Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theory

In debating weather an event was a conspiracy, the term conspiracy theorist is often used in a derogatory sense. This word is often taken offensively because there is a misconception of what it really means. While there may be many crazy conspiracy theorists out there, most conspiracy theorists are actually quite intelligent. The difference in opinions of what really happened is not a matter of who is smarter, but in the difference of critical thinking and logic applied to the argument. There is a mainstream logic which is usually applied to analyzing any big event, and those that do not follow that mainstream logic are the ones who are often referred to as conspiracy theorists. Their logic is at the center of every major conspiracy theory from the Assassination of JFK, to the Moon landing, to 9/11 was an inside job. The following are 7 characteristics of a conspiracy theorist and why their theories are usually disregarded by the mainstream:

1) Their belief is not based on a theory being true, but rather another theory being false.

One of the most classic characteristics of any conspiracy theory is that there is no specific theory on what actually did happen. It is based on picking apart the accepted version of events and thus claiming it to be false. This is classic because it introduces a form of debate that can never be lost. By focusing the debate on the accepted version of the events and how it can not be completely true, the conspiracy theorists are never on the defense and thus can never be proven wrong. It is like me and my friends challenging the New York Yankees to a game of baseball, but not allowing them to bat. My team would never loose, but that does not mean we are better.

2) Their belief is based on the amount of evidence as opposed to the strength of that evidence

This is often referred to as the shotgun fallacy. The more strange things you can point out the greater the chance one of them is true or meaningful. While this can be true it is rarely the case. It is has generally been accepted for generations that the strength of evidence is far more important then the amount of evidence in determining any verdict. The amount of evidence is certainly important, but if none of it can hold up then there will be very little accomplished no matter how much evidence there is. In conspiracy theories the large amount of evidence is often just a by product of another fallacy called Pareidolia, the human tendency to see patterns in random data. This happens because when we are looking for an idea, our brains pick it up very easily and thus we become inundated with it. For example when I started driving I decided I wanted a BMW, all of a sudden I was seeing BMW’s everywhere. But yet we can all accept that this does not mean that all these BMW’s were intentionally placed by the dealer in front of me just to entice me to buy one. This is simply the result of my brain focusing on something it was not focused on before. When you have hundreds or even thousands of people focusing on finding something suspicious in any given story, it is not surprising at all that there are a lot of strange things discovered. In fact, it is unavoidable.

3) They use the absence of evidence as evidence.

Picture the following scenario: You are at work and you are told the boss wants to speak to you in his office. What are you thinking? Probably something really bad. We all have a tendency to fill in the gaps with the worst thing we can imagine. When this is applied to a conspiracy it becomes very enticing. If there is no explanation for something we will assume the worst reason why, and it will begin to take on a life of it’s own. For example: If evidence is withheld we assume that whoever is withholding it is hiding something, if there is no evidence found then we assume that there should have been and therefore whatever that evidence was supposed to imply did not happen. As the imperfect beings that we are, we do sometimes miss evidence. There are also many examples in history of situations when evidence could not be released for whatever unrelated reason. Secrecy breeds conspiracies. It is a playground of possibilities for any theorist, and they will inevitably take advantage of it. Especially by applying the next point…

4) They reverse the burden of proof

Conspiracy theorists tend to believe that the accused conspirators have a responsibility to refute their claims, and by not doing so it implies their guilt. This is simply not the way science and investigation works in our society. If you have a claim you must present evidence to support that claim before it will be taken seriously. And in today’s world of the internet, the amount of claims of any conspiracy are countless. It is simply impossible to refute them all so there is no valid reason for anyone to try. Anybody can make a claim. Anybody can point the finger at someone and say they are guilty. But these claims are rarely based on evidence of guilt, instead they are based on evidence that someone is wrong about something. People do from time to time get something wrong, this in itself is no reason to investigate them. Proving that someone is wrong does not prove that they were lying, and certainly does not prove that they are guilty of committing a crime. This requires a strength of evidence that is never found in conspiracy theories. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

5) Argument from (personal) incredulity

This argument is always something like “I don’t understand how that could possibly be true so it must not be”. There are a lot of things that happen around us that we do not understand. Not understanding something is no reason to believe it did not happen or that it is false. There is a reason why we have experts. There is a reason why we call a plumber to fix our sink, or a mechanic to fix our car. No matter how badly we might like to think we know about something, we often learn the hard way that nothing is as simple as it appears.

6) They apply the bandwagon effect

This is a logical fallacy in which you believe that you are correct because others believe the same thing. Many people will often cite polls that show how many people believe the same thing as proof that their argument is strong. This in fact has no effect on the argument itself, only that others are just as gullible. This also goes hand in hand with Argument from authority, which is believing your argument is correct because someone in authority believes it. This one especially gains traction in the conspiracy world because anyone with authority who supports a conspiracy theory is instantly recognized by others who believe the same thing. Therefore the conspiracy believer will always have a longer and more impressive list to show of who is “on their side”. In reality there are usually many, many more people who do not believe the theory but they simply do not get that same recognition from the non conspiracy believers because there is no reason to be proud or keep track of someone accepting a mainstream view.

7) And finally the big one: Their belief is Non falsifiable

This is why most people consider arguing with a conspiracy theorist to be a waste of time. For a conspiracy theorist to admit this is like an alcoholic to admit they have a drinking problem. And just like an alcoholic, there are many psychological defenses to prevent this from being realized. These defenses will always protect themselves behind a web of rational arguments which prove to be logical fallacies. I will go through them one at a time.

First, everyone falls into one of three categories: They are either part of the conspiracy, kept quiet by the conspiracy, or duped by the conspiracy. The first two are simply conclusions of the general conspiracy belief so I will focus on the third. Conspiracy theorists believe that those who believe the accepted version are simply believing what they are told. The problem here is that everything a person can possibly cite to explain why they believe the accepted version, in some way or another will always go back to what they were told by the conspirators. This is partially because believing the accepted version usually means incorporating mainstream views that although we learn on our own through life experiences, these views are normally taught to us also. This allows the conspiracy thinker to always accuse others of not thinking for themselves. And since it is impossible to prove to someone else that you are thinking on your own, the conspiracy theorist will always believe otherwise.

Second, any evidence brought forward that supports the accepted version is automatically part of the conspiracy. Since the belief is that conspirators carefully planned their actions, they would have also planned how they would get away with it. There is no evidence that will satisfy a conspiracy theorist because any evidence can be explained away using this logic. It also allows the conspiracy theorist to mock anyone who believes the evidence of being duped. A conspiracy theorist must ask themselves “what will it take to get me to believe I am wrong?”. The answer will always be either something that is impossible to provide, something that is so unlikely that it makes it safe to acknowledge, or something that has already been presented but the conspiracy theorist has found something wrong with it in order to not accept it.

Third, there is no evidence of the conspirators innocence. This is simply a false expectation because it is impossible to prove that something general did not happen. To prove a theory wrong it must be specific. Conspiracy theorists will always be able to find another possibility of the conspirators guilt because they will never allow themselves to become vested in a specific theory.

And last, backwards reasoning: There is something we refer to as cause and effect. This is the force behind all natural events and is simple to explain; A leads to B which leads to C. A is the cause, B is the effect. Afterward B now becomes the cause, and C becomes the effect, and so on. All events in our history follow this pattern. It is impossible for any event to not unfold this way. But you can turn this into something else by simply reversing it; C was the actual desired effect so it caused the conspirators to implement B. In order to achieve B they had to implement A.

The problem with this is that it is impossible to refute because all events are interconnected naturally. For example; I make fun of someone, he spits in my face, I punch him. This is a perfectly normal flow of events. But one could easily say I wanted to punch him, so I provoked him to spit in my face, by making fun of him. This can never be proven wrong to a conspiracy believer because it does flow naturally, although the first flow of events is a much simpler explanation and therefore much more likely to be true. After all why would I want to punch someone who did nothing wrong to me? How would I have known that he would spit in my face? What reason would I have had to accept getting myself into trouble for punching someone? These questions require a bigger and more complex story which is what conspiracy theories are famous for.

Backwards reasoning is at the core of every conspiracy. I have often heard the phrase “when something happens you have to ask yourself, who benefits?” This is an absurd question to ask because someone always benefits from every event. As Newton put it “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. As an example; if I loose my job, that will create a job opening for someone else. But that does not mean that it was all a plot for that person to get me fired so that they could have my job. If this question is the first question you ask yourself when something happens then you are laying the groundwork for the conspiracy theory way before having any reason to believe it. And if this point is one that you buy into when believing a conspiracy theory then you must realize something: it is not a coincidence that someone benefits, it is a law of physics.

I hope this post has helped you to gain a deeper understanding of these arguments. If you are a conspiracy believer still, then at the very least, I hope that I was able to show you why people do not believe in them. It is not because we are “pulling the wool over our eyes”, but because of simple critical thinking we feel is the right approach.

Thank you for reading.

The problem with 9/11 Truthers

In a recent post called 9/11 for dummies, I have been going back and fourth with a truther who named himself YouAreAnIdiot. I asked him a series of questions of what he thought about the evidence pertaining to flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon. Here are his replies taken word for word. The only thing I did was put the questions in bold and hit enter, so the answers would appear under them, making it easier to read. Bear in mind, this is a real conversation with a person who really believes this:

how do you explain the pieces of the plane found?
Planted, faked, strapped onto missile. Pick one.

the 136 eyewitnesses?
scared for the lives, work for the government, you can find witnesses that say other wise

the disappearance of the passengers?
Disappearance that’s an interesting choice of words. Need I say more.

phone calls from the passengers?
faked since calling from a cellphone on a plane is nearly impossible.

remains of the passengers identified?
faked

video footage that shows a plane?
That’s funny, I have yet to see a plane and the pentagon in the same picture let alone a video since they have never released a video, just a few still frames that conveniently miss the plane

and the hundreds of people who would have had to have been involved in the execution and cover up of the pentagon crash site alone without anyone ever admitting it or finding out?
Scared for the lives and besides its called a false flag and the government has done it before. Do you really think that the government can’t keep a secret! Please.

I also asked this question:
And… what do you have to back up any of your answers to any of these questions?
Not surprisingly, he conveniently left this question out.

Truthers try to claim that the debate about weather 9/11 was an inside job is an intellectual one based on evidence and logic. These answers are a perfect example of why this is not about real world logic. Anytime you try to get a truther to explain what they think happened on 9/11 they will say something like “we don’t know, that’s why we want a new investigation”. In reality they are simply avoiding giving these answers because they realize how rediculous they will sound and loose their argument. If you believe or even imply that 9/11 was an inside job you have to believe the answers above like this guy. And this idiot does not have one reason to believe any of these answers, except for the fact that it all comes together to form his fantasy.

Notice how every answer he gives me to the evidence shown is the same: either faked or the people are lying. That is always their answer. How do you talk to someone who believes that every single person who presents evidence against their beliefs is somehow part of the conspiracy? How do you explain human nature to someone who believes that the government is capable of keeping thousands of people quiet about the largest mass murder in the history of the country? Here is a fact about human nature: people love secrets. That is why rumors spread in high school. 10 people knew about Watergate and it could not be kept secret, Clinton couldn’t even keep getting a BJ secret, yet these people actually believe that Bush has kept thousands of people living among us quiet about this for 10 years even though he is no longer in power and has more people who hate him then any president in recent memory.

What I find hilarious is that all these people who believe that keeping such a big secret is not difficult, are the same people who spend hours on the internet looking for them in every way they can imagine on their conspiracy websites.

My brother worked for a security company and was in building 7 many times. Was he part of the conspiracy too? My cousin works downtown and has friends who are firefighters. Some of them saw building 7 collapse and the way it was leaning, they knew it was not going to stand. Are they in on it too? These are real people. They are really real. This is not a comic book, this is not a movie with Bruce Willis.

9/11 truthers live in a world of paranoia where everybody is either “in on it”, or just too stupid to notice. They can never be proven wrong because they already have pre-conceived answers to every possible form of evidence that can be put forward. And worse, they do not need any actual evidence of what they claim in order to believe it, just a bunch of silly questions. So when you are hit with 101 questions by a 9/11 truther, find out what he has to say about the evidence that proves their theories wrong first, before you get caught up in their questions. That will tell you what you are dealing with.

Now I will respond to YourAnIdiot’s questions.

The following are my responses to the lattest comment left by YouAreAnIdiot on my post 9/11 for dummies, I had responded to his “suspicious” questions and he replied back. I put them in a format to make it easier to follow but the responses are word for word. If you get tired of reading them please scroll down to the last one where I make my main point.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why do pilots say that there is no way to make the flight path released that hit the pentagon?”
rroman911: There are many more pilots that say the flight path was not difficult. I let them hash it out. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with you guys. You focus on the most irrelevant things as if it somehow makes a case of something. A plane clearly hit the pentagon. I feel like we are watching a football game instant replay, and playing it in slow motion arguing about weather if the wide receivers feet came down in bounds when the question we are supposed to be answering is if the quarterback threw the ball.
YouAreAnIdiot: How is that irrelevant? Ok, so how could a terrorist with extremely minimal experience flying, and none flying commercial airliners, pull off a maneuver many pilots would consider difficult. He could not. And I have heard and seen pilots that have flown forever come out and say that this is not a reasonable explanation. You can find them here at http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org. I guess those pilots don’t know what they are talking about either.
rroman911: You show me a list of what I counted to be 258 pilots who do not support the official story. There are 594,285 pilots in the US. You have 0.043% of the pilots in the US who believe your crazy theory. When you are that far in the minority it is safe to say you do not know what you are talking about.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why did WTC building 6 fall at free fall speeds?”
rroman911: Once the columns supporting the building collapsed there was nothing left supporting the building. If that is not good enough for you NIST had a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers spend 3 years studying the collapse and put together a 10,000 page report explaining it. If you are that interested in building collapses try reading it.
YouAreAnIdiot: “NIST works for the government. If you point out something that government says again I will have to stop debating you for obvious reasons. Think for yourself. Demolition experts say they can clearly see that it was a controlled demolition.
rroman911: Please name one respectable controlled demolitionist in the world who says that. Besides of course the guy on Loose Change who said it looked like a CD because they conveniently did not show him the south side of the building that burned for 7 hours and was smashed by falling debris from tower 1. And here is a thought: supposed terrorists really did attack the United States (I know so hard to imagine, but try anyway)… Who do you think should investigate it? I would love to hear your answer on that one. In reality YouAreAnIdiot, the government is made up of real people. They were not born as secret government operatives. How do you possibly explain a team of 200 real people who claim to be scientists making up a fake report saying something is scientifically possible when it is not, and be so convincing that 99.9% of the scientific community falls for it and the only people who do not are on conspiracy websites? Please enlighten me.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why was thermite found in the wtc debri?”
rroman911: Thermite was used in the melting of the core columns during the erection of the twin towers. Nano thermite which I am sure you are referring to was not found, according to every respectable scientist in the world. none of them however will bother to write a paper refuting it because it is such a childish conclusion that none of them want their names attached to it.
YouAreAnIdiot: Oh yea just professors and experts that said that and have proof. No one respectable.
rroman911: When someone writes a paper claiming that 2 plus 2 equals 5, there is no reason to provide proof that they are wrong. Common sense is good enough. Among the world of science that is the consensus about your “peer reviewed article”. It is a joke.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why did the president say he saw the first plane hit the tower when it had not been shown on tv yet?”
rroman911: Have you ever heard of the idea that not everything a person says is correct? Of course not.
YouAreAnIdiot: Have you ever heard of Freudian slip. Of course not. Look up all the ones Donald Rumsfield has said too
rroman911: Actually no I haven’t. That is probably a word made up in the conspiracy world. In this one people do make mistakes. Not like you guys will miss them, you spend hours hanging over every word a person says looking for a hidden truth or something to find suspicious. Of course your gana find something.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why did we lose both black boxes at WTC when witnesses saw government agents grab it and even helped find it?”
rroman911: Don’t know, maybe they were trying to conceal the fact that the plane was secretly being controlled by remote while the real flights 175 and 11 were flown to area 51 where the passengers were all shot and killed and the real planes blown up to conceal all evidence. Ok, ok, seriously…
YouAreAnIdiot: Once again it looks like there is no explanation.
rroman911: Believe it or not, I am not god. I do not have an answer to every single question your twisted brain can imagine. Just because I do not have an answer to your question does not make your question a good one. First of all we do not even know that these were in fact the black boxes. Second, even IF this story is correct we do not know or have any evidence of why the agents took it or what they did with it so your question does not prove or imply anything. But yet you already know don’t you? Apparently you have all the inside info on how the government really works, yet you have not one peice of evidence to show what really did happen on 9/11.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why did witnesses that crawled out of the pentagon say they saw no plane?”
rroman911: Think about this one. You are in a building. All of a sudden a 757 traveling at over 500mph crashes straight into it, far enough from you that you survived. What do you expect that experience to be like? Did you expect the plane pass by in slow motion so that you could see that it was a plane?
YouAreAnIdiot: This lady crawled out of the hole where the plane was supposed to be. I guess you are calling her a liar too since you would know better than someone who was there and crawled through the hole.
rroman911: You are the only one here calling anyone a liar. I am simply pointing an obvious fact that you are not smart enough to realize. If she crawled out of the hole then she was clearly not in the hole during the explosion otherwise she would be dead. I would love to see an artist sketch of what you believe she should have seen. Did you expect to see a plane just sitting there in the lobby of the pentagon? Imagine a car driving into a concrete wall at over 100mph. You wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Now picture 500mph. Do I seriously need to spell this out for you?

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why does footage show that they don’t look like passenger planes?”
rroman911: When you zoom up on grainy stills and focus on the 1 thing that doesn’t seem right and ignore the other 99% of it that looks like a commercial airliner, it does kind of look that way. Now if you would like to join the real world and look at the hundreds of videos that clearly show it WAS a comercial airliner then you will have your answer.
YouAreAnIdiot: So you are admitting that something doesn’t seem right and once AGAIN there is something that even your imagination can’t explain.
rroman911: Wow. You are amazing. No I was not admitting that something doesn’t look right, I was saying that you see something that does not look right to YOU. The point was that the ONE thing that doesn’t look right to you is more important then the 99 things that do. When you spend your life focusing on the ONE thing out of 99 it is no wonder you believe 9/11 was an inside job. And even if there is something my imagination can’t explain, it doesn’t matter because unlike you I do understand the following logic: Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it did not happen.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Just because I cannot prove everything does not mean I have nothing.”
rroman911: Prove everything? You have not proven anything. All you did was ask a bunch of dumb questions. Questions are not evidence. Evidence is what you guys do not have still, after ten years.
YouAreAnIdiot: I am not saying it is evidence. It simply questions that have not been answered so a new independent investigation is warranted. If I could prove it I would be dead.
rroman911: All of your questions have been answered. You refuse to accept the answers. An investigation is for normal people who understand that you can not just throw evidence away claiming it is fake because it does not fit your preconceived conclusions.

YouAreAnIdiot: “Why did the most secure building in the world (Pentagon) not capture any footage of a plane?”
rroman911: You mean like these?:

YouAreAnIdiot: That still doesn’t show a plane! You know there are a 100 different camera angles of whatever hit the pentagon and they can’t prove to me a plane hit it. Something is wrong with that. It seems as if they would just release a CLEAR picture of a plane I would shut up. But they can’t even though there are a million cameras at the pentagon.
rroman911: If they released a clear picture you would shut up??? So every piece of evidence they show is fake but you would believe a photograph? You have already made yourself very clear. If you seriously do not realize it let me spell it out for you:

You will never believe you are wrong because no human being on this earth is capable of producing anything that you will accept as evidence. If you are shown a picture you say it is faked. If you are shown an actual witness who directly saw it happen you say they are either working for the government or are “scared for their lives, when you are given a scientific report explaining how it happened you say they are wrong (as if you would know), and in this case I showed you a video that any reasonable person can see a plane in and you say there is no plane. Everytime you look at any peice of evidence, you focus on the 1% of it you do not understand and completely disreguard the point of what that evidence shows because of it. When someone finally does explain that 1% to you, you do not accept it because you do not understand 1% of their answer. When you finally do understand their answer you claim they are part of the conspiracy. You are incapable of seeing what really did happen on 9/11 because you are wrapped in your fantasy conspiracy world. I am the only idiot willing to spend all this time answering your dumb questions. I do not know why, I guess it saddens me. It is so sad to see people throw away their sense of reality to keep their fantasy beliefs alive but what is even worse, is the way you guys go out there spreading this crap to others by asking a bunch of dumb questions you pretend have no answers. Those were real people we lost that day. You are an insult to them.

Update: He’s back, lol! Here are is idiot responses, (if you do not see them click here):

If WTC7 was a controlled demolition…

Nearly 10 years after 9/11 there are still many who believe it was an inside job. Although those beliefs are strong as ever to those who make this claim, over the course of the past decade the general reasons for the truth movement have somewhat evolved. Today the most repeated claim by far is that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Every debate about 9/11 these days is guaranteed to begin and eventually end up back with this claim. And although there is plenty of evidence, science, and logic to completely disprove each of the reasons to believe this, instead let’s ask ourselves, if WTC7 was a controlled demolition…

Why would the government have decided to bring it down in the first place?

I would love to read the transcripts for this meeting. Some truthers say WTC7 was where they planned it all and they had to destroy the evidence of it. Of course the documents would have been much safer in a locked building then a destroyed one with papers flying everywhere. In other words even if the building was standing today we still would not have access to those documents, so why destroy the building? Also, if the government was willing and able to fly planes into the twin towers to “make it look” like the plane crashes were what brought down the buildings, then why would they just demolish WTC7 with no side story? How is it that our government could be so smart to masterfully pull this off and keep it a secret for a decade, yet so dumb to forget that buildings don’t just collapse for no reason? Or was there more to their plan?…

Was the debris that smashed into the building creating fires throughout just a coincidence?

Since we all know that coincidences don’t happen in real life, I guess not. It must have been part of the plan to eject parts of the falling towers so that it flew past buildings 5 and 6, hitting building 7 to make it look like the falling debris started the fires. It also added a nice touch as the buildings structural integrity seemed to be compromised from the impact (or so we were told).

Why was the building allowed to burn for 7 hours?

So if the falling debris was all part of the plan what about the fires? Was there a special team waiting to run in and start the fires just in case? Or was the building prepared with flammable sections ready at the push of a button? Or perhaps the plan was to just demolish the building with no attempt at an explanation? And how exactly does a building with pre planted explosives burn for 7 hours with out setting them off? Now I know what they will say… There were explosions going off throughout the day. Yes there were, (which BTW have been explained) but what is funny about this is that truthers claim that the building falling so perfectly is impossible without such incredibly planned and executed explosions. The explosions that would have been caused by the fires would have thrown off that precision. So was the government just putting on a show for us? Perhaps they were just waiting as long as possible to make sure we were all convinced? These apparently, are the fires that did not disrupt the “controlled” demolition:

How exactly did they manage such a perfect operation without any loud sounds of explosives?

There is a video out there that claims there were explosions just before the collapse, however even in that very same video the people standing blocks away were not even prepared for the building to come down. Anyone who has ever seen a real controlled demolition knows how unmistakably loud the pre-collapse explosions are. There is no way that thousands of people and cameras everywhere would have missed that. But of course now the claim is that the government used nano thermite which doesn’t have a loud sound (so how do all those reports of loud explosions fit in?). But if nano thermite was used instead…

How did the government manage to perfectly pull off a controlled demolition using a tactic that has never before been attempted?

Truthers are the first to point out how few companies in the world are capable of pulling off a controlled demolition because of the amount of expertise it takes. Those companies have stated how ridiculous the idea of using nano thermite on something like this is, and how they would have no idea of how to pull it off. And no one will argue that this theoretical technique has never been used before. So how did they manage to do it not just on WTC7 but also WTC 1 and 2 all in the same day, all of which executed perfectly? They love to point out that the official explanation of fires causing the collapse would be the first time in history that it happened, so why don’t they include these theories in their “first time in history” talk?

How is it that they carried out this massive operation without anyone noticing?

While the CIA, FBI and others did occupy the building there were plenty of other tenants there who were not in any way connected to the government. It is estimated by expert controlled demolitionists (who by the way laugh at this entire thing) that it would take anywhere from 50 to 100 men about 6 months to prepare the building for something like this. And that is before you factor the never before been attempted aspects of this crazy theory. The process is also described as extremely disruptive to everyday business, and most even say you can not prepare a building for something like this while it is occupied. But yet no one even noticed? To prepare a building for controlled demolition you have to gut the bottom floors of the building to get to all of the colums so that you can attach explosives to each of them. This is what real controlled demolition preparation (that apparently no one noticed) looks like:

The questions asked here are not rhetorical questions. Those who believe that WTC7 may have been brought down by controlled demolition are suggesting that there are real life answers to the questions asked here. The funny thing is how hypocritical truthers are in that they expect official story believers to answer all of their questions but do not even attempt to answer any questions posed to them. The only answer they will give is something like “we don’t know, that’s why we want a new investigation”. But like any event in history, to investigate something there must be a logical reason to assume that the investigation will uncover something meaningful. Truthers now believe that for the first time they have actual evidence of an inside job in a supposed bomb composition found in the dust left behind by the collapse of the towers. But if there were truly no other explanations for it then this is what that “evidence” directly implicates, and not to mention the many scientific explanations that do answer their questions. Sorry truthers, but until you can find some kind of working theory that can logically offer explanations to even some of this, there is no reason to reinvestigate 9/11. Unless of course, you are really that passionate about dust compositions. If so, you are on your own with that one.

Are You a 9/11 Truther?

Hello, and welcome to “Are you a 9/11 Truther?”, the post that will help you decide if you should be laughing at these guys or joining them. Today we have gathered (not really) two distinguished experts on the subject to analize the evidence. They will be looking at three different peices of evidence and telling us what they think each of them concludes. We will display them simply as “A” or “B” so that you do not know who is who. At the end you can decide which contestant you agree with and find out if you are a truther!

Narrator: Let’s begin. For our first peice of evidence we have a 24 sec video of a nationally televised interview with Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center in 2001. He will briefly give us his recolections of a conversation with the Fire Cheif surrounding building 7 just before its collapse. Let’s listen:

Narrator: Now contestant A, what was he talking about?
A: Well its obvious that he was saying that they blew up the building. He said “pull it”. That is a term used in controlled demolition.
Narrator: Contestant B, what do you think he was talking about?
B: While “pull it” is a term used in controlled demolition, it does not mean to blow up a building. To pull it means to attach cables to the building and literally pull the building down. That would make no sense, there is no relation. But the term “pull it” is also used by fireman which means to pull the operation, or in this case pull the firefighters out of the building. They could all see that building 7 was going to collapse so it was not safe for them. That is what he meant.
A: Now that doesn’t make any sense. No, clearly when he said pull it he was saying let blow up the building
B: Even if there was some sense to that why would he say that? He would be admitting that he was involved in the crime of the century in a nationally televised interview.
A: I don’t know, maybee he forgot he was in a national interview.
Narrator: Ok well that’s it for that round. Who do you think makes more sense so far? Hold that thought while we take a look at the next peice of evidence…

Narrator: The following is a photograph of the alleged crash site of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

Narrator: Ok contestant B, we’ll start wit h you. What do you think about this one?
B: Well it seems curious at first, but flight 93 flew almost straight into the ground at 500 mph. It appears the plane was damaged so badly in the impact that the it broke up in so many peices, most of which were burried into the ground.
Narrator: Ok, Contestant A?
A: That’s rediculous. There is no plane in this picture. The official story is clearly a lie.
B: And you can tell this by looking at a picture?
A: Haven’t you seen crash photos of other accidents? They always leave big plane pieces behind.
B: Other accidnents are just that, accidents. When have you ever seen a photo of a plane intentionally flown straight into the ground at 500 mph? Do you expect to see half the plane just sticking out of the ground?
A: Well, I expect to see something other then a hole in the ground. Until then I don’t believe there was a plane.
B: Of course not, you’d have to have an IQ to understand
A: I understand your mama’s IQ
Narrator: OK gentlemen, gentlemen! Now let’s move on to our last peice of evidence…

Narrator: For our last piece of evidence here is a quote from a passenger onboard one of the hijacked planes. This is a message that he left to his mother:

“‘Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don’t you, Mom? I’m calling you from the air phone.”

Narrator: So, Contestant A, please tell us what you think about this message.
A: I think it’s obvious that this phone call was faked. This guy calls his mother and says “This is Mark Bingham”? Who calls their mother and announces themselves by their full name? This must have been a secret agent using voice morphing technology to fool his mother.
Narrator: Uh, ok. Contestant B…
B: Wow. That is crazy, even for you. This guys mother has actually explained that her son used to call her and say “this is Mark Bingham” because he was an aspiring buisiness man and it became something of an inside joke between them. There is no way a secret agent would know that.
A: And you call me crazy. Nope, the call was fake. No doubt about it.
B: Oh it was huh? So is the mother lying about the message she received, or is she lying about the inside joke? And for what? To help the government cover up the muder of her son?
A: I don’t know, I just know it was faked.

Narrator: Ok, so there you have it. Have you decided which contestant makes more sense to you? Well now is the moment of truth. It’s time to find out if you are a truther! To find the answer please watch this 49 sec video.

 

Narrator: You heard it! if you picked the same answer as she did you are a truther! (and are probably feeling the same way) Well that’s all for today. Thank you for joining us and please stay tuned for future episodes of Are You A 9/11 Truther!

9/11 For Dummies

In the crazy age of the internet people can find a reason to believe anything. And many have found plenty of reasons that they feel proves the US government was behind 9/11. We call them 9/11 truthers. They may be fun to laugh at, but what if you were to get yourself into a debate with one of them?… You may not last. Most truthers spend hours on conspiracy websites in a relentless search to find evidence that fits their conclusion. And they have made an art out of keeping the debate focused on the points they have instead of looking at reality. It is very easy to get wrapped up in what they have to say if you do not know some of the simple facts of the matter. So here are some 9/11 basics that any dummy can understand to help you fend them off. Although this post will not totally disprove their theories (which is completely impossible to them), it will help you to understand the basics. So here are 4 of the main claims they love to base their crazy conspiracy theories off of:

Claim 1: The Pentagon was not hit by a Plane

Or more specifically, American Airlines Flight 77. Truthers largely get this from photos such as this one which shows that the “hole” in the pentagon was not big enough for a plane to fit.

After looking at this photograph, their claim seems to make sense at first. The wingspan of Flight 77 was about 124 feet, so why is the hole only about 20 feet? The simple answer… planes were designed to travel through air, not concrete. The center of the plane is what would have caused the damage, not the wings. The wings are made up of aluminum less than an inch thick, while the walls were made of re-enforced concrete. There is some damage caused by the wings but not too much. There are other photographs which show it better. Truthers of course don’t agree. They feel the wings should have left some kind of major imprint. Their science seems to be based off of what we learned about physics by watching Daffy duck run through a brick wall leaving a perfect imprint of himself

But in reality, a plane hitting a concrete wall will not look like this

Purdue University created a computer simulation to see what the damage caused by this plane would have looked like and it concluded that official story is correct. Once they published their findings they were inundated with phone calls from truthers accusing them of “prostituting” themselves to help the government cover up the “truth”. But of course truthers can come up with no reasonable alternative to explain what they think caused the hole in the pentagon, or the 136 eyewitnesses who saw a plane at the moment of impact, or what happened to the passengers on that plane who were never seen or heard from again, and of course… have no explanation for the pieces of flight 77 found at the crash site

Claim 2: No Plane was found at the alleged crash site of United Flight 93

This claim is largely based off of pictures like this one, which show a crash site but no recognizable piece of a plane

According to Truther science there should be a wing or something recognizable, even though flight 93 crashed almost directly into the ground at 500mph. According to one of the directors of a 9/11 documentary Loose Change (the most viewed internet documentary of all time) he says that even though much of the plane would have been (and was) buried 35 feet under the ground, that would mean that about 45 feet would still be “sticking up” out of the ground. Apparently we have found the source of our loony tune physics. But once again most of the plane was found

But since it is very difficult to argue with the simple logic of: Plane parts found = there was a plane, many truthers (but not all) have found a new theory. Now they say Flight 93 was shot down. Of course the evidence of this is quite ridiculous as well but as long as they find a theory that goes against the governments story, they can keep their fantasies alive. Of course if a missile did hit flight 93 it is pretty tough to explain away more evidence that proves otherwise. This photo was taken by an elderly women from her porch seconds after the crash

Although this photo clearly shows an explosion from a plane crashing into the ground and not shot by a missile in the air, this of course is still not conclusive enough for the truthers. Many of them accuse this women of faking this photograph to help the government in their coverup (truthers explanation for everything).

Claim 3: The Towers collapsed at “free-fall speed”

The logic to this argument is that the top of the building fell through the floors below them at the same speed that an object falling with no resistance would have fallen. Of course this would be impossible because the structure underneath was built to support a large mass and therefore would have slowed down the collapse. If the top of the tower fell at the same speed as a free-falling object then the floors below must have been weakened, presumably by explosives. Unless of course the terrorists can somehow suspend the laws of physics. But there is no need to get all scientific here. Let’s keep this simple, if thats the case then the pieces of debris that were in “free-fall” would be falling at the same pace as the rest of the tower, right?

Once again, the evidence does not stack up to the facts. This picture clearly shows that debris was falling faster than the pace of the collapse. Or perhaps it is the government that has the ability to suspend the laws of physics. (a new theory perhaps?)

Claim 4: The towers collapsed perfectly into their own footprint

What truthers are saying here is that the “fact” that the towers fell so perfectly straight down must mean a controlled demolition because such a perfect collapse is not natural. For those of us who are not engineers, controlled demolition is used to destroy buildings in such a way that the fall does not damage the nearby buildings. Only a few companies in the world can do this because it is very difficult to pull off. So if the building did fall perfectly straight down, then that could only mean that it was done intentionally. But did it fall perfectly?

Of course the reality here is that building 7 did not actually fall in its footprint, in fact pieces of it actually landed across the street and on top of a nearby building. Just another example of how truthers ignore anything that does not fit their world.

And one more just for fun…

Ane finally a bonus, just because I find this one very funny. I also feel this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the truther movement: they are extremely creative in finding ways to explain anything they see as “evidence” that it was an inside job, but don’t bother to apply that same effort to checking to see if that evidence accomplishes anything, other than giving people a reason to laugh at them. This photo has been shown in truther websites everywhere, as well as in presentations given by Dr. Steven Jones. He is a physicist, and one of the leaders of this movement who claims among many other things that “pools” of molten steel were found at ground zero, which some how is supposed to prove their controlled demolition theory. Even though this makes no sense, here is one of the photographs he has actually used in his speeches to back up this claim

But was it a “pool” of molten steel?

I hope this post helps you see the craziness of these theories. Of course truthers will find plenty of reasons to argue against this post. The purpose here was not to totally disprove their wild claims (an impossible task) but to show reasonable people why they are so ridiculous. For truthers, 9/11 conspiracy theories are a religion. It is not something they will ever question let alone admit, and all the evidence in the world will never be enough. But at least those of us who do have some common sense left, can feel comfortable that our government is not out to get us. After all, we do have real problems to face in this country. Of course if you are still not convinced, you can always join these guys

If this is for you please see “How to be a 9/11 Truther“

How to be a 9/11 Truther

Since 9/11, conspiracy theories have popped up everywhere and the march for truth continues. But good news, if you have taken a look at the “evidence” that the 9/11 truth movement has been able to put together, and feel this is the world you want to be a part of then you too can be a 9/11 Truther! It’s really not that hard, just follow the directions below and we will have you out on the streets in no time…

The first thing you will need to do is to start researching. But before do, always remember this rule: Anything that comes from the government is a lie, and anybody who confirms the official story is now part of the conspiracy and can not be trusted unless something they said sounds suspicious. In that case only the suspicious part is true.

Now that you are ready, start researching 9/11 and look for clues that the government really did it. First, look for news eyewitness accounts. Be sure to focus on the accounts of the very early moments of the disaster when the least information was available. You will find plenty of suspicious statements there. Be sure to focus only on the portion of their account that is suspicious and edit out the rest. No need for anybody to waste their time trying to figure out what they really meant. And if those same eyewitnesses come out afterward and say that their words were being misinterpreted, it’s ok because by now it is obvious that the government got to them and made them change their story.

Next, look at the pictures and videos. When looking at a bunch of pictures if you find one that looks suspicious, pull it out and pretend you didn’t see the ones that support the official story. When looking at videos, make sure you do the same. If a video looks suspicious but the sound proves something different, just replay the video on mute. It will open up your eyes to what the video is really telling you. And be sure to look for coincidences. Remember, in the real world there is no such thing as a coincidence. If anyone tries to tell you that they do happen, then they are obviously a sad victim of government brainwashing.

Once you have strung together a bunch of suspicious questions, you now have “evidence”. Do not worry if that evidence is consistent or if it actually means anything. Your goal is not to explain what really happened, but to show that not everything the government told us is 100% correct. Therefore if they got anything wrong, then they must have been intentionally lying, which means they had something to hide, which means that they were up to no good, which means that they did it, which means that this was evil their plan all along.

Now you are ready to hit the streets and start demanding a new investigation. A lot of people will tell you how ridiculous you are being. This is ok because they do not have the real world information that you do. They are all just being brainwashed by the lying conspiracy government and controlled media. You can explain this to them by calling them “government sheeple”. Yea, that will do it. If ever confronted by someone who wants you to come up with your own theory about what you think happened on 9/11, just change the subject. Never allow the ridiculousness of your own theory to distract them from the “evidence”. You can also say that you don’t know what happened and are just asking questions. As long as you keep the conversation focused on that, you are safe from a debate about reality.

Make sure you have a good understanding of physics. 9/11 conspiracy websites are an excellent source of this and offer an unbiased education on building collapses. This way you can get into a conversation of World Trade Center building 7, and how it is physically impossible for it to collapse. Since most people don’t sit on their computer for hours studying building collapses they won’t be able to explain it. When that happens you can now claim victory! And don’t worry about the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the 200 scientists that spent 3 years studying the collapse, after a few hours on the internet you will be a qualified structural engineer and can now say you know better then they do.

Last but not least, never give up. When people start responding to your questions with facts, it’s ok. Just ask another question. As long as you have unanswered questions the conspiracy is still alive. Always remember the golden rule: as long as the government has not proven that everything about their story is the only possibility of what happened on 9/11, then they were the ones behind it.

So there it is. I hope you found this educational lesson to be helpful. All that is left for you to do now is to start signing up on conspiracy forums and begin recruiting! And when hitting the streets, make sure you are in dress code with your “Investigate 9/11 T-shirts. You can find them here for only $19.99. Now get out there and help save us from the evil government!

The Secret Meeting

Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job? If it was, then obviously someone had to plan it. But considering all of the evidence that “proves” the government was behind it, what would that meeting have looked like? Let’s see…

 

Bush: Good afternoon Dick, thank you for joining me. I’ve been talking to the Chief of Staff, we want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war… What do you think?

Cheney: Sounds like a great idea! But how do we… I know, let’s kill 3,000 of our own people and blame it on Al Qaeda! After all they tried to kill us before. Maybe they will even help us in our plot!

Bush: Great idea! I got Osama on speed dial. I’ll pitch it to him. So, we let them launch an attack on us, and in return we get to wipe them off the face of the earth… Sounds like a deal to me! Now we just need a target.

Cheney: How about the World Trade Center towers?

Bush: Excellent, that’ll get the people rallied up. We don’t need the towers anyway.

Cheney: So how do we bring them down?

Bush: We’ll fly planes into them

Cheney: But planes alone won’t work. There’s no way to be sure the buildings will collapse just like that. How about we plant bombs into them?

Bush: Now how in the world are we gana explain that terrorist planted bombs in the buildings? I got it, lets do both!… We’ll fly planes into the buildings, then let them burn for an hour or so for special effects, then we’ll detonate the bombs and make it look like the planes really did it!

Cheney: But planting this many bombs in a controlled demolition is gana take a lot of strategic planning and man hours. Its gana also take a lot of people going in and out of the buildings for months.

Bush: No problem, I’ll call up my brothers. They got ties with the security inside the towers. I’ll tell them to issue an order for all security to ignore any warning signs of bombs or strange men going in or out.

Cheney: Ooh, ooh, can we take out building #7 too? I never liked that building.

Bush: Sure, but we won’t get away with three planes in New York. Well send a team in there to start a fire on the bottom floor. Let it burn long enough and then… POW! We’ll blow the bombs up and watch it fall. I know it will look suspicious but we can put together a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers to put a fake report together saying that it possible for the building to comedown on its own even if its not.

Cheney: This is good stuff. But why stop there? Lets take out the Pentagon while were at it!

Bush: That’s a great idea! This is why I made you Vice President! Now the Pentagon is gana be a little harder because we have tighter security surrounding it. Were gana need to use a missile instead.

Cheney: But that won’t get the same attention. We should still use a Plane. That way we could maximize the casualties.

Bush: I know, well hijack a plane from Dulles Airport, fly them to area 51, shoot everyone on board so that they are never seen again, and blame our missile explosion on the plane. Oh, and well also make fake phone calls to the families of the passengers so people think the planes were really hijacked and not ask us any questions.

Cheney: Wow you think of everything! You are a genius sir.

Bush: Thank you, thank you. I do surprise myself. Now, our mission won’t be complete without crashing a plane in the middle of f@#$ing nowhere.

Cheney: Yes! The middle of f@#$ing nowhere is perfect! We’ll say the passengers took control and brought the plane down! It will provide a nice heroic touch.

Bush: So what are we gana need to do to pull this off?

Cheney: Were gana have to make sure the brainwashing department is fully staffed and that we have misinformation specialists in key internet forums. I’ll put out some ads on craigslist.

Bush: Great! Now were also gana have to make sure that every single person we involve in this agrees to go along with it, and never tells anyone what really happened. Ever! Not to mention the cover up effort. So how many people are we gana need cooperation from?

Cheney: Well let’s see… Were gana need about 136 fake eyewitnesses to say the pentagon was hit by a huge plane, the Arlington County fire Department first responders to say they saw the remains of a large plane, a team of 100 forensic scientists to say they identified the remains of 184 passengers at the pentagon in the missile…uh I mean crash site, A few hundred people at the pentagon even though they will lose hundreds of their friends and co-workers, were gana need the FDNY firefighters to not ask for an investigation despite their brothers being killed in exploding buildings right in front of them…

Bush: Dam it Dick just tell me who!

Cheney: Ok, besides them were also gana need… The rest of the administration, The military, The FBI, The CIA, FEMA, NORAD, The FAA, The 9/11 Commission, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineers Association of New York, The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, Purdue University, The Silverstein group, American Airlines, United Airlines, Logan, Newark, and Dulles Airports, the secret government operatives who planted and detonated the bombs on the buildings, The companies those operatives used as cover, People who made the fake phone calls to the families, Popular Mechanics magazine, PBS, BBC, Miller Funeral Home, NY Governor Pataki, NY Mayor Giuliani, NY Port Authority, FDNY operations, NY Office of Emergency Management, CTL Group, Controlled Demolition Inc., Turner Construction, AMEC Construction Management, Bovis Lend Lease International, Tully Construction, Metal Management Northeast, Fresh Kills Landfill, The entire media…

Bush: Alright, Alright! Just get on it!

Cheney: But are you sure everyone will agree and stay quiet forever…even after we are not in power anymore?

Bush: Of course, it’s a great plan! We just have to watch out for those damn conspiracy theorists.

Cheney: Yea, after all they found out about the Martians we are hiding, we killed JFK, we really didn’t land on the Moon, and that Elvis is still alive… They find out everything. If we don’t contain them were sure to be executed.

Bush: God help us.

Gee, maybee the conspiracy ideas really aren’t that rediculous after all.

This spoof was inspired by www.debunking911.com .