Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?

[FalseFlag]

No there isn't.

Yes, it's there to see for people with their eyes open.

Because you can't.

I am, and I'm doing it in another thread. I'm just not going to do it here.

You do know that the guys who made it don't believe it any more, right?

Yes, and no. Dylan Avery ran out of money and got paid to speak out against his work. Do I have conclusive proof? No. But that is what happened.

Detail this. My guess is that it didn't involve going to a junior college to bone up on physics.

Good one. I can appreciate a good insult when I see it.

You have fooled yourself into believing a lie. There is zero evidence of controlled demolition at Ground Zero. None, nada, niente, Jack-Squat.

Newton disagrees.

Because Conspiracy!

No. Because, science.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Yes, it's there to see for people with their eyes open.

I'll take the word off 99.999% of the worlds structural engineers over some troll on the internet who can barely grasp simple physics.

I am, and I'm doing it in another thread. I'm just not going to do it here.

Umm no you're not

Yes, and no. Dylan Avery ran out of money and got paid to speak out against his work. Do I have conclusive proof? No. But that is what happened.

Evidence please.

Newton disagrees.

No he doesn't.

No. Because, science.

It's quite clear science isn't your friend.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Truthers, Moonhoaxers, Creationists.
All have the same M.O.
Their position isn't evidence based, it is ideological and egotistical.
It makes them special, part of an elite that know the truth, above the mass of Sheeple.

They ignore mountains of evidence and pick some small detail they think isn't explained or something that there is no evidence for.
This becomes their 'Smoking gun'
If it can't be explained to their satisfaction then verything else can be ignored and their own theory is by default true.
They don't want to learn or discuss, they want to keep the argument running. Anything that can be seen to support their position can be crowbared in to support it.
I have seen a Truther supporting the Moonhoax because if he can show Apollo was a hoax then 9/11 had to be a conspiracy.
I have seen a Flat Earther supporting 9/11 Truthers because if 9/11 is a conspiracy then there is a conspiracy to hide a flat earth.
Thrn there are those that think everything is a conspiracy including most of recorded history.
It is all irrational and delusional.
Arguing with them just re-enforces their position.

 

[JSanderO]

FF what sites did you turn for in your quest for the truth about 9/11. Did you read the 911freeforums:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php

This one is pretty good and objective and the discussions are not sling fests of insults.

 

[Myriad]

I believed the official story until 2013. I knew it much better than the average American, and I believed it. I did think the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen by not stopping Bin Laden, but that was the extent of what I believed their involvement was. There is plenty of evidence to support my conclusion. I'm not going to debate this. The evidence is there, and it has been widely documented in the mainstream media.

I was not looking for "truth"; it just crossed my path without me wanting it to happen, or even knowing that I didn't already know the truth. I ran across the film "Loose Change" the day I subscribed to Netflix, and decided to watch it to see what nutjobs were saying about 9/11. I went into it critical of every word it uttered, every point of "evidence" it produced, and every conclusion it made. After watching it, nothing changed my mind. I was still convinced the CT'ers were paranoid nutjobs with nothing better to do.

I then found another video called "Plane truth", or something similar to that title. This documentary made the nutjobs behind "Loose Change" seem perfectly sane.

After watching both videos my opinion was not immediately changed, but I kept thinking about what I had seen. There was one event, featured in both videos, that I just could not ignore. The conclusions made by the video's producers and directors were not what stuck in my mind. What stuck in my mind was what I saw with my own eyes. I knew I saw one thing, and I was being told something different from what I observed.

I spent the next two years researching 9/11. I avoided any site that had anything to do with JFK, UFO's, NWO, illuminati, or anything similar. Believe me, it was difficult, because most of what you find about 9/11 is found on CT'er sites. Anything I found on a site that had any CT'er material was deemed not credible, even if it was saying the same thing I found on a credible site. In other words, CT'er sites might actually have correct information, but I ignored it if they were saying it. I never used CT'er sites to corroborate information. The only exception was if a CT'er site was hosting material in the exact same form that could be found on a credible site. In that case, I simply considered the CT'er site a mirror.

After two years of extensive research, I was able to accept the truth. It wasn't easy, because it went against everything I previously believed. The truth is, simply, that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were destroyed by CD. This does not make me a CT'er. This makes me someone who listens to independent engineers and architects. You can call me a truther, but don't call me a CT'er because I know CD brought down the WTC buildings. Now, you CAN call me a CT'er based on who I think is responsible. That's beyond the scope of this thread, so I'm not going to get into it.

Cool story. Is any of it true?

 

[Mark F]

Cool story. Is any of it true?

FF is probably being sincere, he just doesn't seem to understand that CD on 9/11 is one of the dumbest ideas in human history and the evidence trail can not possibly lead you there if you work the problem properly from front to back, not back to front.

But delving into that further is a derail from the OP and is ground well covered elsewhere.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Getting back to the subject in the OP, I think FalseFlag has provided us with a very useful resource here. Let's take a look at his declaration of faith, complete with Road to Damascus moment, below; I've highlighted a few key sections.

I believed the official story until 2013. I knew it much better than the average American, and I believed it. I did think the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen by not stopping Bin Laden, but that was the extent of what I believed their involvement was. There is plenty of evidence to support my conclusion. I'm not going to debate this. The evidence is there, and it has been widely documented in the mainstream media.

I was not looking for "truth"; it just crossed my path without me wanting it to happen, or even knowing that I didn't already know the truth. I ran across the film "Loose Change" the day I subscribed to Netflix, and decided to watch it to see what nutjobs were saying about 9/11. I went into it critical of every word it uttered, every point of "evidence" it produced, and every conclusion it made. After watching it, nothing changed my mind. I was still convinced the CT'ers were paranoid nutjobs with nothing better to do.

I then found another video called "Plane truth", or something similar to that title. This documentary made the nutjobs behind "Loose Change" seem perfectly sane.

After watching both videos my opinion was not immediately changed, but I kept thinking about what I had seen. There was one event, featured in both videos, that I just could not ignore. The conclusions made by the video's producers and directors were not what stuck in my mind. What stuck in my mind was what I saw with my own eyes. I knew I saw one thing, and I was being told something different from what I observed.

I spent the next two years researching 9/11. I avoided any site that had anything to do with JFK, UFO's, NWO, illuminati, or anything similar. Believe me, it was difficult, because most of what you find about 9/11 is found on CT'er sites. Anything I found on a site that had any CT'er material was deemed not credible, even if it was saying the same thing I found on a credible site. In other words, CT'er sites might actually have correct information, but I ignored it if they were saying it. I never used CT'er sites to corroborate information. The only exception was if a CT'er site was hosting material in the exact same form that could be found on a credible site. In that case, I simply considered the CT'er site a mirror.

After two years of extensive research, I was able to accept the truth. It wasn't easy, because it went against everything I previously believed. The truth is, simply, that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were destroyed by CD. This does not make me a CT'er. This makes me someone who listens to independent engineers and architects. You can call me a truther, but don't call me a CT'er because I know CD brought down the WTC buildings. Now, you CAN call me a CT'er based on who I think is responsible. That's beyond the scope of this thread, so I'm not going to get into it.

I think a truther is someone who examines the evidence and realizes the buildings were destroyed by CD. A truther wants a real investigation to find out who was responsible. A CT'er expands on the truther's beliefs and thinks they already know who did it.

Now, simply take out the highlighted bits and replace them with equivalent details from whatever conspiracy theory you like, and ask yourself, "Does anything look out of place here?"

The main difference, as you can see from the highlights, is the multiple references to Internet videos, rather than books, because 9/11 is a 21st Century CT. Other than that, the mindset and the personal narrative are completely familiar.

If it doesn't answer the question in the OP, it certainly suggests an answer.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

Indeed, all the main CTs are identical, only the details change.

 

[Myriad]

Getting back to the subject in the OP, I think FalseFlag has provided us with a very useful resource here. Let's take a look at his declaration of faith, complete with Road to Damascus moment, below; I've highlighted a few key sections.



Now, simply take out the highlighted bits and replace them with equivalent details from whatever conspiracy theory you like, and ask yourself, "Does anything look out of place here?"

The main difference, as you can see from the highlights, is the multiple references to Internet videos, rather than books, because 9/11 is a 21st Century CT. Other than that, the mindset and the personal narrative are completely familiar.

If it doesn't answer the question in the OP, it certainly suggests an answer.

Dave

But is that narrative common because it's a common experience, or because it's what you end up with when you pull out every stop attempting to persuade others? (Which could be the origin of the Road to Damascus story too.)

Because if we're pointing out similarities, we might also note the similarities to every diet pill ad.

"I'm a biochemist who tried everything to lose weight, but those other products [that I'm now competing with] didn't work. So I researched the problem myself for two long years, until I discovered the simple secret of weight reduction that everyone else had been missing. Now you can try a 30-day sample ABSOLUTELY FREE..."

 

[AClark]

Talk about cherry picking, you guys are being too harsh on FF, in your quest to discredit everyone who doesn't toe the forum line.

I believed the official story until 2013.....I ran across the film "Loose Change" .... After watching it, nothing changed my mind. I was still convinced the CT'ers were paranoid nutjobs with nothing better to do.

I then found another video called "Plane truth"...After watching both videos my opinion was not immediately changed, but I kept thinking about what I had seen. I spent the next two years researching 9/11. It wasn't easy, because it went against everything I previously believed.

Here we move from breif history to speculation.

The truth is, simply, that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were destroyed by CD. This does not make me a CT'er. This makes me someone who listens to independent engineers and architects. You can call me a truther, but don't call me a CT'er because I know CD brought down the WTC buildings. Now, you CAN call me a CT'er based on who I think is responsible. That's beyond the scope of this thread, so I'm not going to get into it.

And now we head into definitions.

I think a truther is someone who examines the evidence and realizes the buildings were destroyed by CD. A truther wants a real investigation to find out who was responsible. A CT'er expands on the truther's beliefs and thinks they already know who did it.

That's one thing I think FF has spotted, that some here quickly overlook. I understand that FF uses language and mannerisms that invite conflict, his use of truth instead of belief or hypothesis, but then this is consistent with most people in this sub-forum.

One of the major differences to me between a CTer and a truther is doubt.

CT videos often tell you "That was wrong, this is right".
Truth videos say "This is my opinion/conclusion, check it out for yourself". Some personalities insist that you do not take their word for it. Obviously this could be viewed as some form of reverse psychology.

CT personalities call for some form action, or inversely just acceptance.
Truthers are calling for a new investigation of the facts and evidence to see if another conclusion can be reached.

Looking at it another way, as an agnostic, should I lump all people of a religious nature together? Anyone who goes to church could be a 9/11 type suicide bomber because religion? Sunday service as a child is indoctrination into a worldwide cult by costume wearing fanatics? 7 day creationists, water into wine, raising from the dead, giant invisible sky entities and heaven and hell are OK? How about Adam and Eve, or Noah and the flood? The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Westboro Baptists, paedophilia, corruption, wealth, power....

 

[beachnut]

Wow, 911 truth CTers who did research to come up with CD. They ignore the fact the evidence for CD is BS, lies and nonsense from 911 truth nuts.

Loose Change did not fool the CD CTer who did research, and found Gage, and other idiots who spread lie to fool people who can't do physics.

Now that takes special research. And special physics of constant acceleration...

Throw in some laws of physics were violated on 911, and we have CD believers.

Yes, 911 truth believers, the faith based followers of silent explosives, are full blown Conspracy Theoriests.

Richard Gage uses the same BS, of believing 19 terrorists did 911, then he found money by spreading lies, CD did it, believe me... lol, or he is nuts.

Someone found the biggest liar of 911 truth... Richard Gage... The religion of CD, by Richard Gage.

The truth is, simply, that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were destroyed by CD. This does not make me a CT'er. This makes me someone who listens to independent engineers and architects. You can call me a truther, but don't call me a CT'er because I know CD brought down the WTC buildings.

Someone who can't do math and physics, believes the lies of failed nuts who signed Gage's petition of BS... To believe the BS backed with BS signature of less than 0.1 percent of all engineers?

Less than 0.1 percent of all engineers might say CD did it... actually they only signed up for a new investigation... it is worse, not all the BS followers of Gage said CD; they signed a petition, they were fooled by a liar.

We have a faith based follower of CD, based on the BS of less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. Now that is what being a Conspiracy Theorist is about. Believing BS based on your lack of knowledge of math, and physics.

 

[DGM]

CT personalities call for some form action, or inversely just acceptance.
Truthers are calling for a new investigation of the facts and evidence to see if another conclusion can be reached.

 

[AClark]

Such as,...?

Conspiracy theories (CT's) are conjectures formulated based on ideology to reinforce pre-existing belief. They start with the conclusion, then work the problem backwards, cherry-picking "evidence" (usually single anomalies removed from proper context) that seems to fit the pre-conceived conclusion, ignoring what doesn't and manipulating, distorting or inventing whatever is necessary to fill the gaps. We see this again and again.

This is quite the opposite of how real investigation works.

MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory.
The American Revolution
The gunpowder plot
Watergate
Iran Contra
Bay of Pigs
The Tobacco industry hiding cancer links
The Asbestos industry hiding cancer links
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
Gladio
BBC and Westminster paedophile rings
Fake testimonies, lies etc of Gulf War 1
Lies to invade Iraq (Gulf War 2)
The Manhattan project was denied and carried out in great secrecy (not too unreasonable considering, but it was still a CT at the time)
Fake entry reasons into Vietnam War.
Bank fixing of interest rates etc.
Catholic church clergy abuse.

Feel free to pick this apart (you are going to anyway), but there are multiple times when members of the public, or journalists, or whomever has known or suspected something going on, and has (after much labelling of CT) been proven true. There are no doubt many more, just as there are certain things that have been uncovered, that were a conspiracy, but were not necessarily a CT due to lack of public involvement.

For example I don't know if Northwoods had a CT around it, or if it just came out as something that was discussed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

One of the major differences to me between a CTer and a truther is doubt.

CT videos often tell you "That was wrong, this is right".
Truth videos say "This is my opinion/conclusion, check it out for yourself".

Normally on this forum that's just the bait in the bait-and-switch. A lot of truthers start out here saying "This is my opinion, check it out for yourself," then quickly move on to saying "Now that we've established that everyone who disagrees with my opinion is wrong, that shows that all of you must be shills for the conspiracy." FalseFlag is one of the least doubtful of them all; he's made up his own set of fantasy physics to justify his beliefs, and is spouting the most ridiculous garbage to try to defend it and then, whenever a position becomes so absurd that even he can see it, pretends he never said things that can be checked by simply scrolling up. There's not the slightest vestige of doubt there.

Dave

 

[Mark F]

Talk about cherry picking, you guys are being too harsh on FF, in your quest to discredit everyone who doesn't toe the forum line.

That's one thing I think FF has spotted, that some here quickly overlook. I understand that FF uses language and mannerisms that invite conflict, his use of truth instead of belief or hypothesis, but then this is consistent with most people in this sub-forum.

One of the major differences to me between a CTer and a truther is doubt.

CT videos often tell you "That was wrong, this is right".
Truth videos say "This is my opinion/conclusion, check it out for yourself". Some personalities insist that you do not take their word for it. Obviously this could be viewed as some form of reverse psychology.

CT personalities call for some form action, or inversely just acceptance.
Truthers are calling for a new investigation of the facts and evidence to see if another conclusion can be reached.

Looking at it another way, as an agnostic, should I lump all people of a religious nature together? Anyone who goes to church could be a 9/11 type suicide bomber because religion? Sunday service as a child is indoctrination into a worldwide cult by costume wearing fanatics? 7 day creationists, water into wine, raising from the dead, giant invisible sky entities and heaven and hell are OK? How about Adam and Eve, or Noah and the flood? The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Westboro Baptists, paedophilia, corruption, wealth, power....

There are no more genuine 9/11 Truthers (yourself included). The genuine ones all figured it out and moved on satisfied years ago. This is why I no longer use the term "Truther". It does not accurately describe those currently spreading and supporting false, unsupportable half-claims about what happened on 9/11 on interweb forums. Certainly none of the popular video productions supporting 9/11 Truth claims like those mentioned by FF were produced by people who were genuine Truthers. They all function, like all CT's do, using the same basic format I detailed previously:

1. Reach conclusion arrived at by existing ideology/belief/predisposition (usually some from of blame the man).

2. Cherry-pick only that which seems to support said conclusion, modify to fit and fabricate as necessary, ignore anything which contradicts.

3. Proclaim this one piece (usually removed from proper context) supports the conclusion of X, then challenge others to prove you wrong (reverse the burden of proof).

4. Sometimes this is followed up with vague calls for a "new investigation" (to be done by someone who can think because the CT by definition can not).

This is all quite the opposite of how real investigation is done where one starts with what is known, determines what bits of all the evidence are true then determines which of those true bits are relevant and pieces them together in order to construct a supportable hypothesis. The hypothesis that best supports all of the known relevant evidence with the fewest unproven assumptions is generally the correct one, but always open to reinterpretation if new relevant true facts are presented.

This reasoned approach, this process of rational thinking is outside the range of nearly all CT's.

CT belief (and it is a belief system) is very much akin to religious belief and provides many of the same benefits to the believer. The CT is one of the chosen people for whom the truth has been revealed, unlike the unwashed masses of Sheeple who mindlessly believe what the man (authority, media, etc,...) tells them and it is the CT's job to spread the gospel of truth to the non-believers.

 

[Mark F]

MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory.
The American Revolution
The gunpowder plot
Watergate
Iran Contra
Bay of Pigs
The Tobacco industry hiding cancer links
The Asbestos industry hiding cancer links
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
Gladio
BBC and Westminster paedophile rings
Fake testimonies, lies etc of Gulf War 1
Lies to invade Iraq (Gulf War 2)
The Manhattan project was denied and carried out in great secrecy (not too unreasonable considering, but it was still a CT at the time)
Fake entry reasons into Vietnam War.
Bank fixing of interest rates etc.
Catholic church clergy abuse.

Feel free to pick this apart (you are going to anyway), but there are multiple times when members of the public, or journalists, or whomever has known or suspected something going on, and has (after much labelling of CT) been proven true. There are no doubt many more, just as there are certain things that have been uncovered, that were a conspiracy, but were not necessarily a CT due to lack of public involvement.

For example I don't know if Northwoods had a CT around it, or if it just came out as something that was discussed.

Ummmm, no.

You need to understand the difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Criminal conspiracies are real and they are uncovered by following the evidence starting with known facts and compiling them until a conclusion can be reached.

A CT would be typified by what we see every time there is a mass shooting that makes the national headlines - it takes only minutes for the usual suspects to declare it was an inside job by the government so they can take away our guns. The conclusion is pre-determined, often before details of the event are even known.

The events sited above are conspiracies which came to light by following proper investigative techniques - previously described. They did not start out as CT's that were later validated by people using proper investigative techniques.

 

[AClark]

This is all quite the opposite of how real investigation is done where one starts with what is known, determines what bits of all the evidence are true then determines which of those true bits are relevant and pieces them together in order to construct a supportable hypothesis. The hypothesis that best supports all of the known relevant evidence with the fewest unproven assumptions is generally the correct one, but always open to reinterpretation if new relevant true facts are presented.

This reasoned approach, this process of rational thinking is outside the range of nearly all CT's.

That's a sweeping generalisation, and is how you would like things to be. The courts and history books are full of fit-ups, mistakes, patsies and all sorts. We had some cases in the UK where people sentenced and convicted for terrorist bombings were released after years in jail.

The arrest of Al Capone was a bona-fide conspiracy because they were desperate to arrest him for something. Just because he was a naughty boy, doesn't mean there wasn't a govt agency conspiracy to bring him down.

Likewise, during the times of the IRA, and even domestic disturbances like the miners strike in the UK, there were CTs about agent provocateurs and deep cover operatives which have since been proven.

All that aside, the very actions and responses of govt agencies often fuel such theories. When new facts or evidence is brought up, or errors are pointed out, the denials or rejections and attempts to discredit often do more harm than good. Often the simple refusal to consider the possibilities presented and issue revised statements is enough to bolster cries of cover-up or conspiracy.

Wasn't there a large CT around the use of Agent Orange?

 

[beachnut]

MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory.
The American Revolution ...

What is the conspiracy theory with the American Revolution? lol, big fail, how can events be CTs?

You were tricked into posting non-CTs, Watergate was not a CT, it was an event like 911, with facts and evidence. Thus, like you are with 911, the same goes for Watergate. Are you saying Watergate has some CTs with the real event?

Making the A-Bomb, not a conspiracy theory, it is called physics.

You listed things that were not conspiracy theories.

What happened, did you run out of BS on NIST?
Alive terrorists, your conspiracy theory?

Let me help you out... here are your CTs... you seem confused on what CTs are, and what events are...

... still going with the 19 names, of which anywhere between 4 and 9 turned up alive somewhere else? ...

Here is the seed of a Conspiracy Theory, you picked up and played. Now how is the American Revolution a CT?

... but entire steel sections laterally into nearby buildings at great speed.

This is the stuff of CTs, BS statements which lead to ask for the new investigations because of lack of knowledge, and the BS of CD. What is the speed of the Great Speed? You are not willing to put in the effort to measure your entire steel section flying through the air, and you are unwilling to define the great speed, or answer questions; let alone explain how this BS fits in your CT world of 911, where you need a new investigation. You are skeptical of NIST's probable cause, must mean you have a better probable cause... or you need to do an independent investigation like FalseFlag, great 911 truth name, and figure out it was CD... lol

Is it irony or what, FF does research, finds a bunch of idiots for Richard Gage, and believes CD based on talk. Now that is special.


Don't worry, maybe some of your listed events have CTs associated with them, but which ones? Most are events, and there were no CTs about them; but you can give details on each event and the CTs with the events; right? Or is this like the NIST issues, BS?

Anyway, this is how CTs are formed...

... Seriously, a plane, in that hole? You are kidding me right? ...

See, you do it, you think you are skeptical, but you are making seeds of CTs; You can't figure out for sure which planes were used on 911; you ignore DNA, Radar, FDR, and real evidence; to make statements implying CTs.

It is sad to see after research FlaseFlag comes up with the fantasy of CD.

You will not detail the CT associated with the American Revolution... but the Revolution was not a CT.

Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?

YES, who knew? lol -

The question is...
Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists? Theories, not real events, not innovated ways to put crooks in jail.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Ummmm, no.

You need to understand the difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Criminal conspiracies are real and they are uncovered by following the evidence starting with known facts and compiling them until a conclusion can be reached.

I always laugh at that list, because it's actually a testament to how many real conspiracies CTists missed while obsessing on imaginary conspiracies. The very kindest thing you can say about CTs is that they are a distraction from reality.

(ETA: So much for AClark's claim that he doesn't get his information from CT sites, too.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Manhattan project was denied and carried out in great secrecy (not too unreasonable considering, but it was still a CT at the time)

Erm, no, it wasn't s a Conspiracy Theory.
It was a secret military project but then, so were most military operations in wartime.
As for the effectiveness of the secrecy, it failed in so much as the Russians knew all the details, they were leaked by spies and agents.

Funny thing about all your examples is they were all leaked and found out, there was evidence and testimony from whistle blowers and people involved.

9/11 like an Apollo Hoax would have to involve thousands of people yet, not one of them has come forward.