Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid Fantasies About Sept 11th ...

This guy completely demolishes the 9/11 conspiracy theroies currently circulating around the world. Reprinted here with permission...

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid Fantasies About Sept 11 Distract From the Real Issues

by Gerard Holmgren, 9 January 2003



Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" "The Pope had John Lennon murdered", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone", etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

Removed large copy-and-paste from the source material. Please visit this link for the original content:
proliberty.com...


[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

(removed another large copy-and-paste from external source)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

See Below.

[edit on 11-28-2007 by Loki]

(removed another large copy-and-paste from external source)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

(removed another large copy-and-paste from external source)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

(removed another large copy-and-paste from external source)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Argumentum ad ridiculum

The article is rife with logical fallacies and the above seems to be the author's favorite.

Care to expand on that?

Sure, I'll expand on that. Let's start with this:

From the August 2003 Idaho Observer:

Old news, this particular 'debunking' came before many of the best discussions on the subject, just search the ATS archive for more. There's at least one superthread lurking around for each point of view on 9/11.

and let's look at the very first sentence of the article

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. “The CIA killed Hendrix”; “the Pope had John Lennon murdered”; “Hitler was half Werewolf”; “Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone,” etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

[Edited out]


Let's take a look at the opening sentences of a few of the paragraphs in the article.

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay...

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article.

With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities)...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

That's just four. (randomly selected)

The whole article is drivel, and quite frankly I'm surprised any reputable (or even disreputable) news outlet would run such a piece.

Here, for your pleasure.

I have some doubts, however, that the appeal to humor should be considered a logical fallacy. Jokes are usually not arguments at all, and therefore not fallacious arguments, a fortiori―to throw in a little more Latin. No doubt humor and ridicule can be used as rhetorical dirty tricks to distract the audience, as well as to put the ridiculed side at a disadvantage in a debate. I assume that your suggestion that it would be a subfallacy of appeal to misleading authority is based on the psychological fact that we are likely to be swayed by people who make us laugh. People may be more likely to trust a Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken because they find them funny. In any case, fallacy or not, we need to be on guard against letting humor or ridicule distract or sway us. A joke is no substitute for an argument.

Source



[edit on 11-28-2007 by Loki]

So have you read the article at all? And if you have, could you expand on what you meant using the article i have posted here?

You've merely pointed me in a vague direction of looking at more threads on ATS, and then slagged the article off some more without actually expanding on any of the articles points.

You do realise, don't you, that the article is actually debunking the official mainstream account of the hijacker with boxcutters story, don't you?
You didn't appear to when you posted:

Comparing the very real, very credible possibility of a 9/11 coverup to a "Hitler was half Werewolf" conspiracy is not only ignorant, but irresponsible in the light of keeping oneself informed.

So, shall we talk about the article, or should i just keep my mouth shut and read some vague unspecific ATS threads which have it already covered, even when the article has been mostly unread and the points untouched upon?

Quite frankly the article is painful to read. I've fixed my post above, and my point still stands. There are better sources of information out there, and this sort of press doesn't help to inform anyone.

If I wrote

you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid


What exactly would that prove?

[edit on 11-28-2007 by Loki]

That you believe that person is stupid.

Originally posted by paranoia
This guy completely demolishes the 9/11 conspiracy theroies currently circulating around the world.

It actually takes logic to debunk something. Not a cynical attitude. That's just being an ass, anyone can do it, and it indicates to me that this guy is immature.


All I'm reading is a rant from somebody who has problems with alternative theories. Where is the substance? Is something going to get debunked?

Originally posted by Loki
If I wrote

you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid
you're stupid

What exactly would that prove?

It would prove that you have an ego/emotional problem, and that's exactly what it proves about the author of the OP's article.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Oh Puleeze- he wishes he could debunk. The funny thing about these sources is they have already been completely written off by far more intelligent thinkers. This is rubbish. JMO and several others!

Originally posted by bsbray11
All I'm reading is a rant from somebody who has problems with alternative theories. Where is the substance? Is something going to get debunked?
[edit on 28-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Please at least read it before commenting on it here. You obviously haven't.

Originally posted by dk3000


Oh Puleeze- he wishes he could debunk. The funny thing about these sources is they have already been completely written off by far more intelligent thinkers. This is rubbish. JMO and several others!

So are you going to comment on the article or raise a point with any of it's content, or just add to the list of people here who haven't read it yet?

Originally posted by paranoia

Originally posted by dk3000


Oh Puleeze- he wishes he could debunk. The funny thing about these sources is they have already been completely written off by far more intelligent thinkers. This is rubbish. JMO and several others!

So are you going to comment on the article or raise a point with any of it's content, or just add to the list of people here who haven't read it yet?

I read it. It's trash. The author does nothing but ridicule a certain point of view for the entire article.

You are under a false impression that the article will speak for itself and change our minds the instant we have finished reading it.

Sorry.

Usually when having a discussion, you can at least show the OP (me in this instance) the courtesy of explaining why you think its trash or finding holes or things you disagree with in the article itself and debate them.

It's polite and shows that you have a level of understanding and a willingness to be open minded.

So you took the time to read it already, or you've already read it previously? It's just that by your first response you were under the impression that this article was a hit peice on alternative 911 conspiracies - which it isn't - and now even though you stand corrected you are still of the same mind that its "trash".

That's all fair enough, but could you at least comment on parts of the article, or show some respect and not comment at all?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by paranoia]

My personal opinion in the matter is not in question here. I took the time to read it after you pointed out a misconception I had about it.

Here's the bottom line. I agree with the author about the official story. It's bunk.

I discredit the value of the article. I feel that it has no value to the logically inclined, and does little to help further the disbelief in the official 9/11 story for anybody.

Originally posted by paranoia
Please at least read it before commenting on it here. You obviously haven't.

I skimmed it, and now I've read the whole thing. What I said still stands: it's a rant. I've read better on these forums.