The Great Internet Conspiracy: Truth Movement Retrospective

[R.Mackey]

This is likely to be my very last project on the 9/11 Truth Movement.

As you probably know if you've followed this Forum for a while, I've spent some time trying to understand in the abstract how the Truth Movement behaves. I found this more productive than having the same arguments over and over again. These efforts produced my Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories and my whitepaper on Irreducible Delusion. And finally, earlier this year, I showed through experiment that the Truth Movement is dead.

I've also learned a great deal from other posters, such as ref's series on the origins of the Truth Movement, and more recently, Myriad's fine posts on The Masochistic Lie and earlier efforts, Scott Sommers's observations (and eventual published article), the work of Dave Thomas, and many others too numerous to list here. In recent months we have seen many excellent articles and productions about the Truth Movement, including books from Jonathan Kay, Anthony Summers and Robyn Swan, a fine series of articles at Slate Magazine, and chrismohr's mammoth video series following his debate against Richard Gage.

But despite all of this discussion, and despite several years of experience with the Truthers, I was left with one unanswered question:

Why?​

What is it about this conspiracy theory, and no other conspiracy theory, that captured my attention? What made this particular strain of crazy worth my effort, when there are so many to choose from? And why do so many "debunkers" keep coming back, even after the Truth Movement has dwindled to almost nothing?

Earlier this year, I finally began to see a possible answer. As I set about writing it up, I also eventually came to a deeper understanding of what caused it in the first place -- and how technology figures prominently in its evolution. I hinted at this in a recent thread. What I found is not at all what I expected. If my hypothesis is correct, it has some definite, concrete implications for how we should respond to Truthers and other conspiracy theorists in the future. It also allows some strong predictions about the next great conspiracy theory.

Like most of my whitepapers, this one exceeded its original scope. It runs to a total of 82 pages including end notes. But unlike my previous work criticizing Dr. Griffin, this is not a science paper (at best, social science), and not nearly so dry. It is also not a debunking paper. This is a work about the Truth Movement itself, not its claims. You are also free to copy it if you like.

You may download the paper here, in PDF format: http://minus.com/mnClzKjzb

With this investigation complete, and following my own advice, I am now clearing my Ignore list once and for all. I will also still be around for useful discussion. But don't expect me to argue with the Truthers about their 9/11 beliefs. That duty has been discharged.

Some of the claims in my paper are sure to be controversial, though I hope you find them interesting and at least plausibly supported. Any comments, feel free to post them here.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

 

[beachnut]

...
With this investigation complete, and following my own advice, I am now clearing my Ignore list once and for all. I will also still be around for useful discussion. But don't expect me to argue with the Truthers about their 9/11 beliefs. That duty has been discharged.

Some of the claims in my paper are sure to be controversial, though I hope you find them interesting and at least plausibly supported. Any comments, feel free to post them here.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

I like the parts I have read, but I am too busy replying to 911 truth followers to finish it.

thanks for sharing

 

[alex04]

The link to the site works, but I don't appear to be able to download the PDF.

Disregard, must be my connection

 

[Oystein]

I can't download the PDF at this time - I get timeouts


ETA: Ah - now!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I keep getting a "We will be back shortly" screen with fluffy weeping clouds on legs hiding the B-52 that's about to crash into the Empire State Building. Am I doing something wrong, or have I just taken too much mescaline?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

I keep getting a "We will be back shortly" screen with fluffy weeping clouds on legs hiding the B-52 that's about to crash into the Empire State Building. Am I doing something wrong, or have I just taken too much mescaline?

Seriously. Can one really have TOO much mescaline?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I keep getting a "We will be back shortly" screen with fluffy weeping clouds on legs hiding the B-52 that's about to crash into the Empire State Building. Am I doing something wrong, or have I just taken too much mescaline?

Dave

If you'd taken too much mescaline, you'd still be staring at that screen, smiling.

Seriously. Can one really have TOO much mescaline?

What a worthy experiment. Lemme know how it turns out!

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you'd taken too much mescaline, you'd still be staring at that screen, smiling.

Where did I say it was a problem?

Got it now, so either the website's back in reality or I am.

Dave

 

[MikeW]

Also uploaded it here, just in case anyone else has problems with the original link.

 

[Nick Terry]

It's an excellent piece. Hopefully it can provoke a sensible discussion on this thread, too.

 

[Marokkaan]

Just one example i took from your post

I've also learned a great deal from other posters, such as chrismohr's mammoth video series following his debate against Richard Gage.

Ow my.... LOL

 

[TheRedWorm]

^^

Yep, Mackey was right to not engage truthers anymore.

 

[twinstead]

Ow my.... LOL

Another scathing, fact-filled, and succinct rebuttal from Marokkaan. Bravo!

 

[Nick Terry]

Ignoring the attempted thread derail from a troll, the paper deserves serious discussion. Especially the remarks about the role of the (dramatically changing) internet need to be taken on board.

To my knowledge only one cultural critic/commentator has hitherto in book form acknowledged how these changes have actually impacted on social behaviour (Simon Reynolds in Retromania, talking about the impact of YT and iEverything on the music industry). None of the existing literature on CTs has explored this issue in anything like the necessary depth. But in fairness book projects started in the mid-2000s wouldn't have the necessary perspective to grasp how using a novel distribution channel like YouTube could at first excite and mobilise, then provoke extreme scorn and contempt.

Indeed, it was salutary to be reminded that in the mid-1990s, internet usage was confined to around 16 million Americans, which puts a LOT of commentary from the late 1990s into perspective. There were and still are many who have feared that the internet could be the vehicle for the rapid spread of mass delusions and hate, transmitting bad ideas like infectious diseases. But it seems to be far more accurate to think of the 9/11 Truth 'explosion' circa 2005-2006 as more like a case of chicken pox in childhood. Better to get these unpleasant mental diseases out of the way, and then be relatively immunised against them (socially that is).

Reynolds' book is an excellent read on the new compulsions and behavioural quirks induced by the new social media and web platforms; eg he describes how he has often downloaded a song from iTunes or looked it up on YouTube rather than rummage through boxes to look for the CD. Similarly, some of Ryan's comments on behavioural quirks of internet forum argumentation are completely spot on in tracking how the medium has shaped so much of the argument here. (Right down to the trolls posting 'OMG...LOL', natch.)

 

[Nick Terry]

another point worthy of note: Mackey is spot on to observe that it was paradoxically the release of the investigations (9/11 Commission, NIST etc) which provided the fuel for the endless nitpicking, just as the Warren Commission fulfilled the same role for JFK nuts.

This may put a different spin on the 'we need a new investigation' mantra, however. Maybe all they're after is more material to nitpick over? That would be an accurate observation for JFK freaks and, once upon a time, some of the Holocaust deniers.

 

[Horatius]

another point worthy of note: Mackey is spot on to observe that it was paradoxically the release of the investigations (9/11 Commission, NIST etc) which provided the fuel for the endless nitpicking, just as the Warren Commission fulfilled the same role for JFK nuts.

This may put a different spin on the 'we need a new investigation' mantra, however. Maybe all they're after is more material to nitpick over? That would be an accurate observation for JFK freaks and, once upon a time, some of the Holocaust deniers.

It also applies to the Birthers. They were given exactly what they said they wanted, and all it really did was give them another excuse for sloppy "analysis", and for calling for even more evidence.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ignoring the attempted thread derail from a troll, the paper deserves serious discussion. Especially the remarks about the role of the (dramatically changing) internet need to be taken on board.

To my knowledge only one cultural critic/commentator has hitherto in book form acknowledged how these changes have actually impacted on social behaviour (Simon Reynolds in Retromania, talking about the impact of YT and iEverything on the music industry). None of the existing literature on CTs has explored this issue in anything like the necessary depth. But in fairness book projects started in the mid-2000s wouldn't have the necessary perspective to grasp how using a novel distribution channel like YouTube could at first excite and mobilise, then provoke extreme scorn and contempt.

Retromania is a good suggestion. I've also read a number of editorials (on the "Me Generation," mostly) that have made a similar point about the subtle influence of social media. However, as far as I know nobody else has made this specific observation with respect to conspiracy theories. Hence, I really felt I should get this paper out there...

Having said that, while I've long suspected the connection (as have many others, anyone sick of being shown Yet Another YouTube by conspiracy theorists, I suspect), I wasn't comfortable going ahead with it until I could establish a specific mechanism, one that also explained why the 9/11 conspiracy theory was so well suited. That arrived rather suddenly as I read through Moonwalking with Einstein. Changed my whole thesis.

another point worthy of note: Mackey is spot on to observe that it was paradoxically the release of the investigations (9/11 Commission, NIST etc) which provided the fuel for the endless nitpicking, just as the Warren Commission fulfilled the same role for JFK nuts.

This one was easy. The 9/11 Commission bump in popularity is right there in the data. I'm good with data.

 

[Nick Terry]

Retromania is a good suggestion.

If people haven't read it, I really recommend Simon Reynolds' Retromania as one of the best books written in recent years.

I've also read a number of editorials (on the "Me Generation," mostly) that have made a similar point about the subtle influence of social media. However, as far as I know nobody else has made this specific observation with respect to conspiracy theories. Hence, I really felt I should get this paper out there...

Having said that, while I've long suspected the connection (as have many others, anyone sick of being shown Yet Another YouTube by conspiracy theorists, I suspect), I wasn't comfortable going ahead with it until I could establish a specific mechanism, one that also explained why the 9/11 conspiracy theory was so well suited. That arrived rather suddenly as I read through Moonwalking with Einstein. Changed my whole thesis.

I would agree with the proposed mechanism, and think it applies more widely to other CTs. The obsession with visuals is extremely characteristic for many JFK nuts, Moon Hoaxers and some Holocaust deniers (such as little grey rabbit). What is interesting is why the 9/11 videos caught on and stimulated so much ranting, whereas JFK nuts, Moon Hoaxers and Holocaust deniers remain relatively rare. The fact that all the above-mentioned nuts have tried to make YouTube-style propaganda should be apparent, but in almost no other case than the 9/11 Truth movement has this resulted in an appreciable growth in adherents, over and above the text-based days of Usenet in the 90s.

It is also curious that many CT promoters were marketing their ideas via VHS videos in the 1990s, and later on DVDs, media which should translate snugly into the YouTube format, but the advent of YouTube hasn't changed their profile significantly. Alex Jones was a possible exception, but he's sort of John the Baptist to the Twoof Movement's Jesus, and you were very astute in noting how he has blown relatively hot and cold towards 9/11 Truth.

The sudden upsurge of Twoofiness thus clearly rested on its novelty; 9/11 Truth was to YouTube as Dire Straits were to CD players in 1980s Britain.

This one was easy. The 9/11 Commission bump in popularity is right there in the data. I'm good with data.

Yes, but it's not simply noting that big reports lead to nitpickers. It's observing how the nitpicking has functioned. And here I would make some qualifications to the pattern.

JFK conspiracy theorists, as is well known, picked over the Warren Commission report starting in the 1960s, back when it was extremely hard to find, and indeed they even had to index the thing before they could start making much headway into it. There was a tangible effort to 'be' a JFK conspiracy theorist, which required mastery of a major source base. However, most JFK theorists cherrypicked the contents of the Warren Commission volumes, and in this they closely resembled the Holocaust deniers, who cherrypicked the Nuremberg 'Blue', 'Green' and 'Red' Series (67 volumes) to fabricate their cases.

The 9/11 Commission report undpubtedly caused a spike in 'doubt', but what is interesting is how relatively few references were made to it in the heyday of Twoofing. The two NIST reports may have played a greater role in stoking the fire, but looking back, I think the average Twoofer has a fourth- or fifth-hand relationship to those sources. This decline is undoubtedly a product of web 2.0. They source their doubts from videos inspired by web-pages inspired by books which have cherrypicked the original reports. On the rare occasions that a Twoofer looked at the original reports, they picked out one item to become their idee fixe. RebIbis is probably the classic example of that re: WTC7.

What all these CTs share in common - and this is extremely clear from the current wasteland of repetition raging in this particular subforum - is that the existence of a major investigative report or series of reports gave CTs something to react against. Thus the repeated claims that the Warren Commission was a "whitewash", the Nuremberg Trials "showtrials" and the absolutely excruciating misunderstandings of the intended purposes of the NIST investigations into 9/11.

I think we'd find that a very high proportion of argumentation over 9/11, especially in this forum, has degenerated into an argument over process and form. Case in point being the misunderstandings of what peer review actually is.

 

[leonAzul]

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I am particularly intrigued by your line of thinking in chapter 11 and intend to read that again more closely.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

This is an excerpt of an email I sent Ryan about this a couple weeks ago, when I saw his first draft:

I hope your optimistic assessment of future similar theories is correct, that 9/11 was an anomalous convergence of factors not likely to come back after the next disaster. I seem to remember that the Kennedy assassination was a wingdinger and had real traction. Scarier still, theories of the global warming hoax and antievolutionists have frightening political clout, and in my mind both operate like conspiracy theories (but with political, religious and and economic motivations driving them).

I've often asked myself if my debate and 20 YouTube video rebuttals with Richard Gage was counterproductive. In treating Richard with respect, I was treating other newbie possible truthers with respect, and indeed twice as many people were moved in my direction as Richard's in the debate (in a room full of 240 9/11 Truth people and ten skeptics). I even used the preferred dissemination tool of 9/11 Truth: YouTube. My friends and wife say I am only giving credibility to a crazy theory.

I am making headway on the thermitic dust test, and when that is done I will publicize the results with one more YouTube video. After that, like you I see myself going into semi-retirement, but out of respect I think it appropriate to be available for awhile to answer and clarify. So it'll be awhile before I follow your suggestion not to bother engaging. Your suggestions for dealing with 9/11 Truth have not yet been followed by me (except the one not to be insulting). I am enjoying life more as I spend less time on this these days!

You and I also come from very different backgrounds. As a science hobbyist I watch PBS science shows, read Carl Sagan and others, but don't do experimental method the way scientifically trained minds do. What was obviously way off base to you was compelling to me at first. I never succumbed to Gage's theories because there were some things I DID know and whatever I actually knew was contradicted by Gage et al (not scrambling the planes is exactly what Gary Hart predicted and warned would happen if terrorists attacked us; I saw the raging fires in Building Seven on ABC News on 9/11; I saw the binLaden confession video and knew binLaden was the guy in this video, not some fat phony binLaden, etc). With other things I developed the habit of asking, is this true? over and over again to every claim. But at first many of the claims slipped by even that net. I believed in freefall of the Towers, that no steel-frame structure had ever collapsed due to fire, that NIST made horrible mistakes and covered up their data, that there were rivers of molten steel, etc. Facing down Gage's technical claims is NOT easy for a nonscientist who doesn't even know how to ask the questions. I think Gage has a really compelling narrative for many people, which is why I hope my rebuttals help. I'm very good with keywords, and my 20 YouTubes pop up any time people google Gage, 9/11 Truth, etc. I do think people get caught by that narrative because the sheer quantity of the "evidence" is overwhelming and seems to make sense to a nontechnical person. And then they are, as you said, kind of trapped in what Gage calls "the nightmare that is 9/11." I wanted to answer all their questions. I feel that answering them Richard Gage's way showed something very powerful: a marrying minister in Denver can intelligently answer every assertion Gage makes, on his terms, and still win the debate. With 16,000 views of these videos, I hope it has an impact for as long as Richard Gage is traveling the world and giving his lectures.

It was fascinating to see that 9/11 Truth has lost so much steam in the past five years. People on JREF say that all the time but I did not know that was true. Your article demonstrates this to be true. Again, I have a very different perspective: a best friend for 35 years is a top 9/11 Truth activist, has convinced many of our mutual friends, and of course at my debates I saw hundreds of people like this. I know them well and there seem to be a lot of them. They aren't just internet phantoms; I know dozens of them personally.

Thanks again for a great article. I hope it finds wider distribution.