9/11 conspiracy theorists best evidence

[Bill Thompson]

I think that the one thing that 9/11 conspiracy theorists can hold on to as the best indication that there is a conspiracy is the simple fact that (in their mind) Spiderman and no other superhero for that matter, did anything to stop or prevent the attacks. The same thing, for that matter, can be said about the JFK assassination. In a world that requires balance and sense, monumental events that change history do not just happen by simple means. Such things are prevented. And such things must be caused by dark forces that exist in a realm of fantasy. And believing this makes life worth living. And instinctively knowing this makes conspiracy theorists smarter than the common man who is in the dark.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yah it is pretty much what I call "The Matrix" syndrome.

Like the movie "The Matrix", where the world on the surface was just an illusion, hiding the real, dark and sinister truth, most young CTists seem to think the world that the MSM and Politicians want us to see is just an illusion, keeping from the light the darker, more sinister, truth.

It makes for a sense of self importance that most of them lack at this point in their life (I am speaking of the very vocal and visible truthers - angry young men), knowing the real truth, holding this sacred knowledge and sharing it with people as if it were revolutionary. They are the star in their own real world espionage novel/movie.

TAM

 

[Laeke]

It may seem like a weird question, but what would you actually consider the best "evidence" from CT? I know JREF is not too hot on this and I expect an answer like "none", "ignorance of the believers", etc... But I'll be curious to see an honest answer there, if there is one.

I lack any advanced technical knowledge myself, so I did not have the chance to dive into very specific points of the CT claims.

I have some experience with 9/11 claims though. My impression was that the usual MO was to "just ask questions" and raises numerous "anomalies".
Most of those anomalies are not real: rumors, misperception or misexpectations (I did read "We obviously see on the video that most of the fuel was burn on impact"), uneducated guesses or interpretations, out of context quotes. The genuine ones are minor and can be accounted on, well, reality.

But I guess you already know that: laying out those anomalies and suggesting that the sheer number of them proves that something in not right. Overwhelming readers with techno babble, and keep raising as many issues as possible to always keep an edge on debunkers.

I didn't see any strong points in the lot. Overall, I think the bigger "hole" is the absence of the Pentagon video.
People just expect for it: They have an hard time believing there is no other footage, considering the importance of the building and the security measures that it must have. Of course, it is possible to make a sensible case that there may be no other clear footage of the crash, but something is amiss because of the heavily seen WTC (of course, WTC is in the middle of NYC and the news crew gathered after the first crash, but heh).

I am not naive: would there be videos of the Pentagon, it would just give more canon fooder to CTs, which could pick up many more anomalies thanks to Youtube artifacts. But I think they would have an harder time convincing some folks sitting on the fence.

So... what is their best "evidence"?

 

[1337m4n]

So... what is their best "evidence"?

Before I answer, I would like to clarify that when I say "the Truth Movement's best evidence", I mean "best" in the same strictly literal superlative sense that one might use the phrase "tallest mountain in Florida", or "hottest part of Antarctica".

That said, I would say that the Truth Movement's "best" evidence is the eyewitness reports of "explosions".

 

[BigAl]

Before I answer, I would like to clarify that when I say "the Truth Movement's best evidence", I mean "best" in the same strictly literal superlative sense that one might use the phrase "tallest mountain in Florida", or "hottest part of Antarctica".

That said, I would say that the Truth Movement's "best" evidence is the eyewitness reports of "explosions".

None of which are consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition.

 

[TJM]

Their best evidence? Why that would be the "First time in the history of...." arguments, failing to realize that everything will have a first occurrence, of course.

 

[richman2112]

How about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunman? That was a pretty creepy coincidence don''t you think?

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I don't know about "best", but I'd say their most effective evidence is pointing out thngs reported on 9/11/01 that are inconsistant with what we later discovered what happened. While I never bought the idea of an inside job, hearing that kind of stuff present point by point did get me interested enough to look further into the matter.

 

[Shalamar]

I think the 'best' evidence they have is that it 'looked like a CD'.

 

[TexasJack]

I don't know, I think Gage's cardboard demonstration is their best evidence.

 

[R.Mackey]

It may seem like a weird question, but what would you actually consider the best "evidence" from CT? I know JREF is not too hot on this and I expect an answer like "none", "ignorance of the believers", etc... But I'll be curious to see an honest answer there, if there is one.

It's been asked of them before: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124718

As you can read for yourself, the answer was "absolutely nothing."

Any given individual member of the Truth Movement will present what they hold to be evidence -- for instance, Dr. Jones's latest "thermite" paper -- but none of it is objective, and their interpretations thereof are invariably wrong. That doesn't leave very much else. If there is a good answer, I'd like to hear it too.

Also, welcome to the Forum.

 

[Hokulele]

Nobody expects a new inquisition! Our best evidence is incredulity ... incredulity and paranoia ... paranoia and incredulity .... Our two best pieces of evidence are paranoia and incredulity ... and mathless sciencyishness .... Our *three* best pieces of evidence are paranoia, incredulity, and mathless sciencyishness ... and an almost fanatical devotion to people named "Jones" .... Our *four*... no ... *Amongst* our evidence .... Amongst our evidence ... are such elements as paranoia, incredulity .... I'll come in again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunman? That was a pretty creepy coincidence don''t you think?

Actually, the form in which you've phrased that argument is an excellent example of the truth movement's "best" evidence; in general, it takes the form of vague innuendo, with an implication that coincidences are impossible and all events can be explained as part of a single unbroken chain of causality. What's particularly characteristic about the way you've phrased it is that it stops there; there's no attempt made to advance a rationally constructed narrative of events that would make sense of a causal connection. In other words, the truth movement tends to find its most fertile ground in ignorance, and avoids acquiring knowledge that might weaken its position.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

It makes for a sense of self importance that most of them lack at this point in their life (I am speaking of the very vocal and visible truthers - angry young men), knowing the real truth, holding this sacred knowledge and sharing it with people as if it were revolutionary. They are the star in their own real world espionage novel/movie.

It's enough to make me wonder if it would be cruel to take their fantasy away from them.



Not that I'm worried about taking their fantasy away from them anytime soon; they've proven stubborn enough to resist all arguments, evidence, questioning, and sarcasm that I have at my disposal.

 

[Laeke]

It's been asked of them before:
As you can read for yourself, the answer was "absolutely nothing."

Thank you for the welcome and for the link.
I was wondering what was the point of view on this side of the fence though.

I agree that there isn't "evidence" in the strict sense of the word. I think some of the anomalies raised by CT might be real, but are generally little detail which do not invalidate the moutain of evidence contrary to their beliefs. As it was pointed out, they do not seem to even consider that reality is messy and that investigating such complex events after the fact is not a 100% fool-proof process.

So yeah, maybe the word is not evidence: I could rephrase that as "What is the biggest gap in which they can spin things?", if you prefer.

Their best evidence? Why that would be the "First time in the history of...." arguments, failing to realize that everything will have a first occurrence, of course.

Oh yeah, that one I had. I pointed out that before 9/11 no building as tall as the WTC was CD (There was several, lighter structure though) so that would be kind of a first too.

But the Pentagon video thing still has my vote... After all Meyssan's book was all about that and he was one of the first to publicize widely the CT.

 

[MarkyX]

How about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunman? That was a pretty creepy coincidence don''t you think?

So who is someone who has the first name and birthday as I do. Does it mean "they" are out to get me by cloning me?

Your logic makes as much sense as mine.

 

[richman2112]

So who is someone who has the first name and birthday as I do. Does it mean "they" are out to get me by cloning me?

Your logic makes as much sense as mine.

I guess I need to start using emoticons when I am being sarcastic. Though the plot of the show was quite similar to what the original CT motives started out to be till they turned into the nightmarish fema camp scenarios they have grown into.

 

[Myriad]

Well, I think it's obvious that the best evidence for 9/11 CT's is that the freaking buildings collapsed!

The one truther I've ever seen in real life opened the subject in our conversation with this gem: "You know, buildings don't commit suicide." (The preceding conversation between us had been on the subject of the choices of fish available in the sushi bar we were in, so this was a rather abrupt change of subject.)

And he's right! I've been in many many buildings, large and small, and not one of them has exhibited the slightest trace of self-destructive ideation. (Which is a good thing, because giving them lithium would apparently be counterproductive).

Buildings in the Western world are so well engineered, constructed, and inspected that we all take their durability for granted. Whatever hesitance our grandparents might have felt about walking into some grand atrium overhung by soaring tiers of seemingly unsupported balconies or crossing a fragile-looking span over a fatal abyss has long vanished. Only once in a great while does our trust in the structural soundness of our urban environments prove to be mistaken.

So, seeing the collapses on 9/11, seeing other disasters in which large buildings did not collapse, and thinking (either at the time, or in retrospect) that the wtc buildings "must have been" demolished is understandable. Not stupid, not silly, and not (unless the individual is in a position where he or she should already know better) ignorant. It only becomes a stupid, silly, and ignorant belief when the better explanations of the event, better supported by evidence -- offered by the same sources of engineering, construction, and building inspection expertise that they trust to make buildings stay standing in the first place -- are ignored or disregarded.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RedIbis]

Only once in a great while does our trust in the structural soundness of our urban environments prove to be mistaken.


Respectfully,
Myriad

And the probability of that happening three times in one day is what?

 

[BigAl]

And the probability of that happening three times in one day is what?

Ex post facto invocation of probability tells us you are clueless about statistics and probability.

Given everything we know about WTC, it tells us nothing.