Are people serious with this 9-11 ct stuff?

[Montsegur]

As the title says are people serious? I have read what has been said on here and recently read abit of the ct. I am by no means an expert on anything but the stuff on some other forums is bewildering, it defies common sense.

[MikeW]

As the title says are people serious?
It's sometimes hard to believe, but yes, I'm afraid most of them are. Worrying, isn't it?!

[Gravy]

Sadly, yes. Here's one from my inbox today (he is addressing another debunker):

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia."

Craig Hill, US Senate Democratic primary candidate from Vermont

The "chief economist of the Labor Dept." he refers to is Morgan Reynolds, who believes that no planes hit the Twin Towers.

[Montsegur]

I stopped reading over at the loose change forum, it was giving me a headache.

[Regnad Kcin]

As I've said before (in so many words): These 9/11 "inside job" theories, such as they are, don't even rise to the level of non-starter. As Gertrude Stein once famously remarked about Oakland, "There's no there there." They are so far beyond basic common sensibility, it wouldn't surprise me if it were some day revealed to be an elaborate hoax.

Until then, I'm left to gaze in wonder at the whole phenomenon.

[Gravy]

As I've said before (in so many words): These 9/11 "inside job" theories, such as they are, don't even rise to the level of non-starter. As Gertrude Stein once famously remarked about Oakland, "There's no there there."
Perfect!

They are so far beyond basic common sensibility, it wouldn't surprise me if it were some day revealed to be an elaborate hoax.

Killtown and Christophera sure have me wondering about that. It doesn't seem humanly possible for people who are (presumably) self-supporting to be so dense.

[Killtown]

Gravy, it looks like your friends are in trouble. You better come help them out...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858704#post1858704

[T.A.M.]

Based on the people you are "debating" with in that thread, I doubt they need anyones help (R. Mackey, Pardalis, Belz).

Funny how you never directly respond to a post addressed you Killtown. You respond to them in other posts, I asusme to avoid the instant anhialation you would recieve if you did so...

[Stellafane]

Sadly, yes. Here's one from my inbox today (he is addressing another debunker):

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia."

Craig Hill, US Senate Democratic primary candidate from Vermont

The "chief economist of the Labor Dept." he refers to is Morgan Reynolds, who believes that no planes hit the Twin Towers.

Don't worry, Craig Hill has zero chance of ever getting elected. He's running against Bernie Sanders, (known locally as simply "Bernie") a legendary figure in Vermont politics. (He's semi-famous for being one of the few official Socialists ever elected to Congress -- Vermont likes to pride itself for its iconoclasticism.) As a rule of thumb, if you're opponent is so famous that at the mere mention of their first name everyone knows whom you're talking about, you're pretty much sunk.

[Gravy]

Don't worry, Craig Hill has zero chance of ever getting elected. He's running against Bernie Sanders, (known locally as simply "Bernie") a legendary figure in Vermont politics. (He's semi-famous for being one of the few official Socialists ever elected to Congress -- Vermont likes to pride itself for its iconoclasticism.) As a rule of thumb, if you're opponent is so famous that at the mere mention of their first name everyone knows whom you're talking about, you're pretty much sunk.
As a semiannual Burlington visitor, I know Bernie well. I just wanted to point out the extreme delusion and nastiness of Mr. Hill.

[Dog Town]

I think you should send Bernie a copy of that mail! To show another weakness of his competition!

[Gravy]

I think you should send Bernie a copy of that mail! To show another weakness of his competition!
I did. :)

[Dog Town]

Do these people believe, CT to be a viable platform, from which to run on?
Fascinating, the depth of their delusions!

[Mancman]

Not only are people deadly serious about this stuff, but some even seem to think they are heroes, leading a revolution. They know exactly how the world works, everyone else is asleep. Quite sad really.

[T.A.M.]

You haven't seen anything yet....

Go to infowars.com
or
prisonplanet.com

take an hour or so to glance at the issues, and answers on those sites...then you will see the true heights of delerium pervading the "9/11 truth" movement.

[twinstead]

I used to think they were just honestly misguided, but I am more and more convinced every day that the 911 'truth movement' is an ideological wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Dog Town]

I used to think they were just honestly misguided, but I am more and more convinced every day that the 911 'truth movement' is an ideological wolf in sheep's clothing.

Not a doubt in my mind! I have only followed this, for a little over a month!
DT

[Rob Lister]

I think they are just joking. Sort of like taking trolling to the national blog level to see who will play along.

[Dog Town]

In the early days, yes. Now it's an agenda of the absurd!

[Obviousman]

The thing that fascinates me is the seemingly great need for complex explanations.

On the LC board, I raised an alternative theory. Now, I don't believe this, but I said something like:

Why not accept the explanation that aircraft hit the buildings, and the subsequent damage caused their collapse, but question what motivated the attacks? That a secret group (US government, private industry, insert your choice of responsible party) set up a front organisation which recruited the terrorists to carry out the attacks. The terorists would be thinking they were doing it in accordance with their fanatical desires. No need for faking of any evidence. The number of people involved in the 'conspiracy' need only be small. Very little chance of having trail linked back to originators (especially if you remove the people who set up the front organisation).

This way it becomes very difficult to refute the existance of such a secret group, no need to have to dispute offical reports, and the whole thing is relatively simple and plausible.

Nope - no way. Apparently this would be too simple. What conspiracy is any good unless it involves holographic projectors, etc?

[twinstead]

The thing that fascinates me is the seemily great need for complex explanations.

On the LC board, I raised an alternative theory. Now, I don't believe this, but I said something like:

Why not accept the explanation that aircraft hit the buildings, and the subsequent damage caused their collapse, but question what motivated the attacks? That a secret group (US government, private industry, insert your choice of responsible party) set up a front organisation which recruited the terrorists to carry out the attacks. The terorists would be thinking they were doing it in accordance with their fanatical desires. No need for faking of any evidence. The number of people involved in the 'conspiracy' need only be small. Very little chance of having trail linked back to originators (especially if you remove the people who set up the front organisation).

This way it becomes very difficult to refute the existance of such a secret group, no need to have to dispute offical reports, and the whole thing is relatively simple and plausible.

Nope - no way. Apparently this would be too simple. What conspiracy is any good unless it involves holographic projectors, etc?

I totally agree. We wouldn't even be having many of these debates if the CTs believed what you suggest. It does appear that unless exotic technology is used, or super secret nefarious cabals are manipulating all of us like puppets on a string, or omnipotent governments are deceiving all the world's scientists, it's just not romantic enough.

[Dog Town]

Logic guy's! Logic! They run from it!

[Loss Leader]

Nope - no way. Apparently this would be too simple. What conspiracy is any good unless it involves holographic projectors, etc?

Some people have a deep psychological need for big effects to have big causes. If nineteen wacky arabs brought down the towers, the world is a very scary place where you are never safe. If there's a huge government conspiracy, the world is a very scary place but there's nothing you could have done about it because it's just too big. People need the strange safety of knowing the situation is truely out of their hands.

[Brainster]

Don't worry, Craig Hill has zero chance of ever getting elected. He's running against Bernie Sanders, (known locally as simply "Bernie") a legendary figure in Vermont politics. (He's semi-famous for being one of the few official Socialists ever elected to Congress -- Vermont likes to pride itself for its iconoclasticism.) As a rule of thumb, if you're opponent is so famous that at the mere mention of their first name everyone knows whom you're talking about, you're pretty much sunk.

He's also one of those rare statewide congressmen, so stepping up to the Senate does not mean introducing himself to new voters. I seem to recall that the Democrats had decided not to run a real candidate against him; not sure if they can block this guy Hill from getting the official party designation or not.

[Brainster]

As the title says are people serious? I have read what has been said on here and recently read abit of the ct. I am by no means an expert on anything but the stuff on some other forums is bewildering, it defies common sense.

It's my opinion that the vast majority have drunk the Kool-Aid. There may be a few out there who know they're peddling baloney, and a few who are closing their eyes to the obvious flaws and inconsistencies because they see it as a Hail Mary pass to get rid of Bush.:rolleyes:

[Stellafane]

I think you should send Bernie a copy of that mail! To show another weakness of his competition!

I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie was unaware that Craig Hill even exists. Hill probably has a better chance of being eaten by Champ that beating Bernie. (Although it's probably good to remind Bernie that not all kooks are right-wing Republicans.)

[Stellafane]

He's also one of those rare statewide congressmen, so stepping up to the Senate does not mean introducing himself to new voters. I seem to recall that the Democrats had decided not to run a real candidate against him; not sure if they can block this guy Hill from getting the official party designation or not.

Bernie Sanders is actually on the ballot as a Democrat in the primary. (I know because there's a sample ballot stapled to my barn, which serves as the public notice board for my part of town -- it's an extremely small town.)

BTW, there's a small but strong CT movement in these environs. In fact, the first I ever heard about the "Bush planned 9/11" theory was when there was a flurry of letters published in my local paper, the Brattleboro Reformer, about a year before Loose Change got released. I wrote in saying I thought they were crazy; that night I got a phone call from a woman who spoke in a rather eerie, ethereal voice (CE by any chance?), claiming that she once thought as I did but had since seen the light, and inviting me to call her back if I wanted to discuss further. I didn't.

[Foolmewunz]

As the title says are people serious? I have read what has been said on here and recently read abit of the ct. I am by no means an expert on anything but the stuff on some other forums is bewildering, it defies common sense.

When I originally started reading some of these firefights a few months ago, I wanted to jump on the term "common sense". I'm sure someone has been there (I'm sure someone has been EVERYWHERE in these threads, just by the laws of probability and mass of postings), but my slant on much of the reason behind the rapid spread and frightening number of adherents to CT is that "common sense" connotes a "common" base of knowledge.

We had nothing in human history to compare this to. No one had ever had both the will and means to fly nearly fullly-fueled passenger aircraft at fairly high speeds into office towers. Thus, any appeal to common sense is an illusion. MY "common sense" (today, not on 9/11) is based on watching the whole thing live through the picture window in my office at 10 Exchange Place in Jersey City. Someone else's common sense is based on their experiences. Some guy in Salt Lake may have had no hook to hang any thoughts on at all.

The point being - it was a totally unique situation, and any plea to use common sense should be tossed out. The scientific community did what it will do - studied the results, circled the questionable areas, and went back and studied and tested and researched to figure out what happened.

The CT movement just reacted with "No way, dude! That couldn't happen like that." And then went looking for 'evidence' to support that immediate visceral reaction. What drives them? There are better people than I who are struggling with that.