1 of 3
1
Conspiracy Deniers
Posted: 28 December 2013 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  817
Joined  2012-04-25

For those in this forum who seem to deny any kind of government conspiracy and call those who don’t “nutjobs”, please read this article (very short). Also note the references to Chile, Iran, etc. in the 4th paragraph.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tirman/nsa-deep-state_b_3569316.html  Of course the author, an executive director at MIT could be just another nutjob, but I doubt it.

My point is, given articles like this, and books I’ve mentioned in the past like Shock Doctrine and Overthrow, IMO it is incredibly naïve to the point of absurdity to ever EVER believe an official story that comes from the US government, and yet time and time again I see otherwise skeptical posters just go along with the official line, especially when it comes to 911. I just don’t get it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16

Interesting. I’ve always thought the overthrow of Mosaddegh was a particularly disgraceful historical event for the UK and the USA to have been responsible for. It seems to me we are still very much suffering the consequences of that now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
CuthbertJ - 28 December 2013 08:31 AM

For those in this forum who seem to deny any kind of government conspiracy and call those who don’t “nutjobs”, please read this article (very short). Also note the references to Chile, Iran, etc. in the 4th paragraph.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tirman/nsa-deep-state_b_3569316.html  Of course the author, an executive director at MIT could be just another nutjob, but I doubt it.

My point is, given articles like this, and books I’ve mentioned in the past like Shock Doctrine and Overthrow, IMO it is incredibly naïve to the point of absurdity to ever EVER believe an official story that comes from the US government, and yet time and time again I see otherwise skeptical posters just go along with the official line, especially when it comes to 911. I just don’t get it.


Many of us do not deny every kind of government conspiracy, but realize that actual conspiracies must be small and short lived, and that conspiracies on a large scale that go on for years without anyone showing detailed evidence of their existence and mechanism—instead of speculation,  are impossible. 

“While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.

“Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.

“‘If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,’ Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. . . .

“Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.”

nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 28 December 2013 12:24 PM

“‘If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,’ Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. . . .

“Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.”

On this particular point, as I said some time ago on your “Why people believe in conspiracy theories” thread, Lois:

jomper - 14 May 2013 03:02 AM

Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by “most people” and I find the world to be more “chaotic” and “rudderless” that this is in fact the case. I don’t subscribe to any other “conspiracy theories” and have no idea who “they” are if “they” did it, but I don’t find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 28 December 2013 12:39 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 12:24 PM

“‘If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,’ Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. . . .

“Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.”

On this particular point, as I said some time ago on your “Why people believe in conspiracy theories” thread, Lois:

jomper - 14 May 2013 03:02 AM

Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by “most people” and I find the world to be more “chaotic” and “rudderless” that this is in fact the case. I don’t subscribe to any other “conspiracy theories” and have no idea who “they” are if “they” did it, but I don’t find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.


I don’t for a minute think most people or even a substantial number of people think the final report on WTC 7 is the last word on the subject. There is, no doubt, more to be learned, but, most likely, not a conspiracy.  Most people are simply tired of arguing with people who have nothing but speculation with no objective evidence that there was a conspiracy and not even a rational speculation about who, how and when a conspiracy could have taken place, how it could have been so completely covered up afterwards, how so many people could have been so heavily involved and why. Maybe when someone comes up with a rational explanation, not empty speculation, more people will be willing to listen. Until then, I cannot blame the majority of people for taking a wait and see attitude. The burden of proof lies with those claiming a conspiracy.  No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place. That, and little else, is the reason most people are not fighting the report.  People have more pressing and important things to do than focus on an issue that has been shown to be nothing more than idle speculation, red herrings and blind alleys. Let us know when you find some solid evidence that a conspiracy took place, including who, how and why. Otherwise you will get no traction for your ideas and no following by rational people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20

While it can be difficult to maintain secrecy in large conspiracies, it can also be difficult to overcome the natural reluctance of many people to question authority, which can have negative consequences, the current application of treason charges to genuine whistleblowers by the Obama administration being an example.

You also have to ask how much we would know of the extensive misuse of power under the Nixon administration if not for a security guard noticing a door at the Watergate kept open with a piece of duct tape. People and groups in a position of power can and sometimes do abuse that power. That doesn’t mean everything is a conspiracy, just that skepticism is a vital part of honest and open human systems.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Fuzzy Logic - 28 December 2013 01:59 PM

While it can be difficult to maintain secrecy in large conspiracies, it can also be difficult to overcome the natural reluctance of many people to question authority, which can have negative consequences, the current application of treason charges to genuine whistleblowers by the Obama administration being an example.

Great the next time I get pulled over for speeding I’ll just say I’m a whistle blower.
Or maybe I will rob a bank and then if I get caught I will just claim I’m a genuine whistleblower. It’s all good.

Whistle blowers are the ones who expose the lawbreakers. Not the lawbreakers claiming they are immune to rules based on a subjective interpretation of their reality. Even if it does enjoy a good amount of support from the same people this thread has started discussing.
IE…the people who question authority or see ulterior motives behind everything.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2013 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 28 December 2013 01:40 PM
jomper - 28 December 2013 12:39 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 12:24 PM

“‘If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,’ Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. . . .

“Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.”

On this particular point, as I said some time ago on your “Why people believe in conspiracy theories” thread, Lois:

jomper - 14 May 2013 03:02 AM

Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by “most people” and I find the world to be more “chaotic” and “rudderless” that this is in fact the case. I don’t subscribe to any other “conspiracy theories” and have no idea who “they” are if “they” did it, but I don’t find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.


I don’t for a minute think most people or even a substantial number of people think the final report on WTC 7 is the last word on the subject. There is, no doubt, more to be learned, but, most likely, not a conspiracy.  Most people are simply tired of arguing with people who have nothing but speculation with no objective evidence that there was a conspiracy and not even a rational speculation about who, how and when a conspiracy could have taken place, how it could have been so completely covered up afterwards, how so many people could have been so heavily involved and why. Maybe when someone comes up with a rational explanation, not empty speculation, more people will be willing to listen. Until then, I cannot blame the majority of people for taking a wait and see attitude. The burden of proof lies with those claiming a conspiracy.  No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place. That, and little else, is the reason most people are not fighting the report.  People have more pressing and important things to do than focus on an issue that has been shown to be nothing more than idle speculation, red herrings and blind alleys. Let us know when you find some solid evidence that a conspiracy took place, including who, how and why. Otherwise you will get no traction for your ideas and no following by rational people.

All of this is totally irrelevant to the question of exactly how WTC 7 came down. That is all that matters in this case, although it is not a subject for this thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 05:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 28 December 2013 04:42 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 01:40 PM
jomper - 28 December 2013 12:39 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 12:24 PM

“‘If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,’ Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. . . .

“Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.”

On this particular point, as I said some time ago on your “Why people believe in conspiracy theories” thread, Lois:

jomper - 14 May 2013 03:02 AM

Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by “most people” and I find the world to be more “chaotic” and “rudderless” that this is in fact the case. I don’t subscribe to any other “conspiracy theories” and have no idea who “they” are if “they” did it, but I don’t find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.


I don’t for a minute think most people or even a substantial number of people think the final report on WTC 7 is the last word on the subject. There is, no doubt, more to be learned, but, most likely, not a conspiracy.  Most people are simply tired of arguing with people who have nothing but speculation with no objective evidence that there was a conspiracy and not even a rational speculation about who, how and when a conspiracy could have taken place, how it could have been so completely covered up afterwards, how so many people could have been so heavily involved and why. Maybe when someone comes up with a rational explanation, not empty speculation, more people will be willing to listen. Until then, I cannot blame the majority of people for taking a wait and see attitude. The burden of proof lies with those claiming a conspiracy.  No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place. That, and little else, is the reason most people are not fighting the report.  People have more pressing and important things to do than focus on an issue that has been shown to be nothing more than idle speculation, red herrings and blind alleys. Let us know when you find some solid evidence that a conspiracy took place, including who, how and why. Otherwise you will get no traction for your ideas and no following by rational people.

All of this is totally irrelevant to the question of exactly how WTC 7 came down. That is all that matters in this case, although it is not a subject for this thread.


Of course it is a subject for this thread, but not in the way you apparentlly think. It’s one example in a myriad of conspiracy theories. But how the towers came down is not the subject that needs to be investigated.  First those who think a conspiracy took place have to give some evidence that a conspiracy actually took place, that it was an actual factor, who could have or would have engaged in it and why. Focussing on all of the minutia of the collapse of buildings will show nothing until someone comes up with some hard, objective evidence that a conspiracy happened and affected the outcome. All the investigation of the minutia that could possibly take place will tell us nothing if those questions are not answered first. So far, I have not heard even a rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place, by whom or why. That is why conspiracy speculations get no traction. 

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2007-04-26

I swore not to get involved in the WTC conspiracy nonsense again but let me point out a few things. First, the main reason conspiracy theorists get a lot of flack around here is they spend most of their time trying to disprove the prevailing theory without offering any real evidence to support their own theory.

Secondly, they never try to disprove their own fragmented and poorly conceived theories. If they did they would find they are full of holes. There is a lot of discussion on this site about WTC7 but consider this. Let’s say you are some rogue element of the government with a plan to stage a terrorist attack for whatever reason. Are you trying to tell me that destroying the two iconic and tallest buildings in NYC is not enough to accomplish your goals so you take the added and unnecessary risk of rigging up explossives in another non-descript building no one has ever heard of just to put a cherry on your evil deed?

So you propose a theory that makes no sense what so ever and then provide no evidence to support it. Do you understand why we all prefer not to waste our time with this stuff?

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 07:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
macgyver - 29 December 2013 06:35 AM

I swore not to get involved in the WTC conspiracy nonsense again but let me point out a few things. First, the main reason conspiracy theorists get a lot of flack around here is they spend most of their time trying to disprove the prevailing theory without offering any real evidence to support their own theory.

Secondly, they never try to disprove their own fragmented and poorly conceived theories. If they did they would find they are full of holes. There is a lot of discussion on this site about WTC7 but consider this. Let’s say you are some rogue element of the government with a plan to stage a terrorist attack for whatever reason. Are you trying to tell me that destroying the two iconic and tallest buildings in NYC is not enough to accomplish your goals so you take the added and unnecessary risk of rigging up explossives in another non-descript building no one has ever heard of just to put a cherry on your evil deed?

So you propose a theory that makes no sense what so ever and then provide no evidence to support it. Do you understand why we all prefer not to waste our time with this stuff?

A transparent appeal to incredulity that does nothing to address the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it did. With respect, that’s pretty pathetic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

So far, I have not heard even a rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

Presumably then you think the conspiracy you believe occurred is founded in an entirely rational narrative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2007-04-26
jomper - 29 December 2013 07:22 AM
macgyver - 29 December 2013 06:35 AM

I swore not to get involved in the WTC conspiracy nonsense again but let me point out a few things. First, the main reason conspiracy theorists get a lot of flack around here is they spend most of their time trying to disprove the prevailing theory without offering any real evidence to support their own theory.

Secondly, they never try to disprove their own fragmented and poorly conceived theories. If they did they would find they are full of holes. There is a lot of discussion on this site about WTC7 but consider this. Let’s say you are some rogue element of the government with a plan to stage a terrorist attack for whatever reason. Are you trying to tell me that destroying the two iconic and tallest buildings in NYC is not enough to accomplish your goals so you take the added and unnecessary risk of rigging up explossives in another non-descript building no one has ever heard of just to put a cherry on your evil deed?

So you propose a theory that makes no sense what so ever and then provide no evidence to support it. Do you understand why we all prefer not to waste our time with this stuff?

A transparent appeal to incredulity that does nothing to address the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it did. With respect, that’s pretty pathetic.

And I assume you speak from a wealth of knowledge on structural design and structural failure ( which we both know you do not have). If not then it’s your transparent appeal to paranoia which is pathetic

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
macgyver - 29 December 2013 08:16 AM
jomper - 29 December 2013 07:22 AM
macgyver - 29 December 2013 06:35 AM

I swore not to get involved in the WTC conspiracy nonsense again but let me point out a few things. First, the main reason conspiracy theorists get a lot of flack around here is they spend most of their time trying to disprove the prevailing theory without offering any real evidence to support their own theory.

Secondly, they never try to disprove their own fragmented and poorly conceived theories. If they did they would find they are full of holes. There is a lot of discussion on this site about WTC7 but consider this. Let’s say you are some rogue element of the government with a plan to stage a terrorist attack for whatever reason. Are you trying to tell me that destroying the two iconic and tallest buildings in NYC is not enough to accomplish your goals so you take the added and unnecessary risk of rigging up explossives in another non-descript building no one has ever heard of just to put a cherry on your evil deed?

So you propose a theory that makes no sense what so ever and then provide no evidence to support it. Do you understand why we all prefer not to waste our time with this stuff?

A transparent appeal to incredulity that does nothing to address the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it did. With respect, that’s pretty pathetic.

And I assume you speak from a wealth of knowledge on structural design and structural failure ( which we both know you do not have). If not then it’s your transparent appeal to paranoia which is pathetic

Yep, move along, everyone. Nobody really cares if there’s a credible explanation or not.

You must be proud of your rational thinking on the issue, sir.

And where is this “appeal to paranoia” I have made that is so transparent? Perhaps you can quote it back to me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 29 December 2013 08:01 AM
Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

So far, I have not heard even a rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

Presumably then you think the conspiracy you believe occurred is founded in an entirely rational narrative.

I have no idea what you are saying here.  I have not suggested a conspiracy.

The ball is still in your court.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 29 December 2013 10:34 AM
jomper - 29 December 2013 08:01 AM
Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

So far, I have not heard even a rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

Presumably then you think the conspiracy you believe occurred is founded in an entirely rational narrative.

I have no idea what you are saying here.  I have not suggested a conspiracy.

I see, so a conspiracy you accept occurred is not a conspiracy at all to you?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1