I wrote my senior seminar paper on truthers

[PugsOnAPlane]

I've mentioned in previous posts that my school, Keene State College, is in a very truther-heavy area. We've had 8 or 9 truther events since I transferred here in 2006. This influenced me to write a paper for my senior seminar about truthers; the paper is 30 pages long and makes up virtually all the grade for the class. It's available here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FDL23EVA

I had to rely a lot on internet-based sources, as there aren't a whole lot of books or peer-reviewed papers about truthers. If you have any questions, just ask.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I've mentioned in previous posts that my school, Keene State College, is in a very truther-heavy area.

Just out of curiousosity, are there a lot of mental health institutions where you live?

[metamars]

I've mentioned in previous posts that my school, Keene State College, is in a very truther-heavy area. We've had 8 or 9 truther events since I transferred here in 2006. This influenced me to write a paper for my senior seminar about truthers; the paper is 30 pages long and makes up virtually all the grade for the class. It's available here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FDL23EVA

I had to rely a lot on internet-based sources, as there aren't a whole lot of books or peer-reviewed papers about truthers. If you have any questions, just ask.

I'll try to mute my criticism, as you're just a kid.

Our society (absent a depression) has many types of jobs, some of which you should be able to fill, admirably. However, if this paper is any indication, 2 jobs that you would be wholly unsuited for are that of newspaper reporter (for a reputable rag) or any sort of writer who relies on analysis of texts of various kinds. You lack both the analytical ability, as well as the ability to write well.

This paper may not be the fairest test of your abilities, as you have cast a wide net. That, of course, makes it harder to develop a detailed argument, rather than to string together a long series of cursory faux-analyses into a 'paper', as you have done. For good examples of good writers developing ideas, in sufficient detail to make their cases, without getting bogged down in minutia, you might want to take a look at openleft.com. Notice that the front-pagers (Stoller, Sirota, Bowers, Lux ) keep the scope of each post limited, but not so limited as to not be informative and significant (well, in general :-) ). Of course, they have their ideological axes to grind, some of which I share, and some that I certainly don't. But their talent shines through, in spite of their particular biases. Also, take a look at the writings of Srdja Trifkovic at chroniclesmagazine.org. Chronicles magazine is paleo-conservative, sort of the opposite of openleft in it's orientation. But Trifkovic is brilliant (IMO, and that of many others), both in his analysis of foreign affairs, but also in his ability to write. (His essay "IRAQ AND THE NEOCONS' PSEUDO-REALITY" (http://www.mail-archive.com/news@antic.org/msg03914.html) is the best essay warning against Bush's blunderbuss invasion of Iraq that I've read.)

Should you be interested, there might be a place for you as a journalist in a second or third tier media outlet, where you will (evidently) readily internalize whatever institutional biases are necessary for you to be part of a machine that demonstrates, as Noam Chomsky would put it, "conformist subservience to those in power". However, even to get to that point in life, I expect you would still have to develop your writing skills.

[Brainster]

I'd rate the paper as generally accurate, occasionally didactic and very well-written, although like most good writers you should learn to use more periods and fewer semicolons.

There is an assumption that the individuals mentioned in the article are familiar to the readers, which narrows the potential audience to those who already understand much of the material (like us).

The language is highly slanted, although obviously less so than is common around here or what I use at SLC. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but understand that the language of academia is more neutral.

And why in the world is a 1992 survey of residents of New Jersey's six southwestern counties cited on page 29? Unless the answer is that it appeared in your professor's thesis, your point could doubtlessly be made better by reference to much larger polls on similar subjects.

I'd rate it tops in argumentation and excellent in writing and philosophy, but somewhat lower as feature writing or anthropology. You don't explain the "why they believe what they do," part much aside from polls.

[beachnut]

Thanks for sharing your paper.

[dtugg]

Don't listen to metemars, he is a twoofer. And Noam Chomsky is his hero, yet Chomsky says that it is so unlikely that 9/11 was an inside job that it is not even worth discussing, or something to that effect.

I may read your paper later when when I have more time and am not drunk.

[Dr Adequate]

However, if this paper is any indication, 2 jobs that you would be wholly unsuited for are that of newspaper reporter (for a reputable rag) or any sort of writer who relies on analysis of texts of various kinds. You lack both the analytical ability, as well as the ability to write well. Dude. You're a Truther.

[Drudgewire]

like most good writers you should learn to use more periods and fewer semicolons.


They are our Waterloo. :o

[The Doc]

I only had time to skim over it, but one thing I did notice is in regards to neutrality. I'm not sure what your professor expects of you in the paper, but as a previous poster mentioned, neutrality should be present to some degree in academic literature. For example, referring to conspiracy theorists using jargon such as "truther" might be seen as inappropriate (depending on the context of the paper).

Other than this though, what I read was very well presented. You've got your facts straight and I look forward to reading the rest when I have some spare time :)

[GStan]

I've mentioned in previous posts that my school, Keene State College, is in a very truther-heavy area. We've had 8 or 9 truther events since I transferred here in 2006. This influenced me to write a paper for my senior seminar about truthers; the paper is 30 pages long and makes up virtually all the grade for the class. It's available here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FDL23EVA

I had to rely a lot on internet-based sources, as there aren't a whole lot of books or peer-reviewed papers about truthers. If you have any questions, just ask.

Thank you for sharing that. Your OP doesn't mention whether or not you were actually soliciting critical comments, but since you've shared it in a public forum, I'm just going to assume that you are.

First, you've presented a nice, (although a bit disjointed) summary of the major players in the 9/11 movement and the theories in which they believe. However, I think this paper misses the mark somewhat in relation to what you set out to accomplish. You mentioned in the beginning that the "purpose of this paper is to examine the people behind this movement, and to figure out why they believe what they do...in order to determine what makes them tick." While you succeeded in the first half of your objective, you devoted only a very small portion (2 pages out of 30) to looking at the "why" and the "what makes them tick."

There are alot of journal articles about the psychology of conspiracy theorists and paranoia in general that you could have explored. Granted, for someone looking at this from a macro-level, they are not as fun to read and write about as the superficial lunacy, which you covered quite well. Other areas on the "why" that you could have explored in greater detail include critical thinking/logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance, the rebelliousness of youth, and arguably the most important, the financial interests of the movement leadership in propogating these theories.

Finally, while Metamars' ideas about 9/11 are complete idiocy, he might not be too far off the mark with respect to your abilities as a writer. There were quite a few typos and, as others have mentioned, the unbalanced and occasionally pedestrian language was a little distracting. And I thought the paper was lacking a certain fluidity. But don't be discouraged. Not everyone can write well. Some people lack the intellectual ability. Some people simply lack the patience. What is now and ever shall be important for you is that you do not lack critical thinking skills. Metamars can write well, but he completely lacks critical thinking skills, which has lead him to trutherism. Your writing certainly has room for improvement, but at least you have your critical thinking skills. In which boat would you rather be?

I would be interested to see what comments your instructor provides upon grading it, if you are willing to share those as well.

(This entire post is all IMHO of course.)

[Pardalis]

Metamars, do Chomsky and Trifković support the premise of the Truth Movement, or anyone at Openleft for that matter?

[metamars]

Metamars, do Chomsky and Trifković support the premise of the Truth Movement, or anyone at Openleft for that matter?

Why do you ask? Do you not grasp the point that writing well has little to do with any ideological bias, even those as radically disparate as those in evidence at Chronicles Magazine and openleft.com?

Likewise, I have paid compliments to both righty Trifkovic and lefties at openleft ito their analytical abilities. Their talent shines through despite ideological biases.

BTW, there's a debunker that writes very well, also. So well, I used to enjoy reading his posts, even though they would, at times, degenerate into some gobbledygook about "conspiracism". I'm referring to JayUtah at bautforum and apollohoax.

When I read Trifkovic and he talks about liberals "hating" America, or when I read openleft and they talk about conservatives "hating" homosexuals, or when I read yet another "reductio ad conspiratum theoristum"* pseudo-argument at jref, I basically ignore it. It's not that these are complete nonsense - some liberals hate America, some conservatives hate homosexuals, and some conspiracy theorists will stubbornly hold to an idea just because they like it, in a warm and fuzzy conspiracy theory sort of way, and not because it makes sense or has any appreciable probability.

An ideological or psychological bias often involves embracing a distorted view of contradictory notions and facts. There's really nothing new about this, and is evident even in highly intelligent, and presumably rational scientists. (As I've often recommended in the past, see The Trouble with Physics, Not Even Wrong, and the chapter on religion in On Human Nature.)

* OK, I don't know Latin, and don't know how to translate "conspiracy theorist".

[1337m4n]

I'll try to mute my criticism, as you're just a kid.


Dude, he's 24. I don't think you have to worry about hurting his feelings with your nutbaggery. Although it does appear that his paper struck a nerve with you.

Our society (absent a depression) has many types of jobs, some of which you should be able to fill, admirably. However, if this paper is any indication, 2 jobs that you would be wholly unsuited for are that of newspaper reporter (for a reputable rag) or any sort of writer who relies on analysis of texts of various kinds. You lack both the analytical ability, as well as the ability to write well.

Folks, let the record show that this is coming from the man who believes that all reputable news outlets are "controlled" by an unnamed, faceless "Them".

[Pardalis]

Why do you ask? Do you not grasp the point that writing well has little to do with any ideological bias, even those as radically disparate as those in evidence at Chronicles Magazine and openleft.com?

Likewise, I have paid compliments to both righty Trifkovic and lefties at openleft ito their analytical abilities. Their talent shines through despite ideological biases.

BTW, there's a debunker that writes very well, also. So well, I used to enjoy reading his posts, even though they would, at times, degenerate into some gobbledygook about "conspiracism". I'm referring to JayUtah at bautforum and apollohoax.

When I read Trifkovic and he talks about liberals "hating" America, or when I read openleft and they talk about conservatives "hating" homosexuals, or when I read yet another "reductio ad conspiratum theoristum"* pseudo-argument at jref, I basically ignore it. It's not that these are complete nonsense - some liberals hate America, some conservatives hate homosexuals, and some conspiracy theorists will stubbornly hold to an idea just because they like it, in a warm and fuzzy conspiracy theory sort of way, and not because it makes sense or has any appreciable probability.

An ideological or psychological bias often involves embracing a distorted view of contradictory notions and facts. There's really nothing new about this, and is evident even in highly intelligent, and presumably rational scientists. (As I've often recommended in the past, see The Trouble with Physics, Not Even Wrong, and the chapter on religion in On Human Nature.)

* OK, I don't know Latin, and don't know how to translate "conspiracy theorist".

Do you have a point?

I'm sure you've got plenty of authors whose style and prose you enjoy, but what does all this have to do with truthers? Is it that you prefer style over content? Is it that it doesn't matter how nutty a person's ideas are, but how cleverly and interestingly they formulate them?

[PugsOnAPlane]

I decided to use the term "truther" because it is short and more convenient to use than "member of the 9/11 Truth movement" or "9/11 conspiracy theorist." In addition, truther.org is a pro-conspiracy website, so the term has been embraced by at least a few truthers.

I tried to remain neutral in my language (I had read large parts of Debunking 9/11 Debunking and tried to avoid Griffin's didactic tone) but couldn't resist breaking that tone in a few places, such as when I mentioned how ae911truth.org claimed that the towers were in free-fall on the same page that showed pictures of debris falling faster than the tower.

[dudalb]

I only had time to skim over it, but one thing I did notice is in regards to neutrality. I'm not sure what your professor expects of you in the paper, but as a previous poster mentioned, neutrality should be present to some degree in academic literature. For example, referring to conspiracy theorists using jargon such as "truther" might be seen as inappropriate (depending on the context of the paper).

It depends on the professor.
But as someone who is working on a Master's theses (and given another ten years I might actually finish it; sort of hard when you are married and working full time) I can assure you that a lot of Master and Doctorial thesis are anything but neutral. You just have to watch the language so as not to be too obvious.
But to be fair, the standards for a simple paper are genrallly not as strict as for a formal thesis.

[metamars]

Do you have a point?

I'm sure you've got plenty of authors whose style and prose you enjoy, but what does all this have to do with truthers? Is it that you prefer style over content? Is it that it doesn't matter how nutty a person's ideas are, but how cleverly and interestingly they formulate them?

I criticized the paper both in terms of it's analysis (or really, the lack thereof) as well as it's presentation as a specimen of writing. To buttress the idea that these can be looked at independently of the bias of the author, I gave examples from the world of politics, as well as a debunker.

Maybe neither you, nor the author, nor any JREF "debunker" cares about either the status of the paper in terms of it's analysis, or about it's presentation, but that is another matter.

In the case of the latter, that has no great significance. In the case of the former, it would signal hypocrisy and/or a level of cluelessness that's truly saddening. The JREF is supposed to foster critical thinking, after all.

Maybe I expect too much. Viewed as a survey of debunker arguments, and what debunkers have said about truthers, it's not so bad. Maybe even good. Viewed as an example of critical analysis - which implies subjecting the debunker arguments and their characterizations of truthers to close scrutiny, also - the story is very different.

[metamars]

Notice that the front-pagers (Stoller, Sirota, Bowers, Lux ) keep the scope of each post limited, but not so limited as to not be informative and significant (well, in general :-) ).

I forgot to mention Rosenberg. He's also probably the best ito posting comments. Usually short, but very, very sweet.

[A W Smith]

Wow metamars as an adult engineer you sure are being defensive. Has a paper from a 24 year old student had that much of a devastating effect on your world view?

[Pardalis]

Do you have a point?

I criticized the paper both in terms of it's analysis (or really, the lack thereof) as well as it's presentation as a specimen of writing. To buttress the idea that these can be looked at independently of the bias of the author, I gave examples from the world of politics, as well as a debunker.

Maybe neither you, nor the author, nor any JREF "debunker" cares about either the status of the paper in terms of it's analysis, or about it's presentation, but that is another matter.

In the case of the latter, that has no great significance. In the case of the former, it would signal hypocrisy and/or a level of cluelessness that's truly saddening. The JREF is supposed to foster critical thinking, after all.

Maybe I expect too much. Viewed as a survey of debunker arguments, and what debunkers have said about truthers, it's not so bad. Maybe even good. Viewed as an example of critical analysis - which implies subjecting the debunker arguments and their characterizations of truthers to close scrutiny, also - the story is very different.

So the answer is no.

OK.

Gee, try to keep it short next time...

[metamars]

Wow metamars as an adult engineer you sure are being defensive. Has a paper from a 24 year old student had that much of a devastating effect on your world view?

I'm not an engineer.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not an engineer.

Some of us had already guessed that.

Dave

[quixotecoyote]

First, you've presented a nice, (although a bit disjointed) summary of the major players in the 9/11 movement and the theories in which they believe. However, I think this paper misses the mark somewhat in relation to what you set out to accomplish. You mentioned in the beginning that the "purpose of this paper is to examine the people behind this movement, and to figure out why they believe what they do...in order to determine what makes them tick." While you succeeded in the first half of your objective, you devoted only a very small portion (2 pages out of 30) to looking at the "why" and the "what makes them tick." )

While the OP didn't say so specifically, the reference to a "senior" seminar paper suggests this is an undergraduate level paper. In a Master level seminar paper I'd expect a lot more theory, specifically a brief overview of the 9/11 beliefs and theories and then a series of pulls from the literature to create a narrative explaining the reasons and significance.

As an undergrad paper, I think the greater focus on the CT artifacts works, although I would have liked to see at least SOME referenced connection to sociological theory, which I didn't see on a brief skim.

Also, the works cited section needs some love.