The troof is out there

[T_i_B]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/09/the_troof_is_out_there.html

What is about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much? A few days ago Peter Tatchell wrote a piece for Cif about the problems surrounding the 9/11 Commission, which contained a fatal reference to "the unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7". Over 700 people rushed to respond, a record that George Monbiot had previously surpassed when he explicitly rejected conspiracy theories surrounding the attack. A few weeks before this, Robert Fisk declared himself "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11", sparking off a flurry of rebuttals which reminded us of where the phrase "fisking" comes from.

I had my own minor run-in with the "troofers" when I wrote a piece in which I mentioned conflicting claims about an Israeli military attack on two Red Cross ambulances during the conflict in Lebanon. Coincidentally, this appeared the day after the Israel Defence Force stated saying that the ambulances could indeed have been hit by something fired by them. I wrote a follow-up piece, which covered this report and also the findings of the Guardian and Human Rights Watch investigations into the incidents. I was genuinely amazed at the response I received.

The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true: at what temperature does steel melt, for example, or what does a vehicle look like after it has been hit by various types of ordinance? After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, "people are lying to us" theory, which it is almost impossible to refute since, by believing the official explanation, you have, by definition, become part of the conspiracy.

Not all troofers are mad, but there is a point at which it is no longer worthwhile debating with them. This might be summarised as when you get to the "so what?" question in the debate. Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination.

[Mythsaje]

1. That's pretty much where I stand...

I accept a LOT of things as possible and even likely. But I refuse to state much beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[noise]

2. Fair enough

Of course the CYA report produced by the 9/11 Commission led to the so called 9/11 truth movement.

Why couldn't the Commission tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[sarcasmo]

9. For the Good of the People. Our Government always will hide behind that statement.

[Larry Ogg]

3. Like Britney Speers says, we should always listen to our president.

Of course she is right because we should always trust the opinions of naïve 18 year old dingbats who say, politicians never lie, and that they should never have to prove the theories they pass on as facts, even when there is evidence too the contrary.

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, But you can’t fool all of the people all of time.

John Kennedy said, “No president should shrink from controversy, they should welcomed it.

Gorge Bush said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

A speech that ended in these famous words, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/libertyordeath.htm">delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, <snip>

I have no doubt that Patrick Henry along with the reset of the founding fathers conspired too throw off the British Tyranny, certainly there might have been diverse theories concerning the intent of the King, but in the end they all agreed upon one and the rest is history.

[One Sweet World]

8. President's Book Blog

I don't think conspiracies are all that far fetched. Some are but some aren't. I recently came across the President's Book Blog, looking at all the conspiracies associated with presidents.
http://thepresidentsbook.blogspot.com/

[CJCRANE]

4. Many of the vitriolic replies

to Tatchell's article were by diehard 9/11 Debunkers (anti-troofers).

They can be just as aggressive if not more so than troofers.

[defendandprotect]

5. This is simply a variation on the "tin foil hat" attack, with no attack on the challenges ---

Of course, those challenging 9/11 are all "mad" --
just as those challenging the coup on JFK are "conspiracy nuts."

It's over for the JFK coup -- Tunnheim and McCone have revealed that "Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and probably also for the FBI." End of story

And, hopefully it won't take that long to have the "Reichstag Fire in NYC" totally revealed as Bushco treason.

[Prophet 451]

7. Yeah, I thought that as well

I don't think anyone's denying that there are a lot of loony people in conspiracy research but stuff like this just allows inconvienient questions to be silenced by calling them a "conspiracy theory".

Thing is, the official version of events on 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. Every coup is, by definition, a conspiracy and I believe (although I'm open to correction) that more governments change hands by coup than any other method so the intellectual prohibition on discussing conspiracy prevents us studying how the world actually works.

Yes, there are some real kooks in conspiracy research (I once entered into email correspondance with a fellow who was convinced that the Nazis exiled 6 million or so Jews to a moonbase built jointly by the KGB and CIA) but there are also those of us who are careful, sceptical (in the old sense of the word), cautious and evidence-led and the blanket mockery of conspiracy theorists allows those with something to hide (and virtually all politicians have something to hide, even if it's just their sexual habits) to dismiss anything they find inconvienient. That's the very definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It seems like only a few years ago when a "conspiracy theorist" was anyone who queried the vote counts in 2000 and... Wait a moment, it WAS only a few years ago. Who's crazy again?

[TrogL]

6. he's nailed it

Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination.

Typical discussion here.

Troofer (love that term): But the towers fell down at the speed of gravity, how can that be possible!!?!?!

TrogL: Um, everything falls down at the speed of gravity.

Troofer: You must be a Republican plant.

[Odin2005]

10. The article makes a good point about the "people are lying to us" thing.

Basically such arguments are both circular and unfalsifiable. It's like how Marxists attack anyone who criticizes Marx as being "brainwashed with Bourgeois Ideology." In the minds of the tin-foilers any attempt at refuting the conspiracy is "evidence" for the conspiracy, and thus the conspiracy theory collapses into a BS unfalsifiable assertion.