Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

Skepticism Conspiracy Theories
21

There are a number of mechanisms that operate when it comes to decision making in a group. One of them is that when a dominant leader states an opinion, the majority of the rest of the group tend to agree with that opinion. Once George W. made the pronouncement, “Osama did it” and the news media, notably CNN and Fox News ran that hundreds of times, it was hard for anyone to offer a contrary opinion. Also, at a time when saying anything that could be construed as “Anti-America” was roundly condemned and your job could be on the line for it, those who dissented with the “official version” of events mostly chose to keep silent.

You appear to be pushing the straw man argument hard. It really does not matter how the twin towers and building 7 were demolished. What really matters is why.

Although in late 2001 and for two to three years after that, the majority of Americans were convinced that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, recent polls have found that a majority of Americans now think that their own government had a hand in the events of 9/11. Why would that be the case? Well, since then, the evidence that Bush and Blair flat out lied about Suddam Hussein having WMD and Iraq being involved in 9/11 has become overwhelming. Not only did they lie about it, but they colluded to manufacture evidence to persuade their respective countries’ elected representatives (Congress and Senate in the US, House of Commons in the UK) to vote in favour of attacking Iraq.

Now the majority of Americans have made the connection, and concluded that if Bush could lie about Iraq having WMD and supporting Al Queda, then he probably lied about Osama bin Laden and Al Queda and 9/11 too.

Under these conditions, the White House and the State Department have still not produced solid evidence that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, even though their jobs are now on the line because of that and the lies propogaged about Iraq.

22

The method of propaganda being employed here is called the “Big Lie”. The following quote is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. …

Just for the record, I agree with the opinion of many analysts that there is no threat of global terrorism. The “War on Terrorism” is a hoax.

23

My turn to be the stuck record, okay?

All you’ve provided thus far is further accusation, backed, at best, with flimsy circumstantial speculation that is indistinguishable from a rant.

On the one hand, you credit “them” with the wilyness to construct this “Big Lie” of yours (without telling us the “Big Truth”), on the other “they” are too stupid to heed the lesson of Watergate.

Now, which is it?

'Luthon64

24

One wonders what inventive spin the CTists will put on this:

The 31 plots that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he helped organise, according to a defence department transcript of a statement he made during a hearing at Guantanamo Bay prison:

<…snip…>

  • The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.

<…snip…>


Could it be a forced confession, obtained under torture or duress? Is Khalid a hypnotised or brainwashed patsy, perhaps? Maybe it’s all staged to “bring about closure,” and Khalid will quietly disappear into a life of luxury, courtesy of assorted US government agencies, after a suitable show has been put on. Or is it merely an old-fashioned double-cross the US is pulling on one of its own in pursuit of “plausible deniability” now that tempers are flaring?

The mind reels with possibilities.

It would be asking way too much that the 911 CT lobby consider Khalid’s statement at face value: as the admission of a pathological terrorist with much deranged hate for the world in his heart, and murderous bouts of carefully composed rage its only vent.

But that possibility’s just too simple.

'Luthon64

25

The evidence that 9/11 was an engineered event by western intelligence agencies and the global elite is overwhelming. If you want to be enlightened, visit www.rense.com and prepared to be blown away!

26

Interesting, then, that Jeff Rense is so often described as a loon, whose stock-in-trade, like a fringe low-circulation newsletter, is racism and hate speech. Oh, but I forget: it’s all part of a big conspiracy to discredit Rense and to manipulate the population-at-large, keeping them dumb.

ETA: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64

27

Oh well if it’s on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL. Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue? Please don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

28

Oh well if it’s on rense.com it must be true then? LOL.
As your name suggests, your logic has bombed with this one. By your logic, someone must be right if their views are rejected? People like Rense are not taken seriously because they have no evidence for what they are arguing. Besides, it’s been tried, knocked, and sensible people have moved on.

29

The truth isn’t guaranteed, of course, but the nature of Wikipedia makes it a credible resource. You must have missed the prolific list of contributors to the article, and you’re also entitled to correct any factual errors it contains. Please go ahead and do so.

Please do! Copernicus had lots of solid evidence to back up his claims. Bill Gates had the acute foresight to bet on the right horse. Jeff Rense, on the other hand, has neither good evidence nor good horse sense, despite your earlier averment re “overwhelming evidence”. Were it so overwhelming, you can be sure that a major US newspaper or two, if not one of several independent investigative bodies, would have picked up on it.

Oh, I have tried the “troofers” but I found their ill-conceived rants, badly constructed argumentation, poor grasp of scientific principles, manufactured coincidences and energetic finger pointing quite unconvincing, not to mention morally repugnant. They rely on emotive humbug to evince an emotional response, not a rational one. We all like a good scapegoat for our own bad fortunes; why not make one up with blacker-than-black morals?

So my question still stands: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

And, what bluegray V said. :slight_smile:

'Luthon64

30

Look I’m not going to be drawn into a senseless battle of wits here. If you want to believe the mainstream media (all owned by the global elite) then that is your choice. If you want to knock rense.com without delving into the NUMEROUS reports with FACTS on 9/11 etc., then you can also try www.infowars.com. I was not promoting Jeff Rense as an individual, there are hundreds of contributors with unquestionable credentials that submit articles to his site. And if you really want to honestly seek the truth behind the global conspiracy, google for and download a document called “World’s last chance”, detailing the rise of the Illuminati and global elite since its’ official inception on 1 July 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. If you can’t find it on the net, let me know and I will email the doc to you.

31

Well well well. Just had a look at wikipedia’s Jeff Rense article and couldn’t see any major lists of references as promised? hmmm they don’t even take his character apart either…

32

I smell something funny.
Show me the polls that most Americans believe their government had a hand in 9/11.
And pray tell, who’s jobs are on the line because of 9/11 or Iraq?

You overestimate the ability for a government to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude.

Back to the original question of the post.
I believe there are two major reasons for people to believe cospiracy theories.
Some obviously make money off of them (for writing or selling books, giving speeches etc.). Many of these people believe what they are shoveling, and like with psychics, et al, there are some just taking advantage of others. Go to Dealy Plaza in Dallas, and there are guys walking around selling books and stuff and telling you how JFK was REALLY killed.
Some (like a couple that have shown up here) seem to feel like they are smarter than the rest of us because they know what REALLY happened, even if there is no compelling evidence for it. To say “the US government did it” is so ridiculously vague that one could not even refute the argument except to point out the evidence that it was a terrorist attack.
Finally, many people may never actually swallow the conspiracy line, but still find it fascinating. Of course we do, just like a good book with a good conspiracy.
However, I would like to point out that to shovel out this nonsense is very insensitive to the survivors. It is like a child being killed by a random car jacker and then you telling everyone that it was actually one of the child’s parents. Frankly, it disgusts me.

33

Then why make such a bold claim as, “The evidence that 9/11 was an engineered event by western intelligence agencies and the global elite is overwhelming?” You won’t get a free ride on something like that, certainly not in this forum. It’s very simple: either put forward this “overwhelming evidence” or retract your claim. General hand-waving in the direction of one or two websites isn’t evidence of anything other than an expectation of gullibility. If neither option suits you, you will then have to accept that people are entitled to dismiss without further ado your claim as just so much hooey.

But I shall seek out the document you mention.

The phrase I used was “prolific list of contributors.” They’re listed down the right-hand edge. Still, my bad: I should instead have written “911 truth movement participants.”

Really? You don’t consider being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” pejorative? Or mentioning that “[t]he Rense.com web page access is now restricted (as of 12/2007) from some users by the Websense firewall, which blocks the site under the categories ‘racism’ and ‘hate.’”

'Luthon64

34

Nope, Google doesn’t turn up a “World’s last chance” article of the kind Logic_Bomb describes.

Google search for »“World’s last chance” Illuminati “Adam Weishaupt”«.

'Luthon64

35

From http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

"
Conspiracy
Category: Conspiracies • Denialism Defined
Posted on: April 30, 2007 8:00 AM, by MarkH

Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
-Benjamin Franklin

What are denialist conspiracy theories and why should people be instantly distrustful of them? And what do they have to do with denialism?

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don’t just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say “everything is the same” aren’t interesting and don’t get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution because we’ve been infiltrated by a cabal of “materialists” is even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind. Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments - the tinfoil hat.

"

Emphasis mine, and I fully agree.

36

This is what I found on google for “worlds last chance”:
http://www.worldslastchance.com/, or is there another site with the document you mentioned Logic_ Bomb?

37

No it’s not that website. I have the document with the author’s website on my PC at home, I will check it out and let you know tomorrow. It’s an exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) document which traces the NWO from 1 May 1776, really worth the read if you are sincere about wanting to know what’s going on behind the scenes. Here’s a link to an interesting piece too: http://www.geocities.com/hankmcintyre/nwofacts1.html.

Anacoluthon I’m curious to know if you are open at all to a different viewpoint than the one you currently hold, because the simple fact of the matter is that there is so much information to support everything I’ve said (which really hasn’t been much!). It’s all out there on the www for anyone to find, if you’d care to look. Skip the mainstream media for a change and prepare to have your mind blown!

38

Ah, yes, insinuate that your detractors don’t have an open mind. But to answer your question, what do you expect I will say? “No,” perhaps? Of course I’m open to different viewpoints, but what you’re talking about are facts rather than viewpoints, and facts are by their nature verifiable. It’s the interpretation of those facts on which we differ.

I see. So accusing the “western intelligence agencies and the global elite” of mass murder, grievous bodily harm on a grand scale, colossal property damage, treachery, deception, collusion and a litany of lesser crimes is, in your estimation, “really not much.” See, that’s where we differ: an accusation of such proportions as you have proposed absolutely demands a watertight body of evidence, not circumstantial arguments from incredulity, false dichotomy, and lukewarm speculation bolstered by fervid rhetoric. And remember that the onus is on you as the claimant to prove your case, not on me or anyone else to disprove it.

I have done so. I have told you this. I have also told you why I reject their contentions regarding the 911 event.

Now, what is your evidence? And, once again, what evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64

39

Wow you’re a tough cookie. I am not the originator/author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory (misnomer if ever there was one). Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com? You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there. If, after reading these, you are still unclear, please let me know so we can chat about it once we’re on the same page. With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report’s authenticity, as it has been debunked ad nauseam by experts from many fields of science, politics, etc. Now relax a bit, take your hard hat off and read some :stuck_out_tongue:

40

But clearly you subscribe to it as proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Why?

How so?

For the third time, yes.

And again, what “factual evidence” are you referring to?

You’re obviously confused over the issue of “onus,” “burden of proof” and “no free ride” I mentioned earlier so allow me to clarify: It means that you present your case with the specific arguments plus supporting evidence that leave you convinced of what you’re proposing. Any forum member then has the right of reply to present counterarguments and evidence. What it decidedly does not mean is that – and I repeat – a general hand-wave at one or two websites (which, worse yet, also contain a glut of extraneous information) can be taken as a valid argument. If it were so, I would be entitled to argue that fairies exist because a Google search returns 18,500,000 hits, many of which assert that fairies are real. You will, I hope, agree that arguing thus is absurd.

Well there we have it – “[N]othing could convince me…,” including, presumably, the debunkings and counter-debunkings of the “troofers.” So there’s no point in debating then, is there? What is your purpose here?

'Luthon64