The Third Tower!

The mystery that sparked its own 9/11 conspiracy theory may about to be finally solved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm

regards,

Den.

Poor Shermer still having problems with the rather sad "truthers":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of_b_84154.html

if the great Shermer has intensively de-bunked the subject and failed, what chance do we have?

Is it really worth our time figghting these people?

Im certainly up fo it, the 'troofers' light my sceptical fire, but are we just wasting our time?

Is it better to ignore them and not give them a voice?

Regards,

Den.

Yep - hardly worth posting on these 911 nuts. They just don't want to listen... You can slap them with solid proof in the face all day long, and they still won't believe you.

The logistics of creating such an event would be astronomical, not to forget the "retro fitting" of all the evidence. Then keeping a million government and civilian workers quiet. I guess they also paid off all the scientists, metallurgists, and demolitions experts.

Hey, are we part of the conspiracy now that we don't believe them?

Quote :

Hey, are we part of the conspiracy now that we don't believe them?

I am apparently! This debate might be interesting for a few reasons.

1/ It shows how fast, when faced with educated answers to each pseudosceptic accusation, the conspiracy theorists fall back on the whole "everything is a conspiracy" mental masterbation strategy.

2/ Perhaps a little more case history evidence of how members of the martial arts community have a predisposition to, well, I think woo-woo is the technical word for it.

FYI I come in a little towards the end (page 5 to be exact):

http://www.martialedge.net/forum/political,-social,-and-cultural-dimensions-/9%1011%11-what-the-architects-say/

British Sceptic wrote:

Is it really worth our time figghting these people?

In a word....

"No!"

They will not listen.

Hi wolves

what do you feel the role of the sceptic should be?

Have we wasted our time creating this forum?

Your thoughts on the matter shall be illuminating

Regards,

Den.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/rss.xml

episode 162 does a superb round up of the 9/11 comnspiracy and gives the troofers arguments also.

Hey where did troofers come from, im using it a lot like a meme has inhabited my brain, but can't remember where it came from, bloomin things stuck.

Is this the word for true believer now?

regards,

Den.

As mentioned on a different thread, I join the foray page 7 and my comments are not appreciated by a certain mule/sheep hybrid!

Enjoy

http://www.martialedge.net/forum/political,-social,-and-cultural-dimensions-/re%3a9%1011%11-what-the-architects-say/12/72/

Den.

From Wikipedia, a great article:

[edit] Study of conspiracism
In 1936 American commentator H. L. Mencken wrote:

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.[22]
Belief in conspiracy theories has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, when the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy eventually provoked an unprecedented public response directed against the official version of the case as expounded in the Report of the Warren Commission.


[edit] Psychological origins
According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.[23] This may be caused by differences in the information upon which parties rely in formulating their conclusions.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea[citation needed]. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.

Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favour of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.[24]


[edit] Projection
Some historians have argued that there is an element of psychological projection in conspiracism. This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators. Richard Hofstadter, in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, stated that:

...it is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship... the Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front" groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist "crusades" openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.

Hofstadter also noted that "sexual freedom" is a vice frequently attributed to the conspiracist's target group, noting that "very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments."[25]


[edit] Epistemic bias
It is possible that certain basic human epistemic biases are projected onto the material under scrutiny. According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause.[26] The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events' — in which the president died — than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal.

Another epistemic 'rule of thumb' that can be misapplied to a mystery involving other humans is cui bono? (who stands to gain?). This sensitivity to the hidden motives of other people may be an evolved and universal feature of human consciousness.


[edit] Clinical psychology
For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.[27]


[edit] Socio-political origins
Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people. Other social commentators and sociologists argue that conspiracy theories are produced according to variables that may change within a democratic (or other type of) society.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance.[28]

Where responsible behavior is prevented by social conditions, or is simply beyond the ability of an individual, the conspiracy theory facilitates the emotional discharge or closure that such emotional challenges (after Erving Goffman)[citation needed] require. Like moral panics, conspiracy theories thus occur more frequently within communities that are experiencing social isolation or political dis-empowerment.

Mark Fenster argues that "just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm" (1999: 67).

Sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations for the origins of World War I:

Those events that are most important are hardest to understand, because they attract the greatest attention from myth makers and charlatans.
This normal process could be diverted by a number of influences. At the level of the individual, pressing psychological needs may influence the process, and certain of our universal mental tools may impose epistemic 'blind spots'. At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic.

Alternatively, conspiracy theories may arise when evidence available in the public record does not correspond with the common or official version of events. In this regard, conspiracy theories may sometimes serve to highlight 'blind spots' in the common or official interpretations of events (Fenster, 1999).


[edit] Media tropes
Media commentators regularly note a tendency in news media and wider culture to understand events through the prism of individual agents, as opposed to more complex structural or institutional accounts.[29] If this is a true observation, it may be expected that the audience which both demands and consumes this emphasis itself is more receptive to personalized, dramatic accounts of social phenomena.

A second, perhaps related, media trope is the effort to allocate individual responsibility for negative events. The media have a tendency to start to seek culprits if an event occurs that is of such significance that it does not drop off the news agenda within a few days. Of this trend, it has been said that the concept of a pure accident is no longer permitted in a news item.[30] Again, if this is a true observation, it may reflect a real change in how the media consumer perceives negative events.


[edit] Political use
In his two volume work The Open Society And Its Enemies, 1938–1943, Popper used the term "conspiracy theory" to criticize the ideologies driving fascism, Nazism and communism. Popper argued that totalitarianism was founded on "conspiracy theories" which drew on imaginary plots driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, racism or classism. Popper did not argue against the existence of everyday conspiracies (as incorrectly suggested in much of the later literature). Popper even uses the term "conspiracy" to describe ordinary political activity in the classical Athens of Plato (who was the principal target of his attack in The Open Society & Its Enemies).

In his critique of Marx and the twentieth century totalitarians, Popper wrote, "I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena."[31]

He reiterated his point, "Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproved the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy."[31]

Popper proposed the term "the conspiracy theory of society" to criticize the methodology of Marx, Hitler and others whom he deemed to be deluded by "historicism" - the reduction of history to an overt and naive distortion via a crude formulaic analysis usually predicated on an agenda replete with unsound presuppositions.[32]


[edit] Anti-Semitism
The contemporary form of anti-Semitism is identified in Britannica 1911 as a conspiracy theory serving the self-understanding of the European aristocracy, whose social power waned with the rise of bourgeois society.[33]

Antisemitic conspiracy theories have been conceived throughout history. According to Kenneth S. Stern,

"Historically, Jews have not fared well around conspiracy theories. Such ideas fuel anti-Semitism. The myths that Jews killed Christ, or poisoned wells, or killed Christian children to bake matzo, or made up the Holocaust, or plot to control the world, do not succeed each other; rather, the list of anti-Semitic canards gets longer. The militia movement today believes in the conspiracy theory of the Protocols, even if some call it something else and never mention Jews. From the perspective of history, we know that this is the type of climate in which anti-Semitism can grow."[34]

HOORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait for the 'wikipedia is hardly credible evidence' line, even though troofers rely solely on anecdotal evidence.

Regards,

Den.

Alison Bevege from Australia wrote to ask if I could work my "skeptical magic on the following ridiculous claims?" The claims in question involve a litany of absurdities regarding September 11th, including the claim that American Airlines flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Where that flight and its passengers are remains a mystery to these conspiratorially gifted timewasters (perhaps it's been commandeered to area 51?). The Internet has its share of these folks, but apparently the main source for 9/11 conspiracy theories is France and the main deceiver is Thierry Meyssan's L'Effroyable Imposture [The Appalling Deception] (2002).

Fortunately, the latest issue (vol. 9, # 4) of Skeptic magazine has a review by L. Kirk Hagen of this appalling book. Hagen's review is called "French Follies - A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Turns Out to Be An Appalling Deception." I won't go into all the details but one common claim of the paranoid conspiracy theorists (PCTs) is that there was no debris left by flight 77 and no hole in the Pentagon that fits where the plane hit. One Internet PCT writes: "The last time I looked at the real world, a solid object could not pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself." First, the Boeing 757 didn't pass through the Pentagon. Secondly, the last time I looked at the real world when a plane weighing more that 70 tons and traveling over 300 mph while carrying over 10,000 gallons of jet fuel crashes into a something as solid as the Pentagon, the plane disintegrates. (Remember, the mass of this object is distributed over a great amount of space. It's not concentrated in the nose and the wings, which is what the PCT folks seem to be assuming.) However, this PCT has an answer for that fact: It's been proven impossible (he doesn't say how) and it contradicts the notion that bodies were identified by DNA evidence. He also equates "disintegrate" with "incinerate," so that explains in part his belief there couldn't be any DNA evidence to evaluate. Also, shock of shocks, there are contradictions in the eyewitness testimony! Some of it was even fabricated! Hence, there must be a conspiracy and a cover-up.

Meyssan finds it appalling that flight 77, which struck the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m., was unaccounted for for some 40 minutes as it flew 300 miles over Ohio. Hagen points out that there were thousands of planes that had taken off from or were approaching airfields on the Eastern Seaboard. "It is remarkable that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) acted as quickly as it did," says Hagen. "As early as 9:17 a.m. it closed all airports in the New York City area, and by 9:40 a.m. halted all air traffic nationwide. Controllers had been monitoring Flight 77 as it approached Washington, and had even warned the White House." Meyssan, by the way, claims flight 77 was shot down by a missile. Some Internet PCTs claim it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a small plane loaded with explosives.

Gerard Holmgren has posted "An analysis of the physiscs [sic] of the pentagon [sic] crash on Sept 11, 2001." It is quite elaborate and begins by giving all the physical dimensions of a Boeing 757 and a Byzantine set of calculations as to how big a hole such a craft should have put in the Pentagon. Shock of shocks, Mr. Holmgren couldn't find any public listing of the the physical dimensions and structural properties of the Pentagon. Needless to say, I don't have them either, but I can guarantee you that the Pentagon is not built like a barn or a billboard, where, as we have all seen in the movies, a plane leave a visible impression of its wings and fuselage upon passing through. Nevertheless, Mr. Homgren is certain there should be a much bigger hole in the Pentagon than he can decipher from photos, and he has links to many, many photos. He does many calculations, but his conclusion is based on the assumption that the plane should have left a bigger footprint. None of his calculations can show that, unless he also assumes the plane did not disintegrate upon impact.

Holmgren then goes on to do many more calculations of burning points of metals, DNA, etc., to prove that no DNA could have been identified because it would have melted. Again, this assumes all the bodies stayed neatly jammed in a small area where the hottest fire raged and were thus incinerated. This is gruesome, but disintegration was not only of the airplane and the small parts that were disbursed widely were not just metal parts. Now, I have no idea whether DNA was identified (Holmgren says that "authorities" say that 63 of the 64 people aboard were identified by DNA testing), but it seems obvious to anyone with common sense that it would be possible to do such testing on the disbursed body parts. Holmgren's argument assumes everybody was incinerated. My guess is that the rest of his arguments make lots of unwarranted assumptions as well and I'm not going to waste any more time on them.

Alison writes: "I am trying to argue with one of these (PCT) morons but I don't have your skills." My advice is not to argue with them. They have no interest in examining all the facts and only give the appearance of truly wanting to find out the truth about these matters. I suggest, however, that anyone being confronted by the 9/11 PCTs consult Hagen's scathing critique of Meyssan's tabloid best-seller (in France, anyway).

Skepdic.com

Is we learning yet?

I stumbled upon a website that calls itself Educate-Yourself where someone who lists his name as Michael Boggs posted the following: "Skeptic Dictionary website was government created to hide truths regarding topics on their site....I am not endorsing their site in any way. But it is definitely worth checking out. It is a wealth of information. Just remember when they say .. "YES" it really means "NO" and "NO" means "YES"."

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that someone would think there must be a mastermind behind my site, misdirecting millions of people so I can keep them under my control.

This kind of thinking is familiar to those who have studied paranoid conspiracy theorists and those teleological minds who believe there are no coincidences. Michael Shermer discusses this top-down thinking in his new book, a paean to evolutionary psychology, capitalism, and libertarianism: The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics. We must admit that on the one hand many things, like governments and corporations, are run from the top down. And many things seem to be directed from the top down, like the order in nature, even though they have evolved from the bottom up. We might even say that it is natural to think of most complex systems as being designed from the top down. If one needs a counterexample, however, there is always the modern welfare state. It would be pretty hard to see the modern welfare state as the result of anyone's intelligent design. It looks more like a patchwork quilt that has been added to by strangers who have no idea who started it or what purpose it might have.

Conspiracy theories might be natural and understandable but that doesn't excuse their adherents from doing their homework. For example, if you're going to make claims about omissions from the 9/11 Commission report, you ought to first read the report. According to Mark Roberts, 9/11 deniers (those who claim the Bush administration was behind 9/11) have been known to make claims that indicate they haven't read the documents they're criticizing.

Skepdic.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=B000GTJSLW/roberttoddcarrolA/
episode 11
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
one of the best links I found!
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter20.html
content 2!
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=3944&qt=9%2F11
http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter88.html
Is we learning yet?

Hey Jamie,

these links should help you fight the kooks, add that the prev articles I posted and these sources:

The enemies of reason - Richard Dawkins DVD
God is not Great - Christopher Hitchens
The stuff of Thought - Steven Pinker

regards,

Den.

What are conspiracy theories?

Look familiar Jamie?

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_are_conspiracy_theories.php

regards,

Den.

Troofer architects debunked here:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes

regards,

Den.

lovely architect troofer debunking here:

architects debunked

The conspiracy files

The title says it all but still going to try and catch it, expect to see this link added to a certain MA forum by a certain JackAss very soon

Regards,

De.

It's a great link, Den. Setting out the difference between legitimate conspiracy theories i.e. The Princes in the Tower and the paranoid nonsense is an excellent lesson in history.

I have you noticed that when all else fails proper con-theos/pseudohistorians fall back onto the "New World Order" or "Illuminati" conspiracy theory? That the "everything you think you know about history has been changed to suit this ultra-secret pyramid structure" argument. Often the poor old freemasons are cited - it unnerves many con-theos when I explain that both my grandfathers were actually masons. This glorified boys club, which has been proven to do little more than raise money for charity and offer a sense of comradeship, has been blamed for some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in history from orchestrating the Jack the Ripper murders to JFK and beyond.

Just watched the programme,

heres the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fbd8g/b00fbd77/The_Conspiracy_Files_Series_2_911_The_Truth_behind_the_Third_Tower/

Debunks the whole conspiracy BS

Please post this on the 9/11 thread on Martial edge

You have 7 days to view it but if you download it, you keep it for a month,

Regards,

Den.

Den,

You will find that this will send it the debate around in a circle because Mule's original post on the matter was the unedited version of the programme.

Ne Bosh,

Den.