Inside the Truther Mind

[Tippit]

To Tippit, JihadJane, et al:

I'm going to (briefly) play along with you and agree that "The Man" (i.e., The Government and Big Business in the United States) is EVIL. Are the following premises and conclusion logically valid as far as you're concerned?

The problem I have with that, is that I'm unwilling to make nor have I ever made such broad sweeping generalizations and accusations about who I think might be responsible for 9/11. But I will co-operate because I think you're making some good points.

Entity A is powerful and evil.

Event B is evil and could (apparently) only be orchestrated by an evil and powerful entity.

Therefore, Entity A is responsible for Event B.

In my opinion, it isn't logically valid, at least not in all cases. Jack the Ripper was the most notorious serial killer in 19th century London. He was certainly evil and "powerful" (as his victims would have no doubt attested), but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was responsible for ALL murders that took place in the city of London during the period he was active, does it?

No, you're right it doesn't. There are many possibilities, including other opportunistic killers using Jack-the-Ripper's MO as a way to obfuscate their own motive. I must say that your post is probably the most relevant and honest post made by a conspiracy-skeptic that addresses the way that I feel about 9/11. Your opinion is correct and the logic is invalid all of the time, not just in most cases.

However, if you reword your logical conclusion to replace "is responsible" with "is a reasonable suspect" then the logic is valid. As far as I can tell, there is one important difference between you and I. You are certain you know what happened on 9/11, and who was responsible. I am not. Your resolute certainty is opposed by my uncertainty and abject cynicism.

I can't speak for other conspiracy theorists, but I've had some "fringe" beliefs for a long time before 9/11 happened. You, along with most others, and I have fundamental and profound differences in how we see the world. These differences are so profound that I believe we are each utterly incapable of rationalizing the other's point of view, sadly enough. You have ideas about what is possible and impossible, what is likely, and what is unlikely, and I have mine, and they are based on radically different worldviews. I could attempt to explain why I have this or that perception, but it would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was born blind, and vice-versa for you.

So what does all of this mean? My contempt and cynicism for the government and media run deep. This causes me to take the evidence they've provided with a grain of salt. I don't think there is a grand conspiracy to fabricate or misrepresent evidence. If the primary sources of evidence are corrupt, then the media will reproduce it with no conspiracy required. So given this cynicism with respect to the evidence the media has provided, I am forced to extrapolate theories based on my own worldview, which I believe to be based in truth, and which I am prepared to defend. This worldview provides its own set of suspects with their own motives, and rejects the ones associated with the false paradigm of "terrorism". And so it is not with certainty, but with probabilistic reasoning that I believe (and disbelieve) what I do, and this itself is based on my own unique and cherished perception of reality, one which has cost me much in real terms. You have the comfort and warmth of consensus, and billions of "reasonable" people to help you sleep at night, I have the cold comfort of my intellect, and my arcane knowledge of a few crucial aspects of society that relate to money and power.

How about this? Does this seem valid?

Entity A violently represses, attacks and generally makes life miserable for Entity C.

Entity C, though not as nearly powerful as Entity A, eventually has enough of said repression and strikes back at Entity A in a similarly violent way.

Yes, the underlying logic of the premise of the official story is quite valid, as I'm sure you would accept the logic underlying the premise of my disbelief, as I corrected above.

What I'm getting at is, if the Government and/or Big Business in the United Sates is as evil as you say, why wouldn't there be radical groups around the world justifiably angry enough to lash out at America in the form of what we'd call "terrorist" attacks? In other words, wouldn't a 9/11 type event be the sort of thing you'd expect to inevitably happen when downtrodden and angry people revolt against an oppressor?

Not only would there be, there is. And this is the source of organic terrorism, which is a reality to a certain extent (the extent of which we would no doubt disagree vehemently, as well as the circumstances that create and organize such groups of people), and which could result in a 9/11 type event.

It's the specific circumstances of 9/11 coupled with my relatively uncommon worldview which cause me to assign a far lower probability to this than you (who is certain).

Or do you for some reason assume that all radical groups who have a problem with America are as hapless and unmotivated as the Truth Movement?

Absolutely not. In fact, I would contend that those radical groups that have a problem with America are as hapless, ignorant, and hateful as the masses of Americans who are predisposed to accept the false terrorism paradigm, hook, line, and sinker. Both classes of people are motivated fundamentally by fear.

I would not characterize the truth movement as unmotivated, but, merely out-numbered, out-voiced, and up against the dilemma of trying to express disturbing doubts about a seminal event in the paradigm of modern terrorism in the context of our looming destruction by the terrorists. It's a lose-lose situation, for us. If we're wrong or we're crazy, we have all of the associated problems of being wrong and/or crazy. If we're right, god help us.

BTW, I've now stopped playing along with you now. I've now gone back to believing that while Acton's Axiom may often hold true, Big Business and Government are peopled by human beings. Some good, some bad. Some who deserve medals, others who deserve to be locked up for life. I'm unwilling to accuse any of them of anything without solid evidence. Have a nice day

If it's an axiom, then it cannot "often" hold true, it is always true, and I'm sure Lord Acton knew exactly what he meant when he used the word "absolute". I'm unwilling to accuse them of the crime of 9/11, but I am however willing to accuse them of the crimes for which their is direct evidence, even if their power to rewrite and spin history has shielded them from justice, or even simple awareness of their existence and influence.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This discussion on torture needs to be moved to another thread, I think.

I started a new thread here.

 

[Tippit]

Secondly, do you really want to revisit the "New Investigation" möbius strip/argument? I think it would go a little something like this...

T: I won't be convinced one way or another until we have a new investigation into 9/11.

D: Fine, have a new investigation. Investigate to your heart's content. Just don't ask me to foot the bill.

This seems reasonable, until you stop and realize that we are all footing an entirely different "bill" which is immoderately and inordinately bloody and expensive, and which is all based on the contested account of one horrific event.

One might think that if there is any possibility that the underlying premise on the War on Terror is false, that is, the idea that 19 arab terrorists attacked the US, we would stand far more to gain from a thorough investigation that would answer the critics of the 9/11 commission, which include but aren't limited to many of the victims families than we would by proceeding on our current course.

T: No, the government has to be involved. There is information that only the government has access to.

D: But if you are right and the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, how can you trust the information they give you?

That is certainly a dilemma. A good start is to have an independent investigation, for some reasonable definition of independent that doesn't include the people criticized of bias or conflict of interest in the 9/11 commission, and a process that is far more transparent than we had.

T: Uh...

D: Or let's say they weren't involved, but after 10 years, you complete your investigation and to your shock and disappointment, you discover that it really was Al Qaeda's responsbility, do you really think the rest of the Truth Movement who weren't personally involved in the investigation will say "Huh! What do you know? Turns out we were wrong all these years!" or do you think they'll (or at least a significant subset of them) just assume the investigators were threatened or bribed or fooled into saying what you did and bay for your blood while simultaneously demanding a new(er) investigation?

For any rational person, that should depend on the quality of the investigation, and who it is conducted by. You can't please everyone, but aren't there enough people who doubt the culprits of 9/11, or at the very least who are critical of the 9/11 commission to warrant some action? Maybe you don't think so, but there is a lot more riding on the line than just the cost of a new investigation.

T: ...

D: T, are you there? Talk to me, man.

T: I won't be convinced one way or another until we have a new investigation into 9/11.

T&D: annnnnnd scene!

I wouldn't be convinced if the new investigation were carried out in a similar fashion to the old, and were subject to the same problems and doubts. That doesn't mean we can't establish objective criteria for how such a new investigation would be carried out.

Yes, but before all that the police have to have enough evidence to place a suspect into custody. The irony that the Randi Forum (unlike most forums that have areas dedicated to 9/11 conspiracies) literally is peopled with actual Rocket Scientists is probably lost on you.

Can you list a few of the rocket scientists for me? I'd be more than interested in reading threads authored by that caliber of person. So far, I can't say there is anything special about the JREF forum as opposed to others. I think I post here in an effort to better articulate my own thoughts because the audience is so hostile, not because I ascribe any inordinate intelligence to anyone here. In fact, I'm often under-impressed with the intelligence of a lot of so-called "skeptics" on this forum.

 

[Tippit]

But getting back to your point (because that's the mature, polite thing to do when responding to someone's sincere question), I work under the "questionable" assumption that Al Qaeda was soley responsible for the 9/11 attacks for two reasons:

1. Well, partly because of knowing about Occam's Razor, living 43 years on this planet and seeing how the real world operates tells me that more often than not, the simplest solution is the best. Life is not like a James Bond movie (alas). It is not like an Agatha Christie mystery. It is certainly not like, uh "Batman and Robin" (since you mentioned them). To use an example I mentioned elsewhere, when Olympic figure skater Nancy Kerrigan was attacked, my first thought wasn't "Aha! I bet she orchestrated that herself to get Tonya Harding out of the way!"

I've said this before on this forum, and I'll say it again. Occam's razor is wonderful concept for the philosophy of science, but 9/11 was not a science experiment. Criminals deceive, they fabricate and doctor evidence, they sometimes influence or control investigations. Occam's razor prefers the simplest theory that conforms to the evidence. But this becomes meaningless when the veracity of those who gather or report the evidence is in doubt.

A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.

William of Ockham would agree with you, no doubt. However, the word "correct" isn't really an appropriate one here. It would be more rigorous to say that a simple theory should not be preferred over a more complex one that explains the observed phenomena more accurately. If the 9/11 truth movement could produce such a thing - something it has consistently failed, and at times actually refused to attempt, to do - it would be taken very seriously here.

Dave

 

[Tippit]

William of Ockham would agree with you, no doubt. However, the word "correct" isn't really an appropriate one here. It would be more rigorous to say that a simple theory should not be preferred over a more complex one that explains the observed phenomena more accurately. If the 9/11 truth movement could produce such a thing - something it has consistently failed, and at times actually refused to attempt, to do - it would be taken very seriously here.

Dave

First of all, I would point out that unless you were a witness in person to the spectacle itself, you observed no phenomena. You have a reasonable facsimile of observed phenomena in the form of television news clips, and youtube movies, all of which have been edited and exist in a certain context. Then you have all of the other purported evidence, proffered up by the relevant agencies responsible for the investigation. Then you have all of the other purported evidence, proffered up by the 9/11 truth community. All of these parties have an axe to grind, and the chain of custody of such evidence in many cases is far from clear. Much of the evidence in favor of the official story obtains its evidentiary value from the loud, bleating voice of the mainstream media. Essentially this is just a surreptitious form of argumentum ad nauseum. If it was reported on television, it must have happened that way. If it isn't reported on television, it doesn't exist.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have a reasonable facsimile of observed phenomena in the form of television news clips, and youtube movies, all of which have been edited and exist in a certain context. Then you have all of the other purported evidence, proffered up by the relevant agencies responsible for the investigation. Then you have all of the other purported evidence, proffered up by the 9/11 truth community.

Agreed, these are the only observations I have available to me. The best explanation I can find for these observations is very closely, though possibly not perfectly, aligned to the conventionally accepted narrative of the events of 9/11. The problem with the conspiracist explanations is that they are not only more complex, but also explain the observations less well. There's no question, therefore, of preferring a simpler but less correct theory over a more complex but more correct one, or even (where Occam's razor would be applicable) of preferring a simpler theory over a more complex but equally correct one. The more complex theory appears to be grossly inferior. To say that this choice reflects in any way on the applicability of Occam's Razor is specious; the choice never even gets that far. And for you to point out that there are more unknowns is equally specious; as long as they're unknown, no conclusions can be drawn from them.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

Much of the evidence in favor of the official story obtains its evidentiary value from the loud, bleating voice of the mainstream media. Essentially this is just a surreptitious form of argumentum ad nauseum. If it was reported on television, it must have happened that way. If it isn't reported on television, it doesn't exist.

That is incorrect. Many experts have looked at the data and almost none have cried "foul". The ones that did have only a problem with small details of the analyses, not the central narrative.

 

[aggle-rithm]

William of Ockham would agree with you, no doubt. However, the word "correct" isn't really an appropriate one here. It would be more rigorous to say that a simple theory should not be preferred over a more complex one that explains the observed phenomena more accurately.

Even better -- the explanation with the fewest number of unknowns is the preferred one.

We all know where truther theories stand in that regard.

 

[tuc0]

Much of the evidence in favor of the official story obtains its evidentiary value from the loud, bleating voice of the mainstream media.

Give one example of this, please.

If it was reported on television, it must have happened that way. If it isn't reported on television, it doesn't exist.

Give one example of this, please.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I started a new thread [url = http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146206]here[/url].

Sorry, HERE.

 

[JohnG]

I just want to give a sincere thanks to JihadJane and Tippit to their most recent (and thoughtful) responses to my questions. I don't think we're any closer being on the same page regarding who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks (or who "allowed" them to happen), but it feels like you made an honest attempt to address what I was trying to get at. I want to reread your posts and mull them over before I make a detailed response to both of you.

Thanks again,
JohnG

 

[JohnG]

Nothing crazy about it at all.



I see where we're sticking. No, I'm not saying that they were working together if you mean by that that they were engaged in a co-operative, joint enterprise.

My theory is that steps were taken to ensure the plot's success such as ignoring warnings, obstructing investigations, neutralizing defenses etc. - All unbeknown to the the oppressed.


I am also open to the possibility that even more active steps could have been taken to ensure that a generations long war (Cheney) could be launched and ideologically sustained on multiple fronts in Islamic countries in a region upon which political control of the Eurasian land mass and, therefore, the World hinges.

State intelligence agencies control terror groups covertly. Terrorism is too useful a tool for State's not to want to use it for their own ends.


BTW:



I think you severely underestimate flag-waving patriots' delusional mind state. USA foreign policy activities are regarded by them as a charity for the less fortunate.

Thanks again for actually getting to the nub of the matter. It appears I didn't quite get where you were coming from and vice-versa.

This may shock you to read this, but my opinion of the US Government is even lower than yours, in at least one respect. Not only do you seem to find it corrupt and evil, but you also apparently seem to find it omniscient. While I might agree that elements within the Government throughout the years could be called corrupt, believing them to be all seeing and all knowing is giving them more credit than they deserve. As far as "evil" goes...well that's a term I don't like to use lightly (as hard as that might be to believe by reading some of my posts in this thread). There's two basic kinds of evil people, IMO: the kind who perpetrate evil acts because some mis-wiring in the brain prevents them from distinguishing (or at least caring) about the difference between good and evil, and the other kind are otherwise ethical people who nevertheless sincerely believe that the ends justify the means and that any act isn't really inherently evil if it is being carried out for noble cause. Yes, politicians here and abroad throughout history have adopted that pragmatic and ethically dubious position, as have their opponents. This kind of moral relativism is the cause of many of the manmade tragedies the world has witnessed throughout history.

I disagree with your specific 9/11 LIHOP theory not because I necessarily have a higher opinion of human nature than you, but simply because I have seen no evidence to indicate that your theory is correct. I also sense that there's more than a bit of demonization going on on your part. I didn't vote for Bush and as far as I'm concerned he was the worst President in US history, but that doesn't mean that I think he and Cheney were satanic supervillains, either.

I get the impression you have a fairly low opinion of many "debunkers" here. I suspect you think many here are naive at best and apologists for criminals at worst. I hope the irony hasn't escaped you that MIHOP true believers (the type that go on about death rays, nanotherm*te, holographic planes, etc.) have a similarly low opinion of you and your (relatively) reasonable views on the subject of 9/11?

 

[twinstead]

I think one thing JihadJane fails to grasp is that he is no different than the flag-waving jingoists he derides, merely the obverse of the same ideological coin.

 

[JohnG]

As far as I can tell, there is one important difference between you and I. You are certain you know what happened on 9/11, and who was responsible. I am not. Your resolute certainty is opposed by my uncertainty and abject cynicism.

You've said a lot of interesting things in your last couple of posts to me, but in my opinion this is the heart of the matter and everything else is (in my opinion) ultimately trivial, so I'd like to concentrate on this, if that's OK. If you want me to specifically address some of your other points, let me know. It interests me because it epitomizes not just the 9/11 "Truther" vs. "Debunker" debates, but it is also relevant to many of the debates going on in other threads devoted to, for example, the paranormal. It is something that I find fascinating, speaking as someone who has been both a skeptic and a hard core "believer".

You believe that I am certain that I know what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible. You'll just have to take my word that I am not 100% certain about anything. I mean that literally. I'm certain enough, however to behave as if I'm certain. That may sound a little silly at first blush, but please hear me out. Here's one of my patented and much derided examples to try to explain what I mean (I'll leave Nancy Kerrigan out of it, I promise):

Let's say a person (call him Mr. A) leaves his apartment tomorrow morning and walks to his car. It is logically (and literally) valid to say that Mr. A either will or will not be, say... struck and killed by a bolt of lightning. That, of course does not mean that the odds of him being struck are 50/50. The actual odds depend on a lot of different variables. If he walks out into a raging thunderstorm, then maybe it will cross his mind to quicken his pace, stay away from the large oak tree at the end of the parking lot, etc. If Mr. A is greeted by a fairly sunny day with just a few dark clouds in the sky, chances are the thought of lightning won't even cross his mind. This isn't to say that it is completely impossible that he'll be struck, it's just that knowing what he knows about meteorology, probability and how reality generally operates, he'll behave as if being struck is a virtual impossibility.

Now take another person (Mr. B) who suffers from acute Astraphobia (fear of lightning) brought on by say, some traumatic childhood memory (you might even say he's a bit... cynical when it comes to lightning). This person may behave as if being struck by lightning is a constant and strong possibility, no matter what the weather may be. Mr. B may spend his life avoiding trees, flag poles or standing in an open field, all to help reduce the possibility of being struck. He may take this obsession to such an extreme that he may be derided by others for what appears to be such an "irrational" fear. The fear may be so intense that the astraphobic person may even lash out at people who do not share his fears and/or people who appear to want to put the person into harm's way by inviting him for a picnic on a cloudy day? Of course the astraphobic may take some grim satisfaction in his own intense caution when he hears of some careless, hapless person who was injured or killed by lightning, but such satisfaction comes at the expense of a life lived in almost constant (and almost unjustified) fear. If pressed, both Mr. A and Mr. B might admit that they aren't literally 100% certain of what will happen when they step outside, but they are certain enough to behave as if they are.

In my opinion, however, Mr. A is the one who is behaving the most rationally in that his appraisal of the odds is more accurate than his counterpart, so he therefore behaves accordingly. It is basically a provisional approach to living life in which a person adapts their beliefs and behaviors depending on the best evidence at hand.

The point I'm trying to get at is ultimately any belief we sincerely hold (no matter how seemingly abstract) about ourselves or the world around us will affect our behaviors-or to put a finer point on it- our actions.

I don't see the rationale in taking the action of opening a new investigation into 9/11 because based on our knowledge of the event, we already know all the important aspects of who carried it out, why the buildings fell the way they did, etc. While I can't say it is literally impossible that the Official Account is fundamentally wrong in some important way, the chances of it being so are so vanishingly remote, that I do not think it is rational to act as if it is in any way probable.

One of the many things about Truthers that bemuse and irritate Debunkers is that there seems to be a disconnect between a Truther's beliefs and their actions. How many times have we read something like the following on this forum: "If you really believe your Government is behind one of the most heinous crimes in history, why aren't you doing something about it rather than bleating about it on conspiracy forums?". This is the key point: Debunkers don't act (as in taking action) as if LIHOP/MIHOP is in any way likely, (which is understandable), but the perverse thing is, neither do the Truthers! To go back to my lightning example, Mr. A might justifiably be branded a fool for flying a kite during an electrical storm, but it would be positively perverse if Mr. B were seen doing the exact same thing.

 

[Tippit]

Let's say a person (call him Mr. A) leaves his apartment tomorrow morning and walks to his car. It is logically (and literally) valid to say that Mr. A either will or will not be, say... struck and killed by a bolt of lightning. That, of course does not mean that the odds of him being struck are 50/50. The actual odds depend on a lot of different variables. If he walks out into a raging thunderstorm, then maybe it will cross his mind to quicken his pace, stay away from the large oak tree at the end of the parking lot, etc. If Mr. A is greeted by a fairly sunny day with just a few dark clouds in the sky, chances are the thought of lightning won't even cross his mind. This isn't to say that it is completely impossible that he'll be struck, it's just that knowing what he knows about meteorology, probability and how reality generally operates, he'll behave as if being struck is a virtual impossibility.

Now take another person (Mr. B) who suffers from acute Astraphobia (fear of lightning) brought on by say, some traumatic childhood memory (you might even say he's a bit... cynical when it comes to lightning). This person may behave as if being struck by lightning is a constant and strong possibility, no matter what the weather may be. Mr. B may spend his life avoiding trees, flag poles or standing in an open field, all to help reduce the possibility of being struck. He may take this obsession to such an extreme that he may be derided by others for what appears to be such an "irrational" fear. The fear may be so intense that the astraphobic person may even lash out at people who do not share his fears and/or people who appear to want to put the person into harm's way by inviting him for a picnic on a cloudy day? Of course the astraphobic may take some grim satisfaction in his own intense caution when he hears of some careless, hapless person who was injured or killed by lightning, but such satisfaction comes at the expense of a life lived in almost constant (and almost unjustified) fear. If pressed, both Mr. A and Mr. B might admit that they aren't literally 100% certain of what will happen when they step outside, but they are certain enough to behave as if they are.

In my opinion, however, Mr. A is the one who is behaving the most rationally in that his appraisal of the odds is more accurate than his counterpart, so he therefore behaves accordingly. It is basically a provisional approach to living life in which a person adapts their beliefs and behaviors depending on the best evidence at hand.

The big problem I have with this analogy, aside from your implicit psycho-analysis concluding that I'm dysfunctional, is that Mr. A's belief system is based on logic and pragmatism, while Mr. B's is based on nothing more than fear. I don't live in fear. I'm not paranoid. They aren't out to get me. They're out to get everyone.

I'm an intelligent, independent thinker. I made a career in IT, and am a successful enough investor that I will never have to work again. I'm not an activist, I don't wear 9/11 was an inside job t-shirts. The only time I talk about what I really think are on virtually anonymous forums, or with my best friends. If I met you on the street, I would never bring up the subject of my political or economic beliefs. I smile and nod my head in most dinner table political discussions, and can quickly ascertain who I can and cannot relate to intellectually. I'm not exactly normal, but I'm not exactly abnormal either, except perhaps with regard to some of the conclusions I've made about the world. I am a student of human nature. I understand my own nature.

I will try to offer a biography of my development as a "conspiracy theorist", what I believe, and how it ties in loosely to 9/11. I don't think I'm a typical "truther" in the sense that I knew that something was wrong with society and the world as early as 1994. When my father died in 1992, he left me an estate with investments that I had to learn how to manage. I remember seeing a picture of Warren Buffett on the cover of Forbes, and after reading the article I decided I would learn everything I possibly could about Buffett and his method of value investing. I read every book about Buffett and more. I read financial reference books cover to cover. It was then that I came across an entry called the "Federal Reserve System". Never having much familiarity with the monetary system I decided that the ability to control interest rates affected me materially as an investor, and reflected a great deal of power. I likewise read every book I could about the Fed, as well as books highly critical of it. I came to the conclusion which I still hold today, that the Fed is the supreme instrument of usury and operates against the public trust, directly responsible for the inflation tax. Fiat money and fractional reserve banking are without a doubt responsible for the phenomenon known as wealth condensation. This led to an investigation of the dynastic banking families like Rockefeller and Rothschild who have made the successful transition from prominence to obscurity, with the general public believing that they frittered away their great fortunes and influence, moving aside for such nouveau-riche as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. As an investor looking to protect my own assets however, both from potential litigants and the ravages of taxation, I understand the tenet espoused by John D. Rockefeller: "I want to own nothing, and control everything". These people have used their foundations to disguise their massive wealth and as tools of their great influence. They also act as barriers to any potential competition by their tax status. These men want nothing less to control the world surreptitiously, via their system of money, and they are succeeding. Most people neither understand the method, nor are they prepared to accept that such an audacious plan could possibly be real. I understand the method, and I recognize the plan.

So this is the ideological framework for my skepticism of who is ultimately responsible for 9/11. I don't believe we live in a pluralistic world, I think the world is more or less controlled and we merely have some illusion of freedom. The money supply and how it works is the key to understanding this. David Rockefeller is a man for whom it has been described that the President of the United States would be a demotion. He cannot reveal his power in dictatorial fashion, because it would instantly disappear. Nevertheless, there is a history of these banking dynasties using the fractional reserve system to fund both sides of warring countries, or, in this case, warring ideologies, and this is the context in which I view 9/11.

The point I'm trying to get at is ultimately any belief we sincerely hold (no matter how seemingly abstract) about ourselves or the world around us will affect our behaviors-or to put a finer point on it- our actions.

I don't see the rationale in taking the action of opening a new investigation into 9/11 because based on our knowledge of the event, we already know all the important aspects of who carried it out, why the buildings fell the way they did, etc. While I can't say it is literally impossible that the Official Account is fundamentally wrong in some important way, the chances of it being so are so vanishingly remote, that I do not think it is rational to act as if it is in any way probable.

I would disagree on the simple basis that since many are unhappy with the quality of the original investigation, and that since so much is at stake, it's far more important to get at the truth. We can spend millions on a real investigation, or hundreds of billions on war, not that I'm convinced an investigation run by the criminals themselves would amount to anything.

One of the many things about Truthers that bemuse and irritate Debunkers is that there seems to be a disconnect between a Truther's beliefs and their actions. How many times have we read something like the following on this forum: "If you really believe your Government is behind one of the most heinous crimes in history, why aren't you doing something about it rather than bleating about it on conspiracy forums?". This is the key point: Debunkers don't act (as in taking action) as if LIHOP/MIHOP is in any way likely, (which is understandable), but the perverse thing is, neither do the Truthers! To go back to my lightning example, Mr. A might justifiably be branded a fool for flying a kite during an electrical storm, but it would be positively perverse if Mr. B were seen doing the exact same thing.

If I'm nothing but a crazy person on a forum, then what do you propose I do in the real world? You tell me what I should do. I'm utterly powerless. The only influence I have is on the people around me. How do you proceed to convince people of something you can hardly fathom exists yourself? It's not so easy.

I can't convince anyone about what happened on 9/11. I can only try to convey a belief system and create a context for skepticism about the official story.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You've said a lot of interesting things in your last couple of posts to me, but in my opinion this is the heart of the matter and everything else is (in my opinion) ultimately trivial, so I'd like to concentrate on this, if that's OK. If you want me to specifically address some of your other points, let me know. It interests me because it epitomizes not just the 9/11 "Truther" vs. "Debunker" debates, but it is also relevant to many of the debates going on in other threads devoted to, for example, the paranormal. It is something that I find fascinating, speaking as someone who has been both a skeptic and a hard core "believer".

You believe that I am certain that I know what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible. You'll just have to take my word that I am not 100% certain about anything. I mean that literally. I'm certain enough, however to behave as if I'm certain. That may sound a little silly at first blush, but please hear me out. Here's one of my patented and much derided examples to try to explain what I mean (I'll leave Nancy Kerrigan out of it, I promise):

Let's say a person (call him Mr. A) leaves his apartment tomorrow morning and walks to his car. It is logically (and literally) valid to say that Mr. A either will or will not be, say... struck and killed by a bolt of lightning. That, of course does not mean that the odds of him being struck are 50/50. The actual odds depend on a lot of different variables. If he walks out into a raging thunderstorm, then maybe it will cross his mind to quicken his pace, stay away from the large oak tree at the end of the parking lot, etc. If Mr. A is greeted by a fairly sunny day with just a few dark clouds in the sky, chances are the thought of lightning won't even cross his mind. This isn't to say that it is completely impossible that he'll be struck, it's just that knowing what he knows about meteorology, probability and how reality generally operates, he'll behave as if being struck is a virtual impossibility.

Now take another person (Mr. B) who suffers from acute Astraphobia (fear of lightning) brought on by say, some traumatic childhood memory (you might even say he's a bit... cynical when it comes to lightning). This person may behave as if being struck by lightning is a constant and strong possibility, no matter what the weather may be. Mr. B may spend his life avoiding trees, flag poles or standing in an open field, all to help reduce the possibility of being struck. He may take this obsession to such an extreme that he may be derided by others for what appears to be such an "irrational" fear. The fear may be so intense that the astraphobic person may even lash out at people who do not share his fears and/or people who appear to want to put the person into harm's way by inviting him for a picnic on a cloudy day? Of course the astraphobic may take some grim satisfaction in his own intense caution when he hears of some careless, hapless person who was injured or killed by lightning, but such satisfaction comes at the expense of a life lived in almost constant (and almost unjustified) fear. If pressed, both Mr. A and Mr. B might admit that they aren't literally 100% certain of what will happen when they step outside, but they are certain enough to behave as if they are.

In my opinion, however, Mr. A is the one who is behaving the most rationally in that his appraisal of the odds is more accurate than his counterpart, so he therefore behaves accordingly. It is basically a provisional approach to living life in which a person adapts their beliefs and behaviors depending on the best evidence at hand.

The point I'm trying to get at is ultimately any belief we sincerely hold (no matter how seemingly abstract) about ourselves or the world around us will affect our behaviors-or to put a finer point on it- our actions.

I don't see the rationale in taking the action of opening a new investigation into 9/11 because based on our knowledge of the event, we already know all the important aspects of who carried it out, why the buildings fell the way they did, etc. While I can't say it is literally impossible that the Official Account is fundamentally wrong in some important way, the chances of it being so are so vanishingly remote, that I do not think it is rational to act as if it is in any way probable.

One of the many things about Truthers that bemuse and irritate Debunkers is that there seems to be a disconnect between a Truther's beliefs and their actions. How many times have we read something like the following on this forum: "If you really believe your Government is behind one of the most heinous crimes in history, why aren't you doing something about it rather than bleating about it on conspiracy forums?". This is the key point: Debunkers don't act (as in taking action) as if LIHOP/MIHOP is in any way likely, (which is understandable), but the perverse thing is, neither do the Truthers! To go back to my lightning example, Mr. A might justifiably be branded a fool for flying a kite during an electrical storm, but it would be positively perverse if Mr. B were seen doing the exact same thing.

Nominated.

Based on JJ's reaction to my earlier post, truthers seem to think rational people are insane for acting as if we are safe from extraordinary dangers, even though the probability of their occurrance is greater than zero.

It's a quality of life issue, as far as I'm concerned. If you really think you're in danger from some secret, omniscient and powerful agent, either do something about it (other than complain in internet fora) or quit worrying about it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The big problem I have with this analogy, aside from your implicit psycho-analysis concluding that I'm dysfunctional, is that Mr. A's belief system is based on logic and pragmatism, while Mr. B's is based on nothing more than fear. I don't live in fear. I'm not paranoid. They aren't out to get me. They're out to get everyone.

And lightning isn't?

 

[LightinDarkness]

I don't live in fear. I'm not paranoid. They aren't out to get me. They're out to get everyone.

One of the most amusing things I've read all day. Oh no, no irrational fear and paranoia here....because "they" are out to get everyone, not just you.

If you can't see why this sort of thinking is the embodiment of fear and paranoia, then there is little help for you.

I'm an intelligent, independent thinker. I made a career in IT, and am a successful enough investor that I will never have to work again. I'm not an activist, I don't wear 9/11 was an inside job t-shirts. The only time I talk about what I really think are on virtually anonymous forums, or with my best friends. If I met you on the street, I would never bring up the subject of my political or economic beliefs. I smile and nod my head in most dinner table political discussions, and can quickly ascertain who I can and cannot relate to intellectually. I'm not exactly normal, but I'm not exactly abnormal either, except perhaps with regard to some of the conclusions I've made about the world. I am a student of human nature. I understand my own nature.

Please, flatter yourself more.

I will try to offer a biography of my development as a "conspiracy theorist", what I believe, and how it ties in loosely to 9/11. I don't think I'm a typical "truther" in the sense that I knew that something was wrong with society and the world as early as 1994. When my father died in 1992, he left me an estate with investments that I had to learn how to manage. I remember seeing a picture of Warren Buffett on the cover of Forbes, and after reading the article I decided I would learn everything I possibly could about Buffett and his method of value investing. I read every book about Buffett and more. I read financial reference books cover to cover. It was then that I came across an entry called the "Federal Reserve System". Never having much familiarity with the monetary system I decided that the ability to control interest rates affected me materially as an investor, and reflected a great deal of power. I likewise read every book I could about the Fed, as well as books highly critical of it. I came to the conclusion which I still hold today, that the Fed is the supreme instrument of usury and operates against the public trust, directly responsible for the inflation tax.
...
This led to an investigation of the dynastic banking families like Rockefeller and Rothschild who have made the successful transition from prominence to obscurity, with the general public believing that they frittered away their great fortunes and influence, moving aside for such nouveau-riche as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. As an investor looking to protect my own assets however, both from potential litigants and the ravages of taxation, I understand the tenet espoused by John D. Rockefeller: "I want to own nothing, and control everything". These people have used their foundations to disguise their massive wealth and as tools of their great influence. They also act as barriers to any potential competition by their tax status. These men want nothing less to control the world surreptitiously, via their system of money, and they are succeeding. Most people neither understand the method, nor are they prepared to accept that such an audacious plan could possibly be real. I understand the method, and I recognize the plan.

I think this gives us more insight into your reason for beleiving woo than anything else. You wanted to figure out why other people had more money than you...and it could just possibly not be because they had better ideas than you or earned it. No. It must be because of a conspiracy. You've delved so far into class warfare and class envy that you've had to turn to imaginary conspiracies to explain the world.

You cannot accept a world where people have more than you in ways that are legitimate. It must be through conspiracy plots to stop you from getting more.

Fiat money and fractional reserve banking are without a doubt responsible for the phenomenon known as wealth condensation.

Citation needed. There is absolutely no evidence for this.

David Rockefeller is a man for whom it has been described that the President of the United States would be a demotion. He cannot reveal his power in dictatorial fashion, because it would instantly disappear. Nevertheless, there is a history of these banking dynasties using the fractional reserve system to fund both sides of warring countries, or, in this case, warring ideologies, and this is the context in which I view 9/11.

Citation needed. There is absolutely no evidence for this.

If I'm nothing but a crazy person on a forum, then what do you propose I do in the real world? You tell me what I should do. I'm utterly powerless. The only influence I have is on the people around me. How do you proceed to convince people of something you can hardly fathom exists yourself? It's not so easy.

Start doing the real research and come to accept that people don't have more than you through conspiracies.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If I'm nothing but a crazy person on a forum, then what do you propose I do in the real world? You tell me what I should do.

Here's what you should do: Pretend that all the evil conspiracies don't exist.

I'm perfectly serious. You yourself say that these beliefs are unfathomable. They are also unfalsifiable, in that any contradictary evidence can be explained away as being another cog in the conspiracy machine.

If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, that means that a world in which the hypothesis is true looks exactly the same as a world in which it is false. In that case, you can easily live your life as if it were false. Even if it were, in fact, true you would never know the difference.

So, why not do that? Wouldn't it make life easier?