|
Can anyone explain why 9/11 truthers, who I seem to be now encountering literally everywhere I go, from Thailand to my workplace, choose to believe probably the least plausible of all 9/11 conspiracy theories? Example: There was no hijackers. Ok. What about the security tapes showing hijackers? How else did the planes go down? If missiles shot the planes down, why were planes flying toward buildings? Example: The towers were detonated. But why is there footage of the towers being hit by airplanes? A giant jet-fuel bomb can indeed destroy the structural integrity of a building, so why not? Example: The planes were computer generated on TV -- Then why did credible people, like firefighters, see airplanes hit the towers? The thing that I just can't figure out is, among all conspiracy theories related to 9/11, why pick out the most god-awfully absurd? If you're going to believe there was a conspiracy, OK. I'll listen to it. I think it's highly unlikely, but you could make a case that the Bush administration were aware of the attacks before they happened, yet deliberately did nothing to stop it. Or, you could even try to make a case that a shadow organization in the government conspired with the terrorists to implement the attacks, and use it as a false-flag to go oil-crazy in the Middle East. These accusations are plausible (not believable by me, but plausible to debate about) because it's not like the conspiracy theorist is trying to say that thousands of people on the ground were hallucinating or paid off by the illuminati cabal, or that nobody died on the airplanes (which can be refuted by asking even one person, like me, who knew of someone who was killed on one of the planes). The conspiracy could simply end with the idea that the government allowed something horrible to happen to push its own agenda. This is an atrocious enough sin if it were true, so isn't that bad enough? Well, no, it's not enough apparently. So when I encounter truthers, which is becoming increasingly common, I enter the conversation optimistically that it will be a smart discussion, sort-of like talking about the JFK assassination, which conspiracy theorists can lay out a pretty solid case about. Instead, again and again, the truthers go into the absolute absurd... Computer generated airplanes, decoy airplanes, witnesses on the ground who were paid off, ETC. So my question is, why is this the mainstream belief among the conspiracy crowd? Isn't it much easier just to say the government paid off the hijackers or conspired with Bin Laden? Why does it have to go into extreme assertions? To finish my rant, today is September the 11th and my Facebook wall is filled with people I previously thought were sensible new friends who are posting image macros asserting all of this nutty stuff, and I feel really depressed about it.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
The worst part is explaining that I know people died in the airplanes, and being called "sheeple" Wake up, sheeple....
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
cucka posted:Honestly, the conspiracy theories aren't even really coherent. I've had a few long talks with people I used to talk to regular (one went crazy around the election and blocked half his friends list on facebook, including me) and when you get deep enough, they eventually get mad and just start sputtering nonsense and non-sequitors, usually based on things they think are fact that are fundamentally wrong. A lot of people took Loose Change stuff to heart without really thinking too hard about it. A lot of it is just libertarians who believe that everything the government does is wrong, 9/11 was wrong, therefore the government did it. The logic is something they work out afterwards. What sucks is let's say hypothetically there was a conspiracy. False flag operations are not outside the spectrum of a corrupt government, ie Operation Northwoods. What if Rumsfeld and friends were briefed about 9/11, but did nothing to stop it because they needed a reason to attack Iraq? Well anyway, if something like that really did occur, it would NEVER EVER be revealed or exposed because the conspiracy theorists themselves are the ones claiming in the same breath that the airplanes were computer generated so any assessment of 9/11 will forever be lumped in with the nutbags. I don't think there was a conspiracy because Bush was too inept to even do something diabolical, but just hypothetically speaking.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:Strangely, one of the best explanations for conspiracy theorists of all stripes is mostly missing from this thread and it's one of the most obvious explanations. I think this is proof in particular of just different personality types that are alien to me. The reason is because I just can't relate to holding on to a particular belief just to feel SMARTER. I don't have to feel smarter than people around me. If I do feel like the smartest guy in the room, I'll immediately start to feel weirded out or arrogant and I'd back up a bit. But it's not just about feeling smarter. I think other motivations keep people clinging to 9/11 Truther stuff, anti-vacccine stuff, chemtrails, and other conspiracies that are proven wrong. There's big Facebook groups, primarily the libertarian groups--you know, the anti-vaccine, pro-organic crowds, who all share 9/11 trutherism as a strict dogma. Now, the funny thing is, there's nuggets of wisdom with these people. I'm also anti-big-corporation, I shop at farmers markets and I'm idealistic about making the world a better place, but the moment you say anything to these big groups to the effect of "Hay, guys, this particular 9/11 conspiracy theory might not be accurate..." then you get attacked by waves of "SHEEP! This person is a confused, lost soul!" Or, my favorite "Rencall is a disinformation agent who probably works for the NSA." It's a human nature thing. It's religious methods of thinking. I think it appears even in unlikely places where everyone THINKS they've overcome group-think, but it comes sneaking back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 05:53
|
|