World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

someguy1

Registered Senior Member
Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread:

http://sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/
---------

ps -- That got a little ranty but I'll leave it up in case anyone's not aware of some of the details I laid out, like the PNAC plan and the shoddy official report.

The tl;dr is:

* The official 9/11 commission report is a very shoddy piece of work that does not meet the definition of rational inquiry. Any reasonable person who learned about the details would at the very least want a proper investigation done.

* It wasn't an act of war till the Bush admin labelled it as such in order to implement a plan they'd hatched years earlier to get the American people on board to start seven wars in the Middle East. No other terrorist act had ever been called an act of war. And by calling it an act of war, no criminal investigation was ever done. How convenient. Nothing to disturb the Narrative, which had already been pre-determined.

* It was of course a conspiracy, look at all the people it took to pull off.

But answer me this. If 9/11 was an act of war; and the government has always known (and as of 2016 the American people know) that elements of the government of Saudi Arabia were up to their eyeballs in the planning and financing of 9/11; then why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia?

Answer: 9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal conspiracy; and one that has never been properly investigated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_Pages

I would think that finding out the truth would be of interest to people. But no, then you'll get called a "truther." You see how public shaming is used as a method of thought control. Mustn't be one of those crazy people interested in the truth ... Too dangerous. Better just call people conspiracy nuts, that will keep me safe.

You see, that literally is the PSYCHOLOGY of conspiracy theories, coming back to the actual purpose of the thread. I'm not here to argue 9/11. I'm here to point out why you think a "conspiracy theory" is a terrible thing. Anyone who questions the official story is labelled a "conspiracy nut." And nobody wants to be shunned by society. So they stop thinking for themselves. That is the psychology. The very phrase "conspiracy theory" is a psy-op invented by the CIA in the 1960's to suppress the growing chorus of people starting to question the Warren commission report. That's important to note. What I just said is documented. Your idea that a "conspiracy theory" is something that only a nutball tinfoil hat type believes in? That thought was put in your head deliberately by the CIA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, so there is an explanation of 9/11 that doesn't require it being a conspiracy.
The official one, where 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, and the American government was not involved in any cover up or other activity.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, so there is an explanation of 9/11 that doesn't require it being a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed writing my posts since I was able to organize a few things floating around my brain. But I see that in terms of communication it was futile. I fail to see how there is any explanation of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy unless you think Dick Cheney personally flew all the planes.


DaveC426913 said:
The official one, where 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, and the American government was not involved in any cover up or other activity.
Click to expand...

How is 19 hijackers plus their probably hundreds of enablers and financiers not a conspiracy? I really don't follow you.

When there's a terrorist attack like the recent one in NYC the authorities want to know if he was a "lone wolf" or if he had one or more accomplices -- that is, whether it was a conspiracy. It's the question of one versus more-than-one. The more-than-one label applies to 9/11. I can't grasp your reasoning.
 
someguy1 said:
I enjoyed writing my posts since I was able to organize a few things floating around my brain. But I see that in terms of communication it was futile. I fail to see how there is any explanation of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy unless you think Dick Cheney personally flew all the planes.

How is 19 hijackers plus their probably hundreds of enablers and financiers not a conspiracy? I really don't follow you.

When there's a terrorist attack like the recent one in NYC the authorities want to know if he was a "lone wolf" or if he had one or more accomplices -- that is, whether it was a conspiracy. It's the question of one versus more-than-one. The more-than-one label applies to 9/11. I can't grasp your reasoning.
Click to expand...


Again: A 9/11 conspiracy is generally understood by all to mean conspiracy among those whom we normally trust - i.e. our own people. (If you are arguing 2 or more people involved === conspiracy, then that is trivially true, and not worth the screen real estate).

And, since the involvement of friendlies in 9/11 is not granted as fact, unless you can
a] cite a confession or guilty charge, or
b] demonstrate that it is part of the official explanation,
it remains speculative.

I'm not asserting this as my actual stance, I'm simply saying that a non-conspiratorial (see above working definition) explanation remains on the table.
 
Last edited:
someguy1 said:
But it was only declared an act of war after the fact. Every prior act of terrorism in the US had been investigated as a crime. 9/11 was declared an act of war and not a crime by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
Any war is an act of crime.
someguy1 said:
Even if one accepts the most mainstream core of the 9/11 attacks -- which you outlined with perfect clarity -- one can still note that the government's reaction to it was driven by an agenda.
Click to expand...
Sheesh! After 3000 people are slaughtered by a bunch of loony crazies, you then claim the victim as having an agenda?
someguy1 said:
That got a little ranty
Click to expand...
You said it!!! Which in my mind anyway, tells me it is you with the agenda, obviously being a political agenda.
 
billvon said:
Dude, he's playing word games, hoping to drag you in..
Click to expand...
Yeah. He's not succeeding.
He makes a hasty jump from 'lots of conjecture' to 'conclusive'.
I don't really care to argue the conjectures, I'm simply affirming that the official explanation is not refuted by any of it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
.
I don't really care to argue the conjectures, I'm simply affirming that the official explanation is not refuted by any of it.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's perfectly possible, in theory, that everything happened exactly as described.

One can still make observations and ask questions about various things. That's perfectly sensible.

However, even asking questions is dismissed and marginalized under the label of "conspiracy theory." That's a big part of the psychology of conspiracy theories. The fact that rational inquiry is suppressed by being so labelled.

9/11 is a hot-button issue for every one because the consequences of the government having had anything to do with it are SO horrible to contemplate that most people would rather not think about it. That's psychological too.

My initial post noted two circumstances under which it's perfectly rational to believe in a conspiracy theory:

* If there really is a conspiracy. The assassinations of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln are two prominent instances, but not the only ones.

* The government is bullshitting the country to lie everyone into a disastrous war. The Gulf of Tonkin and Saddam's WMDs being two instances, but not the only ones.

Now I would also like to distinguish between two types statements that are both called "conspiracy theories":

A) The 9/11 commission was underfunded and did not meet the standard of rational inquiry. It was not designed to find out what happened. We should form a second committee, fund it properly, and give it the mission to get to the bottom of 9/11.

versus:

B) Dick Cheney personally ordered the NORAD stand down and the twin towers were brought down by directed energy weapons and the planes were actually holograms.

It is not rational to assert B because there is no evidence.

But it IS rational to assert A; and to discuss the many discrepancies and absurdities in the 9/11 commission's official conclusions. It's rational because first, there ARE a lot of discrepancies and divergences from the spirit of rational inquiry. And second, because I'm an American and in my life the government has lied to the country about many important things.

But if you assert A or B you get called a wackjob conspiracy theorist and people start yelling at you.

That's part of the psychology. Rationality is not allowed. Simple questions are taken to be attacks on the body politic by crazy people.

That is the psychology of conspiracy theories. People believe really nutty stuff because frankly they might as well. They'll be ostracized for being rational skeptics or irrational ones. It makes people open to believe anything. The more you suppress rational doubt; the more irrational doubt spreads. The suppression of reasonable inquiry leads people to suspect the worst.

So is it possible that the government's account is true? Sure. I'd just like to see the evidence. Which they hauled away as fast as they could. That's the kind of thing that makes me suspicious of my government. When they destroy evidence of one of the most massive crimes in history. But yeah. It could have happened the way the government says it did.
 
billvon said:
Nope. Lots of people can question that. They then go on to learn about how it can happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is just so curious that people who "learn about how it happened" manage to not learn the distributions of steel and concrete down skyscrapers. Physics without data. ROFLMAO
 
psikeyhackr said:
Yeah, it is just so curious that people who "learn about how it happened" manage to not learn the distributions of steel and concrete down skyscrapers. Physics without data. ROFLMAO
Click to expand...
Yep. And conspiracy theorists roll around on the floor, laughing their asses off, rather than taking the time to learn anything about physics, aviation or metallurgy. Which is why they believe whatever conspiracy theory is stuffed down their throats.

So be a good little sheep and keep rolling!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top