Page By Category
Blogs - Conspiracies - Page 6
Users that have been posting for a while can create their own articles on the fly by using our built-in blogging service. Below are the most recent entries.
Email Exchange with a 9/11 truther
Author: Dave Sorensen
Date: Jul 07, 2011 at 17:53
<!--[endif] -->
We have thousands of blogs from other independent scientists and researchers, podcasts, peer reviewed literature and media from dozens of other countries. There are tons of good sources out there, and not one should be treated as gospel.
"Oh, btw...we've been pretty lucky to have dodged another attack for a decade now! Surely you would think Al QUEDA would want to capitalize on the heels of such a major blow, right? Any fighter will tell you that when your opponent is wobbled, like an animal who smells the blood of its enemy, it is time to pounce."
I suggest you read Michael Scheuer's book on Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's goal was pretty much to draw us into Afghanistan to lead us to an eventual economic collapse. He also believed that they could defeat us in a similar fashion to the Russian and British armies. Before 9/11 there were three other attacks that aimed to draw us into Afghanistan. The two embassy bombings and the USS cole bombing.
You ask a lot of questions that have been answered, and have been available online for years. 9/11 myths.com and Mark Roberts' website (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ ) have a lot of great links for info on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The key is to actually read through these websites. You raised the point that you haven't seen any other plane crashes that looked like flight 93. Here is an example of one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/
Even without this example, you have to ask what other time has a plane crashed into soft soil around 500 mph?
"Then, please have him explain how the third WTC building fell, blocks away, half a day later, while buildings between them remained untouched. "
There is going to be some resistance, but the floors were not designed to hold weights in excess of 3 times the static weight. When you have several floors collapsing, the force increases by several times due to gravity. In the case of the towers, the weight coming down was about 30 times the static weight. For example, when you place a 15 pound weight on your foot, you won't feel any pain. But when you drop it from twelve feet, you foot is pretty much destroyed. The best way to think of this is to imagine the collapse as 30 floors vs. 1 floor. After that floor collapses you have 31 floors vs. 1 floor etc. The bottom part of the structure is not just a hunk of steel, it's made of millions of small parts capable of failing due to excess weight. If a critical column or structural component of a building fails due to fire, you can get partial or total collapses. If you acknowledge this point there's nothing strange about the collapse. It was on fire for seven hours without firefighting and was seen with a large bulge around 3 pm by several structural engineers using transits. Also the fires started on multiple floors, unlike most office fires which would just start on one. The collapse was also a progressive one. The east penthouse collapsed first. Overall the collapse took around 16 seconds. NIST did an extensive state of the art investigation into the collapse of building 7. Have you read any of it?
"How about the perfectly diagonal cut through what remained as the stub of the infrastructure?"
This was done post collapse by a clean up crew. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
"Or did each side burn through to give way at the exact same moment, thus causing an uncanny symmetrical collapse?"
The collapse was not symmetrical. It actually fell across the street damaging a bank to the point where it was feared it too might collapse .http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm
"I would love to see somebody build a scale model of the scene and re-enact the alleged tragedy in a controlled environment, but for now I'll stick with common sense."
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would they have to build a physical model of the structure and fly a plane into it when you can do computer models? These have been done and show that everything is consistent with the videos. This includes a computer simulation created by an engineer who was skeptical of the collapse initiation hypothesis offered by NIST. (But not a supporter of CD) http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/
"The list goes on and on, but please keep in mind that I have absolutely no motivation other than the truth."
I hope you really mean this. As for the "list" you speak of, I suggest reading my article which goes into the "long list effect." http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/2010/05/23/conspiracism-explained/ Once you realize nearly all of the claims are false, your position becomes untenable. It is this that is the difference between us. I reject all of your premises, and can tell you why. If you can show where I went wrong, by all means do.
"I'm getting tired, and I'm not sure Winston will read this because it doesn't agree with his beliefs"
This is pretty funny. I think Edward is aware of every claim you've made in this post. If you think you've come up with some new arguments, you must be living in the year 2004. Try googling "X debunked" or browsing the jref forums. This is all really old, and has been debunked ad nauseam.
"THIS WAS NOT SOME ROGUE ACT BY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!"
This I agree with. Again Michael Scheuer gives six reasons for why extremist groups hate us.
""An anti-U.S. defensive jihad was mandatory for six reasons:
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Prophet's homeland on the Arabian Peninsula
2. Washington's protection and support for tyrannical Muslim governments
3. Washington's unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China, and India
5. U.S. and Western exploitation of Muslim energy resources at below market prices
6. The U.S. military presence in the Muslim world outside the Arab Peninsula"
There are a lot of great books available that answer all of your questions and put them into context. If your interested I suggest reading "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" for starters. The challenge for you is to be willing to reject your current beliefs based upon new information and more reliable evidence. This is the rational thing to do. In my opinion, Conspiracy theories work in the exact opposite way. They rely upon the least reliable evidence (anomalies, quote-mining, junk science) and ignore what the vast majority of academia and what the consensus of relevant scientists has to say.
"I thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my post, but I am afraid your arguments are set out to debunk a film, rather than seek truth. "
If I weren't interested in the truth I wouldn't take the time to study this stuff. The point I cannot stress enough is that you are still convinced that a lot of these claims are correct. I hate to think of this as picking sides of a fence...
"A commission appointed BY BUSH himself, comprised of his political pals. The fact that these three have controlled American politics for over three decades. These are the things I am concerned with. Real life things, not a point-counter-point."
I think there is a big misconception about the 9/11 commission. They got their information from over 93 different agencies, almost half of were nongovernmental. There were thousands of experts and forensic scientists who studied the evidence extensively. The commission was not just Bush and his buddies making stuff up. There was four years of independent and governmental investigations that were brought together to form the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report. Just out of curiosity, have you read it?
"I told you that from 2001 to around 2006, I was a staunch Bush supporter. At one point, I told my mother that he will go down as the greatest president in history. I had to eat a lot of crow when i admitted that I was blind. "
I understand this. I think our political beliefs generally sway us into other belief systems. To say Bush was a bad president is one thing, to say he took part in the conspiracy of the century without any supporting evidence is another. I think Michael Shermer said it best. The best reason to doubt that Bush did 9/11 was that it worked. : )
There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as source, as long as its coming from the secondary or primary source. The wiki article itself could be inaccurate, but must of the time they're pretty good. The parts I thought were inaccurate I addressed, and those are not on wikipedia. Some points you made I agreed with such as the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the extremist groups do not hate us because of our freedom fries. And just to clarify I am not a very big supporter of our system of government, or the people who run it. If there was evidence for any of these grand conspiracies I would pick them up and run with them. And so would all of the big US critics such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
"Weell, certainly, you mean every floor. That's over a hundred floors! lol So, mathematically speaking, it COULD NOT fall at free fall speed."
None of the buildings did fall at free fall speed. Even the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have dropped that claim. Now their big anomaly is that Building 7 was in for free fall for 2.1 seconds. I don't think I was very clear about the crushdown effect. Did you see the verinage demolition videos? They work by pulling out structural members with cables, causing the upper portion of the building to crush the bottom half. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
"What about symmetrically? Do you not see this? You can not say, "there would be SOME resistance, BUT....." That's it. There would be resistance, hence adding time to the 10 second free fall, yet that was not the case. the building was detonated. Period."
They didn't collapse symmetrically. They all ended up hitting surrounding buildings, severely damaging them. Both the towers tilted before collapse. To see this very clearly, watch this video. It shows the perimeter columns bowing to the point of buckling. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/34/bMZ-nkYr46wYoure making a bald assertion there when you say the buildings were detonated period. There is no evidence of loud explosions on any audio or video or seismographs, no cases of deafening or blast lung which we would expect, no fatalities from flying glass, and no evidence of detonation cords or bombs in the rubble. If there were bombs in the trade center buildings people would have been able to hear them from about a mile and a half away. Here is what a demolition sounds like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related
You don't have to take my word for it but I've looked at both sides of the argument and have concluded the CT claims are pretty much all wrong. There was no conscious effort to try to believe the official story. And I'm pretty well read on the conspiracy theory literature. I just honesty don't find any of it compelling. That isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies out there. (There are!) I came to my position after carefully evaluating both the quality and context of the long list of conspiracy claims, which took a while. I highly recommend reading through the debunking sites I posted, and to check out some of the videos when you get the chance. There's a lot to learn and "unlearn" so by all means take your time. I used to believe in some of this stuff too, so I understand where you're coming from. But in all seriousness it's important to read up on both sides of any debate, if your looking for truth. While it may be painful to spend hours reading material you may not agree with, it's important, and gives you a better understanding for how thinking can go wrong.
"So, you will continue using the word "Conspiracy Theorist," a blatant tactic of propagandist throughout history."
I don't think this is always a pejorative term. It's taken to be offensive to people who believe some of the more plausible conspiracy theories because they are lumped in with the nutty ones. I agree it says nothing at all about a person's actual beliefs, but it's the same with the word "debunker." I usually switch between "true believers" and "Cts". I am simply referring to some one who believes in a conspiracy theory. A great definition of a conspiracy theory is given by Oxford philosopher Steve Clarke.
"A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society."
"They do dirt, questions are raised, the pretend they are "investigating" it using their political buddies, slowly we forget about it, the book is closed, and anyone who doesn't buy it is called a Conspiracy Theorist or a Bush-Basher. Same playbook, Dave."
But the 9/11 commission was largely based on dozens of other investigations. Including books by investigative journalists, scientific reports and thousands of other investigators who have looked into the backgrounds of the hijackers, the collapse of the towers etc. I think you're point goes both ways. I can be called a sheep or a shill for accepting the "official story." It's not about accepting one view or the other, it's about understanding the difference between a strong and weak theory, and which one describes the theory at hand. But in order to criticize one side or the other, you need to understand what they actually believe.
This reminds me of a point you raised in a previous email.
"pointing me toward books is meaningless to me, because there are books that both conflict and support what I am saying. There are talented writers and spin-meisters for both sides. "
Are you saying it's too difficult to tell whether someone is being honest? All you have to do is check their sources, or see if their work is corroborated by other evidence or scholars.
9/11 CT advocate David Ray Griffin is a great example of someone who writes well, but when you fact check him, you realize he's either an incompetent researcher or a liar. For instance, he claims that there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests. What is his source? A "9/11 victims list" from CNN.com. Now around that time the Boston Globe had released the passenger manifests with all of the hijacker's names on them. How is it that Griffin has failed to acknowledge the Boston Globe article all of this time, while also ignoring criticism of his book pointing out that he was not referring to the source he claimed to have been?
"Nobody wants to believe such heinous things."
I actually disagree with this. There are a lot of people I have spoken to who believe 9/11 was an inside job, who really do want to believe it because they feel like they possess secret knowledge, and that everyone else is just sheeple. Like I said before I have no dog in this hunt, and have believed in some Cts before. A lot of what Noam Chomsky discusses in terms of government and military conspiracies, is far worse than 9/11 being an inside job. He said in an email chat with Kevin Barrett that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it wouldn't make it in the top 100 atrocities list. So I don't think this is a valid reason for why people debunk things in most cases. In most cases people debunk things because they don't think there's any validity to the claims they are debunking, and they explain why that it is so.
"I am very familiar with being blinded by your ideals, which in this country, in this age, are very much pre-determined by us and molded by propaganda at a level beyond expert. They mold our brains like play-doe."
I agree with this. John Loewen summarizes all of the myths and problems with the American history curriculum in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." Our history textbooks all portray the US as the good guys, omit a lot of the horrendous things we did (ex. our interactions with the Native American), generally tell the story from the perspective of a white christian male, and gets kids to memorize "facts" instead of building critical thinking skills. I think the lack of a course on critical thinking for the high school level is the biggest problem with our education system. We are also heavily influenced by the mainstream media like you said. If you haven't done so already you should watch Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's still on google video.
"Are you not suspicious of Dick, George, and Don?"
Well.. they're politicians. I'm skeptical of all politicians and what they say. That isn't to say that they lie about everything. We know Bush and his gang lied about the WMDs so it is not inconceivable that they lied about other things. The reason we know about this is because of the leaked manning memo.
But I think the Bush Administration was inarguably one of the most incompetent, so there is a heavy burden of proof to be met when one claims they managed to pull off a rather large scale conspiracy. If they couldn't just plant WMDs in Iraq, how could they manage to coerce thousands of people into orchestrating 9/11?
I have to ask this again. If they could pull off 9/11, why not just plant WMDs in Iraq. That would involve far less people, and would much a million times less risky. Would benefit them greatly. Unless presented with some evidence, I find it really hard to believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I also find it hard to believe that any group would be dumb enough to take such risks. All it would take is to have one detonation cord discovered, or one of the demolition guys telling his girlfriend what he was doing.
I have yet to even hear a coherent narrative to how they would have even done it. There is an absence of evidence that would have to be there, you'd have thousands of people who would have to silenced for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we have a convergence of evidence that shows who the real perpetrators were and a coherent narrative to how they did it. I think the big problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they do not take into account the history of US and middle east relations. We can speculate all we want about what happened, but it won't get us to the truth. If one rejects what virtually all scientists and scholars agree on, and reject in wholesale everything the government says, you are just going to wind up chasing down rabbit holes. And this brings up another point.
If 9/11 was an inside job, we are left with two scenarios. Either they (US) did it and covered it up. Or they did it and left behind incriminating evidence. If A, then we can't really do anything about it, they got away with the perfect crime. If B, I'm all for exposing them. Bringing up past examples of suspicious behavior or even some valid points about political figures that I agree with is not going to say anything about what happened on 9/11. What you're doing is just asking questions. We're far past that stage, it's been 11 years. There are answers, they're just not as appealing as a bombs being planted by cia agents, voice morphing etc. The reality is we got caught with our pants down. And all it took was the purchase of nineteen plane tickets with months of prep work on how to take over the planes.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
I've been over the zeitgeist movies for a while now. Most of my articles are about specific claims and CTs, not about the zeitgeist movies. They are as inaccurate as they ever were and don't care too much about them. I would actually say it's closer to 90% of the info is inaccurate.
It seems like you misunderstand my position. I don't doubt that the government and military have carried out conspiracies in the past. Noam Chomsky is someone I believe exposes a lot of them, most worse than 9/11. (In terms of fatalities) For example, our support for the atrocities committed in East Timor during the 70's and onward.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm
I don't present Chomsky's take on East Timor as fact, but bring it up as a example of a conspiracy I find somewhat plausible, that is worse in scale than 9/11.
What I doubt is strictly the points I bring up in the Zeitgeist movies. (nearly all of them) This says nothing about my views about our foreign policy or government. It says nothing else about me in general. All I care about is what's true. And the best I can do at finding it, is making sure my scholarship is sound, and that my logic is valid. Looking at both sides of the debate, I've found that the books and articles which argue for a government conspiracy lack the kinds of scholarship you would expect, and are largely illogical. For instance, if we wanted to get into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, why not make the hijackers come from those countries? The choice of hijackers from Saudi Arabia makes no sense.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works.
I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?
Are you telling me that the same handful of men owned the white house and all of its dealings, including the initiation of their own central bank, simply "stepped down" at some point?? When?? And is it not a coincidence that they are back in charge in the year 2000? Or do you deny that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family lines trace RIGHT BACK TO The Kights Templar, or to keep it less CT, 12th century England?
If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld)
I have to go and there's no sense continuing if you don't see the obvious.
I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works."
There is really no agenda, but I guess I understand your point on that quote. If you read my full response, you would see I addressed those points later on. My analyses of the Zeitgeist films and 9/11 Cts are of just that. I have never written an article about George Bush, Big Oil or anything about the evil bloodlines. By default, you assume I reject all of it because I take fault with what I've written about. Why is that? I have yet to make any assumptions about you, and have not even referred to you as a CT. And BTW I explained why I use the abbreviation CT, and that I do not define it as "crazy person." It shouldn't be such a big deal. If you take it as an ad hominem attack, ignore it and deal with the other points I make.
"I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?"
Again, you are just asking questions. You contacted me to ask about how you can add corrections to the articles on CS, and now we are talking about bloodlines and george bush's past. Neither of which are covered on CS, and neither of which are relevant to the criticisms of other theories.
"If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld) "
This is pretty interesting if true, but I couldn't find a source for this.
"I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world."
Ok so we are done talking about the material covered on CS?
Sean's post in it's entirety:
OK, Dave, I understand being young and pasionate about politics. You are much smarter than I who voted for Ross Perot at 21, and this is the first and last time I will mention your age, because it doesn't mean anything except, in MOST cases a person's politics at a young age is usually the opposite of what it ends up. Also, I mention that because part of the reason I'm doing this, besides looking for the truth, is because you can still change. I'd never crack an older person like my mother. lol (I try)
Ok, take your time, but one more thing. Let me put everything in perspective for you. This is not conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy. I'm am right down the middle, with NO partisan agenda whatsoever (especially since they dont exist), it just so happens that the conspiracy side has been going strong for about three years now, and I am at the point where the burden of proof is on the debunkers.
As I watched the film (again haha I cant get enough) with my brother-in law who, up to a few months ago was a hard-lined conservative who told me that I should be in a tin-foil hat when I mentioned these films, and who now invited me to watch a new film, simple looked at each other and laughed. It was funny, but maddening, hysterical, but disturbing; it was all of these things, but never did we think it was uncertain. This is a matter of fitting a square into a triangle....
So, anyway, do what you gotta do. This would be impressive. I'm not sure how we could score it, but let's see if it makes it out of the edit room first.
OH wait, your questions. I'm sorry. Whistle-blowers? I could probably gather about 20 if I had a second, but off the top of my head, umm, Wesley Clark....hey wait a minute, Dave. Why does this sound familiar? Dave, are you using talking points, Dave? I'm sorry, man, but I am being to see a white spy vs. black spy going on. I'm trying to be neutral and you are hitting me with talking points, or should I say hot button topics. lol
Come on, Dave....OK since the answer to that question is everywhere, I'll pick the first place I see and give you that list. I'm sure I knew many of them already.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961
and the strongest piece of evidence? How much time you got, buddy? (quick DaveChapelle) No, seriously, I don't want to ruin anything for you so I'll say numbers one through thirty (1-30) are on the film you are going to watch. Beyond that off the top of my head:
and in no particular order-
-the look on George Bush's face when they whispered in his ear that morning, a morning which he prayed would not happen, but like Jesus on that last night in Jerusalem, knew it would. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.....so, yeah, the close-up of him in high def.
-while we're on George W (poor kid) and that seven minutes in front of the kids....that seven minutes in front of the kids. Totally inexcusable. (Although, like I said, I almost feel bad for GW.)
-and I promise to leave him alone after I lump together the buckets full of misspeaking, fumble words, saying obviously rehearsed things, looking as nervous as a whore in church, as if he stood to get a beating for f---ing up. OK that's it for Little George, as Saddam Hussein called him, and rightfully called him. Is it odd for your dad's good to call you little ---------?
-- One more Bush thing. The fact that he insisted on taking questions from congress only with uncle don and not recorded and no hard questions....etc lol All of these concrete things glued together by the crystal clear body language of all involved, from Ari Fleesher to the head of FBI with the big cartoon face who got canned quickly, and of course, GW, who all but had a sign up saying My father made me do it! I just want my baseball team back. I can't wait for this eight years to be over. My dad's gonna set me up and.........lmao Dave, I wish that were more of a joke.
-Of course there is all the stuff I talked about with those three family crests and their power. That too, reads like a child's encyclopedia as to what is going on.
-Now, all of those things are heavy claims that I know to be true, but everyone has to find their way. However, more physical proof, that is there for all to see include
--The disappearing airlines at two crash sites. I have not see as much as a seat, or one of those rolse royce engines that are 8 feet in diameter.
-the pictures of the pentagon-----where do I start??
--the fact that the pentagon is one of the most secure building in the world, supposedly, with security camera lining the entire circumference, yet there is only ONE surveillance camera, and it just happens to have the wrong date, but forget that end piece, one camera, out of a hundred or more. There was ONE other tape, a gastation across the street but FBI officials were there immediately to confiscate it.
---Did I say pictures at the pentagon? and in Shanksville.
--Odd report made in cincinnati and put on their website that a plane had an emergency landing in cleveland due to a bombthreat, flight 93.
--hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, there on the scene or shortly after claiming the heard explosions going off down the building as they ran down. Hundres on the scene or shortly thereafter who claim that it definitely was not a commercial airliner.
---Every photo or video taken of the scene, either showing a mysterious shape under the belly of the plane, from all angles, and it's uncanny resemblence to an armed military plane. The flash of light obviously seen before the impact, from all angles,
--Oh sorry George---there was only one tape that had caught the first impact at all on video. It was a french film group doing some little thing on the NYC fire fighter coincidently, when it happened they got it. It wasn't seen until later, yet George Bush says clearly, in response to what he thought when he saw the footage, "I remember seeing that first plane hit and thought......"
--The 911 comission being a joke from the start. (believe me, I was there during the whole thing. It was a joke.)
--Bush=oil=Bin Laden=Saudis
--The owner of the building 7 stating that they made the decision to "pull" the building, meaning it was rigged with devices.
--The symetrical free fall collapse of the towers.
---Did I mention the pics of Shankesville and pentagon? Also the manuever that this pilot would have had to make being a poor to moderate flyer.
---The molten steel at the bottom of the scene that was omitted.
--The blatant suppression of news.
---Building 7
--NORAD blunders
--lack of evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it. In fact, much less evidence that Osama did it then THEY did it.
----I could write until morning, but all of that, plus that film, plus the fact that I know this is a government capable of decimating people, countries, and races without blinking an eye.
(The above is a perfect example of a "proof by verbosity)
Here are two sites to look over about the pentagon claims: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Whistleblowers
Note that none on that list had direct knowledge of a conspiracy on 9/11. The closest is Sibel Edmonds who claims to have read about the US military working with Taliban forces like the mujahedeen in the 1980's. This would be pretty big if true, but there is no evidence for this, and unlikely to have been in the hands of a Turkish translator. She could have just been remembering something else, or confused about what she was reading. After all it's been 9 years since she's worked there. The main point is that this has nothing to do with 9/11 or foreknowledge.
On Plane Site:
At first discovering the documentary is from 2004, and includes some of the older sillier claims left out in the more recent truth documentaries, I didn't see a point in debunking it frame by frame. This has been done for the more recent films. But since this is a movie you're familiar with, and since I accepted the challenge, I'll do a point-by-point analysis. Since the film focuses a lot on the Pentagon theories, I will give a quick summary of the evidence for Flight 77 crashing there.
-Light Pole and generator damage is consistent with Flight 77's trajectory
-Engine, FDR, black box among other plane parts were recovered. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
-100+ eyewitnesses who saw the plane
-Radar evidence
-Subsequent analysis by Purdue University and dozens of structural engineers, independent investigators and forensic experts.
-Testimony from first responders who handled passenger remains
-Forensic experts positively identified the passengers DNA, and personal effects were recovered and sent back to the families.
-Airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers tell us that the planes were hijacked
-Damage to the pentagon is consistent with plane crash. When light aluminum crashes into a reinforced concrete wall, you wouldn't expect much to survive. The plane is not going to make a cartoon cutout into the building. Check out what happens to a F-4 phantom when it hits a reinforced wall at 500 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Here is a video simulation of the plane's trajectory, and outlines the areas of the Pentagon that were damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol
How could you say, with a straight face (lol) that the damage to the pentagon was consistent with that of a 767??? How?? Where's the tail, the wings, the two engines, 8feet in diametr??? Where are they? Why was a wooden desk left unsinged on the second floor, yet an entire plane vaporized?? It's insane for you to argue this, Dave. It looks very poor.
I don't know what to do if you can look at this picture. THIS PICTURE. Not the ones you carved out. This link, the video at 0:03, pause it look point blank at that hole moments after a supposed plane crashed into it and tell me that a 767 hit it. Did you even look at the cartoon you showed me? You are telling me that your cartoon, which is surrounded on youtube by cartoons showing it to be impossible, is more substantial than this actual photograph taken on the scene??
That crazy, and I GUARANTEE that if we got 10 random people and showed them one of my real life pictures versus one of your real life pictures (frames, movies...whatever) and put one of my cartoons versus one of your cartoons. We would average aroun 9.5 in my favor by the end of the day. lol I mean that, We'll go shot for shot, I'll pick mine out of a hat, and you carefully grab the most disproportionate little gif animation flash cartoon you can. I'll take anyone of the camera angles. One is more obvious than the last.
By the way, your cartoon mentions the security camerA, what about the cameras lined up around the entire perimeter, plus the satelitte coverage. Are you telling me that the most secure building in the world, our nations PENTAGON, only had ONE camera????!!!!! The same number of cameras that the gas station across the street had. So, our surveillance is on par with an average citgo????
Actually, lets stay on that one for a while. lol Let's talk security cameras, Dave. One camera? As Bill OReilly would say, "What say you?" One camera? The Pentagon?? WSY??
Where's the gas station video? Why was it initially not released?? What were they covering up?? Why Cheney and Bush together before congress? Were they afraid Bush would say something wrong?? Why would there be anything wrong to say if they didn't do anything??
My response:
Here's an early photo of the crash site, before the fires were put out. Is this consistent with a missile?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/01749r.jpg
You keep asserting that planes can't vaporize upon impact of a reinforced wall, but I've provided you with a video of an F-4 phantom that shows this can happen. What gives?
You keep jumping around from claims about the towers to shanksville, let's stick with one for now. And I really want to hear what you think about the list of evidence i presented. Is it all fake? All the eyewitnesses and forensic investigators are in on it too? This is where CTs get to the point where they are unfalsifiable, and where I lose interest in them. By this logic you can make a CT about anything.
You do not have to be a pyschiatrist to know that to get angry like that is a certain sign of frustration, like a cheating spouse.
You see that during our entire talk I have not once resorted to so much as a mild insult. My "note" was very straightforward and very valid, yet these political science majors could only muster up that I am a jerk off? That is embarrassing, Dave. You HAVE NOT given good answers to any of them. The photos dont add up. You cant tell me why there is no surveillance at the pentagon. You cant tell me why they refused to be alone or under oath before the commission....
oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later.
and I forgot to say that you were only ten years old when this happened. lol Just kidding. Why is it that I can carry on this discussion without a drop of animosity or hostility toward you or anyone accross the aisle from me, yet your group instantly spews venom?? At least it is obvious who the NICER people are out of CT's and debunkists."
The reason why a lot of members are acting like that is because they can see you are obsessed with this stuff. If you were to ask one question at a time without coming off as closed-minded or sarcastic, they would actually respond. Most of the people I've talked to on CS really do know their stuff. They just don't feel like debating people on it they believe will never change their beliefs. And I hate to say it but I understand why. Every answer I've given you, is according to you, not good enough. This is not my problem. When I hear about the list of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there (plane debris, DNA, radar, eyewitnesses etc.) is no reasonable doubt that it crashed there. You apparently think this is either meaningless or fabricated evidence because we don't have a video. Since you keep asking about the video, I will give you the answer once again in a slightly different way. The cameras at the Pentagon would be pointed towards the ground, not up at the sky. Like I've said before, most of these cameras were not set up to record and had security guards stationed in rooms watching them 24/7. Other problems with capturing the plane on a security video camera, is the fact that they record at a frame rate too slow. The reason why they don't release a video is because the video you want doesn't exist. If you believe that the list of evidence I cited was all fabricated, why wouldn't the conspirators just fake a video too? Think about this for a while. I know you have not said this, but in order for you to be consistent in your assertion that Flight 77 didn't crash there, you would have to believe:
-Plane parts from a Boeing 737 were planted inside a burning building
-Hundreds of actors were hired to fill in as eyewitnesses for the plane
-Hundreds of forensic investigators who identified DNA from all of the passengers were paid off
-Structural engineers from esteemed universities published reports they knew to be false
-Radar technicians were paid off to claim that they tracked the plane
-Light poles and a generator were damaged in some way to make it look like a plane flew through that area. And this was done without anyone else noticing.
-All of this but the conspirators fail to come up with a faked video.
If you can believe all of that, our minds must be wired up differently.
Not only are your demands unreasonable but you move the goalposts. First you asked for a piece of debris that resembled coming from a plane. When I post dozens of pictures of plane parts and debris you then say "Where's a video?" The thing is this typically never ends. If I showed a video you'd probably say it was photoshopped or something. This is why people don't like debating CTs. Not because they're afraid of the truth or ignorant of CT claims. But because most of the time it's pointless. Here's a quote from Vincent Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination sums this up nicely.
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"
If you probe every little detail of any historical event, you'll end up with some unanswered questions or find some weird stuff. This does not mean everything is a conspiracy.
"Lastly, I have been very polite not to point out that in reality, you are still very young and inexperienced, and that every man, to a T, will say that he knew nothing at the age of 21, so please do not speak with a tone of "I used to be like you, but......" or suggest that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder. "
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am not trying to say you are inexperienced or dumb, I am saying that I believe you are making some mistakes in your logic and scholarship that I made in the past. I am aware of all of the claims you are making, and have a few years of research into the debunker's counter arguments. My conclusion: debunkers make far more compelling, logical arguments, and refer to actual evidence, not just some anomalies that laypeople find baffling.
"oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later. "
I did discuss this earlier in our conversation. If you want a technical report, there is the NIST report on building 7 which concluded the building resulted in a progressive collapse due to fire. Despite what a lot of CT sites claim, the fires were large and on at least 16 floors, making it one of the largest, if not the largest office fire in history.(based on area of the building) The building showed signs of weakening around 3 pm, and was deemed unstable by structural engineers who assessed it on site. If you read the firefighter testimony, it all corroborates NIST's hypothesis. If you want to argue that explosives or thermite were used, you need to provide some evidence. To say "I don't understand how the building collapsed, therefore it was x", you are making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't want to read NIST's conclusions or read any of the material on "debunkoid" sites, I did show you a video of another building that collapsed from fire. This should be sufficient to establish that building can be weakened by fire, and can in fact collapse.
"WHY DID HE REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH???? You also failed to answer that. because there IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!! Except to hide and pretend it didn't happen!"
I'm beginning to think you do not read my entire posts. I have addressed this already. This is speculation on my part, but couldn't it just be that Bush didn't know wtf was going on at the time, and that going under oath could result in perjury charges for something he might say out of ignorance or confusion? And like I pointed out before, if these conspirators were going to plan this all out, wouldn't they know that at some time they would have to testify? Why wouldn't they write out a script for Bush to memorize or something. There's another possibility I think even you would consider. Maybe there is something Bush knew beforehand about the attacks. Whether it was some small details or that he knew about everything. (LIHOP scenario) I personally doubt that is the case, but it is a far more believable scenario than Bush and his cronies orchestrated the whole thing.
I waon't hold my breath for an answer, however, all of the wack, looney, conspiracy theory sites are always more than willing to engage in a discussion and hurl evidence at you. (An abundance of unanswered questions does give a person the look of obsession I guess. lol
You can never really win over a true believer when it comes to debating the details of a conspiracy theory. The best you can do is to try and show where they went wrong with a particular claim and hope that they start to see on their own their bad thinking. When shown the evidence requested, Sean either moved the goal post or found some other way to discount the evidence, by implying it was faked, or by ignoring it entirely. The answers I gave make a lot of sense to me, and are backed by the evidence and expert opinion. If asked to ever do something like this again, I would decline. There are plenty of reasonable people out there who are sincere when they ask questions about 9/11 or JFK and those are the people I'd like to have a conversation with. When someone asks dozens of questions at a time or dismisses all counter arguments as rubbish without any explanation, they are simply concerned with "winning the debate." Plenty of young earth creationists win debates with scientists, but that doesn't make them right. Our best way of finding the truth is science, and if we throw out what the world's leading experts have to say, all we are left with is our own ignorance.
<div style="width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow: hidden"><!--[if !mso]> <! v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} --> <!--[endif] --><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} --> <!--[endif] -->
Over the past few weeks, I have had an email exchange with a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, amongst many others. Initially his concern was with some of the content or lack of on this website, but soon the conversation branched off into about a million other things including Bush bloodlines and the Rockefellers. I tried my best to address his claims about 9/11 conspiracy theories but in the end failed to convince him. The purpose of posting this exchange here and not in the hate mail section is to highlight all of the logical fallacies and the absurd reactions to conflicting evidence one encounters when debating a true believer in conspiracy theories. One may read on with a sociological lens, or like I expect many to do, read on for entertainment. The article begins with my response of a "note" Sean wrote about the CS website. It may be hard to follow at first, but the note itself really goes all over the place with that familiar "just asking questions" style. It then continues to follow the email exchanges, some of which will be in their entirety. The text in green are his words. Here is that exchange.
Dave: To start off I'd like to you to consider you the possibility that most of what you've read about 9/11 and the other conspiracy theories is false. I'm not telling you what sources to believe or how to think, but to just keep in mind that you are human just like me, are prone to many biases and are defensive about your own beliefs like anyone else. Admitting that you've been wrong and that much of what you currently believe is also wrong is one of the best things a true skeptic could admit. The trouble is not knowing which beliefs we hold are false. As for your post...
"My name is Sean. I was wondering why your conspiracy-busters site does not allow comments. Are you telling me that you "screen" your callers, so the speak (you know, the same technique that makes talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity look like geniuses)??"
I'm all for allowing constructive criticism. But most of the time I just hear a series of easily answerable questions and arguments from personal incredulity. Edward's "Hatemail" section provides one with dozens examples of such responses. There is the CS facebook group and a forum to discuss corrections. If you are logged in, you can even leave comments below the articles. I'm willing to discuss any one point at a time, but typically I will be bombarded with a fallacious "proof by verbosity" argument. In young earth creationism debates, proponents will deliver a shotgun like approach to argumentation in which the skeptic will only be able to give meaningful answers to one or two of the claims, whereas the creationist makes 10. In the minds of the true believers, the claims that are not discussed or refuted are thought of as valid points. I will address many of the points you've raised, (not all of them...) and show why I find them to be invalid. None of the conspiracy theory claims I've looked into have held up to careful scrutiny. It's important to be skeptical of not just the government but of all sources. This includes internet documentaries and conspiracy websites.
"You may or may not be affiliated with a political party, but the agenda is obvious."
What is the agenda exactly? Like I mentioned before, I try to be as objective as I can but am limited in some ways because of things like confirmation bias etc. (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney )I look into each claim to see if they are accurate or make sense. Accepting the claims of zeitgeist or loose change at face value is no different than accepting the claims of the mainstream media or Oprah at face value. You would then be just picking and choosing things that fit in to your worldview. In order to better understand what happened, it would be wise to read up on both sides of the argument. The best I can do is to make sure my scholarship is sounds and that my logic is valid. From my experience very few conspiracy theorists have read the documents they cite as evidence for their theory, or have a grasp of the criticisms provided by skeptics, scientists and "debunkers".
"In other words, finally we have the ability to hear news outside of the three major networks; finally a film dares to ask questions that nobody dare ask before. However, instead of discussing it in an open forum, he writes a piece in which his only goal was OBVIOUSLY to convince people it is false, and does so with truly paper thin arguments....... without taking questions!!!!"
We have thousands of blogs from other independent scientists and researchers, podcasts, peer reviewed literature and media from dozens of other countries. There are tons of good sources out there, and not one should be treated as gospel.
"Oh, btw...we've been pretty lucky to have dodged another attack for a decade now! Surely you would think Al QUEDA would want to capitalize on the heels of such a major blow, right? Any fighter will tell you that when your opponent is wobbled, like an animal who smells the blood of its enemy, it is time to pounce."
I suggest you read Michael Scheuer's book on Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's goal was pretty much to draw us into Afghanistan to lead us to an eventual economic collapse. He also believed that they could defeat us in a similar fashion to the Russian and British armies. Before 9/11 there were three other attacks that aimed to draw us into Afghanistan. The two embassy bombings and the USS cole bombing.
You ask a lot of questions that have been answered, and have been available online for years. 9/11 myths.com and Mark Roberts' website (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ ) have a lot of great links for info on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The key is to actually read through these websites. You raised the point that you haven't seen any other plane crashes that looked like flight 93. Here is an example of one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/
Even without this example, you have to ask what other time has a plane crashed into soft soil around 500 mph?
"Then, please have him explain how the third WTC building fell, blocks away, half a day later, while buildings between them remained untouched. "
This isn't true. There are videos showing large chunks of debris hitting building seven. Building Six had a 4 story partial collapse, and several other buildings were so damaged they had to be taken down afterwards.
Building 7:I will agree that on first look without any context, edited videos of the collapse of building seven looks like a CD. (Though it sounds nothing like one... ) But logical problems arise when you try to think of a motive for blowing up a building hardly anyone has heard of hours after being on fire. I have an article on CS about this very point. This doesn't bother most truthers as they will often say something like "who cares why they did it, they just did it!" The quickest way to understand the collapse of building seven is to look at another building that collapsed from fire.
"Also please show me a building that has ever collapsed in history, from something other than a detonation, that fell onto itself perfectly at free fall speed." *Correction: They didn't collapse at free fall speed!"
Ok.. how about the Delft University Building in Holland. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCAQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fview%3Fi%3Dff1_1210707903&ei=vajsTeqBFKji0QH_stmYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGwNKZ9-dw4Cl1GxDT75Le_AJukTQ
They look quite similar. While it is not 47 stories like Building 7, it's 13 stories and collapsed from fire alone. You also have to ask yourself "what would a building collapse look like?" Some have suggested the building should have fallen over like a tree, but this is a scientific question. This is a scientific question that has an answer. The answer is that the path of least resistance is straight down. In France, there is a demolition technique called Verinage. Check out some of the videos on youtube. The collapses are initiated by a "crushdown" effect similar to the collapse of the towers.
"First of all, there would be resistance at EVERY floor. That means it would have been momentarily stopped 120 times, especially early in the collapse. "
There is going to be some resistance, but the floors were not designed to hold weights in excess of 3 times the static weight. When you have several floors collapsing, the force increases by several times due to gravity. In the case of the towers, the weight coming down was about 30 times the static weight. For example, when you place a 15 pound weight on your foot, you won't feel any pain. But when you drop it from twelve feet, you foot is pretty much destroyed. The best way to think of this is to imagine the collapse as 30 floors vs. 1 floor. After that floor collapses you have 31 floors vs. 1 floor etc. The bottom part of the structure is not just a hunk of steel, it's made of millions of small parts capable of failing due to excess weight. If a critical column or structural component of a building fails due to fire, you can get partial or total collapses. If you acknowledge this point there's nothing strange about the collapse. It was on fire for seven hours without firefighting and was seen with a large bulge around 3 pm by several structural engineers using transits. Also the fires started on multiple floors, unlike most office fires which would just start on one. The collapse was also a progressive one. The east penthouse collapsed first. Overall the collapse took around 16 seconds. NIST did an extensive state of the art investigation into the collapse of building 7. Have you read any of it?
"How about the perfectly diagonal cut through what remained as the stub of the infrastructure?"
This was done post collapse by a clean up crew. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
"Or did each side burn through to give way at the exact same moment, thus causing an uncanny symmetrical collapse?"
The collapse was not symmetrical. It actually fell across the street damaging a bank to the point where it was feared it too might collapse .http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm
"I would love to see somebody build a scale model of the scene and re-enact the alleged tragedy in a controlled environment, but for now I'll stick with common sense."
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would they have to build a physical model of the structure and fly a plane into it when you can do computer models? These have been done and show that everything is consistent with the videos. This includes a computer simulation created by an engineer who was skeptical of the collapse initiation hypothesis offered by NIST. (But not a supporter of CD) http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/
"The list goes on and on, but please keep in mind that I have absolutely no motivation other than the truth."
I hope you really mean this. As for the "list" you speak of, I suggest reading my article which goes into the "long list effect." http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/2010/05/23/conspiracism-explained/ Once you realize nearly all of the claims are false, your position becomes untenable. It is this that is the difference between us. I reject all of your premises, and can tell you why. If you can show where I went wrong, by all means do.
"I'm getting tired, and I'm not sure Winston will read this because it doesn't agree with his beliefs"
This is pretty funny. I think Edward is aware of every claim you've made in this post. If you think you've come up with some new arguments, you must be living in the year 2004. Try googling "X debunked" or browsing the jref forums. This is all really old, and has been debunked ad nauseam.
"THIS WAS NOT SOME ROGUE ACT BY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!"
This I agree with. Again Michael Scheuer gives six reasons for why extremist groups hate us.
""An anti-U.S. defensive jihad was mandatory for six reasons:
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Prophet's homeland on the Arabian Peninsula
2. Washington's protection and support for tyrannical Muslim governments
3. Washington's unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China, and India
5. U.S. and Western exploitation of Muslim energy resources at below market prices
6. The U.S. military presence in the Muslim world outside the Arab Peninsula"
There are a lot of great books available that answer all of your questions and put them into context. If your interested I suggest reading "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" for starters. The challenge for you is to be willing to reject your current beliefs based upon new information and more reliable evidence. This is the rational thing to do. In my opinion, Conspiracy theories work in the exact opposite way. They rely upon the least reliable evidence (anomalies, quote-mining, junk science) and ignore what the vast majority of academia and what the consensus of relevant scientists has to say.
Excerpts
"I thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my post, but I am afraid your arguments are set out to debunk a film, rather than seek truth. "
If I weren't interested in the truth I wouldn't take the time to study this stuff. The point I cannot stress enough is that you are still convinced that a lot of these claims are correct. I hate to think of this as picking sides of a fence...
"A commission appointed BY BUSH himself, comprised of his political pals. The fact that these three have controlled American politics for over three decades. These are the things I am concerned with. Real life things, not a point-counter-point."
I think there is a big misconception about the 9/11 commission. They got their information from over 93 different agencies, almost half of were nongovernmental. There were thousands of experts and forensic scientists who studied the evidence extensively. The commission was not just Bush and his buddies making stuff up. There was four years of independent and governmental investigations that were brought together to form the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report. Just out of curiosity, have you read it?
"I told you that from 2001 to around 2006, I was a staunch Bush supporter. At one point, I told my mother that he will go down as the greatest president in history. I had to eat a lot of crow when i admitted that I was blind. "
I understand this. I think our political beliefs generally sway us into other belief systems. To say Bush was a bad president is one thing, to say he took part in the conspiracy of the century without any supporting evidence is another. I think Michael Shermer said it best. The best reason to doubt that Bush did 9/11 was that it worked. : )
"And regarding your claim that I've raised points that are innaccurate or false, again, my information comes from wikipedia, so if you believe that wikipedia delivers false information, that is a different argument."
There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as source, as long as its coming from the secondary or primary source. The wiki article itself could be inaccurate, but must of the time they're pretty good. The parts I thought were inaccurate I addressed, and those are not on wikipedia. Some points you made I agreed with such as the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the extremist groups do not hate us because of our freedom fries. And just to clarify I am not a very big supporter of our system of government, or the people who run it. If there was evidence for any of these grand conspiracies I would pick them up and run with them. And so would all of the big US critics such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
"Weell, certainly, you mean every floor. That's over a hundred floors! lol So, mathematically speaking, it COULD NOT fall at free fall speed."
None of the buildings did fall at free fall speed. Even the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have dropped that claim. Now their big anomaly is that Building 7 was in for free fall for 2.1 seconds. I don't think I was very clear about the crushdown effect. Did you see the verinage demolition videos? They work by pulling out structural members with cables, causing the upper portion of the building to crush the bottom half. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
"What about symmetrically? Do you not see this? You can not say, "there would be SOME resistance, BUT....." That's it. There would be resistance, hence adding time to the 10 second free fall, yet that was not the case. the building was detonated. Period."
They didn't collapse symmetrically. They all ended up hitting surrounding buildings, severely damaging them. Both the towers tilted before collapse. To see this very clearly, watch this video. It shows the perimeter columns bowing to the point of buckling. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/34/bMZ-nkYr46wYoure making a bald assertion there when you say the buildings were detonated period. There is no evidence of loud explosions on any audio or video or seismographs, no cases of deafening or blast lung which we would expect, no fatalities from flying glass, and no evidence of detonation cords or bombs in the rubble. If there were bombs in the trade center buildings people would have been able to hear them from about a mile and a half away. Here is what a demolition sounds like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related
You don't have to take my word for it but I've looked at both sides of the argument and have concluded the CT claims are pretty much all wrong. There was no conscious effort to try to believe the official story. And I'm pretty well read on the conspiracy theory literature. I just honesty don't find any of it compelling. That isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies out there. (There are!) I came to my position after carefully evaluating both the quality and context of the long list of conspiracy claims, which took a while. I highly recommend reading through the debunking sites I posted, and to check out some of the videos when you get the chance. There's a lot to learn and "unlearn" so by all means take your time. I used to believe in some of this stuff too, so I understand where you're coming from. But in all seriousness it's important to read up on both sides of any debate, if your looking for truth. While it may be painful to spend hours reading material you may not agree with, it's important, and gives you a better understanding for how thinking can go wrong.
"So, you will continue using the word "Conspiracy Theorist," a blatant tactic of propagandist throughout history."
I don't think this is always a pejorative term. It's taken to be offensive to people who believe some of the more plausible conspiracy theories because they are lumped in with the nutty ones. I agree it says nothing at all about a person's actual beliefs, but it's the same with the word "debunker." I usually switch between "true believers" and "Cts". I am simply referring to some one who believes in a conspiracy theory. A great definition of a conspiracy theory is given by Oxford philosopher Steve Clarke.
"A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society."
"They do dirt, questions are raised, the pretend they are "investigating" it using their political buddies, slowly we forget about it, the book is closed, and anyone who doesn't buy it is called a Conspiracy Theorist or a Bush-Basher. Same playbook, Dave."
But the 9/11 commission was largely based on dozens of other investigations. Including books by investigative journalists, scientific reports and thousands of other investigators who have looked into the backgrounds of the hijackers, the collapse of the towers etc. I think you're point goes both ways. I can be called a sheep or a shill for accepting the "official story." It's not about accepting one view or the other, it's about understanding the difference between a strong and weak theory, and which one describes the theory at hand. But in order to criticize one side or the other, you need to understand what they actually believe.
This reminds me of a point you raised in a previous email.
"pointing me toward books is meaningless to me, because there are books that both conflict and support what I am saying. There are talented writers and spin-meisters for both sides. "
Are you saying it's too difficult to tell whether someone is being honest? All you have to do is check their sources, or see if their work is corroborated by other evidence or scholars.
9/11 CT advocate David Ray Griffin is a great example of someone who writes well, but when you fact check him, you realize he's either an incompetent researcher or a liar. For instance, he claims that there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests. What is his source? A "9/11 victims list" from CNN.com. Now around that time the Boston Globe had released the passenger manifests with all of the hijacker's names on them. How is it that Griffin has failed to acknowledge the Boston Globe article all of this time, while also ignoring criticism of his book pointing out that he was not referring to the source he claimed to have been?
"Nobody wants to believe such heinous things."
I actually disagree with this. There are a lot of people I have spoken to who believe 9/11 was an inside job, who really do want to believe it because they feel like they possess secret knowledge, and that everyone else is just sheeple. Like I said before I have no dog in this hunt, and have believed in some Cts before. A lot of what Noam Chomsky discusses in terms of government and military conspiracies, is far worse than 9/11 being an inside job. He said in an email chat with Kevin Barrett that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it wouldn't make it in the top 100 atrocities list. So I don't think this is a valid reason for why people debunk things in most cases. In most cases people debunk things because they don't think there's any validity to the claims they are debunking, and they explain why that it is so.
"I am very familiar with being blinded by your ideals, which in this country, in this age, are very much pre-determined by us and molded by propaganda at a level beyond expert. They mold our brains like play-doe."
I agree with this. John Loewen summarizes all of the myths and problems with the American history curriculum in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." Our history textbooks all portray the US as the good guys, omit a lot of the horrendous things we did (ex. our interactions with the Native American), generally tell the story from the perspective of a white christian male, and gets kids to memorize "facts" instead of building critical thinking skills. I think the lack of a course on critical thinking for the high school level is the biggest problem with our education system. We are also heavily influenced by the mainstream media like you said. If you haven't done so already you should watch Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's still on google video.
"Are you not suspicious of Dick, George, and Don?"
Well.. they're politicians. I'm skeptical of all politicians and what they say. That isn't to say that they lie about everything. We know Bush and his gang lied about the WMDs so it is not inconceivable that they lied about other things. The reason we know about this is because of the leaked manning memo.
But I think the Bush Administration was inarguably one of the most incompetent, so there is a heavy burden of proof to be met when one claims they managed to pull off a rather large scale conspiracy. If they couldn't just plant WMDs in Iraq, how could they manage to coerce thousands of people into orchestrating 9/11?
"And after holding three of the top positions of power in the world for the better part of four decades, do you honestly question the ability of these men to orchestrate 9-11?? Are you serious? Danny Ocean could pull that off, Dave. Those three men could rearrange the seasons if they wanted too, Dave. They could even make their kids president!"
I have to ask this again. If they could pull off 9/11, why not just plant WMDs in Iraq. That would involve far less people, and would much a million times less risky. Would benefit them greatly. Unless presented with some evidence, I find it really hard to believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I also find it hard to believe that any group would be dumb enough to take such risks. All it would take is to have one detonation cord discovered, or one of the demolition guys telling his girlfriend what he was doing.
I have yet to even hear a coherent narrative to how they would have even done it. There is an absence of evidence that would have to be there, you'd have thousands of people who would have to silenced for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we have a convergence of evidence that shows who the real perpetrators were and a coherent narrative to how they did it. I think the big problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they do not take into account the history of US and middle east relations. We can speculate all we want about what happened, but it won't get us to the truth. If one rejects what virtually all scientists and scholars agree on, and reject in wholesale everything the government says, you are just going to wind up chasing down rabbit holes. And this brings up another point.
If 9/11 was an inside job, we are left with two scenarios. Either they (US) did it and covered it up. Or they did it and left behind incriminating evidence. If A, then we can't really do anything about it, they got away with the perfect crime. If B, I'm all for exposing them. Bringing up past examples of suspicious behavior or even some valid points about political figures that I agree with is not going to say anything about what happened on 9/11. What you're doing is just asking questions. We're far past that stage, it's been 11 years. There are answers, they're just not as appealing as a bombs being planted by cia agents, voice morphing etc. The reality is we got caught with our pants down. And all it took was the purchase of nineteen plane tickets with months of prep work on how to take over the planes.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
I've been over the zeitgeist movies for a while now. Most of my articles are about specific claims and CTs, not about the zeitgeist movies. They are as inaccurate as they ever were and don't care too much about them. I would actually say it's closer to 90% of the info is inaccurate.
It seems like you misunderstand my position. I don't doubt that the government and military have carried out conspiracies in the past. Noam Chomsky is someone I believe exposes a lot of them, most worse than 9/11. (In terms of fatalities) For example, our support for the atrocities committed in East Timor during the 70's and onward.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm
I don't present Chomsky's take on East Timor as fact, but bring it up as a example of a conspiracy I find somewhat plausible, that is worse in scale than 9/11.
What I doubt is strictly the points I bring up in the Zeitgeist movies. (nearly all of them) This says nothing about my views about our foreign policy or government. It says nothing else about me in general. All I care about is what's true. And the best I can do at finding it, is making sure my scholarship is sound, and that my logic is valid. Looking at both sides of the debate, I've found that the books and articles which argue for a government conspiracy lack the kinds of scholarship you would expect, and are largely illogical. For instance, if we wanted to get into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, why not make the hijackers come from those countries? The choice of hijackers from Saudi Arabia makes no sense.
Sean's response in its entirety:
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works.
I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?
Are you telling me that the same handful of men owned the white house and all of its dealings, including the initiation of their own central bank, simply "stepped down" at some point?? When?? And is it not a coincidence that they are back in charge in the year 2000? Or do you deny that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family lines trace RIGHT BACK TO The Kights Templar, or to keep it less CT, 12th century England?
If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld)
I have to go and there's no sense continuing if you don't see the obvious.
I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world.
Dave's response
"OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works."
There is really no agenda, but I guess I understand your point on that quote. If you read my full response, you would see I addressed those points later on. My analyses of the Zeitgeist films and 9/11 Cts are of just that. I have never written an article about George Bush, Big Oil or anything about the evil bloodlines. By default, you assume I reject all of it because I take fault with what I've written about. Why is that? I have yet to make any assumptions about you, and have not even referred to you as a CT. And BTW I explained why I use the abbreviation CT, and that I do not define it as "crazy person." It shouldn't be such a big deal. If you take it as an ad hominem attack, ignore it and deal with the other points I make.
"I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?"
Again, you are just asking questions. You contacted me to ask about how you can add corrections to the articles on CS, and now we are talking about bloodlines and george bush's past. Neither of which are covered on CS, and neither of which are relevant to the criticisms of other theories.
"If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld) "
This is pretty interesting if true, but I couldn't find a source for this.
"I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world."
Ok so we are done talking about the material covered on CS?
Sean's post in it's entirety:
OK, Dave, I understand being young and pasionate about politics. You are much smarter than I who voted for Ross Perot at 21, and this is the first and last time I will mention your age, because it doesn't mean anything except, in MOST cases a person's politics at a young age is usually the opposite of what it ends up. Also, I mention that because part of the reason I'm doing this, besides looking for the truth, is because you can still change. I'd never crack an older person like my mother. lol (I try)
Ok, take your time, but one more thing. Let me put everything in perspective for you. This is not conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy. I'm am right down the middle, with NO partisan agenda whatsoever (especially since they dont exist), it just so happens that the conspiracy side has been going strong for about three years now, and I am at the point where the burden of proof is on the debunkers.
As I watched the film (again haha I cant get enough) with my brother-in law who, up to a few months ago was a hard-lined conservative who told me that I should be in a tin-foil hat when I mentioned these films, and who now invited me to watch a new film, simple looked at each other and laughed. It was funny, but maddening, hysterical, but disturbing; it was all of these things, but never did we think it was uncertain. This is a matter of fitting a square into a triangle....
So, anyway, do what you gotta do. This would be impressive. I'm not sure how we could score it, but let's see if it makes it out of the edit room first.
OH wait, your questions. I'm sorry. Whistle-blowers? I could probably gather about 20 if I had a second, but off the top of my head, umm, Wesley Clark....hey wait a minute, Dave. Why does this sound familiar? Dave, are you using talking points, Dave? I'm sorry, man, but I am being to see a white spy vs. black spy going on. I'm trying to be neutral and you are hitting me with talking points, or should I say hot button topics. lol
Come on, Dave....OK since the answer to that question is everywhere, I'll pick the first place I see and give you that list. I'm sure I knew many of them already.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961
and the strongest piece of evidence? How much time you got, buddy? (quick DaveChapelle) No, seriously, I don't want to ruin anything for you so I'll say numbers one through thirty (1-30) are on the film you are going to watch. Beyond that off the top of my head:
and in no particular order-
-the look on George Bush's face when they whispered in his ear that morning, a morning which he prayed would not happen, but like Jesus on that last night in Jerusalem, knew it would. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.....so, yeah, the close-up of him in high def.
-while we're on George W (poor kid) and that seven minutes in front of the kids....that seven minutes in front of the kids. Totally inexcusable. (Although, like I said, I almost feel bad for GW.)
-and I promise to leave him alone after I lump together the buckets full of misspeaking, fumble words, saying obviously rehearsed things, looking as nervous as a whore in church, as if he stood to get a beating for f---ing up. OK that's it for Little George, as Saddam Hussein called him, and rightfully called him. Is it odd for your dad's good to call you little ---------?
-- One more Bush thing. The fact that he insisted on taking questions from congress only with uncle don and not recorded and no hard questions....etc lol All of these concrete things glued together by the crystal clear body language of all involved, from Ari Fleesher to the head of FBI with the big cartoon face who got canned quickly, and of course, GW, who all but had a sign up saying My father made me do it! I just want my baseball team back. I can't wait for this eight years to be over. My dad's gonna set me up and.........lmao Dave, I wish that were more of a joke.
-Of course there is all the stuff I talked about with those three family crests and their power. That too, reads like a child's encyclopedia as to what is going on.
-Now, all of those things are heavy claims that I know to be true, but everyone has to find their way. However, more physical proof, that is there for all to see include
--The disappearing airlines at two crash sites. I have not see as much as a seat, or one of those rolse royce engines that are 8 feet in diameter.
-the pictures of the pentagon-----where do I start??
--the fact that the pentagon is one of the most secure building in the world, supposedly, with security camera lining the entire circumference, yet there is only ONE surveillance camera, and it just happens to have the wrong date, but forget that end piece, one camera, out of a hundred or more. There was ONE other tape, a gastation across the street but FBI officials were there immediately to confiscate it.
---Did I say pictures at the pentagon? and in Shanksville.
--Odd report made in cincinnati and put on their website that a plane had an emergency landing in cleveland due to a bombthreat, flight 93.
--hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, there on the scene or shortly after claiming the heard explosions going off down the building as they ran down. Hundres on the scene or shortly thereafter who claim that it definitely was not a commercial airliner.
---Every photo or video taken of the scene, either showing a mysterious shape under the belly of the plane, from all angles, and it's uncanny resemblence to an armed military plane. The flash of light obviously seen before the impact, from all angles,
--Oh sorry George---there was only one tape that had caught the first impact at all on video. It was a french film group doing some little thing on the NYC fire fighter coincidently, when it happened they got it. It wasn't seen until later, yet George Bush says clearly, in response to what he thought when he saw the footage, "I remember seeing that first plane hit and thought......"
--The 911 comission being a joke from the start. (believe me, I was there during the whole thing. It was a joke.)
--Bush=oil=Bin Laden=Saudis
--The owner of the building 7 stating that they made the decision to "pull" the building, meaning it was rigged with devices.
--The symetrical free fall collapse of the towers.
---Did I mention the pics of Shankesville and pentagon? Also the manuever that this pilot would have had to make being a poor to moderate flyer.
---The molten steel at the bottom of the scene that was omitted.
--The blatant suppression of news.
---Building 7
--NORAD blunders
--lack of evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it. In fact, much less evidence that Osama did it then THEY did it.
----I could write until morning, but all of that, plus that film, plus the fact that I know this is a government capable of decimating people, countries, and races without blinking an eye.
(The above is a perfect example of a "proof by verbosity)
My response
Here are two sites to look over about the pentagon claims: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Whistleblowers
Note that none on that list had direct knowledge of a conspiracy on 9/11. The closest is Sibel Edmonds who claims to have read about the US military working with Taliban forces like the mujahedeen in the 1980's. This would be pretty big if true, but there is no evidence for this, and unlikely to have been in the hands of a Turkish translator. She could have just been remembering something else, or confused about what she was reading. After all it's been 9 years since she's worked there. The main point is that this has nothing to do with 9/11 or foreknowledge.
On Plane Site:
At first discovering the documentary is from 2004, and includes some of the older sillier claims left out in the more recent truth documentaries, I didn't see a point in debunking it frame by frame. This has been done for the more recent films. But since this is a movie you're familiar with, and since I accepted the challenge, I'll do a point-by-point analysis. Since the film focuses a lot on the Pentagon theories, I will give a quick summary of the evidence for Flight 77 crashing there.
-Light Pole and generator damage is consistent with Flight 77's trajectory
-Engine, FDR, black box among other plane parts were recovered. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
-100+ eyewitnesses who saw the plane
-Radar evidence
-Subsequent analysis by Purdue University and dozens of structural engineers, independent investigators and forensic experts.
-Testimony from first responders who handled passenger remains
-Forensic experts positively identified the passengers DNA, and personal effects were recovered and sent back to the families.
-Airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers tell us that the planes were hijacked
-Damage to the pentagon is consistent with plane crash. When light aluminum crashes into a reinforced concrete wall, you wouldn't expect much to survive. The plane is not going to make a cartoon cutout into the building. Check out what happens to a F-4 phantom when it hits a reinforced wall at 500 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Here is a video simulation of the plane's trajectory, and outlines the areas of the Pentagon that were damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Sean's response in its entirety:
No. not at all. That's ludacris, Dave. I am afraid you are comfortable in your niche and won't change. I will not let you calmly lay these talking points out anymore. I think we should just move obn. You can continue preaching to your choir. No hard feelings.
I say that Dave because I feel myself getting all uptight and it's a worthless argument. You and your associates have "covered all the bases" , huh? I will not have you say that there's nothing there.
Where's the damage to the roof from the tail? If the tail fell off where was it? Where was the plane?? My God, Dave, did you see the wall?? Where was the plane??
Where was the plane in Pennsylvania?? Where, Dave? I do NOT see a plane or anything beklonging to a plane anywhere at the scene. What about the computer monitor on the third floor of the pentagon, untouched??
You are truly hypnotized of you are telling me that a passenger jet hit that building.
So, you refute ALL of that video footage. The flash from every angle, the bumped belly of the plane, the eyewitness reports of explosions....why did the owner silverstein admit that they "pulled" the building???
But the big one.....where's the plane??? Where are the planes?? Did they disappear?? Where is the plane that hit the pentagon, underground? Where was it in the first shiot when they arrived on the scene?? Where are all of the video surveillance footage?? The PENTAGON???!! One tape?? Why did they confiscate the gas station so quickly? Why did George W say he saw the first plane hit the building when NOBODY did?
is that the only picture of a plane???
Dave, listen to me Dave. Planes Don't Just Disappear!! They do not vaporize into thin air, Dave.
This is one of those things where it doesn't matter what the talking points are or what lone picture or explanation you turn to, because I saw it with my own eyes. No plane.
My response:
And so what, is the list of evidence I presented all faked?? You are making an argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe a plane crashed there because it did. Most of the plane was found inside the building, because that's where it crashed. What was left was a bunch of small pieces inside the building which I have presented. When you send a plane at 500+ mph into a reinforced concrete wall, this is what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
I know I gave you too much to digest there, and it's clear from your response that you're going into denial mode. I listed plenty of evidence that Flight 77 crashed there, the burden of proof is on you to say how you can make sense of the crash scene without a plane being involved. We don't need a video to know it crashed there, we have plenty of other physical evidence, corroboration from experts, and eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the building. To reject all of this out of hand would be irrational. The reason why we don't have a good video is because the plane was flying in too fast to capture on the shutter speed of security cameras, and because typically you face security cameras towards the ground, not up at the sky. There is not one shred of evidence for a missile or bomb, and not one eyewitness reported seeing a missile. You have nothing. And I already provided an instance of an open field plane crash that resembled Shanksville. The reason why you don't see large parts of the plane is because most was recovered after they dug it up. Some pieces were found 30 feet deep. I'm curious to hear what you think happened to Flight 93. If it was shot down by a missile, wouldn't you expect large pieces of plane scattered over large distances. What do you think the debris field in Shanksville was, if not a plane that crashed into the ground?
Sean's response:
hahaha. First of all, that is a computer re-enactment, the only shot was a lightpole that could've been in front of my house! But what's great is that they show this cartoon, then flash to a real life scene that shows NO PLANE!! Where is the plane?? I don't care about light poles. The plane!!
Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol
How could you say, with a straight face (lol) that the damage to the pentagon was consistent with that of a 767??? How?? Where's the tail, the wings, the two engines, 8feet in diametr??? Where are they? Why was a wooden desk left unsinged on the second floor, yet an entire plane vaporized?? It's insane for you to argue this, Dave. It looks very poor.
I don't know what to do if you can look at this picture. THIS PICTURE. Not the ones you carved out. This link, the video at 0:03, pause it look point blank at that hole moments after a supposed plane crashed into it and tell me that a 767 hit it. Did you even look at the cartoon you showed me? You are telling me that your cartoon, which is surrounded on youtube by cartoons showing it to be impossible, is more substantial than this actual photograph taken on the scene??
That crazy, and I GUARANTEE that if we got 10 random people and showed them one of my real life pictures versus one of your real life pictures (frames, movies...whatever) and put one of my cartoons versus one of your cartoons. We would average aroun 9.5 in my favor by the end of the day. lol I mean that, We'll go shot for shot, I'll pick mine out of a hat, and you carefully grab the most disproportionate little gif animation flash cartoon you can. I'll take anyone of the camera angles. One is more obvious than the last.
By the way, your cartoon mentions the security camerA, what about the cameras lined up around the entire perimeter, plus the satelitte coverage. Are you telling me that the most secure building in the world, our nations PENTAGON, only had ONE camera????!!!!! The same number of cameras that the gas station across the street had. So, our surveillance is on par with an average citgo????
Actually, lets stay on that one for a while. lol Let's talk security cameras, Dave. One camera? As Bill OReilly would say, "What say you?" One camera? The Pentagon?? WSY??
Where's the gas station video? Why was it initially not released?? What were they covering up?? Why Cheney and Bush together before congress? Were they afraid Bush would say something wrong?? Why would there be anything wrong to say if they didn't do anything??
My response:
Here's an early photo of the crash site, before the fires were put out. Is this consistent with a missile?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/01749r.jpg
You keep asserting that planes can't vaporize upon impact of a reinforced wall, but I've provided you with a video of an F-4 phantom that shows this can happen. What gives?
You keep jumping around from claims about the towers to shanksville, let's stick with one for now. And I really want to hear what you think about the list of evidence i presented. Is it all fake? All the eyewitnesses and forensic investigators are in on it too? This is where CTs get to the point where they are unfalsifiable, and where I lose interest in them. By this logic you can make a CT about anything.
"Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? Lol"
Well there was no tests done on the molten metal flowing, so by default it was probably aluminum, brass or zinc. (among other metals) You are confused. Flight 77 did not partially vaporize due to heat, but due to the collision of a lightweight aluminum jet flying at the speed of a bullet into a reinforced concrete structure. Similar to the F4 phantom crash. It broke up into a bunch of small pieces, which can be seen littered on the lawn, and larger pieces penetrated the building and were later found inside. The passport and other personal effects were ejected from the plane upon impact. Other personal effects such as luggage, seats, letters, passengers' body parts were also found on the street at the time.
Excerpts:
"An F4 is hardly a 767. Why the Jamie McCintire lies. This is just going to go back and forth. So, I'll let you get back to the CT's on the web. I'm done. You dont want to believe so you will never believe. I'll leave you with two questions to ask yourself.
1. This is a lot of BS you have to dig through for something that is so innocent, ain't it? I mean, why not release ALL the tapes? Why not appoint a truly independabnt commission? Why not testify separate and under oath?? (THat is indefensible)"
But you said planes can't vaporize. And besides both are made of aluminum. You are now making an appeal to perfection logical fallacy. Take the time to read over what I said, and take into consideration that you could be duping yourself into believing all of this. It's called cognitive dissonance. You continue to ask a bunch of questions, I have provided good answers to a lot of them. Instead of just asserting that my answers aren't good enough or that they are "thin", you need to catch up and read the debunking sites. Your claim that I just don't want to believe in any of this fails for reasons I've already mentioned. I used to be a CT, I fell for it just like you are doing right now. The further you travel down these rabbit holes, the further you'll be from reality. I believe I have been very patient and respectful so far, but I am beginning to lose interest. You are smart enough to answer all of the questions you've raised, but fail to because you'd rather have all of the "secret knowledge" you've acquired, then to start from scratch and discover that the 9/11 commission report is accurate. I understand why this is and I hope you reconsider your views.
"Dave Dave your site, conspiracy science has shown itself to be a group of frauds, political science majors and politician groupies who, when faced with straightforward questions, resort to vile name-calling.
You do not have to be a pyschiatrist to know that to get angry like that is a certain sign of frustration, like a cheating spouse.
You see that during our entire talk I have not once resorted to so much as a mild insult. My "note" was very straightforward and very valid, yet these political science majors could only muster up that I am a jerk off? That is embarrassing, Dave. You HAVE NOT given good answers to any of them. The photos dont add up. You cant tell me why there is no surveillance at the pentagon. You cant tell me why they refused to be alone or under oath before the commission....
oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later.
and I forgot to say that you were only ten years old when this happened. lol Just kidding. Why is it that I can carry on this discussion without a drop of animosity or hostility toward you or anyone accross the aisle from me, yet your group instantly spews venom?? At least it is obvious who the NICER people are out of CT's and debunkists."
The reason why a lot of members are acting like that is because they can see you are obsessed with this stuff. If you were to ask one question at a time without coming off as closed-minded or sarcastic, they would actually respond. Most of the people I've talked to on CS really do know their stuff. They just don't feel like debating people on it they believe will never change their beliefs. And I hate to say it but I understand why. Every answer I've given you, is according to you, not good enough. This is not my problem. When I hear about the list of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there (plane debris, DNA, radar, eyewitnesses etc.) is no reasonable doubt that it crashed there. You apparently think this is either meaningless or fabricated evidence because we don't have a video. Since you keep asking about the video, I will give you the answer once again in a slightly different way. The cameras at the Pentagon would be pointed towards the ground, not up at the sky. Like I've said before, most of these cameras were not set up to record and had security guards stationed in rooms watching them 24/7. Other problems with capturing the plane on a security video camera, is the fact that they record at a frame rate too slow. The reason why they don't release a video is because the video you want doesn't exist. If you believe that the list of evidence I cited was all fabricated, why wouldn't the conspirators just fake a video too? Think about this for a while. I know you have not said this, but in order for you to be consistent in your assertion that Flight 77 didn't crash there, you would have to believe:
-Plane parts from a Boeing 737 were planted inside a burning building
-Hundreds of actors were hired to fill in as eyewitnesses for the plane
-Hundreds of forensic investigators who identified DNA from all of the passengers were paid off
-Structural engineers from esteemed universities published reports they knew to be false
-Radar technicians were paid off to claim that they tracked the plane
-Light poles and a generator were damaged in some way to make it look like a plane flew through that area. And this was done without anyone else noticing.
-All of this but the conspirators fail to come up with a faked video.
If you can believe all of that, our minds must be wired up differently.
Not only are your demands unreasonable but you move the goalposts. First you asked for a piece of debris that resembled coming from a plane. When I post dozens of pictures of plane parts and debris you then say "Where's a video?" The thing is this typically never ends. If I showed a video you'd probably say it was photoshopped or something. This is why people don't like debating CTs. Not because they're afraid of the truth or ignorant of CT claims. But because most of the time it's pointless. Here's a quote from Vincent Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination sums this up nicely.
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"
If you probe every little detail of any historical event, you'll end up with some unanswered questions or find some weird stuff. This does not mean everything is a conspiracy.
"Lastly, I have been very polite not to point out that in reality, you are still very young and inexperienced, and that every man, to a T, will say that he knew nothing at the age of 21, so please do not speak with a tone of "I used to be like you, but......" or suggest that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder. "
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am not trying to say you are inexperienced or dumb, I am saying that I believe you are making some mistakes in your logic and scholarship that I made in the past. I am aware of all of the claims you are making, and have a few years of research into the debunker's counter arguments. My conclusion: debunkers make far more compelling, logical arguments, and refer to actual evidence, not just some anomalies that laypeople find baffling.
"oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later. "
I did discuss this earlier in our conversation. If you want a technical report, there is the NIST report on building 7 which concluded the building resulted in a progressive collapse due to fire. Despite what a lot of CT sites claim, the fires were large and on at least 16 floors, making it one of the largest, if not the largest office fire in history.(based on area of the building) The building showed signs of weakening around 3 pm, and was deemed unstable by structural engineers who assessed it on site. If you read the firefighter testimony, it all corroborates NIST's hypothesis. If you want to argue that explosives or thermite were used, you need to provide some evidence. To say "I don't understand how the building collapsed, therefore it was x", you are making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't want to read NIST's conclusions or read any of the material on "debunkoid" sites, I did show you a video of another building that collapsed from fire. This should be sufficient to establish that building can be weakened by fire, and can in fact collapse.
"WHY DID HE REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH???? You also failed to answer that. because there IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!! Except to hide and pretend it didn't happen!"
I'm beginning to think you do not read my entire posts. I have addressed this already. This is speculation on my part, but couldn't it just be that Bush didn't know wtf was going on at the time, and that going under oath could result in perjury charges for something he might say out of ignorance or confusion? And like I pointed out before, if these conspirators were going to plan this all out, wouldn't they know that at some time they would have to testify? Why wouldn't they write out a script for Bush to memorize or something. There's another possibility I think even you would consider. Maybe there is something Bush knew beforehand about the attacks. Whether it was some small details or that he knew about everything. (LIHOP scenario) I personally doubt that is the case, but it is a far more believable scenario than Bush and his cronies orchestrated the whole thing.
Sean's response in its entirety:
"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed. But it's like marching for a cause or picketing a labor dispute, putting up a sign and chanting, but when someone asks why you are doing this, you walk away.
Because they see how obsessed I am?? What a lame excuse. When I champion a cause, I can't wait to be engaged, obsessed or not.
It is the same reason Bush would testify under oath or alone.
All you had to do was answer ONE of my questions, but you see the intelligent responses I recieved. You would think the Bush administration (or any) wouldn't leave their supporters high and dry, forced to answer CT's with a blurry picture of a cadillac bumper to support their story!
JUST remember one thing. YOU are the one with the website. They are the ones who came up with the boxcutter story, not me.
hahaha I must remember that. They couldn't answer my questions because they see how obsessed I am. That is hysterical. Since you're on such a roll, or should I say, spin, maybe now would be a good time to adress the insistance on being with uncle Dick and NOT under oath. Can you tell me why anyone in the world with nothing to hide would make that request?
I waon't hold my breath for an answer, however, all of the wack, looney, conspiracy theory sites are always more than willing to engage in a discussion and hurl evidence at you. (An abundance of unanswered questions does give a person the look of obsession I guess. lol
OH excuse me, I have a bad habit of answer you in sections when the first paragraph is that outrageous. Although, that excuse is as flimsy as the rest. I'm not even going to ask why he sat reading to children for seven minutes or why he stated that he saw the first building get hit when nobody did, or why he stuttered all over the place when confronted with the very oath question.
And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say.
OK, so far you are ducking and dodging, how about why there was only one camera securing our pentagon???
MY MESSAGES ARE GETTING MESSED UP, BUT IT DOESNT MATTER. I've seen enough. You have actually convinced me further. So, before I recieve a visit from a man in a black suit, I'm done.
AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't.
My final response in its entirety:
Here is the thing. There are roughly three groups of people who take part in debating conspiracy theories. There are the skeptics/debunkers, fencesitters and hardcore believers. At the start our our discussions I took it you were still on the fence, and still in the "asking questions" phase. I was wrong. You are clearly stuck on believing 9/11 was an inside job. I can only speculate for why this is. You have not given meaningful responses to any of the answers I've given you, most of which were ignored entirely. You've made bald assertions such as: "And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say." If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to actually identify the specific faults of my logic or point out some erroneous claims. You have not done this, and to my knowledge no one in the truth movement has. I find it extremely bizarre that you keep asking some of the same questions, even after I have given you multiple answers. I doubt that you missed them somehow, but if you did scroll up. If you don't think the answers are correct, be free to point out the errors. If you have some knee jerk reaction to what I am saying, I can't help you. Reason and evidence trumps emotion.
"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed."
I do consider writing for the site a hobby of mine, but I only occasionally write articles. I'm obsessed with correcting people when I hear them saying things I know to be false, but this should be true of everyone. You are clearly obsessed with the list of factoids you've heard from CT documentaries, and this is what the members of the CS group recognized. There is little to no point in debating a hardcore believer in such nonsense.
"AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't."
You are implying that when you keep asking why he didn't testify under oath. How are these two claims logically compatible with each other? Yeah I know the CTs aren't putting out any story. Maybe that's a sign that they don't have one. The real reason why they don't know what happened is because they are ignorant of the many great books out there that go over the history of muslim extremism, Bin Laden and the books that cover the attacks themselves and the aftermath. For instance, if you wanted to know what happened at the pentagon, there is a book entitled "Firefight" which contains interviews with dozens of first responders who talk about plane debris, passenger remains etc. It gives both a coherent and plausible narrative to the events that took place there. With the truth movement, we just have a series of questions. No evidence at all, no coherent narrative. Some make the argument that Flight 77 didn't crash at the pentagon because of little to no evidence, but at the same time maintain that it crashed somewhere else without any evidence! This is absurd.
"o summary: Debunkoids do NOT like questions. CT's love questions. Debunkoids protect their ideals. CT's seek truth. Hence, it just wont work."
This is just ridiculous. I won't get into some kind of pissing contest with you, but this is such a useless thing to say in a debate. I could just as easily assert the same thing about CTs. 'You preach from the gospel of internet factoids, and never give meaningful responses to where the debunkers go wrong.' See how easy it is? This is also an ad hominem attack. Although from reading through this exchange one could find dozens of examples that back up my assertion.
Since you have already said that you are even more convinced of your position, I see no point in continuing this conversation. If you want to hear what some other skeptics have to say, I have already given you some links that do just that. But the key ingredient to this is you have to actually sit down and read through a lot of it. I cannot stress this enough. Just glossing over the sites will not suffice. You need to comprehend the counterpoints, and then if you still find problems, point them out.
Conclusion:
You can never really win over a true believer when it comes to debating the details of a conspiracy theory. The best you can do is to try and show where they went wrong with a particular claim and hope that they start to see on their own their bad thinking. When shown the evidence requested, Sean either moved the goal post or found some other way to discount the evidence, by implying it was faked, or by ignoring it entirely. The answers I gave make a lot of sense to me, and are backed by the evidence and expert opinion. If asked to ever do something like this again, I would decline. There are plenty of reasonable people out there who are sincere when they ask questions about 9/11 or JFK and those are the people I'd like to have a conversation with. When someone asks dozens of questions at a time or dismisses all counter arguments as rubbish without any explanation, they are simply concerned with "winning the debate." Plenty of young earth creationists win debates with scientists, but that doesn't make them right. Our best way of finding the truth is science, and if we throw out what the world's leading experts have to say, all we are left with is our own ignorance.
<div style="width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow: hidden"><!--[if !mso]> <! v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} --> <!--[endif] --><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} --> <!--[endif] -->
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
uld answer all of your questions about the security cameras. Most of the cameras at the pentagon were not hooked up to record. They had live security guards on watch 24/7. It's important to know who's going into the pentagon, not who went into the pentagon. According to JREF poster BCR, "The State of Virginia was kind enough to provide me with invoices for when the VDOT exterior cameras were installed. Work began on them in late-2002 and on 9/11 there was no camera system to record anything. Fort Myers had several exterior cameras, but the footage was not retained. According to security officials, the FBI did review their footage shortly after the event, but did not find any footage useful (mostly gate cameras that pointed down at the roadway)."
A Glossary of Conspiracy Theorist Words and Phrases
Author: Muertos
Date: Jun 29, 2011 at 01:03
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
Given the fact that there are so many buzzwords and phrases out there used by conspiracy theorists ("CT'ers" for short; we use the term "CT" to refer to conspiracy theories themselves), we thought we would put together a handy little glossary so you can know what the hell they're talking about when they throw them around.
Note: this is not intended as a glossary of popular conspiracy theories, which is why you won't find items like "chemtrails" or "NWO" on the list. This is a glossary of terms used by conspiracy theorists.
Note: some of these terms, like ad hominem and cui buono, have legitimate meanings in the real world which are different than the way CT'ers use them. Terms like this are identified with CT'er meaning and real meaning.
Ad Hominem: Latin term. Real meaning: an argumentative tactic that diverts attention from the substance of an argument by conducting an irrelevant attack on the arguer. Example of this usage: "Barack Obama believes in universal health care. You should not believe in universal health care because Barack Obama is African-American." CT'er meaning (1): any question upon the credibility of any purveyor of CT information. For example, Steven Jones [9/11 Truther] believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The validity of Jones's scientific processes is open to serious question. However, according to the CT'er usage of ad hominem, questioning Jones or his competence to opine on 9/11 at all is an impermissible ad hominem attack. CT'er meaning (2): a way to try to derail any argument with someone who doesn't believe CTs. Example of this usage: "You haven't debunked anything! You're just engaging in ad hominem attacks!"
Asleep: the condition of being brainwashed, duped, and lulled into a false consciousness by the "powers that be." Essentially, the condition of not believing in conspiracy theories. If you deny the validity of CTs, you are "asleep."
Awake: the opposite of "asleep." Essentially, the condition of believing in conspiracy theories and not believing (supposedly) any government or "mainstream media" source. CT'ers employ numerous variations on the "asleep"/"awake" concept, such as "I woke up," "You're asleep," "Why did you go back to sleep?", "When I was asleep I believed...", "We're trying to wake people up!", "A lot of people are waking up," etc., etc.
Banksters: term referring to financial institutions or wealthy investors who are believed by CT'ers to control the world. Usually, but not always, a (supposedly) race-neutral synonym for the anti-Semitic CT idea of "Jewish bankers."
Coincidence Theorist: mocking term for someone who doesn't believe in CTs, particularly someone who refuses to connect factually unconnected events under the rubric of a conspiracy theory. This term is usually deployed to validate spurious and incorrect estimates of mathematical probabilities as substitutes for facts. Example of this usage: Senator Paul Wellstone died in an accidental plane crash in 2002 just before a Congressional election. "You don't believe the Bush Administration rubbed out Wellstone? You must be a coincidence theorist, then!"
COINTELPRO: an acronym for an FBI project, CounterIntelligence Program. Real meaning: a program undertaken by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 to infiltrate domestic political organizations. The program has been defunct since 1971. CT'er meaning: a vast program of total government surveillance and infiltration which supposedly continues to this day (despite zero evidence that it is active), aimed especially at discrediting CT'ers and refuting CTs. This term is often heard in conjunction with the term "disinformation agent" (q.v.) or "shill," but a CT'er who deploys the term COINTELPRO is affirmatively accusing someone of being a government agent paid to criticize CTs.
Critical thinking: a form of epistemology. Real meaning: reasoned inquiry that evaluates evidence from a logical standpoint and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. CT'er meaning: justification for out-of-hand rejection of any evidence that contradicts CT's as being part of the "establishment" or promoted by the "powers that be." To CT'ers, "critical thinking" is a fig leaf for automatically disregarding any factual evidence that impugns or in any way questions conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "Of course peer-reviewed social science rejects Acharya S.'s conclusions that Christ never existed. They're afraid of pissing off religious people. Use critical thinking! You can see the scientific establishment is biased."
Cui Buono?: Latin for "who benefits?" Real meaning: an inquiry into who might stand to gain from a particular inquiry; not, however, a conclusion. CT'er meaning: a substitute for evidence of any kind. If anyone benefited in any way from something, "cui buono?" is absolute proof that they caused it. Example of this usage: "Acme Drug Company manufactures swine flu vaccine. 'Cui buono?' Because Acme Drug Company benefited financially from the swine flu outbreak, Acme Drug Company caused the swine flu outbreak."
Disinformation: any item of information that contradicts CTs. Most CT'ers cannot comprehend or understand why people would disagree with their conspiracy theories. Consequently, they conclude that anyone who disputes CTs must be paid to do so, or is deliberately spreading false information. Usually the claim is made that someone spreading "disinformation" works for the government or other supposed conspirators. Often shortened to disinfo.
Disinformation agent: someone who spreads "disinformation," meaning, someone who contradicts CT's regardless of motivation. CT'ers will often accuse "disinformation agents" as being part of COINTELPRO (q.v.) or "Project Vigilance" (a more recent government program to encourage pro-military bloggers during the Iraq War--a project which never got off the drawing board). Usually anyone who disputes CT's will be accused of being a "disinformation agent."
Do Your Own Research: a term used by lazy CT'ers who don't want to try to explain why they believe the silly things they believe. "Research," in this context, means looking at CT web sites and watching YouTube videos that promote CTs. It does not mean reading books or objectively evaluating evidence to determine whether a CT is true. Example of this usage: "Alex Jones can back up everything he says. Do your own research! Read InfoWars.com!"
End the Fed!: political slogan calling for the dissolution or overhaul of the Federal Reserve system. Not always associated with CTs, but CT'ers who believe in CTs to the effect that the Federal Reserve is a tool of conspirators (the Illuminati, NWO, etc.) will often use this slogan. Warning: this slogan does have cachet in legitimate (non-CT) circles and can refer to a political objective not dependent upon CT thinking.
Enjoy your ignorance: thought-terminating cliché intended by CT'ers to make non-CT'ers feel bad about not accepting CTs. This is a condescending phrase used to paint the non-CT'er as a gullible dupe who is "asleep" (q.v.) or "sheeple." Example of this usage: "I can't convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? Well, then, enjoy your ignorance. I know you can't handle the truth anyway!"
Enslaved: someone who does not believe in CTs or is unwilling to "resist" what CT'ers believe is totalitarian control by conspirators. This term is heard particularly in connection with Illuminati/NWO or other world domination CTs. It's doubly ironic because CT'ers are unable to distinguish features of true repressive governments or societies from the imagined oppression that they think is happening.
Equal Money System (EMS): utopian ideology promoted by Desteni conspiracy cult. Similar to "resource based economy" (q.v.) without the technological elements. Supposedly in an EMS, all the world's people will have a guaranteed standard of living equivalent to the way millionaires in the first world live now. Subject of an elaborate mythology within the Desteni belief system.
Even an X-year old can tell... / Even an X-grader knows...: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers to cloak spurious arguments in erroneous terms of general acceptance. When this term is used, whatever is asserted, 99.9% of the time, is completely false. Example of this usage: "Even a 6-year-old knows that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!" / "Even a 4th grader knows that something can't come down faster than free-fall speed!"
False Flag: military term. Real meaning: an attack deliberately and falsely ascribed to an enemy. Example: German attack on the Gleiwitz radio station in 1939, blamed on Poland. CT'er meaning: a massive operation by the U.S. (or Israeli) government or other conspirators which is intended as a pretext for some nefarious scheme that has not yet occurred. CT'ers believe that all wars, terrorist attacks or even accidents are "false flag" attacks. Example of this usage: "The guy who flew that plane into the IRS building [in February 2011]--that was a false flag, man!"
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win: quote erroneously attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but it does not appear he ever said or wrote it; it may actually derive from labor leader Nicholas Klein. Used by CT'ers to shrug off widespread ridicule and disbelief of their theories. Also often used by CT-related cults and ideology groups (such as Zeitgeist and Desteni) to predict that their ideology will ultimately achieve victory despite what appear to be long odds in persuading people that they're right.
Free-fall speed: physics concept erroneously used by believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories to "prove" that controlled demolition was used at the WTC towers. Supposedly the towers fell at "free-fall speed" (which is false), which is supposedly impossible without them being "pushed" (by secret explosives no one has ever seen). Debunked many years ago, but maintains acceptance in CT circles.
Hit piece: an article, blog, video or news story that is critical of conspiracy theories or particular CT'ers, and which CT'ers want to believe is a maliciously motivated attack without any merit. Usually, but not always, deployed to discredit a criticism of a particular person. Example of this usage: "That blog debunking the New World Order was nothing more than a hit piece on Alex Jones!"
I feel sorry for you: condescending phrase designed both to terminate thought and to place the CT'er in a position of moral superiority to one who does not believe in CTs and is therefore, in the CT'er's mind, not enlightened or is doomed to suffer a life of "enslavement" (q.v.) or being "asleep" (q.v.). Almost always used disingenuously. Example of this usage: "You're totally happy getting raped by the NWO every day of your life, aren't you? I feel sorry for you!"
Intellectual inhibition: phrase coined by Zeitgeist cult leader and CT'er Peter Joseph Merola, referring to those who do not believe in CTs. Supposedly a form of mental illness afflicting those who are not "awake" (q.v.) enough to accept CTs.
Just asking questions: false and disingenuous phrase used by CT'ers to explain what they are supposedly doing by asserting the truth of CTs. Usually used to cover up and obfuscate assertions that CTs are literal fact in favor of a more reasonable-seeming, supposedly agnostic position. Disingenuous because in reality CT'ers do not wish to ask any question whose answer involves refutation of CTs. Example of this usage: "Why did the towers come down at free-fall speed? Why did the BBC report the hijackers were still alive? I'm not a conspiracy theorist--I'm just asking questions!"
Leave the Matrix: term used to refer to "waking up" (see "awake," q.v.) or otherwise rejecting the supposedly false reality imposed by conspirators, government, mainstream media, etc. It connotes the common CT delusion that there is a hidden reality (conspiracies) behind what most people take to be reality. Derives from the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix which involves a literal depiction of this type of scenario. Example of this usage: "If you really want to leave the Matrix, you should start listening to Alex Jones."
Lemmings: synonym of "sheeple" (q.v.), meant to connote blind obedience and group-think. Evokes the erroneous view that lemmings willingly commit mass suicide as the result of following the herd.
Lightworker: term used, particularly by CT'ers who believe in CTs involving evil extraterrestrials, to refer to someone who's working against evil conspirators for the benefit of mankind. Appears frequently in Desteni and NESARA CTs and sometimes Illuminati/NWO mythology. Example of this usage: "The reptoids control everything, but there are some lightworkers out there fighting against them."
Not The Movement: term used by members of the Zeitgeist Movement cult to divert attention away from embarrassing actions or statements by their own members. The phrase is usually deployed when a critic notes the association between the Zeitgeist Movement and CTs or CT'ers. Example of this usage: "The movies [the Zeitgeist films which promote conspiracy theories] aren't the movement." "Peter Joseph [Merola, leader of the Zeitgeist cult] is not the movement." "9/11 Truth is not the movement." "Jared Lee Loughner is not the movement."
Official Story: the opposite of a CT. Almost universally, CT'ers believe that explanations for events that are accepted by the majority of society are false constructs transmitted by the government or other officially-dominated organs of information control, and that these "official stories" are false, where CTs are supposedly true. Usually, but not always, heard in conjunction with 9/11. Example of this usage: "You mean you actually believe the official story of 9/11?" Non-9/11 example: "The official story on JFK is that Oswald acted alone."
Powers That Be (PTB): conspirators. Evil governments (usually U.S., but sometimes Israel), corporations, media outlets, the Jews, reptoids (q.v.), the Illuminati, etc. Generic term for shadowy figures, who are sometimes left undefined, that supposedly control everything.
PsyOp: military term. Real meaning: psychological operation, a form of hostile action against an enemy usually involving tactics to scare or deliberately irritate them. "Death cards" used by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam are a real-life example of a psyop. CT'er meaning: any act of deception committed by any government or conspirator anywhere for any reason. Often is a synonym for, or goes hand-in-hand with, "false flag" (q.v.). Example of this usage: "9/11 was just a big PsyOp to justify invasive TSA searches and the Patriot Act!"
Reptoid, Reptilian: extraterrestrial being of reptilian origin, usually evil, and often possessing the ability to project an outward humanoid appearance. Key feature of the CT mythology of David Icke, also believed by many members of the Desteni conspiracy cult.
Resource Based Economy (RBE): utopian ideology promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement, formerly espoused by the Venus Project (before the messy April 2011 public divorce between Zeitgeist and Venus leaders). A socioeconomic system where unlimited resources are provided to the earth's population in a moneyless perfect allocation, usually said to be technological in origin (i.e., computers decide who gets what). Similar to Communism without the elements of class struggle and with computers/robots in the role of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Does not specifically refer to CT's, but believed in and promoted by many CT'ers as a result of Peter Joseph Merola's Zeitgeist conspiracy films.
Sheeple: singular or plural term for non-believers in CTs who supposedly do not believe in CTs as a result of "brainwashing" by conspiratorial powers. Derogatory contraction of "sheep" and "people." Example of this usage: "All the sheeple out there just believe whatever the government tells them!"
Shill: a person who argues against CTs and publicly maintains that CTs are false. Similar to, and sometimes synonymous with, "disinformation agent" (q.v.) except that "shill" does not always connote that the person arguing against CTs is being paid to do so or otherwise knowingly spreading falsehoods. Example of this usage: "Stop attacking Alex Jones! You're just a shill for the NWO!"
Straw man: argumentative fallacy. Real meaning: a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument which can be refuted with greater ease than the real argument. CT'er meaning: any piece of genuine evidence used to discredit conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "You say Hani Hanjour actually could fly a plane? That's a straw man! He almost flunked out of flight school..."
Troll: (1) Someone who criticizes CTs, especially on the Internet. (2) Term used specifically by adherents of the Zeitgeist Movement to refer to persons who publicly oppose the cult. Trolls are often the scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Zeitgeist Movement--essentially the Zeitgeist equivalent of Scientology's "suppressive persons."
Truther: someone who believes in CTs about the 9/11 attacks. Actual embrace of this term by Truthers themselves is waning; it was much more common in 2005-06 for CTs to self-identify as Truthers, but in recent years most of them reject the term. This term sparked the trend of identifying CT'ers by single-word terms ending in "-er" depending on the CT they believe in, such as "Birther" [one who believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States], "Deather" [one who believes Osama bin Laden is not dead], etc.
Truth seeker: conspiracy theorist. Derivative of "Truther" (q.v.) that is not specifically limited to belief in conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, but may, and usually does, encompass CTs going far beyond the subject of 9/11. Unlike "Truther," which CT'ers usually reject, "truth seeker" is not viewed by CT'ers as pejorative and many will self-identify with it.
The truth will set you free!: quote from the Bible, attributed to Christ (John 8:31). Platitude used by CT'ers to encourage belief in CT's, again relating to the idea that only CT's are real "truth" and anything that contradicts CT's is an artificial reality constructed by supposed conspirators. This phrase gained cachet when it was used by conspiracy filmmaker Nigel Turner in 1995 for a follow-up to his popular miniseries about the JFK assassination, The Men Who Killed Kennedy (which was roundly debunked many years ago).
USrael: deliberate pejorative conflation between "USA" and "Israel." Term used by anti-American and often anti-Semitic CT'ers to emphasize their belief that everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States government working in conjunction with, or for the benefit of, Israel.
Wake up, sheeple!: desperate plea by CT'ers designed to induce belief in conspiracy theories. A rallying cry of sorts; you'll often see it appended to brief statements of conspiracy thinking. Example of this usage: "They're putting RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine! Wake up, sheeple!"
What's best for all: supposed credo of South Africa-based conspiracy cult Desteni. A nebulous concept usually deployed to justify behavior in any given situation. Example of this usage: "Desteni is only working to implement what's best for all, so why do you oppose them?"
What's your solution to fix the world?: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers promoting a utopian ideology, especially the Zeitgeist Movement. This question is deployed as a tactic to divert attention away from CTs and CT-criticism, the reasoning (such as it is) being that if you can't come up with a plan to solve all the world's problems on the spot, then you might as well give the desired ideology (Zeitgeist, Resource Based Economy, Equal Money System, etc.) a try. Example of this usage: "You don't like the Zeitgeist Movement? Well, then, what's your solution to fix the world? If you have one, I'm all ears. If you don't, you must accept Zeitgeist, because all you're doing is tearing people down without offering anything positive."
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: quote by the character Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1926 story "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier." Used by CT'ers as a substitute for evidence and justification for jumping to conclusions prematurely. Example of this usage: "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore 9/11 had to be controlled demolition, man! When you have eliminated all which is impossible..."
You are being lied to: slogan used by CT'ers to attempt to "wake up" people (see "awake," q.v.) whom they believe are duped by an officially-dominated information structure. The passive voice deliberately eliminates the need to identify the supposed conspirators. Example of this usage: "Don't you know global warming is a hoax designed to justify carbon taxes? You are being lied to!"
You lose: thought-terminating cliché deployed by smug CT'ers in debates to hammer home their supposed superiority. Example of this usage: "You think Popular Mechanics debunked 9/11 theories? You lose! The editor of Popular Mechanics was related to Bush's cousin..."
More definitions may be added in the future by popular demand.
Given the fact that there are so many buzzwords and phrases out there used by conspiracy theorists ("CT'ers" for short; we use the term "CT" to refer to conspiracy theories themselves), we thought we would put together a handy little glossary so you can know what the hell they're talking about when they throw them around.
Note: this is not intended as a glossary of popular conspiracy theories, which is why you won't find items like "chemtrails" or "NWO" on the list. This is a glossary of terms used by conspiracy theorists.
Note: some of these terms, like ad hominem and cui buono, have legitimate meanings in the real world which are different than the way CT'ers use them. Terms like this are identified with CT'er meaning and real meaning.
Ad Hominem: Latin term. Real meaning: an argumentative tactic that diverts attention from the substance of an argument by conducting an irrelevant attack on the arguer. Example of this usage: "Barack Obama believes in universal health care. You should not believe in universal health care because Barack Obama is African-American." CT'er meaning (1): any question upon the credibility of any purveyor of CT information. For example, Steven Jones [9/11 Truther] believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The validity of Jones's scientific processes is open to serious question. However, according to the CT'er usage of ad hominem, questioning Jones or his competence to opine on 9/11 at all is an impermissible ad hominem attack. CT'er meaning (2): a way to try to derail any argument with someone who doesn't believe CTs. Example of this usage: "You haven't debunked anything! You're just engaging in ad hominem attacks!"
Asleep: the condition of being brainwashed, duped, and lulled into a false consciousness by the "powers that be." Essentially, the condition of not believing in conspiracy theories. If you deny the validity of CTs, you are "asleep."
Awake: the opposite of "asleep." Essentially, the condition of believing in conspiracy theories and not believing (supposedly) any government or "mainstream media" source. CT'ers employ numerous variations on the "asleep"/"awake" concept, such as "I woke up," "You're asleep," "Why did you go back to sleep?", "When I was asleep I believed...", "We're trying to wake people up!", "A lot of people are waking up," etc., etc.
Banksters: term referring to financial institutions or wealthy investors who are believed by CT'ers to control the world. Usually, but not always, a (supposedly) race-neutral synonym for the anti-Semitic CT idea of "Jewish bankers."
Coincidence Theorist: mocking term for someone who doesn't believe in CTs, particularly someone who refuses to connect factually unconnected events under the rubric of a conspiracy theory. This term is usually deployed to validate spurious and incorrect estimates of mathematical probabilities as substitutes for facts. Example of this usage: Senator Paul Wellstone died in an accidental plane crash in 2002 just before a Congressional election. "You don't believe the Bush Administration rubbed out Wellstone? You must be a coincidence theorist, then!"
COINTELPRO: an acronym for an FBI project, CounterIntelligence Program. Real meaning: a program undertaken by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 to infiltrate domestic political organizations. The program has been defunct since 1971. CT'er meaning: a vast program of total government surveillance and infiltration which supposedly continues to this day (despite zero evidence that it is active), aimed especially at discrediting CT'ers and refuting CTs. This term is often heard in conjunction with the term "disinformation agent" (q.v.) or "shill," but a CT'er who deploys the term COINTELPRO is affirmatively accusing someone of being a government agent paid to criticize CTs.
Critical thinking: a form of epistemology. Real meaning: reasoned inquiry that evaluates evidence from a logical standpoint and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. CT'er meaning: justification for out-of-hand rejection of any evidence that contradicts CT's as being part of the "establishment" or promoted by the "powers that be." To CT'ers, "critical thinking" is a fig leaf for automatically disregarding any factual evidence that impugns or in any way questions conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "Of course peer-reviewed social science rejects Acharya S.'s conclusions that Christ never existed. They're afraid of pissing off religious people. Use critical thinking! You can see the scientific establishment is biased."
Cui Buono?: Latin for "who benefits?" Real meaning: an inquiry into who might stand to gain from a particular inquiry; not, however, a conclusion. CT'er meaning: a substitute for evidence of any kind. If anyone benefited in any way from something, "cui buono?" is absolute proof that they caused it. Example of this usage: "Acme Drug Company manufactures swine flu vaccine. 'Cui buono?' Because Acme Drug Company benefited financially from the swine flu outbreak, Acme Drug Company caused the swine flu outbreak."
Disinformation: any item of information that contradicts CTs. Most CT'ers cannot comprehend or understand why people would disagree with their conspiracy theories. Consequently, they conclude that anyone who disputes CTs must be paid to do so, or is deliberately spreading false information. Usually the claim is made that someone spreading "disinformation" works for the government or other supposed conspirators. Often shortened to disinfo.
Disinformation agent: someone who spreads "disinformation," meaning, someone who contradicts CT's regardless of motivation. CT'ers will often accuse "disinformation agents" as being part of COINTELPRO (q.v.) or "Project Vigilance" (a more recent government program to encourage pro-military bloggers during the Iraq War--a project which never got off the drawing board). Usually anyone who disputes CT's will be accused of being a "disinformation agent."
Do Your Own Research: a term used by lazy CT'ers who don't want to try to explain why they believe the silly things they believe. "Research," in this context, means looking at CT web sites and watching YouTube videos that promote CTs. It does not mean reading books or objectively evaluating evidence to determine whether a CT is true. Example of this usage: "Alex Jones can back up everything he says. Do your own research! Read InfoWars.com!"
End the Fed!: political slogan calling for the dissolution or overhaul of the Federal Reserve system. Not always associated with CTs, but CT'ers who believe in CTs to the effect that the Federal Reserve is a tool of conspirators (the Illuminati, NWO, etc.) will often use this slogan. Warning: this slogan does have cachet in legitimate (non-CT) circles and can refer to a political objective not dependent upon CT thinking.
Enjoy your ignorance: thought-terminating cliché intended by CT'ers to make non-CT'ers feel bad about not accepting CTs. This is a condescending phrase used to paint the non-CT'er as a gullible dupe who is "asleep" (q.v.) or "sheeple." Example of this usage: "I can't convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? Well, then, enjoy your ignorance. I know you can't handle the truth anyway!"
Enslaved: someone who does not believe in CTs or is unwilling to "resist" what CT'ers believe is totalitarian control by conspirators. This term is heard particularly in connection with Illuminati/NWO or other world domination CTs. It's doubly ironic because CT'ers are unable to distinguish features of true repressive governments or societies from the imagined oppression that they think is happening.
Equal Money System (EMS): utopian ideology promoted by Desteni conspiracy cult. Similar to "resource based economy" (q.v.) without the technological elements. Supposedly in an EMS, all the world's people will have a guaranteed standard of living equivalent to the way millionaires in the first world live now. Subject of an elaborate mythology within the Desteni belief system.
Even an X-year old can tell... / Even an X-grader knows...: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers to cloak spurious arguments in erroneous terms of general acceptance. When this term is used, whatever is asserted, 99.9% of the time, is completely false. Example of this usage: "Even a 6-year-old knows that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!" / "Even a 4th grader knows that something can't come down faster than free-fall speed!"
False Flag: military term. Real meaning: an attack deliberately and falsely ascribed to an enemy. Example: German attack on the Gleiwitz radio station in 1939, blamed on Poland. CT'er meaning: a massive operation by the U.S. (or Israeli) government or other conspirators which is intended as a pretext for some nefarious scheme that has not yet occurred. CT'ers believe that all wars, terrorist attacks or even accidents are "false flag" attacks. Example of this usage: "The guy who flew that plane into the IRS building [in February 2011]--that was a false flag, man!"
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win: quote erroneously attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but it does not appear he ever said or wrote it; it may actually derive from labor leader Nicholas Klein. Used by CT'ers to shrug off widespread ridicule and disbelief of their theories. Also often used by CT-related cults and ideology groups (such as Zeitgeist and Desteni) to predict that their ideology will ultimately achieve victory despite what appear to be long odds in persuading people that they're right.
Free-fall speed: physics concept erroneously used by believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories to "prove" that controlled demolition was used at the WTC towers. Supposedly the towers fell at "free-fall speed" (which is false), which is supposedly impossible without them being "pushed" (by secret explosives no one has ever seen). Debunked many years ago, but maintains acceptance in CT circles.
Hit piece: an article, blog, video or news story that is critical of conspiracy theories or particular CT'ers, and which CT'ers want to believe is a maliciously motivated attack without any merit. Usually, but not always, deployed to discredit a criticism of a particular person. Example of this usage: "That blog debunking the New World Order was nothing more than a hit piece on Alex Jones!"
I feel sorry for you: condescending phrase designed both to terminate thought and to place the CT'er in a position of moral superiority to one who does not believe in CTs and is therefore, in the CT'er's mind, not enlightened or is doomed to suffer a life of "enslavement" (q.v.) or being "asleep" (q.v.). Almost always used disingenuously. Example of this usage: "You're totally happy getting raped by the NWO every day of your life, aren't you? I feel sorry for you!"
Intellectual inhibition: phrase coined by Zeitgeist cult leader and CT'er Peter Joseph Merola, referring to those who do not believe in CTs. Supposedly a form of mental illness afflicting those who are not "awake" (q.v.) enough to accept CTs.
Just asking questions: false and disingenuous phrase used by CT'ers to explain what they are supposedly doing by asserting the truth of CTs. Usually used to cover up and obfuscate assertions that CTs are literal fact in favor of a more reasonable-seeming, supposedly agnostic position. Disingenuous because in reality CT'ers do not wish to ask any question whose answer involves refutation of CTs. Example of this usage: "Why did the towers come down at free-fall speed? Why did the BBC report the hijackers were still alive? I'm not a conspiracy theorist--I'm just asking questions!"
Leave the Matrix: term used to refer to "waking up" (see "awake," q.v.) or otherwise rejecting the supposedly false reality imposed by conspirators, government, mainstream media, etc. It connotes the common CT delusion that there is a hidden reality (conspiracies) behind what most people take to be reality. Derives from the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix which involves a literal depiction of this type of scenario. Example of this usage: "If you really want to leave the Matrix, you should start listening to Alex Jones."
Lemmings: synonym of "sheeple" (q.v.), meant to connote blind obedience and group-think. Evokes the erroneous view that lemmings willingly commit mass suicide as the result of following the herd.
Lightworker: term used, particularly by CT'ers who believe in CTs involving evil extraterrestrials, to refer to someone who's working against evil conspirators for the benefit of mankind. Appears frequently in Desteni and NESARA CTs and sometimes Illuminati/NWO mythology. Example of this usage: "The reptoids control everything, but there are some lightworkers out there fighting against them."
Not The Movement: term used by members of the Zeitgeist Movement cult to divert attention away from embarrassing actions or statements by their own members. The phrase is usually deployed when a critic notes the association between the Zeitgeist Movement and CTs or CT'ers. Example of this usage: "The movies [the Zeitgeist films which promote conspiracy theories] aren't the movement." "Peter Joseph [Merola, leader of the Zeitgeist cult] is not the movement." "9/11 Truth is not the movement." "Jared Lee Loughner is not the movement."
Official Story: the opposite of a CT. Almost universally, CT'ers believe that explanations for events that are accepted by the majority of society are false constructs transmitted by the government or other officially-dominated organs of information control, and that these "official stories" are false, where CTs are supposedly true. Usually, but not always, heard in conjunction with 9/11. Example of this usage: "You mean you actually believe the official story of 9/11?" Non-9/11 example: "The official story on JFK is that Oswald acted alone."
Powers That Be (PTB): conspirators. Evil governments (usually U.S., but sometimes Israel), corporations, media outlets, the Jews, reptoids (q.v.), the Illuminati, etc. Generic term for shadowy figures, who are sometimes left undefined, that supposedly control everything.
PsyOp: military term. Real meaning: psychological operation, a form of hostile action against an enemy usually involving tactics to scare or deliberately irritate them. "Death cards" used by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam are a real-life example of a psyop. CT'er meaning: any act of deception committed by any government or conspirator anywhere for any reason. Often is a synonym for, or goes hand-in-hand with, "false flag" (q.v.). Example of this usage: "9/11 was just a big PsyOp to justify invasive TSA searches and the Patriot Act!"
Reptoid, Reptilian: extraterrestrial being of reptilian origin, usually evil, and often possessing the ability to project an outward humanoid appearance. Key feature of the CT mythology of David Icke, also believed by many members of the Desteni conspiracy cult.
Resource Based Economy (RBE): utopian ideology promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement, formerly espoused by the Venus Project (before the messy April 2011 public divorce between Zeitgeist and Venus leaders). A socioeconomic system where unlimited resources are provided to the earth's population in a moneyless perfect allocation, usually said to be technological in origin (i.e., computers decide who gets what). Similar to Communism without the elements of class struggle and with computers/robots in the role of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Does not specifically refer to CT's, but believed in and promoted by many CT'ers as a result of Peter Joseph Merola's Zeitgeist conspiracy films.
Sheeple: singular or plural term for non-believers in CTs who supposedly do not believe in CTs as a result of "brainwashing" by conspiratorial powers. Derogatory contraction of "sheep" and "people." Example of this usage: "All the sheeple out there just believe whatever the government tells them!"
Shill: a person who argues against CTs and publicly maintains that CTs are false. Similar to, and sometimes synonymous with, "disinformation agent" (q.v.) except that "shill" does not always connote that the person arguing against CTs is being paid to do so or otherwise knowingly spreading falsehoods. Example of this usage: "Stop attacking Alex Jones! You're just a shill for the NWO!"
Straw man: argumentative fallacy. Real meaning: a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument which can be refuted with greater ease than the real argument. CT'er meaning: any piece of genuine evidence used to discredit conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "You say Hani Hanjour actually could fly a plane? That's a straw man! He almost flunked out of flight school..."
Troll: (1) Someone who criticizes CTs, especially on the Internet. (2) Term used specifically by adherents of the Zeitgeist Movement to refer to persons who publicly oppose the cult. Trolls are often the scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Zeitgeist Movement--essentially the Zeitgeist equivalent of Scientology's "suppressive persons."
Truther: someone who believes in CTs about the 9/11 attacks. Actual embrace of this term by Truthers themselves is waning; it was much more common in 2005-06 for CTs to self-identify as Truthers, but in recent years most of them reject the term. This term sparked the trend of identifying CT'ers by single-word terms ending in "-er" depending on the CT they believe in, such as "Birther" [one who believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States], "Deather" [one who believes Osama bin Laden is not dead], etc.
Truth seeker: conspiracy theorist. Derivative of "Truther" (q.v.) that is not specifically limited to belief in conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, but may, and usually does, encompass CTs going far beyond the subject of 9/11. Unlike "Truther," which CT'ers usually reject, "truth seeker" is not viewed by CT'ers as pejorative and many will self-identify with it.
The truth will set you free!: quote from the Bible, attributed to Christ (John 8:31). Platitude used by CT'ers to encourage belief in CT's, again relating to the idea that only CT's are real "truth" and anything that contradicts CT's is an artificial reality constructed by supposed conspirators. This phrase gained cachet when it was used by conspiracy filmmaker Nigel Turner in 1995 for a follow-up to his popular miniseries about the JFK assassination, The Men Who Killed Kennedy (which was roundly debunked many years ago).
USrael: deliberate pejorative conflation between "USA" and "Israel." Term used by anti-American and often anti-Semitic CT'ers to emphasize their belief that everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States government working in conjunction with, or for the benefit of, Israel.
Wake up, sheeple!: desperate plea by CT'ers designed to induce belief in conspiracy theories. A rallying cry of sorts; you'll often see it appended to brief statements of conspiracy thinking. Example of this usage: "They're putting RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine! Wake up, sheeple!"
What's best for all: supposed credo of South Africa-based conspiracy cult Desteni. A nebulous concept usually deployed to justify behavior in any given situation. Example of this usage: "Desteni is only working to implement what's best for all, so why do you oppose them?"
What's your solution to fix the world?: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers promoting a utopian ideology, especially the Zeitgeist Movement. This question is deployed as a tactic to divert attention away from CTs and CT-criticism, the reasoning (such as it is) being that if you can't come up with a plan to solve all the world's problems on the spot, then you might as well give the desired ideology (Zeitgeist, Resource Based Economy, Equal Money System, etc.) a try. Example of this usage: "You don't like the Zeitgeist Movement? Well, then, what's your solution to fix the world? If you have one, I'm all ears. If you don't, you must accept Zeitgeist, because all you're doing is tearing people down without offering anything positive."
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: quote by the character Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1926 story "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier." Used by CT'ers as a substitute for evidence and justification for jumping to conclusions prematurely. Example of this usage: "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore 9/11 had to be controlled demolition, man! When you have eliminated all which is impossible..."
You are being lied to: slogan used by CT'ers to attempt to "wake up" people (see "awake," q.v.) whom they believe are duped by an officially-dominated information structure. The passive voice deliberately eliminates the need to identify the supposed conspirators. Example of this usage: "Don't you know global warming is a hoax designed to justify carbon taxes? You are being lied to!"
You lose: thought-terminating cliché deployed by smug CT'ers in debates to hammer home their supposed superiority. Example of this usage: "You think Popular Mechanics debunked 9/11 theories? You lose! The editor of Popular Mechanics was related to Bush's cousin..."
More definitions may be added in the future by popular demand.
The Looming Tower: Another Book Conspiracy Theorists Will Never Read.
Author: Muertos
Date: Jun 16, 2011 at 02:42
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
This blog was originally published here.
Just the other day I finished reading Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006). I've been meaning to read this book, for which Wright won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction, since it came out but my schedule (which is very heavy on reading) only just lightened up enough for me to get through it. The Looming Tower is an extremely impressive book, one which probably deserved to win the Pulitzer, and it's required reading for anyone with an interest in 9/11, terrorism, Al-Qaeda or the modern history of the Middle East in general. What is particularly interesting about this book, at least from my perspective, is what it can tell us about the ubiquitous and very hard-to-eradicate conspiracy theories that continue to linger on about September 11, now nearly ten years after its occurrence.
The Looming Tower is not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's only tangentially about 9/11 itself; the event, while the narrative climax of the book, is only briefly described in the second-to-last chapter. Its focus is on the origins and rise of Al-Qaeda as well as a semi-biography of its (thankfully) deceased leader, Osama bin Laden. However, what The Looming Tower does―without expressly setting out to―is demonstrate just how far removed from reality "9/11 Truth" theories really are. The Looming Tower is an exhaustive study of the background of the 9/11 event and what led up to it. This background is totally missing from conspiracy theorists' shallow views of the 9/11 attacks, but it is key to any rational person who wishes to understand why Osama and his group attacked us, what they hoped to accomplish, and―crucially―why the United States was caught blindsided on that fateful day.
Indeed, although it was not conceived as a piece to debunk the ridiculous conspiracy theories still pushed by 9/11 Twoofers (I call them that to emphasize that they believe in woo, or irrational and unsupportable things), The Looming Tower offers some excellent rejoinders to some of the Twoofers' most oft-repeated memes. I'll deal with a few in this blog.
1. "Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist!"
Twoofers see 9/11 as a comparatively simple event: a bunch of evil people, usually members of the Bush administration, Israeli intelligence services or "the Illuminati," decided to blow up the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and blame the attack on a terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. This simple narrative becomes much less complicated if the Twoofers can assert, as many do, that Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist and is a figment of the conspirators' imagination or some sort of propaganda stunt. Another especially ludicrous assertion is that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist because supposedly the words "al qaeda" mean "the toilet" in Arabic and no terrorist group would name itself after a toilet. I'm not kidding, some Twoofers actually make this claim. The Looming Tower shuts down this asinine supposition right off the bat.
Al-Qaeda very much exists, and its history is extremely complicated―reflecting a level of historical, political and religious complexity that Twoofers generally cannot perceive. Wright traces the development of the group from its intellectual and political roots in Islamist thought (note: Islamist is not synonymous with Islamic) and particularly the role of Egyptian political dissidents who, beginning in the 1940s, became increasingly unsatisfied with what they viewed as the corrupt secularism of a series of Egyptian governments, from King Farouk to General Nasser and eventually to Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Indeed Egypt, not Afghanistan, was the real cradle of Al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden was merely the last and most radical of a long line of Islamists who called for the unity of Islamic countries along strict religious lines and who ultimately came to blame the problems of the Middle East on external enemies―at first Israel but increasingly the United States. In tracing this progression Wright relies upon the written words of various Islamist figures themselves, interviews with people who knew them and contemporary news articles stretching back to the 1940s. It would be extremely difficult to fake these sources. It's especially interesting that very few of the sources Wright relies on were produced by the U.S. government, thus undermining one of the Twoofers' blanket assertions, that everything we supposedly know about Al-Qaeda is what the evil government has told us. Just browsing Wright's many pages of notes and his extensive bibliography shows that there aren't many government sources at all. Hmm, could it be because the existence and history of Al-Qaeda is well-documented independently of government say-so?
2. "Osama bin Laden is/was a CIA agent in the 1980s [or beyond.]"
This is one of the most common misconceptions about bin Laden, and it's not limited to conspiracy theorists―many people I know who clearly do not believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" still repeat the claim that Osama was a CIA agent as if it was true. It isn't. Not only does everything we know about bin Laden's philosophy, theology, personality and political orientation indicate that the last thing he would ever have done was work for an American intelligence agency, but in fact American intelligence had never even heard of bin Laden until years after the Afghan-Soviet War of the 1980s was over. Based on the history of bin Laden in the Afghan war presented in The Looming Tower, it is extremely difficult to make a case that he was ever any type of Western intelligence asset, much less a CIA stooge.
The myth that bin Laden worked for the CIA is born out of conflation and reduction from a few key facts. It is clearly true that the CIA and the U.S. government funded and armed the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a tottering Marxist client state. It is also clearly true that bin Laden and other Islamists, such as Al-Zawahiri, went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets alongside the mujahedin (the Afghan resistance). However, the mujahedin was not monolithic, and just because bin Laden was supposedly on "our side" doesn't mean the CIA funded him or knew anything about him. In fact The Looming Tower makes the case that bin Laden and his Arabic friends (Afghans are not Arabs) were small fries in the Afghan insurgency. They only took part in a few battles against the Soviets, one of which was a major defeat, and these foreign fighters cannot be credited with turning the tide of the war. The vast majority of rebel activity was directed and carried out by indigenous Afghan groups who were receiving Western aid that was funneled through Pakistan's ISI intelligence service. Bin Laden and his friends were much more of an annoyance to the mujahedin than a help. The idea that bin Laden would have been on the CIA payroll is utterly laughable.
Furthermore, what would bin Laden have stood to gain? In the 1980s Osama bin Laden was quite wealthy, one of many sons of Mohammed bin Laden, an engineer and contractor who literally built modern Saudi Arabia and was one of the Saudi royal family's closest friends. (Mohammen bin Laden, who died in the early 1960s, had nothing to do with terrorism or Islamist ideology). Osama brought his own money to Afghanistan and wanted to use it to fund jihad against the Soviets. He could buy his own guns from the Pakistanis, and wouldn't have needed to get them from the CIA. A supposed alliance between bin Laden and the CIA doesn't make sense from the CIA's standpoint either. By the time the war ended in 1989 bin Laden was barely thirty years old, didn't have a lot of followers, and carried no clout among the mujahedin. It is difficult to see what the CIA would have stood to gain by funding him. Since there isn't an iota of evidence to suggest a bin Laden-CIA cooperation anyway, it is very safe to conclude that there never was any cooperation.
Bin Laden was not a CIA agent―not in 1987, 1997 or 2001. The claim simply isn't true.
3. "There is very little evidence linking Al-Qaeda or Osama to 9/11."
In the strange world of 9/11 Twoofers, the projection of blame for 9/11 onto Al-Qaeda is random and arbitrary, as if the conspirators fingered an innocent (or nonexistent) group and then sold a shoddy, flimsy case to the public about bin Laden's guilt. Twoofers love to present "evidence" supposedly showing how flimsy this case is. This ass-backwards reasoning leads to inveterate clangers such as various "sacred lists" argumentslike, "9/11 isn't even on Bin Laden's wanted poster!" or "The hijackers don't appear on the flight manifests!" I've blogged before about how silly these arguments are. In The Looming Tower, Wright makes clear not only that there was never any other suspect for who carried out the 9/11 attacks, but that the attacks were themselves an unmistakable calling card of Al-Qaeda's philosophy, tactics, objectives and modus operandi.
Indeed, Al-Qaeda's history is a long progression leading directly to 9/11. Wright lays out the evolution of Al-Qaeda's reach and how they built successively on each one of their successes and failures, as well as the successes and failures of other terrorists. For example, Al-Qaeda's obsession with the World Trade Center can be seen in the February 1993 bombing, which used truck bombs in the basements and was plotted, not by bin Laden directly, but by fellow Islamists who traveled in the Al-Qaeda orbit. In the early 1990s Al-Qaeda began the tactic of using suicide missions; the direct targeting of civilians, the lack of political demands and no direct claims of responsibility also evolved in this period. Bin Laden and his allies learned from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and essentially replicated it in suicide-mission form in the 1996 Khobar Towers and the 1998 embassy blasts in Tanzania and Kenya. (Astonishingly, there are Twoofers out there who have never even heard of these prior terrorist attacks). The idea to use planes grew out of several attacks proposed, but not carried out, in the 1990s in the Philippines as well as the "Millennium Plot," where Al-Qaeda planned to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on the U.S. West Coast on December 31, 1999. Khaled Shiekh Mohammed, an Al-Qaeda terrorist now in U.S. custody, put all the pieces together for what became the 9/11 attacks and sold the idea to bin Laden. It's no secret that Mohammed planned the attacks. He admitted it to an Arabic TV network in 2002 of his own free will. At the time he admitted it, Mohammed was a free man--the interview was given before he was captured by U.S. forces, which means that his confession was not extracted by torture, as 9/11 Twoofers often like to claim. The fact that bin Laden himself clearly and unequivocally confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks merely rounds out what we already know: that Al-Qaeda did 9/11, beyond any shadow of doubt.
Furthermore, the analysis provided in The Looming Tower focuses on the uniqueness of Al-Qaeda and the singularity of its deadly vision. There was, quite simply, no other terrorist group in the entire world that could have carried out the 9/11 attacks. Suicide attacks have been used by Palestinian terrorists since the 1990s on a small scale, but before 9/11 no other terrorist group in the world had attempted to utilize suicide bombs on such a large scale--but Al-Qaeda had done so four times (the attacks mentioned in the above paragraph as well as the USS Cole attack in Yemen in October 2000). No other terrorist group in the world had sleeper agents inside the United States--but Al-Qaeda did, and one of them, Zacarias Moussaoui, was in jail in the U.S. at the time of the attacks. No other terrorist group in the world had tried to attack the World Trade Center--but Al-Qaeda and its allies did, in 1993. Most tellingly, no other terrorist group had agents training at U.S. flight schools in the summer of 2001--but Al-Qaeda did, and U.S. intelligence services were following up those leads (quite poorly) even before the attacks took place.
From the moment the 9/11 attacks occurred there simply were no credible suspects other than Al-Qaeda. The investigations that occurred within days after the attacks--not four years, as Twoofers claim when they throw stones at the 9/11 Commission Report, but within days--confirmed beyond all doubt the suspicions that everybody had at the moment the attacks took place. Some of these immediate investigations are detailed inThe Looming Tower. Wright describes an interview between an FBI investigator and a Yemeni terrorist named Abu Jandal, three days after the attacks, in which Jandal admitted Al-Qaeda was responsible. This confession was not brought out under torture either. The long road to 9/11 was so unmistakable that it took merely a few confirmations after the attacks to confirm responsibility.
Twoofers' claims that there is little evidence linking Al-Qaeda to 9/11 is a toxic mixture of willful blindness and outright falsehood. You can't come away from The Looming Tower with any other impression.
4. "The U.S. government knew about the attacks in advance but let them happen anyway."
Most Twoofers subscribe to a conspiracy theory we call MIHOP--Made It Happen On Purpose, meaning they believe the attacks were deliberately carried out by someone else and blamed on Al-Qaeda who was wholly innocent. A minority of Twoofers subscribe to LIHOP--Let It Happen On Purpose, which means that they concede Al-Qaeda did it, but that the U.S. government deliberately allowed it to happen. Sometimes conspiracy theorists who have been brutally refuted by the mountains of evidence linking Al-Qaeda to the attacks will retreat to a LIHOP position as a last resort, or they'll throw it as a sop to debunkers because they think (erroneously) that it sounds more reasonable. LIHOP is definitely a minority position and not the desired one in Twoofer orthodoxy, so I'm not sure belief in it is really very strong, but you do hear it from time to time.
The Looming Tower puts LIHOP theories to bed too. Wright's book is not just a history of Al-Qaeda, but it also chronicles the U.S. government's efforts to respond to the threats emerging in the late 1990s as bin Laden began to ramp up his activities. The picture that the reader gets is one of incompetence, bureaucratic infighting, and failure to think creatively. If the counterterrorism bodies of the U.S. government, especially the FBI and the CIA, had been functioning properly, we might have been able to prevent the 9/11 attacks, if we were lucky. They weren't functioning, and we weren't lucky. The Looming Tower explains how agencies used intelligence as bargaining chips or even weapons against one another and how the rigid structures of investigation and response prevented people from taking action to follow up leads that could conceivably have led to the plot being discovered. Not surprisingly, that the counterterrorism arm of the government was fatally broken in 2001 was exactly the same conclusion that the 9/11 Commission came to. You don't hear Twoofers talk very much about that conclusion.
The reason LIHOP doesn't work is because it presumes that these agencies functioned perfectly, or at least well enough to detect the 9/11 plot before it happened, and then that some authority from on high (who? President Bush? Condi Rice?) decreed that nothing would be done about it. If this was true, the evidence that Wright describes of bureaucratic infighting and inertia, the leads not followed, and the advice of far-seeing agents not being implemented would all have to be false. Either the FBI and the CIA really did ferret out the plot and were overruled, or somebody else (who?) figured it out without the FBI and the CIA knowing about it and communicated that knowledge to whoever made the decision to let it go forward. The evidence Wright presents are totally inconsistent with both of those scenarios.
After reading The Looming Tower, I'm not convinced, frankly, that we could have discovered the plot beforehand in the detail that would have been necessary to foil it. Al-Qaeda functions through personal loyalty, family and clan affiliations, and trust. If you're an infiltrator, you can't buy your way in, and even if you share their philosophy they won't trust you just on that alone. This is the difference between gathering intelligence on a terrorist group such as this and spying on an established government, the Mafia or some other organization where money or ideological conviction are the main requirements for membership.
To foil a terrorist attack you must know where and exactly when it will take place, how it's going to be done, and who's going to do it. Unless you have a mole inside the organization itself, it's very difficult to piece all of that information together from external sources. Clearly the U.S. government could have done a much better job of that, and it's remotely possible that they might have gained a clear enough picture to be able to take some steps to prevent the attacks. But I doubt it. The LIHOP scenario is simply not logical, and Wright's look at how counterterrorism really functioned in the days before 9/11 underscores that conclusion.
5. "We don't (or can't) know what really happened on 9/11."
Some Twoofers--often those who don't want to admit they're Twoofers--will try to take an agnostic position about 9/11, and claim that debating what happened is pointless because "we can't ever know." The Looming Tower demolishes this idiocy too. We can know, and we do. It's all there.
We know who planned the attack. We know who came up with the idea. We know the evolution of the planners' thinking and strategies. We know their religious backgrounds and their political motivation. We know how they got to be in the positions that they were. We know how they financed the attacks. We know how they recruited those who carried them out. We know when and where they entered the United States. We know how, when and where the hijackers who had flight training received it, how the training was paid for and what they planned to do. For each and every one of the participants in 9/11, from Osama bin Laden down to Hani Hanjour, we know the personal histories that brought them to the point of committing this terrible act. We know all of these things, and it's all out there in the public domain--this information was not, as Twoofers believe, disseminated to us by government sources. We're not taking somebody's word for it. It's all there in Wright's text, in his footnotes and most importantly in his sources.
Indeed--what relevant facts about 9/11 don't we know? Honestly I can't think of any.
The assertion that "we don't know what really happened" is a dishonest claim from someone who either hasn't investigated the facts of 9/11, or, more likely, by someone who has investigated them but doesn't like what he or she found, so they'd rather just wish it away by claiming it doesn't exist. This is how Twoofers think, but it's not how rational people operate in the real world.
Why The Looming Tower will not convince a single conspiracy theorist to abandon their beliefs.
The Looming Tower is not new. It was published five years ago. Lawrence Wright has gone on to other highly-acclaimed projects. This book is certainly not news. Why, then, did it fail to convince Twoofers that their beliefs about 9/11 being an "inside job" were nothing but paranoid delusions?
The answer is simple: the Twoofers didn't read it. Furthermore, they never will.
Conspiracy theorists are notoriously unwilling to do any real scholarly investigation into the subjects that they claim they're passionate about. If it's not on the Alex Jones show, in the movie Zeitgeist or (better yet) on YouTube, they don't want to have anything to do with it. They love spurious sources that can't be verified, which are mostly pseudoscientists and other conspiracy theorists. They hate academic researchers with a passion. Consequently, a book like The Looming Tower will never mean anything to them, even if it ever crosses their event horizon at all.
I've never heard of a single Twoofer who has read this book. My guess is that any Twoofers reading this article now will simply sneer and dismiss the book out of hand by saying something like, "Lawrence Wright is a disinfo agent" or "he's part of the mainstream media, so naturally he'd support the official story."
But actually read it? Actually engage with the sources to determine their veracity? Conduct some sort of logical analysis about what the book argues, whether it is plausible, and whether its argument is supported by the material Wright cites? That is asking far too much of your typical conspiracy theorist. No; it's easier to hunker down, bellow that anyone who disagrees with 9/11 conspiracy theories is a "shill" or a "sheeple," or a paid government agent, and simply pretend that the very professional, academic and scholarly analysis engaged in by a writer with Wright's credentials simply doesn't exist.
Herein lies the irony. Without even specifically addressing a single 9/11 conspiracy theory, The Looming Tower demonstrates that all of those theories lie completely beyond the realm of reality or possibility. Therefore, the Twoofers will never acknowledge it. It does not exist in their world. And it's likely to stay that way.
Thanks for reading.
This blog was originally published here.
Just the other day I finished reading Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006). I've been meaning to read this book, for which Wright won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction, since it came out but my schedule (which is very heavy on reading) only just lightened up enough for me to get through it. The Looming Tower is an extremely impressive book, one which probably deserved to win the Pulitzer, and it's required reading for anyone with an interest in 9/11, terrorism, Al-Qaeda or the modern history of the Middle East in general. What is particularly interesting about this book, at least from my perspective, is what it can tell us about the ubiquitous and very hard-to-eradicate conspiracy theories that continue to linger on about September 11, now nearly ten years after its occurrence.
The Looming Tower is not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's only tangentially about 9/11 itself; the event, while the narrative climax of the book, is only briefly described in the second-to-last chapter. Its focus is on the origins and rise of Al-Qaeda as well as a semi-biography of its (thankfully) deceased leader, Osama bin Laden. However, what The Looming Tower does―without expressly setting out to―is demonstrate just how far removed from reality "9/11 Truth" theories really are. The Looming Tower is an exhaustive study of the background of the 9/11 event and what led up to it. This background is totally missing from conspiracy theorists' shallow views of the 9/11 attacks, but it is key to any rational person who wishes to understand why Osama and his group attacked us, what they hoped to accomplish, and―crucially―why the United States was caught blindsided on that fateful day.
Indeed, although it was not conceived as a piece to debunk the ridiculous conspiracy theories still pushed by 9/11 Twoofers (I call them that to emphasize that they believe in woo, or irrational and unsupportable things), The Looming Tower offers some excellent rejoinders to some of the Twoofers' most oft-repeated memes. I'll deal with a few in this blog.
1. "Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist!"
Twoofers see 9/11 as a comparatively simple event: a bunch of evil people, usually members of the Bush administration, Israeli intelligence services or "the Illuminati," decided to blow up the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and blame the attack on a terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. This simple narrative becomes much less complicated if the Twoofers can assert, as many do, that Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist and is a figment of the conspirators' imagination or some sort of propaganda stunt. Another especially ludicrous assertion is that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist because supposedly the words "al qaeda" mean "the toilet" in Arabic and no terrorist group would name itself after a toilet. I'm not kidding, some Twoofers actually make this claim. The Looming Tower shuts down this asinine supposition right off the bat.
Al-Qaeda very much exists, and its history is extremely complicated―reflecting a level of historical, political and religious complexity that Twoofers generally cannot perceive. Wright traces the development of the group from its intellectual and political roots in Islamist thought (note: Islamist is not synonymous with Islamic) and particularly the role of Egyptian political dissidents who, beginning in the 1940s, became increasingly unsatisfied with what they viewed as the corrupt secularism of a series of Egyptian governments, from King Farouk to General Nasser and eventually to Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Indeed Egypt, not Afghanistan, was the real cradle of Al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden was merely the last and most radical of a long line of Islamists who called for the unity of Islamic countries along strict religious lines and who ultimately came to blame the problems of the Middle East on external enemies―at first Israel but increasingly the United States. In tracing this progression Wright relies upon the written words of various Islamist figures themselves, interviews with people who knew them and contemporary news articles stretching back to the 1940s. It would be extremely difficult to fake these sources. It's especially interesting that very few of the sources Wright relies on were produced by the U.S. government, thus undermining one of the Twoofers' blanket assertions, that everything we supposedly know about Al-Qaeda is what the evil government has told us. Just browsing Wright's many pages of notes and his extensive bibliography shows that there aren't many government sources at all. Hmm, could it be because the existence and history of Al-Qaeda is well-documented independently of government say-so?
2. "Osama bin Laden is/was a CIA agent in the 1980s [or beyond.]"
This is one of the most common misconceptions about bin Laden, and it's not limited to conspiracy theorists―many people I know who clearly do not believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" still repeat the claim that Osama was a CIA agent as if it was true. It isn't. Not only does everything we know about bin Laden's philosophy, theology, personality and political orientation indicate that the last thing he would ever have done was work for an American intelligence agency, but in fact American intelligence had never even heard of bin Laden until years after the Afghan-Soviet War of the 1980s was over. Based on the history of bin Laden in the Afghan war presented in The Looming Tower, it is extremely difficult to make a case that he was ever any type of Western intelligence asset, much less a CIA stooge.
The myth that bin Laden worked for the CIA is born out of conflation and reduction from a few key facts. It is clearly true that the CIA and the U.S. government funded and armed the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a tottering Marxist client state. It is also clearly true that bin Laden and other Islamists, such as Al-Zawahiri, went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets alongside the mujahedin (the Afghan resistance). However, the mujahedin was not monolithic, and just because bin Laden was supposedly on "our side" doesn't mean the CIA funded him or knew anything about him. In fact The Looming Tower makes the case that bin Laden and his Arabic friends (Afghans are not Arabs) were small fries in the Afghan insurgency. They only took part in a few battles against the Soviets, one of which was a major defeat, and these foreign fighters cannot be credited with turning the tide of the war. The vast majority of rebel activity was directed and carried out by indigenous Afghan groups who were receiving Western aid that was funneled through Pakistan's ISI intelligence service. Bin Laden and his friends were much more of an annoyance to the mujahedin than a help. The idea that bin Laden would have been on the CIA payroll is utterly laughable.
Furthermore, what would bin Laden have stood to gain? In the 1980s Osama bin Laden was quite wealthy, one of many sons of Mohammed bin Laden, an engineer and contractor who literally built modern Saudi Arabia and was one of the Saudi royal family's closest friends. (Mohammen bin Laden, who died in the early 1960s, had nothing to do with terrorism or Islamist ideology). Osama brought his own money to Afghanistan and wanted to use it to fund jihad against the Soviets. He could buy his own guns from the Pakistanis, and wouldn't have needed to get them from the CIA. A supposed alliance between bin Laden and the CIA doesn't make sense from the CIA's standpoint either. By the time the war ended in 1989 bin Laden was barely thirty years old, didn't have a lot of followers, and carried no clout among the mujahedin. It is difficult to see what the CIA would have stood to gain by funding him. Since there isn't an iota of evidence to suggest a bin Laden-CIA cooperation anyway, it is very safe to conclude that there never was any cooperation.
Bin Laden was not a CIA agent―not in 1987, 1997 or 2001. The claim simply isn't true.
3. "There is very little evidence linking Al-Qaeda or Osama to 9/11."
In the strange world of 9/11 Twoofers, the projection of blame for 9/11 onto Al-Qaeda is random and arbitrary, as if the conspirators fingered an innocent (or nonexistent) group and then sold a shoddy, flimsy case to the public about bin Laden's guilt. Twoofers love to present "evidence" supposedly showing how flimsy this case is. This ass-backwards reasoning leads to inveterate clangers such as various "sacred lists" argumentslike, "9/11 isn't even on Bin Laden's wanted poster!" or "The hijackers don't appear on the flight manifests!" I've blogged before about how silly these arguments are. In The Looming Tower, Wright makes clear not only that there was never any other suspect for who carried out the 9/11 attacks, but that the attacks were themselves an unmistakable calling card of Al-Qaeda's philosophy, tactics, objectives and modus operandi.
Indeed, Al-Qaeda's history is a long progression leading directly to 9/11. Wright lays out the evolution of Al-Qaeda's reach and how they built successively on each one of their successes and failures, as well as the successes and failures of other terrorists. For example, Al-Qaeda's obsession with the World Trade Center can be seen in the February 1993 bombing, which used truck bombs in the basements and was plotted, not by bin Laden directly, but by fellow Islamists who traveled in the Al-Qaeda orbit. In the early 1990s Al-Qaeda began the tactic of using suicide missions; the direct targeting of civilians, the lack of political demands and no direct claims of responsibility also evolved in this period. Bin Laden and his allies learned from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and essentially replicated it in suicide-mission form in the 1996 Khobar Towers and the 1998 embassy blasts in Tanzania and Kenya. (Astonishingly, there are Twoofers out there who have never even heard of these prior terrorist attacks). The idea to use planes grew out of several attacks proposed, but not carried out, in the 1990s in the Philippines as well as the "Millennium Plot," where Al-Qaeda planned to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on the U.S. West Coast on December 31, 1999. Khaled Shiekh Mohammed, an Al-Qaeda terrorist now in U.S. custody, put all the pieces together for what became the 9/11 attacks and sold the idea to bin Laden. It's no secret that Mohammed planned the attacks. He admitted it to an Arabic TV network in 2002 of his own free will. At the time he admitted it, Mohammed was a free man--the interview was given before he was captured by U.S. forces, which means that his confession was not extracted by torture, as 9/11 Twoofers often like to claim. The fact that bin Laden himself clearly and unequivocally confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks merely rounds out what we already know: that Al-Qaeda did 9/11, beyond any shadow of doubt.
Furthermore, the analysis provided in The Looming Tower focuses on the uniqueness of Al-Qaeda and the singularity of its deadly vision. There was, quite simply, no other terrorist group in the entire world that could have carried out the 9/11 attacks. Suicide attacks have been used by Palestinian terrorists since the 1990s on a small scale, but before 9/11 no other terrorist group in the world had attempted to utilize suicide bombs on such a large scale--but Al-Qaeda had done so four times (the attacks mentioned in the above paragraph as well as the USS Cole attack in Yemen in October 2000). No other terrorist group in the world had sleeper agents inside the United States--but Al-Qaeda did, and one of them, Zacarias Moussaoui, was in jail in the U.S. at the time of the attacks. No other terrorist group in the world had tried to attack the World Trade Center--but Al-Qaeda and its allies did, in 1993. Most tellingly, no other terrorist group had agents training at U.S. flight schools in the summer of 2001--but Al-Qaeda did, and U.S. intelligence services were following up those leads (quite poorly) even before the attacks took place.
From the moment the 9/11 attacks occurred there simply were no credible suspects other than Al-Qaeda. The investigations that occurred within days after the attacks--not four years, as Twoofers claim when they throw stones at the 9/11 Commission Report, but within days--confirmed beyond all doubt the suspicions that everybody had at the moment the attacks took place. Some of these immediate investigations are detailed inThe Looming Tower. Wright describes an interview between an FBI investigator and a Yemeni terrorist named Abu Jandal, three days after the attacks, in which Jandal admitted Al-Qaeda was responsible. This confession was not brought out under torture either. The long road to 9/11 was so unmistakable that it took merely a few confirmations after the attacks to confirm responsibility.
Twoofers' claims that there is little evidence linking Al-Qaeda to 9/11 is a toxic mixture of willful blindness and outright falsehood. You can't come away from The Looming Tower with any other impression.
4. "The U.S. government knew about the attacks in advance but let them happen anyway."
Most Twoofers subscribe to a conspiracy theory we call MIHOP--Made It Happen On Purpose, meaning they believe the attacks were deliberately carried out by someone else and blamed on Al-Qaeda who was wholly innocent. A minority of Twoofers subscribe to LIHOP--Let It Happen On Purpose, which means that they concede Al-Qaeda did it, but that the U.S. government deliberately allowed it to happen. Sometimes conspiracy theorists who have been brutally refuted by the mountains of evidence linking Al-Qaeda to the attacks will retreat to a LIHOP position as a last resort, or they'll throw it as a sop to debunkers because they think (erroneously) that it sounds more reasonable. LIHOP is definitely a minority position and not the desired one in Twoofer orthodoxy, so I'm not sure belief in it is really very strong, but you do hear it from time to time.
The Looming Tower puts LIHOP theories to bed too. Wright's book is not just a history of Al-Qaeda, but it also chronicles the U.S. government's efforts to respond to the threats emerging in the late 1990s as bin Laden began to ramp up his activities. The picture that the reader gets is one of incompetence, bureaucratic infighting, and failure to think creatively. If the counterterrorism bodies of the U.S. government, especially the FBI and the CIA, had been functioning properly, we might have been able to prevent the 9/11 attacks, if we were lucky. They weren't functioning, and we weren't lucky. The Looming Tower explains how agencies used intelligence as bargaining chips or even weapons against one another and how the rigid structures of investigation and response prevented people from taking action to follow up leads that could conceivably have led to the plot being discovered. Not surprisingly, that the counterterrorism arm of the government was fatally broken in 2001 was exactly the same conclusion that the 9/11 Commission came to. You don't hear Twoofers talk very much about that conclusion.
The reason LIHOP doesn't work is because it presumes that these agencies functioned perfectly, or at least well enough to detect the 9/11 plot before it happened, and then that some authority from on high (who? President Bush? Condi Rice?) decreed that nothing would be done about it. If this was true, the evidence that Wright describes of bureaucratic infighting and inertia, the leads not followed, and the advice of far-seeing agents not being implemented would all have to be false. Either the FBI and the CIA really did ferret out the plot and were overruled, or somebody else (who?) figured it out without the FBI and the CIA knowing about it and communicated that knowledge to whoever made the decision to let it go forward. The evidence Wright presents are totally inconsistent with both of those scenarios.
After reading The Looming Tower, I'm not convinced, frankly, that we could have discovered the plot beforehand in the detail that would have been necessary to foil it. Al-Qaeda functions through personal loyalty, family and clan affiliations, and trust. If you're an infiltrator, you can't buy your way in, and even if you share their philosophy they won't trust you just on that alone. This is the difference between gathering intelligence on a terrorist group such as this and spying on an established government, the Mafia or some other organization where money or ideological conviction are the main requirements for membership.
To foil a terrorist attack you must know where and exactly when it will take place, how it's going to be done, and who's going to do it. Unless you have a mole inside the organization itself, it's very difficult to piece all of that information together from external sources. Clearly the U.S. government could have done a much better job of that, and it's remotely possible that they might have gained a clear enough picture to be able to take some steps to prevent the attacks. But I doubt it. The LIHOP scenario is simply not logical, and Wright's look at how counterterrorism really functioned in the days before 9/11 underscores that conclusion.
5. "We don't (or can't) know what really happened on 9/11."
Some Twoofers--often those who don't want to admit they're Twoofers--will try to take an agnostic position about 9/11, and claim that debating what happened is pointless because "we can't ever know." The Looming Tower demolishes this idiocy too. We can know, and we do. It's all there.
We know who planned the attack. We know who came up with the idea. We know the evolution of the planners' thinking and strategies. We know their religious backgrounds and their political motivation. We know how they got to be in the positions that they were. We know how they financed the attacks. We know how they recruited those who carried them out. We know when and where they entered the United States. We know how, when and where the hijackers who had flight training received it, how the training was paid for and what they planned to do. For each and every one of the participants in 9/11, from Osama bin Laden down to Hani Hanjour, we know the personal histories that brought them to the point of committing this terrible act. We know all of these things, and it's all out there in the public domain--this information was not, as Twoofers believe, disseminated to us by government sources. We're not taking somebody's word for it. It's all there in Wright's text, in his footnotes and most importantly in his sources.
Indeed--what relevant facts about 9/11 don't we know? Honestly I can't think of any.
The assertion that "we don't know what really happened" is a dishonest claim from someone who either hasn't investigated the facts of 9/11, or, more likely, by someone who has investigated them but doesn't like what he or she found, so they'd rather just wish it away by claiming it doesn't exist. This is how Twoofers think, but it's not how rational people operate in the real world.
Why The Looming Tower will not convince a single conspiracy theorist to abandon their beliefs.
The Looming Tower is not new. It was published five years ago. Lawrence Wright has gone on to other highly-acclaimed projects. This book is certainly not news. Why, then, did it fail to convince Twoofers that their beliefs about 9/11 being an "inside job" were nothing but paranoid delusions?
The answer is simple: the Twoofers didn't read it. Furthermore, they never will.
Conspiracy theorists are notoriously unwilling to do any real scholarly investigation into the subjects that they claim they're passionate about. If it's not on the Alex Jones show, in the movie Zeitgeist or (better yet) on YouTube, they don't want to have anything to do with it. They love spurious sources that can't be verified, which are mostly pseudoscientists and other conspiracy theorists. They hate academic researchers with a passion. Consequently, a book like The Looming Tower will never mean anything to them, even if it ever crosses their event horizon at all.
I've never heard of a single Twoofer who has read this book. My guess is that any Twoofers reading this article now will simply sneer and dismiss the book out of hand by saying something like, "Lawrence Wright is a disinfo agent" or "he's part of the mainstream media, so naturally he'd support the official story."
But actually read it? Actually engage with the sources to determine their veracity? Conduct some sort of logical analysis about what the book argues, whether it is plausible, and whether its argument is supported by the material Wright cites? That is asking far too much of your typical conspiracy theorist. No; it's easier to hunker down, bellow that anyone who disagrees with 9/11 conspiracy theories is a "shill" or a "sheeple," or a paid government agent, and simply pretend that the very professional, academic and scholarly analysis engaged in by a writer with Wright's credentials simply doesn't exist.
Herein lies the irony. Without even specifically addressing a single 9/11 conspiracy theory, The Looming Tower demonstrates that all of those theories lie completely beyond the realm of reality or possibility. Therefore, the Twoofers will never acknowledge it. It does not exist in their world. And it's likely to stay that way.
Thanks for reading.
The Zeitgeist Movement: Where Does the Fraudulence Truly Lie?
Author: Theo J
Date: Dec 05, 2010 at 03:22
(Originally written April 12th, 2010)
My focus for this article is the followers of The Zeitgeist Movement and their leader (if you like), Peter Joseph. I used to be an avid conspiracy theorist, but while I am still sceptical of the major political parties, capitalism and the media etc. I don't hold that the arguments of the Zeitgeist films are accurate.
I am actually a supporter of the Venus Project and so it may seem strange to some that I am against its so-called 'activist arm'. The Zeitgeist Movement at its core is a conspiracy theory movement. The majority of followers believe the claims Peter Joseph makes. I want conspiracy theorists reading this to consider three relevant questions:
Question 1 (see Muerto's excellent article for more detail)
Peter Joseph claims that he gives no weight to 'credentialism' as people with credentials have merely gone through pre-approved processes, jumping through academic hoops. [1] I am trained in history and since most conspiracy theories are historically-based it is important to evaluate this assertion.
Peter Joseph isn't talking from an informed perspective and is, of course, speculating. He wrongly assumes that experts think inside the box, but as 'Muerto' has shown, there's actually little incentive for that. Personally, I can vouch for the fact that the higher you go up through the education system for history (and presumably other subjects) the more independent you become. In fact, it's actually hard to get into the higher mark boundaries at university level and onwards unless your work is original.
When Alex Jones pointed out that Peter Joseph made mistakes in the first part of 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' he replied 'I do my research as best as I can'. [2] But while he may denounce experts you'd think he would be able to at least know some basic historical techniques for research. I can only presume that Joseph doesn't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. He hasn't looked beyond some dubious secondary sources. If he did his research as well as possible he would have looked for the primary sources available. This is, in general, one of the biggest problems with conspiracy theories- its reliance on secondary sources. When sources are used at all that is.
He points out how great thinkers have excelled outside the 'establishment'. Yes, but those people challenged the establishment, they didn't dismiss it. Conspiracy theorists practically never show how scholars are wrong, just how they're 'right' (not that it's demonstrated with frequent referencing to sources...)
Question 2
The second question is an important one. So many conspiracy theorists are inflexible in the way they think and refuse to consider alternatives to their beliefs. This seems ridiculous since they call people who disagree with them sheep. These people I describe as 'sheep switching sides'. The fact that I investigated the claims for my self put me in a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists.
Indeed conspiracy theorists often have religious levels of conviction. It's dangerous to claim certainty on these kinds of issues, but since it is so fanatical in nature, it seems to reflect a psychological rather than a rational certainty. Maybe their beliefs reflect their psychological states?
Professor Chris French and Dr Patrick Leman's research [3] has found that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if:
a) You have low levels of trust.
b) You are alienated from society.
c) You are prone to assumption
Interestingly, I believed in the Zeitgeist films when I was depressed and the friend who recommended the film, who used to believe in David Icke's theories, told me that since he got a girlfriend, became more popular at school and so on- he stopped believing those ideas entirely.
Zeitgeist and Money
Peter Joseph has made out like debunkers are motivated purely by profit. [4] However, he is profiting from the sale of Zeitgeist DVDs and T-shirts. He claims that he has generously chosen to sell the DVDs for $5 instead of $20. However, in total that would probably mean making less money. He states: 'The DVD sales (and T-shirts I add parenthetically) are obviously a part of my income. I denote that that they're not for profit meaning that the money does go into other projects which it has'.
Based on what he says there, it's pretty clear it's for both profit and projects. How much for each is not clear. Those 'projects' by the way are basically just a few publicising ventures. It can't be that costly.
'Activism'
Joseph acknowledges that for things to keep going money is needed. Yet there is no mention or encouragement for people to donate money to charities, or links between certain charities and The Zeitgeist Movement. When you look at it objectively you see that the movement is actually about as 'activist' as a sloth- it's barely even encouraging activism. How much work has been done alongside charities who are actually committed to tackling the world's horrendous injustices? Hitherto, all the projects have been based on publicising the movement. Not one is aimed at directly solving a specific problem.
Conclusion
Few of the followers of The Zeitgeist Movement have been sceptics regarding what they've seen in the films. The movement is based on false pretences. I've always considered myself outside the political, educational systems etc. but the system you should also take on and challenge constantly is your belief system.
I really hope The Zeitgeist Movement get off their arses soon. I think things like preventable and unnecessary poverty and famine are tragic realities but Peter Joseph and most of his followers have simply furthered their identities and profits based on those injustices. Wearing a T-shirt isn't going to bring about seismic change.
If you want to really help then take action, help a charity out or a positive cause of your own. If you're too busy give some money to charity. As yet at least, The Zeitgeist Movement and most its followers have shown no such interest.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9IHJNB75E
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My9MMMcoF2g&feature=related
[3] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3082712932054125675# 34:11- 45:30
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9IHJNB75E
My focus for this article is the followers of The Zeitgeist Movement and their leader (if you like), Peter Joseph. I used to be an avid conspiracy theorist, but while I am still sceptical of the major political parties, capitalism and the media etc. I don't hold that the arguments of the Zeitgeist films are accurate.
I am actually a supporter of the Venus Project and so it may seem strange to some that I am against its so-called 'activist arm'. The Zeitgeist Movement at its core is a conspiracy theory movement. The majority of followers believe the claims Peter Joseph makes. I want conspiracy theorists reading this to consider three relevant questions:
- Why do no respected scholars or experts endorse the views of conspiracy theories?
- Why is it easy to find an abundance of debunking articles against conspiracy theories but virtually impossible to find any which debunk said articles?
- Why, as the case may be, are you so unprepared to challenge your beliefs?
Question 1 (see Muerto's excellent article for more detail)
Peter Joseph claims that he gives no weight to 'credentialism' as people with credentials have merely gone through pre-approved processes, jumping through academic hoops. [1] I am trained in history and since most conspiracy theories are historically-based it is important to evaluate this assertion.
Peter Joseph isn't talking from an informed perspective and is, of course, speculating. He wrongly assumes that experts think inside the box, but as 'Muerto' has shown, there's actually little incentive for that. Personally, I can vouch for the fact that the higher you go up through the education system for history (and presumably other subjects) the more independent you become. In fact, it's actually hard to get into the higher mark boundaries at university level and onwards unless your work is original.
When Alex Jones pointed out that Peter Joseph made mistakes in the first part of 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' he replied 'I do my research as best as I can'. [2] But while he may denounce experts you'd think he would be able to at least know some basic historical techniques for research. I can only presume that Joseph doesn't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. He hasn't looked beyond some dubious secondary sources. If he did his research as well as possible he would have looked for the primary sources available. This is, in general, one of the biggest problems with conspiracy theories- its reliance on secondary sources. When sources are used at all that is.
He points out how great thinkers have excelled outside the 'establishment'. Yes, but those people challenged the establishment, they didn't dismiss it. Conspiracy theorists practically never show how scholars are wrong, just how they're 'right' (not that it's demonstrated with frequent referencing to sources...)
Question 2
The second question is an important one. So many conspiracy theorists are inflexible in the way they think and refuse to consider alternatives to their beliefs. This seems ridiculous since they call people who disagree with them sheep. These people I describe as 'sheep switching sides'. The fact that I investigated the claims for my self put me in a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists.
Indeed conspiracy theorists often have religious levels of conviction. It's dangerous to claim certainty on these kinds of issues, but since it is so fanatical in nature, it seems to reflect a psychological rather than a rational certainty. Maybe their beliefs reflect their psychological states?
Professor Chris French and Dr Patrick Leman's research [3] has found that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if:
a) You have low levels of trust.
b) You are alienated from society.
c) You are prone to assumption
Interestingly, I believed in the Zeitgeist films when I was depressed and the friend who recommended the film, who used to believe in David Icke's theories, told me that since he got a girlfriend, became more popular at school and so on- he stopped believing those ideas entirely.
Zeitgeist and Money
Peter Joseph has made out like debunkers are motivated purely by profit. [4] However, he is profiting from the sale of Zeitgeist DVDs and T-shirts. He claims that he has generously chosen to sell the DVDs for $5 instead of $20. However, in total that would probably mean making less money. He states: 'The DVD sales (and T-shirts I add parenthetically) are obviously a part of my income. I denote that that they're not for profit meaning that the money does go into other projects which it has'.
Based on what he says there, it's pretty clear it's for both profit and projects. How much for each is not clear. Those 'projects' by the way are basically just a few publicising ventures. It can't be that costly.
'Activism'
Joseph acknowledges that for things to keep going money is needed. Yet there is no mention or encouragement for people to donate money to charities, or links between certain charities and The Zeitgeist Movement. When you look at it objectively you see that the movement is actually about as 'activist' as a sloth- it's barely even encouraging activism. How much work has been done alongside charities who are actually committed to tackling the world's horrendous injustices? Hitherto, all the projects have been based on publicising the movement. Not one is aimed at directly solving a specific problem.
Conclusion
Few of the followers of The Zeitgeist Movement have been sceptics regarding what they've seen in the films. The movement is based on false pretences. I've always considered myself outside the political, educational systems etc. but the system you should also take on and challenge constantly is your belief system.
I really hope The Zeitgeist Movement get off their arses soon. I think things like preventable and unnecessary poverty and famine are tragic realities but Peter Joseph and most of his followers have simply furthered their identities and profits based on those injustices. Wearing a T-shirt isn't going to bring about seismic change.
If you want to really help then take action, help a charity out or a positive cause of your own. If you're too busy give some money to charity. As yet at least, The Zeitgeist Movement and most its followers have shown no such interest.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9IHJNB75E
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My9MMMcoF2g&feature=related
[3] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3082712932054125675# 34:11- 45:30
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9IHJNB75E
Herding Cats: How And Why Conspiracy Theorists Are Wrong About Experts and Academicians
Author: Muertos
Date: Nov 13, 2010 at 03:04
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
Originally posted here.
It is a question that drives conspiracy theorists, and other traffickers in fringe beliefs, batty: "Why don't more experts and academicians agree with me?"
It's a fair question. If a conspiracy theorist or other fringe believer, who is typically not an academician him or herself, has been convinced of something nutty--that 9/11 was an inside job, that Christianity is a false construct, that aliens visited the earth in ancient times, that global warming is a hoax, that colloidal silver cures cancer, etc.--it is difficult to understand why experts in various fields aren't convinced by the same "evidence." Usually the answer in the conspiracy theorist's mind comes down to a dismissal of the value, independence, or honesty of experts and academicians: "They are all part of the Establishment. The truth I believe in fundamentally challenges the Establishment. Therefore, they're either unable to recognize that it's true, or afraid to endorse it."
This blog will explain why this position is incorrect, and even absurd. I will do so by utilizing three case studies of fringe believers who can't get any legitimate experts to sign on to their theories: Acharya S./D.M. Murdock, who claims that Christianity is a hoax; Erich von Däniken, who promotes the "ancient astronaut" theory; and Steven Jones, who maintains that the World Trade Center towers were blown up on 9/11 by "controlled demolition."
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">1. How Academia Really Works
First, the groundwork. Conspiracy theorists and fringe believers generally think that academia and the world of experts is a small, close-knit, elitist club where an "official" orthodoxy is rigidly enforced and extreme peer pressure maintains order. In this ivory tower that conspiracy theorists think academicians live in, the slightest deviation from the "official line" is a career-destroying move for any expert. He or she will be blacklisted, unable to publish, drummed out of faculty departments and brutally ridiculed by his or her former colleagues. In the world of conspiracy theorists and fringe believers, this orthodoxy holds fast even if the facts it is based on are demonstrably false--comparisons are often drawn to the geocentric view of astronomy that Copernicus challenged in the sixteenth century, or the (actually incorrect) assertion that "before Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat."
There's just one problem with this view. It simply isn't true.
I am formerly a lawyer, but I now work in academia. My colleagues and superiors are well-trained and respected historians. They have put in years of research and are well-versed in the methodology of history in everything from medieval Japan to U.S. nuclear policy in the 1960s. But getting them to agree on <em style="font-style: italic;">anything is impossible.
Academics have a reputation for being idiosyncratic and curmudgeonly. Sometimes that is true. Anyone who's ever attended a faculty meeting, though, knows immediately that trying to drive academicians in any particular direction is like trying to herd cats. You just can't do it. So the idea that there is some sort of rigid orthodoxy, especially one that's artificially imposed by a government or other "Establishment" actor, is simply laughable.
Furthermore, not only is the research of academicians <em style="font-style: italic;">not intended to reinforce any sort of "official line" on anything, but most of them actively<em style="font-style: italic;">seek to expand the boundaries of their field in new and previously undiscovered directions. After all, being the pioneer of a new line of study ensures academic immortality. Einstein is famous, and justly so, for being the first physicist to describe relativity. Everyone's heard of Maynard Keynes because he pioneered a new type of economics. Doing something new, different and revolutionary is every academician's dream. They constantly seek new avenues of inquiry in all fields from science to sociology. Closing yourself off to new ideas is the kiss of death for an academician.
But what is also the kiss of death--an even quicker and more final death--is to commit academic malpractice. Academicians are, after all, professionals in their field. They don't get there by ignoring the tenets on which their expertise is based. If those tenets turn out to be flawed, part of the academician's job is to question and reexamine them. But if the tenets are sound, ignoring them is, by definition, the mark of a bad expert.
Let's use two quick, simple examples. Suppose I break my arm and go see a medical doctor. How bones break, and how they heal, is clearly understood by medical science. It is not inconceivable that in the future medical science may develop some technology to re-grow broken bones faster or in a more efficient and healthful way. Perhaps, if I was lucky and willing to take a risk, my broken arm could be healed by such a revolutionary new method. But that method would rest upon, and be consistent with, what's already known about how bones break and how they heal. Whether the doctor puts my arm in a cast (the old-fashioned way) or grows me a new humerus with fancy stem cells (the revolutionary new way), my arm is still going to heal using the same biological processes as have been understood for a long time about how broken bones heal.
Now say, instead of going to a doctor for either an old-fashioned cast or a new-fangled cure, I see a doctor who promises that my bone will heal by doing nothing other than dabbling colloidal silver on it. Perhaps the doctor has some arcane theory as to how colloidal silver re-grows bones. Obviously my arm isn't going to heal. Equally obviously, the doctor who prescribes colloidal silver for a broken arm is a quack. Why? Because colloidal silver as a treatment for broken bones does not rest upon, and does not comport with, anything that medical science knows about healing bones. A doctor who prescribes colloidal silver, and nothing else, for broken bones isn't going to remain a doctor for long. He'll be drummed out of the profession quickly because--no matter how fervently he may believe his theory about colloidal silver--he's committing malpractice.
Think of it this way: if colloidal silver really <em style="font-style: italic;">did work to heal broken bones, wouldn't medical science have at least <em style="font-style: italic;">some inkling of it? Why would the quack know this and no legitimate doctor wouldn't? Even if they couldn't explain how or why it works, wouldn't somebody in the medical profession be saying, "Hey, you know, I'm not sure how this colloidal silver works, but it appears to be effective"? In short: if there was anything to the quack's theory, wouldn't someone <em style="font-style: italic;">other than the quack have said something about it?
This is an extreme example, but keep the principle in mind as we examine the following case studies.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">2. Acharya S./D.M. Murdock: Pseudohistorian.
"Acharya S." is the pen name of one D.M. Murdock, an author from Seattle whose claim to fame is the advancement of the "Christ myth theory:" basically the idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity is a hoax constructed by ancient political and religious leaders from various pagan practices, especially sun worship. Murdock first advanced her theory in a 1999 self-published book <em style="font-style: italic;">The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, which she has followed up with numerous books since then which all harp on the same theory. Murdock/Acharya is well known to conspiracy theorists. Her views on the supposed nonexistence of Christ were a cornerstone of Peter Joseph Merola's 2007 conspiracy theorist film <em style="font-style: italic;">Zeitgeist: The Movie, which itself spawned the Zeitgeist Movement, a movement whose main (but not officially acknowledged) goal is the dissemination of conspiracy theories.
Murdock is not really an academic in the classic sense. She holds no advanced degrees. She has a bachelor's degree in classics from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and attended for a year an archaeological institute in Greece. (cite) As she passionately espouses on her website, she believes these credentials are sufficient to qualify her to rewrite the history of Judeo-Christian civilization. (In fact, at the start of her passionate defense of her own credentials, she charges that any attempt to question her work based on her lack of them is an "ad hominem attack." Conspiracy theorists love the words <em style="font-style: italic;">ad hominem).
Murdock believes Christ never existed and that evil power-hungry political and religious leaders thought him up, cribbing from Egyptian sun myths, the life of Buddha and other sources. She gets there, as all pseudohistorians do, by cherry-picking sources and drawing very strained interpretations of ancient history and astronomy. Her books are not peer-reviewed. They are self-published through her own press, Stellar House Publishing. So far as I can tell, Stellar House Publishing publishes no other authors other than Murdock. Searching on JSTOR and other academic databases at my university, I couldn't even find a <em style="font-style: italic;">review of any of Murdock's books--not even to denounce them. The legitimate academic community doesn't even care enough about Murdock to waste a page in some journal refuting her.
Yet, there are thousands of historians, archaeologists and researchers out there with advanced degrees in classics, ancient history, archaeology, and religious studies--degrees that Murdock does not have--and each and every one of them would <em style="font-style: italic;">love to have something new, cutting-edge and revolutionary to write about. Strangely, not one of them is writing about what Murdock is writing about. No dissertations or research theses are being churned out of the Notre Dame or Berkeley history departments that even <em style="font-style: italic;">remotely comport with Murdock's theories. With as desperate as academics are for cutting-edge stuff, you'd think that one of them would have found her by now, or would at least be nibbling at the edges of the body of work she claims to have interpreted correctly. But they aren't. Why? Because to advance the "Christ conspiracy" theory is academic malpractice. Why is it malpractice? Because it isn't true.
Murdock and the <em style="font-style: italic;">Zeitgeist conspiracy theorists would have you believe that the reason legitimate academia pays no attention to her is because her theories are "too radical" and violate the orthodoxy of academic study in ancient history, or because it's somehow "taboo" to claim that Christ never existed or isn't holy. One need not remind Murdock and the Zeitgeisters that there are more than just Christians researching ancient history. Learned universities in the Islamic world and in Asia employ historians, archaeologists and researchers every bit as competent as the ones in the West. Strangely those people--who, being Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos or atheists, certainly have no personal or professional attachment to the idea of Christ--haven't picked up on Murdock's theories either.
So the idea of Christ not existing is <em style="font-style: italic;">so taboo that the devout Muslim head of the history department at the University of Cairo is quaking in his boots to take on the topic? Who's not going to publish <em style="font-style: italic;">him for taking that stance? Who's not going to give <em style="font-style: italic;">him a grant for doing that sort of research?
There must, therefore, be another reason why no one in the academic community is talking about Murdock's ideas. You don't have to look hard to find it: they're not talking about her ideas because her ideas have no factual merit. They're so obviously identifiable as false, the unvetted work of an amateur, that even the devoutly Muslim head of the history department at the University of Cairo wouldn't touch them. <em style="font-style: italic;">Any academic advancing them would be advancing a falsehood. If they weren't false, somebody <em style="font-style: italic;">other than Murdock would be working on them. Just as if colloidal silver cured broken bones, somebody legitimate within the medical science field would be working on it--somebody, somewhere, at some institution.
Because the total academic indifference to Acharya S. cannot be explained by anything <em style="font-style: italic;">other than the notion that her ideas and research are so wrong as to constitute academic malpractice to assert them, it is entirely legitimate and appropriate to dismiss them. Acharya S. isn't ignored by the academic community because her work violates some "taboo." Even if that were the case--and remember I told you that academia doesn't work that way anyway--ancient historians and archaeologists would be writing article after article dismissing her. Acharya S. is ignored by the academic community because her theories are ridiculous. She's the classic example of a pseudohistorian.
Acharya S. has a lot of supporters, especially conspiracy theorists in the Zeitgeist Movement. I will probably get hate mail regarding this blog to the effect of, "You haven't debunked anything! You haven't disproven a <em style="font-style: italic;">single claim of Acharya S.!" This criticism is asinine and betrays the fundamental misunderstanding by conspiracy theorists such as Zeitgeisters of the academic process. <em style="font-style: italic;">In academia, someone's assertions are not judged on a "true unless proven otherwise" standard. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Your assertions are judged to be a tissue of lies until they've been thoroughly vetted by the peer-review process. This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations. You're judged to be a liar until you prove you are correct.
The question, therefore, is not, what does Acharya S. get wrong, but what does she get <em style="font-style: italic;">right? The burden of proof is on her to show that her theories hold any water. She cannot meet that burden. Until she can, no one is obligated to give her the time of day.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">3. Erich von Däniken: Pseudohistorian and Pseudoarchaeologist.
D.M. Murdock is one in a long line of pseudohistorians whose work strikes a chord with the public but who is shunned by the academic community. The granddaddy of them all is Swiss author Erich von Däniken, whose famous 1968 book <em style="font-style: italic;">Chariots of the Gods? proposed the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth in prehistoric times, helping primitive humans build such things as Stonehenge or the Nazca Lines. <em style="font-style: italic;">Chariots of the Gods? was a runaway bestseller and is still in print. The "ancient astronauts" idea has achieved such cultural resonance that it has become a central plot element of many books and movies, most notably the 2008 film <em style="font-style: italic;">Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
The most amazing thing about von Däniken is that he's taken as "seriously" as he is. His credentials are even thinner than D.M. Murdock's--in researching this blog I looked for some notation of any professional degrees held by von Däniken and have found nothing. Even his own homepage doesn't list any degrees. You would think if he was trained, for instance, as an archaeologist or an Egyptologist he'd trumpet it from the rooftops. So we can assume, unless someone can correct me, that von Däniken has no degrees in what he claims to specialize in.
As for his claims themselves, they scarcely need refutation here. (If you want refutation try this and this). Suffice it to say that von Däniken's theories rest upon shallow and ethnocentric assumptions about ancient peoples: that, simply because they were ancient and more "backwards" than we, they couldn't have built the pyramids or Stonehenge with the technology they possessed. Of course this is ridiculous. They could, and they did. The belief that modern technology is the <em style="font-style: italic;">sina qua non of civilization is a dangerous ideology called "high modernism," a viewpoint that I blogged on at length earlier (here). The Egyptians were no less brilliant architects and engineers than the people who built the World Trade Centers. In fact they may have been considerably more so. Von Däniken's reasoning is shallow and simply silly.
Yet he sells books. Still, more than 40 years later. Again think of the quack doctor and his colloidal silver. If von Däniken had a point, wouldn't someone <em style="font-style: italic;">other than von Däniken be making it? If there really <em style="font-style: italic;">was any evidence of "ancient astronauts," wouldn't Carl Sagan, the founder of Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), have been interested in that? Wouldn't it have validated his entire life's ambition, which was to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence? In fact Sagan denounced von Däniken publicly and notoriously. If von Däniken's theories had <em style="font-style: italic;">anycredibility, Sagan could have built his career on bringing them into the mainstream. He didn't. Ever wonder why that is?
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">4. Steven Jones: Pseudoscientist.
Our final case study involves Steven E. Jones, the former Brigham Young University physicist who had, not one, but <em style="font-style: italic;">two high-profile flirtations with pseudoscience, the latter resulting in the end of his career. If you troll in the conspiracy underground you've no doubt heard of Jones. He's one of only two people with significant scientific degrees who are out there claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. The other, for the record, believes the towers were destroyed by super duper beam weapons from outer space.
Jones, unlike Murdock and von Däniken, at least <em style="font-style: italic;">was a real academic. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University and once worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Long before 9/11, though, he got into a bit of trouble by claiming he and some other BYU professors had observed "muon-catalyzed fusion"--popularly known as cold fusion. Whether or not cold fusion is a scientific possibility, the bottom line was that Jones's experiments couldn't be replicated, although other scientists later discovered why they thought Jones came to the conclusions that he did. Jones would not be known as a pseudoscientist if he'd left it at this, though he probably wishes he could have.
Then, 12 years after the cold fusion controversy, Osama bin Laden's hijackers attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Jones became the poster boy for the 9/11 Truth movement when he began advocating for the "controlled demolition" hypothesis and then later published a paper claiming he found "iron microspheres" in paint chips from the World Trade Center, which he convinced himself was somehow evidence of controlled demolition. What happened? BYU cashiered him in 2006.
You can read all about why Jones's theories are wrong here. That's not the point of this blog. Note, however, that Jones's paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal--he paid $800 to have it published in an obscure Korean journal that does not use traditional peer-review processes--and that his thesis has been denounced by other scientists who (curiously) have <em style="font-style: italic;">not been canned from their universities. Here we have the same pattern as Acharya S. and Erich von Däniken: either academic indifference, or active refutation by legitimate academics. But nowhere is there the hint of legitimate academia finding any support for Jones's theories.
Conspiracy theorists claim that academics are afraid to support Jones, even though he is supposedly right, because they fear some sort of official retribution. Once more this assumption is revealed as silly when you think of who actually comprises academic departments. Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that scientists exist in total lockstep with government orthodoxy, and any deviation from the "official line" brings horrible consequences. (Some even claim what happened to Jones is an example of those horrible consequences--as if somehow George W. Bush or whoever is supposed to have blown up the WTC towers called the BYU faculty and told them to can Jones. Yeah, right). If 9/11 <em style="font-style: italic;">was an inside job, though--meaning, if Jones's theory had any validity--the scientist(s) who exposed it would be lauded as national heroes and brave patriots. Why would they have any interest in helping the government cover up the murder of 3,000 innocent people? In all of academia there isn't <em style="font-style: italic;">one scientist--excepting Steven Jones--who has one ounce of decency or morality? Not <em style="font-style: italic;">one?
Steven Jones's own behavior demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. We can assume that Steven Jones honestly believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Look how tenaciously <em style="font-style: italic;">he defends the conspiracy theory. Despite years of being debunked, Jones continues to hammer his tinfoil hat theories. He seems to have no problem going against "orthodoxy," so why should other academicians? In order for the conspiracy theorists' conception of academia to be true, Jones must be, by definition, qualitatively different in ethics, morality and professional courage than every other physicist in the United States (if not the world). If you assume that Jones's theories are actually true, he is automatically <em style="font-style: italic;">more moral, ethical and courageous than every single other physicist in the world. If you accept Jones's theory as fact you have no choice but to believe this no matter how arrogant it sounds. What, then, sets Jones apart from all his other colleagues--the "sheeple" who are supposedly so cowed by this official academic orthodoxy that they'll avoid speaking out against a factually untrue story and a monstrously unjust act of murder? Is Steven Jones <em style="font-style: italic;">that different, in courage and moral character, from all of his other colleagues?
He may believe he is--and 9/11 Truthers would certainly maintain that he is--but I venture to say that what's different about Jones as opposed to his colleagues isn't the same thing. The difference is this: all of them realize he's wrong, but he doesn't. For whatever reason he can't see the scientific, logical and empirical flaws in his ridiculous theory. He is the outlier--whereas, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Jones is the only one who's right and <em style="font-style: italic;">every other physicist in the world is wrong. Yes, <em style="font-style: italic;">every other one.
Let's assume there are 8 million physicists in the world total. Which is more likely? That Steven Jones is factually correct and more morally and professionally courageous than 7,999,999 of his colleagues? Or that <em style="font-style: italic;">Jones is the one that's wrong, and the 7,999,999 physicists who don't believe in controlled demolition have the better argument?
What's really happening here is very clear. Jones got drummed out of the profession because he committed academic malpractice. None of his colleagues want to follow him out on that limb, not because they're afraid of peer pressure or the big bad government, but because they can't get behind a demonstrably false theory. Jones is wrong. The academics who shun him are right.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion
The real world of academics and experts bears little resemblance to the one imagined by conspiracy theorists and fringe believers. In reality there is no rigid orthodoxy, no brutal peer pressure to conform to false realities, no swift and terrible retribution for standing up against an arbitrary officially-derived "party line." Academics hunger for something new, different and paradigm-shifting. If there was any possible chance that the routes of inquiry urged on them by conspiracy theorists and fringe believers had any validity, academics would jump all over it in an attempt to be the first to expand the boundaries of their own discipline, and thus attain academic and intellectual immortality.
In our world of increasingly specialized functions and mountains of information, expert opinion <em style="font-style: italic;">does matter. Academics exist for a reason. Advanced degrees are difficult and expensive to get on purpose, to make sure that the people who obtain them have what it takes to do good work in their respective fields. Conspiracy theorists and fringe believers see none of this. To them, amateur understanding is on par with, or even superior to, expert opinion. The divinity of Christ can be disproven by a self-published author from Seattle. A Swiss ufologist with no expert training can rewrite all of human history. A screwy physicist who fell for a conspiracy theory can be morally and ethically superior to every other one of his colleagues on the planet.
That is the Bizarro world in which conspiracy theorists dwell. They may take great comfort in their delusions, but the real world should be left to the experts. It just might be that they're experts for a reason.
Originally posted here.
It is a question that drives conspiracy theorists, and other traffickers in fringe beliefs, batty: "Why don't more experts and academicians agree with me?"
It's a fair question. If a conspiracy theorist or other fringe believer, who is typically not an academician him or herself, has been convinced of something nutty--that 9/11 was an inside job, that Christianity is a false construct, that aliens visited the earth in ancient times, that global warming is a hoax, that colloidal silver cures cancer, etc.--it is difficult to understand why experts in various fields aren't convinced by the same "evidence." Usually the answer in the conspiracy theorist's mind comes down to a dismissal of the value, independence, or honesty of experts and academicians: "They are all part of the Establishment. The truth I believe in fundamentally challenges the Establishment. Therefore, they're either unable to recognize that it's true, or afraid to endorse it."
This blog will explain why this position is incorrect, and even absurd. I will do so by utilizing three case studies of fringe believers who can't get any legitimate experts to sign on to their theories: Acharya S./D.M. Murdock, who claims that Christianity is a hoax; Erich von Däniken, who promotes the "ancient astronaut" theory; and Steven Jones, who maintains that the World Trade Center towers were blown up on 9/11 by "controlled demolition."
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">1. How Academia Really Works
First, the groundwork. Conspiracy theorists and fringe believers generally think that academia and the world of experts is a small, close-knit, elitist club where an "official" orthodoxy is rigidly enforced and extreme peer pressure maintains order. In this ivory tower that conspiracy theorists think academicians live in, the slightest deviation from the "official line" is a career-destroying move for any expert. He or she will be blacklisted, unable to publish, drummed out of faculty departments and brutally ridiculed by his or her former colleagues. In the world of conspiracy theorists and fringe believers, this orthodoxy holds fast even if the facts it is based on are demonstrably false--comparisons are often drawn to the geocentric view of astronomy that Copernicus challenged in the sixteenth century, or the (actually incorrect) assertion that "before Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat."
There's just one problem with this view. It simply isn't true.
I am formerly a lawyer, but I now work in academia. My colleagues and superiors are well-trained and respected historians. They have put in years of research and are well-versed in the methodology of history in everything from medieval Japan to U.S. nuclear policy in the 1960s. But getting them to agree on <em style="font-style: italic;">anything is impossible.
Academics have a reputation for being idiosyncratic and curmudgeonly. Sometimes that is true. Anyone who's ever attended a faculty meeting, though, knows immediately that trying to drive academicians in any particular direction is like trying to herd cats. You just can't do it. So the idea that there is some sort of rigid orthodoxy, especially one that's artificially imposed by a government or other "Establishment" actor, is simply laughable.
Furthermore, not only is the research of academicians <em style="font-style: italic;">not intended to reinforce any sort of "official line" on anything, but most of them actively<em style="font-style: italic;">seek to expand the boundaries of their field in new and previously undiscovered directions. After all, being the pioneer of a new line of study ensures academic immortality. Einstein is famous, and justly so, for being the first physicist to describe relativity. Everyone's heard of Maynard Keynes because he pioneered a new type of economics. Doing something new, different and revolutionary is every academician's dream. They constantly seek new avenues of inquiry in all fields from science to sociology. Closing yourself off to new ideas is the kiss of death for an academician.
But what is also the kiss of death--an even quicker and more final death--is to commit academic malpractice. Academicians are, after all, professionals in their field. They don't get there by ignoring the tenets on which their expertise is based. If those tenets turn out to be flawed, part of the academician's job is to question and reexamine them. But if the tenets are sound, ignoring them is, by definition, the mark of a bad expert.
Let's use two quick, simple examples. Suppose I break my arm and go see a medical doctor. How bones break, and how they heal, is clearly understood by medical science. It is not inconceivable that in the future medical science may develop some technology to re-grow broken bones faster or in a more efficient and healthful way. Perhaps, if I was lucky and willing to take a risk, my broken arm could be healed by such a revolutionary new method. But that method would rest upon, and be consistent with, what's already known about how bones break and how they heal. Whether the doctor puts my arm in a cast (the old-fashioned way) or grows me a new humerus with fancy stem cells (the revolutionary new way), my arm is still going to heal using the same biological processes as have been understood for a long time about how broken bones heal.
Now say, instead of going to a doctor for either an old-fashioned cast or a new-fangled cure, I see a doctor who promises that my bone will heal by doing nothing other than dabbling colloidal silver on it. Perhaps the doctor has some arcane theory as to how colloidal silver re-grows bones. Obviously my arm isn't going to heal. Equally obviously, the doctor who prescribes colloidal silver for a broken arm is a quack. Why? Because colloidal silver as a treatment for broken bones does not rest upon, and does not comport with, anything that medical science knows about healing bones. A doctor who prescribes colloidal silver, and nothing else, for broken bones isn't going to remain a doctor for long. He'll be drummed out of the profession quickly because--no matter how fervently he may believe his theory about colloidal silver--he's committing malpractice.
Think of it this way: if colloidal silver really <em style="font-style: italic;">did work to heal broken bones, wouldn't medical science have at least <em style="font-style: italic;">some inkling of it? Why would the quack know this and no legitimate doctor wouldn't? Even if they couldn't explain how or why it works, wouldn't somebody in the medical profession be saying, "Hey, you know, I'm not sure how this colloidal silver works, but it appears to be effective"? In short: if there was anything to the quack's theory, wouldn't someone <em style="font-style: italic;">other than the quack have said something about it?
This is an extreme example, but keep the principle in mind as we examine the following case studies.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">2. Acharya S./D.M. Murdock: Pseudohistorian.
"Acharya S." is the pen name of one D.M. Murdock, an author from Seattle whose claim to fame is the advancement of the "Christ myth theory:" basically the idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity is a hoax constructed by ancient political and religious leaders from various pagan practices, especially sun worship. Murdock first advanced her theory in a 1999 self-published book <em style="font-style: italic;">The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, which she has followed up with numerous books since then which all harp on the same theory. Murdock/Acharya is well known to conspiracy theorists. Her views on the supposed nonexistence of Christ were a cornerstone of Peter Joseph Merola's 2007 conspiracy theorist film <em style="font-style: italic;">Zeitgeist: The Movie, which itself spawned the Zeitgeist Movement, a movement whose main (but not officially acknowledged) goal is the dissemination of conspiracy theories.
Murdock is not really an academic in the classic sense. She holds no advanced degrees. She has a bachelor's degree in classics from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and attended for a year an archaeological institute in Greece. (cite) As she passionately espouses on her website, she believes these credentials are sufficient to qualify her to rewrite the history of Judeo-Christian civilization. (In fact, at the start of her passionate defense of her own credentials, she charges that any attempt to question her work based on her lack of them is an "ad hominem attack." Conspiracy theorists love the words <em style="font-style: italic;">ad hominem).
Murdock believes Christ never existed and that evil power-hungry political and religious leaders thought him up, cribbing from Egyptian sun myths, the life of Buddha and other sources. She gets there, as all pseudohistorians do, by cherry-picking sources and drawing very strained interpretations of ancient history and astronomy. Her books are not peer-reviewed. They are self-published through her own press, Stellar House Publishing. So far as I can tell, Stellar House Publishing publishes no other authors other than Murdock. Searching on JSTOR and other academic databases at my university, I couldn't even find a <em style="font-style: italic;">review of any of Murdock's books--not even to denounce them. The legitimate academic community doesn't even care enough about Murdock to waste a page in some journal refuting her.
Yet, there are thousands of historians, archaeologists and researchers out there with advanced degrees in classics, ancient history, archaeology, and religious studies--degrees that Murdock does not have--and each and every one of them would <em style="font-style: italic;">love to have something new, cutting-edge and revolutionary to write about. Strangely, not one of them is writing about what Murdock is writing about. No dissertations or research theses are being churned out of the Notre Dame or Berkeley history departments that even <em style="font-style: italic;">remotely comport with Murdock's theories. With as desperate as academics are for cutting-edge stuff, you'd think that one of them would have found her by now, or would at least be nibbling at the edges of the body of work she claims to have interpreted correctly. But they aren't. Why? Because to advance the "Christ conspiracy" theory is academic malpractice. Why is it malpractice? Because it isn't true.
Murdock and the <em style="font-style: italic;">Zeitgeist conspiracy theorists would have you believe that the reason legitimate academia pays no attention to her is because her theories are "too radical" and violate the orthodoxy of academic study in ancient history, or because it's somehow "taboo" to claim that Christ never existed or isn't holy. One need not remind Murdock and the Zeitgeisters that there are more than just Christians researching ancient history. Learned universities in the Islamic world and in Asia employ historians, archaeologists and researchers every bit as competent as the ones in the West. Strangely those people--who, being Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos or atheists, certainly have no personal or professional attachment to the idea of Christ--haven't picked up on Murdock's theories either.
So the idea of Christ not existing is <em style="font-style: italic;">so taboo that the devout Muslim head of the history department at the University of Cairo is quaking in his boots to take on the topic? Who's not going to publish <em style="font-style: italic;">him for taking that stance? Who's not going to give <em style="font-style: italic;">him a grant for doing that sort of research?
There must, therefore, be another reason why no one in the academic community is talking about Murdock's ideas. You don't have to look hard to find it: they're not talking about her ideas because her ideas have no factual merit. They're so obviously identifiable as false, the unvetted work of an amateur, that even the devoutly Muslim head of the history department at the University of Cairo wouldn't touch them. <em style="font-style: italic;">Any academic advancing them would be advancing a falsehood. If they weren't false, somebody <em style="font-style: italic;">other than Murdock would be working on them. Just as if colloidal silver cured broken bones, somebody legitimate within the medical science field would be working on it--somebody, somewhere, at some institution.
Because the total academic indifference to Acharya S. cannot be explained by anything <em style="font-style: italic;">other than the notion that her ideas and research are so wrong as to constitute academic malpractice to assert them, it is entirely legitimate and appropriate to dismiss them. Acharya S. isn't ignored by the academic community because her work violates some "taboo." Even if that were the case--and remember I told you that academia doesn't work that way anyway--ancient historians and archaeologists would be writing article after article dismissing her. Acharya S. is ignored by the academic community because her theories are ridiculous. She's the classic example of a pseudohistorian.
Acharya S. has a lot of supporters, especially conspiracy theorists in the Zeitgeist Movement. I will probably get hate mail regarding this blog to the effect of, "You haven't debunked anything! You haven't disproven a <em style="font-style: italic;">single claim of Acharya S.!" This criticism is asinine and betrays the fundamental misunderstanding by conspiracy theorists such as Zeitgeisters of the academic process. <em style="font-style: italic;">In academia, someone's assertions are not judged on a "true unless proven otherwise" standard. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Your assertions are judged to be a tissue of lies until they've been thoroughly vetted by the peer-review process. This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations. You're judged to be a liar until you prove you are correct.
The question, therefore, is not, what does Acharya S. get wrong, but what does she get <em style="font-style: italic;">right? The burden of proof is on her to show that her theories hold any water. She cannot meet that burden. Until she can, no one is obligated to give her the time of day.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">3. Erich von Däniken: Pseudohistorian and Pseudoarchaeologist.
D.M. Murdock is one in a long line of pseudohistorians whose work strikes a chord with the public but who is shunned by the academic community. The granddaddy of them all is Swiss author Erich von Däniken, whose famous 1968 book <em style="font-style: italic;">Chariots of the Gods? proposed the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth in prehistoric times, helping primitive humans build such things as Stonehenge or the Nazca Lines. <em style="font-style: italic;">Chariots of the Gods? was a runaway bestseller and is still in print. The "ancient astronauts" idea has achieved such cultural resonance that it has become a central plot element of many books and movies, most notably the 2008 film <em style="font-style: italic;">Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
The most amazing thing about von Däniken is that he's taken as "seriously" as he is. His credentials are even thinner than D.M. Murdock's--in researching this blog I looked for some notation of any professional degrees held by von Däniken and have found nothing. Even his own homepage doesn't list any degrees. You would think if he was trained, for instance, as an archaeologist or an Egyptologist he'd trumpet it from the rooftops. So we can assume, unless someone can correct me, that von Däniken has no degrees in what he claims to specialize in.
As for his claims themselves, they scarcely need refutation here. (If you want refutation try this and this). Suffice it to say that von Däniken's theories rest upon shallow and ethnocentric assumptions about ancient peoples: that, simply because they were ancient and more "backwards" than we, they couldn't have built the pyramids or Stonehenge with the technology they possessed. Of course this is ridiculous. They could, and they did. The belief that modern technology is the <em style="font-style: italic;">sina qua non of civilization is a dangerous ideology called "high modernism," a viewpoint that I blogged on at length earlier (here). The Egyptians were no less brilliant architects and engineers than the people who built the World Trade Centers. In fact they may have been considerably more so. Von Däniken's reasoning is shallow and simply silly.
Yet he sells books. Still, more than 40 years later. Again think of the quack doctor and his colloidal silver. If von Däniken had a point, wouldn't someone <em style="font-style: italic;">other than von Däniken be making it? If there really <em style="font-style: italic;">was any evidence of "ancient astronauts," wouldn't Carl Sagan, the founder of Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), have been interested in that? Wouldn't it have validated his entire life's ambition, which was to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence? In fact Sagan denounced von Däniken publicly and notoriously. If von Däniken's theories had <em style="font-style: italic;">anycredibility, Sagan could have built his career on bringing them into the mainstream. He didn't. Ever wonder why that is?
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">4. Steven Jones: Pseudoscientist.
Our final case study involves Steven E. Jones, the former Brigham Young University physicist who had, not one, but <em style="font-style: italic;">two high-profile flirtations with pseudoscience, the latter resulting in the end of his career. If you troll in the conspiracy underground you've no doubt heard of Jones. He's one of only two people with significant scientific degrees who are out there claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. The other, for the record, believes the towers were destroyed by super duper beam weapons from outer space.
Jones, unlike Murdock and von Däniken, at least <em style="font-style: italic;">was a real academic. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University and once worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Long before 9/11, though, he got into a bit of trouble by claiming he and some other BYU professors had observed "muon-catalyzed fusion"--popularly known as cold fusion. Whether or not cold fusion is a scientific possibility, the bottom line was that Jones's experiments couldn't be replicated, although other scientists later discovered why they thought Jones came to the conclusions that he did. Jones would not be known as a pseudoscientist if he'd left it at this, though he probably wishes he could have.
Then, 12 years after the cold fusion controversy, Osama bin Laden's hijackers attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Jones became the poster boy for the 9/11 Truth movement when he began advocating for the "controlled demolition" hypothesis and then later published a paper claiming he found "iron microspheres" in paint chips from the World Trade Center, which he convinced himself was somehow evidence of controlled demolition. What happened? BYU cashiered him in 2006.
You can read all about why Jones's theories are wrong here. That's not the point of this blog. Note, however, that Jones's paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal--he paid $800 to have it published in an obscure Korean journal that does not use traditional peer-review processes--and that his thesis has been denounced by other scientists who (curiously) have <em style="font-style: italic;">not been canned from their universities. Here we have the same pattern as Acharya S. and Erich von Däniken: either academic indifference, or active refutation by legitimate academics. But nowhere is there the hint of legitimate academia finding any support for Jones's theories.
Conspiracy theorists claim that academics are afraid to support Jones, even though he is supposedly right, because they fear some sort of official retribution. Once more this assumption is revealed as silly when you think of who actually comprises academic departments. Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that scientists exist in total lockstep with government orthodoxy, and any deviation from the "official line" brings horrible consequences. (Some even claim what happened to Jones is an example of those horrible consequences--as if somehow George W. Bush or whoever is supposed to have blown up the WTC towers called the BYU faculty and told them to can Jones. Yeah, right). If 9/11 <em style="font-style: italic;">was an inside job, though--meaning, if Jones's theory had any validity--the scientist(s) who exposed it would be lauded as national heroes and brave patriots. Why would they have any interest in helping the government cover up the murder of 3,000 innocent people? In all of academia there isn't <em style="font-style: italic;">one scientist--excepting Steven Jones--who has one ounce of decency or morality? Not <em style="font-style: italic;">one?
Steven Jones's own behavior demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. We can assume that Steven Jones honestly believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Look how tenaciously <em style="font-style: italic;">he defends the conspiracy theory. Despite years of being debunked, Jones continues to hammer his tinfoil hat theories. He seems to have no problem going against "orthodoxy," so why should other academicians? In order for the conspiracy theorists' conception of academia to be true, Jones must be, by definition, qualitatively different in ethics, morality and professional courage than every other physicist in the United States (if not the world). If you assume that Jones's theories are actually true, he is automatically <em style="font-style: italic;">more moral, ethical and courageous than every single other physicist in the world. If you accept Jones's theory as fact you have no choice but to believe this no matter how arrogant it sounds. What, then, sets Jones apart from all his other colleagues--the "sheeple" who are supposedly so cowed by this official academic orthodoxy that they'll avoid speaking out against a factually untrue story and a monstrously unjust act of murder? Is Steven Jones <em style="font-style: italic;">that different, in courage and moral character, from all of his other colleagues?
He may believe he is--and 9/11 Truthers would certainly maintain that he is--but I venture to say that what's different about Jones as opposed to his colleagues isn't the same thing. The difference is this: all of them realize he's wrong, but he doesn't. For whatever reason he can't see the scientific, logical and empirical flaws in his ridiculous theory. He is the outlier--whereas, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Jones is the only one who's right and <em style="font-style: italic;">every other physicist in the world is wrong. Yes, <em style="font-style: italic;">every other one.
Let's assume there are 8 million physicists in the world total. Which is more likely? That Steven Jones is factually correct and more morally and professionally courageous than 7,999,999 of his colleagues? Or that <em style="font-style: italic;">Jones is the one that's wrong, and the 7,999,999 physicists who don't believe in controlled demolition have the better argument?
What's really happening here is very clear. Jones got drummed out of the profession because he committed academic malpractice. None of his colleagues want to follow him out on that limb, not because they're afraid of peer pressure or the big bad government, but because they can't get behind a demonstrably false theory. Jones is wrong. The academics who shun him are right.
<strong style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion
The real world of academics and experts bears little resemblance to the one imagined by conspiracy theorists and fringe believers. In reality there is no rigid orthodoxy, no brutal peer pressure to conform to false realities, no swift and terrible retribution for standing up against an arbitrary officially-derived "party line." Academics hunger for something new, different and paradigm-shifting. If there was any possible chance that the routes of inquiry urged on them by conspiracy theorists and fringe believers had any validity, academics would jump all over it in an attempt to be the first to expand the boundaries of their own discipline, and thus attain academic and intellectual immortality.
In our world of increasingly specialized functions and mountains of information, expert opinion <em style="font-style: italic;">does matter. Academics exist for a reason. Advanced degrees are difficult and expensive to get on purpose, to make sure that the people who obtain them have what it takes to do good work in their respective fields. Conspiracy theorists and fringe believers see none of this. To them, amateur understanding is on par with, or even superior to, expert opinion. The divinity of Christ can be disproven by a self-published author from Seattle. A Swiss ufologist with no expert training can rewrite all of human history. A screwy physicist who fell for a conspiracy theory can be morally and ethically superior to every other one of his colleagues on the planet.
That is the Bizarro world in which conspiracy theorists dwell. They may take great comfort in their delusions, but the real world should be left to the experts. It just might be that they're experts for a reason.