The conspiracies

There are many conspiracies and conspiracy theories. One of the newer ones was birthed by the events of September 11th, 2001. It involves what happened in NYC. One theory involves evil Jewish plotting and no Jews being in the buildings or planes. This is easily refuted, but holds on. Another involves remote controlled planes, no victims, and, well, it doesn't get any more plausible.

Then you have the Loose Change business. This revolves around a TRUTH, steel won't weaken or be enfeebled by fire. And it is amazing the numbers who so happily grab on to this, and repeat this notion as if it where a damning and conclusive point. It is bunk. Watch the news, plenty of steel works fall in fire. But, like the Jewish jeers, this one persists, with people on the streets and the famous.

For many the idea the US government, and specifically, George Bush, would kill thousands, mostly Americans, for a political end is sound and reasoned. I don't like the man, find his policies to be poor, and leadership to be lacking. But even with my contempt for the administration I can't believe this. Now, if there was some sort of evidence to support it, things may be different. And like UFO sightings and New World Orders, the conspiracy holds no weight.

So, Novella, at Neurologica had a dialogue with one of these theorist. Take a read a learn a little about the thinking and thought processes.

Neurologica:

Below is an e-mail exchange I had recently with someone who takes offense that we are not more skeptical of the official version of what happened on 9/11. Their letters to me are in italics, and mine follow. It is a fairly good representation of the typical thought processes employed by the conspiracy theorists.

...

It may be of interest to look at the thinking at arguments of conspiracy theorists. If you want to get into the field, a bit of advice. Logical fallacies are a bad way to start. Ad hominim attacks gain you no points. And making claims against someones family member to damn them is feeble. Finally, saying some crime was once committed by some government at some time in history is not an argument or proof of a current government committing a crime. What is worse is if the claimed historic crime never even occurred. Kind of obfuscates ones own obfuscation....And it is bad form.