Split from: Post 9/11 conspiracy editorials here

[Nick227]

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/14/911-the-wingnuts-v-the-sheeple/

RU Sirius sponsored a debate on the topic not long ago. This is his meditation on the experience. Interesting read.
I figure that people watching "conspiracy" material are usually either convinced there's a conspiracy or convinced there's not, in both cases for reasons neither is likely to be aware of.

This is because the whole 9/11 affair LOOKS suspicious as hell, and the stakes involved are simply too high. 2 truly gigantic buildings are struck by planes near the upper floors. A fire ensues on these levels and then, within 2 hours, both buildings go into total freefall and collapse, virtually atomised, to the ground. I submit that anyone who even thinks about this is going to find it difficult to accept easily. 40+ solid steel columns apparently weakened by heat to the point where they allow a building to collapse in free fall? It is hard to believe. To this add the lack of wreckage at either other crash site + a woefully inadequate investigation and it's clear to anyone that there is something very strange going on here.

Any human being, watching 9/11 films on the net, is easily going to be sent into an acute emotional state because a part of them is fully aware that something very suspicious and very worrying is going on. But, consciously, there will be only 2 reactions - accept it's unquestioningly true or deny it totally. Why? Because both reactions are mediated entirely subconsciously. The material is too extreme and the emotions raised too big to deal with consciously. If it's true then everything we've learnt about the world is suspect. Everything from the formation of the infant ego aged maybe a few months onwards. It's scary as hell, too scary for the psyche to handle.

The radical vs reactionary battle on 9/11, the believers and the deniers, currently going on across a million internet forums, is almost purely a battle of subconscious positions - the authority tripper/victim vs the control freak.

Personally, I'm rooting on the authority trippers.

Nick Sandberg
(author: Blueprint for a Prison Planet)

[Viper Daimao]

I think while it may be true for some, just as just about anything is, it's premise is way off and is more of a mirror than an examination glass.

[Nick227]

Well, I've certainly experienced both positions and continue to do so.

What interests me these days in the whole "conspiracy" scene is really the way that the basic orientation of the individual towards it, that of either believing or not, does seem to be so pre-established in the psyche. The position is taken and then the person simply tries to reinforce it, in all these internet debates, rather as though they are simply seeking to protect themselves from some unseen force. It's like the whole process in mediated unconsciously.

I mean, how many people, in their lifetime, actually really deal with the question - "what if everything I think I know about myself and the world was wrong?" How many really ask it? I ask because, to me, this is the question that is proferred by these conspiracy theories - especially the 9/11 question because it goes in so deep.

Nick

[Dave Rogers]

I mean, how many people, in their lifetime, actually really deal with the question - "what if everything I think I know about myself and the world was wrong?" How many really ask it? I ask because, to me, this is the question that is proferred by these conspiracy theories - especially the 9/11 question because it goes in so deep.

What concerns me about your piece is that you presume the answer to be "almost nobody". There are, on this discussion forum, a large number of people who instinctively distrust the government, who have examined in great detail the generally accepted story of 9-11 with a view to determining whether that story stands up to scrutiny, and who have found that in the main it does. It seems to me that we don't fit into your world view at all.

Dave

[Nick227]

Fair enough. Maybe I need to drop it. Though, if I'm following you correctly, you're not actually talking about the question I posed. You're saying there are a lot of people who distrust the government, yet still uphold the government's position on 9-11 because they have scrutinised the other interpretations of events and find them invalid. Is this correct?

What I'm trying to put forward, validly or otherwise, is that I think there is a too much of an emotional investment in the reactionary position because of a likely lack of experience of deep self-examination. Does this make sense?

Nick

[Dave Rogers]

Fair enough. Maybe I need to drop it. Though, if I'm following you correctly, you're not actually talking about the question I posed. You're saying there are a lot of people who distrust the government, yet still uphold the government's position on 9-11 because they have scrutinised the other interpretations of events and find them invalid. Is this correct?

It falls short in two respects - firstly, I would say we have scrutinised both sides of the debate, and found the conventionally accepted view of events to be of overwhelmingly greater validity than the alternatives; it's not just a matter of debunking the conspiracy theories, but of critically examining the conventional narrative. Secondly, it's a biased viewpoint to describe the conventional narrative of 9-11 as "the government's position", because it is a narrative that has emerged from a wide range of sources, many of them deeply unsympathetic to the US government; to take the most extreme case, "the government's position" on 9-11 is also al-Qaeda's position.


What I'm trying to put forward, validly or otherwise, is that I think there is a too much of an emotional investment in the reactionary position because of a likely lack of experience of deep self-examination. Does this make sense?

It makes sense, but it presumes that you have an understanding of the mindset of very large numbers of people you have never met. There are certainly people who reject the conspiracy theories out of hand, as there are those who accept them without question, but to say that those two groups are the only ones - or even necessarily the majority - is unwarranted without evidence.

As an aside, I've suggested to the moderators that they move these last few posts to a new, non-sticky thread in the CT forum. The subject matter is clearly relevant to the forum, but I don't think this discussion is really appropriate to a thread intended to serve as a reference resource. How would you feel about such an action?

Dave

[Nick227]

Yes, it sounds a good idea. I probably pushed the wrong button somewhere a few posts back.

BTW, it's true I'm categorising people and I haven't met them personally. It was just that, having been involved in the conspiracy scene for 8 odd years I have been involved in myriad discussions and have become intrigued by these "immediately entrenched" positions that I find.

Often, in debate about many other subjects, people move from one side to the other as the arguments flow back and forth. With these 9-11 ones it seemed that people really dug in. I guess there is a lot at stake.

Nick

[Nick227]

Could I ask you a question, Dave? Did you go through a phase of believing the conspiracy theorists to be right? Did you go there emotionally?

Nick

[Dave Rogers]

Could I ask you a question, Dave? Did you go through a phase of believing the conspiracy theorists to be right? Did you go there emotionally?

Not right, but possible, and extremely concerning. As a result of some serious doubts and soul-searching, I reacted in the way I normally do to uncertainty - I set out to find out as much information as possible on both sides of the debate, and base my understanding on knowledge rather than supposition. It certainly involved going somewhere emotionally that was extremely uncomfortable, and going out the other side rather than shying away.

Dave

[Nick227]

Not right, but possible, and extremely concerning. As a result of some serious doubts and soul-searching, I reacted in the way I normally do to uncertainty - I set out to find out as much information as possible on both sides of the debate, and base my understanding on knowledge rather than supposition. It certainly involved going somewhere emotionally that was extremely uncomfortable, and going out the other side rather than shying away.

Dave

Thank you for your honesty. I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences with this, should anyone feel to share theirs.

I guess if you're right, and there are a majority or people who have lived on both sides of the fence, and really lived in the shoes of both the radical and the reactionary here, then the theory I advanced a few posts back is well and truly wrong. I think that to be able to debates issues of this gravity without prejudice is an amazing thing.

Nick

[chillzero]

I have moved these posts. The stickies are for resources only - not discussion.