9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[Ron Burgundy]

There was a 2-hour History channel show on tonight attempting to debunk 9/11 conspiracies, hosted by Lester Holt. The main conspiracy theorists interviewed were Alex Jones and the guy that made Loose Change.

The first thing I noticed about this show was the labels they placed on everyone they interviewed. Anyone who disagrees with any part of the Bush administration's story are called "conspiracy theorists." People who support the Bush administration's story are called "experts." No qualifications are ever given for the "experts", except the word "expert" under their name.

The show went something like this: the "theorists" would talk about a certain aspect of the official 9/11 story they thought was wrong. Then an "expert" would explain why the theorist was wrong and why the official story was 100% true. I won't go into detail about each issue. They've all been discussed here many many times.

Overall, the show is pretty much what I expected. There were only two parts that kinda pissed me off. The first was towards the end when a guy from Popular Mechanics magazine said something like: "these conspiracy theorists are making up these stories in their heads and they refuse to look at the facts. They just believe whatever they want and won't listen to anyone else." Then they show the Loose Change guys working on the 3rd edition of their movie. They talked about how they're changing one part of it because it's been proven wrong. Which shows that they ARE willing to change their minds if presented with sufficient evidence.

The second part I thought was pretty lame was right at the very end when they interviewed some family member of one of the victims. She gets all pissy at them and talks about how they're insulting her dead husband or whatever. Get a grip lady. No one ever blamed your husband for anything. Are you saying that you don't want anyone to try to find out what really happened? If someone from my family died on 9/11, or anywhere, I'd want to know about and investigate every kooky theory I heard. I would THANK people for challenging every piece of the official story.

Conclusion: if you believed the official story before, your opinion won't change. If you believed the Loose Change/Alex Jones story before, you'd believe it slightly more now, if anything.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
The first was towards the end when a guy from Popular Mechanics magazine said something like: "these conspiracy theorists are making up these stories in their heads and they refuse to look at the facts. They just believe whatever they want and won't listen to anyone else." Then they show the Loose Change guys working on the 3rd edition of their movie. They talked about how they're changing one part of it because it's been proven wrong. Which shows that they ARE willing to change their minds if presented with sufficient evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is called projection. And it's hilarious once you see it.

[L'ennemi.]

I'haven't seen the show, but based on your description it probably sucked. I hate when they interview family members like that it is so stupid.
That being said the show seems to be fair to conspiracy theorist for two reasons. He let these people gives their accounts of the event, and they try to show why their theory it stupid, which might give you the illusion that this arguments are listening to.
the real question is not fact or fiction? but Where do they find these people? And how come our school system sucks so much that a lot of people believe that crap?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
nyone who disagrees with any part of the Bush administration's story are called "conspiracy theorists."

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one disagree that there was a 9/11 conspiracy.

That said, the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" has increasingly been an accepted way to avoid real debate on issues and reinforce prejudice for anti-establishment views. Anybody in spring 2003 who would have questioned the evidence for WMDs etc. would have been a conspiracy theorist, too. Except now every major news org (Fox likely excluded) publicly states that they fell down on the job and accepted the establishment's views without looking critically for themselves at the evidence. When your govt is involved in various kinds of shady mischief in the 3rd world and you present evidence and outrage for these acts, you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're just not a sheep.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
This is called projection. And it's hilarious once you see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your only argument. People who don't see your truth have psychological issues. You drop ALL discussions of specific evidence. There's more irony to be had here.

[ QUOTE ]
Then they show the Loose Change guys working on the 3rd edition of their movie. They talked about how they're changing one part of it because it's been proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they removed one three headed ogre from an army of orcs. It's still _The Two Towers_ by Tolkien. Their whole schtick is two towering stacks of stupidities.

As for the way the producers composed the show -- experts correcting fanatics -- yes, that is a set up. It would bother me if it wasn't such an idiotic topic to have to do a show about.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that you don't want anyone to try to find out what really happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes. People that are exposed to such events need closure more than they need truth. To them, they probably just want to stop feeling horrible. Having people continue to talk about it doesn't help them. It's pretty selfish of them, but when they've gone through something so emotional they're not going to be acting rationally.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that you don't want anyone to try to find out what really happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes. People that are exposed to such events need closure more than they need truth. To them, they probably just want to stop feeling horrible. Having people continue to talk about it doesn't help them. It's pretty selfish of them, but when they've gone through something so emotional they're not going to be acting rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my loved one is killed, I for one want to know the truth as to why and how more than I want some nice tidy story to give me "closure". I am going to feel horrible regardless. To have my loved one killed and be fed lies makes it more horrible.

Cueing NewTeaBag: I've already stated that I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy, so you don't need to call me a "terrorist murderer apologist" or something similar for the remarks above.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If my loved one is killed, I for one want to know the truth as to why and how more than I want some nice tidy story to give me "closure". I am going to feel horrible regardless. To have my loved one killed and be fed lies makes it more horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, you will respond in your own way and I don't mean to suggest that I can predict how you or anyone else will respond. On the other hand, I think it is a little naive of you to believe, with certainty, that faced with the death of a love one (in an extremely high profile and shocking fashion) that you wouldn't act in an emotional defensive way rather than a critically analytic way. Maybe you would, maybe I would, I don't know. I am suggesting that, given what is known about human reactions to disturbing events, that many people seek to reduce the pain without seeking complete information.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my loved one is killed, I for one want to know the truth as to why and how more than I want some nice tidy story to give me "closure". I am going to feel horrible regardless. To have my loved one killed and be fed lies makes it more horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, you will respond in your own way and I don't mean to suggest that I can predict how you or anyone else will respond. On the other hand, I think it is a little naive of you to believe, with certainty, that faced with the death of a love one (in an extremely high profile and shocking fashion) that you wouldn't act in an emotional defensive way rather than a critically analytic way. Maybe you would, maybe I would, I don't know. I am suggesting that, given what is known about human reactions to disturbing events, that many people seek to reduce the pain without seeking complete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true or did you make it up? Not trying to be a nit, but you brought up the word closure. Seems that incomplete info provides less closure than knowing what really happened. If you didn't made it up, could you source what is "known about human reactions to disturbing events"? Since my impression is 180deg from yours, maybe I'm wrong.

By the way, here's an excerpt from a guide to dealing with homicide that I quickly Googled. It jives more closely with how I believe I would react to the loss of a loved one. And I'm quite confident that if the situation really did occur, I would feel no differently.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The police may try to shield family members, keeping them away from the crime scene
and from gruesome photographs of the victim. Nevertheless, many survivors demand to
see these things. They want to confront the reality of the murder and to know the worst.
Denied access to the facts by the authorities or by a lack of information about the crime,
the relatives of murder victims are frequently tormented by questions that can never be
answered. </font> http://www.crcvc.ca/docs/homsurv.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick Google shows plenty more anecdotal cases of family members demanding the truth following a tragedy. Pat Tillman's mother is but one recent high-profile example.

[NewTeaBag]

Well done sir!

More than one line, several paragraphs in fact, along with a topical link and extract.