portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation | political theory

The Problem With Conspiracy Theories

People today spend a lot of time talking about conspiracy theories. These theories often do harm because they divert attention away from the facts and thereby allow real crimes and other harmful effects to continue.

For example, take the most popular conspiracy theory of recent times—the official account for the crimes of 9/11.
 http://digwithin.net/2018/02/11/the-problem-with-conspiracy-theories/

The Problem with Conspiracy Theories

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Kevin Ryan

People today spend a lot of time talking about conspiracy theories. These theories often do harm because they divert attention away from the facts and thereby allow real crimes and other harmful effects to continue. Such conspiracy theories can be spotted based on three basic characteristics.

1. They lack evidence.
2. They spread widely before the facts are examined.
3. Much simpler alternatives are not considered.

For example, take the most popular conspiracy theory of recent times—the official account for the crimes of 9/11.

1. This theory was produced by mythologist Philip Zelikow, who, before the investigation began, created an outline that was kept secret from his own Commission staff. Zelikow's outline determined the outcome of the investigation before any facts were examined. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three times in its report that it could find "no evidence" related to important aspects of the crimes. Evidence that the Commission did rely on, as a basis for its report, was later found to be false. Similarly, the evidence collected and held secret by World Trade Center investigating agency NIST was later found to contradict the agency's conclusions. Much of that evidence is still being held secret including the computer model data that NIST was forced to substitute for physical testing that contradicted its conclusions.

2. The conspiracy theory reports provided by the 9/11 Commission and NIST spread quickly before anyone could examine them. Getting government representatives to commit to any explanation for what had happened on 9/11 took years but, once ready, news media sources were prepped in advance to allow rapid parroting of the official line. The timing of NIST's reports coincided with political events, like each anniversary of the 9/11 crimes, so that media could quickly present the official story while public interest was high but critical review was not possible. With the report on WTC 7, the public was given just three weeks to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making. The report was later found to be unscientific and false.

3. The official conspiracy theory for 9/11 calls for belief in unbelievable things. That is, to believe the official account you must accept that otherwise honest military leaders will lie repeatedly for years to make themselves look bad. Buildings will collapse in unprecedented ways, through the path of most resistance, with no scientific evidence to explain it. The Secret Service will fail to do its job, insider trading can occur with no insiders, and "the enemy"—a vaguely defined group of dark-skinned people who just happen to live on strategically critical resources—can remain omnipotent and elusive. All the while, much simpler explanations are evident but cannot be considered.

The official conspiracy theory for 9/11 has led to tremendously harmful effects. Many Americans have forgotten completely what it means to be an American. An ongoing terrorism lottery, that could select any of us as a victim at any time, continues with no end in sight. And the 9/11 Wars that were based on the official account are bankrupting the nation both financially and morally.

Yes, conspiracy theories are a problem when not examined closely. Let's all take a closer look  http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners/ at this one.


___________



See Also —

The Terrorism Lottery
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2018/01/435459.shtml

Real Americans Question 9/11
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/04/434629.shtml

Russia Conspiracy vs 9/11 Conspiracy: U.S. Corporate Mass Media
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/06/434844.shtml

Sixteen More Reasons To Question 9/11
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/09/435067.shtml

The New York Times' 9/11 Propaganda
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/11/430932.shtml

How To Spy The 9/11 Lie
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/10/430687.shtml

Propaganda Can't Melt Steel Beams
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431300.shtml

The Continued Denial of Science in America
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2018/01/435415.shtml

homepage: homepage: http://digwithin.net/2018/02/11/the-problem-with-conspiracy-theories/
address: address: Dig Within


The irony being the author, Kevin Ryan, is a conspiracy theorist 15.Feb.2018 13:56

DBG

The irony being the author, Kevin Ryan, is a conspiracy theorist. Ergo, makes perfect sense he posted this to an IMC ridiculously tolerant of conspiracy theories. More about Kevin Ryan:

 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=kevin+ryan

For those unfamiliar with Ryan's "work", he was involved in a fraudulent "peer reviewed" scientific paper:

 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145354

"Watch the truthers scramble to defend Bentham's lousy peer review policy. Just imagine what they'd be doing if the shoe was on the other foot. Remember David Chandler accused NIST of fraud, and Kevin Ryan (one of the authors of the active thermitic paper) is implying that some of the companies who participated in the NIST investigation may have perpetrated the murders of 9/11 themselves!"

He's a loon.

RE: "More about Kevin Ryan" — Try harder next time. 15.Feb.2018 15:15

_

what, this is supposed to be sum sorta Ad Hominem / discredit the messenger feeb-ness?

Articles from 2009!?

from a Pro-U.S.-gov-Story-Of-911 web site "Int'l. Skeptics" (wannabe Sherlock Holmes' from middle school who started their own forum when they 'grew up')?

Sounds like 'Int'l Anarchists' or 'Int'l Atheists', but with a little less (If That Is Even Possibly Conceivable) purpose in their lives.




Lol.



and if you're here to purportedly "Ryan-cleanse" you've only just scratched surface... ('DBG' that's a new one)

Ryan's Dig Within site articles have been reposted here, by yours truly, for several years. He always has many referenc

Click the 9/11 Topic Pages link for more

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/

go ahead..... Don't be skeeered.... You can click it.

The Earth Is A Sphere = Conspiracy. 15.Feb.2018 15:18

_

it isn't flat, but... it's not a perfect spherical shape either.

@ "_" 15.Feb.2018 19:31

DBG

"from a Pro-U.S.-gov-Story-Of-911 web site"

So you've got something against credible sources. Noted.

" credible sources " — Ok let's all see _yours_ . 15.Feb.2018 20:55

_

( hint: a Sherlock Holmes-impersonator site is not "credible" )


the U.S. government (division of Commerce Dept.) laboratory NIST has an explanation, from their official report, of the *PRIMARY CAUSE* for why the Twin WTC Towers collapsed on September 2001.


Care to inform us what that primary cause of collapse, is?


( no cheating now; you could look it up in the billion-places the NIST report was posted on DeeInternetzz but... we want your own, DBG-words capsule summary )

Hint2 : it's a simple answer.

Form of —

" ___________ was the cause of the WTC 1 / WTC 2 tower collapses " that day.

Your Move

InternationalSkeptics.com >> JREF >> James Randi, "magician". LOL 15.Feb.2018 23:19

_

'International Skeptics' forum huh?

started out as JREF James Randi Education forum...

NOW we are talking *credibility* with a capital C !

as in Conjuring.

Carnival roadshow.

Mentalist (in nightclubs).

Astrologer (in tabloids).

High school dropout.

Tricks.

Magician ("retired stage").


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

Randi was born on August 7, 1928 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the son of Marie Alice (née Paradis) and George Randall Zwinge. He took up magic after seeing Harry Blackstone Sr. and reading conjuring books while spending 13 months in a body cast following a bicycle accident. He confounded doctors who expected he would never walk again. Randi often skipped classes and, at 17, dropped out of high school to perform as a conjurer in a carnival roadshow. He practised as a mentalist in local nightclubs and at Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition and wrote for Montreal's tabloid press.

In his twenties, Randi posed as an astrologer and, to establish that they were actually doing simple tricks, he briefly wrote an astrological column in the Canadian tabloid Midnight under the name "Zo-ran" by simply shuffling up items from newspaper astrology columns and pasting them randomly into a column. In his thirties, Randi worked in the UK, Europe, Philippine nightclubs, and all across Japan. He witnessed many tricks that were presented as being supernatural. One of his earliest reported experiences is that of seeing an evangelist using a version of the "one-ahead" technique to convince churchgoers of his divine powers.

LOL! finally some CREDIBILITY!

Admittely "_" has a point.... 16.Feb.2018 16:00

DBG

As much as Skeptics is a useful debunking resource/place to chill, it is not 100% objective re: persons like Kevin Ryan.

Wikipedia OTOH comes close:

"n April 2008, a letter titled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," was published by Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley in The Open Civil Engineering Journal."
[this was the vanity press fraud]


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-30


Rationwiki is simular to skeptics, but with better discipline, except they don't even mention him.
Also, he has no wikipedia page. Other sources are dripping with woo.

If you can find a credible mainstream source for Ryan's work, power to you. Otherwise you have to admit he's a fringe crank.

" credible mainstream source " = By Definition U.S. government story-support 16.Feb.2018 16:30

_

AE911Truth.org is credible, but they are not "mainstream" because their full mission — as engineers, architects, scientists — is alternative explanations for events on 9/11 with particular focus on New York City, the WTC collapses, and the NIST report.


If you want to begin to discuss *alternatives* to the Official U.S. Government story of 9/11, any _alternative_ to or deviation from that story, is by definition not "mainstream".
( Nor — by the same token — is CNN, Popular Mechanics, etc. by definition "credible". )

All 'mainstream' (however one defines that) mass media, particularly U.S.-based publishing, news, entertainment, internet-based and other media sources, adhere fixedly to the U.S. Government Official story of 11 September 2001 events.

the topic of 11 September 2001 is not merely boiled down/reduced to "show me a mainstream source".
(One must be particularly cautious, for example, when searching YouTube for 9/11 topic videos and documentaries, while excellent, useful guidance there does indeed exist.)


I strongly encourage you (as ^^ before) to study the <---- 9/11 Investigation pages of PDX IMC, many more of Ryan's articles are linked as well as so many other excellent references, researchers, documentaries etc.

RE: "place to chill", You Gonna Answer That Question Or — ? 16.Feb.2018 16:39

_

You obviously have a casual attitude towards not only backing up your assertions with solid references (e.g. linking to a site based on work of carnival roadshow astrologer),

but you don't really seem interested in meaningful topic research or discussion.

( Having said that I sure ain't expecting much outta ya from this point forward... )


Answer the question (^^ previously asked  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2018/02/435503.shtml#452070 ) please, about NIST report conclusion on cause of WTC tower collapses.

What's Your Problem? 16.Feb.2018 21:12

blues

I have no problem with conspiracy "theories". After all they turn out to be accurate 99% of the time. If you don't like it, sue us.

I apologize for not living to post at Indymedia....geez 19.Feb.2018 18:32

DBG

K, let's do this, cuz I want to eat dinner.

@" credible mainstream source " = By Definition U.S. government story-support 16.Feb.2018 16:30
"_"

That's a big barrel of woo ya got there. You've painted yourself in a corner; if ALL mainstream sources are "in on it" then what's the point?
In fact, mainstream sources are credible because they support the known facts and best evidence. In this case yes that means supporting most of the "governement's story", because that's the story. Natch.

"AE911Truth.org is credible, but they are not "mainstream" because their full mission — as engineers, architects, scientists — is alternative explanations for events on 9/11 with particular focus on New York City, the WTC collapses, and the NIST report. "

The fact 'Arts and Entertainment for 911 Truth'(couldn't resist) has a "full mission" to make up alternative explanations for something that has been explained, by definition shows it lacks credibility. Don't the use the Bentham open Journal vanity press fraud as "evidence"?
Oh yeah, they do:

www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/563-niels-harrit.pdf



@ "RE: "place to chill", You Gonna Answer That Question Or — ? 16.Feb.2018 16:39
_"
(probably same person, but you never know...)
You wrote:
"You obviously have a casual attitude towards not only backing up your assertions with solid references (e.g. linking to a site based on work of carnival roadshow astrologer), "

But you failed to read your own post:

"he briefly wrote an astrological column in the Canadian tabloid Midnight under the name "Zo-ran" by simply shuffling up items from newspaper astrology columns and pasting them randomly into a column."

While not exactly ethical, Randi did prove daily horoscopes are a bunch of random mumbo jumbo.

That's not to say Randi hasn't had problematic associations.


-- Micheal Shermer tops the list. Once a respectable skeptic, he now lives under a cloud after his history of alleged sexual assault came to light:

 link to freethoughtblogs.com

 link to www.buzzfeed.com

James Randi was aware of complaints, and because Shermer wasn't violent, ignored them:

""Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that[.] I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference. His reply, [... ] is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn't remember. I don't know — I've never been drunk in my life. It's an unfortunate thing ... I haven't seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I'd have him out of there immediately. I've just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.
—James Randi

As bad as that all is, from a purely skeptic angle the worst news is the Shermer, in addition to being a predator, may well be a grifter as he has a more than cosy relationship with nemesis and Holocaust denier David Cole:

 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278713
 http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232

The photo in particular is pretty devastating to anyone who had the idea Shermer and Cole were enemies:

 link to www.countercontempt.com

To date Shermer has not addressed the issue, leaving the question open on when his real agenda was for "debunking". Fortunately, he's not irreplaceable.


---Next: D.J. Grothe former manager of the James Randi Forum

 https://the-orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2014/06/01/d-j-grothe-psychopath/

"But let there be no mistake. "Person B" is D. J. Grothe. He has privately contacted Pamela Gay to coerce her to make a public statement that Michael Shermer did not "lunge" at her breasts at Dragon*Con in 2008. He has threatened that if she doesn't, he will start contradicting her in public, providing "documentation", and contacting the employer who already made her life hell for simply discussing the fact that women face harassment."


These two examples point to Randi, while being very book smart, has trouble reading people even in very serious situations.
---The worst case, as a skeptic, has got to be William Rodriguez, twoofer celebrity, who used to work with Randi:

 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9215572&postcount=8

The jury is still out on how much of a scam Willie's "truther" career was.



What does this prove? Even smart people can be fooled and make bad judgment calls. That doesn't invalidate the facts and documentation they cite.


For the record, Randi is no longer involved with running the forum.
Is that it? We good? Awesome.
TTL

here here 04.Mar.2018 22:40

--) | (--

good points DGB

here here [correction] 04.Mar.2018 23:15

--) | (--

[correction]

good points DBG

All "mainstream" 911 based solely on U.S. Gov and NIST — 06.Mar.2018 18:17

_

That is,

if you believe / adhere to the official story of what occurred on 11 September 2001,

you have based your belief-adherence solely on what the U.S. government (CIA, NSA, Pentagon, State Dept., top politicians) and the Commerce Department subsidiary, NIST and its associated labs, has spread around via U.S. corporate mass media about that days events.

Let's unpack the NIST component: a mere handful of corporate-employed academics who contracted to that .Gov institute, are responsible for the 'conclusions' about what happened to the World Trade Center towers in New York City.


There are thousands of academics, practicing engineers and scientific experts who do not think that the U.S. government-circulated story about what occurred is at all explanatory or even barely adequate.