New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

reply to post by GoodOlDave


There are always going to be some New Yorkers that believe the OT of coarse, and naturally you will give there opinion greater credence it is in your nature. But I have seen enough testimony from NYFP via text and videos to question it, if they were there and question it, I think we can too.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Yes, in hindsight, the article is not heavy with quality documentation. But what I take from it:

1. 911 truthers tend to be less hostile in their stance than Os'rs(which I equate to being less fanatical) And I do not take this just from the article but also from what I see alone on this site.
2.. The term "conspiracy theorist" has been purposely manipulated in media to conotate anyone with this title to be nutty. The 2 words in and of themselves should not create this perception, but a longtime propaganda campaign has been well maintained, (by something with that ability).

@SunnyDee,

Assuming Os'er means "official storiers", I would have to heartily agree with you. I'm a 911 skeptic/agnostic, but I am very aware that there is a lot of hinkyness regarding the official story, and I am surprised by some of the people who seem to accept it as truth -- Noam Chomsky being foremost in my mind. And you are absolutely right that the OS'ers are generally a lot more hostile in their responses to 911 "truthers" or "questioners" (I put myself in the latter category) than vice versa. The vehemence of 911 conspiracy deniers does indeed seem irrational. So although I am not impressed by the study you cite in your OP, I think your larger point has considerable merit -- it does seem the OS'ers are the ones in denial.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

There are always going to be some New Yorkers that believe the OT of coarse, and naturally you will give there opinion greater credence it is in your nature. But I have seen enough testimony from NYFP via text and videos to question it, if they were there and question it, I think we can too.

Would you mind terribly posting a link to all this "NYFP testimony"? The only testimony the conspiracy people have ever produced to date is ten second snippets taken during the actual attack, when everyone was still running around in panic and not knowing what the heck was going on. If there was even a single NYC policeman or fireman who was there on 9/11 who believes to this day, over ten years after the fact, that the towers were brought down by secret bombs they'd be trumpeted on every 9/11 conspiracy web site in creation. You know that and so do I.

...as for who I give greater or lesser credence to, it has nothing to do with whether it conforms to my own beliefs. I give credence to those who know what they are talking about over those who don't, and when I personally talk to a woman who worked in the south tower for years and was physically there on 9/11 who says the conspiracy people are uninformed and ignorant, I'm going to believe her over some second rate architect out in San Francisco who never stepped foot in the WTC and who does nothing but mooch money off people.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Assuming Os'er means "official storiers", I would have to heartily agree with you. I'm a 911 skeptic/agnostic, but I am very aware that there is a lot of hinkyness regarding the official story, and I am surprised by some of the people who seem to accept it as truth -- Noam Chomsky being foremost in my mind. And you are absolutely right that the OS'ers are generally a lot more hostile in their responses to 911 "truthers" or "questioners" (I put myself in the latter category) than vice versa. The vehemence of 911 conspiracy deniers does indeed seem irrational. So although I am not impressed by the study you cite in your OP, I think your larger point has considerable merit -- it does seem the OS'ers are the ones in denial.

If the believers of "the official story"...whatever that is...are the ones who are hostile then would you mind terribly explaining why it was a conspiracy proponent who elected to send me the following email?

"your a #ing piece of # and a no life trolling rambling moron who has nothing better to do than to be a provocateur in 9/11 conspiracy forums. What corporation do you work for that hires people like you to infiltrate and disrupt online forums like this one? # you scum bag."

My explanation is that regardless of the segment of the population we're talking about...male, female, black, white, Hispanic, OS'ers, conspiracy mongors, whatever...they are going to have their fair share of jerks. If there really are aliens out there in space, they will have their fair share of jerks too. What's YOUR explanation for it?

Can't spell Fact, without an act.

Pretty much sums it up for me, it's truth but it's covered in a chocolate center, masking the razor blade.
Somehow truth is almost always considered, a terrorist act.

Soon they will just turn around and say Truth seekers are Terrorists.

Watch the show " Continuium " it could of been made better, yes. But it's a very good example of the future of our world.

What was a criminal act in the past but a bored, crude, nasty attempt at taking something that wasn't yours. But in the future and even now, criminal acts are becoming so civilized, smooth, sometimes even asked for.

here I have to say again.... 1...gulf of Tonkin conspiracy...proven and admitted to

This is exactly why the labels stick and make CT's look like fools in the mainstream world of researchers and investigators-especially those who have focused decades of work on the 60's era.

No one knows what really happened that prompted the reactions of both the American Navy and the North Vietnam patrol boats.

U.S. leaders in Washington were persuaded by interpretation of special intelligence and reports from the ships that North Vietnamese naval forces had attacked the two destroyers. More recent analysis of that data and additional information gathered on the 4 August episode now makes it clear that North Vietnamese naval forces did not attack Maddox and Turner Joy that night in the summer of 1964-however this 'additional information' is suspect since visual recollections-not reconstructions are the only reliable input for intelligence gathering after the fact.
Part of the Paris Peace Accords were stipulations that both sides-America and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam agree to disagree on the timeline of events since neither side has sufficient intelligence to use the incident as a part of the agreement to remove US combat troops from the republic.
Negotiations are dictated by the forces in strength, not those who are seeking an end to hostilities, and had the Republic had this intelligence it would have become part of agreement to cease inclusion of US ground forces.

I know that when someone says "gulf of Tonkin conspiracy...proven and admitted to" that they are simply not informed about the era of the 60's and have never studied nor researched this particular incident without the bias of conspiracy websites. They are simply making a statement looking for attention and are simply dismissed as uninformed.

It's not so much that conspiracy theorist are crazy or insane it's just that they are immaterial in the world of experienced, seasoned historical researchers.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

I am not saying that you personally are holding conflicting beliefs, I am claiming it is a common occurrence in the truth movement.

But to give a small example, the idea that is was just a very small group, and the idea that the NIST report is a lie is already conflicting with each other.

Yes, those may confict, but being just ideas among many on this subject, I can admit they conflict. I am not sold on either of them as of yet. Like a brainstrom session, some ideas don't work with others but you throw them out there anyway, for good measure.

Originally posted by spooky24

here I have to say again.... 1...gulf of Tonkin conspiracy...proven and admitted to

This is exactly why the labels stick and make CT's look like fools in the mainstream world of researchers and investigators-especially those who have focused decades of work on the 60's era.

No one knows what really happened that prompted the reactions of both the American Navy and the North Vietnam patrol boats.

Not only that, but it's comparing apples and oranges. Regardless of what did or did not happen during the Tonkin Gulf incident, it is an established fact that North Vietnam was actively working to subjugate the south and unite it under their own Communist banner. It's also an established fact that the many countries...the US being only one of them...were anxious to make sure that didn't happen. That necessarily means the two sides were destined to butt heads sooner or later so if we didn't get involved in the war in Vietnam over the Tonkin Gulf incident it would have just gotten involved in the war in Vietnam over some other incident.

For the conspiracy proponents to use this to prop up their claims it would mean the North wasn't trying to conquer the south, Ho Chi Minh was secretly an employee of the CIA, and noone actually was killed during the Vietnam war; all the troops were really secret agents who snuck off and assumed new identities. Needless to say, it's being pretty fast and loose wth the facts to the point of absurdity.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Assuming Os'er means "official storiers", I would have to heartily agree with you. I'm a 911 skeptic/agnostic, but I am very aware that there is a lot of hinkyness regarding the official story, and I am surprised by some of the people who seem to accept it as truth -- Noam Chomsky being foremost in my mind. And you are absolutely right that the OS'ers are generally a lot more hostile in their responses to 911 "truthers" or "questioners" (I put myself in the latter category) than vice versa. The vehemence of 911 conspiracy deniers does indeed seem irrational. So although I am not impressed by the study you cite in your OP, I think your larger point has considerable merit -- it does seem the OS'ers are the ones in denial.

If the believers of "the official story"...whatever that is...are the ones who are hostile then would you mind terribly explaining why it was a conspiracy proponent who elected to send me the following email?

"your a #ing piece of # and a no life trolling rambling moron who has nothing better to do than to be a provocateur in 9/11 conspiracy forums. What corporation do you work for that hires people like you to infiltrate and disrupt online forums like this one? # you scum bag."

My explanation is that regardless of the segment of the population we're talking about...male, female, black, white, Hispanic, OS'ers, conspiracy mongors, whatever...they are going to have their fair share of jerks. If there really are aliens out there in space, they will have their fair share of jerks too. What's YOUR explanation for it?

I don't doubt that there are also hot-head 911 Truthers out there, but in my own personal experience reading threads on the matter on various websites, the OS'ers are the ones that are dismissive of their ideological opponents and ridicule their arguments, even when they have nothing compelling to say to refute them. The same with the Kennedy assassinations. I've also read articles on fairly mainstream news magazine websites also criticizing conspiracy theories and theorists in very general terms without addressing the actual arguments of these people.

Once again, I'd classify myself as a conspiracy theory skeptic, just as I am a UFO skeptic: I need good evidence to be convinced of something, so I don't have an ideological dog in this fight. That said, the fact that the US government lied immediately afterwards, saying there were no environmental hazards because of the collapsed buildings and urged Americans to visit NYC shows that the government is not to be trusted in anything it says or has said about these attacks. I cite this as definite proof of this. There are plenty of other hinky things in the way the clean-up and investigation went, that are very suspicious.

We are talking about a government that also lied to start a war with Iraq, and in the past lied to get involved in the Viet Nam war and then secretly and illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia. This same government lied about trading hostages for arms, and funding the procurement of said arms with coc aine money. The US government has also smuggled heroin in order to fund its black operations. The US government is not to be trusted. All in all, I think the 911 Truthers have better legs to stand on than do the OS'ers, so OS'ers dismissing them out of hand seem to be the naive and/or ignorant ones. Just calling a spade a spade here.

As I have said, I've see a lot more ridicule and hostility on the part of conspiracy nay-sayers than on the part of conspiracy theorists. But I make no claims that this is all one-sided. Moreover, I don't know what you said that provoked the vitriolic attack made on you; I'm in no way saying that you deserved it, but there are generally two sides of a story. so the fact that you apparently provoked a very hateful response from some individual Truther doesn't negate the the behavior I've seen in discussions on 911 conspiracies. And I'd also be the first to say that there are some crazy, grasping-at-straw 911 conspiracy theories.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I think you are probably right that there is more riducule and hostality towards truthers. Though I think it has a lot to do with what truthers have to say. I have been hostile too, but only when people start lying or accusing random people of mass murder. And that kind of behaviour seems to be a lot more common with truthers, so in my opinion those people deserve what they get. As for ridicule, we have space beams, no planes, no victems, nukes etc. Seems to me those ideas are bound to be ridiculed more than "hijackers crashed planes into buildings" which isn't all that fantasic.

As for OS'ers being people who believe everything the government says, this is a purely imaginative group of people, fabricated by the truth movent. I don't know anyone who trusts "the government". I think the majority of people who reject these conspiracy theories either realize that all the offered alternatives just way less likely to the degree of impossible, or when they have studied the subject they realize that the evidence and science actually supports the "OS". On the other hand, the truth movement relies on rethoric like "buildings can't collapse like that" and doesn't go and deeper than this sort of assertion. Of course very attractive to people who are seeking conspiracy, but less so to people who don't.

reply to post by -PLB-


You give a very sane explanation, although as always, I have to disagree that we were given a reasonable explanation for the event. Building 7 will never be reasonable in its explanation to me or many others.

But this is not about that day, so no need to go there.

I thought everyone was a little crazy. Maybe I have just been misled because I have paid too much attention to people. A little crazy is fun, too crazy makes people look at you like this

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

I don't doubt that there are also hot-head 911 Truthers out there, but in my own personal experience reading threads on the matter on various websites, the OS'ers are the ones that are dismissive of their ideological opponents and ridicule their arguments, even when they have nothing compelling to say to refute them. The same with the Kennedy assassinations. I've also read articles on fairly mainstream news magazine websites also criticizing conspiracy theories and theorists in very general terms without addressing the actual arguments of these people.

I refrain from referring to conspiract theorists "Truthers" as they have repeatedly shown they care little about the truth; they only care about insisting what they believe is correct regardless of whether it's the truth or not. I have seen many cases personally where conspiracy theorists have been shown to be irrefutably wrong ("Building 7 only no damage" is a sterling case in point) and instead of incorporating this new information, they simply brush it off as "government disinformation". The witnesses are all paid off, the evidence was planted, the photos are doctored, the video was filmed on a sound stage, it goes on and on. This isn't proving anything; it's using circular logic as an excuse to avoid having to admit they're wrong.

I cannot speak for other people, obviously, but the reason why I dismiss the conspiracy theorists is simply because the information they put out is unsubstanciated speculation at best, and outright falsehoods and misinformation at worst, and I can give you all the examples of that as you'd like.

We are talking about a government that also lied to start a war with Iraq, and in the past lied to get involved in the Viet Nam war and then secretly and illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia. This same government lied about trading hostages for arms, and funding the procurement of said arms with coc aine money. The US government has also smuggled heroin in order to fund its black operations. The US government is not to be trusted. All in all, I think the 911 Truthers have better legs to stand on than do the OS'ers, so OS'ers dismissing them out of hand seem to be the naive and/or ignorant ones. Just calling a spade a spade here.

...which leads me to my other disappointment with the conspiracy theorists. The "government" isn't a bunch of disembodied immortal brains floating in a vat of fluid in a laboratory somewhere or a supercomputer making all our decisions for us. "The "government" is a collection of people, some good, some self centered, some incompetent as hell, and the people in government change from generation to generation. Some lose their bids for reelection, some retire, and some die from old age. The only thing the "government" of today has in common with the "government" of 1964 is the building.so blaming "the government" in this context is being intellectually dishonest.

You do bring up one interesting fact I've noticed; most if not all the 9/11 conspiracy people I've encountered subscribed to one or more OTHER conspiracy theories before 9/11. You mentioned the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the JFK assassination. I've seen others mention moon landing and holocaust hoaxes. On another board I've even encountered one person bring up the supposed Princess Di assassination. How then should people like myself not see this as simply being a case that the conspiracy theorists are just seeing everything through conspiracy colored glasses?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


GoodOlDave,

You make some good points, but I don't accept your one about the US government. The executive branch has a long and documented record of lying to the public and to congress. At least one of the young turks in the CIA in 1964 was an elder statesman and father of the president who presided over the 9/11 attacks. One could go on forever with a litany of cases of the government lying or doing criminal things, often to its own citizens. There's every reason not to trust the government and its explanations of major events, particularly when the post-event "investigation" is more cover-up than anything else.

I'd say the Gulf of Tonkin and the Kennedy assassinationS are prima facie legitimate conspiracy theories. I wouldn't lump them into ones such as Princess Di's death, and big foot cover-ups, etc.

As for the 9/11 conspiracists, yes there are some who have never heard of a conspiracy theory they didn't buy, and there are some doozy theories, but I am talking about what to me are the more reasonable questions and speculations regarding the 9/11 attacks, and how the people who bring these issues up and these theories are treated just as contemptuously as the most far-fetched 9/11 conspiracy theorists and theories. No doubt the crazier 9/11 conspiracy theories cause skeptics and OS'ers to doubt out of hand all 9/11 theories/hypotheses.

The "government" isn't a bunch of disembodied immortal brains floating in a vat of fluid in a laboratory somewhere or a supercomputer making all our decisions for us. "The "government" is a collection of people, some good, some self centered, some incompetent as hell, and the people in government change from generation to generation

Good point. To use incidents from the past to prop up theories in the present tense is just camouflage for a lack of proof or a bias misunderstanding of history. History is simply a retelling of the past, not a word for word script. I can pick up a modern history book on WW II Europe and show dozens and dozens of 'lies'-things that are remembered in history that are simply incorrect. Mainly, this is done because the truth is too painful. The Ardennes Offensive, the terror bombing raids, the rape, torture and murder rampages of US Marines in the South Sea Islands-it goes on and on.and on. Are these lies in our history books? Damn right they are however, in incidents such as these, there is no advantage in telling the truth. Do we really need to teach our middle school students that a US Army infantry private was hung with a canteen strap in front of his men for desertion after the siege at Bastogne? No, we teach them some silly story about a Captain telling a Wehrmacht commander 'nuts'

Going back in the past to showcase 'lies' that the government has committed means absolute zero in the present tense and is not evidence of wrong doing. Period!

reply to post by SunnyDee


Time for a gloat ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , now all the poor unbalanced shills need to have a psych evaluation.

They may be one stubby short of a six pack or the lights are on but nobodies home.

There , there , take a really good dose of propaganda and curl up with a good who don't it.

You will be back to your almost normal self in no time.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Thanks for posting this. S&F

I knew we had reached the "tipping point" whereby the "relevant political community" (Zelikow)

Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the history and practice of public policy. In addition to the work on German unification, he has been significantly involved in contemporary scholarship on the Cuban Missile Crisis, including the relation between this crisis and the East-West confrontation over Berlin.

While at Harvard, he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.

en.wikipedia.org...

would lose their "relevancy", amid the rise of a whole generation who would reclaim history and the cause and course of history for the many and for the individual, as a just and noble pursuit dedicated and committed to the truth and reality at all cost, except at the cost of the truth and reality itself.

Calling us "conspiracy theorists" or "truthers" isn't about to dissuade anyone from examining and evaluating the information we're putting forward.

Of those who hold to the traditional viewpoint ie: the "official story", average American Joe who doesn't have access to the information and the data, he can be excused, but NOT those who do have access to the information and who knowingly employ deception to mislead the public, for theirs is the gravest of activities by what amounts to "serving", as nothing less than the devil's advocate.

This does not imply that everyone MUST accept the conspiratorial viewpoint about things like 9/11 or the JFK assassination, only that they must be HONEST and aware, in regards to their evaluations and their activities. If they've managed to be deceived or to deceive themselves, that's fine and even understandable, given the psychological nature of "the Big Lie", but if they are willfully and knowingly, and actively participating, in deception, so to as hide the truth or to protect and guard the lie, then that would be the most base, and even the most heinous of things that anyone could be involved in. Such people run the grave risk of putting the blood of victims on their hands and even their faces.


The great tipping point is like an avalanche of history. It's not the kind of thing one would want to be caught under while knowingly and willfully trying to stave it off by trying to push it where it just won't and cannot be persuaded to go.

The tipping point is sudden, and of immense proportion and magnitude, and we're there, winning back the cause of history for the sake of all who've been abused by power, including all the many victims, JFK included.

The real "terror" (for the perps, and their advocates/supporters) is when the truth comes back home to roost at the speed of light within the context of the noosphere; when there's no amount of spin or name calling, ridicule, or violent opposition that's capable of stopping it, placing a type of double-bind on those who knowingly and willfully kowtow to an evil and wicked agenda, system, and establishment, whereby if they do nothing, it comes quickly, or, if they try everything they can, it comes even faster.


May the last laugh and the cause of history belong to the little man, the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the abused, as it did/does with Jesus Christ himself who said "I ask for mercy, not sacrifice".


..."sacrificed, on the alter of freedom."
~ Rudolf Guiliani, 9/11 Memorial, 2003 or '04 (but he did say it)

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

~ Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Most Excellent Bro.

To right it's reached its tipping point , and we have long memories.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Perhaps you should read the comments after the OP about why the article does not actually reflect what the study says.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Your signature alone, speaks volumes.

Be careful, the Gaul, when throwing around the term "moron" or "fool" because it might come back to bite you, especially if you're a Godless person without any adequate defense or appeal to a Justice matched only by it's Mercy.