How do truthers tell the difference between "reasonable" and "insane?"

[CHF]

I raised this question on another thread but think it deserves one of its own.

We are often told by truthers that various people in their movement are "crazy," "despicable" or "disinfo" - in other words, those with theories that are somehow "crazy" and not representative of what the real TM believes.

For example, Judy Wood's beam weapons, WTC no-planers, or (as we saw today) no-victims theories, are generally rejected by rank-and-file truthers.

"Well of course those theories are insane," we're told.

But by what process do truthers detremine which theories are to be dismissed in this way?

I simply can't understand it.

Is it due to a theory having lack of evidence? A theory being illogical or stupid? A theory that is so complex and massive that it takes a heavy dose of Stupid Pills to believe?

If so, how are theories about fake phone calls, no plane at the Pentagon, or the FDNY being "paid off" allowed to persist?

By what rational are these theories (endorsed by mainstream truthers like David ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Jason Burmass) not crazy or insulting?

Granted, they aren't quite as bad as saying the 9/11 victims are all fake, but only marginally less so. To me it all stems from exactly the same mindset.

Where exactly does "reasonable" end and "despicable" begin?

Is there a line that has to be crossed in order for a theory to be discredited or laughed at by truthers? Where is this line?

[Brainster]

My theory is reasonable, your theory (unless it dovetails very closely with mine) is insane.

[Horatius]

It's like driving, really: Anyone slower than me is an idiot; anyone faster is a maniac.

[CHF]

My theory is reasonable, your theory (unless it dovetails very closely with mine) is insane.

True. On some level every truther is his own judge, jury and executioner on matters like these....

But it can be safely said that truthers as a whole reject certain theories while supporting others.

I just cannot fathom how it is that the CIT Pentagon fly-over theory is largely dismissed while the cruise missile theory is alive and well.

How is one any less stupid than the other? :confused:

[NutCracker]

My theory is reasonable, your theory (unless it dovetails very closely with mine) is insane.

Seconded.

[Brainster]

True. On some level every truther is his own judge, jury and executioner on matters like these....

But it can be safely said that truthers as a whole reject certain theories while supporting others.

No, that's clearly not the case. There are some theories that may be rejected by a majority of the "Truthers", but by definition it cannot be said that they are rejected by the group as a whole. The "No-Planers" for example, are despised by many of the Troofers but at the same time you have Morgan Reynolds, Uncle Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Gerald Holmgren, Killtown, Judy Wood, etc., in that group.

I just cannot fathom how it is that the CIT Pentagon fly-over theory is largely dismissed while the cruise missile theory is alive and well.

How is one any less stupid than the other? :confused:

I don't know that the cruise missile bit is all that popular, but if you were to change that to "AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon", obviously you have a comparably insane theory to the Pentacon that is not dismissed by a large percentage of the nutbars. Indeed, it's embraced by the movement guru, David Ray Griffin.

And yes, there is a disconnect there. It may have more to do with personalities than with the "evidence"; we all know that Craig and Aldo are obnoxious jerks. And the dismissal of the flyover theory may be starting to erode. According to an attendee at Sander Hicks' event (http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1551/page/2) last week:

Ranke spoke and literally had people standing up clapping when he was finished. I would not call it a standing ovation, but people in attendance were overwhelmingly supportive.

Note that this is written by somebody who does not support the flyover theory himself.

[JAStewart]

If pushed, most truthers will either fall into Bill Smith-esque denial or just start JAQing off.

[johnny karate]

My theory is reasonable, your theory (unless it dovetails very closely with mine) is insane.

Thirded.

I personally see no difference between arguing the Shanksville site was faked, or Turner Construction planted explosives in the WTC under the guise of renovations, or the totality of 9/11 victims are phony, at least not in terms of evidence or logic. The only distinction lies in how deplorable each particular theory is.

And yet in the "9/11 Victims Aren't Real" thread one particular Truther who has argued in favor of my first two examples above expressed outrage at being associated with someone arguing the last one without bothering to offer a reason why anyone should lend his theories any more credence.

[Lisa Simpson]

Eh...seems like any woo. My religion/twoof/alt med/whatever is right and yours is wacky and wrong.

[Dave Rogers]

It's one of those irregular noun declensions. My theory is too shocking for the sheeple to accept, your theory is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence that I have correctly understood, his theory is government disinformation.

Dave

[CHF]

No, that's clearly not the case. There are some theories that may be rejected by a majority of the "Truthers", but by definition it cannot be said that they are rejected by the group as a whole.

You're right. I realize that I put my brain on the shelf when I wrote that sentence. :D

What I meant was that truthers on average reject certain claims while endorsing others.

The average truther is not a WTC no-planer, but at the same time they're usually Pentagon/Shanksville no-planers.

The average truther also wouldn't subscribe to the no-victims-of-911 theory but they usually have no problem believing that phone calls were faked.

To me these ideas are all cut from the same block of stupidity but average truthers apparently think one theory is total bunk while the other isn't. How they decide this is what I'd love to hear from them.

In the meantime, I think we'll see move of what happened at the Sander Hicks' event (http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1551/page/2), with the appleause for the fly-over theory.

As the TM implodes, as the rank-and-file go back to their PlayStations or move on with life, the remaining kooks will have to try harder and harder to stand out from the other frauds competing for attention. They'll need to make their theories even more bizarre and complex. (Jim Hofmann is/was considered a mainstream, reliable voice in the TM and his latest theory is that 900,000 explosive tiles were used in the WTC towers).

Combine a shrinking market with their ever-growing paranoia and truthers will inevitably start to entertain more and more theories that were perviously dismissed.

[dudalb]

Eh...seems like any woo. My religion/twoof/alt med/whatever is right and yours is wacky and wrong.


You forgot "political ideology" to that list. That is where a lot of normally rational people go off the deep end. See the "Politics" section here for proof of that.

[MervinFerd]

"Well of course those theories are insane," we're told.

But by what process do truthers detremine which theories are to be dismissed in this way?

...

Is it due to a theory having lack of evidence? A theory being illogical or stupid? A theory that is so complex and massive that it takes a heavy dose of Stupid Pills to believe?
...

Where exactly does "reasonable" end and "despicable" begin?

Is there a line that has to be crossed in order for a theory to be discredited or laughed at by truthers? Where is this line?

The standards, obviously, are very weak and I think this largely accounts for the implosion of the movement.

It started with Controlled Demolition. The original theory is not physically impossible on its face--somebody could have helped the collapses with a few well-placed bombs---but, it is definitively refuted very quickly.

BUT, the truthers, or a big segment of them won't give it up. SO, you have people advocating a clearly stated, refutable hypothesis that is definitely false. Once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no place to mount a defense against ever nuttier theories. Bigger and bigger bombs in the Towers, missiles on planes, No Planes. Once the basic principles or rationality are abandoned, abandon all hope.

The question I ask is whether this path is unique to Trutherism, or will be a characteristic of all CTs post-Internet. Two things caused the Truthers to descend into total idiocy:
1. Continued defense of a clear and clearly refuted hypothesis. CTs are supposed to maintain some degree of ambiguity (Bush Knew!) or avoid direct confrontation with plain fact (second gunman, Grassy Knoll). The Truthers did not do this.
2. No control over membership. The population visiting Truther sites, and the sites defining Trutherism changed drastically over a few years. Eventually, they were dominated by Jr. High Schoolers and frank lunatics. Older paper-based CTs did not have this problem, at least not to the same extent.

[NobbyNobbs]

It's one of those irregular noun declensions. My theory is too shocking for the sheeple to accept, your theory is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence that I have correctly understood, his theory is government disinformation.

Dave

Very similar to what I was thinking:

I am reasonable.
You are mistaken.
He is ******* crazy.

[CHF]

Two things caused the Truthers to descend into total idiocy:

1. Continued defense of a clear and clearly refuted hypothesis. CTs are supposed to maintain some degree of ambiguity (Bush Knew!) or avoid direct confrontation with plain fact (second gunman, Grassy Knoll). The Truthers did not do this.

I've always thought the truthers would have been much better off going with some sort of LIHOP theory, or better yet a LIHOI theory (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence).

It wouldn't require too many conspirators (a must-have in all credible conspiracies) and it doesn't make things needlessly complicated. But it wasn't sexy and exciting enough for them.

2. No control over membership. The population visiting Truther sites, and the sites defining Trutherism changed drastically over a few years. Eventually, they were dominated by Jr. High Schoolers and frank lunatics. Older paper-based CTs did not have this problem, at least not to the same extent.

Granted, with the internet any idiot can show up and claim to be a truther, and one must not paint them all with the same brush. But the TM has repeatedly shown that it has almost no quality control to speak of when it comes to both theories and people, something that I'd say has been borne out of extreme desperation and insecurity.

I remember how back in 2006 the bulk of the TM was abuz over a structural engineer named Judy Wood :D who had developed a "billiard ball" analysis as well as some nonsense about the WTC towers being like a tree with kebler elves in it. I was told by members of New York's WAC that this woman was the one to consult for expert opinion on 9/11.

Now the debunking community knew Judy was insane right from the get-go. But it took truthers beam weapons from space before they finally threw ol' Judy under the bus in early 2007. Likewise, James Fetzer (who sounds crazy at all times) was largely accepted by the TM until he backed Judy Wood's beam weapon.

Basically you have to take a massive dump on the dance floor before truthers throw you out of their party.

[Hokulele]

I remember how back in 2006 the bulk of the TM was abuz over a structural engineer named Judy Wood :D who had developed a "billiard ball" analysis as well as some nonsense about the WTC towers being like a tree with kebler elves in it. I was told by members of New York's WAC that this woman was the one to consult for expert opinion on 9/11.

Now the debunking community knew Judy was insane right from the get-go. But it took truthers beam weapons from space before they finally threw ol' Judy under the bus in early 2007. Likewise, James Fetzer (who sounds crazy at all times) was largely accepted by the TM until he backed Judy Wood's beam weapon.

Basically you have to take a massive dump on the dance floor before truthers throw you out of their party.


I think quite a bit of this is the novelty effect. Most non-insane CTists must realize that very few people with a relevant background, and most without such, accept any of their nonsense. As a result, they have to keep searching for new nonsense that will be accepted by the people with a relevant background (architects, structural engineers, physicists, etc.). Since the non-insane CTists by and large do not have the relevant background, it is likely that anything "sciencey" sounds plausible, such as the Hoffman exploding roof tiles that came up recently or the nano-thermite. They literally cannot see the insanity in such claims until they have been broken down and demolished at near free-fall accelerations.

And then it is off to the next bit of "sciencey" insanity before its shelf-life expires.

[Zorglub]

My theory is reasonable, your theory (unless it dovetails very closely with mine) is insane.

It is my belief this is not true and you are a crazy disinfoagent .


(gotta love those meta-moments) :)

[JimBenArm]

They use dowsing rods to pass over their monitors. If it dips down, it's insane. If not, it's all good.

[Hokulele]

They use dowsing rods to pass over their monitors. If it dips down, it's insane. If not, it's all good.


That's insane.

[JimBenArm]

My dowsing rod just twitched...

[Hokulele]

My dowsing rod just twitched...


*Must. Not. Make. Off-color. Comment.*

[ihaunter]

I think a lot of it boils down to what you can justify (to yourself) dismissing. There are things that you "know," whether from experience, study or belief, and if we encounter something that contradicts a "known fact" a person has to decide whether to dismiss the old fact or new one. Most people, including most CTists, recognize that they cannot dismiss the fact that thousands of people witnessed the second plane striking the WTC with their own eyes, and thus dismiss the TV-fakery stuff. Some, however, are capable of dismissing that fact. (don't ask me how) This method fails, though, when a person has a lot of errors in their knowledge and/or has "sacred truths" which will never be dismissed.



I guess this is just a long winded way of saying that insane is that which goes against what we know is true.
[CT mode]
AND TRUTH ARE INS1DE JOB!!!!11!!
[/CT mode]

[deep]

*Must. Not. Make. Off-color. Comment.*


Just give in to it - it's marvelous fun!

[Hokulele]

Just give in to it - it's marvelous fun!


Ooh, you are right!

[Thunder]

Insanity is a made up condition, used by the NWO to label all those who question and oppose them.

:)

[alienentity]

I raised this question on another thread but think it deserves one of its own.

We are often told by truthers that various people in their movement are "crazy," "despicable" or "disinfo" - in other words, those with theories that are somehow "crazy" and not representative of what the real TM believes.

For example, Judy Wood's beam weapons, WTC no-planers, or (as we saw today) no-victims theories, are generally rejected by rank-and-file truthers.

"Well of course those theories are insane," we're told.

But by what process do truthers detremine which theories are to be dismissed in this way?

I simply can't understand it.

Is it due to a theory having lack of evidence? A theory being illogical or stupid? A theory that is so complex and massive that it takes a heavy dose of Stupid Pills to believe?

If so, how are theories about fake phone calls, no plane at the Pentagon, or the FDNY being "paid off" allowed to persist?

By what rational are these theories (endorsed by mainstream truthers like David ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Jason Burmass) not crazy or insulting?

Granted, they aren't quite as bad as saying the 9/11 victims are all fake, but only marginally less so. To me it all stems from exactly the same mindset.

Where exactly does "reasonable" end and "despicable" begin?

Is there a line that has to be crossed in order for a theory to be discredited or laughed at by truthers? Where is this line?

It just demonstrates how flexible 'plausibility' is. That seems to be determined by individual factors. As a collective, truthers seem to be heavily disposed to believe in conspiracies, but beyond that, they are individuals just like non-conspiracy types.

The common thread also seems to be a lack of comprehension and awareness of the scientific process, science principles in general, and the typical operation of government bureaucracies.
Clearly, what is 'plausible' to a truther is not going to be 'plausible' to a well trained scientist, or a typical engineer.

I found an astonishing lack of self-awareness/internal consistency regarding Dylan Avery recently, after visiting the LCF and finding out that you can't discuss 'no plane' theories. But Dylan endorsed DRG on the National Geographic special, and DRG is definitely a 'no planer' regarding the Pentagon. I considered the irony of trying to discuss the NG show without ending up banned on that forum. After about .1 seconds, I decided the forum wasn't worth posting in...

[Dave Rogers]

*Must. Not. Make. Off-color. Comment.*

Who are you, and what have you done with Hokulele?

Dave

[Ragnarok]

If my experience and knowledge gained thus far in life gives me reason to believe that something is possible or plausible - eg, NOT FSM's, pink unicorns, fire-breathing termites, or any other ridiculous strawman - then I am prepared to give it credence until someone can convince me it is impossible.

[Dave Rogers]

If my experience and knowledge gained thus far in life gives me reason to believe that something is possible or plausible - eg, NOT FSM's, pink unicorns, fire-breathing termites, or any other ridiculous strawman -

or, for some reason, terrorists carrying out acts of terrorism.

Dave

[Brainache]

I once started a thread about this called "Kook or Spook" trying to figure out how Truthers decided someone they had once touted as the great fighter for Truth was suddenly a disinfo agent. I never got an answer.

I have decided to shamelessly steal from William Gibson's book "Virtual Light" and refer to them all as "Cognitive Dissidents".

[McHrozni]

But by what process do truthers detremine which theories are to be dismissed in this way?

In computer terms:

IF [person is saying what I want to hear] THEN [person sane and truthful, testimony reliable] ELSE [person insane or lying, testimony unreliable].

It's not difficult at all, really :)

I doubt any other classification is possible.

McHrozni

[johnny karate]

If my experience and knowledge gained thus far in life gives me reason to believe that something is possible or plausible - eg, NOT FSM's, pink unicorns, fire-breathing termites, or any other ridiculous strawman - then I am prepared to give it credence until someone can convince me it is impossible.

"I believe what I believe because I believe it until someone can convince me not to believe it".

Way to answer the question. :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

"I believe what I believe because I believe it until someone can convince me not to believe it".

Way to answer the question. :rolleyes:

Yea. It appears the guy is a poster boy for predisposition.

[MervinFerd]

I've always thought the truthers would have been much better off going with some sort of LIHOP theory, or better yet a LIHOI theory (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence).

It wouldn't require too many conspirators (a must-have in all credible conspiracies) and it doesn't make things needlessly complicated. But it wasn't sexy and exciting enough for them.

Precisely. It's also not possible to prove that the CIA did not hire bin Laden. That's where the theories started out; if they had stayed there, we would still have a small 911 CT movement demanding investigations and maybe getting them--as happened with JFK assassination CTs.

But, recall the early "logic" of these theories. The deep belief was that some vast all-powerful conspiracy organization runs the world---NWO, illuminati, Jews, whatever. Therefore, incredibly complicated plots that could never be executed by any mortal organization are actually preferred to simple and plausible plots because they confirm the overarching belief.

Perhaps it is a bit like religious people preferring a miraculous explanation for some occurrence over a plausible, mundane, explanation. The miracle confirms their faith--which is in doubt, no matter how much they protest otherwise.

Granted, with the internet any idiot can show up and claim to be a truther, and one must not paint them all with the same brush. But the TM has repeatedly shown that it has almost no quality control to speak of when it comes to both theories and people, something that I'd say has been borne out of extreme desperation and insecurity.
...
Now the debunking community knew Judy was insane right from the get-go. But it took truthers beam weapons from space before they finally threw ol' Judy under the bus in early 2007. Likewise, James Fetzer (who sounds crazy at all times) was largely accepted by the TM until he backed Judy Wood's beam weapon.

Basically you have to take a massive dump on the dance floor before truthers throw you out of their party.

Agreed as well.
The thing that puzzles me is why the Truthers went this way while previous CTs remained somewhat attached to Reality. Controlled Demolition is analogous to a claim that JFK was shot-in-the-head and also poisoned. It's a pointless complication that sounds crazy to normal people. CD, of course, is by far the saner of the Truther theories.

My working hypothesis is that the anonymity of the Internet allowed the original JFK-CT-types to be replaced by the NWO loons. When CTs had to be spread by paper and books, there was more accountability. But, I am sure this is an over simplification.


The Tea-Bagger movement offers an interesting test case. The movement has well-funded organizations attempting to control and exploit it. Much more than the Truthers ever did. Still, there is a genuine grass-roots movement and total nuttiness bubbles up from the dirt. LaRouchies, Ayn Randers, militia gunners, Birthers, etc.

[Ragnarok]

or, for some reason, terrorists carrying out acts of terrorism.

Dave

I never said there were no terrorists, did I? Pay attention, Dave.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If my experience and knowledge gained thus far in life gives me reason to believe that something is possible or plausible - eg, NOT FSM's, pink unicorns, fire-breathing termites, or any other ridiculous strawman - then I am prepared to give it credence until someone can convince me it is impossible.


I spotted your flaw. Your standard of evidence against your preconceived notions is 100%, whereas your standard of evidence for your preconceived notions is obviously something much lower than 100%.

[MervinFerd]

If my experience and knowledge gained thus far in life gives me reason to believe that something is possible or plausible - eg, NOT FSM's, pink unicorns, fire-breathing termites, or any other ridiculous strawman - then I am prepared to give it credence until someone can convince me it is impossible.

I continue work on a typology of the Conspiroid Tribes.

This statement nicely illuminates some types, but I lack the necessary information to place the writer.

1. The NWO cultist: Believes in a vast conspiracy with supernatural powers. To him, impossibly complex schemes are not only plausible but actually preferred. They confirm the powers of the vast conspiracy. Since the conspiracy has supernatural powers, virtually all theories are plausible; it is impossible to convince him that anything is impossible. Hence, he gives credence to all theories, however stupid they appear to normal people.

2. The Sophomoric Skeptic: Has no investment in the NWO, but considers his refusal to exercise reasonable judgments a mark of superior intelligence rather than immaturity. Primarily motivated by desire to annoy the Grownups. Typical statement, "I am prepared to give it credence until someone can convince me it is impossible." It is impossible to convince him that anything is impossible, of course.

3. The Conspiracy Hobbyist: Doesn't really believe any of it, but will defend any theory if the defense is not likely to cause him to be committed to the Funny Farm. Motivation unknown and inexplicable. Typical statement, "I am prepared to give it credence..."

[MervinFerd]

Like I said: The real world could care less. Just because you think it's important is meaningless. You might as well be complaining that NIST didn't calculate the total number of toilet seats. Yea. It's that irrelevant..

I dunno. Suppose all the toilet seats were UP and then they fell down all at once.

[twinstead]

I dunno. Suppose all the toilet seats were UP and then they fell down all at once.

Ah. Good point.

[Sam.I.Am]

As I see it the reason the exterior panels weight does not really matter is that they were seen to be pushed outwards, away from the main body of of the collapse so their weight is moot other than as it relates to the damage they did to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.

[CompusMentus]

(Jim Hofmann is/was considered a mainstream, reliable voice in the TM and his latest theory is that 900,000 explosive tiles were used in the WTC towers).




I listened to Hoffman interviewed the other day (Visibility 9-11. Michael Wolsey. PODCAST (http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=511573#))

Wolsey, the host, kicks off by making the distinction between disinformation and misinformation, describing the latter as "Turds in the Puchbowl". Wolsey thinks two of the smelly brown floaters are CIT and PFT, their "Pentacon" thoeries are ripped apart with much vitriol and gleeful abandon. Wolsey and Hoff use arguments and methods against CIT and PFT that you can find used by sceptics plastered all over certain threads on the JREF forums. Dare I say it, Hoffman, while ripping into Ranke Balsamo et al, sounds quite reasonable and informed.

It's always been a great puzzle to me why they are incapable of applying the same methods to their own versions of what happened on 9-11. Why the disconnect?

Compus

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's always been a great puzzle to me why they are incapable of applying the same methods to their own versions of what happened on 9-11. Why the disconnect?


See: Creationists