None so far.
Tired...
None so far.
Tired...
The troof is out there
The rise of the troofer is evidence of our continuing fascination with conspiracy theories - why?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...out_there.html
Conor Foley
September 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Printable version
What is about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much? A few days ago Peter Tatchell wrote a piece for Cif about the problems surrounding the 9/11 Commission, which contained a fatal reference to "the unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7". Over 700 people rushed to respond, a record that George Monbiot had previously surpassed when he explicitly rejected conspiracy theories surrounding the attack. A few weeks before this, Robert Fisk declared himself "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11", sparking off a flurry of rebuttals which reminded us of where the phrase "fisking" comes from.
I had my own minor run-in with the "troofers" when I wrote a piece in which I mentioned conflicting claims about an Israeli military attack on two Red Cross ambulances during the conflict in Lebanon. Coincidentally, this appeared the day after the Israel Defence Force stated saying that the ambulances could indeed have been hit by something fired by them. I wrote a follow-up piece, which covered this report and also the findings of the Guardian and Human Rights Watch investigations into the incidents. I was genuinely amazed at the response I received.
The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true: at what temperature does steel melt, for example, or what does a vehicle look like after it has been hit by various types of ordinance? After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, "people are lying to us" theory, which it is almost impossible to refute since, by believing the official explanation, you have, by definition, become part of the conspiracy.
Not all troofers are mad, but there is a point at which it is no longer worthwhile debating with them. This might be summarised as when you get to the "so what?" question in the debate. Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination.
Identifying this point is actually quite difficult because one of the things that make us all a bit susceptible to conspiracy theories is that they underpin a large amount of mainstream debates.
As Seumas Milne has noted, some critics of Naomi Klein's new book immediately threw the conspiracy theory charge at her disaster capitalism thesis. Green activists like George Monbiot have faced similar treatment for exposing the links between politicians and big business. Indeed, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, every attempt to find some causal explanation for major economic and political developments could be rebutted by those who maintain "stuff just happens".
Most people believe that politicians regularly lie to us and have little difficulty believing that this could include lies about important things such as the invasion of Iraq. However, it takes more than a couple of logical steps to get from here to believing that US government blew up the Twin Towers itself and then faked the rest of the evidence to frame Osama Bin Laden. In fact the process would bear some comparisons to a religious conversion. A truth has been revealed to the believer which dramatically changes their worldview and forces a reconsideration of some of their most basic other beliefs and assumptions. The desire to "convert" those around them must be overwhelming.
Most of us remain fairly agnostic about many conspiracy theories. I would not be particularly surprised if some of the stories about the Kremlin's manipulation of some of the protagonists in Chechnya's conflict turned out to be true. I think that all sides use propaganda during conflicts and never automatically dismiss allegations of dirty tricks by various security forces.
When I was working at Liberty I was once taken for lunch by MI5's legal officer (which is a longer story in itself) and I quizzed him about some of the prevalent conspiracy theories of the time. I had just finished reading Seumas Milne's book on the miners' strike, which alleged that the story of "Gaddafi's gold" may have been a piece of black propaganda by the spooks. He denied this, while half-conceding that the possibility of planting a mole within the leadership of the National Union of Miners at the time was not that far-fetched.
I tend to agree with Milne's view that automatic deference to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy view of history can sometimes be a lazy evasion. However, I also agree with Monbiot that conspiracy theories can be a displacement activity. Why bother arguing about the rights and wrongs of US foreign policy, if you think 9/11 was an inside job? Why bother responding to criticisms of Israel's human rights record if you can dismiss its critics as habitual liars or dupes?
This seems to me to be what distinguishes sceptics from troofers. Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.
Most people don't want to believe it was a government conspiracy and most people can't handle physics that is even slightly complicated so why do truthers never break it down to something simple?
Try comparing the south tower to a frozen turkey.
The south tower collapsed after 56 minutes.
What things are involved in cooking a frozen turkey.
Time, temperature and SIZE OF THE TURKEY
Doesn't it take longer to cook a 20 lb than a 10 lb turkey.
So we have 56 minutes for the south tower. There are disputes about the temperature but even if the temperature was high enough to weaken steel it would take TIME for the core temperature of the steel to rise. But why don't we know the quantity of steel on the 80th floor, and 79th and 81st?
Shouldn't we have been told the quantity of steel and concrete on every level of the building by now? Why aren't truthers and structural engineers demanding this information? It has been 6 years. The buildings were designed in the 60's. We should have had that info in 6 weeks.
psik
Most people don't want to believe it was a government conspiracy and most people can't handle physics that is even slightly complicated so why do truthers never break it down to something simple?
Try comparing the south tower to a frozen turkey.
The south tower collapsed after 56 minutes.
What things are involved in cooking a frozen turkey.
Time, temperature and SIZE OF THE TURKEY
Doesn't it take longer to cook a 20 lb than a 10 lb turkey.
So we have 56 minutes for the south tower. There are disputes about the temperature but even if the temperature was high enough to weaken steel it would take TIME for the core temperature of the steel to rise. But why don't we know the quantity of steel on the 80th floor, and 79th and 81st?
Shouldn't we have been told the quantity of steel and concrete on every level of the building by now? Why aren't truthers and structural engineers demanding this information? It has been 6 years. The buildings were designed in the 60's. We should have had that info in 6 weeks.
Nice of you to stop by just to shovel some of the controlled demolition shit we have been trying to avoid.
I did not say ANYTHING about a controlled demolition.Originally Posted by AuGmENTor
Are time, temperature and tons of steel too complicated for you?
psik
semantics young man... Nothing but.
No, I think it's called being a moron.
The laws of physics don't care about Islam, Republicans, or human motivations or humans that are too stupid to handle physics.
And young I'm not. I built my first computer in 1978 when I started working for IBM.
psik
Tired...
C'mon guys. No need for name calling. psikeyhackr, you can talk about Controlled Demolition all you want, but understand this... most of the people that frequent this board are more interested in other things, and think that Controlled Demolition, although possible, is not the end all/be all of 9/11.
My point is I am not talking about Controlled Demolition. I am talking about the effects of a 200 ton mass on a 500,000 ton vertical structure and what it cannot possibly do that structure. But to do the analysis properly you need to know the distribution of steel and concrete.
A second factor is the quantity of steel at the point of impact. If there were 900 tons of steel on the 3 floors where the plane hit the south tower shouldn't it take longer than 56 minutes to weaken? A lot longer?
What people think caused it if they understand that the planes could not is no concern of mine. But we should have had the tons of steel and tons of concret on each floor information within 6 weeks of 9/11.
I am tired of this sh!t dragging on and on and.... I usually like watching Bill Maher but he pissed me off with that crap.
Is that plane so huge compared to the building it supposdly leveled?
Then how did the Hiroshima Memorial withstand an A-bomb detonation?
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/abomb_dome_hiroshima.htm
psik
It's the funniest fuckin thing.... If you aren't talking about CD, then what ARE you talking about? I don't know you. But if you call me another name, I'll make sure it is your swan song. I will not say I have never called someone a name in here, but it was always a reply to having been called one. Now, do you care to explain what you are talking about, sans insults? To me, it doesn't matter if the structural steel, concrete was turned into silly putty by space beams. I don't need to know the root cause of the collapses to know there was a cover-up. You were fgone for a while, maybe you want to see where things have gone here. There are forums that will be happy to have a guy like you!My point is I am not talking about Controlled Demolition. I am talking about the effects of a 200 ton mass on a 500,000 ton vertical structure and what it cannot possibly do that structure. But to do the analysis properly you need to know the distribution of steel and concrete.
A second factor is the quantity of steel at the point of impact. If there were 900 tons of steel on the 3 floors where the plane hit the south tower shouldn't it take longer than 56 minutes to weaken? A lot longer?
What people think caused it if they understand that the planes could not is no concern of mine. But we should have had the tons of steel and tons of concret on each floor information within 6 weeks of 9/11.
I am tired of this sh!t dragging on and on and.... I usually like watching Bill Maher but he pissed me off with that crap.
Is that plane so huge compared to the building it supposdly leveled?
Then how did the Hiroshima Memorial withstand an A-bomb detonation?
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/abomb_dome_hiroshima.htm
psik
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
