenging his self-worth. I've met numerous people that were extremely pleasant when you initially discussed CT's with them. Disagreeing and offering concrete reasons caused them to erupt in fits of rage. Some of the folks hallucinated personal attacks and conferred arch-enemy status on the debunker. They need excuses to stop them from considering that their info may be wrong.


I've noticed the same when I've argued on other forums with CTists. When I pointed out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their "theory"and was persistent and more or less polite in asking them to elaborate, they would not defend their claims but would instead turn to a personal attack. One guy got me on my gender, nationality and national history in one post! It was so irrational and pathetic, I almost felt sorry for him.

It's like some of them have a very rigid worldview and can't deal with anything/anyone that challenges it.

[twinstead]

hmmm. Getting frustrated when everybody laughs at you. Yea. That must be a bitch.

[LastChild]

I know I'm not the only one whose noticed this, as I've discussed it with other members on a number of occasions.

Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs. Personally, I believe in the generally accepted "OT", and if someone questions me, I respond in a clear, civil manner. It seems like the CTers....particularly of the CIT variety, tend to go absolutely bonkers with the personal attacks, name-calling, and accusations of treason against anyone who questions their theories.

I think this would actually hurt their cause, more than help it. Since the biggest hurdle for them seems to be convincing large numbers of people who will have these types of questions, alienating them by attacking them seems like the last thing you'd want to do when you want someone to join your team.

Thoughts? I'd especially like to hear from truthers who behave this way. What is it that makes you so angry?

ETA: Their behavior in this regard is eerily similar to that of Scientologists.

Yeah I hate when people are just JAQing off. I thought you did too?

[T.A.M.]

Simple Answer = Fustration.. Its very fustrating and pychologically intimidating having the beleif that it was an inside job when everyone else LAUGHS AT YOU
Its much more easy pychologically to think in a Group ,
We are apes we think in groups.

Yes and in a sick, self-abusive way, this is part of what attracts truthers to it...

There is a self-love, a pride in ones self for "braving the odds", for being the "odd one who believes it". This is to counter the self-loathing.


You can even see it in your post, where after describing the so called "frustration" and "pain" you hit back with "those who do not think like me are apes, are sheeple."

Thanks for making it clearer for any who had any doubts about it...lol

TAM:)

[antennafarm]

Yes and in a sick, self-abusive way, this is part of what attracts truthers to it...

There is a self-love, a pride in ones self for "braving the odds", for being the "odd one who believes it". This is to counter the self-loathing.


You can even see it in your post, where after describing the so called "frustration" and "pain" you hit back with "those who do not think like me are apes, are sheeple."

Thanks for making it clearer for any who had any doubts about it...lol

TAM:)

Building off this, I think it's also worth noting that, as a corollary to us (read: humans) tendency to groupthink because we're social animals, a more exclusive group is more prestigious.

Now, "exclusive" could mean, say, being in the "I have an eight digit income" group, the "I'm one of the 144,000 going to heaven group," or the "I own such and such a fancy brand" (something I've recently noticed, since people make certain toward gestures/etc because I drive a Jeep and use an Apple computer). Smaller subcultures - a group is still a group. What's the difference between a group of goths and a group of kids shopping at Abercrombie? Not much, if you look at patterns!

In the case of truthers, it's "I have this special information."

[MikeyMetz]

I think it also has to do with the truth movement charlatans preemptively throwing around phrases like "hit piece," "cointelpro," and "straw man." It's a nice propaganda tool that plants the seed to dismiss everything that doesn't correlate with what they're telling you. Thus, once a truther actually is confronted with someone who disagrees with them, they're already programmed to dismiss it and even be angry, since it's all part of the conspiracy.

[mrbaracuda]

CIT variety

CIT?

[ElMondoHummus]

First, you need to understand the psychology of the beast. "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're primarily comprised of activists who would otherwise be preoccupied with protests against the World Bank and other anarchy-inspired issues.

With that in mind, the activist is inherently angry and more interested in filling their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

Activists (9/11 Truthers) are more concerned with who is paying attention to them.

Pure conspiracy theorists are more concerned with who is paying attention.

So if you disagree, you're not paying attention to them... hence the anger.

That's a pretty good point.

[Garb]

CIT?

Citizen's Investigation Team I believe.

They are a group of guys who believe that a plane flew on the north side of the Citgo Station at the Pentagon and flew over it. Their theory is so complicated and unbelievably stupid I can't even remember the whole thing.

[deep]

I know I'm not the only one whose noticed this, as I've discussed it with other members on a number of occasions.

Why is it that CTers get so outright ANGRY when someone dares to question their beliefs. Personally, I believe in the generally accepted "OT", and if someone questions me, I respond in a clear, civil manner. It seems like the CTers....particularly of the CIT variety, tend to go absolutely bonkers with the personal attacks, name-calling, and accusations of treason against anyone who questions their theories.

I think this would actually hurt their cause, more than help it. Since the biggest hurdle for them seems to be convincing large numbers of people who will have these types of questions, alienating them by attacking them seems like the last thing you'd want to do when you want someone to join your team.

Thoughts? I'd especially like to hear from truthers who behave this way. What is it that makes you so angry?

ETA: Their behavior in this regard is eerily similar to that of Scientologists.


Please provide some examples. The only hostility I see at JREF comes from debunkers - the mods are constantly editing their messages for "civility".

Perhaps a mod could chime in and confirm this one way or the other?

[deep]

I think it also has to do with the truth movement charlatans preemptively throwing around phrases like "hit piece," "cointelpro," and "straw man." It's a nice propaganda tool that plants the seed to dismiss everything that doesn't correlate with what they're telling you. Thus, once a truther actually is confronted with someone who disagrees with them, they're already programmed to dismiss it and even be angry, since it's all part of the conspiracy.


What were you saying about name-calling, nicepants? LOL.

[deep]

Citizen's Investigation Team I believe.

They are a group of guys who believe that a plane flew on the north side of the Citgo Station at the Pentagon and flew over it. Their theory is so complicated and unbelievably stupid I can't even remember the whole thing.


Another one - how odd. You may need to re-think your opinion on this, nicepants.

[deep]

Oh poor you, everybody laughing at the fearless twoofer who copies and pastes the same long debunked rubbish onto internet forums.

When you get off your butt, get out of your basement and actually do something other than whinging and moaning that everybody is laughing at you, maybe and only maybe then will somebody will give you the attention you so desperately crave.


I have nothing more to add, except that nicepants has been debunked. LOL.

[Wildy]

Please provide some examples. The only hostility I see at JREF comes from debunkers - the mods are constantly editing their messages for "civility".

Perhaps a mod could chime in and confirm this one way or the other?

Well I'm not a mod and from what I have seen the hostility between both sides would have to be proportional to the numbers.

There are far more people on the debunker side then the "truther" side here so naturally you would see far more people on the debunker side getting their comments edited for "civility".

There are a few other things that can change this. Some debunkers might get annoyed because they are debunking the same thing, over and over and over and over and over (it goes on like this) again. Some "truthers" get annoyed because they are told their movement is dead (which it basically is).

Some are just stuck up jerks (I can think of a guy on Myspace who fits that mould) who immediately attack whoever questions what they have to say.

Finally, there is one little observation that I have found. The "truthers" are more likely to accuse someone of being a "shill" or "part of the conspiracy" and I have even heard (as many here would have) "support secret murder" and "those who have subverted the Constitution of the United States". The "truthers" are less likely to defend their argument and just attack their critic then a debunker would.

[mrbaracuda]

Someone here obviously likes the word "nicepants".
Thanks Garb.

[MikeyMetz]

What were you saying about name-calling, nicepants? LOL.

I don't know. What did I say about name calling?

[thorswitch]

I think that the reason so many truthers get so angry when their beliefs are challenged is that, for them, those beliefs are a vital necessity - not because they want to feel special, or important or like they're part of some kind of elite club or whatever, but because they want to feel safe again.

When we look at the 9/11 attacks, we see that al Qaeda was able to get 20 young men into the US, send them money, have them train how to take off and fly airplanes (in at least one case telling the trainer he wasn't worried about landing,) get past airport security, board 4 planes, hijack them all and crash 3 of them into buildings with the 4th being downed in a rural area far from its destination. Following the attacks, it quickly became clear that many potential warnings were missed, that people who had concerns were ignored, and that on the day of the attacks, the military and FAA personnel who were supposed to handle matters like this were woefully unprepared (and in the case of the military, understaffed due to exercises being done that day.) Communications were confused and slow, with notifications that a plane has been hijacked sometimes coming only after it had already crashed. Meanwhile, 3,000 people lost their lives, and on that day, the US - supposedly the mightiest nation in the world - was completely powerless to stop it.

It's really a pretty terrifying thought, and for some people, its more than they can even begin to accept. It says that we have very little control over our own lives, and that we can't trust the government or the systems and procedures we have in place to protect us - meaning we are all still vulnerable to facing that kind of attack. Worse, we've known bin Laden and al Qaeda have been a threat for years, yet we've never been able to catch him or, in any way, hold him accountable for his actions - and the people who actually did the hijacking are dead, so we can't hold them accountable, either. So there's not even the comfort of seeing someone "pay" for what happened available. Just the knowledge that there's a huge threat out there and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it at all.

If you start thinking about it as a government conspiracy, though, intended to get us into a new war (or whatever other malevolent motive you wish to ascribe to it) things change a bit. Governments can be held accountable. Incumbents and decision-makers can be voted out, officials who have engaged in criminal conduct could face impeachment, criminal charges or both. Once investigations into how the government "pulled it off" and the "criminals" are out of office and/or in a nice comfy jail cell, a new government can come in and "fix" everything, making everything "safe" again.

One other important thing to keep in mind is that the more people who agree that something needs to be changed, the more likely it is that the desired change can be made. For truthers, then, activism fulfills two roles: It allows them to try and convince others of what they're saying, which helps create that feeling of "safety in numbers" and it lets them believe that they're getting closer to achieving their goal of having extra investigations or impeachments or whatever else they need to feel safer.

When their views are challenged, though, they respond in anger because the more holes that are poked in their belief that the government did it, the closer they come to having to face their fear, and that's one thing they can't do - the fear is too overwhelming. This is also why they keep coming up with new and more outlandish charges and theories - anything to avoid seeing through the holes in their belief. Another source for the anger is that when someone is unpersuaded by their activism and chooses not to believe in their theories, it also challenges their hope of being able to get enough co-believers so that they can force the issue of investigations and other changes they want to see made. Again, that leaves them feeling vulnerable, because if they can't "fix" what was wrong on 9/11, then the threat never really goes away.

[stateofgrace]

I have nothing more to add, except that nicepants has been debunked. LOL.

Oh how dreadful of me to call out somebody who admits that everybody is laughing at him and call him a fearless twoofer. I guess this does not apply to you though eh? I guess from your self righteous post that you are right now complying your evidence and forwarding it to the authority’s right?

When you provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims, you will be listened to, when you do something other than whinging and moaning about how debunkers do nothing other than call you names you may have a case, you may actually get the attention you want. Until then dear boy I will stand with the massive chorus of peopel that is rightly laughing at you. Calling you a fool and people who subscribe to insane theoreis about inside jobs in not getting angry it is simply stating it as it is.You are the one implying innocent people are involved in mass murder, you are that one that looks for excuse upon excuse to absolve the terrorists who comitted this wicked act, not I.People laugh at your pitful theores and people call you out on them.

There is a place for civility, there is a place for respect, they are earned and given unreservedly to people who have done so. The TM as earned neither of these, all, they have earned is the right to be mocked and laughed at. The fact that some folks take the time to explain where this fringe group is wrong does not exonerate the liars and frauds of this ridiculous movement who knowingly and freely continue to spread lies about this dreadful event. If you want my respect and my civility or anybody elses, then earn them. Earn them by stopping pretending you are the poor victim, oppressed and suppressed, stop pretending that you have the right to support liars and frauds and not be mocked for doing so. Earn what you crave by actually doing something, rather simply posting fake outrage on internet forums.

If you want to silence the laughter and the mockery then do something not one single twoofer has ever done. Tell me exacty what happened on Sept 11th. Can you do that? Or will you continue to whinge and moan at the nasty debunkers?

Oh, sorry folks just insulted a twoofer; guess 911 must be an inside job.:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

I think that the reason so many truthers get so angry when their beliefs are challenged is that, for them, those beliefs are a vital necessity - not because they want to feel special, or important or like they're part of some kind of elite club or whatever, but because they want to feel safe again.

When we look at the 9/11 attacks, we see that al Qaeda was able to get 20 young men into the US, send them money, have them train how to take off and fly airplanes (in at least one case telling the trainer he wasn't worried about landing,) get past airport security, board 4 planes, hijack them all and crash 3 of them into buildings with the 4th being downed in a rural area far from its destination. Following the attacks, it quickly became clear that many potential warnings were missed, that people who had concerns were ignored, and that on the day of the attacks, the military and FAA personnel who were supposed to handle matters like this were woefully unprepared (and in the case of the military, understaffed due to exercises being done that day.) Communications were confused and slow, with notifications that a plane has been hijacked sometimes coming only after it had already crashed. Meanwhile, 3,000 people lost their lives, and on that day, the US - supposedly the mightiest nation in the world - was completely powerless to stop it.

It's really a pretty terrifying thought, and for some people, its more than they can even begin to accept. It says that we have very little control over our own lives, and that we can't trust the government or the systems and procedures we have in place to protect us - meaning we are all still vulnerable to facing that kind of attack. Worse, we've known bin Laden and al Qaeda have been a threat for years, yet we've never been able to catch him or, in any way, hold him accountable for his actions - and the people who actually did the hijacking are dead, so we can't hold them accountable, either. So there's not even the comfort of seeing someone "pay" for what happened available. Just the knowledge that there's a huge threat out there and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it at all.

If you start thinking about it as a government conspiracy, though, intended to get us into a new war (or whatever other malevolent motive you wish to ascribe to it) things change a bit. Governments can be held accountable. Incumbents and decision-makers can be voted out, officials who have engaged in criminal conduct could face impeachment, criminal charges or both. Once investigations into how the government "pulled it off" and the "criminals" are out of office and/or in a nice comfy jail cell, a new government can come in and "fix" everything, making everything "safe" again.

One other important thing to keep in mind is that the more people who agree that something needs to be changed, the more likely it is that the desired change can be made. For truthers, then, activism fulfills two roles: It allows them to try and convince others of what they're saying, which helps create that feeling of "safety in numbers" and it lets them believe that they're getting closer to achieving their goal of having extra investigations or impeachments or whatever else they need to feel safer.

When their views are challenged, though, they respond in anger because the more holes that are poked in their belief that the government did it, the closer they come to having to face their fear, and that's one thing they can't do - the fear is too overwhelming. This is also why they keep coming up with new and more outlandish charges and theories - anything to avoid seeing through the holes in their belief. Another source for the anger is that when someone is unpersuaded by their activism and chooses not to believe in their theories, it also challenges their hope of being able to get enough co-believers so that they can force the issue of investigations and other changes they want to see made. Again, that leaves them feeling vulnerable, because if they can't "fix" what was wrong on 9/11, then the threat never really goes away.

Nice post. Here are my thoughts on what you have said.

1. While I think some of them may be responding to a "need to be safe" whisper in their ear, I think this is a minority of them. In all (and I have read a lot) of the postings and dialogs I have seen and read from truthers, there is very little tone or hinting that a "need to be safe" pushes their thoughts or agenda.

2. I agree there may be a "fear of loss of control" element there, as there is in most people. That exists in truther and non-truther, so I do not see it as a fundamental, or shall I say unique, trait that turns someone to trutherism.

3. Working backwards froma pre-conceived notion is not a wise thing. It will result in confirmation bias to the extreme. Therefore, this working back from the premise that all that came before the Iraq War was part of some plot to get the USA in to the war is an incorrect approach.

4. I think your entire line of thinking on their reasons only applies to a smaller group of them. I would venture to guess this line of thought is more prominent in the older truther, perhaps more common amongst the academic truthers.

Just my take of course.

TAM:)

[deep]

When you provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims, you will be listened to, when you do something other than whinging (sic) and moaning about how debunkers do nothing other than call you names you may have a case, you may actually get the attention you want. Until then dear boy I will stand with the massive chorus of peopel (sic) that is rightly laughing at you. Calling you a fool and people who subscribe to insane theoreis (sic) about inside jobs in not getting angry it is simply stating it as it is.You are the one implying innocent people are involved in mass murder, you are that one that looks for excuse upon excuse to absolve the terrorists who comitted (sic) this wicked act, not I.People laugh at your pitful (sic) theores (sic) and people call you out on them.


May I remind you that someone else started this thread to complain about truthers "always" getting angry - I merely demonstrated why that claim is inaccurate.

As for providing a "shred of evidence" - that's already been done, over and over and over again. You're not interested in evidence that forces you to question what you want to believe, so you find ways to ignore it.

For example, for WTC7 - the speed & uniformity of the collapse, the amount of dust generated by the collapse, the partially evaporated evaporated steel members, the molten steel reported by countless experts and non-experts, etc.

Those are examples of evidence - you simply choose to ignore it.

[stateofgrace]

May I remind you that someone else started this thread to complain about truthers "always" getting angry - I merely demonstrated why that claim is inaccurate.

As for providing a "shred of evidence" - that's already been done, over and over and over again. You're not interested in evidence that forces you to question what you want to believe, so you find ways to ignore it.

For example, for WTC7 - the speed & uniformity of the collapse, the amount of dust generated by the collapse, the partially evaporated evaporated steel members, the molten steel reported by countless experts and non-experts, etc.

Those are examples of evidence - you simply choose to ignore it.


May I also remind you that it was you that entered into this thread and quoted my post as an example of the ill manners that are shown to truthers?

Opinions are not evidence nor is fake outrage at being mocked.

If you believe your opinions are so valid then why does anybody, let alone the rest of the planet mock and belittle you. They do so because rather than actually do something about it all you do is post on internet forums, point out spelling mistakes of other and delude yourself that you are actually achieving anything. All you are achieving dear boy is to invite further mockery.

In future do not part quote or answer parts of my post,twoofer, answer it all. Present your evidence and show me exactly what happened on 911.

You are belittled, ignored and mocked until you give us a complete narrative of the events of sept 11th.

Can you do that?

[deep]

I think that the reason so many truthers get so angry when their beliefs are challenged is that, for them, those beliefs are a vital necessity - not because they want to feel special, or important or like they're part of some kind of elite club or whatever, but because they want to feel safe again.

(snip)

It's really a pretty terrifying thought, and for some people, its more than they can even begin to accept.


Here's the problem with your claim - most (if not all) truthers were not even initially suspicious of the US Government's official explanation for what happened. They accepted it without any second thoughts.

So your claim that truthers cannot "begin to accept" the US Government's explanation is simply untrue, because it's not supported by any evidence.

On the other hand, with the exception of MikeyMetz (and possibly a few others), debunkers have believed the US Government from day one. Additionally, they are constantly demonstrating their inability to even consider the possibility that the US Government is lying, by repeatedly claiming that truthers suffer from some form of mental illness, or are legally insane.

It sure sounds like you're projecting your own undesirable feelings onto truthers.

[LastChild]

If it wasn't for angry insults there wouldn't even be any pretend debunking here at JREF.

[bje]

First, you need to understand the psychology of the beast. "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're primarily comprised of activists who would otherwise be preoccupied with protests against the World Bank and other anarchy-inspired issues.

With that in mind, the activist is inherently angry and more interested in filling their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

Activists (9/11 Truthers) are more concerned with who is paying attention to them.

Pure conspiracy theorists are more concerned with who is paying attention.

So if you disagree, you're not paying attention to them... hence the anger.


All the more reason why you should have a separate 9/11 "Truther" Activist Forum on ATS rather than include them under your 9/11 "Conspiracy" Forum. As far as Truthers are concerned, and those coming to your site, one would naturally think ATS believes Truthers are conspiracy theorists given that you make no declared difference.

Just ask them.

[deep]

If you believe your opinions are so valid then why does anybody, let alone the rest of the planet mock and belittle you. They do so because rather than actually do something about it all you do is post on internet forums, point out spelling mistakes of other and delude yourself that you are actually achieving anything. All you are achieving dear boy is to invite further mockery.


The rest of the planet is mocking me? How do you explain the 300+ architects and engineers who agree that there are numerous flaws in the OT? The nearly 20 structural engineers (some of whom are included in the aforementioned 300)? The numerous scholars at stj911.org? The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?

The rest of the planet - except for them?

You are belittled, ignored and mocked until you give us a complete narrative of the events of sept 11th.


Feel free to start ignoring me at any time - it may help reduce some of that anger you clearly have built up inside.

[bje]

The rest of the planet is mocking me? How do you explain the 300+ architects and engineers who agree that there are numerous flaws in the OT? The nearly 20 structural engineers (some of whom are included in the aforementioned 300)? The numerous scholars at stj911.org? The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?

Just because all these people make claims and have beliefs? Do you actually think the rest of us determine the validity of their claims and beliefs just on the basis that they make them?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

[Dr Adequate]

If it wasn't for angry insults there wouldn't even be any pretend debunking here at JREF. Does anyone remember the last time LastChild posted anything that required debunking, rather than futile petulant whining about debunkers?

[Minadin]

Citizen's Investigation Team I believe.

They are a group of guys who believe that a plane flew on the north side of the Citgo Station at the Pentagon and flew over it. Their theory is so complicated and unbelievably stupid I can't even remember the whole thing.

Another one - how odd. You may need to re-think your opinion on this, nicepants.

I wouldn't consider this a very good example of name calling. He's saying that their conspiracy theory is incredibly stupid, so it's not aimed at the people. He's still attacking the argument. There's a difference between that and, for instance, if I were to say that you were a whiny little idiot with nothing to back up your claims. That would be name-calling and indeed fairly uncivil, even if everybody agreed with me.

[uk_dave]

Here's the problem with your claim - most (if not all) truthers were not even initially suspicious of the US Government's official explanation for what happened. They accepted it without any second thoughts.
Evidence?

So your claim that truthers cannot "begin to accept" the US Government's explanation is simply untrue, because it's not supported by any evidence.

They appear to be unable. Has any 'truther' ever admitted that it was possible for the wtc towers to collapse through the structural damage of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires?

On the other hand, with the exception of MikeyMetz (and possibly a few others), debunkers have believed the US Government from day one. Additionally, they are constantly demonstrating their inability to even consider the possibility that the US Government is lying, by repeatedly claiming that truthers suffer from some form of mental illness, or are legally insane.
No. The reason why alot of debunkers reject the claims of the 'truth' movement is because they know, from their own training or professions, that the 'truth' movement lies and that the 'official account' fits the available evidence much better than the CT fantasy. I, for one, was drawn into this debate by the lies of the 'truth' movement about the collapse of the wtc towers. It matters not a jot to me whether 'truthers' accept that they are wrong, but it does matter that their false assertions should go unchallenged.


It sure sounds like you're projecting your own undesirable feelings onto truthers.NO, 'truthers' are projecting, but they'll never have the guts to admit it

[stateofgrace]

The rest of the planet is mocking me? How do you explain the 300+ architects and engineers who agree that there are numerous flaws in the OT? The nearly 20 structural engineers (some of whom are included in the aforementioned 300)? The numerous scholars at stj911.org? The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?

The rest of the planet - except for them?

Really?

One-third of Americans? Some 100 million Americans buy into your rubbish?

So why are they not marching? Why can you truthers muster nothing other than a handful of idiots at any given rally?

As for your 300 "experts" why are they not producing peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper? Why are they not submitting all their evidence to the authorities? Why do the world’s media simply ignore them?

Why can they and you not get an alternative narrative together?

Feel free to start ignoring me at any time - it may help reduce some of that anger you clearly have built up inside.
Don't delude yourself further that your words are having such an impact I would cover my eyes and ignore them, you simply mistake amusement for anger

[Dr Adequate]

The rest of the planet is mocking me? How do you explain the 300+ architects and engineers who agree that there are numerous flaws in the OT? The nearly 20 structural engineers (some of whom are included in the aforementioned 300)? The numerous scholars at stj911.org? The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?

The rest of the planet - except for them? Wow, all those people who agree with you, and you still get fewer people at Truther rallies than at Furry conventions. I guess all those valiant seekers for Truth and Justice simply aren't as dedicated as the people who like to dress up as bunny-rabbits.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please provide some examples. The only hostility I see at JREF comes from debunkers - the mods are constantly editing their messages for "civility".

Perhaps a mod could chime in and confirm this one way or the other?

If it wasn't for angry insults there wouldn't even be any pretend debunking here at JREF.


Weren't you the one, LastChild, that was suspended just a couple weeks ago for numerous outbursts calling members here "Hitler-lovers"? I'm not sure you're in any position to act indignant.

[Lynx2174]

The rest of the planet is mocking me? How do you explain the 300+ architects and engineers who agree that there are numerous flaws in the OT? The nearly 20 structural engineers (some of whom are included in the aforementioned 300)? The numerous scholars at stj911.org? The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?

The rest of the planet - except for them?



HINT: There are dozens of thousands of structural engineers. 20 isn't really a big number. And better than a third of Americans are to a degree creationists, believe in ghosts, and all sorts of things like that. Huge numbers of people believing silly things doesn't make it any less silly.

[1337m4n]

The one-third of Americans who believe the US Government either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them?


Show me a reliable poll that says that.