Sunday, September 17, 2006

The One Truth That 9/11 Deniers Won't Face

The 9/11 denial movement has enjoyed a measure of success in recent months in gaining national attention. We have seen them on CNN, heard them on radio shows, and their books and websites abound. These conspiracy theorists are eager to confront and deny any truth about the 9/11 tragedies. All except for one. No 9/11 denier is willing to face or admit this truth: They want 9/11 to have been a government conspiracy rather than a terrorist attack.

 

I do not make such a statement casually. It is based extensive interactions with many 9/11 deniers over several months. I have participated in several Internet forums that discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have even posed as a 9/11 denier to trade theories and rumors. Conspiracists don't arrive at their conclusions based on a skeptical and dispassionate evaluation of forensic evidence or expert analysis. Instead, they avidly embrace and utilize any circumstantial evidence that appears to support their favorite theory. They ignore logic. They employ logical fallacies in their arguments. It is this lack of objectivity and reasoning that betrays the fact that the 9/11 denier is motivated, not by truth, but by the desire to defend and validate their desired theory, namely that 9/11 was "an inside job".

 

During these interactions, I offered forensic evidence, scientific analysis, photos, simulations, and expert testimony that disproved the myths that underlie many conspiracy theories. For my temerity, I was rewarded with insults and name-calling, and I was frequently labeled as a "government shill" or a "paid disinformation agent". According to the 9/11 deniers, this information had been manufactured or influenced by "the conspiracy cabal." Thus, rather than evaluating the offered information, 9/11 deniers attacked both the messenger and the source.

 

For example, during an exchange on the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed due to demolition explosives, I questioned the lack of support of this theory by any demolitions expert or structural engineer. I noted that NIST, as part of its extensive investigation, had enlisted the services of hundreds of professionals including engineers, scientists, architects, and demolitions experts. Wouldn't the findings of these professionals be considered valid expert analysis? The answer according to the conspiracy theorist was "no". Why? Because, to the 9/11 denier, NIST is a government agency controlled by the conspiracy. And, no engineers have come forward because they are being suborned with "lucrative" government contracts.

 

In Stephen Covey's seminal work, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", one habit is "begin with the end in mind". That habit is excellent for organizing projects. However, it is utterly out of place in the search for truth and answers. Scientific rigor and methodical evaluation of possibilities are keys to finding answers and truth. The conspiracy theorists, however, have fully internalized the "begin with the end in mind" habit in regards to 9/11. In their case, the "end" is that our government, in some shape or manner, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or knowingly allowed them to occur. They start with that goal in mind and work backwards to find any circumstantial evidence that might support that goal.

 

Recent polls have suggested that this 9/11 denial viewpoint might encompass up to one-third of Americans. For example, an August poll by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Of course, the same poll also found that 38% believe that the government assassinated President Kennedy and 40% believe that the government is hiding the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Perhaps paranoid conspiracism is simply a mindset of our times.

 

In investigating the details of this poll, several interesting findings came to light. The detailed results that prompted the conclusion noted in the preceding paragraph show that 16% thought that government involvement was "very likely", 20% thought it "somewhat likely" and 59% thought it "not likely" while 5% didn't care to answer. However, when asked very specific questions on likely conspiracy theories, rather than a general question, the results dropped. Only 6% thought it "very likely" that a missile hit the Pentagon or that the Twin Towers were collapsed by demolition explosives compared to 80% who found those scenarios "not likely".

 

This poll also identified a rising level of anger against the federal government and concluded that "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories". The poll also noted that those most likely to accept conspiracy theories included young adults, frequent Internet users, Democrats, racial and ethnic minorities, and those with only a high school education.

 

Why do I mention this poll and note these results? Because they again demonstrate that 9/11 deniers are motivated, not by a desire to find an objective and scientifically demonstrable truth, but rather because they want 9/11 to have been a conspiracy rather than a terrorist attack. A government conspiracy validates their anger at the federal government, it helps their political and/or societal agenda. An "inside job" suits the goals of these people far more than the reality of the worldwide terrorist threat.

 

The 9/11 deniers refer to themselves as "truth activists". That is a half-truth. They are certainly activists. But they are not pursuing truth.

It would be nice to include the link to the source, cuz' I doubt you did all the research, and wrote the article.

And concerning the matter at hand I pretty much agree.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/17/the-one-truth-that-9-11-deniers-wont-face/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdebunk9-11myths.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F09%2Fone-truth-that-911-deniers-wont-face.html&frame=true

"Conspiracists don't arrive at their conclusions based on a skeptical and dispassionate evaluation of forensic evidence or expert analysis. Instead, they avidly embrace and utilize any circumstantial evidence that appears to support their favorite theory. They ignore logic."

 

Mmmmm...

"Conspiracists don't arrive at their conclusions based on a skeptical and dispassionate evaluation of forensic evidence or expert analysis. Instead, they avidly embrace and utilize any circumstantial evidence that appears to support their favorite theory. They ignore logic."

 

Mmmmm...

 

Yeah, that's not really true is it.

To be honest, alot of people are still outraged by the iraq invasion and i think people are only 'outraged' because its cool to be antiwar. You see alot of celebs against it, and naturally like sheep they follow.

 

9/11 was way to risky for a government to pull off - think of the all the people involved and the potential for something to go wrong.

 

Conspirists mistake government incompetence as proof of wrong doing - Look at americas response to Katrina - they knew it was coming and they till fucked it up.

 

Every scrap of evidence thats proves them wrong is dismissed because 'the government pays them - except when it supports their views.

 

This Alex Jones bloke who predicted 9/11 - he said in June 2001 there would be an immient attack - 3-4 months is not immient.

 

They claim the US needed it to happen to invade Iraq - When the US couldve had an easier time claiming a breech of UN rules and invading anyway.

 

They claim this is all done so america could have the oil fields -They forget America had access to it anyway - UN food for oil, then theres loads and loads of countries in the world that have oil.

 

They nelgect the fact that Bush had an agenda against Iraq going way back into the 90's, they forget the fact that he wasnt doing very well in the polls either - There have been loads of cases where a quick victory has boasted a leaders popularity - Hitler did in 1936, Maggie in 1982 spring to mind.

Wow, some of your points are terrible. And I gladly would sit here and write another massive post showing you why but I really am becoming less interested to in explaining this to 2-3 people on this board. Ask someone else.

 

And this isn't me just backing down, far from it.....I'm just genuinely shocked at the lack of understanding of some areas by some people.

 

"America had access to it [oil] anyway - UN food for oil"

 

Yeah....ask someone else.

Its called Logic Gareth, try using it sometime!

 

Think why arent Americas enemies using this knowledge? They would have a field day to end all field days!

 

Why would America go to all this trouble and then let a few conspirsy nuts on the internet unravel their secret?

 

Surely someone whos killed 3,000 people wont hesitite to kill a few more.

 

The paper trail left behind, the emails, the the memos, everything else gets leaked, but nope nothing to indicate that the government planned it.

 

All youve got is the buildings fell funny, and a possible motive.

"conspirsy nuts"

 

And you wonder way I don't want to talk about it anymore.

 

I suggest you read some books to answer those questions because I'm done with you children.

The fact remains, theres so many logical reasons why America could not be behind this.

The fact remains' date=' theres so many logical reasons why America could not be behind this.[/quote']

 

People like Gareth dont think using logic or reason or even facts. its sad but true.:\

Any information which points towards an inside job, even if it's a quote taken out of context is welcomed...

 

...any stuff which is against an inside job is pushed too one side by the narrow-minded twats who think that 9/11 was an inside job saying that "it was written by the governement to cover their tracks"

Sunday, September 17, 2006

The One Truth That 9/11 Deniers Won't Face

The 9/11 denial movement has enjoyed a measure of success in recent months in gaining national attention. We have seen them on CNN, heard them on radio shows, and their books and websites abound. These conspiracy theorists are eager to confront and deny any truth about the 9/11 tragedies. All except for one. No 9/11 denier is willing to face or admit this truth: They want 9/11 to have been a government conspiracy rather than a terrorist attack.

 

I do not make such a statement casually. It is based extensive interactions with many 9/11 deniers over several months. I have participated in several Internet forums that discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have even posed as a 9/11 denier to trade theories and rumors. Conspiracists don't arrive at their conclusions based on a skeptical and dispassionate evaluation of forensic evidence or expert analysis. Instead, they avidly embrace and utilize any circumstantial evidence that appears to support their favorite theory. They ignore logic. They employ logical fallacies in their arguments. It is this lack of objectivity and reasoning that betrays the fact that the 9/11 denier is motivated, not by truth, but by the desire to defend and validate their desired theory, namely that 9/11 was "an inside job".

 

During these interactions, I offered forensic evidence, scientific analysis, photos, simulations, and expert testimony that disproved the myths that underlie many conspiracy theories. For my temerity, I was rewarded with insults and name-calling, and I was frequently labeled as a "government shill" or a "paid disinformation agent". According to the 9/11 deniers, this information had been manufactured or influenced by "the conspiracy cabal." Thus, rather than evaluating the offered information, 9/11 deniers attacked both the messenger and the source.

 

For example, during an exchange on the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed due to demolition explosives, I questioned the lack of support of this theory by any demolitions expert or structural engineer. I noted that NIST, as part of its extensive investigation, had enlisted the services of hundreds of professionals including engineers, scientists, architects, and demolitions experts. Wouldn't the findings of these professionals be considered valid expert analysis? The answer according to the conspiracy theorist was "no". Why? Because, to the 9/11 denier, NIST is a government agency controlled by the conspiracy. And, no engineers have come forward because they are being suborned with "lucrative" government contracts.

 

In Stephen Covey's seminal work, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", one habit is "begin with the end in mind". That habit is excellent for organizing projects. However, it is utterly out of place in the search for truth and answers. Scientific rigor and methodical evaluation of possibilities are keys to finding answers and truth. The conspiracy theorists, however, have fully internalized the "begin with the end in mind" habit in regards to 9/11. In their case, the "end" is that our government, in some shape or manner, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or knowingly allowed them to occur. They start with that goal in mind and work backwards to find any circumstantial evidence that might support that goal.

 

Recent polls have suggested that this 9/11 denial viewpoint might encompass up to one-third of Americans. For example, an August poll by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Of course, the same poll also found that 38% believe that the government assassinated President Kennedy and 40% believe that the government is hiding the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Perhaps paranoid conspiracism is simply a mindset of our times.

 

In investigating the details of this poll, several interesting findings came to light. The detailed results that prompted the conclusion noted in the preceding paragraph show that 16% thought that government involvement was "very likely", 20% thought it "somewhat likely" and 59% thought it "not likely" while 5% didn't care to answer. However, when asked very specific questions on likely conspiracy theories, rather than a general question, the results dropped. Only 6% thought it "very likely" that a missile hit the Pentagon or that the Twin Towers were collapsed by demolition explosives compared to 80% who found those scenarios "not likely".

 

This poll also identified a rising level of anger against the federal government and concluded that "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories". The poll also noted that those most likely to accept conspiracy theories included young adults, frequent Internet users, Democrats, racial and ethnic minorities, and those with only a high school education.

 

Why do I mention this poll and note these results? Because they again demonstrate that 9/11 deniers are motivated, not by a desire to find an objective and scientifically demonstrable truth, but rather because they want 9/11 to have been a conspiracy rather than a terrorist attack. A government conspiracy validates their anger at the federal government, it helps their political and/or societal agenda. An "inside job" suits the goals of these people far more than the reality of the worldwide terrorist threat.

 

The 9/11 deniers refer to themselves as "truth activists". That is a half-truth. They are certainly activists. But they are not pursuing truth.

 

 

summerize what are you talking about,dont copy,past and make new thread.

Its an article on why people who claim 9/11 was an inside job are people hellbent on proving it, even thou theres tons of proof that they're wrong.

 

"Conspiracists don't arrive at their conclusions based on a skeptical and dispassionate evaluation of forensic evidence or expert analysis. Instead, they avidly embrace and utilize any circumstantial evidence that appears to support their favorite theory. They ignore logic."

 

Sums it up better then i could.

Conspiracists are like the media, they take quotes from interviews and blow then up so that it appears that that quote is saying something completely difference.

 

Did you know that the US governement were behind the paris concorde crash because they wanted to kill of concorde as it wasn't american.

And did you know, it wasnt Germany who invaded Poland - It was America

 

America promotes its own intrests first- it dont care about foreign companies, but because America has that attitude then they're guilty of something.

 

Given half a chance, every country would do the same.Thats what governments are for -doing the best for the people and companies in its country.

(pss, i was joking about concorde, it was a tragic accident)

 

But the reason why I bought it up is that 11th september 2001 was the first concorde flight to america after the paris crash.

was it?, well we all know what happened to the Airline industry afterwards. Youve got me thinking now.

Although it wasn't a revenue flight, as all the passengers were BA employees. The first passenger service was in november.

Even so, the points in the article are so true, look at what Gareth has been posting - hes doing what the article says. Hes following the form guide.