3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories

3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2009.


Conspiracy theories often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society.

<snip>

Two examples illustrate this point. While 9/11 "Truth" mainstay David Ray Griffin's rhetorical tactic of accusing those who don't buy into his version of events of "defending the official story" has become popular, the reality, at least in my case, is that I agree there are serious and unanswered questions about why 9/11 happened at all (as I wrote here almost three years ago).

<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/140066/3_good_reasons_(and_1_bad_one)_why_i_don't_buy_into_your_conspiracy_theories?page=entire

http://tinyurl.com/pv9qtg

ETA: Here is a single-page version: http://tinyurl.com/og85d6

and from 1964

straight from "shill central"

... and it is indeed a pattern of thought repeated by 9/11 conspiracists. And I'm talking as a reformed JFK conspiracist, myself. I was misled by such people into believing nonsense, which might be part of why I have so little tolerance for that kind of bullshit now. And, btw, your "shill" crap just makes you look even farther out of touch with reality, Spooky. A rational person should at least understand why so few people buy the 9/11 bullshit.

but don't want to go there, or get distracted by the mentality displayed in misleading articles like this

I am curious how what kind of JFK nonsense you were misled by -- examples please.

... which led directly to the obsessive search for evidence that JFK was really shot from the right front -- a classic example of "the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows." This is something I'm sure you won't appreciate, but the thing that eventually led to my stepping back and taking a close look at it all was the realization that it made no sense at all that anyone would plot such an assassination involving a second shooter in a crowded plaza. Why plot something that depended so much on nobody else being right where the second shooter intended to position himself? Why plot something that required so many people to participate in the coverup, and depend so completely on not one of those people deciding to confess? How would you even approach all those people and try to convince them to participate in a coverup? If anyone wanted to assassinate JFK, there was no need whatsoever for such a complicated and risky scheme in a crowded plaza, and it's just not very probable that they could really pull it off so successfully. No, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, but it does mean that you would need some very convincing evidence to prove that it did -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- and the evidence is just nowhere near that strong. As someone once pointed out about the JFK conspiracy evidence, all the really damning "evidence" was extremely dubious, and all the credible evidence was too ambiguous to reach any such conclusions.

invariably shows."

Personally, the only initial conclusion I made about 9/11 was that the official story was fishy. Then I followed where the evidence led me. I didn't suddenly decide they didn't use planes, for god's sake, then look for things that supported that. No planes is where the evidence led.

As far as JFK, it sounds like you are still being misled. Your conclusion about the grassy knoll really is not sufficient to overcome all the other problems of the assn.

Btw, JFK WAS shot from the front. The limo driver, William Greer, fired the kill shot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

slow it down? When the headshot hits JFK from the rear, his head DOES snap forward before it snaps back.

Of course Konspiracies exist. In what world do politics exist without conspiracies? Jesus Christ what a silly notion. This thread makes no sense.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

If you refute our goofy claims, that means you are defending the "Official story"

pick a side.

Remember when Bush said "You're with us or against us"? Same logical flaw. I'll be blunt. You don't want an open transparent investigation. You've made up your mind that "9/11 was an inside job" and any investigation that doesn't reach that conclusion will be unsatisfactory to you.

Here's a question. If you're such a great researcher, how come you haven't been able to persuade anyone besides yourself and a few other CIT types that no plane crashed in Shanksville?

It was a very simple question. He asked you:

Do you support a new open transparent investigation? yes or no

VERY EASY. My answer is YES.

Why can't you just answer the question? Maybe because by answering the question either way you expose yourself because the answer you want to give is NO.

You're a Complicated Kooky Cat SDuderstadt.

Not as logical, fairminded and even handed on all of this as you keep pretending to be. The CT deniers here on DU are very evasive to some very simple questions.

seems he tangled with the moderators. Get my drift? If you don't, look up his profile.

Shamelessly wasting everyone's time. Don't even care that we can all see you are just running people around in circles to no end and no purpose. Round and round, going nowhere. Knocking a subject off its feet, gumming up the works with your factless debunker replies so the thread goes nowhere. Someone brings up something interesting that points away from the Official Konspiracy Theory and you are right there to debunk it with no facts, no thought, no answers. Nothing but your word that whatever was up for discussion is not worthy of discussion because you say so. You Kooky Konspiracy Debunkers!

This thread is yours. You win.

you hate it when people derail your goofy claims with facts and logic.

P.S. You forgot to accuse me of "stifling the truth" and trying to "shut down debate".

"you don't seem to able to distinguish between legitimate questions about the preparedness of the Bush administration (they were asleep at the wheel, in my opinion), as well as their gross overreaction (as evidenced by invading Iraq)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=248009&mesg_id=248264


Anyone who could put forth a comment like that is nothing but a True Believer.

"Conspiracy theories often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society."


That's actually true about the Official Conspiracy Theory.

by their very nature they have to avoid substantive analysis

because with any substantive analysis of the entire picture you arrive at MIHOP, or 911 was an inside job

inside job".

Really? Where's the smoking gun, Kalun? Why is the "truth movement" unable to produce one?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

just cast apersions on my motivation?

Look, dude. I'm asking you for evidence of your claims, which you can't produce. JFK is one of my heroes, along with Jefferson and Lincoln. Don't you EVER accuse me of working for the people who killed him again or we can take it to the moderators of the forum, got it? If you accuse me once more of working on the "OCT disinformation campaign", the same thing will follow. You don't have real evidence of your goofy claims, so you engage in personal attacks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since when? I've been here since 2002.

DU started in Jan of 2001.

Early on it had a lot of cutting edge ground breaking "911 inside job" posting

but a search reveals it looks like it's been scrubbed.

I had 400 posts but can't find a single one of them.

I hung around Smirking Chimp more in 2001.

There are archives of the older board. If you Google search your name, you should find them.

somehow I'm afraid that isn't what you meant. Oh well.

ETA: Occasionally a substantively interesting post is deleted because it crosses some line in the rules, but from what I've seen, the vast majority of deleted posts -- regardless of their orientation -- are small loss.

was strong, of course there's no way to tell now because it was deleted.

and the answer to it was just a continuing thread of the argument so I'm clueless to why it was deleted other than is was strong.

I would suggest that you repost it without references to other DUers, including the moderators. Just as a guess, it probably ran into trouble there.

The idea that the moderators delete posts that they find too dangerously persuasive -- well, I find it very far-fetched. I don't think the moderators have time or inclination to screen posts for dangerous persuasiveness.

(edit to correct silly typo in subject)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do I know why a BBC broadcast that announced the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 bore a time stamp suggesting it was aired 26 minutes before the building fell?

Bzzzt! Wrong. The video in question SHOWS an intact WTC7 in the background while the announcer says the building has collapsed.


This is the problem-- either through stupidity or bias or shillaciousness, articles like this typically mis-state the conspiracy argument.

In fact they HAVE to, because to state the actual "conspiracy" finding, complicates their argument too much.

read the excerpt again. There is zero conflict between the excerpt and what you said.

I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right," Hayton concluded.
http://digg.com/world_news/Early_WTC7_BBC_Reporter_Says_There_May_Be_a_Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ

By making it a time stamp issue the uninformed reader might even conclude, that the piece did air after WTC 7 collapsed.

the BBC has adequately explained this.

Guys...anyone who cares about this issue already knows the basic facts...that Jane Stanley was reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed when it was standing behind her. However, without being told which building was which, do you honestly think ANYONE (including Stanley) knew that the building she was "reporting on" was standing in the background? News organizations go to great efforts to not only cover the news, but to "beat other news organizations to the punch". It was little surprise to most knowledgeabke people on the scene that WTC 7 was going to collapse, given the substantial damage when one of the other towers rained debris on it as it collapsed, as well as being engulfed in flames for much of the day, with FDNY being unable to fight it (for, among other reasons, that FDNY had determined the building was not stable enough to fight the fire without unnecessarily endangering the lives of the firefighters.

There are two primary possible explanations here. One is that the BBC, in it's haste and in the middle of a large-scale, catastrophic event jumped the gun and reported early what most people on the scene already knew was going to happen and Stanley, unaware of which building was which, did not notice the gaffe. Or, alternatively, the "perps" were so incompetent that the BBC (who would have had to be in on it) gave away the secrets of the plot or (assuming the BBC was not in on it) the perps clumsily blew their cover by arranging for the BBC to report an event that had not yet happened.

Which one do you think makes more sense?

that they were reading something from the wires, I think.

Why isn't the author writing about the facts? Just saying "I don't know" isn't enough, how about doing some journalism? And the issue is not a time stamp issue.


Richard Porter of the BBC discusses how the confusion of the day led to the report and that " investigations very strongly suggest we were working on the basis of an incorrect news agency report." They then mention that Reuters also had put out a false report. However, it was never in question that only the BBC put out the report, since CNN also made the report. Porter never directly claims that the BBC source was Reuters either. The question still remains as to the actual source of the report! The only thing the BBC can say is that it was an erroneous local story - but of course that day EVERY story from New York City was a local news story!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16564


At least he is linking to "what really happened".

If (as there was) a timestamp on the screen during Stanley's report, what Holland is saying is that the timestamp erroneously indicates that WTC 7 fell before it actually did. Why you think this is somehow nefarious is beyond me.

I think he is referring to this quote from whatreallyhappened talking about another news channel called BBC News 24

BBC News 24 also broadcast that WTC 7 had collapsed, and a corroborative time stamp was on their broadcast


He never mentions Stanley in his article, he doesn't mention the female reporter talking about the collapsed building while it's still behind her.
To me it sounds like he is questioning even the validity of the claim, that it aired before the tower collapsed. At least he gives a link so readers can inform themselves.


Do I know why a BBC broadcast that announced the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 bore a time stamp suggesting it was aired 26 minutes before the building fell? No, I don't, but I don't believe the U.S. government -- or whoever was really behind 9/11 -- would blow its cover by tipping off the BBC.

I got it wrong. My apologies.

> "21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed."

Easter Standard Time is GMT -5 hours, but NY is still on Daylight Saving Time in September. EDT is GMT -4, so the report was at 17:54 (5:54 PM) EDT, 34 minutes after the collapse.

collapsed. Not AFTER.

The Stanley report has already been explained by the BBC.

The 21:54 on the screen was not Greenwich Mean Time. It was the time in London.

England is not on GMT at this time of year. It is on British Summer Time(BST). BST is GMT +1.

That puts London five hours ahead of New York(GMT -4).

21:54 BST(9:54 PM) in London -5hrs = 16:54 ET(4:54 PM) in New York.

Whatreallyhappened said the 21:54 time was GMT, but I don't know why they thought that. Why do you think it's London time? I wouldn't be surprised if they used London time within Britain, but do they also use it for international broadcasts? I poked around a little on the BBC News site and couldn't really find anything. All I found was that their current schedules are using GMT (even though London would be on BST now), but that might not mean anything.

But anyway, if it's London time, that would just mean News 24 was probably re-reporting it from BBC World, and we already know that report was before the collapse, so it's hard to get too excited about it.

Show us the photos of the building 7 "substantial damage"


Show us the photos of building 7 "engulfed in flames" for any one moment in time, much less "much of the day"

with two conditions attached:

1) After you see these photos that establish exactly what I claim, I'd like to know why you, a seemingly particularly strident "truther" have not seen them before now. If the "truth" is important to you, why didn't you seek out evidence that disconfirms your theory? In fact, how did you embrace an alternative theory when faced with the lack of evidence for it?

2) I believe you have a duty to educate other "truthers" about this evidence, that is, if you guys are really interested in the truth. Somehow, I don't think you are.

Here's a picture of WTC 7 being damaged by the collapse of one of the towers:



And, another one:



And, another one:



And, yet one more:



What kind of damage was done?



Now, this is the photo that most "9/11 was an inside job" websites will show you to prove that the fires were "limited":



Here are the photos they won't show you:





http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_1.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_2.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_3.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_4.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_5.html



I think you've got some educating to do, don't you?

the first 4 photos you present are basically the same as what was already presented. They don't prove anything either way. They show images of a huge dust cloud that also contains debris. With the dust cloud obscuring how can you tell exactly what debris is hitting 7 and what kind of damage it's doing? On top of that they are too zoomed out/low res to get any detail even if you could see past the dust. There's possibly something hitting the building, it's not clear what and how much and what kind of damage. Verdict, INCONCLUSIVE.



the image shows damage to 18 floors of a 47 story building. About 3 windows wide max, on a building about 14 windows wide on this face and roughly twice as wide on the other face. So let's say the damage in this image is 18 stories high 3 windows wide and 3 windows deep. That's 162 cubic units (1 floor high x 1 window wide x 1 window deep) Actually it's probably about 1/2 that because the cut is probably diagonal, but with the addition of the damage shown in your 8th photo we'll give it that.

So the building is 47 stories high by 14 windows on one side and 28 windows on the other. That's 18,424 cubic units. The 162 cubic units of damage is less than 1 percent of the total building volume of 18,424. So less than 1 percent damage is "substantial damage" according to you guys.

How bad is 1 percent damage? Aren't these buildings designed to withstand hurricane force winds? Isn't that something like 150 mph? What was the wind load on that day? Don't large buildings like this also have something called "design redundancy"? What was the "design redundancy" factor on this building? Was it greater than a factor 2? (isn't it normally more than a factor 2?) In other words was it at least twice as strong as necessary? So you could remove a full 1/2 of the supporting columns and the building would still remain standing. Sort of makes that 1 percent look like the nothing that it is.



LOL!!


Both these shots are of the near exact same view. Same angle, same fire. The first one is zoomed out, the 2nd (your image) is zoomed closer in. The zoomed out shot gives you the perspective of the size of the fire compared to the overall size of the building. Your zoomed in image doesn't show the size of the building in order to make the fires look bigger. So the photo you post shows less than 1/3 of 1 floor of a 47 floor building "engulfed in flames" and you say building 7 was "being engulfed in flames for much of the day".

So lets be fair and say there was parts of about 10 floors that were burning for periods of about 2 hours. Without any one floor being fully engulfed at any one time. (please post photos of anything different). Now back to the "design redundancy" If it's a factor of 2 then one full floor would have to have been burning enough to weaken the steel by over 1/2 of it's strength. Otherwise the steel cools after the fire passes and regains more than 1/2 it's strength back. And the design redundancy is more than a factor of 2. Does steel lose enough strength in an un-accelerated fire to collapse when you consider design redundancy? And was this heat induced weakening spread over one entire floor at any one time?

I think the answer lies in the history of all the other steel building hi-rises that have been really and truly "engulfed in flames for much of the day" like you erroneously claim building 7 was. Not one single steel hi-rise has ever fully collapsed due to fire.

Here's photos of "engulfed in flames for much of the day" fires

the Windsor in Madrid, engulfed in flames, burned almost 24 hours, 1/5 of the building had a slow progressive collapse over hours. 4/5 remained standing. It had a weaker steel structure than the WTC buildings in it's collapse area.


Windsor after


Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire. Engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours. The fire was across all floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.


Mandarin Oriental after


As far as your last 8 photos that show mostly smoke and less fire than your previous images.


Education on what, the difference between fire and smoke? I didn't know you were claiming building 7 "was engulfed in smoke for much of the day" cuz that's what the rest of your photos show. Are you aware that generally more smoke means a smaller and cooler fire? Like diesel fuel, which supposedly was burning in building 7, when burned in a combustion chamber produces high temps and very little smoke, but burning in open air produces mostly smoke and much lower temps? Remember lower temps meaning less steel weakening.

anyday. On top of that, why do you compare WTC 7 to other buildings with different types of construction?

The FDNY is just like the public. They come down on both sides of the issue. Sorry if you've only seen one side.

So what other steel frame skyscrapers of different type steel construction did you want me to look at that collapsed from fire and 1 percent damage?

Many different type steel construction skyscrapers have burned much more than building 7, NONE of them have ever collapsed.

and the Madrid building was weaker because their building codes are less stringent.

yet you feel you can malign them with your goofy claims. On top of that, isn't it convenient that you neglect to mentuon that the other buildings you cite were either or different construction (part concrete)?

Dude, face it...you're losing this argument and the "9?11 truth movement" is fading into well-deserved obscurity.

So you have a link to a FDNY poll something?

From what I've seen it's just the higher up's that have come out anti-truther. The rank and file remain quiet. So you have to assume they are like the majority of New Yorkers, split about 50/50.

a building with a part concrete structure is actually weaker than all steel in a fire due to the fact that after heat damage concrete does not recover any of it's strength unlike steel which recovers a majority of it's strength after cooling.

It's a documented fact the Madrid building was weaker than WTC 7.

Madrid was a raging inferno, WTC 7 had spot fires on 10 floors.

BTW what happened to your claim that 7 sustained "substantial damage", and that it was "engulfed in flames for much of the day"?

"the FDNY says so" is hardly an argument, got links to where the FDNY sez "substantial damage" or "engulfed in flames for much of the day"?

Of course, your goofy claim is refuted right here:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

As far as my claim about WTC 7 sustaining substantial damage, I provided a picture that shows precisely that. If you want to try to argue it shows only slight or moderate damage, be my guest. Virtually everyone else will be laughing at you.

As far as the FDNY assessment of the fire or damage to WTC 7, have you even bothered to look at the evidence which contradicts your goofy claim? I'm not going to play rope-a-dope with you.

In the process of reading what you posted.

Do you think sheer volume of content backs up your point, even if no specific facts in that content actually back your point?

The majority of what I've read so far make no mention of building 7, it's merely the occurrences of the 2 towers. No questions about speculation of causes of collapse or who the perps are. Just a cut and dried events interview that ends with the collapse of the 2nd tower. Only one out of the 15 or so I've read so far even mentions 7, and it says damage on floors 3 and 6.

But ROTFLMAO!!!!, there's this one gem I've come across from the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FDNY, and thanks for posting this SDuderstadt, interesting reading.

It's also interesting to note that near the last of this guys testimony there are about 30 lines redacted. Why would they redact part of an assistant commissioners testimony? ROTFLMAO!!! Did he meet and talk to one of the terrorists? How is a firefighters testimony going to jeopardize national security?

Gregory, Stephen, pdf file
Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) 10/3/01

starting on page 14 (this is hard to do with the 3-4 paragraph limit, you have to read all of pages 13, 14, 15, 16 for it to really come across but here goes.

I saw low-level flashes in front of the building...I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building
or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building, how when they
blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I
thought I saw...

(here he's talking about a Lieutenant Evangelista)

... He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw
them, too.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as
well, before the first collapse, that there was an
explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper
floors. This was like eye level. ...somewhere in that area I saw to me what
appeared to be flashes. ...I mean, we had heard the noise but, you
know, I don't know.

that's more of your bullshit...

As far as your quote-mining..."that's what I thought I saw" does not equal "it was a controlled demolition", dude. Like I said, I'm not going to play rope-a-dope with you any more. But, I do have one last question: How do you explaim the lagging fortunes of the "9/11 truth movement"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

my point was that the author presented the finding in a misleading and least damning way designed to promote skepticism of the claim

> "This is the problem-- either through stupidity or bias or shillaciousness, articles like this typically mis-state the conspiracy argument."

You were wrong about what video he was referring to. He was talking about an actual "conspiracy argument" on whatreallyhappened, and that "argument" was based on miscalculating the time in NYC.

it WAS NOT simply a matter of calculating the time wrong.

The point was, a BBC reporter said the bldg had collapsed while the bldg was standing in the background.

That is not a time-stamp issue.

... which is separate from the "BBC reporter {who} said the bldg had collapsed while the bldg was standing in the background." You owe him an apology.

why should I apologize?

> > "Do I know why a BBC broadcast that announced the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 bore a time stamp suggesting it was aired 26 minutes before the building fell?"

> Bzzzt! Wrong. The video in question SHOWS an intact WTC7 in the background while the announcer says the building has collapsed.

> This is the problem-- either through stupidity or bias or shillaciousness, articles like this typically mis-state the conspiracy argument.

> In fact they HAVE to, because to state the actual "conspiracy" finding, complicates their argument too much.

Bzzzt! Joshua Holland did not "get it wrong." You did, by not realizing he was not talking about your "video in question." He was talking -- accurately -- about a video in the article that he linked to. Don't you think you owe him an apology for accusing him of "stupidity or bias or shillaciousness" based on your misunderstanding of what he was talking about?

(That was a rhetorical question.)

when the more pertinent fact is Stanley announcing the collapse while standing in front of the scene with WTC7 standing.

Which is what WRH had first.

Not that WRH is my preferred source for conspiracy info-- but this time they got it right.

Holland mis-stated the issue to make it seem like simple confusion! That's messed up.

... and it ain't Holland.

you know, he could just admit that it is mighty odd that the BBC reported the collapse early. But in any case, it's such a minor point but he makes it seem like a key argument.

But the next graf is as bad:
There are also pseudoscientific claims about 9/11 that don't hold water. Just one example among many: 9/11 "truthers" often say that the World Trade Center towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of the impact of those jets because the estimated temperatures of the fires that followed weren't hot enough to melt the steel framework of the building.

Well it's absolutely true the fires weren't hot enough to melt the "steel framework"!

Then:

They point to photographs that show a substance flowing out of the damaged buildings before they collapsed, conclude that the substance was steel and argue that this is definitive proof that a substance other than an incendiary mix of jet fuel and office furnishings had to have been used to cut the steel supports.

Well, actually different "truthers" conclude different things, but as is typical, Holland lumps them all together. I personally think the molten material is a red herring and the whole thermite issue is disinfo. Thus, I'm not going to waste time defending that. However the point is that Holland, as is standard for this type of article, points to a couple of selected side issues, and uses them as a broad brush to discredit 9/11 conspiracy theories.

"There are also pseudoscientific claims about 9/11 that don't hold water. Just one example among many:..."

Don't feel left out. "Mini-nukes" are certainly another example of "truther" pseudoscience -- an extreme one, in fact -- but it appears to me that Holland was just going for an example that's very common. The "pseudoscientific" part of the claim that the fires were not hot enough to "melt" steel is that they didn't need to be that hot to lead to a collapse; they only needed to be hot enough to weaken it. The point is, Holland is saying that "truthers" often make their arguments with a a half-assed version of science, and he's exactly right about that.

At any rate, it seems to me you're still not understanding the purpose of the article, even though it's clearly stated in the title.

big whoop.

"9/11 "truthers" often say that the World Trade Center towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of the impact of those jets because the estimated temperatures of the fires that followed weren't hot enough to melt the steel framework of the building.

They point to photographs that show a substance flowing out of the damaged buildings before they collapsed, conclude that the substance was steel and argue that this is definitive proof that a substance other than an incendiary mix of jet fuel and office furnishings had to have been used to cut the steel supports."

The problem is the way he frames this argument, it seems as if he's claiming the steel DID melt from "jet fuel and office furnishings". Which as you say, is wrong.

Yeah, those are the only ones that get to keep their jobs.

Just ask Rhandi Rhodes
or
Rosie Odonnel
or
Don Imus

You're determined to ignore the actual points that Holland is making, and in fact ignore the entire purpose of the article, and instead insert your own interpretation of what you think he's saying. It's hypocritical that you would do that while accusing him of attacking straw men, but suit yourself.

He's talking about CT's that embrace it. Learn to read, would ya?

because they embrace "9/11 was an inside job" CT's but they have disavowed those theories merely to keep their jobs? Do you have any evidence of this?

Uhh, the only one that has come back is Imus.

O'Donnell isn't back, and Rhandi is back but at a much lower exposure.

I don't even need to look. Compare Imus's mention of 911 before and after his firing for the sham excuse of his racism.

these are just the prime examples, it shows up across the media, anyone who talks about the 911 inside job gets shut down, but it's only on a per exposure basis. The larger your exposure the quicker you get shut down.

when you have solid evidence that any of them lost their position due to their embracing 9/11 CT goofiness, please present it,

Holland's response seems to work equally well for either video: "I don't believe the U.S. government -- or whoever was really behind 9/11 -- would blow its cover by tipping off the BBC." (If you think someone else was tipped off first, that doesn't really help.)

And doesn't standing in front of a building declaring that it has fallen down seem like "confusion" to you?

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" <1>), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

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

It's not hard to descry Holland's actual argument, because it is the first sentence of the section:

If Holland were arguing that conspiracists' dismal ineptitude in matching their theories to evidence actually proves the 'official story,' you would have a beef. He doesn't argue that. You seem to have slipped into some sort of projection here.

the perps would announce that WTC7 would collapse several minutes before it went down. But in fact he has no idea if they would or not (in fact, they might well do that for various reasons). He's appealing to ignorance that they wouldn't do that.

I do have a lot of beefs with the piece, and with people like you and WS who spend so much time arguing against any notion of inside job, when you could actually help change the disturbing situation we find ourselves in.

He says he doesn't believe that the perps would blow their cover by tipping off the BBC. He may be right or wrong, but it isn't a logical fallacy.

I've never set out to "argu(e) against any notion of inside job." I don't think WS has either. You don't seem to do a very good job of representing other people's arguments.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

-- self-contradicting, heavily biased; it's the same kind of garbage that gets thrown at us every year or so to try to shoot down conspiracy theories.

... and I don't believe it was an attempt to "shoot down conspiracy theories." I believe it was, exactly as the title says, an attempt to explain why rational people reject 9/11 conspiracy theories, as they currently exist. If and when your "movement" finally finds that "smoking gun," things could change rapidly.

and in terms of explaining anything about why people are attracted to CTs, I don't think it did that at all-- at least in any clear way. That was not even in the title.

It's just a bad, heavily biased article.

Mostly the piece had the following-- CTs are based on bad interpretation of facts and people who believe in CT's are desperate souls who are like people who believe in myths. Not that he's saying there are no such things as conspiracies, even regarding 9/11, but all the conspiracies he has heard are dumb. And he's not going to tell you what he thinks really happened. WE should press for a new investigation but mostly that's a distraction. And it's not like 9/11 is important or anything.

It's classic weasel anti-CT journalism. It's really a cookie-cutter piece. I've seen several of these, always by serious journalists who act sympathetic but end up deflating any case for a conspiracy or for us to figure out what happened.

... is that the article is clearly a reaction to all the conspiracy nuts accusing him of being some kind of shill for not reporting what they see as an "obvious" slam-dunk case. If that's a "classic" response, I do believe that's because it's a rational response to a classic scenario -- one we see around here virtually daily.

that is, also part of the cookie cutter nature of it. They typically write these articles in response to people "bugging" them about not writing about the 9/11 conspiracy.

It has an easy answer for everything. The difficulty comes from needing to use it for everything.