Watching the Watchers

A Survey of the Responses to 'Occam's Razor and 9-11 Conspiracy Theories'

On November 20, 2005, I posted on my blog ‘Occam’s Razor and 9-11 Conspiracy Theories: Are You Sure Laughing at Conspiracy Theories Makes You Smart?’ A link to this post was posted by Michael Rivero on his popular website What Really Happened? as well as at CalgaryMuslims.com and Mack White's interesting site. Well, let’s just say it produced for Twain’s Ghost the most readership it has ever had. Naturally, I was curious what people were thinking about my post. I got some comments on my blog. However, I knew there was likely more. I went looking for it. What I found was not really surprising. In those places where links to the post allowed for immediate commentary, there was ridicule; posters ironically, it could seem, falling victim to the seduction of the booby-prize of looking smart by laughing at conspiracy theories, the very thing I warned about!

Over at the bulletin board for Air America’s Randi Rhodes Show, a link to ‘Occam’s Razor and 9-11 Conspiracy Theories’, including a lengthy extract, was posted by Reprehensor. The first response was from Realist (gotta take that seriously, right?). Realist quoted the section where I stated

“Jones makes a plain, clear and convincing case that, from a physical point of view, the controlled-demolition-caused collapse theory easily trounces the conventional fire/damage-caused collapse theory.”

Realist answered:

“No, he doesn’t. He repeats the conspiracy theory mantra without producing anything in the form of proof to support his contentions.

But if one actually reads Jones’ paper (yes, this is necessary) one will notice right away that he does exactly the opposite of what Realist claims. He does not “repeat the conspiracy theory mantra”, whatever that is, and he does offer “proof to support his contentions.”

Realist goes on:

“[Jones] ignores basic principles of engineering while misapplying the second law of thermodynamics to an open system.”

Realist does not elaborate on which “basic principles of engineering” Jones ignores. Nor does he provide an explanation of how or evidence for the idea that Jones misapplied “the second law of thermodynamics to an open system.” This brief explanation seems to suggest exactly the opposite of what Realist suggests.  My guess is, Realist doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If he does, he expects everyone to take his word for it, sans explanation and evidence – just the sort behavior we are meant to expect, as the stereotype reads, from the defenders of conspiracy theories. But then again, Realist is defending a conspiracy theory, if a poor one badly.

In fact, the only thing Realist does is repeat the ‘Snicker at all theories except the Official, Government-Sanctioned Conspiracy Theory’ mantra, failing to do himself or herself what he expects and is delivered from Jones.

One PalePhoenix (such inventive names) provided another example. PP writes:

“Conspiracies are like jigsaw puzzles. They keep the mind somewhat engaged, they're fun to do with friends, but just when you think you've got all the pieces and you can almost see the whole picture, you realize some are still missing and it isn't what they promised on the box cover.”

Funny? Yes. Intelligent and serious? No.

Pale Phoenix’s conception of a (conspiracy) theory as a neat little box that delivers all of the answers to you pre-packaged suggests exactly the kind of thinking (or, lack of it) that makes a people susceptible to manipulation (and likely, Pale Phoenix is unaware that he is merely repeating the garbage he has been conditioned to repeat).

Later, in another post, after SuzCC resignedly says “I guess I’ll have to go to the source”, Pale Phoenix offers this:

“Always a good idea. As is formulating your own opinion. And it's usually MY big hint of the day to steer clear of any "alternative viewpoints" thrown in my face, repeatedly, by a stranger, and as if I'm an idiot who can't think for himself.

When it comes down to having a semi-reasonable conversation with someone I deem to be besotted by a perspective radically different from my own, I'm generally good about stipulating to any of their terms, since doing so harms my beliefs none whatsoever.

‘So, you say the World Trade Center was felled by a troop of Flying Monkeys sent by the Wicked Witch of the Mideast? Very well. Now, how does knowing this improve your life and what are you going to do about it, other than foist it on anyone who's bored enough to listen?’ ”

It is ironic that Pale Phoenix suggests “formulating [one’s] own opinion”. It seems he has not so much formulated one, as he is regurgitating a second-hand opinion he thinks makes him look smart.

Notice how he says that he steers clear of “alternative viewpoints"? He would,  since of course those are the sort that you have to think about and about which you must be careful in “formulat[ing] your own opinion," whereas conventional viewpoints come, as he expects, pre-packaged with everything spelled out for him, whatever their quality. He also chooses to emphasize his steering clear of “alternative viewpoints” that are “thrown in [his] face, repeatedly, by a stranger, as if an idiot who can’t think for himself.” So, he has no responsibility for reading someone’s post himself, it has simply been “thrown in [his] face.” And why would it matter if it were a stranger? If Pale Phoenix is not an “idiot who can’t think for himself”, he is choosing a rather ironic way to demonstrate it.

If one has a  “perspective radically different from” Pale Phoenix’s, one is “besotted” by the opinion – that is, drunk with it. But as Pale Phoenix walks the chalk line of “formulating” his own opinion, he clearly stumbles. And like most drunks, he is hard to reason with! In fact one can almost hear Pale Phoenix slur his speach when he offers the mysterious statement contained in paragraph two of his comments quoted above.

His last paragraph exhibits rather comically (more so than he intends) the sort of mistaken association I wrote about in my original piece. I wrote that – and Reprehensor included this part:

“Rarely is much thought given to distinguish one theory from another or to evaluate any of them on their merits. For instance, Bill Clinton being a secret Communist who consorts with bisexual dwarves is put in the same “Conspiracy Theory” category as is questions about 9-11.”

Pale Phoenix offers a non-existent, unrelated, but obviously ridiculous 9-11 theory starring Flying Monkeys and the Wicked Witch in order to smear anything other than the Official Conspiracy Theory Starring Osama Bin Laden and the 19 Mysterious Hijackers.

He finishes by implying that the only people that consider conspiracy theories are those that are “bored enough to listen.” Apparently, and ironically, this is something he would likely not assume about the countless number of people, including himself, who have listened intently, and apparently uncritically, as the Bush Administration spouts its countless conspiracy theories about 9-11, Saddam Hussein, the War on Terror, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Over at The Irish Forum at Delphiforums, we find another group of chuckling readers (if they bothere to read). Let’s start with patGal77, a Pisces from sunny California employed in the software industry. Quoting from the intentionally amusing masthead of my blog, she writes:

“ --I hopes to channel it as frequently as possible. [From my masthead]

Well, I guess that would make your "theori" smart. Maybe you and ole BerrySteph should get together for a cup of tea.”

Failing to offer any evidence that she even bothered to read my post or the Jones’ paper, she chooses to take seriously a joke, on my part, that with my blog I hope to channel the spirit of Mark Twain, that is, I hope to think for myself and write about it in a way that is entertaining as well as informative. PatGal77 chooses to question the intelligence of my post, Jones’ paper, and apparently the entire idea of “alternative viewpoints” based on what she thinks, or expects me to mean by a joke. She takes a joke seriously and jokes about the serious.

PatGal77, while potentially bright (she’s in software!), does not shine so much here. But, at The Irish Forum, she is a rather typical of the chucklers.

BerrySteph, quotes the subtitle of my piece...

“‘Are You Sure Laughing at Conspiracy Theories Makes You Smart?’”

...and offers this bit of unanswerable wisdom:

“No. But it stops you looking really dumb!”

Aside from the fact that this demonstrates BarrySteph is very ordinary in that he likely did not read either my post or Jones’ paper before responding, it also suggests that, like Realist, he avoids “alternative viewpoints” and thinks holding conventional views makes him look smart. Here’s your booby-prize, BarrySteph!

Alone among the Irish Forum-ists, obrien88ny offers more than a one-liner, though it's a waste of typing. Obrien88ny is a 58 year old retiree from Pennsylvania. Obrien88ny concurs with Napoleon that “God is on the side with a large Cannon”, a misquote of a mistaken citation. Napoleon likely never said such a thing. However, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1992, p. 165), Comte de Bussy-Rabutin, a French soldier and poet of the 17th century, did say, "As you know, God is usually on the side of the big squadrons against the small."  The idea being, if you are powerful enough to destroy your enemies, clearly Providence (caring about nothing else) sides with you, explaining the efficacy of firepower supernaturally (a violation therefore of Occam's Razor!!). Obrien88ny is a self-described “Irish-American nationalist” (I warned you about nationalists!) who likes the film ‘Birth of a Nation’, a racist propaganda piece about early America. He offers the following:

“Remember when the Jews were out to cut Kurt Waldheim? I heard this Jewish guy on HBO tell the following story about a massacre by Kurt Waldheim:

1) 35 miles from where Waldheim was stationed 20 Jews were killed by the SS.

2) Waldheim was G-2 in the area.

3) We would have known or even planned the killings because of his position in the Wermacht table of organization.

MY OBJECTIONS:

1) Waldheim was an Austrian and not a Nazi party member. Would the Gestapo have let him in on this assasination?

2) Maybe the CO didn't like Waldheim and had him cleaning out the stables.

3) 35 miles is a long way from HQ in a combat situation.

MY CONCLUSION:

They were forcing Waldheim into the situation. They were inventing a conspiracy to have evidence to remove Waldheim from the UN.”

WTF?!

What is one is to make of this? I am open to suggestions. It seems Obrien88ny is offering one of his own theories, completely unrelated and of a very different quality, as some kind of...answer? (I'm not at all sure, though, that he is serious.) Is the reader supposed to lump the defense of Kurt Waldheim’s Nazi past with a rational consideration of 9-11 counter-theories? Apparently that is the point. The flaky and non-factual nature of Obrien88ny’s post about Kurt Waldheim is easy to demonstrate and I will do so for anyone that cares.

If Realist, Pale Phoenix, patGal77, BerrySteph and obrien88ny are examples of the popular opposition to alternative viewpoints (and I quoted another in my original piece), those considering them or holding them haven’t got much to worry about. The only dark spot, and it is rather large, is the fact that Realist, et al., echo (if weakly) the sort of lazy, sorry thinking that dominates the mainstream media regarding these and other important matters.

************

To attack the chucklers, pre-emptively, as it were, by anticipating a possible objection, I would acknowledge that Jones’ holds some views that might be determined to be “wacky”. For instance, Jones is apparently a practicing Mormon. He apparently believes that Jesus Christ visited the Americas, as supposedly evidenced by Mayan artwork, poetry and sculpture. The reason I readily offer apparent ammunition to his mockers is that I just don't that it matters, it's not relevant – not to the issue at hand, anyway. The issue at hand is to evaluate the quality of Jones’ argument about the physics of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I offer that this will be used against him, particularly by that portion of the pro-Official Conspiracy Theory crowd that is atheist or anti-religion, or even those that are conventionally Christian, etc. They will do this because it reinforces their mistaken beliefs about the government as well as their mistaken beliefs about those who offer theories counter to the officially-sanctioned theories.

But again, this shows, as do the quotes by Conspiracy Theory mockers above, that the quality of the popular opposition to 9-11 counter-theories is rather low. And the popular opposition to 9-11 counter-theories is a reflection of elite conditioning. Garbage in/Garbage out.

Comments

[Elspeth Drache]

These are most likely
paid Government Shills.
Paid to discredit, and attack and disinform.

They come out of the woodwork whenever anyone
challenges the "Official WhiteHouse View".

See more on 9-11,
FEMA, The Lost Terror
Drills HERE:

THE TOWER:PART5
http://hometown.aol.com/oldhipchic1959/page3.html

THE HIGH CABAL'S AGENDA'S
http://hometown.aol.com/abfabchic1959/index.html

[Ron Leighton]

Hello Elspeth,

I agree that many of the cyber-chucklers are likely paid shills, government and private. However, too many of them are probably just ordinary people.

I will check out the links you offered when I get a chance.

Take care,

[Uncle $cam]

Veblen’s concept of "trained incapacity", "technological psychosis." and "planned incongruity" is at work here, as Thorstein Veblen point's out, authority figures train their members or practitioners to see certain aspects of a problem, but in so doing those practitioners become trained to not see other aspects of a problem. Herein lies the problem.

[Paul]

Stigma is a very powerful normative force. Most people do not want to think of themselves, or be thought of, as weirdos.
People do not like to be labelled, they generally see themselves as independent thinkers but recoil from anything that might mark them out as offbeat.
Well they might in the current climate.
The 'conspiracy theorist' tag has become an almost as broad a brush as 'anti semitic' and as devalued. However mud does stick and it's easier to avoid this by maintaining a 'cool' distance from 'wild' theories. This, combined with a general unwillingness to accept that a government might do ill to its own citizens means that there will be a way to go before the above opinions change.
The formulation is:
Conspiracy theories are for idiots, I am not an idiot therefore I will not countenance them.

[Kevin Laurier]

Hello,

Very interesting articles. I think that given the litany of circumstantial evidence, it is quite clear that one way or another, the Bush regime was behind 9/11. I find interesting that when you type '9/11 conspiracy theories' in google, you either find articles engaging in personal attacks, or articles criticising or parodying those who dismiss alternative 9/11 theories, but few articles that try to give a serious response.

Recently, though, a 9/11 nay-sayer (and Bush apologist) sent me a thread from Bad Astronomy, I'd like your opinion on their feedback.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

[Ken Daves]

I find Jones's work, as well as this website, informative and further proof of what I saw on 9/11.

There are a number of people around the country who know enough about basic construction principles and building design to know that the way those buildings fell was indicative of planned implosions.

Building 7 is uniquely useful to this cause because it's disintegration is ideally textbook and there seems to be an official denial of coverage of that building's demise.

Anyone who questions what is readily understandable and true is a tool, witting or not, of the PNAC bitches who are destroying this country. We have a lot of bitter people in this country, and in that environment, and for this bush administration's causes, tools are easy to come by.

[Brian]

They could have been shills for sure. They are all over the net. But most likely they are typical people who live in fear and are lazy. Too scared to listen to the truth and too lazy to verify it. It becomes much easer to deny and besides, right now there are more people in denial than those who are awake. That will change over time, but right now you will have to put up with all kinds of stupid comments. Just ignore them and focus no the non snoring.

[Alamaine]

Remember that every criminal investigation is a "conspiracy theory," initiated and continued on the assumption that some one (or two or more) persons had some nefarious involvement with the situation at hand. Sometimes the simple assumption and conclusion that a death, robbery, or other crime was merely an "act of G^D." There always has to be some devilry involved and therefore the search begins and strives for a satisfactory conclusion, identifying almost mythic bogeymen along the way.

One of the more persistent "conspiracy theories" is the case of Jack the Ripper, the one that investigators and sleuths have been puzzling over for the better part of a century. Interested parties have derived their own standards by which they judge the evidence and have arrived at their decisions independently of the government's efforts in solving the case. But, instead of being "conspiracy theorists," not necessarly those assuming the entire responsibility rests on the gov't's shoulders, they have engaged in their pursuits of the truth, able to converse and share information and insights among themselves with varying degrees of cooperation. The success of this enterprise has been determined by the lack of political ramifications at this later date. If it was the noble in the carriage with the razor, who cares now? Or a sailor on period visits to Londontown? Or ... or ... or? For something that happened so long ago to some relatively insignificant prostitutes, any conclusive result will not have very much of an effect on anyone living today, except the sleuths' senses of satisfaction.

Today, their counterparts, the "conspiracy theorists," have run up against many people who -- despite their own forms of "prostitution" -- may be adversely affected by any truths or revelations about their participation in various activities seen as unethical or criminal, infectious to society overall, as a whole. Hence, the term "sleuth" cannot be applied to them ... yet.

Obviously, the powers that be are more than willing to relegate the inquisitive to some penumbral fringe region, hoping people will be sufficiently engrossed in the likes of "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" or even "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" on which the amateur sleuthing is all concentrated on the movies or on the television or in pulp fiction, leaving the professionals to some fictional realm in which the crooks always get caught and perhaps even shot (putting an end to those sources of evidence). There is -- of course -- no translation from the mass media to real life because, in reality, nothing intricately plotted or conceived in secret meetings and chambres ever happens, given the honesty and directness of those who occupy the responsible and visible positions as representatives of the interests of the public and society as a whole!

[Alamaine]

Remember that every criminal investigation is a "conspiracy theory," initiated and continued on the assumption that some one (or two or more) persons had some nefarious involvement with the situation at hand. Sometimes the simple assumption and conclusion that a death, robbery, or other crime was merely an "act of G^D." There always has to be some devilry involved and therefore the search begins and strives for a satisfactory conclusion, identifying almost mythic bogeymen along the way.

One of the more persistent "conspiracy theories" is the case of Jack the Ripper, the one that investigators and sleuths have been puzzling over for the better part of a century. Interested parties have derived their own standards by which they judge the evidence and have arrived at their decisions independently of the government's efforts in solving the case. But, instead of being "conspiracy theorists," not necessarly those assuming the entire responsibility rests on the gov't's shoulders, they have engaged in their pursuits of the truth, able to converse and share information and insights among themselves with varying degrees of cooperation. The success of this enterprise has been determined by the lack of political ramifications at this later date. If it was the noble in the carriage with the razor, who cares now? Or a sailor on period visits to Londontown? Or ... or ... or? For something that happened so long ago to some relatively insignificant prostitutes, any conclusive result will not have very much of an effect on anyone living today, except the sleuths' senses of satisfaction.

Today, their counterparts, the "conspiracy theorists," have run up against many people who -- despite their own forms of "prostitution" -- may be adversely affected by any truths or revelations about their participation in various activities seen as unethical or criminal, infectious to society overall, as a whole. Hence, the term "sleuth" cannot be applied to them ... yet.

Obviously, the powers that be are more than willing to relegate the inquisitive to some penumbral fringe region, hoping people will be sufficiently engrossed in the likes of "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" or even "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" on which the amateur sleuthing is all concentrated on the movies or on the television or in pulp fiction, leaving the professionals to some fictional realm in which the crooks always get caught and perhaps even shot (putting an end to those sources of evidence). There is -- of course -- no translation from the mass media to real life because, in reality, nothing intricately plotted or conceived in secret meetings and chambres ever happens, given the honesty and directness of those who occupy the responsible and visible positions as representatives of the interests of the public and society as a whole!

[AWTD]

THE GREAT DOLPHIN CONSPIRACY

Anchovies swim the warmer waters in schools. When two or more dolphins see this, they encircle the pack and begin rapidly swirling in circles. This creates an eddy from which the helpless anchovies have no escape. The dolphins then take turns picking off mouthfuls of the yummy pizza toppings.

The dolphins motto: By way of deception, thou shalt fish in fish.

If it occurs in nature, it occurs with us.

[nolocontendere]

I just took a look at that bad astronomy forum. It doesn't surprise me that the responses are so dogmatic towards alternative views to the official 9/11 story. You can almost hear them sniffing and harrumphing and tut tutting.
At least they're civil, although dull witted and slavishly obedient.

[Kevin Laurier]

It's not uncommon to see scientists who get suckered into groupthink. I mean, look at the quacks in the pharmaceutical industry who peddle their snake oil treatments and are more interested in keeping their jobs and making money than in real science.

I used to be a student in science. I'm starting to realise how you have to be part of the corporate establishment to get enough funding to practise science. It's no wonder, therefore that most of the science will be skewed in favour of the corporate establishment.

[N. MFEMFEM]

I used to be pretty skeptical of "conspiracy theories." However, in the past couple of years most of what I have read in alternative/independant press sources has been later vindicated in the main stream press, albeit with a muffled sense of importance. The general public seems to accept that, in a historical sense, governments do lie, manipulate the truth, and fabricate events to justify policy. I don't understand why this grasp of the nature of power ends with contemporary western culture. WE wouldn't do that because we are AMERICANS! In a free country, even the corrupt and corruptable are free.

[todd]

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/index.php
This is a site where I have been reduced to arguing against someone who continuously states that "there is no evidence uranium is bad for people" and that "George Bush has never told a lie ever in his whole political career".

[Kevin Laurier]

Interestingly enough, that whole 'conspiracy denial' culture seems to be more prevalent in the United States than elsewhere. For example, there's no such term as 'conspiracy theorist' in French, unless you count really awkward translations like 'partisan de la theorie du complot' or 'conspirationniste'.

In any case, where I live there isn't that sort of stigma attached to conspiracy theories (unless you're into old guff like Hoagland). Even in class, my French teacher openly disccussed a CBC show that talked about Bush's connexions with the Saudis.

[reprehensor]

Absolutely interesting blogging. I'm impressed by the overall quality of responses to your 'Occam's Razor' thread, here at home base.

For the record, I don't subscribe to any specific theory about what happened on 9/11, especially the 'Official Theory'.

It is interesting that a few of the responses to the posting at the Randi Rhodes thread were exactly what your blog entry talked about: dismissive ad hominem remarks wrapped within an air of 'everday commensense' or implied (supposed?) superior intellectual clarity. (I'm glad that at least one poster wanted to check out Jones' original article.)

Your readers may or may not be aware that the 9/11 Commission Final Report seems to be a whitewash. A contemporary Warren Commission report designed to squelch some facts, (like the existence of Able Danger), omit others (like the testimony of Sibel Edmonds), and obfuscate still others (google "Saeed Sheikh").

I've got several transcripts posted on my blog from Rep. Cynthia McKinney's July 22nd Congressional Briefing: "The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens’ Response – Did They Get It Right?" that some of your readers may be interested in reading, at present it's about the only place you can read it online for now.

http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/

(additional links at bottom of blog entry)

Good blogging!

[Peter]

Isn't it something when we
learn that 90% of the people
believe in Santa Claus...that's the starting
point.

If people were REALLY interested in learning what
really goes on in the world
it might compel us to ACT.
A frightening prospect for most of us. Think JFK, the
fraudulent elections of '00
& '04, Iran Contra, 911,
etc..

My father enjoyed repeating
the refrain: "Sire! Sire!
The people are revolting."
With the King dropping his
head "I KNOW".

People believe a lot of very stupid things that they are unable or unwilling to look at.

Enjoy your commentary very
much.

[Bill]

It should be obvious to anyone even paying half attention that the official story doesn't add up. Not only does it not add up, it is at odds with many many facts. Furthermore, the "New Pearl Harbor" which the Project for the New American Century wished for in 2000, is a little bit too concidental, just on it's own.

[Davol]

My gut has told me that my eyes were watching a controlled demolition since I saw the television footage on 9/11. The problem with this truth coming out with the "official story" around, is the ignorance the official story benefits from. As just one of volumnes of examples I cite the collaps of WTC Building 7 after 5:00pm on 9/11/2005, which also collapsed into its own footprint like the two larger better known demolitions. Most Americans don't even know this building went down thanks to our uninformative media and that "official story" eclipes we all live under. The truth will come out. Already the number of in-the-dark Americans are being informed that a 3rd tower also fell that day with no help from bomb-flying hijackers, and as that occures the official story stands to be laughed out of its place in posterity. Its happening, but lets face it, we are being denied the truth because of government lies and a corporate owned media complicit in promoting thoes lies.

[Sam]

Just found your blog for the first time. Wonderful writing, and I love your motto about our brains are already washed and its time to get them dirty again!

The people like Realist whom you are quoting . . .

I don't think they're poor ingnorant mind-controlled schlubbs (mostly). I think they're doing what they're doing DELIBERATELY. I think they are what people are calling shills.

It would be interesting to investigate. Meet some actual (right-wing? fundamentalist? zionist? NWO?) shills and interview them, find out how many there are, how they get hired (finally I could get a job!!!), how they get their assignments, who they report to, how much they get paid, and of course who pulls the strings.

I started thinking this way a couple years ago when I was participating as a post-er on a blog, and there was this one character who was such a virtuoso at keeping people's knickers in a twist. I mean, really GOOD at sensing buttons and pushing them, and really convincing at playing dumb, like they really just didn't get what people were saying, AND at the same time, being totally cunning about MESSING UP any kind of consensus or clarity that might appear in the ongoing conversation.

I started looking at it with the hypothesis that it could be a paid propaganda person (an idea that I got from WhatReallyHappened), and the situation started making more sense to me.

So I wrote a post, addressed to that person, asking if s/he was an "agent provocateur." I'd like to report that when I threw that bucket of water the person just melted, like the witch in Wizard of Oz. However, there was no immediate effect ON THAT PERSON, but I will say there was a shift in the conversation. I believe that people started to see that the situation on that blog actually had the possibility of a feature, or a dimension, they had been unaware of (deliberate disinformation).

Thank you, and good wishes!

S

[RandomGirl]

I agree Davo. I have also seen instances on blogs where certain characters use antagonistic phrases such as conspiracy nut, kook, etc, in their argument against investigating government conspiracy theories. These people usually exhibit good grammar and sentence structure in their arguments, but that is all. They never address the issues that are raised by conspiracy theorists, even when the issues have been published in mainstream articles. Yes, they do appear to be very good at producing inflammatory statements and pseudo counter-arguments. I believe the reason their rebuttals are so effective is because the vast majority of people fall into the trap of getting brought down to their level. Many people don't recognize their MO and mistake them for people who simply haven't investigated the facts. Therefore they become infatuated with trying to wake them up. The more the spooks deny all possibility of government involvement in mass crimes against humanity, the more insane the person trying to wake them up appears to the rest of the readers.
This would seem to be a blowback to the days of COINTELPRO, applied to a modern medium. If you look carefully, you can also find this kind of rhetoric in newspapers, especially in the reader's feedback sections.

Good work on the blog. Cya.

[Alias Smith and Jones]

Take a look at these two threads. Get to know shills like "Paranoid Pete" and an ass called "Architect". I'm the guy under a variety of guises giving them a pounding.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327869.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327894.html

[Dave]

Good for a laugh. And some serious stuff:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html?c=on#c136003

[SourDove]

Reasoned argument is an art. Committed skeptics are forced to entertain ideas they would otherwise dismiss. That's why, when I first read about the 9/11 conspiracy during the Yousef trial, it was obvious the conspirators were counting on NORAD to an unreasonable degree, a degree that would surely expose helpers within.

It was the very looniness of their plan to fly airliners into the WTC and Pentagon that struck me first. If guessing the date correctly in 1999 made me a conspiracy theorist then, I can blame it on the original conspirators who thought they could count on strategic air defense paralysis at just the right moment, even after the plan was exposed in the New York Times. No matter who they were, it was a bizarre theory on their part.

[Mike Zimmer]

I would be more concerned with working on some of the better anti-war, anti-neocon columnists, and trying to make them see that you don't have to be soft in the head to believe that the conspiracy was far different than the normally promulgated version. People such as Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner on the left, and Justin Raimondo on the libertarian right come to mind.

Regards,
Mike Zimmer