9/11 was a conspiracy

[maxpower]

Regardless of how you want to believe or deny the official story, it was by definition a conspiracy. More than one person was involved, therefore a conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, a conspiracy needs an independent investigation. But the truth is always the first casualty of any conspiracy. Just my opinion.


Peace,
Max

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hang a left]

3. the stupid....

it burns!

[BeFree]

2. Yep

That's why we have what we call the "OCT" the "Official Conspiracy Theory".

It is from the media, the bush administration and other sources that are beholden to the authorities.
The Officials.

There are many other theories which contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory, but they are all conspiracy theories. Bits and pieces have been proven, but all in all, there is no one cohesive theory that can be pointed at as telling the whole truth. Not yet. But we're working on it.

[RegieRocker]

4. There is a mass hypnosis going on and it involves

disregarding any questions on anything scientific and government related. Word definitions, science and history is being re-written to accommodate the manipulation of minds. It is scary how easy they are achieving this.

[ocpagu]

5. You presented a perfect definition...

...of what's going on.

I get the impression that mainstream media is able to make the masses believe in any crap, using Goebbels method. Seriously, I guess that even if they had blamed aliens, Santa Claus, Japanese ghosts, people still would buy it and would defend this nonsense claiming to be the "rational" and "skeptical" voices... the rational and skeptical voices that refuse to question official accounts... gotta love OCTheorists.

[RegieRocker]

6. The right wing started the " Anti Conspiracy Therory" crap

and now it has infiltrated the left. The left were the last bastion of people that were adamant about finding out the truth. There are many questions that are not addressed and many that are not unequivocally unanswered.

[ocpagu]

7. Yes...

"Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings, according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy."

http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-outlined-plan-for-government-to-infiltrate-conspiracy-groups/
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_nominee_infiltrate_conspiracy_groups_take_organs_without_consent_censor_internet_ban_guns_ind_0

Now... if the unofficial conspiracy theories are fairy-tales, why would the government need to spend the tax-payers money infiltrating agents to undermine conspiracy groups? What exactly are they afraid of? Will they use agents to undermine the people believing in Santa Claus too?

LOL.

It's so f# obvious...

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. your argument is remarkably silly

Sunstein actually explained, in the Journal of Political Philosophy, why he thought "cognitive infiltration" might be a good idea. His rationale has nothing to do with conspiracists being right. The fact that Sunstein wrote it in a journal doesn't say a damn thing about what "the government" is or isn't afraid of. I don't think "the government" makes a habit of publishing "its" thoughts in academic journals -- and, if your premise is that "the government" thinks the conspiracists are right, then Sunstein's stated thoughts aren't "the government's" thoughts anyway.

That was probably too subtle. Hey, I tried.

I wouldn't be totally shocked if the CIA invested in screwball "no-planes" theories and the like to distract people from other issues -- except that I don't think it has to, so it might as well not.

[ocpagu]

18. ?

Hum... read I wrote, sir, and read what you replied again. If there is a "remarkably silly" argument here, I assure you it's not mine.

I really don't think anyone was expecting him to write about what the government is or isn't afraid of. The point is not that. The point is him advocating in favor of the government spending money on agents to undermine criticism toward the official account.

So, I'll give you a chance to fix your argument.

Why would he defend such a thing? What's the logic behind it? What does your "rational" and scientifically based mindset tells you about his intentions? And why does that seem to appeal to the government?

BTW, I found a "pearl" among your arguments. You told me that what he wrote has nothing to do with conspiracists being right, based, solely, in what he wrote. Honey, have you ever thought analizing other people's speeches and looking beyond the argument to understand the context, implications and origins and real motivations behind and beyond the speech, or does your OCT "rational" and "scientific mindset" tells you the most brilliant thing to do is believe any crap people write tell you?

And answering that my argument is "silly" is not a valid answer, I garantee to you anyone reading this is able to notice.

Thank you in advance.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. yadda yadda yadda

I really don't think anyone was expecting him to write about what the government is or isn't afraid of. The point is not that. The point is him advocating in favor of the government spending money on agents to undermine criticism toward the official account.

But that isn't a "point" at all. You're merely asserting that for some unstated reason, it is Highly Significant that he proposed "cognitive infiltration" in a journal article -- yet, apparently, utterly irrelevant what justification he offered.

Why would he defend such a thing? What's the logic behind it?

Oh my heavens! However will we ever be able to determine the logic behind his proposal? Perhaps we could... could... could... read the effing article?

Seriously, if you want to rip Sunstein's article to shreds, give it your best, but why on earth are you relying on two other sources instead? That just screams intellectual incuriosity -- which is exactly the problem that plagues the "truth movement."

That incuriosity is motivated, and that's why Sunstein's suggestion is weirdly naive. If screwball conspiracism fed primarily on social authority, it might make sense (in the abstract) to try to smuggle in some authority figures to argue against it. But it has content, and that content includes a convenient rationale for discounting all discrepant information regardless of its source.

[ocpagu]

23. ??

"But that isn't a "point" at all."

Isn't it? Why?

"You're merely asserting that for some unstated reason, it is Highly Significant that he proposed "cognitive infiltration" in a journal article -- yet, apparently, utterly irrelevant what justification he offered."


It is highly significant that a government top official has proposed the government engaging in speech and thought control, yes. It's highly significant that the government wants to undermine/censor criticism towards ITS OWN accounts on history. If you can't see how obvious that is, my dear, I'm so sorry for you.

"Oh my heavens! However will we ever be able to determine the logic behind his proposal? Perhaps we could... could... could... read the effing article?

Seriously, if you want to rip Sunstein's article to shreds, give it your best, but why on earth are you relying on two other sources instead? That just screams intellectual incuriosity -- which is exactly the problem that plagues the "truth movement."

Wow... you've built a huge straw man right on this one. So you mean that believing the first crap an author write, without even considering he might be not telling you his real motivation, is "intellectual curiosity" but checking criticism and what others wrote about what Sustain defends is "intellectual incuriosity"? Talk about inversion of values... Really, where did you OCTs came from? Middle Ages? How the heck do you expect us to see you as "rational" people while you promote blind faith as your guide towards truth? Did you notice what you just wrote? Because I guess everybody did.

As for the cartoon... a cute ad hominem. Sadly, for you, of course, it's the best part of your entire argument. An ad hominem.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. ...yadda...

It is highly significant.... It's highly significant.... If you can't see how obvious that is, my dear, I'm so sorry for you.

No, you're not. And no, what Sunstein* wrote in that article is neither a government position, nor "highly significant" in any other way.

And, no, I didn't say that you have to "believ(e) the first crap an author wrote." I asked why you were relying on two other sources instead. (Speaking of straw men....) However, if you think that Sunstein tried to mislead us about his motivation, I wonder what you think his motivation was, and what your evidence is.

*ETA: I don't suppose I'm doing him any favor, but I should point out that Adrian Vermeule coauthored the paper.

[William Seger]

21. "why would the government need to spend the tax-payers money..."

"... infiltrating agents to undermine conspiracy groups?"

The short answer is that facts do not argue themselves, and when arguing matters of fact, the most convincing and persuasive side of a debate is not necessarily the side that is correct. I take it that you don't have any exposure to formal debating, a.k.a. forensics, a.k.a. advocacy argumentation. I was on the debate team in high school for a couple of years and enjoyed it a lot (but gave up on doing it in college when I found out how much work it is at that level). I sincerely think it ought to be a required course in high school, if for no other reason than to be somewhat equipped to evaluate the advocacy argumentation that we are constantly bombarded with. The terms "valid argument" and "sound argument" are actually concepts that have specific and precise meanings, but most people seem to settle for some vague notion of "it just makes sense." Advocacy comes up in matters that are inherently subjective such as politics and public policy and what car to buy, where there isn't any "right" opinion but there are a lot of poorly formed opinions, i.e. ones that are not based on facts or are not consistent with other accepted opinions. But it also comes up in matters of fact and the nature of the real world, where ever assertion is assumed to be either true or false and the objective is (or should be!) to do our best at figuring out which it is, because truth is never really "self-evident."

One clue to the article is that Sunstein is law professor, a field that involves both knowledge of the laws and skill at advocacy argumentation. The "truth movement" is all about advocacy argumentation and convincing people that "9/11 was an inside job." All you need to do is look at how many people have been suckered into it by people like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage because they can make arguments that sound very convincing when left unchallenged. The only antidote is advocating for the other side by pointing out the factual errors and logical fallacies that their arguments vitally depend on. It seems to me that all Sunstein is saying is that left unchallenged, bullshit runs rampant, and I heartily agree.

[ocpagu]

22. So you heartly agree...

... with government promoting speech and thought control?

That shows your true colors. Thank you.

[William Seger]

28. Maybe rereading it will help

I'm pretty sure I express myself more clearly than that.

[zappaman]

29. Rereading will not help when you don't understand simple English.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. that isn't all he's saying

There's a difference between saying that "left unchallenged, bullshit runs rampant," and saying:

We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.

This quotation really ought to be read in context. As Sunstein and Vermeule should have anticipated, and probably did, it has been wildly overhyped by adherents of the theories that S & V hope to undermine. But really, I can't imagine how they could think this idea would work. Well, I can vaguely imagine a scenario in which a government agent convinces a number of People's Temple adherents not to drink the Kool-Aid.

It's an eye-rubber. For years some of us have been confronting strange notions with inconvenient facts and questions -- and others have accused us of being shills for something or other, as if presenting facts and questions is an anti-democratic activity. S & V handed them the "proof" that presenting facts and questions really is an anti-democratic activity!!1! Of course, one has to be pretty far down the rabbit hole to interpret what S & V wrote in that way.

[William Seger]

32. Okay, true, that isn't "all" he's saying

He's also suggesting specific actions that are obviously going to be controversial. However, if the government is being unjustly accused of conspiracy in the "court of public opinion" I think it has a right to defend itself. As for how they could think this idea would work, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have any effect at all on "truthers" who have already publicly committed to a belief in "9/11 was an inside job." However, for people who are reading public forums trying to figure out what makes the most sense, I think their point about "raising doubts" against a "crippled epistemology" is well taken -- provided, of course, that these "agents (and their allies)" stick to the facts! That would be an absolute requirement before I could go along with it, and although that seems to be a premise of the article, I'd have to disagree strongly if that wasn't the case. I know that when I read a claim, whether it initially seems dubious or plausible, I want more information than just the claim itself before deciding what I believe, so I try to find out what other people are saying about it. As I said, facts do not argue themselves, so my hope is that if there are relevant facts I should know, someone out there is actively making them widely known. If I find that hardly anybody is challenging a claim, or that the ones who are only have weak arguments, that makes the claim seem to be more credible, whether or not it really is. Rational people make decisions based on the information they have, so I'm 100% in favor of having as much factual information as possible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. I agree with most of that, but...

However, if the government is being unjustly accused of conspiracy in the "court of public opinion" I think it has a right to defend itself.

I think it's fine for the government openly to provide factual information, and even some analysis ("why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme"?). But I don't see that as a rationale for covert cognitive infiltration (which, I should point out for the benefit of people who have never looked at the article, is one part of the idea that the paper briefly discusses). There might be some other rationale for covert ops (I was reaching for one with the Jonestown example), but I see a lot more downside.

The enterprise of striving to dismantle echo chambers is one I strongly favor.

[zappaman]

8. Actually, it just shows that there are lunatics on the left

who believe anything AND lunatics on the right.
Birthers have been shown evidence that their belief is wrong time and time again, yet they cling to their irrational thoughts.
Truthers have been shown evidence that their belief is wrong time and time again, yet they cling to their irrational thoughts.

Birthers and Truthers are more alike than either would care to admit.

[RegieRocker]

9. Actually "Untruthers" have shown no proof what so ever that

contradicts what the "Truthers" believe. It is all conjecture on both sides.

[zappaman]

10. just because you don't like looking at the proof

doesn't mean it isn't there.
keep those blinders on and keep swallowing the bullshit that gage, griffin and the rest of the charlatans keep shoveling to you.
making money off foolish truthers is a great and easy gig!

[RegieRocker]

11. What proof?

You have none. Money? I haven't spent one red cent. More b.s. "Untruthers" have an unending supply of b.s.

[zappaman]

13. still waiting

How come you, or any truther for that matter, can't just lay out what happened that day, who was involved, and how many were involved?

[RegieRocker]

14. So am I. You've got nothing of unbiased substance.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

36. what a funny story!

I loooove fiction!
Wait...you think that's what happened?
Even though there is no evidence to back any of it up?
Oh, right....lack of evidence is evidence that someone hid the evidence...

[cpwm17]

27. Truthers are much worse

The evidence against the truthers is even far stronger, plus the claim that Bush (or at least some in the US Government) committed mass murder against the American people is far worse than saying Obama was born in Kenya.

[jberryhill]

37. Birthers are not as benign as you think

The guy that shot up the Holocaust Museum was, among other things, a birther.

Some of the birthers amp up the "usurper" rhetoric to the point where it is clear they would be happy to inspire a lunatic of the first order to become a "hero" by removing the president from office by force.

Truthers motivate people to misdirect political energy or simply to demotivate political action. Birtherism is the black hole of a galaxy of imagined things about the current president which seem designed to inspire a particular sort of action.

[Flatulo]

39. Any time people fall into a rabid alternate reality, bad shit can happen.

I found a rather disturbing email thread between a Truther and Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who headed the FEMA team that was on-site at WTC on 9/12/2001.

The Truther was accusing Dr. Barnett of treason, and warning that there would be a 'reckoning' and a 'trial' and he would not fare well. The Truther was also bragging about how many guns he had, and then segued into a general anti-Jewish rant. (Dr. Barnett is Jewish).

Barnett did nothing to provoke this person except to respond that he did not believe the WTC buildings were felled by CD. Poor Dr. Barnett, who is really a very gracious and gentle man, was perplexed at the vitriol that the Truther was spewing. I sincerely hope he got a restraining order.

Oh yeah, the Truther also had a somewhat cozy relationship with Richard Gage, and Gage was copied on the entire email thread with Barnett.

But yeah, Birthers are pretty scary as well, with lots of talk about armed revolution, 'getting' Obama, etc.

[ocpagu]

42. Why?

What's so unbeliveable about a government killing its own citizens?

What?

Do you want examples? I've got some thousands to present to you.

[zappaman]

43. strawman

"What's so unbeliveable about a government killing its own citizens?"
Nothing unbelievable about that at all.
No one said that either.

The problem is believing in a particular case and not having evidence to back it up.
Which you don't...obviously.

[Flatulo]

30. Do you consider the NIST and Bldg 7 reposts to be non-scientific?

What specifically do you object to, other than the conclusions?

I'm not trying to goad you here; I'm genuinely curious.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. I couldn't agree more...

It's the only reason I can think that the "official story" becomes one.

[AntiFascist]

12. That's why the "Inside Job" meme is promoted so heavily...

it also steers "truthers" away from something more plausible:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/06/162696/-Open-Letter-to-Patrick-Fitzgerald-Supporting-Conspiracy

[RegieRocker]

15. What you believe it's so far from plausible it's on the other side of the universe.

[zappaman]

16. okay, so..

How come you, or any truther for that matter, can't just lay out what happened that day, who was involved, and how many were involved?
C'mon, give us a more plausible outline.

[ocpagu]

19. See

"How come you, or any truther for that matter, can't just lay out what happened that day, who was involved, and how many were involved?"

Straw man argument. You want us to focus on details that nobody expects to be avaiable. Criticism points to a cover up. Evidence of cover up is what is important to prove. Evidences of cover up are largely avaiable. 9-11 Comission is probably the biggest evidence of cover up in history of mankind. There you have dozens of names.

You know it, you admit it... but you think there's nothing weird about 9-11 Comission being a cover up. What can we say to such rational people like OCTs?

[cpwm17]

25. You have to be able to at least come up with an alternate PLAUSIBLE explanation for 9-11

If you can't come up with another explanation consistent with the facts, then you've got nothing. You don't need to prove it. Come up with several alternate explanations, and just say you lack the evidence to choose what the truth is.

Explain: who, why, how they did it, how many did it, how did they recruit the thousands of conspirators - including independent engineers and scientists, where did the hundreds of witnesses that support the government's evidence come from, what happened to the witnesses of the conspiracy, what happened to the people that refused to take part in the conspiracy (there would be thousands), what about the photo evidence and videos, etc.

And if there aren't any alternate explanations possible, there can't be a conspiracy.

[zappaman]

33. so you have no other plausible explanation for what happened that day?

Figured as much.
"Truther science" is otherwise known as "faith".
I'll take science over faith, thanks.

[William Seger]

38. It was a question, not an argument

An argument would look something like this:

"Truthers" say they don't know what happened on 9/11 but they know that the "official story" didn't happen, which is only to say that they disbelieve the "official story." If combined with the apparent (but only implicit) conclusion that "therefore 9/11 was an inside job," and devoid of any actual evidence that any particular part of the "official story" is not accurate, that would be an argument from incredulity, which is logically fallacious. Therefore, that argument does not really tell us anything at all about the truth of the conclusion or the events of 9/11.

There ya go: Now that you have an actual argument to work with, if it's a straw man because you really have some other argument you'd like to make, you could just say what it is. But to admit that you just don't know what happened is to admit that the "official story" could be correct, as far as you know.

[AntiFascist]

41. Soooo......

you're defending the Bush family? :shrug:

[Flatulo]

31. There you go, now that's a conspiracy. nt