The Great Internet Conspiracy: Truth Movement Retrospective

[DGM]

There's the money quote -- and it's absolutely correct.

In the case of 9/11 Truth, I have plenty of personal experience and to me the conspiracy theories were, in fact, obviously foolish, but not everyone has a background in experimental physics... For those who don't

I don't think it's even remotely necessary to have this background. I never went to college/university and I can see that their "theories" are non-sense. Nothing so complicated as the "truthers" propose would ever work (only in the movies). This is why they failed. Regular people with brains know that, K.I.S.S. is the only way to go.


(Keep, It, Simple. Stupid)

 

[Sunstealer]

So long and thanks for all the stundies

I'm going to stop commenting too. It's just a waste of time. The truthers that are left are either trolls or religious devotees. There's no point any more. Every thread rapidly goes off topic as truthers derail the thread, move goal posts or refuse to acknowledge posts that refute their points. Every new thread is a rehash of 30 other long debunked points.

So what if someone is wrong on the internet. I can live with that. The truther movement will simply extinguish itself if not given the oxygen of publicity.

Those that want to pay their money to watch Gage and Jones etc, let them, they are fools.

It would be an interesting experiment to see what this sub-forum would look like if debunkers simply refused to post and restrained themselves for a period of time - say until Christmas. I suspect that many need their fix as much as the truthers. Reminds me of trying to quit WoW.

I'll probably lurk for a while and participate in other sections of JREF now and again, but I'm done with 9/11.

So long and thanks for all the stundies.

 

[R.Mackey]

With respect to this earlier discussion:

We don't know, that is why we have the debate. And a report on his mental health coming soon. I believe the will find him to be mentally sane. All I see in him in narcissism, BUT I will respect the findings of the professionals. There is a history of terrorist NOT being sick persons. All they need is a sick ideology. I See a sick ideology inn truthers. The reason might be that I know I would have attacked my government if I though they had killed 3000 from my country. And I have no reason to think I'm sick.

Anders Breivik has just been found legally insane, as I expected.

The point I'd like to reiterate is that there is nothing at all to fear from the Truth Movement. Pretty much everybody is delusional to some small, controllable degree. Truthers, maybe a tad more, or maybe their delusion merely has more structure than other folks. But that doesn't make them dangerous. They are not ticking time bombs, nor are they recruiting others into carrying out violent acts in pursuit of an anarchistic agenda. They just believe some wacky things. Nothing more.

People like Breivik are not that way because of their beliefs, instead their beliefs are just a symptom of a deeper problem. You cannot treat this problem through rational debate, argument, name-calling, or any other method available through Internet-enabled conversation. The underlying problem with someone like Breivik is either chemical or criminal, and in some cases both.

You'll have noticed that discussion in this subforum has ebbed considerably, and what conversation continues all revisits extremely tired ground. They've shown their hand. The only reason the discussion still exists at all is because of "Debunkers" who fear ignoring them will make them worse. It won't. If you drop the subject here and now, they aren't going to radicalize and commit a bunch of crimes, that's silly. In fact, as I argued in the paper, stopping the argument is the best way to help them see it for the nonsense that it is.

Oh, there are also those who actually like arguing with them, or who insist on having the last word. Not a particularly noble motivation, but understandable.

 

[Scott Sommers]

With respect to this earlier discussion:



Anders Breivik has just been found legally insane, as I expected.

The point I'd like to reiterate is that there is nothing at all to fear from the Truth Movement. Pretty much everybody is delusional to some small, controllable degree. Truthers, maybe a tad more, or maybe their delusion merely has more structure than other folks. But that doesn't make them dangerous. They are not ticking time bombs, nor are they recruiting others into carrying out violent acts in pursuit of an anarchistic agenda. They just believe some wacky things. Nothing more.

People like Breivik are not that way because of their beliefs, instead their beliefs are just a symptom of a deeper problem. You cannot treat this problem through rational debate, argument, name-calling, or any other method available through Internet-enabled conversation. The underlying problem with someone like Breivik is either chemical or criminal, and in some cases both.

You'll have noticed that discussion in this subforum has ebbed considerably, and what conversation continues all revisits extremely tired ground. They've shown their hand. The only reason the discussion still exists at all is because of "Debunkers" who fear ignoring them will make them worse. It won't. If you drop the subject here and now, they aren't going to radicalize and commit a bunch of crimes, that's silly. In fact, as I argued in the paper, stopping the argument is the best way to help them see it for the nonsense that it is.

Oh, there are also those who actually like arguing with them, or who insist on having the last word. Not a particularly noble motivation, but understandable.

This is where you and I differ on the problem, or maybe we don't. I'm still not sure on this. I agree that if "Debunkers" on the JREF stopped responding to the JREF 9/11 nuts, the nuts and their friends would not radicalize and commit crimes. But that's because the discourse on the JREF has become irrelevant to the debate. Virtually no one becomes a Truther anymore because of confusion about the scientific evidence. No one remains a Truther because of this either. All of this is because JREF is pretty marginal in the whole picture of life, and even to the whole picture of 9/11 Truth.


Does this mean there should be no response to 9/11 Truth? Or that the existence of a 9/11 Truth poses no danger to a civil society? Not at all. I am convinced these guys represent a real threat. It's not a criminal threat in the sense that they'll run around stealing our wallets and painting graffiti on the walls. But it is the same kind of threat that neo-Nazis or the anti-vaccine crowd create. People listen to them. I'm not sure how many, but they do. They have an effect. I doubt it's to establish a hard-cord base of revolt against The Machine. I'm not sure what it is that 9/11 Truth is doing or even that it is well-formed enough yet to know what it is, but it is something that needs a response.

 

[LSSBB]

I myself find coming here to debate Truthers as very educational. The reason I started debating Truthers very late in the game is that I have young family members who are getting their information on 9/11 from these dubious YouTube videos. In combating the misinformation they have found online, I have come here to do research. However, I also have learned a lot debating what Truthers hang around - the experience helps with educating the misinformed. I won't convince the hardcore Truthers electronically, but communication being much improved in person, it has helped a great deal with my family members.

 

[Childlike Empress]

But that's because the discourse on the JREF has become irrelevant to the debate.

Now look at that. Late 2011, Ryan Mackey gets schooled by Scott Sommers. Cute.

 

[R.Mackey]

This is where you and I differ on the problem, or maybe we don't. I'm still not sure on this. I agree that if "Debunkers" on the JREF stopped responding to the JREF 9/11 nuts, the nuts and their friends would not radicalize and commit crimes. [...]

Does this mean there should be no response to 9/11 Truth? Or that the existence of a 9/11 Truth poses no danger to a civil society? Not at all. I am convinced these guys represent a real threat.

Perhaps where we differ is in degree. After a few months reflection I still stand by my recommendations on how to respond, and it isn't "do nothing." I advocate putting correct information out there. I just don't see any point to arguing.

If this was 2006 and I had to do it all over again, I'd listen to Truther complaints, write a bunch of sourced articles and run a few calculations, and that would be it. They'd inevitably call me a shill and complain about my credentials, claim I'd broken Newton's Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc., but I wouldn't take the bait. My only response to that would be "Nope." Make the facts available, introduce them to newcomers, and that's it. No point arguing with those who only want to pee in the pool.

About your other point, I do differ. I think Truthers are a negligible threat. No threat, well, I won't go that far. But if you're worried about them causing social unrest or deluding a whole population, consider this: There are literally thousands of such beliefs. You can't take 'em all on.

Things like vaccine denial and Aryan Nationalism, things that have a visible and dangerous effect, sure, go ahead and fight them. I'm with you. But Truthers? By comparison they're totally invisible. On my list of causes to worry about, they'd fall somewhere between telemarketers and the trespassers who keep raiding my recycling bin while it's still on my property. I'm a busy guy. Truthers haven't convinced me they're worth the effort.

 

[beachnut]

I myself find coming here to debate Truthers as very educational. The reason I started debating Truthers very late in the game is that I have young family members who are getting their information on 9/11 from these dubious YouTube videos. In combating the misinformation they have found online, I have come here to do research. However, I also have learned a lot debating what Truthers hang around - the experience helps with educating the misinformed. I won't convince the hardcore Truthers electronically, but communication being much improved in person, it has helped a great deal with my family members.

911 Truth is a great example of false information on the Internet. 911 truth delusions can be used to teach kids how a few nuts can post anything on the Internet, and fool a few who refuse to think for themselves. 911 truth thrives on failed logic, followers too lazy to do research, and people who are gullible.

One way to fight the ignorance of 911 truth is to follow their own sources and references. The more detailed 911 truth liars include references, and when those references. Following 911 truth references expose the idiotic conclusions are based on hearsay and failed opinions, etc.

911 truth is ignorance and the leaders are the personification of stupid on 911 issues. The irony of 911 truth, by following one of the references posted by 911 truth, we/you/everyone have preformed more research than 911 truth.

911 truth Followers failed to be schooled, are proud of their ignorance, happy to spread lies.

911 truth is nonsense, their quest for "truth" turns out to be fraud, lies, delusions, ignorance, selling lies, fantasy, claptrap, anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-logic, etc.

"James Randi, to pick one example, has almost nothing to say to or about the Truth Movement. His own commentary in the SWIFT Newsletter hardly ever mentioned it, and when he did, it was to dismiss it as just another example of excessive credulity. To him, it is merely a symptom of poor critical thinking." ... The Great Internet Conspiracy, The Role of Technology and Social Media in the 9/11 Truth Movement, Ryan Mackey

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Welp... to put it into perspective JFK conspiracies have gone on for 50 years now and some of the nuts in that movement are hardcore worse than the no-planers... They've spent 50 years doing very little about it, or for that matter being a relative threat.

 

[zorro99]

The JFK conspiracy thing peaked around the early 90s when that Ollie Stone movie about it came out. It took, what, 30 years or so to peak? To the audiences of the early 90s, the case for conspiracy probably seemed compelling since Stone used movie-making techniques that were original at the time, such as splicing filmed recreations with news footage from the 60s. With the technology available these days, almost anybody with some expertise can do the same.