Yet Another Mindblowingly Ignorant Hit Piece

It just goes to show how strong some peoples' appeal to authority can be. People are still turning to Popular Mechanics for comfort in 2008. And the author goes on about how the Loose Change makers aren't "experts," as if Dylan and company sat in a room and dreamed up the 9/11 truth movement's arguments all by themselves, rather than drawing on other peoples' research - people who just never broke through to the mainstream like Loose Change. Caporaletti also charges that Loose Change and other truthers "ignore" the "answers" put forth by Popular Mechanics.

E-mail and add some comments!


Column: Conspiracy theories are actually laughable myths

Jacob Caporaletti, CT regular columnist
Wednesday, February 27; 12:00 AM

It's all a conspiracy. The government, big business and the Freemasons are all out to get us. They want to use their influence to control world affairs. Scary, isn't it?

Thankfully, it isn't true. But a growing sub-culture has emerged in recent years, and thanks to the power of the Internet it's easier than ever for these outlandish ideas to spread. Conspiracy theories are no longer relegated to isolated communities of crackpots. Now they're endorsed by world leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and actor Charlie Sheen.

As laughable as some of these theories are, there is a sizable portion of the population that believes there's some big secret being kept by the powers that be. Whether it's UFOs, the JFK assassination, the 9/11 truth movement or untold secrets about the life of Jesus Christ, there is always something to rally around. The most popular theories used to be the JFK assassination and UFOs. But since 9/11, an entire movement has spawned, and their mission is the supposed truth about what happened.

The truth, however, is never as grand as we would like it to be. What seems more exciting? That 19 men armed only with box cutters and extreme determination were able to strike at the heart of American pride? Or that a shadowy group of power mongers orchestrated the attacks in an elaborate conspiracy to pursue its agenda? It's only natural to assume that such a big event must have an equally big cause. But more often than not, the claims of the conspiracy theorists don't stand up to the facts.

Most crackpots trying to push their theories rely on crafty arguments and deceptive presentations. As Creationists who try to prove their faulty beliefs, conspiracy theories are riddled with ad hominum attacks, shaky foundations, straw man arguments, over-generalizations and outright falsehoods.

Just look at the best selling 9/11 conspiracy film "Loose Change." While their presentation seems slick and legitimate, it's worth noting that the makers are not experts. The people they find to support their claims may have credentials, but they pick and choose the details and ignore key facts that disprove their claims.

This film, coupled with many other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, caused such a stir that the magazine "Popular Mechanics" devoted an entire issue to debunking every one of their claims. And what did the makers of "Loose Change" do in response? They did what all conspiracy theorists do and ignored it.

So why do people devote themselves to these beliefs when the facts directly contradict their theories? It usually has to do with the level of emotional investment people put into these theories. It becomes like a religion to them, and anybody who questions their beliefs is a heretic in their eyes.

Nobody likes to be proven wrong, and nobody likes to accept a less fanciful version of their world. Others, however, hold onto their beliefs for more personal reasons.

The heart of all conspiracy theories revolves around a public wary of the people in power. It's not a coincidence that the government bears the blunt end of every major theory. Often, the theorists will portray anybody in a position of power as a tyrannical despot.

Even in our democratic system there is an innate fear that we live in a sort of neo-fascist state. And nothing short of a flat-out admission of the truth will satisfy conspiracy buffs.

Now that's not to say we shouldn't be skeptical of the government, but not everyone in a position of power is a tyrant. Most are honest civil servants. There is an exception every now and then, but by and large those in power do have the people's interests at heart. They have to or they don't get voted into office. That's the beauty of our democracy despite its many shortcomings.

Most other theories rely on governments keeping secrets. And this, by far, is their most laughable assumption. Governments, especially ones such as ours, are terrible at keeping secrets. The second something big comes up, people rush to the nearest newspaper to talk about it. And whenever the government does try to keep a secret, it rarely lasts.

Even the ones kept during wartime eventually get out. To think that any part of the government is capable of covering up something as big as 9/11 or the JFK assassination is grossly overestimating their competence. Just look at the Watergate scandal. If the government couldn't cover that up, do you expect them to be capable of covering up something big such as 9/11?

Most people who believe in these conspiracy theories genuinely believe they're right. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

Even if they do great harm in turning great tragedies like 9/11 into an agenda, they'll keep doing what they do until they choose to accept the facts over fanciful myths.


At Least Their a Lot of Informed Comments to the Ignoramus's

article at Colliegiatetimes.

Very nice piece

of its genre. An art form all its own.

Investigate 911

"What seems more exciting? That 19 men armed only with box cutters and extreme determination were able to strike at the heart of American pride? Or that a shadowy group of power mongers orchestrated the attacks in an elaborate conspiracy to pursue its agenda?"
Never mind what's exciting Caporaletti. What stands up to critical analysis. What would stand up in an impartial court of law?
What would stand up to an unbiased independent investigation?