"9/11 Conspiracy Show" Topic

Nat Geo repeated the excellent show hosted by (C)NBC's Lester Holt regarding the 9/11 Conspiracies and while I've seen it before, it is a very good show and pretty much disproves most of the Truther theories out there…but at the same time did point out several "inconsistencies" that have yet to be clarified.

However, Nat Geo also premiered a show this week that tried to debunk four of the biggest "physic(al) facts" regarding 9/11 and IMHO…they did a pretty bad job OF debunking what are pretty much acknowledged myths and lies…enough so where they could even be seen to give the "Truthers" even more ammo on their belt.

Talk about screw ups.

Again, any reasonable person would have to say that there are some unanswered questions re: 9/11, but I've always been amazed at how a kernel of truth can suddenly be used to plant a cornfield of lies regarding a subject.

Saw both shows, enjoyed them.

Our appetite for conspiracies seems almost insatiable. I like them. I think they're fun to read about or to watch shows devoted to them. I've gotten great gaming ideas from them. What amazes me is the notion that often large groups of people could ever be capable of keeping anything secret for any amount of time.

"… the notion that often large groups of people could ever be capable of keeping anything secret for any amount of time."

That is what I always found unbelievable about James Bond type baddies and their armies of evil henchmen, who despite their numbers, remain unswervingly loyal to their mad boss and his secret plan. A silly enough notion in fiction, yet some people actually believe it could happen in real life!

As for the physics of 9/11, although I haven't seen the TV programme mentioned in the OP, from the many scientific reports I've read it seems that the physics of the manner in which the buildings were destroyed did not raise the majority of scientists' eyebrows at all.

In the "physics" show, a major university did two computer recreations of the exact destruction sequence at both the WTC and Pentagon…and they were extremely detailed and (to me, but what the H*&# do I know) seemed to show just what happened as the planes entered.

However, the field test parts were…different…one group tried the missle in the Pentagon theory and screwed up the first test and this just gave the Truthers a tonne of new evidence to go on, same with the burning steel beam, etc.

Again, there are legit questions and anomalies (time not accounted for, did Cheney say YES or NO to shoot down, etc)…this stuff is on record…but the "looney bin" stuff these guys are coming up with, is just…way tooooooo, and the field tests, literally added fule to the fire for the truthers.

Gosh I would reply but we would go straight to the DH for it.

FWIW there is no shooter on the grassy knoll.

VR
James Mattes

"FWIW there is no shooter on the grassy knoll."

That's because he was standing on the curb behind the fence. Not grassy at all. :-)

Or in the storm drain…or in the trainyard (a long
shot, but makeable)…or on the second floor of the
book depository…or just behind the car (SS agent)…
or – well, y'all get the idea, I hope…

It's the onanistic pleasure of being convinced that you are "in the know" that you hold particular knowledge that sets you apart from the rest of the flock.

What worries me most is the escalation of disbelief most conspiracy theorists exhibit when confronted by debunking. There is no room for anything else than their truth. Whoever has another opinion is either an idiot or part of the conspiracy. It's a very dangerous path where rational thought is tossed out the window to cling onto a self satisfying belief.

I do raise questions about certain events, but I am willing to accept a well established and documented case that counters certain claims. Most theorists just accept the conspiracy at face value thinking that going against established notions is "critical thinking"

It's the onanistic pleasure of being convinced that you are "in the know" that you hold particular knowledge that sets you apart from the rest of the flock.

Very well put. These are typically people who feel a certain degree of powerlessness, often exacerbated by a subconscious realization that their lot in life is a result of their own poor choices or inadequacies. The draw of conspiracy theories is that the existence of powerful, shadowy forces provides an excuse for failure and a focus for rage. Also, some people have difficulty accepting the fact that the world is a dangerous, awful place and sometimes very, very bad things happen.

To draw conclusions about the motivations of "typical" conspiracy theorists is just as wrong as the twisted theorists' "logicical" conclusions.

The psychology that motivates people to believe wierd things can be very diverse. For instance, I know people who adopt fringe belief systems (conspiritorial, religious, political, etc.) to isolate themselves from the mainsteam, thereby justifying their own social failure. While this is easy to recognize in adolesents (being weird avoids having to deal with the opposite sex or peer groups since they feel they are "automatically" rejected thus feel no need to try), it is also present in adults.

It is also common for people to adopt these outlooks based on simple ignorance. "Obviously," they think, "if I can't comprehend the cause of what's going on, then there are mysterious forces at work." It's "obvious" that there is a conspiricy to cover up visits by flying saucers to someone who doesn't understand the chemistry of swamp gas and the physics of refraction of light.

One of the common elements of these beliefs is how tortuously complicated they can get without the believer realizing it. For example, as more and more scientific facts are brought to light that contradict their beliefs, they will modify them as need be in order to retain them. Thus, a simple theory of a potential cover-up by a local official will grow into a huge conspiricy theory invoving the Illuminati. If the believer saw the finished product of the evolution of their belief at the outset, they would discard it a crackpotism outright.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, mind you. I'm just saying that there's more than one reason the people believe weird things. It is important, I think, to try to understand why people believe irrational things to be able to separate the harmless crackpots from the dangerous fanatics.

Andrew said: "… time not accounted for, did Cheney say YES or NO to shoot down, etc"

You'll find that many of the so-called 'legitimate questions' about 9/11 have been answered, or even shown never to have been valid questions at all, by debunking sites such as 911myths.com

But, then again, maybe you better not believe me about this, because I am apparently in the pay of the conspiracy … or so I was told when I tried to debate with a conspiracy theorist on a BBC news item's comment thread a while back.

FWIW there is no shooter on the grassy knoll.

Yes there was. It was The Comdedian. I saw it on the recent documentary "Watchmen."

I'm not saying that you're wrong, mind you. I'm just saying that there's more than one reason the people believe weird things. It is important, I think, to try to understand why people believe irrational things to be able to separate the harmless crackpots from the dangerous fanatics.

No, it really almost all comes down to self-aggrandizement, whether for harmless crackpots or dangerous fanatics.

What amazes me is the notion that often large groups of people could ever be capable of keeping anything secret for any amount of time.

You'd think that if there was ever one thing we were going to keep secret, and it was possible to do so, it would've been the atomic bomb. Look how well that worked out. In the US, large conspiracies are always revealed. Maybe some group of people, somewhere in the world can keep secrets, but it isn't us.
-Kle.

"No, it really almost all comes down to self-aggrandizement, whether for harmless crackpots or dangerous fanatics."

I think that it's really important that fanaticism is not over simplified. The psychology of group-think, religon, politics, etc. can be simple self aggrandizement, but it can also be have complicated cultural, evolutionary, and psychological roots.

As with may social ills, over simplification does not lead to cures. In fact, it leads to hampering the undestanding true causes and thus rectification.

Arteis…Thanks for the link…the Nat Geo/Lester Holt show is a bit dated and they said they were waiting for further results…so you've pretty much covered it.

Again, I'm not a conspiracy person…I just believe there will always be the anomalies to any event…stuff that may never be answered, but that doesn't mean I believe in all the crap that's being pawned off on others either.

People will invent "conspiracies" about anything if they need to badly enough. There are still people who are convinced the moon landings were faked for crying out loud. Sad, very sad.