This year there was a turning point, for the first time the public began to believe scientists and not conspiracy theories, after in-depth work done by bodies such as SKEPTIC.COM and dedicated websites designed to disprove the theories
On the same topic on the science website
- An article from 2003 dealing with conspiracy theories
- 2,777 Fahrenheit - If steel doesn't break, towers don't collapse
- The stray missiles of religion
Since the attack on September 11, 2001, many conspiracy theories have appeared on websites, books and films, many groups and individuals promoting these theories are now identified as part of the 11/9 Truth movement.
The latest innovation is a claim that all the planes that crashed were dummy planes flown by remote control, and that the passengers are alive and well in Tahiti.
Within six hours of the attack, chat room ideas appeared on the Internet claiming that the collapse of the towers looked like an act of controlled destruction. "If in a few days no senior official mentioned anything about the part of the controlled demolition," writes one of the critics, "I think we have a serious problem."
The first theories focused on various aspects of anomaly in the publicly available evidence, and critics later developed them into specific theories about deliberate connection. One of the claims circulated by email and online at the time is that no Jews were killed in the attack, so it must be the work of the Mossad, not Islamic terrorists. (Incorrect figure, at least a hundred Jews, including several Israelis, were killed on planes and in the towers, with the most prominent story being that of the founder of Akmai, Daniel Levin, who was on one of the planes that took off from Boston and tried to prevent the hijacking, he paid for it with his life during the flight to the Twin Towers, as emerges from a conversation of The telephone of the flight attendant Betty Ong for the airline company American Airlines, AB).
The first comprehensive theories appeared in Europe. A week after the descriptive attack, the "inside job" was mentioned in Le Monde. Other theories began to appear all over the world within weeks. These theories were popular in Europe, but the American media treated them as either embarrassing or amusing and they were dismissed by the American government as a product of anti-Americanism.
In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on November 10, 2001, President Bush denounced the "emergence of outrageous conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the blame from the terrorists to other directions."
Surprisingly, the conspiracies started precisely in the radical left. Initially, they gained a foothold in Arab countries and other Muslim countries, led by Pakistan. In 2004, the theories began to take root in the United States as well, mainly because it was a legitimate way to criticize the war in Iraq and the re-election of Bush, rather than due to a new discovery or an improvement in the quality of the presentation of the theory.
The Knight Ridder website theorized that the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, contrary to President Bush's claim on August 6, 2001, and the reports that NORAD lied to the 11/XNUMX commission will fuel conspiracy theories.
Between 2004 and 2006 coverage of conspiracy theories in the mainstream media also increased. As a result of the growing popularity, the US government released its response to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards (NIST) of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and a 2006 State Department document refuting the theories.
In 2006, a document dealing with the national security strategy stated that terrorism thrives thanks to a subculture of conspiracy and deception, and that "terrorists manage to more effectively recruit people from populations whose information about the world is full of conspiracy due to those theories.
The diversion released indignation and filtered out facts that could challenge prejudices and propaganda. "Al Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attack, when bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri (now the head of al Qaeda) accused Iran and Hezbollah of defaming the Sunni successes in harming America by spreading rumors that Israel carried out the attack.
Some of the conspiracy theories about the 11/XNUMX attacks do not include representational strategies typical of many conspiracy theories that clearly distinguish between the good and the bad, between the guilty and the innocent. Instead, these theories describe a state of negligence and complexity. Mathias Broekers, one of the first to propose such theories, dismissed the administration's official version of the attacks as conspiracy theories in their own right that seek to reduce complexity and 'explain the inexplicable.'
A study by Zogby from August 2007, published on the 911Truth.org website, found that 63.6% of Americans believe that fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for the events of September 11, while 26.4% believe that some government officials knew about the impending attack, but allowed the events to happen for political, military and economic reasons. -4.8% of the public believes that "some elements in the American government actually planned or assisted in some aspects of the attacks".
A study conducted by journalist Elizabeth Woodworth from the Globalization Research Institute revealed that the increasing presence of these arguments in the mainstream media reflects the improved professional approach within the 11/XNUMX truth movement.
In 2007, the German television station ZDF broadcast a film called "September 11, 2001: What Really Happened". Three years later, the same station conducted a survey in which 67% of the respondents identified President Bush (27%), the US authorities (27%), and the arms lobby (25%) as being responsible for the attacks, and only 25% chose Osama bin Laden as responsible. Mainly due to the popular 11/XNUMX denial movement in Germany.
In 2010, the International Center for 11/XNUMX Research, a private organization that claims to be sympathetic to conspiracy theories, won a lawsuit to release videos collected by the American Standards Institute about the attack and the events behind it.
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the films released briefly before the ninth Remembrance Day provided "new fodder for conspiracy theories". Many of the films show images of building number 7, a skyscraper in the World Trade Center complex that also crashed that day. Eyewitnesses reported explosions occurring before the collapse of the two towers, but experts described these theories as nonsensical.
The claims in short
The administration knew and did not prevent or even help the success of the events. As proof of this they brought a quote from one of the members of Tony Blair's government who said that the US government knew and failed to prevent it. The FBI investigator who participated in the investigation of Zacharias Mousavi, sent a letter in August 2001 to his superiors in Washington, saying that he was trying to prevent someone from hijacking a plane and crashing it into the World Trade Center.
Also the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Baum supported this position when he said in a speech on September 23, 2010, "Some elements within the administration planned the attack to reverse the deteriorating American economy and its influence on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime."
internal trade
Shortly before 11/XNUMX, speculators bought options on United Airlines and American Airlines, and the event was designed to drive the stocks lower so that the PUT options would skyrocket.
Israeli agents
The claim was that Israeli agents might have known in advance about the attack. Four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who photographed the smoke billowing over New York from the roof of a van in the parking lot of a residential building for "suspicious behavior." The Israelis filmed the event and one of the bystanders said that they behaved suspiciously. "They seemed happy, not shocked. It looks strange." The Jewish newspaper Forward wrote that the five were later released and concluded that they had no prior knowledge, and that a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said that Israel is not involved in espionage in the US.
The collapse of the World Trade Center
Critics of the Standards Institute's report on the destruction of the World Trade Center played a major role in arguing that the buildings were deliberately destroyed, especially building number 7.
The claim is that the cause of the collapse of the North Tower, the South Tower and Tower No. 7 was not the planes that collided nor the fire that followed, but explosives that were hidden in the buildings in the first place.
Proponents of the theory of intentional destruction, such as physicist Steven Jones of Brigham Young University, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and others claim In an article that was accepted into a scientific journal Because the impact of the planes and the rockets could not have weakened the buildings enough to cause the catastrophic crash, and that the buildings could not have collapsed completely and at the speed they did, without additional energy that weakened their structure. Jones and his colleagues had no explanation for how a large amount of explosive material could be inserted into two buildings without attracting attention, but mentioned attempts to investigate maintenance activities in the weeks leading up to the incident.
Studies done to test Jones's claims.
Brent Blanchard, author of "The History of Deliberate Demolition of Buildings in America" who corresponded with Jones claims that questions about the vitality of Jones's theories remain unanswered, for example the fact that no demolition team was present at the scene, that no signs of the presence of explosives were found during The eight months of clearing the ruins.
The Pentagon
According to some of the theories, the US government deliberately chose not to shoot down the plane that made its way to the Pentagon, while other theories claim that the Pentagon was not hit at all. Other theories claim that something else and not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but a missile launched by one of the American security forces. In response, Matt Susan, a professor of civil engineering at Purdue University, says: The shape of the hole should not be a caricature of an airplane like in cartoons. One wing of the plane hit the ground and the plane collided with the building's load balancer columns"
Flight 93 crash - shot down by a fighter jet
The fourth plane hijacked on 11/93, United Airlines Flight XNUMX crashed in an open field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after a passenger mutiny and was the only one that did not reach its destination. One of the popular conspiracy theories claims that the plane was shot down by an American fighter jet. One of the apparent proofs is that the engine landed many kilometers away from the rest of the fuselage.
According to some of the theories, the plane was shot down by the government because the passengers discovered the intention to hit one of the government buildings. The SKEPTIC magazine said that this statement is incorrect, and that the engine is about 300 meters from the main crash site and that the location is consistent with the direction the plane was flying."
And as for the fighter plane? The FBI confirmed that there was indeed a Dassault Falcon executive plane in the area, which was asked to descend to 1,500 feet to scan the impact. Ben Salini, who was the director of operations for the FAA that day, said that no fighter jets approached Flight 93.
The film Loose Change claims that the flight actually landed safely at the Ohio airport and that it was a remotely operated doppelganger that crashed in Pennsylvania. They cite as proof a report by a local TV station that Flight 93 landed in Ohio but it turned out to be a 1989 Delta flight mistakenly identified as Flight 93.
How skeptics deal with 11/XNUMX denial
Skeptics all over the world are now faced with the huge number of people who believe in all kinds of conspiracy theories, from the assassination of President Kennedy to the origin of the AIDS virus.
The SKEPTICS.COM website is celebrating today the tenth anniversary of the event in which the skeptics had success against the deniers - the world of connection theories about September 11. Thanks to the work of Michael Shermer and James Maggis, together with rank-and-file skeptics and field activists. Critical thinking has succeeded in challenging the proponents of these theories.
A tragedy on such a scale that it can be compared to Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination is bread and butter for the subculture of inventors of connection theories, but the success of the viral film Loose Change and the movement it created was unprecedented. The millions of viewers that made it the most watched movie on the Internet in 2005, posed a challenge to those who seek to protect history from pseudo-historians.
Within a few years, the "Truth Movement" regarding September 11 collapsed. Aside from the inconsistencies in their theories, the downfall of the 11/XNUMX denier juggernaut, was classic skepticism of the kind that James Randi uses to challenge claims of psychic powers and faith healers. The skeptics are more successful than they think, and it's important to give credit where credit is due.
The deniers put their gold on internet-based content, which was a big mistake, what seemed like a paradise for science fiction. The internet is unedited, without fact-checking or a minimal journalistic standard, has also become an excellent place to set up a quick-fire system of blogs and forums to fight back. Using the technical information found in the Standards Institute, FEMA and academic journals, websites such as ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com were able to refute the deniers' claims as soon as they arose. This success forced the deniers who spread their doctrine on social networks such as Facebook and the blogosphere - to be pushed into a rhetorical corner in which they are forced to repeat claims that have already been denied dozens of times.
And so, the next version of the film Loose Change was already much longer, but included much less content and did not contain a single positive claim. This is the result of bombarding the film producers with the facts via the Internet.
The website that centers the refutations of conspiracy theories
41 תגובות
What messenger of the government/the Mossad/the Shin Bet? All rationalist. If everyone starts believing every nonsense someone says, just not the scientific truth, we won't get very far.
When you put in a space where a sausage cat is walking around, it will move to it until the goal is achieved to eat it.
The aforementioned cat will not investigate any other event in the same space that does not stimulate its instincts.
Avi Bilzovsky, you are like a goal-locked cat who does not want to explore beyond the rational.
If you are a government/institution/Shia emissary then I understand your work method on the website and its role here on the internet.
But if you are a person thirsty for objectivity you must seek the truth impartially and not give up on yourself until the truth is completely proven.
The twin incident is neither a coincidence nor random and its reasons are unknown to most of the public.
There are people who are exposed to information from their occupations and recognize a discrepancy between what is said in the media and the reality known to them, therefore a lot of material appears on the Internet, some of which is true and some of which is not.
Father, I would expect you to be more open-minded and not as single-minded as a cat.
Remember that science is meant to take advantage of the weak.
Correction: * Bin Laden, who ran the most branched terrorist organization in the world, etc.
And sorry for the typos in advance.
In any case, I did not provide the sources for my words, but I trust the people of rationality who knew how to search for the information themselves and not accept talkback on the internet and journalistic sources (as important as they are) as my words as truth.
to the point
Your theory is self-contradictory and unfounded.
(1) To call bin Laden, who ran the most branched organization in the world, a "caveman", already shows a lack of understanding and ignorance.
I will use examples that are easy for you to understand: Do you know what the capabilities of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are? Do you know what Hezbollah's capabilities are? Do you know what the capabilities of al-Shabaab (the terrorist organization that controls Somalia) are? Are you aware of the capabilities of the Muslim Brotherhood? Are you even aware of the damage that one person, without organizers, can cause (see the attack in Norway)?
Now, try again to understand, what are the capabilities of the "parent" organization of these terrorist organizations.
(2) Are you aware of the number of people killed by terrorism each year? Are you aware that every day there are hundreds to thousands of deaths (Muslims!) due to terrorism? [From the Philippines and Thailand, through India and Pakistan, Nigeria and Sudan] Could not the extremists who blew up the trains in Spain and England in the previous decade, who hijacked dozens of planes in the seventies and eighties, hijack another plane again, and this time too - smash it like suicide terrorists and not ask for a ransom? impossible?
(3) Now regarding oil - this has already been completely disproved. The US is paying dearly for the increase in the price of oil barrels:
(3.1) The cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has so far been about a trillion dollars. The largest oil producers are OPEC companies (which includes, among others, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab countries). Every increase in the price of oil brings more money to the enemies of the USA, which means more money for terrorism, which means a security threat and greater security expenses for the USA.
(3.2) What a wonder, Afghanistan is one of the smallest oil producers today, and the amount of oil production in Iraq only went down by more than 20% when the US entered the war in 2003. Beyond that, "the Americans took over the oil fields"?... How many contracts did American oil companies sign in Iraq? How many non-American companies signed, of course you don't know, (you are welcome to check) but you are comfortable talking.
(3.3) The correct thing is that maintaining a low price was beneficial to the USA, the largest consumer of energy (and oil) in the world.
To say that the long arm of the USA caused this is a claim tainted with anti-Semitism. (After all, the same people say who rules the world? The US, and who is willing to accept the truth of "world rule", Yamromi rules the US? Of course, the Zionist lobby, and who is not in the Zionist lobby? The Jews, etc.)
I think that a conspiracy theory about a single event should start from an event where a reasonable person thinks to himself "It is impossible that something with such a tremendous impact happened so easily".
This is why there will always be conspiracy theories for the Kennedy murder, or the Rabin murder. People have a hard time digesting that the leader of the free world at the time, just got shot in the head so easily.
Equally people just can't understand how a few Muslims with a Japanese knife brought down the Twin Towers. Because this was not perceived - these theories are created.
Conspiracy theories about long processes, it is more difficult to explain their mental origin. For example, the theory that the Americans fabricated the moon landing, or that they are hiding connections with UFOs.
I didn't read the whole article because I know the conspiracy arguments and their refutations from years past and they haven't changed much over time. I just wanted to say that it is very infuriating to see how every year in honor of 11/9 Channel 8 presents, among other documentaries, the film Loose Change as if it were a legitimate documentary. It is quite similar to showing a film that denies the Holocaust, on Holocaust Day.
And of course:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
I rest my case.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
No matter how history perceives it.
Father, yes I would have believed the "official version" if it had included everything.
But what to do, it does not include the most important thing, money.
The only ones who made a lot of money from the whole event are the Americans who entered Iraq.
They took over the oil fields. And since then oil prices have risen from $20 to more than $140 per barrel.
So which interests are stronger, which motivations are stronger? of some caveman who launches terrorist attacks from caves.
Or trillions of dollars from oil?
Follow the Money.
motives. Police investigators know that everything is based on motives.
am i crazy Devote an hour and forty-five minutes to something that is nonsense and a lie in advance? Is someone paying me for this time? For this there are people I trust one hundred percent, Michael Shermer and his friends.
Why do we even have to accept all this garbage after it has been unequivocally disproved and when the alternatives do not meet the simplest test of logic, unless it is distorted enough?
Aren't we supposed to be better than the Americans, a light to the Gentiles?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ&NR=1
to my father,
Watch the movie. But I find it hard to believe that even this could shake a dogmatic mind
Dear Mr. Avi and Mr. Yoel
Why not believe them?
You are the ones who don't believe them!
The boogeyman in his own right:
Osama bin Laden's authentic and original statement to the media 5 days after the attacks
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US
Yoel, those who are not ready to accept reality, there are enough websites for them. The science site is a site that promotes rationality. According to your response, it can be seen that you came to convince the rational people to give up on logic, so it is better that you give up on continuing the experiment. Especially in light of the mention of a heinous murderer and an attempt to remove the blame from him.
So what if Al Qaeda, which went on a jihad against the West, said this? So what if there are lots of facts that tell a simple story about a terrible event? That we will let a terrible and exciting event end in a simple story?
So what if Yigal Amir said he murdered Rabin and is paying for it in life imprisonment? After all, this is a defining event in the history of the State of Israel, so how can we let it end with a simple story of one person shooting with a gun and that's it?
There are all kinds of things that excite all kinds of people. Some are available to all (motorcycles, for example). Others need to be nurtured and come up with practices like the above.
It has nothing to do with the facts outside, it has to do with a mental structure inside.
The truth is simple, there are radical Muslims who do not like the West, because America steals Saudi Arabia's oil, because of the intrusions that Western culture causes it (which we understand as improving the status of women), and finally because it helps Israel (which in their eyes is an unforgivable sin).
Why not believe them, they say it themselves, on every tape and on every other occasion?
Father I will not whine.
The evidence indicates that the administration is hiding the truth.
what is the truth At the moment this is nothing more than speculation.
All I am claiming is that it is appropriate to call for the opening of an objective investigation into the events of the twins
Osama, you are close to being blocked with your harassment, all these things have answers on the various sites, before you spew your nonsense here, search the sites that I referred to and that a fan referred to and if you don't find what you are looking for, then come back here.
Lyovev, look how close building number 7 is to the two huge towers (remind you more than 100 floors each of the two main ones), it's obviously a chain reaction, especially when it was already damaged earlier during the impact of the two tall towers and therefore it was even announced to be evacuated.
Indeed the US president has bosses - 300 million to be exact.
We have not received an answer to why WTC-7 collapsed.
The flight site in Pennsylvania is just a scrap pile that someone made ahead of time.
There was evidence that the second moose had no windows at all.
and on and on without end.
Answers, give answers.
lies upon lies. By the way, there is no problem for an intelligence organization like the CIA to use America's enemies against themselves. They have been involved in this since the beginning of existence, see the book "Legacy of Ashes" by Wim Wiener. By the way, in the USA there are secret ranks above the president. Even the American president (for example the current one - Obama) is a marionette without self-judgment.
R.H
I have an interesting example for you regarding stinkers.
According to the official conspiracy, the plane in the Pentagon hit a number of electricity poles before the impact and there is even a famous photo of a taxi driver (Mr. Lloyd England) who allegedly had one of the poles enter his windshield in the middle of the road.
He is a famous witness.
A group of private investigators went out and began interviewing a series of witnesses about where they saw the plane
(to the right of the road or to the left from where they saw, etc.) Then compare all the evidence
And they got a coherent track that all the witnesses without exception pointed to.
To their surprise, they discovered that the plane's trajectory contradicted the trajectory of the official version and could not hit the pillars at all.
After confronting the taxi driver and proving to him that he cannot be photographed where he was photographed.
He opens his mouth.
This is the relevant section from the investigative film itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
I think people just don't want to get involved.
Look what they call people who dare to ask questions - "deniers"
So what if he was bad, after all he hijacked the plane, no one could tell him how to fly. And besides, he only practiced takeoffs and not landings.
And one more thing, this is not the site from which Mako took the article, on a scientific site there should be completely different standards and not meaningless questions. Reality is hard enough, you don't need to complicate it on purpose.
Fan,
My mistake in translation. You are right, you need to be precise.
Hani Hanzour is indeed an amateur pilot with a commercial flight license
The word commercial license is misleading in Hebrew (you will soon see why)
From the New York Times article linked on Wikipedia:
In February 2001, Mr. Hanjour enrolled at a Phoenix flight school for advanced simulator training to learn how to fly an airliner, a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license. At the school, since closed, no one suspected that he was a terrorist. But instructors thought he was such a bad pilot and spoke such poor English that they contacted the Federal Aviation Administration to verify that his license was not a fake.
Also in the article you linked, he describes the big difference between the plane Hanzur knew (4 seats) and a commercial plane.
Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater
No place accepted him to work (Saudi Arabia) he was so bad
In the US they didn't want to rent him a Cessna plane, he was so bad
Regarding whether the maneuver in the Pentagon is possible
I'm not talking about pilots who think and say I can, the young pilot in the video also thought he could.
I'm talking about pilots who actually try - and no one succeeds.
Because it's fiction.
Your opinion that the recovery in the simulator is excessive is admirable
However, maybe it's time for you to read the official data for the speed and flight path 77
This is exactly the data that is entered into the simulator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Crash
Indeed, this maneuver is truly delusional
Osama bin Spaghetti Laden monster
The hijacker who flew the plane to the Pentagon was not an amateur pilot, but a commercial pilot's license holder. This is another example of the lies of the conspiracy theorists, because they are unable to deal with the official version (ie the truth) they make up imaginary stories about amateur pilots.
And certainly not all pilots think that this is something impossible, in fact most of them do not. For example read this:
http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
By the way, I watched "Restoration", and from what you can see it appears that it is not a restoration at all. The dive towards the Pentagon was made at a higher angle and speed than in reality, so it's no wonder they didn't hit it.
Thanks a fan.
In any case regarding 1 - this is what Shermer claims and this section in the subtitle is intended to emphasize this part of the article as well, even though it is physically the last part (for editorial reasons).
2. I also referred to old claims and their refutations.
3. fix,
4. This is what Wikipedia claims, although I may have caught the page during an editorial war between the left and the right. What's more, I didn't quote (for lack of space) an interesting quote on the subject - which is the twilight zone where the extreme left and the extreme right meet.
Regarding 6, I express my regret that I responded to the request of my colleagues and assigned Moshe Nachmani to translate the news in the field of heart because these people had a reasonable scientific credit, of course I did not know what became of the article until the writing of the current article and therefore I added the required comment. Regarding the nature of the journal, unless I know otherwise, peer-reviewed journals are acceptable to me, not everyone can publish in Science or Nature. But in light of this case and the case of REMOTE SENSING (the editor of the website resigned because the global warming deniers managed to plant an article in it in which he cast doubt on the computer models of the IPCC) I will try to be more careful regarding journals that are not of the first or second rank and which I have known for years.
Thanks for the recommendations on other sites.
And as for Michael Shermer - he is listened to, unlike me.
Here is a list of the mistakes I found:
1."This year marks a turning point..." - conspiracy theories have been on the decline for several years, and even at the height of their popularity, only a small part of the public supported them.
2. The claim that the planes were remotely controlled is an old claim (actually one of the oldest).
3. The information about Daniel Levin's murder came from a call made by flight attendant Betty Ong to American Airlines and not from the communications network.
4. The conspiracies did not start with the radical left, in the US there is a subculture (closer to the right side of the political map) that sees almost everything that happens in the world as a conspiracy and from which most of the conspiracy theories grew.
5. NORAD did not lie to the investigative committee, although some of the reports they submitted to the committee had incorrect details, but the investigation revealed that they resulted from mistakes in good faith and not from a desire to mislead.
6. "Supporters of the intentional demolition theory..." - Richard Gage and Jim Hoffman had no part in the article that even claimed that incendiary material was found in the ruins of the Twin Towers and not as written. What's more, the journal in which the article was published did not really meet scientific standards.
7. debunking911 is a good site but it mainly deals with the collapse of the buildings in New York and it has not been updated for a long time either. There are more comprehensive sites like 911myths and wtc7lies.
And with all due respect to Michael Shermer, I think the credit given to him in this case is too great.
It just explains why I have to manage alone in the defense of science, there is no one else who cares and that says something about the progress of our country.
Avi,
Yes, I saw. It's interesting that a "state" website like Mako relies on conspiracy websites and makes such an article, isn't it?
When there is a secret provocation, like what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, it has a pre-defined purpose: driving a simple process. In the above case, the documents proving it were leaked and the whole world knew (Daniel Aldsberg).
The claims of conspiracy in the context of 9/11 are disproved in every way and at the same time share the same structure that others like the Roswell aliens have. There is no purpose, there is something very secret, but everyone knows it, however it is impossible to prove it because it is secret - and precisely these elements are the proof that it is true.
The human need to find other explanations comes from other psychic sources, such as a fundamental lack of trust in those above along with a belief that only great powers such as the state can do such a thing.
But we have already noted that as soon as faith enters matters, any attempt at a rational discourse based on facts is doomed to failure.
After all, Amir will not redeem himself for murdering Rabin - and the simple fact that he himself admitted it will not change a thing and a half.
R.H. If you notice where the article in Mako is from (there is a link at the end), then you will realize that you have no one to talk to about a logical thought.
The main problem in my opinion with the whole story, including what was published in Mako, is that such an operation had to include hundreds to thousands of secret partners. Controlled explosion teams, engineers, planners, coordinators, news people, security forces people, government people, firefighters who hid evidence and much more. How is it possible that none of these are immoral enough to understand that they played into the hands of the government and contributed to the killing of thousands of civilians? After all, most of them are people who came to their positions out of a sense of mission and patriotism, could it be that they are all corrupt? Is there no one to reveal the truth? Will he present conclusive evidence? Could it be that even after the government changed to a democratic one, the secret was still kept?
In a media world like ours where no secret is kept, it seems very unlikely to me that such a secret would be kept or that someone would think they could carry out such a crazy and complicated idea without there being a leak.
In a world where President Nixon with all his power failed to prevent the Watergate leak (whose secret keepers were few), Clinton was unable to prevent the disclosure of the famous cigar whose secret keepers were a total of 2, Irangate, the atomic secrets, WikiLeaks and many other embarrassing affairs that were revealed, no It is possible that such a conspiracy would have come to fruition or that someone would have taken the risk. Just a matter of probability.
To remind you, Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character.
Marks, but that is exactly what a point pointed out in the comment above.
But for some reason when the government gives a conspiracy theory it doesn't "become dangerous when people start messing with it as something that leads to actions.."
And the actions of the US government since the event also include two wars and hundreds of thousands of casualties,
A fundamental change in individual freedoms in the US, etc.
And "like any radical religion or sect of any kind..." Anyone who goes against it becomes a denier according to the article
Certainly the conspiracy can be refuted since its story is based on physical events
(flight speed, aircraft maneuverability, fire and its results, etc.)
And the physical evidence is in complete contradiction to the government's story.
The following brief overview lists the possible causes of twin towers collapse
And what is the evidence that confirms or contradicts them
http://911crimescene.weebly.com/
Just to clarify, the official government version is that due to a fire the steel in the Twin Towers weakened
And what happened happened (and what happened is the heart of the matter)
The following recalls the trial of Sherlock Holmes.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
What is it based on?
Most conspiracy theories cannot be disproved, meaning they do not meet the principle of refutation which is the iron rule of scientific evidence.
And regarding the amateur pilot, when you say something is not possible, it does not prove that it did not happen. Prove it didn't happen, only then say it's not possible.
Anyway, conspiracy theories are nice as a game, but it gets dangerous when people start treating it as something that leads to actions. Like any radical religion or sect of any kind...
Sherlock Holmes says:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Example:
How does an amateur pilot, an alleged Muslim terrorist, with barely a Cessna license manage to perform a maneuver in the Pentagon with a commercial airliner that no other commercial pilot with thousands of hours of experience and with a fighter pilot background is able to perform in the simulator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMakBEECqA
This is the A and B of the scientific method - reproducing the experiment.
The American administration fabricated a story about the real events of the twin attacks, but why?
This is already speculation.
But the fact that it is indeed a fiber is well established.
I don't believe in my government...
Abby, nice, except that I meant to attack the other direction.
I wanted to claim that all the other non-scientific things (articles that are published in newspapers, including dead masters, al-Qaidas of all kinds) are conspiracy theories for everything. The fact that the government publishes them does not make them scientific.
Definitely. What's more, science is also a theory, but it is one theory connected to a global system of conventions. In order to create a new theory that fits science, it must be based on the same laws and rules that science and logic (which the whole world has dictated since the dawn of history) use.
Conspiracies, on the other hand, do not use the logical laws defined by science, but provide imaginary hypotheses - where the connection of one hypothesis to another is based on coincidence and similarity, and nothing else. Therefore, there is no connection between conspiracy theories and scientific theories. What's more, it was possible to call conspiracy theories interesting literary theories
The two examples you gave have proofs, for example the particle accelerator for the first claim, and the STEREO satellites that orbit the sun in separate orbits from that of the earth and can therefore see it in XNUMXD.
The difference between science and conspiracy theory is that in science one refers to a fact, while in a conspiracy one either fabricates facts, or insists on believing in something illogical that contradicts the evidence and the facts, claiming that someone has some kind of interest in hiding something from us.
There are many more conspiracy theories.
There are those who claim that we are made up of very small particles.
There are those who claim that the earth revolves around the sun.
....
In short, if any idea, which is contrary to what is published by the leadership, is called a conspiracy. So almost everything is conspiratorial.
Well done, father, you summed it up nicely!
Some believe that the reason for the skepticism of the conspiracy theorists stems from the desire to validate (psychologically only) their belief - that everything has a reason (beyond dead chaos) and a guiding hand. that there are no coincidences. to feel a "kind of" security.
Personally, I think it's just childhood curiosity and madness - to give illusory explanations for things on which there is a blanket agreement (which clings to the facts of reality). that their immediate environment is very comfortable and pampering, and thus they simply continue with childish activities and pointless fantasies - because they have no need to deal with survival and daily racing.
If there are mistakes, please point them out and we will correct them, if indeed necessary.
my father
My father, as someone who is interested in conspiracy theories and knows that there is really nothing in them, I must point out that this article is one big mess and contains quite a few mistakes.