"Just because you're paranoid / Don't mean they're not after you" - Nirvana
We all like to feel that we are in control. This desire is so strong within us that we often use superstitions, supernatural beliefs and conspiracy theories to rationalize an influence on the things that affect our lives. So then even if things are not under our control, there is something controlling them. If some other agent is in control, even if they are hiding their actions from us, it leaves us with seemingly fewer unanswered questions.
I know I have been guilty of this. Now before I lose credibility, you need to know that I have never denied the moon landing, or claimed that ancient aliens made the Egyptian pyramids. But, there have been events that have happened when I thought that someone must be pulling the wool over my eyes. It is a compelling story, to believe that there is a group of people are responsible and I am part of a minority resistance to these "false" ideas. Ultimately though, if I can maintain my skepticism I will weigh the probabilities and find the real answers.
Truth is elusive. It has to be acknowledged that people lie, especially when there is something to be gained by keeping the truth to yourself. Sometimes people even believe their own lies. But it is also very difficult to have a second person lie on your behalf. It's exponentially harder to engage a third person, and so on. The bigger the circle gets, the less incentive there is for people at the fringes to keep it quiet. In the end, it is important to judge the likelihood that any story can be true when the facts weigh heavy on the other side.
I thought about this a lot when someone who is very close to me was spreading (on Facebook) the gibberish about a link between vaccines and autism. The truth is there is no link. The entire medical community agrees on this (with the exception of one dishonest doctor who published a flawed study and has been since had this article retracted and his license voided. He has made a lot of money, though...) I couldn't explain it better than to direct you to this post.. So why are we even having this discussion about it?
It's because if you have a loved one who is autistic, it is very disconcerting to imagine that we don't understand it, that we can't explain it, that we can't solve it. Someone will grasp onto anything that can help to understand it, and will accept any belief that gives hope, even if not for you but for someone else, that something can be done. Even if it defies reason.
We know that people don't listen to reason where their beliefs are concerned.
But if you are a health professional, what could be your motivation for lying about vaccines? Could you possibly want people to get ill? Of course not. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about? That's what medical school is for.
But when the common man doesn't understand medicine, is it reasonable to assume that the doctors also don't? If the common man doesn't understand climate change, can he also conclude that the climate change scientists also don't understand it? I hope you see where this is going.
I'm not saying that we just trust the experts or authorities. Sometimes these people are just self-interested. However, conspiracies are really difficult to pull off. Do you think there was a 9/11 conspiracy? Yes there was, as Michael Shermer points out; a group of Al Qaeda terrorists plotted to fly planes into buildings - that IN ITSELF is a conspiracy. But could it have been orchestrated by the Bush administration? Bill Maher jokes that it could not have been planned by Bush "because it worked!". This is a serious point, though - even a competent organization could not have carried out an operation of that magnitude without leaks, but for a couple of dozen terrorists it is possible. Yet believers are determined to find a way to prop up their beliefs.
I still struggle with apparent conspiracies. Is there a conspiracy between the food industry and the government to keep us unhealthy? No, but there is a conspiracy for them to try to make the greatest profit, and we need to keep on eye on things. And just because Monsanto is greedy and litigious does not mean that GMO food is bad for us (it's not) and that organic food is better for us (it's not). We need to look at the science - what do the experts say - and try to sort out the chains of self-interest to see who is being honest. And when we know that our government is doing things that are not in our best interest we need to stand up to them and set them straight.
In today's world there is so much information available that it's hard to know which messages to trust. Sometimes 30 seconds and Snopes is all you need to find out what is real, and most people don't even bother with that. Sometimes it takes more of your time to find out who is telling the truth, and the hardest part can be setting aside your preconceptions to be able to hear. But don't give up - be a seeker of truth, and be sure the things you say to others are well-considered.
I agree that Monsanto food is not bad for you. It's just bad for all the farmers of the world. I agree that Organic food is not better for you; its just better for your local economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everything in it. However, the apparent "size" of a supposed conspiracy is not a factor that proves or disproves it's existance. Take Mafia for example, it was just a "conspiracy theory". Lots of operations have been successfully ran and hidden for a long time, and they have involved lots of people. Operation Ajax as the most recent that came out. Operation Gladio, Northwoods (it was never put in effect, but it was planned and suggested until JFK put a stop to it).
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of examples that have come out much later, and a large group of people knew about them. When the group is like minded and driven towards the same goal, they are much more likely to keep it to themselves, especially since their own freedom is at stake. When people assess the size of the operation, for example 9/11, it's very easy to just exaggerate the proportions and make an intellectual case that it would be hard to keep under the wraps.
But when you go deeper into that thought, how many would you really need, who would actually KNOW they are part of a conspiracy, how many would need to know the whole plan? You can basically have most of the actual work done by people who have absolutely no clue that they are doing anything suspicious, or that they are part of something. And what is the incentive in coming forward afterwards if you have suspicion or doubt about your own possible involvement?
Media and society have made the atmosphere impossible for people to come out with what they know, if they don't have the whole plan and plenty of proof.
Say a painter came out and said there was something very odd about the procedure of how the new fireproofing paint was acquired by his painting company, for WTC buildings. Say he suggested that he might have been involuntarily part of something. What would the media and society do to him? He would be dragged down in the mud, since he did not really have any proof and even if he did, they would ridicule it and in society's eyes he'd always be wearing a tinfoil hat.He'd be shunned by humanity. Probably fired from his job etc etc (i.e Kevin Ryan).
I do understand the appeal in the argument that the size of conspiracy makes it less likely, but in the case of 9/11, I have to go with some sort of conspiracy (not the one of 19 arabs, even though they definitely were part of it, they just did not know it). I've spent thousands of hours over the years trying to make sense of that event, gone through all the BS claims and all the debunks to all of it, but one thing stands out...
There is no known mechanism for the free fall of WTC-7, other than controlled demolition. NIST tried to explain it, but they failed miserably. First they tried to ignore the free fall and avoid it by technical trickery, but they were forced to admit it later.
They attempted to explain it by using conditions that were not based on reality, and still to this day refuse to release the data of their computer model (which also fails to replicate what was seen). The crush down-crush up theory of WTC-1 and 2 is also unbelievable by any logic and defies newtons third law. But at least that one can be argued, so I'm not going to get into that. WTC-7 has never been explained, all the attempts have failed. The only option that fits the EVIDENCE, is controlled demolition. And you have to go where evidence leads you, no matter how awful the implications are.
It is impossible to build a model that will predict what could have happened. Too many factors, too complex. Something happened and that building fell. To claim that the US government did this to gain support for an oil war in the middle east is just sad.
ReplyDeleteI can't know all the reasons why it was done, of course there is a LOT of incentive in doing it. Not just an oil war.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could say that it was too complex, but it really comes to this....
If you have a structure, made of ANYTHING, let alone steel and concrete, it will always provide resistance to what ever falls on it. This resistance will be measurable and it will slow down what ever is laid on it. You put your foot on the floor, the floor stops your motion. Your foot meets resistance. Things do not fall through a metal structure with zero resistance. It is more absurd and against the laws of physics, than claiming that people do awful things for power and control. I'm ok with the fact that people always have and always will do these things, but I am not ok with the natural order, laws of physics, taking a break for an afternoon.
The "inside job" conspiracy has been debunked very thoroughly by many sources, so I will not do it here: frankly I discounted it very early on and have not bothered learning all the detail. I did watch Zeitgeist, which was hot garbage.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there are just too many pieces and it is simply too complicated for me to imagine that it could have gone off as the truthers describe. I would advise everyone to familiarize themselves with Bayes Thereom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxm4Xxvzohk
When I consider all the possible (and likely) outcomes of a conspiracy driven by the Bush administration, the events that actually take place do not seem to line up.
However, if you do believe that, there is probably nothing I can say that will change your mind. But just to be cheeky, there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwiA-Dosh-o
http://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98
DeleteParts of different theories have been debunked and that is nothing but good. All the "space beam" and "no plane" and other BS was exposed early on. Zeitgeist barely touches the subject and basically touches on circumstancial stuff rather than actual evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "as the truthers describe" I don't really know what you would refer to. There have been so many different theories about who and why and how, that there's no one competing theory to the arab conspiracy. Actually, the only groups of people who are in any way credible and evidence based in the "truther" community do not suggest they know who or why. They just focus on scientific evidence, instead of trying to solve the crime.
That is one of the main issues with it anyway. People shift their focus to "who and why" immediately, and do not even allow themselves to study evidence first and determine whether there is a case or not. When they don't do this, they will go by gut feeling, their predisposition, and the whole truth seaching is affected immediately. And this goes both ways, whether you choose to think it's absolute garbage, or if you choose to think it's the truth. In both cases, it's not based on evidence, it's based on predisposition.
I had not seen that video before (the truther one), funny stuff :) But in all honesty, it just jumbles up stuff and plays to the same predisposition that everyone in any way involved in such thing would first of all have to know they are involved, and that they would also know everyone elses involvement and the whole plan. If I were to plan a conspiracy, I think that would be the first thing I'd eliminate. You keep people completely in the dark about everything except what they absolutely have to know, to do their part. So the "no disclosure agreement" bit, while funny, is an insult to intelligence :)
Have people conspired for personal gain, on a large scale, and murdered innocents in the process? Yes. It's not even that rare.
Do steel highrises completely collapse due to office fires? Absolutely not. Has not happened before and has not happened since, and there have been way bigger fires in weaker buildings before and since. The only mechanism for taking down a building like that, in the fashion we saw, is to demolish it.
And there are over 2000 verified architects and engineers who call for a new investigation. Lots of good information on that site, if you are interested in the real claims and evidence that has NOT been debunked. The debunking community creates strawmen, beat on those and parade them as "now all claims have been debunked". It's all smoke and mirrors.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
A short 15 minute introduction to some of it:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw
I guess it would make sense to know exactly what part of the accepted story you object to. Is it simply that the buildings could not have fallen so quickly without being a planned demolition? There are explanations for that. I am not an engineer, but they make sense to me. And they do not require believing all the additional mayhem that must have taken place in order to plan a demolition.
ReplyDeleteYou have a website? So do the other guys.
http://www.debunking911.com/
You have 2000 engineers? I'm afraid that doesn't mean much - see Project Steve.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
The video pretty much sums up everything that I have a problem with.
ReplyDeleteIt does not make any sense, and there are no explanations (other than controlled demolition). Every attempted explanation completely fails.
For the longest time I tried to excuse it away, thinking that NIST will come up with a reasonable explanation. But then they came up with their Final report on building 7 and it provided nothing that stands up to any scrutiny, I gave up that hope.
Of course I'd be happy and relieved if they would come up with an explanation that works, but so far the only one that works is controlled demolition and I have to acknowledge it. I don't know who, I don't know why. I can speculate, but that's pointless. First you have to see that a crime has been committed, then you go after who and why.
NIST tried several different explanations, all were shot down. Now we are in a situation where they have released their final report, it's very easily refuted, but there will not be another report. So we have an unexplained event that goes against everything we know about physics. I have a problem with that.
And yeah I have gone through all the debunking sites, JREF forums about these subject over the years. When I evaluate information I have to see what both sides are saying. See, I don't "want to believe", but I also can't ignore what I have learned. And if new information comes to light that will change it, I will be happy to take that information and embrace it.
ReplyDeleteRight now, occam's razor says it was a controlled demolition. I know it's a very unpopular view to throw out there, and to stand by, but it is the one that evidence agrees with, so I have no choice.
I watched the video that you provided, Antti. I'm not convinced. I also think you are applying Occam's Razor incorrectly. I am guessing, at this point, that the only way for us to get to the bottom of this is to continue the discussion over beer :)
ReplyDeleteVideo is not supposed to convince you. It's supposed to provide the key points, since you were wondering what am I opposed to in the official story.
ReplyDeleteThe more detailed information is available, but of course going into technical detail in a video aimed to catch peoples attention is not going to work. They have a 2 and half hour video called "experts speak out" that you can find on youtube, it goes into much more detail. That video was basically just a trailer for it, or a small summary of the issues in the official narrative. On the site they have a lot of material, technical articles etc.
I am applying it correctly, I am going for the simplest theory that can account for the evidence. It is infinitely simpler to have people conspiring, than laws of physics suspended.
And I agree, we should do just that :)
One video, one piece of information never convinced me either. It was years of reading arguments and the evidence for them, then checking all counter arguments, and possible counters for those. Weighing the evidence back and forth. And still, even though I am rather convinced one way, there is always the possibility of being shown wrong.
ReplyDeleteHave to keep in mind though, the whole "debunking" community has been dead wrong at least twice. They stood behind the pancake theory because it came from an official source, until NIST showed it was completely bogus, and changed the "official story".
They adopted that immediately, without a thought given to the fact that they had been blindly standing behind an obviously false theory for years, just because it was from the source they approve of. Emperors new clothes, eh?
They stood behind the diesel fuel tanks exploding in WTC-7, until NIST determined no such thing played any part in the collapse. They stood behind the "wreckage from the towers played part in WTC-7 collapse" theory, until NIST shot it down.
It is not just in the "truther" circles that you find herds of people who lack the ability to question the source. I know a lot of those people call themselves skeptics, but I am far more of a skeptic than any of them are. They are not skeptic at all, they only question what they oppose.
I question everything, not just the side that I wish to agree with. I started agreeing with the official story, of course. Emotional response and obviously choosing a "side" that my world was closer to. It was only after a long time and a lot of insults to intelligence by the official story, that I was comfortable enough to say it was more than likely bogus. The evidence that has surfaced since has just strengthened that position and made it much easier to defend.