Qs for the CTs

[I less than three logic]

These questions are directed towards those on the forum supporting some of the conspiracy theories for the WTC, OKC, <insert your favorite acronym here>, KFC, etc.

Sorry if this has already been asked before. (Don’t tell me though, because I do so much enjoy basking in my superior originality. :) )

Are there any conspiracy theories that you believe are fabricated and false?

Are all of the examples of false conspiracies fabricated by the government, or do some exist where the government has the story correct and the conspiracy theory about the government cover-up is false?

Could you provide some examples of the evidence and reasoning you used to draw your conclusions?

[Bronze Dog]

I have a feeling that the responses, if any, to those questions will be doozies.

[Psi Baba]

I was contemplating opening a new thread but this is probably a better place for what I have in mind. I have some specific questions for WTC CT believers:

1. If the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, what is the need for the airplanes? Why not just blow up the buildings and blame that on the terrorists? Why do both? It's unecessary.

2. Conversely, if the motivation of the gubmint behind the faked terrorist attacks was to garner justification for attacking Iraq, wouldn't 3 or 4 passenger jet liners striking buildings at full speed be sufficiently spectacular to accomplish that? Why bring down the buildings as well (since everyone knows they never would have collapsed the way they did) and thereby arouse suspicion?

3. You keep making these claims about what would happen, what wouldn't happen, and what should have happened under these circumstances, but exactly what do we have to compare it to? Have you conducted the following two tests: Take two 100+ story buildings of exactly the same design and construction as the WTC buildings. Blow one up using controlling demolition while flying a robotic airplane into it. Fly a fully fueled 767 jet liner into the other one. Wait one hour. Film both events with hand-held video cameras from a variety of angles and distances, some good, some bad. Examine films. Compare notes. Until you conduct these tests, stop talking about it and making stupid claims.

[RandFan]

1.) Why blow up WTC7?
2.) Why target the Pentagon?
3.) Why shoot down flight 93?

Doing so introduces more variables including more people that exposes the conspiracy to discovery.

As to the OP, some theories for you to consider.

Moon landing hoax
JFK
CIA selling drugs to inner cities
Tri Lateral commision
US Government run by secret society
US Government run by Jews
Financial institutions run by Jews

But please, anyone who buys into Loose Change or any CT let us know, which ones don't you buy and why?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

You left out the Bilderberg Group and the Bohemian Grove.

[Hagrok]

Jews run by Reptoids?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

NOW you're just being silly.

[CptColumbo]

A couple of years ago there was a documentary series in the US on TRIO, about conspiracy theories. It seemed pretty balanced with the host letting the Theosists talk all they want and present their evidence, then let contrary views be explored. I no longer get TRIO, and think it is gone for good, but I still want to see that series again. I think it was produced in the UK by the same people who did the doc on Kurt Cobain, that Courtney Love tried to stop. David Ike was interviewed and Harry Shearer (from the Simpsons).
Can anyone tell me the name of the show?

[Gravy]

I was contemplating opening a new thread but this is probably a better place for what I have in mind. I have some specific questions for WTC CT believers:

1. If the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, what is the need for the airplanes? Why not just blow up the buildings and blame that on the terrorists? Why do both? It's unecessary.

2. Conversely, if the motivation of the gubmint behind the faked terrorist attacks was to garner justification for attacking Iraq, wouldn't 3 or 4 passenger jet liners striking buildings at full speed be sufficiently spectacular to accomplish that? Why bring down the buildings as well (since everyone knows they never would have collapsed the way they did) and thereby arouse suspicion?

3. You keep making these claims about what would happen, what wouldn't happen, and what should have happened under these circumstances, but exactly what do we have to compare it to? Have you conducted the following two tests: Take two 100+ story buildings of exactly the same design and construction as the WTC buildings. Blow one up using controlling demolition while flying a robotic airplane into it. Fly a fully fueled 767 jet liner into the other one. Wait one hour. Film both events with hand-held video cameras from a variety of angles and distances, some good, some bad. Examine films. Compare notes. Until you conduct these tests, stop talking about it and making stupid claims.

Because anti-NWO CTers tend to be such poor spokespeople for their cause, they've engaged me to do their PR. To address your questions:

1) Who would be the scapegoat if no Arabs were involved? The WTC attacks were an inside job, and Larry Silverstein, not Larry Muhammed, was the leaseholder of those buildings. Also, what diversion would you have suggested that would have allowed the dumptrucks full of gold to be driven away unseen?

2) You are thinking well within the confines of your cubicle. The motives for the 9/11 attacks were many, as was clearly explained by JFK on the Loose Change forum:
There was not 1 reason for this, but many.
Starting with the most simple motives - the asbsetos, the insurance, the lack of tennants ( income ), the aging and corrosion problems ( aluminum clad steel ).
To the political - the taliban walking out on the talks on the oil pipeline thru Afghanistan, Sadam talking about converting his economy to the Euro, etc.
To the unimaginable - do a google search on the " Georgia Guidestones " and you will soon realize what I mean. Keep in mind the current global population is ~6.5 Billion. Then think about the timeline of the erection of this monument and the "discovery" of many of our modern "diseases".

Other reasons would be the silencing of certain individuals who "knew too much".

Do some research on the backgrounds of the victims.
3) Why would you go through all that trouble when you can do the same thing with holograms?

[Bronze Dog]

3) Why would you go through all that trouble when you can do the same thing with holograms?
Why go through all that trouble when you can just hook everyone's brains into computer simulations and use their body heat for energy? ;)

[shuize]

Why go through all that trouble when you can just hook everyone's brains into computer simulations and use their body heat for energy?
The Matrix knew you were going to say that.

[Hagrok]

NOW you're just being silly.
I excel at being silly.

[JohnF_73]

I think it was produced in the UK by the same people who did the doc on Kurt Cobain, that Courtney Love tried to stop. David Ike was interviewed and Harry Shearer (from the Simpsons).
Can anyone tell me the name of the show?


It might have been the series "The Secret Rulers of the World" by Jon Ronsom. He wrote a book, called "Them! Adventures with Extremists" which was based on the series. Very good, very entertaining, and sometimes disturbing.

[Dr Adequate]

Starting with the most simple motives - the asbsetos, the insurance, the lack of tennants ( income ), the aging and corrosion problems ( aluminum clad steel ). But still able to withstand 100% of known aeroplanes and totally invulnerable to fire!

To the political - the taliban walking out on the talks on the oil pipeline thru Afghanistan, Sadam talking about converting his economy to the Euro, etc. Stupid of them not to arrange to have just one of the "terrorists" be an Afghan or an Iraqi, wasn't it?

To the unimaginable - do a google search on the " Georgia Guidestones " and you will soon realize what I mean. Keep in mind the current global population is ~6.5 Billion. Then think about the timeline of the erection of this monument and the "discovery" of many of our modern "diseases". Yeah ... it makes sense ... if I was the New World Order, I'd keep my Secret Agenda on public display written on slabs of granite twenty foot high.

And certainly if I wanted to reduce the population then I'd do it by TEH CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

I can just imagine the scene at NWO HQ:

Bush: We did it! We reduced the global population by 0.00005 per cent!

Prince Charles: Excellent, my faithful henchman! So if you keep this up on a daily basis, how long before we depopulate the planet?

Bush: Never.

PC: Oh?

Bush: More people than that are born every day.

PC: Are you sure?

Bush: Condi helped me with the math.

So I guess they'll just have to invent another disease.

It's stupid really --- the Black Death wiped out half the population of Europe. The NWO can't even halt population growth with their modern diseases.

I guess the Knights Templar were better at genetic engineering than historians give them credit for.

[CptColumbo]

It might have been the series "The Secret Rulers of the World" by Jon Ronsom. He wrote a book, called "Them! Adventures with Extremists" which was based on the series. Very good, very entertaining, and sometimes disturbing.
That rings a bell. Thanks.

[delphi_ote]

My questions to them over on the Loose Change forum (never answered of course: )

Who specifically brought the towers down? Can you give me every specific name you have of people involved? Why did they bring the towers down? What were their motivations? What specifically did they gain?

What type of explosives did "they" use? How much did they use? Where did they plant them? How did they plant them? Why not just blow the buildings up and plant evidence that terrorists had put the explosives there? Why hasn't anyone found any evidence of explosive material anywhere near the WTC?

How did "they" keep it all a secret? They couldn't keep the wiretaps secret. They couldn't keep Monica secret. They couldn't keep Watergate secret. They couldn't keep Iran/Contra secret. How was it that all of the thousands of people that would necessarily know about this have never slipped up and told the wrong person? How is it none of them felt guilty and came forward?

If "they" have the people and resources to knock down some of the most memorable landmarks in one of the biggest cities in the world in broad daylight and keep every single person quiet about it, why don't they take down your website and movie? If their super ninja spies can sneak into the WTC to plant explosives on every floor, sneaking into your house in the middle of the night and stealing or destroying all the data should be a cakewalk. Disappearing you would be even easier.

If you all actually believe this, why are you sitting on your butts posting on an internet forum? If I knew my government was deliberately murdering citizens and covering it up, I'd do more than sit around pointing out how obvious I thought it all was. I'd be gathering the proof for a lawsuit, stocking munitions for the bloody revolution, or leaving the country right away. I wouldn't buy anything, because I'd know that every dime of my tax money was going to a murderous regime. I wouldn't work, because I'd know my wages were being taxed to support murder, and that the company I worked for would have to be complicit at some level with what was happening. The very act of posting in this forum at some level demonstrates complicity in what "they" have done. Someone has to pay for the power and ISP. Somewhere along the line, Uncle Sam is taking a cut of that money. Also, wouldn't my government be populated by thousands upon thousands of completely evil people? Why would I attach my name to anything? Loose change has the film makers' names all over it, and they talk freely to the press whenever they get a chance. If I really thought "they" were capable of all this, this conversation we're having now certainly wouldn't be worth the risk. For all you know, I could work for a government intelligence agency!

Finally, how is your conspiracy theory any different than the conspiracy theories of those who believe that the U.S. government covered up alien landings at Roswell, that the same government deliberately planned Pearl Harbor, that the Hocaust wasn't real, or that more than one gunman assasinated Kennedy? Experts have thoroughly explained each of these phenomina, just like your conspiracy. What makes them nuts and you right?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=2495208

[Belz...]

Jews run by Reptoids?

Reploids ? Call Megaman!

[Belz...]

My questions to them over on the Loose Change forum (never answered of course:)


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=2495208

Nominated.

[Loose mode]
OWNED!!
[Unloose]

[Bronze Dog]

Reploids ? Call Megaman!
That ancient cartridge unit? Call X and Zero!

[Belz...]

That ancient cartridge unit? Call X and Zero!

You know what I meant.

Damn canids.

[gfunkusarelius]

ha, nice questions delphi. i am always frightened when i find out someone i "know" believes in this crap. there are people at my work who buy into it and its crazy, they basically answer all your questions with "well i dont know, but what is obvious is the government is telling us all lies."
one friend a few weeks ago made a comment about the "CIA crack" conspiracy and i laughed and said i had heard about that, and i realized he wasnt laughing. i wouldnt even touch that and moved on.

[lostnick3]

how about senator Joseph Mccarthy's hunt for commies in the 50's

[shuize]

ha, nice questions delphi. i am always frightened when i find out someone i "know" believes in this crap. there are people at my work who buy into it and its crazy, they basically answer all your questions with "well i dont know, but what is obvious is the government is telling us all lies."
one friend a few weeks ago made a comment about the "CIA crack" conspiracy and i laughed and said i had heard about that, and i realized he wasnt laughing. i wouldnt even touch that and moved on.
I've met someone who believes most of this crap, too. I began to discover the depths of his paranoia when we were out to dinner with several other friends. I began tossing out fairly basic questions such as have already been posted from which anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability ought to realize how loony such claims sound.

For example:

True Believer: "No plane ever crashed into the Pentagon."

Me: "Flight recorder data, cell phone calls, and eyewitness testimony all corroborate a plane crashing into the Pentagon."

True Believer: "That's what the Government wants you to believe. All those things were faked."

Me: "Well, if what you say is true, considering the vast number of people necessary to fake something of that scale, don't you think someone might eventually come forward and reveal the story to the media?"

True Believer: "No. They're in on it, too!"

What really began to worry me, however, was that the crazier his answers became, the more it seemed some of the people (thankfully not all) around the table started to agree with him.

On reflection, I think it was the fact that he had "answers" and was at least able to respond to my questions, that may have impressed someone who didn't want to spend much effort evaluating the respective claims. To some, form is more important than substance and not freezing up in the face of the question confers legitimacy on the answer. No matter how wacky the answer may be.

[chipmunk stew]

On reflection, I think it was the fact that he had "answers" and was at least able to respond to my questions, that may have impressed someone who didn't want to spend much effort evaluating the respective claims. To some, form is more important than substance and not freezing up in the face of the question confers legitimacy on the answer. No matter how wacky the answer may be.This is why CTers are so hard to compete with. They're always going to have obsessed over more details than the skeptic, so no matter how effectively the skeptic rebuts specific points, the CTer is inevitably going to bring something up that gives the skeptic pause, and then the CTer "wins", because in his mind, if any detail is possible, then the whole tapestry is probable. The CTer takes advantage of the human tendency to spot patterns. He is the master of innuendo.

[shuize]

This is why CTers are so hard to compete with. They're always going to have obsessed over more details than the skeptic, so no matter how effectively the skeptic rebuts specific points, the CTer is inevitably going to bring something up that gives the skeptic pause, and then the CTer "wins", because in his mind, if any detail is possible, then the whole tapestry is probable. The CTer takes advantage of the human tendency to spot patterns. He is the master of innuendo.
Exactly. While I was asking the bigger "who" and "why" questions that really need to be answered if you want to run with "inside job" theory, he'd follow up with minutiae: "Do you know the melting point of steel?" If I didn't, he take it as a "win" regardless of how many times I'd respond that steel wouldn't need to "melt" to bring the towers down.

However, the real irony is when you do use technical information to point out how their theory falls apart, (ex. as noted how knocking out the transfer beam would bring down the front of the Federal Building thus making it look like the building blew up from the inside) they'll accuse you of "not seeing the big picture" -- or return to the old stand-by, "That's what they want you to believe" nonsense.

[I less than three logic]

Seems I’ve sparked a discussion about CT’s, and while this isn’t exactly what I wanted, it is interesting nonetheless. Perhaps it was a bit naïve to expect them to actually answer the questions. :)

[CptColumbo]

Did they remove Delphi's question from their site or is the link not working?

[Gravy]

My questions to them over on the Loose Change forum (never answered of course: )
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=2495208

Bravo! Consider them plagiarized!

I'm holding my breath until they answer...














...:eek:

[delphi_ote]

Did they remove Delphi's question from their site or is the link not working?
It's not working. Here. Try this (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&st=60&#entry2495208).

[RandFan]

how about senator Joseph Mccarthy's hunt for commies in the 50'sWhat about it? McCarthy was a prick who abused his power. There were communist spies by the way.

[CptColumbo]

It's not working. Here. Try this (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&st=60&#entry2495208).

Yeah, that got it.

The last post seemed to be April 4th, did anything happen after that in another thread, or did they just keep name calling and challenging you to a shouting match.

[delphi_ote]

Yeah, that got it.

The last post seemed to be April 4th, did anything happen after that in another thread, or did they just keep name calling and challenging you to a shouting match.
I decided to lay low for a while and return when things died down a little bit. Maybe I'll have a chance to get a little more evidence to fence sitters before I get the inevitable banination and DELETED!!!

[CptColumbo]

I decided to lay low for a while and return when things died down a little bit. Maybe I'll have a chance to get a little more evidence to fence sitters before I get the inevitable banination and DELETED!!!I think you got at least one person to rethink the situation. It was funny how quickly they turned on their own, and threatened to ban him at one point.

Maybe it's because I had to take Journalism in College, but I find it curious that when they present a secondary source, they give one that names the original source as their source. When I wrote an article on the Dominique Dunne murder trial, I didn't just use the article written by her father Dominick Dunne(I didn't think he would lie, but he is biased in the matter). I used court transcipts, other newspaper accounts, articles that interviewed the defence team and other court officials to get their side, and a book about Battered Women that mentions the trial (it went towards motive and psychology). I would have liked to interview the persons involved personally, but didn't have the time to write them and most of the relevant players are unlisted. In the end, when you research a topic look for the discenting opinion and see if there is anything to it, don't just dismiss it out of hand because it screws up your theory. Use secondary sources that are independent from each other. Go in with no preconceived notions, let the evidence lead to a conclusion, don't have a conclusion and site only the evidence that supports it.

[lostnick3]

What about it? McCarthy was a prick who abused his power. There were communist spies by the way.

then if there were commies would it not prove his theories?

what was your the source for "there were communist spies by the way?"

[brodski]

then if there were commies would it not prove his theories?
Just because there where some communist spies, doesn't mean that anyone he accused of such, or otherwise did his best to wreck the lives of was guilty of espionage or treason. The IRA is real, it doesn't mean that the Guilford 4, Birmingham 6 or McGuire 7 where guilty.

[lostnick3]

Just because there where some communist spies, doesn't mean that anyone he accused of such, or otherwise did his best to wreck the lives of was guilty of espionage or treason. The IRA is real, it doesn't mean that the Guilford 4, Birmingham 6 or McGuire 7 where guilty.

Senator McCarthy's theory was that there were commies in the government, the fact that were commie's was later confirmed. doesn't that confirm the theory? just because he was nuts and started grabbing innocent people, destroyed thousands of lives and just about turned the country into a police state, shouldn't be relevant. I can remember those days, first time that sort of thing was televised, the country was tense.

[UrsulaV]

then if there were commies would it not prove his theories?



Had his theory merely been "there were commies" then it would have proved it, sure. However, McCarthy got awfully specific about who the commies were, and was generally dead wrong in those regards.

It's sort of like the people claiming that UFOs are abducting and anal probing people to harvest their eggs. The theory isn't just "There are aliens," but instead they're very specific about what the aliens are and what they're doing. A hundred years from now, if we discover single-celled bacteria living under the ice on a moon of Jupiter, then technically, there would be aliens, but it still wouldn't prove the theories of the UFO anal-probe dog and pony show crowd, because their theories are much, much more specific than a mere "there are aliens."

Had McCarthy said "There are commies," and stopped there, then yes, the existence of commies would have vindicated his theory. But he didn't stop, and everything past that was dead wrong.

[Euromutt]

what was your the source for "there were communist spies by the way?"I think the names of Klaus Fuchs, Julius Rosenberg and David Greenglass are sufficiently common knowledge that we can dispense with citations.

Just as a matter of interest, did McCarthy, or the HCUA for that matter, ever uncover and prevent or put a stop to the activities of any actual Soviet agents? Did they do one iota for national security, or was persecuting leftists in the entertainment industry all they were good for?

As to the OP, I might add a couple of pet conspiracy theories held by the father of a former friend of mine:

The first is that The Communist Manifesto was fabricated by British intelligence during the First World War, and that Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov was a British agent charged with overthrowing the Tsar in order to install a new regime which would be more effective in fighting the Central Powers. My former friend's father based this belief on a seemingly anomalous Anglicism in the colofon of the "purported" first edition. Of course, that the Manifesto was indeed first published in London, including the German-language edition, is common knowledge to anyone with a smidgen of knowledge on the subject, and contemporary (i.e. mid-19th century) sources discussing the Manifesto are legion, meaning that there's no way it could have been fabricated from scratch in 1916, but why let historical fact get in the way of a perfectly decent CT?

The second is that the plan for the Allied landings at Salerno in 1943 was leaked to the Germans, which was why the landings were opposed. The simpler explanation is, of course, that Salerno was one of the few beaches suitable for a large-scale amphibious landing within range of fighter cover from Sicily should, and that the Germans were perfectly capable of working this out for themselves (and besides, why weren't the landings at Taranto opposed?) should, again, not be allowed to get in the way.

(I should add that one of the reasons my former friend stopped being my friend was because he didn't appreciate my pointing out the Mack truck-sized holes in his dad's conspiracy theories.)

[lostnick3]

Had his theory merely been "there were commies" then it would have proved it, sure. However, McCarthy got awfully specific about who the commies were, and was generally dead wrong in those regards.

It's sort of like the people claiming that UFOs are abducting and anal probing people to harvest their eggs. The theory isn't just "There are aliens," but instead they're very specific about what the aliens are and what they're doing. A hundred years from now, if we discover single-celled bacteria living under the ice on a moon of Jupiter, then technically, there would be aliens, but it still wouldn't prove the theories of the UFO anal-probe dog and pony show crowd, because their theories are much, much more specific than a mere "there are aliens."

Had McCarthy said "There are commies," and stopped there, then yes, the existence of commies would have vindicated his theory. But he didn't stop, and everything past that was dead wrong.

McCarthy's position that there were commies in the government were later confirmed by reliable independent sources, your anal probing aliens will not be.

[RandFan]

then if there were commies would it not prove his theories?Some of those theories but even if it proved all of them it wouldn't justify his actions.

what was your the source for "there were communist spies by the way?" Soviet documents released by the Russians following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

History of Soviet espionage in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States)

[RandFan]

Senator McCarthy's theory was that there were commies in the government, the fact that were commie's was later confirmed. doesn't that confirm the theory? just because he was nuts and started grabbing innocent people, destroyed thousands of lives and just about turned the country into a police state, shouldn't be relevant. I can remember those days, first time that sort of thing was televised, the country was tense.What McCarthy did was wrong. That he abused his power does not mean that he just about turned the country into a police state.

Relevant to what?

[UrsulaV]

McCarthy's position that there were commies in the government were later confirmed by reliable independent sources, your anal probing aliens will not be.

*sigh*

You have missed the point of my post so completely that I think you would probably be better served simply to re-read it, again, rather than having me re-state it. However, I'll try.

McCarthy's position was NOT just that there were commies in the government. It was that there were commies, and they were persons X, Y, Z, ad infinitum. He was correct that there were communists, but he was incorrect about who and what they were. In that sense, he would be like the people who believed in aliens--they may someday be proved correct that there are, indeed, life forms on other planets, but they will almost certainly be incorrect about who and what they are.

In that sense, it is intellectually dishonest to say that McCarthy's theories were proved right. If I have a theory that Chinese people are eighteen feet tall and have green skin, it is intellectually dishonest to call my theory "correct" merely because it can be proved that Chinese people exist.

[lostnick3]

What McCarthy did was wrong. That he abused his power does not mean that he just about turned the country into a police state.

Relevant to what?

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right. thats all it takes for the country to go sideways. i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified.

Relevant to what ? after 9/11 anyone who looked middle eastern or wore a turban automatically became suspect. it takes no time at all to setup a concentration camp, a little razor wire and a couple of machine guns and your good to go. can't happen here, just ask the Japanese-Americans old enough to remember WWII.

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo's

[delphi_ote]

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo's
So basically, you threw out something totally irrelevant to derail the thread. Got it. Do we have your permission to return to our adult conversation now?

[lostnick3]

So basically, you threw out something totally irrelevant to derail the thread. Got it. Do we have your permission to return to our adult conversation now?

read the bottom line did ya? I thought we were talking about conspiracy theorists. guess your gonna have to go over to some other adult chat thread.

[delphi_ote]

guess your gonna have to go over to some other adult chat thread.
Oh, snap!

[Gravy]

UFO anal-probe dog and pony show
My grandfather was a barker for that show in Coney Island in the '20s.

[CptColumbo]

I've been going to other forums around the web, including imdb.com. It's funny that outside their own forums they have a heck of a time convincing anyone. They sometimes are joined by others of their ilk, who proceed to parrot what they are saying. Most of the other posters disagree and ask them to prove their cases with evidence other than a biased documentary, and other articles that site the documentary as a source. Some show great critical thinking skills. Somethings I have learned about the CT's arguements from the other sites.

1. The Popular Mechanics article that debunks most if not the entire CT is a fabrication, because the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister. This however does not explain the researchers of the article being influenced by him or not speaking up (whistleblowing) if the facts were changed before publication, or that the facts could be independently checked (if you ask nicely in a non-accusatory manner they may send you some raw data). I've read articles where I suspected the writer's credibility, I merely double-checked the data. I rarely talk to my cousins even though we live near each other, so being someone's cousin doesn't mean you are at their mercy, or will do their bidding no matter what.

2. They are unable to explain why, the gov't was able to pull off such a massive conspiracy, so carefully planned and covered-up that everyone, except for them, believes it. Yet the gov't was unable to plant WMD's in Iraq, or handle the Katrina disaster more efficiently.

3. They have very few sources for information (less than 10). But site many links to sites that parrot the same sources, and they see this as multiple sources. And (as usual) provide no data to back up their "evidence."

4. Everyone who doesn't see their truth is an "idiot, moron, shill." But we knew this.

Check out the forums at the official United 93 movie site, and the forums at IMDB.com for United 93 and 9/11 (the documentary about the firefighters).

[delphi_ote]

I've been going to other forums around the web, including imdb.com. It's funny that outside their own forums they have a heck of a time convincing anyone. They sometimes are joined by others of their ilk, who proceed to parrot what they are saying. Most of the other posters disagree and ask them to prove their cases with evidence other than a biased documentary, and other articles that site the documentary as a source. Some show great critical thinking skills. Somethings I have learned about the CT's arguements from the other sites.

1. The Popular Mechanics article that debunks most if not the entire CT is a fabrication, because the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister. This however does not explain the researchers of the article being influenced by him or not speaking up (whistleblowing) if the facts were changed before publication, or that the facts could be independently checked (if you ask nicely in a non-accusatory manner they may send you some raw data). I've read articles where I suspected the writer's credibility, I merely double-checked the data. I rarely talk to my cousins even though we live near each other, so being someone's cousin doesn't mean you are at their mercy, or will do their bidding no matter what.

2. They are unable to explain why, the gov't was able to pull off such a massive conspiracy, so carefully planned and covered-up that everyone, except for them, believes it. Yet the gov't was unable to plant WMD's in Iraq, or handle the Katrina disaster more efficiently.

3. They have very few sources for information (less than 10). But site many links to sites that parrot the same sources, and they see this as multiple sources. And (as usual) provide no data to back up their "evidence."

4. Everyone who doesn't see their truth is an "idiot, moron, shill." But we knew this.

Check out the forums at the official United 93 movie site, and the forums at IMDB.com for United 93 and 9/11 (the documentary about the firefighters).
Interesting insight, Columbo. You've definitely got a good journalistic eye for detail. Neutral external links might be the best way to keep these guys in check. I'll have to look into that myself...

Compiling the names of the original sources you mentioned in your third point might be a good idea.

[RandFan]

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right. As a thesis I can accept this. Sadly McCarthy got very little right.

...thats all it takes for the country to go sideways. Ok.

i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified. Your right. Your anecdote proves conclusively that we were on the verge of a police state. Damn was I stupid. Thanks. I owe you for opening my eyes with such demonstrable data.

Relevant to what ? after 9/11 anyone who looked middle eastern or wore a turban automatically became suspect. it takes no time at all to setup a concentration camp, a little razor wire and a couple of machine guns and your good to go. can't happen here, just ask the Japanese-Americans old enough to remember WWII. Which proves our country is capable of extreme measures in time of war. I don't deny that it is possible for us to become a police state. The mechanisms are in place in the event of war (real or imagined). However I think you are confusing your examples. Get back to me on that one.

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo'sWell I appreciate the thought experiment. However, where you're trying to take me, I've been, had a beer and came back. But thanks just the same.

[lostnick3]

As a thesis I can accept this. Sadly McCarthy got very little right.

Ok.

Your right. Your anecdote proves conclusively that we were on the verge of a police state. Damn was I stupid. Thanks. I owe you for opening my eyes with such demonstrable data.

Which proves our country is capable of extreme measures in time of war. I don't deny that it is possible for us to become a police state. The mechanisms are in place in the event of war (real or imagined). However I think you are confusing your examples. Get back to me on that one.

Well I appreciate the thought experiment. However, where you're trying to take me, I've been, had a beer and came back. But thanks just the same.

my pleasure. well I'll tell you the truth since the discussion was about conspiracy theorists and no one else would take the bait i thought I would give it a try. i think that CptColombo had the best fact sheet going.

[westphalia]

I always wonder what the underlying motivation for a CT's beliefs might be. Placing uncomfortable and unanswerable details aside, what is it about a CT that makes a believer favor that explanation over one backed by evidence, science and rationality? What need does a CT assuage by believing in nonsense?

I've never understood people who are more comfortable believing that their government murdered 3,000+ of its own citizens to start an unpopular war, drive gas prices through the roof and end up with egg on its face when pre-war intelligence didn't pan out. I don't understand someone who believes aliens are landing in Idaho to steal cattle parts and probe humans instead of understanding that imaginations, sleep disorders and mental problems influence human experience. I don't understand someone who thinks that there is always a nefarious organization behind everything that happens in their daily lives. I don't understand someone who allows media outlets to exploit them by feeding their belief that someone else is out there exploiting them.

I don't know what causes people to believe in these things. Did we lose our trust of government after Watergate and Vietnam? Maybe. But how did we lose our faith in science? What check did science bounce? Where did rationality and evidence fall short?

Media outlets like C2C and Rense aren't helping, but there has to be a better explanation for people's willingness to believe anything these days.

[Euromutt]

[...] the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister.In US government terms, a "czar" is someone responsible for formulating policy on a particular topic which touches on the work of multiple formal departments, but who does not head a department himself. The work of the "drug czar" involves the Departments of Justice, Health and Social Services, Education, State and sometimes Defense, while the work of erstwhile "energy czars" involved the Departments of Energy, the Interior, State, Commerce, Transportation, etc. By contrast, there is no "foreign policy czar" or "defense czar," say, since such functions are already covered by the Secretaries of State and Defense, respectively. The term "homeland security czar" was briefly appropriate, prior to the formal establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Once the DHS was formed, the term "homeland security czar" was superseded by the post of "Secretary of Homeland Security."

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right. thats all it takes for the country to go sideways. i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified.Uh, what's the conspiracy here? The actual activities of Soviet agents, or the activities of McCarthy and the HUAC? Strikes me that in your example, the adults in question were more concerned with the treatment they might receive from their own government and fellow citizens than what the Sovs might do to them.

And frankly, McCarthy is hardly an example of "a conspiracy theorist who gets most of his theory right." Fuchs, the Rosenbergs and Greenglass were rumbled prior to McCarthy starting his activities. Thus, by 1950, the presence of Sov agents in US government organizations was not merely hypothetical, it was a known fact. Thus, one cannot credit McCarthy with being the first to come up with a correct hypothesis on that score. In the case of people whom McCarthy hounded who actually did turn out to be Soviet spies, it seems unlikely that McCarthy had wittingly identified them as such, witness the fact that it took other sources, often much later, to show that said individuals had indeed been Sov spies. More plausibly, McCarthy was, figuratively speaking, throwing handfuls of darts at a dartboard while blindfolded; that some of the darts were (much) later revealed as having struck home was a matter of dumb luck rather than accuracy.

[CptColumbo]

Compiling the names of the original sources you mentioned in your third point might be a good idea.

Well I have a couple of days off work, you know that silly waste of time that keeps us from writing on forums (at least that's the impression I got from your interaction on loose change, I mean WTF). I was just going to sit and contemplate the meaning of seperation of church and state, but maybe I should do some research into how many actual sources they have. Again I have only dial-up, so I can't watch the movies, and I hate going to White Supremecist sites (I'm not saying Loose Change is one). I'll read about the sources and the editor of the PM article to, and see if any of them are available for an informal interview by phone (I like going right to the source (see my call to the ATF in the OKC thread)).

[CptColumbo]

Here's a link to one of the outside forums.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0475276/board/nest/39049241

One person mentioned that he's a private pilot, and was able to make cell calls from 3500 ft in 2002.

The only response from the CT camp was to call him a liar.

I personally will not take the man at his word, but I will not dismiss this evidence simply because it disagrees with my view point. I would look for confirmation or ask the pilot if he has other pilots who report the same and if we may contact them.

[CptColumbo]

Most of the links on the forums lead back to two credible sources. After reading them I formed these opinions.

The Dr. Steven Jones' (a BYU Physics Professor) paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

was well written, and interesting. He used good sources, video and photos, to back them up. He met every standard that I would expect for an argumentative paper. I was unable to reach him for comment, but did e-mail him.

The Morgan Reynold's essay

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

was not quite this same caliber. First, his status as a former government economist is irrelevant to the argument since it adds nothing to his expertise. Second, I tried to follow up on his sources and they frequently led me to amazon.com. If I want to check on his sources I have to buy his book, I went to the library and local book store and neither had it. I could order it, but will keep trying a way to read it for free. I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds argument is poorly written or ineffective; I am saying that I, personally, will not accept it unless I can verify it.

With the Eagar/Musso paper

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

(which the Steven Jones' paper is trying to rebut), on the one hand, you have a professor of engineering and metallurgy teaming up with another physics professor to argue in favor of fire-induced collapse, on the other you have a physics professor (Jones) arguing in favor of controlled demolition. An easily referenced, clear and logical debate between two experts. It is interesting to read them both, and refreshing.

After reading both, and keep in mind I am not a professor of any of the disciplines mentioned (including economics), I am not persuaded by either to change my view on what happened. These are not the only sources sited by the CT crowd, but they are the ones with the most verifiable data. Please, check them out for yourselves.

Edited to correct "able to contact" to "unable to contact."

[delphi_ote]

Most of the links on the forums lead back to two credible sources. After reading them I formed these opinions.

The Dr. Steven Jones' (a BYU Physics Professor) paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

was well written, and interesting. He used good sources, video and photos, to back them up. He met every standard that I would expect for an argumentative paper. I was able to reach him for comment, but did e-mail him.

The Morgan Reynold's essay

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

was not quite this same caliber. First, his status as a former government economist is irrelevant to the argument since it adds nothing to his expertise. Second, I tried to follow up on his sources and they frequently led me to amazon.com. If I want to check on his sources I have to buy his book, I went to the library and local book store and neither had it. I could order it, but will keep trying a way to read it for free. I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds argument is poorly written or ineffective; I am saying that I, personally, will not accept it unless I can verify it.

With the Eagar/Musso paper

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

(which the Steven Jones' paper is trying to rebut), on the one hand, you have a professor of engineering and metallurgy teaming up with another physics professor to argue in favor of fire-induced collapse, on the other you have a physics professor (Jones) arguing in favor of controlled demolition. An easily referenced, clear and logical debate between two experts. It is interesting to read them both, and refreshing.

After reading both, and keep in mind I am not a professor of any of the disciplines mentioned (including economics), I am not persuaded by either to change my view on what happened. These are not the only sources sited by the CT crowd, but they are the ones with the most verifiable data. Please, check them out for yourselves.
Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

[CptColumbo]

Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

My academic background is actually in Theatre. I took journalism courses to fill my electives, but I also have experience researching roles to get the right perspective on a performance (historical and psychological).

I can see the "seems scholary" angle you write about. I remember Michael Shermer writing about this, in regards to Holocaust Deniers seeming to have the historical evidence to back up their case. I just moved and my books are packed in 9 different boxes right now, so I can't look up the exact page for you, assuming you have the book to begin with. This paper is the golden calf to the 9-11 CTers, because it is one of the few that has decent credibility. Of course, those of us on this page know many academics that believe in woo theories, so tenure doesn't necessarily equal correct.

One of the cool things about this site is that it brings together people of various disciplines. Which we can call upon if needed.

[CptColumbo]

Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

My academic background is actually in Theatre. I took journalism courses to fill my electives, but I also have experience researching roles to get the right perspective on a performance (historical and psychological).

I can see the "seems scholary" angle you write about. I remember Michael Shermer writing about this, in regards to Holocaust Deniers seeming to have the historical evidence to back up their case. I just moved and my books are packed in 9 different boxes right now, so I can't look up the exact page for you, assuming you have the book to begin with. This paper is the golden calf to the 9-11 CTers, because it is one of the few that has decent credibility. Of course, those of us on this page know many academics that believe in woo theories, so tenure doesn't necessarily equal correct.

One of the cool things about this site is that it brings together people of various disciplines. Which we can call upon if needed.

[CptColumbo]

Removed, due to double posting.

[CptColumbo]

I was refering to Why People Believe Weird Things .

If someone else has it handy, could you give us a quote?