Reasons for the spread of 9/11 conspiracy theories/conspiracy theories in general?

Mid · 3rd August 2006, 07:17 AM

Ok I realise this has probably been discussed before but given there's a brand spanking new forum for it and I'm not shifting through the trillion or so posts in the original loose change threads (and also because there are other versions of 9/11 CTs out there not peddled by the loose changers), I was wondering if people had any insights into the seeming popularity of 9/11 CTs? (I realise that a lot of theories put forward in the thread would probably require research budgets to get any strong evidence to support so I view answers as more informed speculation.)

Now I know there's always been CTs and some became remarkably popular such as those to do with JFK, however other events seem to generate small to non existent CTs (for instance that whole US anthrax thing in 2001, I'm sure there are CTs about it but they don't seem to have made much of a splash). So my question is what's so different about 9/11 that it generates such a seemingly big CT? (I know a lot of it's to do with huge death toll, media coverage, internet magnifying the noise made by CTers etc. but I'd like to hear peoples conjectures) And I suppose more generally why do people think some CTs pick up momentum whilst other events don't seem to develop them?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 3rd August 2006, 07:54 AM

I've had a number of thoughts on this:

1) General sentiment against the gov't: This is just another opportunity to malign the gov't in an attempt to force change.

2) Feelings of helplessness (a la Messiah Myth): They feel helpless in facing an enemy that they know little about and (without joining the Armed Forces) can do little to fight. This feeling of helplessness and frustration gets redirected to an entity that was "involved" (to the extent of not stopping it from happening) that they feel they can affect.

3) Paranoid schizophrenia

I'll post more as I remember them.

Dragonrock · 3rd August 2006, 08:02 AM

I think the reason some things don't get a conspiracy theory following is simple laziness by the conspiracy theorists. It's relatively easy to blow up grainy video and find inconsistancies in witness accounts. But it's hard to get someone interested when all you have is a few envelopes and no dramatic pictures.

Hutch · 3rd August 2006, 08:11 AM

I would add the sheer surprize that something like this could happen. Remember, Kennedy's assasination was nearly 70 years after the last killing of an American President (considering three of them--Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley--got bumped off in less than 30 years, it was a good run) and came seemingly out of nowhere, people wanted to believe that there was a big, an overarching reason for it, not some lone nut with a sharpshooters' badge.

Same for 9-11, it came unexpectedly, using a form of attack none of us had any reason to suspect, and did such visible and horrendous damage live and in color on our TV screens, that people wanted something major to explain it, not a bearded psychopath in a country most of them couldn't find on a map on their best day.

No, for such huge, literally life-changing events, we want something bigger and more awesome as an explanation, something that fits our vies of the majesty of the event.

The anthrax, on the other hand, well, it came later and really didn't kill much of anyone (although I am sure that to the families that lost loved ones, it was just as much a disaster) and Oklahoma City, well, most of us knew we had some wingnuts wandering around, probably even knew some personally, just were a bit surprised that one took it all the way. they were important, yes, but not on the deep, visceral level of 9-11 or Kennedy.

And I think some people want things to be big when they have a big effect. And since Government is the biggest thing around...

Interesting topic.

kookbreaker · 3rd August 2006, 08:12 AM

Conpsiracy theories also mean that there are no elements in your life or the world that are not under control. Cannot deal with the idea that random extremists blow things up with any predictability? Instead, have a shadow governemnt that controls them and you now the world has order to it, just not your order.

Cuddles · 3rd August 2006, 08:19 AM

The same reason for a belief in general woo. Whenever something unusual happens, some people can't understand how or why it happens and feel the need to propose a big, overarching explanation like "god" or "ghosts" or "the government". While most people are happy to believe in simpler explanations, a lot of people can't seem to cope with the idea that not everything needs a grand force controling every aspect of life.

Mid · 3rd August 2006, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The same reason for a belief in general woo. Whenever something unusual happens, some people can't understand how or why it happens and feel the need to propose a big, overarching explanation like "god" or "ghosts" or "the government". While most people are happy to believe in simpler explanations, a lot of people can't seem to cope with the idea that not everything needs a grand force controling every aspect of life.

Interesting point I always separated out CTs in my mind from general woo, considering the later to be to some extent a lack of critical thinking/general superstition. Where as with CTs I thought of them as being like a strange warping of the scientific method i.e. they generally do at least try to "scientifically" prove their theories. However, thinking about it in a bit more detail I think you may be onto something in what generates both beliefs.

ktesibios · 3rd August 2006, 08:39 AM

There's an awful lot of syndromism among CTers in general. One of the interesting things about the LC forum is that it shows how people who buy into 9/11 CTs are also highly likely to believe in such horse patooties as Moon hoax claims and so forth. I think it's better to consider conspiracism as a worldview in general rather than to concentrate on a particular CT.

My personal take is that CTs might serve the same purpose that stories about Enlil, or Osiris, or Zeus or YHVH did for our distant ancestors. They provide simple, just-so explanations for the phenomena of a world we only partially understand and they provide a handy Other to blame for the bad things that happen. The image of TPTB that pervades conspiracism is, at least to me, reminiscent of the image of the gods that ancient peoples held.

When it comes to comprehending how the world works, most of us aren't in a much better position than the ancients were. Humanity's stock of scientific understanding has grown so vast and specialized that it's impossible for any individual, no matter how brilliant or educated, to be really conversant with all of it, and the average schlep isn't really familiar with any of it. That leaves quite a bit of room for comfortable myths to find a habitat.

As for why a particular CT achieves greater popularity than another, you might as well try to analyze why one record becomes a hit while another doesn't.

Sword_Of_Truth · 3rd August 2006, 11:32 AM

I think Dubfan explained it best with his "perfect storm" analogy.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1121

Quote:

There would've been 9/11 CTs no matter what, IMO.

What I think has happened with respect to Bush, is that the very polarized nature of politics right now has made this CT particularly virulent, because it is attracting people who despise Bush and basically believe any sort of bad charge thrown against him. The soil is fertile -- partly because of the Bush admin's own actions -- and there are people desperately eager to believe it (because believing Bush is actually acting in good faith makes many of them very uncomfortable indeed).

I think we're in a "perfect storm" environment for a conspiracy theory:

1. Arguably the most publicized event in modern history
2. Lots of material available on it -- video, testimony, reports, etc.
3. Very strong emotional context and emotional reactions on all sides
4. A contested election, divisive politics, an unpopular war
5. An administration characterized by secrecy, deeply mistrusted by many
6. Technology -- popularity of internet video, viral marketing, Google, availability of cheap video production software

In other words, this is basically Glenn Reynolds' "Army of Davids" phenomenon being acted out pathologically.

Pardalis · 3rd August 2006, 03:10 PM

Yeah, Dub gives a very good analysis. I would add to that:

7. The general's public inability to do proper research, it's lack of critical thinking skills and scientific knowledge (http://www.scienceblog.com/community...00111349.html).

8. Influence of the mass media (movies like the Matrix, the X-Files, etc.) that train people to think in supernatural ways, and to think wrongly of science (they think it's boring, or dangerous).

(maybe someone could rephrase these in better English!)

ETA: if the link doesn't work, try this one:http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/ne...sults0401.html

American · 3rd August 2006, 08:05 PM

Scapegoat-ism: People want everything to be swell except for one singularity on which they can focus, and agree with group-hugs that it's bad and the cause of all problems.

Bush, terrorism, Jews, white men... they have all been modern scapegoats, yet not one of them is remotely to blame for what they are accused. As losers blame the Man for their being losers, still other losers find conspiracies to blame.

Losers.

Mid · 4th August 2006, 08:55 AM

I think dubfan makes some good points about 9/11; however I'm still puzzled about the general (if there is such a thing) CTer mindset, in particular if we compare 9/11 CTs with JFK CTs. Now if we look at JFK CTs I could easily accept that people didn't like the idea of a random person killing the President, in that it makes their lives feel out of control etc. and they invent a grand conspiracy to add order to it. However, in the case of 9/11 they specifically reject one conspiracy with a lot evidence to support it i.e. 19 Al-Qaeda affiliated hijackers etc. and invent whole new conspiracy's instead.

Now I suppose part of this could be down to different people believing different conspiracy theories, but some CTers (at least from my limited experience) do seem to believe in more than one CT, it's a bit puzzling. Although I suppose on reflection it could still be an attempt to impose order on the world in that if say in all their conspiracy theories it's the government, masons, Jews, space lizards or whatever behind everything evil in the world it's a lot more reassuring than lots of nasty people doing nasty things at random times. Erm, I seem to have talked myself in to an answer to my quandary, not sure how right it is though.

60hzxtl · 4th August 2006, 09:09 AM

There's also a degree of, "if I can't do it, (or understand it) then it can't be done."

Hellbound · 4th August 2006, 09:15 AM

I'll add a theory I've mentioned before, as well.

To many, the idea of a bunch of towel-heads in a cave being able to hit us so hard and cause so much damage is frightening. Oddly enough, it's more comfortable to believe that the government allowed this, rather than simply couldn't prevent it. That implies that we are, essentially, safe from outside attack. SO, from a CTer viewpoint, the government being responsible for this actually promotes the power of the US government to a level that it can protect us from attack and keep us safe.

ktesibios · 4th August 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Huntsman

I'll add a theory I've mentioned before, as well.

To many, the idea of a bunch of towel-heads in a cave being able to hit us so hard and cause so much damage is frightening. Oddly enough, it's more comfortable to believe that the government allowed this, rather than simply couldn't prevent it. That implies that we are, essentially, safe from outside attack. SO, from a CTer viewpoint, the government being responsible for this actually promotes the power of the US government to a level that it can protect us from attack and keep us safe.

And in the case of the JFK assassination, which has been a real perennial for the CT industry, the idea that the life of someone as prominent and charismatic as President Kennedy could be snuffed out in a few seconds by a pathetic bumbling loser like Oswald was something that people rejected out of hand since it didn't preserve the dramatic unities.

Of course, if you consider that Oswald was a competent, trained marksman and that Presidential security at that time was primitive compared to the present, it looks a bit different.

Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper.

Not that I expect CTers to consider such aspects of reality when stereotypes are more satisying.

Hellbound · 4th August 2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by ktesibios

Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper.

Quite right, I did not mean to imply that OBL and his organization were uneducated. I was simply echoing what seems to be a common sentiment among CTers.

aggle-rithm · 4th August 2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by ktesibios

Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper.

Right...and don't forget that these are essentially the same people who drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan. They have a lot of experience using limited means to attack a superior enemy.

CACTUSJACKmankin · 6th August 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Interesting point I always separated out CTs in my mind from general woo, considering the later to be to some extent a lack of critical thinking/general superstition. Where as with CTs I thought of them as being like a strange warping of the scientific method i.e. they generally do at least try to "scientifically" prove their theories. However, thinking about it in a bit more detail I think you may be onto something in what generates both beliefs.

I like to think of CTs as skeptical extremists. They are skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The problem with most CTs is they have to invent conspiracies. Rarely do they invoke already established conspiracies such as organized crime or islamic terrorist groups and if they do they have to artificially link them into a grander conspiracy (usually with the us govt). It's no secret why we don't solve mob hits until 20+ years later if ever, because until then nobody rats and if they do they can be killed off. But when the govt is implicated in a conspiracy that occured decades ago and nobody involved (probably hundreds if not thousands) says a peep about a cover up, the question has to be why. Can the govt just whack somebody for being a rat? They couldn't keep watergate under wraps.

CTs also assume the ultimate contradiction, that the conspiracy is so good and so vast that all the evidence is gone and nobody's saying a word, yet so stupid and clumsy that publically available information on links to other groups possibly involved (such as bush's links to the saudis) and some gradeschool science (such as the melting point of steel) can crack the conspiracy wide open. I find this to be the biggest problem with CTs.

gumboot · 7th August 2006, 02:31 AM

Excellent points by all here...

I don't really have anything to add. I just what to reiterated what has already been said about 9/11 - 9/11 is an especially potent CT because of all the factors mentioned.

I also think CT tends to be fairly predictable. If we take a fairly flimsy CT like Loose Change, if I were to show this to everyone I know, I think I could pretty accurately guess which people who accept it and which wouldn't. And I think I could also guess how people would react to something like the Viewer's Guide.

There's an element of preaching to the converted in something like Loose Change. People approach it from the existing world view that western governments are corrupt and evil, will do anything for power, and have amazing resources and technologies that we can't fathom.

From that base fact, something like LC appears entirely plausible.

In contrast, a more rational person would think most western governments are hampered by bureaucracy, desperate to win votes, scattered with minor corruption, occasionally seriously corrupt, and general trying to do what they think is best for the country (even when it clearly isn't).

From that more sensible position a conspiracy like 9/11 is not only unlikely, it's actually impossible to pull off.

And it all comes back to motive. The final motive (the only motive which balances the massive scale of the act) is always conquest of the world. But of course rational people, nasty and corrupt or otherwise, never want to rule the world, because they know they can't. Even the Romans never specifically INTENDED to rule the world.

Only religious fanatics really genuinely believe they can rule the world, be they islamic jihadists, or christian crusaders, or devout followers of Alexander the Great.

So to justify the evil government taking over the world, ultimately they're forced to portray these people as religious fanatics.

-Andrew

Cuddles · 7th August 2006, 03:32 AM

It would be interesting to replace all the instances of "the government did it" with "God did it" in a CT and see if you can actually tell the difference between fundamentalist CTers and fundamentalist religious types.

gumboot · 7th August 2006, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

It would be interesting to replace all the instances of "the government did it" with "God did it" in a CT and see if you can actually tell the difference between fundamentalist CTers and fundamentalist religious types.

I think you'll find if you leave 9/11 CTs as it is it almost exactly matches Militant Islamic CTs... which is a little scary...

-Andrew

defaultdotxbe · 7th August 2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

or devout followers of Alexander the Great.

-Andrew

i think ive been found out....

Darth Rotor · 7th August 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by ktesibios

And in the case of the JFK assassination, which has been a real perennial for the CT industry,

== snippy ==

Of course, if you consider that Oswald was a competent, trained marksman and that Presidential security at that time was primitive compared to the present, it looks a bit different.

I would like to point out that there was a conspiracy, at least a small one, involving keeping Oswald's mouth shut. Jack Ruby successfully carried out that task. He then "died in prison" under circumstances that suggest either a failed health, or suffocation. So, if we presume the latter, and the lack of a human culprit in the Ruby death, that leaves significant questions regarding "who shot Kennedy, who had him shot, and why did they have him shot?"

The puzzling part for me is Sirhan Sirhan, and the Robert Kennedy shooting. He was either a copy cat, a Squeaky Fromme/JD Hinkley/MD Champan flavored whacko, or he's the best secret keeper of all time.

DR

simakperrce · 7th August 2006, 02:23 PM

First post. Hi all.

To the more psychological motives I'd like to add: conspiracies sell like fresh cookies. Entire cottage industries are created around them: Books, movies, TV shows, conferences, speech enagements, LC makers purportedly getting a 7 figure offer. Here in Germany formerly third-class journalists and retired politicians use 9/11 CTs to keep themselves in the public discussion plus they gratefully accept a nice sum of cash for the stuff they spout out, because people LOVE lapping it up, especially in a time of hightened anti-americanism.

It's a thriving business and if you think of it, it can ironically not be in the interest of any CTers that the TRUTH ever came out, since that would undermine their own agenda in creating even more websites, more movies and more books. Hence the periodical digging up of the same old 'unanswered questions' and the erection of the same smoke screens ad infinitum, in order to keep the whole engine running forever and ever.

defaultdotxbe · 7th August 2006, 03:01 PM

alot is made of oswalds "im just a patsy" statement, but assuming its even true you cant automatically assume you know WHO'S patsy he is, maybe the KGB brainwashed him and shipped him back to america...wonder how that would fit in with the "kennedy was killed for rejecting northwoods" theory

Mid · 8th August 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by simakperrce

First post. Hi all.

To the more psychological motives I'd like to add: conspiracies sell like fresh cookies. Entire cottage industries are created around them: Books, movies, TV shows, conferences, speech enagements, LC makers purportedly getting a 7 figure offer. Here in Germany formerly third-class journalists and retired politicians use 9/11 CTs to keep themselves in the public discussion plus they gratefully accept a nice sum of cash for the stuff they spout out, because people LOVE lapping it up, especially in a time of hightened anti-americanism.

It's a thriving business and if you think of it, it can ironically not be in the interest of any CTers that the TRUTH ever came out, since that would undermine their own agenda in creating even more websites, more movies and more books. Hence the periodical digging up of the same old 'unanswered questions' and the erection of the same smoke screens ad infinitum, in order to keep the whole engine running forever and ever.

Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs

gumboot · 8th August 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Mid

Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs

Just watch Alex Jones in an interview, or watch his film Terrorstorm. That man absolutely loves the sound of his own voice. He's the centre of his little world, and he likes it.

It he accepted the truth, he'd have to accept being a nobody. He won't accept that... not ever. He'd rather die first.

-Andrew

Ceritus · 8th August 2006, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

8. Influence of the mass media (movies like the Matrix, the X-Files, etc.) that train people to think in supernatural ways, and to think wrongly of science (they think it's boring, or dangerous).

Hey now you sound like a CT'r. I liked that movie and I have all the X-files on DVD! In fact when it comes to movies I prefer them to be fantasy rather than fact. In fact it was the X-files that brought me to be the critical thinker I am today simply because of the monotony of not having any evidence lead me to find things Mulder and Scully could have done to prove their cases. Now if you would have said Bill O'Reilly I would have maybe not have said anything however I just don't like the man's opinions nor his show so I stopped watching him

especially when it came to "Defending our borders".

I just think people believe these silly theories because of their disgust towards the bureaucratic nature of the U.S. government. I think every person in the U.S. dislikes something their government spends their tax dollars on. Let’s face it because of its bureaucratic nature the U.S. government wastes money. Because of its inefficiency some people tend to believe their tax dollars are being spent on super secret black ops funds and find theories like the one being brought up here time and time again about 9/11 to be compelling and believable. All I have to say is....... Unions are so outdated tally up and get a lawyer.

simakperrce · 8th August 2006, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mid

Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs

Mid, I agree. I was just trying to consider other aspects than the mindset ones.

I don't think the money making issue is something which is initially 'planned', and I didn't mean conspiracy theories are conjured up for the sake of earning a living or getting rich. They are, mostly, at the root of someone, or some organization having a political agenda. However, somewhere along the way there are some guys (Fetzer, Jones, Griffin, Avery) who discover that this is not only something which keeps their formerly unknown and irrelevant personality in the spotlight, but also earns them a good living. So hey, you get press coverage, you get attention, you make good dough with selling nonsense: Sounds like a sweet living -- Oh, and speaking of making money with nonsense: this has been lingering in my head for quite a while, but where the hell is Michael Moore? He must be raging in envy over the media exposure LC is getting.

Edited: redundancies.

valis · 8th August 2006, 02:09 AM

It also makes things easier to deal with. If G.W. Bush did it all then you can focus your hate on him, which is safe and acceptable. Otherwise you have to think about ways to end Islamic terrorism and there are no easy or pleasent answers to that.

gumboot · 8th August 2006, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by valis

It also makes things easier to deal with. If G.W. Bush did it all then you can focus your hate on him, which is safe and acceptable. Otherwise you have to think about ways to end Islamic terrorism and there are no easy or pleasent answers to that.

To a far less severe degree, the main stream population do the same thing. But understanding what "we" did to make "them" attack us, we give them a rational justification (no matter how slim) that makes them understandable.

To accept that in truth they're fanatics, and they did what they did out of hatred, not because of some imagined slight, means to accept a "them" which is much more difficult to understand, an irrational enemy. That's something scary.

CTers just take it one step (or twelve...) further.

-Andrew

Ceritus · 8th August 2006, 02:55 AM

Perhaps religious belief has something to do with it? Perhaps a christian would look at something these Islamic extremists have done and asked themselves
"why? If my beliefs told me to do something like this would I go that far? What is the difference between me and them?" Then came to the conclusion it has to be a conspiracy.

I posed a question here in the Religion section of the board

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...10#post1827410

simakperrce · 8th August 2006, 04:30 AM

I think it has also to do a lot with a childlike perspective. Children are very reluctant to accepting that the world is not working as they think it is in their imagination. A stone in the end is a stone, and not some mysterious key to a vault containing the answers to the Universe.

By the same token it is also more 'exciting' to be on the conspiracy side of things. I mean by that, it's more 'fun' to interpret ambiguous shadows or reflections behind a picket fence on some grassy knoll -- sort of like in a childish and playful manner -- than having to laborously go through mountains of tedious and boring evidence, crunch dry numbers and collect forensics (which would be 'homework').

So in the end one could say in a somewhat generalizing manner, that a typical CTer doesn't want to grow up. They can't accept that the real world is not working as it is in their head, and they try so hard to bring back that sweet and innocent feeling when it still was.

Mid · 8th August 2006, 05:17 AM

Erm, interesting although I'm not sure about that, although I'm sure their thinking is different from mine. For instance, if I was an American believer in Loose Change I would find it terrifying and would be furious that the government had done and was capable of doing what they imply it's done (which is callously and randomly murder 1000s as an excuse for war.) Yet instead they seem to get real enjoyment in examining it, which is a strange reaction; it's like they haven't thought through the implications of what they are claiming (which is probably the case.)

valis · 8th August 2006, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ceritus

Perhaps religious belief has something to do with it? Perhaps a christian would look at something these Islamic extremists have done and asked themselves
"why? If my beliefs told me to do something like this would I go that far? What is the difference between me and them?" Then came to the conclusion it has to be a conspiracy.

I certainly haven't studied the 9/11 CT as close as others here. Except for the anti semitic angle I can't remember ever hearing any of the Cters mention religion one way or the other.

gfunkusarelius · 8th August 2006, 07:04 AM

entertainment
i started out very interested in CTs and in doing research on them, i became a skeptic, but this means i have a perspective of someone who was once fscinated with CTs and other woo...it was cool and entertaining to think there was such a crazy string of events that most people werent aware of...it was like a jigsaw puzzle where you have to try to sift thru all the "lies and deception" to get to the "truth" and it was a break from the everyday.

i think one reason, other than reason itself, that i snapped out of it was that i started seeing how many of the CTs were politically motivated and how people would be dishonest in order to make their CTs work.

twinstead · 8th August 2006, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by gfunkusarelius

i think one reason, other than reason itself, that i snapped out of it was that i started seeing how many of the CTs were politically motivated and how people would be dishonest in order to make their CTs work.

CT's? Politically motivated? Surely you jest!

negativ · 8th August 2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

It would be interesting to replace all the instances of "the government did it" with "God did it" in a CT and see if you can actually tell the difference between fundamentalist CTers and fundamentalist religious types.

A thought along this line had occurred to me this morning, after reading some comments from several of the heavy posters on the LC forum.

Threads like "what made it so obvious to you that it was an inside job" wherein they all post their personal stories of Seeing The Light and Intuitively Just Knowing Way Down Deep In Their Soul That They've Got The Whole World In Their Hands.

Much like what you'd read on Rapture Ready.

hellaeon · 8th August 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by gfunkusarelius

entertainment
i started out very interested in CTs and in doing research on them, i became a skeptic, but this means i have a perspective of someone who was once fscinated with CTs and other woo...it was cool and entertaining to think there was such a crazy string of events that most people werent aware of...it was like a jigsaw puzzle where you have to try to sift thru all the "lies and deception" to get to the "truth" and it was a break from the everyday.

i think one reason, other than reason itself, that i snapped out of it was that i started seeing how many of the CTs were politically motivated and how people would be dishonest in order to make their CTs work.

Same here

Not to mention also the crummy incorrect 'evidence' that was used. I got heavily into CT's and thats what moved me out of it and into skepticism. Something explained logically and correctly was dismissed and the same question popped up yet again everywhere. The current 9/11 is a great example of that. Simple explanations for incredible events are ridiculed because its way too boring and unexciting.

Mr. Scott · 9th August 2006, 01:41 AM

Carl Saga et al notwithstanding, the stuff people can make up is all too often more interesting, or more appealing* than reality.

Conspiracy Theories are, like religions, viruses of the mind.

Consider the definition of God. This all-powerful entity is intelligent, is powerfully motivated, and has infinite means to both make what it wants happen and to cover its tracks. It is omnipotent and invisible. And, although completely made up, can never be disproved.

Replace the word God with conspiracy (Globalists, or whoever we dream up) and we have the same thing. In practice, as CTers paint their pictures, the conspirators are intelligent, motivated, omnipotent, and invisible.

What is convenient about both God and Conspiracy Theory is their presumed invisibility and omnipotence makes it too easy to dismiss any debunking attempt.

Why hasn’t a single 9/11 conspirator admitted their role? Even some lowly demolition worker that may have installed one explosive charge in the WTC? A lot of people involved in a purported 9/11 conspiracy, and not one has come out? The predictable answer echoes the presumed God-like omnipotence of the conspirators. Potential squealers were either perfectly loyal, murdered, or otherwise immaculately suppressed. Indeed, my writing this must assure the theorists that I am in on it.

The stuff that we invent can be more compelling, or somehow better*, than reality to most people. And, if we invent it with a built-in shield from being disproven, then a virus of the mind is born.

*The idea that the USA walked on the moon is a blow to non-American’s national pride, hence the appearance and survival of moon hoax conspiracy theories, the believers of which seem impervious to logic and reason.

3rd August 2006, 07:17 AM	#1
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	Reasons for the spread of 9/11 conspiracy theories/conspiracy theories in general? Ok I realise this has probably been discussed before but given there's a brand spanking new forum for it and I'm not shifting through the trillion or so posts in the original loose change threads (and also because there are other versions of 9/11 CTs out there not peddled by the loose changers), I was wondering if people had any insights into the seeming popularity of 9/11 CTs? (I realise that a lot of theories put forward in the thread would probably require research budgets to get any strong evidence to support so I view answers as more informed speculation.) Now I know there's always been CTs and some became remarkably popular such as those to do with JFK, however other events seem to generate small to non existent CTs (for instance that whole US anthrax thing in 2001, I'm sure there are CTs about it but they don't seem to have made much of a splash). So my question is what's so different about 9/11 that it generates such a seemingly big CT? (I know a lot of it's to do with huge death toll, media coverage, internet magnifying the noise made by CTers etc. but I'd like to hear peoples conjectures) And I suppose more generally why do people think some CTs pick up momentum whilst other events don't seem to develop them?
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

3rd August 2006, 07:54 AM	#2
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	I've had a number of thoughts on this: 1) General sentiment against the gov't: This is just another opportunity to malign the gov't in an attempt to force change. 2) Feelings of helplessness (a la Messiah Myth): They feel helpless in facing an enemy that they know little about and (without joining the Armed Forces) can do little to fight. This feeling of helplessness and frustration gets redirected to an entity that was "involved" (to the extent of not stopping it from happening) that they feel they can affect. 3) Paranoid schizophrenia I'll post more as I remember them.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

3rd August 2006, 08:02 AM	#3
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	I think the reason some things don't get a conspiracy theory following is simple laziness by the conspiracy theorists. It's relatively easy to blow up grainy video and find inconsistancies in witness accounts. But it's hard to get someone interested when all you have is a few envelopes and no dramatic pictures.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

3rd August 2006, 08:11 AM	#4
Hutch A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B Posts: 6,533	I would add the sheer surprize that something like this could happen. Remember, Kennedy's assasination was nearly 70 years after the last killing of an American President (considering three of them--Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley--got bumped off in less than 30 years, it was a good run) and came seemingly out of nowhere, people wanted to believe that there was a big, an overarching reason for it, not some lone nut with a sharpshooters' badge. Same for 9-11, it came unexpectedly, using a form of attack none of us had any reason to suspect, and did such visible and horrendous damage live and in color on our TV screens, that people wanted something major to explain it, not a bearded psychopath in a country most of them couldn't find on a map on their best day. No, for such huge, literally life-changing events, we want something bigger and more awesome as an explanation, something that fits our vies of the majesty of the event. The anthrax, on the other hand, well, it came later and really didn't kill much of anyone (although I am sure that to the families that lost loved ones, it was just as much a disaster) and Oklahoma City, well, most of us knew we had some wingnuts wandering around, probably even knew some personally, just were a bit surprised that one took it all the way. they were important, yes, but not on the deep, visceral level of 9-11 or Kennedy. And I think some people want things to be big when they have a big effect. And since Government is the biggest thing around... Interesting topic.
	__________________ If sheer righteous fury could accomplish anything worthwhile, Wolverines would have inherited the Galaxy long ago." -Web DuHavel, David Weber's "Honorverse" Series

3rd August 2006, 08:12 AM	#5
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,168	Conpsiracy theories also mean that there are no elements in your life or the world that are not under control. Cannot deal with the idea that random extremists blow things up with any predictability? Instead, have a shadow governemnt that controls them and you now the world has order to it, just not your order.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,168	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

3rd August 2006, 08:19 AM	#6
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,566	The same reason for a belief in general woo. Whenever something unusual happens, some people can't understand how or why it happens and feel the need to propose a big, overarching explanation like "god" or "ghosts" or "the government". While most people are happy to believe in simpler explanations, a lot of people can't seem to cope with the idea that not everything needs a grand force controling every aspect of life.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

3rd August 2006, 08:31 AM	#7
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	Originally Posted by Cuddles The same reason for a belief in general woo. Whenever something unusual happens, some people can't understand how or why it happens and feel the need to propose a big, overarching explanation like "god" or "ghosts" or "the government". While most people are happy to believe in simpler explanations, a lot of people can't seem to cope with the idea that not everything needs a grand force controling every aspect of life. Interesting point I always separated out CTs in my mind from general woo, considering the later to be to some extent a lack of critical thinking/general superstition. Where as with CTs I thought of them as being like a strange warping of the scientific method i.e. they generally do at least try to "scientifically" prove their theories. However, thinking about it in a bit more detail I think you may be onto something in what generates both beliefs.
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

3rd August 2006, 08:39 AM	#8
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,493	There's an awful lot of syndromism among CTers in general. One of the interesting things about the LC forum is that it shows how people who buy into 9/11 CTs are also highly likely to believe in such horse patooties as Moon hoax claims and so forth. I think it's better to consider conspiracism as a worldview in general rather than to concentrate on a particular CT. My personal take is that CTs might serve the same purpose that stories about Enlil, or Osiris, or Zeus or YHVH did for our distant ancestors. They provide simple, just-so explanations for the phenomena of a world we only partially understand and they provide a handy Other to blame for the bad things that happen. The image of TPTB that pervades conspiracism is, at least to me, reminiscent of the image of the gods that ancient peoples held. When it comes to comprehending how the world works, most of us aren't in a much better position than the ancients were. Humanity's stock of scientific understanding has grown so vast and specialized that it's impossible for any individual, no matter how brilliant or educated, to be really conversant with all of it, and the average schlep isn't really familiar with any of it. That leaves quite a bit of room for comfortable myths to find a habitat. As for why a particular CT achieves greater popularity than another, you might as well try to analyze why one record becomes a hit while another doesn't.
	__________________ Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

3rd August 2006, 11:32 AM	#9
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	I think Dubfan explained it best with his "perfect storm" analogy. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1121 Quote: There would've been 9/11 CTs no matter what, IMO. What I think has happened with respect to Bush, is that the very polarized nature of politics right now has made this CT particularly virulent, because it is attracting people who despise Bush and basically believe any sort of bad charge thrown against him. The soil is fertile -- partly because of the Bush admin's own actions -- and there are people desperately eager to believe it (because believing Bush is actually acting in good faith makes many of them very uncomfortable indeed). I think we're in a "perfect storm" environment for a conspiracy theory: 1. Arguably the most publicized event in modern history 2. Lots of material available on it -- video, testimony, reports, etc. 3. Very strong emotional context and emotional reactions on all sides 4. A contested election, divisive politics, an unpopular war 5. An administration characterized by secrecy, deeply mistrusted by many 6. Technology -- popularity of internet video, viral marketing, Google, availability of cheap video production software In other words, this is basically Glenn Reynolds' "Army of Davids" phenomenon being acted out pathologically.

3rd August 2006, 03:10 PM	#10
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Yeah, Dub gives a very good analysis. I would add to that: 7. The general's public inability to do proper research, it's lack of critical thinking skills and scientific knowledge (http://www.scienceblog.com/community...00111349.html). 8. Influence of the mass media (movies like the Matrix, the X-Files, etc.) that train people to think in supernatural ways, and to think wrongly of science (they think it's boring, or dangerous). (maybe someone could rephrase these in better English!) ETA: if the link doesn't work, try this one:http://www.calacademy.org/geninfo/ne...sults0401.html
	Last edited by Pardalis; 3rd August 2006 at 03:47 PM.

3rd August 2006, 08:05 PM	#11
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Scapegoat-ism: People want everything to be swell except for one singularity on which they can focus, and agree with group-hugs that it's bad and the cause of all problems. Bush, terrorism, Jews, white men... they have all been modern scapegoats, yet not one of them is remotely to blame for what they are accused. As losers blame the Man for their being losers, still other losers find conspiracies to blame. Losers.

4th August 2006, 08:55 AM	#12
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	I think dubfan makes some good points about 9/11; however I'm still puzzled about the general (if there is such a thing) CTer mindset, in particular if we compare 9/11 CTs with JFK CTs. Now if we look at JFK CTs I could easily accept that people didn't like the idea of a random person killing the President, in that it makes their lives feel out of control etc. and they invent a grand conspiracy to add order to it. However, in the case of 9/11 they specifically reject one conspiracy with a lot evidence to support it i.e. 19 Al-Qaeda affiliated hijackers etc. and invent whole new conspiracy's instead. Now I suppose part of this could be down to different people believing different conspiracy theories, but some CTers (at least from my limited experience) do seem to believe in more than one CT, it's a bit puzzling. Although I suppose on reflection it could still be an attempt to impose order on the world in that if say in all their conspiracy theories it's the government, masons, Jews, space lizards or whatever behind everything evil in the world it's a lot more reassuring than lots of nasty people doing nasty things at random times. Erm, I seem to have talked myself in to an answer to my quandary, not sure how right it is though.
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

4th August 2006, 09:09 AM	#13
60hzxtl Muse Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 698	There's also a degree of, "if I can't do it, (or understand it) then it can't be done."
	__________________ Loose Change, own all the versions!

4th August 2006, 09:15 AM	#14
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	I'll add a theory I've mentioned before, as well. To many, the idea of a bunch of towel-heads in a cave being able to hit us so hard and cause so much damage is frightening. Oddly enough, it's more comfortable to believe that the government allowed this, rather than simply couldn't prevent it. That implies that we are, essentially, safe from outside attack. SO, from a CTer viewpoint, the government being responsible for this actually promotes the power of the US government to a level that it can protect us from attack and keep us safe.

4th August 2006, 10:16 AM	#15
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,493	Originally Posted by Huntsman I'll add a theory I've mentioned before, as well. To many, the idea of a bunch of towel-heads in a cave being able to hit us so hard and cause so much damage is frightening. Oddly enough, it's more comfortable to believe that the government allowed this, rather than simply couldn't prevent it. That implies that we are, essentially, safe from outside attack. SO, from a CTer viewpoint, the government being responsible for this actually promotes the power of the US government to a level that it can protect us from attack and keep us safe. And in the case of the JFK assassination, which has been a real perennial for the CT industry, the idea that the life of someone as prominent and charismatic as President Kennedy could be snuffed out in a few seconds by a pathetic bumbling loser like Oswald was something that people rejected out of hand since it didn't preserve the dramatic unities. Of course, if you consider that Oswald was a competent, trained marksman and that Presidential security at that time was primitive compared to the present, it looks a bit different. Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper. Not that I expect CTers to consider such aspects of reality when stereotypes are more satisying.
	__________________ Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

4th August 2006, 10:48 AM	#16
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Originally Posted by ktesibios Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper. Quite right, I did not mean to imply that OBL and his organization were uneducated. I was simply echoing what seems to be a common sentiment among CTers.

4th August 2006, 10:51 AM	#17
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by ktesibios Things might also look a bit different if we remember that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks weren't some racist stereotype of primitive "towelheads" in a cave, but rather educated men who chose to turn their abilities to mass murder and found a way to their goal that was as undefended against as JFK was against a sniper. Right...and don't forget that these are essentially the same people who drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan. They have a lot of experience using limited means to attack a superior enemy.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

6th August 2006, 06:42 PM	#18
CACTUSJACKmankin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 279	Originally Posted by Mid Interesting point I always separated out CTs in my mind from general woo, considering the later to be to some extent a lack of critical thinking/general superstition. Where as with CTs I thought of them as being like a strange warping of the scientific method i.e. they generally do at least try to "scientifically" prove their theories. However, thinking about it in a bit more detail I think you may be onto something in what generates both beliefs. I like to think of CTs as skeptical extremists. They are skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The problem with most CTs is they have to invent conspiracies. Rarely do they invoke already established conspiracies such as organized crime or islamic terrorist groups and if they do they have to artificially link them into a grander conspiracy (usually with the us govt). It's no secret why we don't solve mob hits until 20+ years later if ever, because until then nobody rats and if they do they can be killed off. But when the govt is implicated in a conspiracy that occured decades ago and nobody involved (probably hundreds if not thousands) says a peep about a cover up, the question has to be why. Can the govt just whack somebody for being a rat? They couldn't keep watergate under wraps. CTs also assume the ultimate contradiction, that the conspiracy is so good and so vast that all the evidence is gone and nobody's saying a word, yet so stupid and clumsy that publically available information on links to other groups possibly involved (such as bush's links to the saudis) and some gradeschool science (such as the melting point of steel) can crack the conspiracy wide open. I find this to be the biggest problem with CTs.

7th August 2006, 02:31 AM	#19
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Excellent points by all here... I don't really have anything to add. I just what to reiterated what has already been said about 9/11 - 9/11 is an especially potent CT because of all the factors mentioned. I also think CT tends to be fairly predictable. If we take a fairly flimsy CT like Loose Change, if I were to show this to everyone I know, I think I could pretty accurately guess which people who accept it and which wouldn't. And I think I could also guess how people would react to something like the Viewer's Guide. There's an element of preaching to the converted in something like Loose Change. People approach it from the existing world view that western governments are corrupt and evil, will do anything for power, and have amazing resources and technologies that we can't fathom. From that base fact, something like LC appears entirely plausible. In contrast, a more rational person would think most western governments are hampered by bureaucracy, desperate to win votes, scattered with minor corruption, occasionally seriously corrupt, and general trying to do what they think is best for the country (even when it clearly isn't). From that more sensible position a conspiracy like 9/11 is not only unlikely, it's actually impossible to pull off. And it all comes back to motive. The final motive (the only motive which balances the massive scale of the act) is always conquest of the world. But of course rational people, nasty and corrupt or otherwise, never want to rule the world, because they know they can't. Even the Romans never specifically INTENDED to rule the world. Only religious fanatics really genuinely believe they can rule the world, be they islamic jihadists, or christian crusaders, or devout followers of Alexander the Great. So to justify the evil government taking over the world, ultimately they're forced to portray these people as religious fanatics. -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th August 2006, 03:32 AM	#20
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,566	It would be interesting to replace all the instances of "the government did it" with "God did it" in a CT and see if you can actually tell the difference between fundamentalist CTers and fundamentalist religious types.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

7th August 2006, 04:18 AM	#21
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by Cuddles It would be interesting to replace all the instances of "the government did it" with "God did it" in a CT and see if you can actually tell the difference between fundamentalist CTers and fundamentalist religious types. I think you'll find if you leave 9/11 CTs as it is it almost exactly matches Militant Islamic CTs... which is a little scary... -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

7th August 2006, 01:40 PM	#22
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by gumboot or devout followers of Alexander the Great. -Andrew i think ive been found out....

7th August 2006, 01:54 PM	#23
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,248	Originally Posted by ktesibios And in the case of the JFK assassination, which has been a real perennial for the CT industry, == snippy == Of course, if you consider that Oswald was a competent, trained marksman and that Presidential security at that time was primitive compared to the present, it looks a bit different. I would like to point out that there was a conspiracy, at least a small one, involving keeping Oswald's mouth shut. Jack Ruby successfully carried out that task. He then "died in prison" under circumstances that suggest either a failed health, or suffocation. So, if we presume the latter, and the lack of a human culprit in the Ruby death, that leaves significant questions regarding "who shot Kennedy, who had him shot, and why did they have him shot?" The puzzling part for me is Sirhan Sirhan, and the Robert Kennedy shooting. He was either a copy cat, a Squeaky Fromme/JD Hinkley/MD Champan flavored whacko, or he's the best secret keeper of all time. DR

7th August 2006, 02:23 PM	#24
simakperrce Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 82	First post. Hi all. To the more psychological motives I'd like to add: conspiracies sell like fresh cookies. Entire cottage industries are created around them: Books, movies, TV shows, conferences, speech enagements, LC makers purportedly getting a 7 figure offer. Here in Germany formerly third-class journalists and retired politicians use 9/11 CTs to keep themselves in the public discussion plus they gratefully accept a nice sum of cash for the stuff they spout out, because people LOVE lapping it up, especially in a time of hightened anti-americanism. It's a thriving business and if you think of it, it can ironically not be in the interest of any CTers that the TRUTH ever came out, since that would undermine their own agenda in creating even more websites, more movies and more books. Hence the periodical digging up of the same old 'unanswered questions' and the erection of the same smoke screens ad infinitum, in order to keep the whole engine running forever and ever.

7th August 2006, 03:01 PM	#25
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	alot is made of oswalds "im just a patsy" statement, but assuming its even true you cant automatically assume you know WHO'S patsy he is, maybe the KGB brainwashed him and shipped him back to america...wonder how that would fit in with the "kennedy was killed for rejecting northwoods" theory

8th August 2006, 12:39 AM	#26
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	Originally Posted by simakperrce First post. Hi all. To the more psychological motives I'd like to add: conspiracies sell like fresh cookies. Entire cottage industries are created around them: Books, movies, TV shows, conferences, speech enagements, LC makers purportedly getting a 7 figure offer. Here in Germany formerly third-class journalists and retired politicians use 9/11 CTs to keep themselves in the public discussion plus they gratefully accept a nice sum of cash for the stuff they spout out, because people LOVE lapping it up, especially in a time of hightened anti-americanism. It's a thriving business and if you think of it, it can ironically not be in the interest of any CTers that the TRUTH ever came out, since that would undermine their own agenda in creating even more websites, more movies and more books. Hence the periodical digging up of the same old 'unanswered questions' and the erection of the same smoke screens ad infinitum, in order to keep the whole engine running forever and ever. Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

8th August 2006, 01:18 AM	#27
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by Mid Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs Just watch Alex Jones in an interview, or watch his film Terrorstorm. That man absolutely loves the sound of his own voice. He's the centre of his little world, and he likes it. It he accepted the truth, he'd have to accept being a nobody. He won't accept that... not ever. He'd rather die first. -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th August 2006, 01:31 AM	#28
Ceritus Suspended Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: I am the mind that you call home. Posts: 650	Originally Posted by Pardalis 8. Influence of the mass media (movies like the Matrix, the X-Files, etc.) that train people to think in supernatural ways, and to think wrongly of science (they think it's boring, or dangerous). Hey now you sound like a CT'r. I liked that movie and I have all the X-files on DVD! In fact when it comes to movies I prefer them to be fantasy rather than fact. In fact it was the X-files that brought me to be the critical thinker I am today simply because of the monotony of not having any evidence lead me to find things Mulder and Scully could have done to prove their cases. Now if you would have said Bill O'Reilly I would have maybe not have said anything however I just don't like the man's opinions nor his show so I stopped watching him especially when it came to "Defending our borders". I just think people believe these silly theories because of their disgust towards the bureaucratic nature of the U.S. government. I think every person in the U.S. dislikes something their government spends their tax dollars on. Let’s face it because of its bureaucratic nature the U.S. government wastes money. Because of its inefficiency some people tend to believe their tax dollars are being spent on super secret black ops funds and find theories like the one being brought up here time and time again about 9/11 to be compelling and believable. All I have to say is....... Unions are so outdated tally up and get a lawyer.
	Last edited by Ceritus; 8th August 2006 at 01:33 AM.

8th August 2006, 02:02 AM	#29
simakperrce Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 82	Originally Posted by Mid Hi simakperrce and welcome, I certainly think the money making motive is important for some CTers, however I think the point you make about alot of them wanting fame and attention probably explains the behaviour of alot more of the originators of CTs Mid, I agree. I was just trying to consider other aspects than the mindset ones. I don't think the money making issue is something which is initially 'planned', and I didn't mean conspiracy theories are conjured up for the sake of earning a living or getting rich. They are, mostly, at the root of someone, or some organization having a political agenda. However, somewhere along the way there are some guys (Fetzer, Jones, Griffin, Avery) who discover that this is not only something which keeps their formerly unknown and irrelevant personality in the spotlight, but also earns them a good living. So hey, you get press coverage, you get attention, you make good dough with selling nonsense: Sounds like a sweet living -- Oh, and speaking of making money with nonsense: this has been lingering in my head for quite a while, but where the hell is Michael Moore? He must be raging in envy over the media exposure LC is getting. Edited: redundancies.
	Last edited by simakperrce; 8th August 2006 at 02:05 AM.

8th August 2006, 02:09 AM	#30
valis Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: sebastian. fl Posts: 649	It also makes things easier to deal with. If G.W. Bush did it all then you can focus your hate on him, which is safe and acceptable. Otherwise you have to think about ways to end Islamic terrorism and there are no easy or pleasent answers to that.
	__________________ Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head. Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead. A song, by those guys...

8th August 2006, 02:14 AM	#31
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by valis It also makes things easier to deal with. If G.W. Bush did it all then you can focus your hate on him, which is safe and acceptable. Otherwise you have to think about ways to end Islamic terrorism and there are no easy or pleasent answers to that. To a far less severe degree, the main stream population do the same thing. But understanding what "we" did to make "them" attack us, we give them a rational justification (no matter how slim) that makes them understandable. To accept that in truth they're fanatics, and they did what they did out of hatred, not because of some imagined slight, means to accept a "them" which is much more difficult to understand, an irrational enemy. That's something scary. CTers just take it one step (or twelve...) further. -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th August 2006, 02:55 AM	#32
Ceritus Suspended Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: I am the mind that you call home. Posts: 650	Perhaps religious belief has something to do with it? Perhaps a christian would look at something these Islamic extremists have done and asked themselves "why? If my beliefs told me to do something like this would I go that far? What is the difference between me and them?" Then came to the conclusion it has to be a conspiracy. I posed a question here in the Religion section of the board http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...10#post1827410

8th August 2006, 04:30 AM	#33
simakperrce Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 82	I think it has also to do a lot with a childlike perspective. Children are very reluctant to accepting that the world is not working as they think it is in their imagination. A stone in the end is a stone, and not some mysterious key to a vault containing the answers to the Universe. By the same token it is also more 'exciting' to be on the conspiracy side of things. I mean by that, it's more 'fun' to interpret ambiguous shadows or reflections behind a picket fence on some grassy knoll -- sort of like in a childish and playful manner -- than having to laborously go through mountains of tedious and boring evidence, crunch dry numbers and collect forensics (which would be 'homework'). So in the end one could say in a somewhat generalizing manner, that a typical CTer doesn't want to grow up. They can't accept that the real world is not working as it is in their head, and they try so hard to bring back that sweet and innocent feeling when it still was.

8th August 2006, 05:17 AM	#34
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	Erm, interesting although I'm not sure about that, although I'm sure their thinking is different from mine. For instance, if I was an American believer in Loose Change I would find it terrifying and would be furious that the government had done and was capable of doing what they imply it's done (which is callously and randomly murder 1000s as an excuse for war.) Yet instead they seem to get real enjoyment in examining it, which is a strange reaction; it's like they haven't thought through the implications of what they are claiming (which is probably the case.)
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

8th August 2006, 05:40 AM	#35
valis Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: sebastian. fl Posts: 649	Originally Posted by Ceritus Perhaps religious belief has something to do with it? Perhaps a christian would look at something these Islamic extremists have done and asked themselves "why? If my beliefs told me to do something like this would I go that far? What is the difference between me and them?" Then came to the conclusion it has to be a conspiracy. I certainly haven't studied the 9/11 CT as close as others here. Except for the anti semitic angle I can't remember ever hearing any of the Cters mention religion one way or the other.
	__________________ Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head. Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead. A song, by those guys...