Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory

[Barber Shop]

Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory? It seems to me that they could still put forth their 'inside job' theory without the need for a controlled demolition. Why is controlled demolition so central to their conspiracy model?

It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for them if they just abandoned this nonsense:

1. For one thing, saying that the planes hitting the buildings was actually what caused them to fall has a major advantage...Namely, that it is TRUE.

2. There is also REALLY strong proof that planes hitting the buildings would be enough, not just because of expert opinions, but also because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. We saw them hit and we saw it fall.

3. They would not have to spend so much time and energy arguing with physicists, engineers, aviation experts, metallurgists, demolition experts, etc.

4. They could still say that the government either 'let it happen' or 'made it happen'. It would not really take anything away from that worldview or the 'inside job' theory to abandon the controlled demolition thesis.

5. While it would still be utter nonsense to claim that the government was involved, and there would be still be zero evidence, it seems to me that there is a difference between refuting a claim like that, which is just based on a paranoid worldview and the supposed motives of the government, and refuting a claim that appeals to science and physical evidence.

6. Even if a jet could NOT bring down the building, why would it be necessary to blow it up? How does this add to the conspiracy? Even if the buildings never fell, it would have still been a huge tragedy and hundreds of people would likely have been dead seconds after the planes hit. A major American landmark would still be horribly damaged, quite possible beyond repair. It would be safe to say that nobody would have been working at the WTC on September 12th. So why do the Truthers think it was so important for the government to blow up the building after they already flew a plane into it?

Does anyone know why this is so important to their conspiracy theory? Why have they introduced something so easily refuted, especially when it is not really necessary for their theory? While they would still have no evidence, and their theory would still be absurd, abandoning this aspect of their conspiracy theory would make their lives easier.

The fact that a) there is so much evidence against this idea and b) it is not really necessary for an 'inside job' theory, why do they make this part of their argument? It seems like 50% of their material revolves around this idea.


On a side note...My first post! Greetings to the JREF forum members and a big thank you to the Amazing Randi for providing us with this wonderful site.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Actually, some not insignificant number of Truthers don't believe in a CD theory. Instead, they believe the WTC complex was destroyed by energy beams, nuclear weapons, and a wide assortment of other destructive devices. What appears to be a consensus about the CD theory reflects the kind of Truthers who post most frequently on the JREF. But you can still find energy beam people or even people who seem to believe the WTC complex was never really destroyed.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

On top of that, there is indeed a "Let It Happen On Purpose" (LIHOP) contingent out there. They're just relatively quiet compared to the "Made It Happen on Purpose" (MIHOP) folks.

 

[Barber Shop]

@ScottSummers --- So, there are Truthers who don't adopt this part of the theory...But, they are even crazier than the controlled demolition guys!

@ElMondo --- The LIHOPs do not seem to have the same strength from what I have seen. Indeed, much of the efforts of the Truthers seems to be spent trying to show that there was a controlled demolition.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Crazier...I don't know. Do you mean they would have a higher rate of diagnosable mental illness? Maybe not. Even Phil Jayhan seems to have a lot of friends who are not Truthers.

Most of the random-kind-of-Truther-types you meet roaming around on the Net or the street are CD truthers and that might be what you're talking about. Why is this type a CDer? I doubt even they know. You're talking about some pretty strange people here. Some of them could be mentally ill. A bigger portion would seem to be people with below average IQ scores.

 

[Barber Shop]

Low IQ and paranoia do explain a lot

I guess I am asking whether there is just something I am totally missing...Is there another part of their theory or worldview that makes it necessary to have the government blow up the building with explosives rather than just the planes? Does denying that planes filled with jet fuel could bring down a building fit into some larger narrative?

Perhaps I am just trying to grasp the un-graspable...

 

[Barber Shop]

On another note, I would include nuclear weapons, laser beams, etc. as part of a demolition theory.

Basically, many (if not most) Truthers say that the government 'blew it up' by means other than just the giant airplanes that we all saw crash into it...

 

[StoneWT]

Phil Jayhan seems to have a lot of friends who are not Truthers.

I met Phil several years ago. He is sincere in his nutty beliefs. He is in the same class as Dave vonKleist. They're eager to be leaders, but lack any sort of real expertise. Phil came up with his pod plane theory after glancing at a magazine photo. Dave simply ran with the theory and produced an extremely crappy video.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Barber Shop, in case you're wondering who Phil Jayhan is, check out the Let's Roll Forum.
http://letsrollforums.com/
and here's some vintage Phil
http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html
I've talked with Phil on the internet. I'm no expert, but he doesn't come across as crazy and he seems to have friends who aren't Truthers who like him.

It's when I read stuff like Phil Jayhan that I really feel old.

Barber Shop, if you're really looking for something that identifies Truthers, they are young, white men with bad jobs.

 

[Horatius]

Low IQ and paranoia do explain a lot

I guess I am asking whether there is just something I am totally missing...Is there another part of their theory or worldview that makes it necessary to have the government blow up the building with explosives rather than just the planes? Does denying that planes filled with jet fuel could bring down a building fit into some larger narrative?

Perhaps I am just trying to grasp the un-graspable...

I think a big part of it is because for a lot of them, the reaction of "That didn't look right!" when they saw the Towers collapse is what brought them into the CT beliefs in the first place. For them to turn around and admit that the Towers could have collapsed as they did due only to the effects of the planes, they'd have to admit that the "evidence" that initially convinced them that it was an inside job was completely bogus.

Most of them have become so invested in their beliefs, they can't face that sort of honest introspection, and so they maintain their belief even in the face of all the evidence that it is erroneous.

 

[332nd]

Imo, they like the feeling of thinking that they're smarter than all of those "experts", with "an education, & training, & math". They just used their common sense, Google finger, & YouTube!

 

[Scott Sommers]

In fact, this idea that things "didn't look right" was widespread even among engineers. In the paper, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center by T. Wierzbicki and X. Teng, they state

How was it possible that the relatively weak, light and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors.

The difference between Dr. Wierzbicki and someone like Phil Jayhan is that Dr. Wierzbicki has a powerful method to examine what happened. But even still, the vast majority of people are willing to accept Dr. Wierzbicki's explanation or at least the versions that makes it to them.

I've talked with hundreds, maybe thousands, of Truthers now. The single most striking thing about them is that they really seem like silly people. Even without their Truther or conspiracy beliefs, you couldn't take them very seriously. Some of them can't spell or use capital letters correctly. Some of them use the internet to ask people for money. A surprising number seem to have criminal records unrelated to their conspiracy beliefs. They're just really silly people.

 

[Furcifer]

It's all they have. It's the only tangible part of the conspiracy that fits with their delusion. It's looks like a CD. 3 buildings fell straight down, almost exactly like they would had they been rigged to explode. Close enough for them at least.
So proving it was a CD, because it looked like a CD, is the first step in proving someone (instructing many people)within the government conspired to initiate the events of 9/11. Without the CD they're left with some terrorists who hijacked some planes and crashed them. Boor-ring.
It really makes the little thing that it is (in terms of man power) into a big scary "they".

 

[alienentity]

Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory? It seems to me that they could still put forth their 'inside job' theory without the need for a controlled demolition. Why is controlled demolition so central to their conspiracy model?

I'm not exactly sure either. Part of it is probably tied to the shock and horror of the WTC attacks; the notoriety, which fascinates them. At the same time, the nebulous and evasive nature of the foe (Islamic terror groups) and the fact that the assailants are dead and cannot be prosecuted is very frustrating.

It may simply be easier emotionally to find a scapegoat (ie 'Them') to blame for everything, rather than deal with the complexity of the truth.
Suspicion of the government is a popular theme in America these days, and certainly during the Bush years the Left Wing hated that administration, and many felt that they were lied to about Saddam and WMD's - and I think there are good grounds for that feeling.

Stir it all together with ignorant and impressionable people and you have the makings of a kind of mass hysteria, internet-style - an echo chamber of paranoid views and misinformation to ensnare new believers....

But the twin towers are a tempting symbol to rally around - if one seeks attention, making claims about the 9/11 attacks is a great way to get it.

 

[MikeW]

Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory?

Because it's hard to fool people with their simpler talking points.

A child could figure out that the "no hijackers on the manifests" claim is a deception, for instance.

But if you pretend to do Real Science, with graphs, and pictures, and charts, and you use long words as though you knew what they meant, then there will be considerably less people who are equipped to debunk you, and those debunkings will be less definitive, and there will be fewer people who can understand them anyway. So the truthers get the chance to pretend to be relevant for a year or two more.

 

[DC]

When your faith in the CD religion is strong enough, you can actually see it being CDed. you see the thermite falling from the building you see the explosives going of and make squibs and you see how fast it collapses and i mean that just can't be without a CD.
Only when you have lost your faith and watch the collapses again, you realize, heck what have i been seeing?

I guess it is somehow like with gods, the more you believe in them the more evidence you start seeing.

 

[adkinsjr]

Why are the truthers 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory delusion?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No, no, no... They should be committed.

*thatsthejoke.jpg*

 

[zorro99]

Ignorance

 

[Oystein]

Some aspects of the terrorist attacks if 9/11 were usual and unsurprising:
- We have seen hijackings by Arabs before
- Tall buildings had been attacked in Tansania, Kenya, Moscow

Other aspects were new and initially surpised most observers, even experts:
- The complete collapses of 3 out of 2 attacked buildings
- That 4 of 4 hijacks were successful
In addition, I think many people in the USA as well as abroad were living under the impression that the USA can't be attacked due to its military might. So there is a third element of surprise:
- That all 4 planes evaded military defense

Of these 3 surprising elements, only the first (collapses) came with powerful images. The other two are more intricate and require thinking a few steps. They are not as accessible.

I believe most truthers first entered trutherdom because they were taken in by the powerful, surprising and novel footage of two (later three) skyscrapers collapsing. No truther meme appeals as much to the novice as the CD idea.
The Movement couldn't recruit many new members if they did not exploit that easy entry way.