Comment is Free - The Fallout
Bitethehand
So have you any other examples [of wide-ranging conspiracies] that might prove your case?
The psychological warfare operation to link al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the minds of the US and global public. That's one, I would have thought.
Greymatter
My point is that there is a magnitude of difference between plotting to manipulate public opinion or undermine a political leader, which can be done by stealth with comparative ease, and organising in total secrecy the huge logistical project of men and materials that would have been required for a 'false flag' 9/11. It is the sheer improbability of the latter that vindicates the viewpoint of Charlie Brooker and indeed all the rest of us who have preserved our collective sanity in relation to these events.
Like I said in my piece, I have no idea what to make of the attacks. To argue from "sheer improbability" is problematic from any number of angles. Highly improbable events are a banal fact of life. More seriously, there are alternative accounts one could give of 9/11 that don't rely on a large scale cover-up of the sort Brooker assumes would be necessary. To conflate all the alternative theories doesn't to my mind seem legitimate.
This, by the way doesn't mean that I am sceptical about possibility of holding true beliefs about the world, with a reasonable degree of certainty. Nor does it require to sign up to any of the theories concerning the nature of the attacks or the authors. I just don't think it is evidence of mental infirmity to express doubts about the official account, given the very limited state of our knowledge.
cebolla
The author also tries to equate Brooker with Melanie Philips...nice smear! Philips, whatever she may be, is not a rationalist.
Brooker's approach is relevantly similar to Phillips's. It is kind of funny, no?
Charlessurface:
Also - don't you see the problem with pointing out instances of goverenment involvement in assassinations? We *know* about them.
I am not making a direct comparison with 9/11 conspiracy. I was referring to the Arbenz and Allende coups precicesly because everyone now knows that the CIA were involved.
The fact that we know about previous conspiracies doesn't tell us very much about 9/11. It is possible we don't know about all historical conspiracies - so we don't know what kinds of things can be kept secret with any degree of certainty.
watfubar
This article is a mess. The reason Charlie Brooker didn't talk about that in his piece was because he WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT. Geddit? His article was about the nutbag theories not the geopolitics of the situation. This doggytyrd article is to let YOU preen and try on the Chomsky big brains badge - well I've got news for you Dan. It doesn't suit you, aside from the fact you'd stick the pin through your own thumb putting it on your ego has blinded you to the bleedin' point.
Hi mum.
The Saddam Hussein -al Qaeda link is a nutbar theory. It has been far more influential - and fatal - than any single variant of the other conspiracy theories. The fact that it doesn't feature in attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories strikes me as being noteworthy.
Manoa
Brooker did not say there are never any true conspiracies or that conspiracy theories are per se lunacy. There is no logical reason to believe that because there are true conspiracies, 9/11 must have been the result of one. Yet, that is the ultimate point of Hind's column.
That isn't the ultimate point of the column, at all. I am saying that scepticism about 9/11 is understandable and legitimate given the current state of our knowledge. I explicitly don't rule out the official explanation, I just don't think that doubting it is evidence of mental infirmity.
Dangbh
No kidding! Hind's column is constructed from a fallacy wish list:
Poisoning the well, followed by tu quoque, followed by a straw man, followed by something I can't quite put my finger on, followed by a false dichotomy, followed by mistaking some for all, and climaxing with a whopping three-paragraph non sequitur. And a final paragraph where a straw man sort of dances around the poisoned well.
I like the idea of a straw man dancing around a poisoned well.
How about if I try to put the argument in a more rigorous way:
1.) Most attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories seek to explain them in psychological terms. People for some reason find them reassuring.
2.) But in general the public are right to entertain conspiracy theories, since conspiracies are a fact of political life.
3.) In the specific case of 9/11 attempts to dismiss those who question the official story on the grounds that they are somehow seeking to compensate for deficiencies in their own lives is mistaken. The state of our knowledge does not permit us to adopt such a position. As well as being mistaken it also quite offensive, hence the knockabout in the original piece.
Armaros
It is tempting to seem sophisticated and say that " I do not believe the government" but should that automatically lead one to believe those who hustle conspiracy theories?
No, it really shouldn't.
Pickledpelican
Dan Hind actually makes a point which is one of the strongest cases against believing in any 9/11 conspiracy:
The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people.
Exactly. Any sane enquiring person knows that a cabal around Bush deliberately tried to tie Saddam, 9/11 and Al-Qaida together. How do we know this? Because the evidence is abundant and public. The sheer breathtaking scale of the lies put together by Cheney and his gang were glaring. And of course dear Blair went along with it and the rest is dead bodies and history.
Not sure what this establishes. Is it a variant of the argument that because we know about some historical conspiracies, the ones we don't know about don't exist? Plenty of sane, inquiring people thought there was something in the Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda connection when it was politically important for them to do so.
So have you any other examples [of wide-ranging conspiracies] that might prove your case?
The psychological warfare operation to link al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the minds of the US and global public. That's one, I would have thought.
Greymatter
My point is that there is a magnitude of difference between plotting to manipulate public opinion or undermine a political leader, which can be done by stealth with comparative ease, and organising in total secrecy the huge logistical project of men and materials that would have been required for a 'false flag' 9/11. It is the sheer improbability of the latter that vindicates the viewpoint of Charlie Brooker and indeed all the rest of us who have preserved our collective sanity in relation to these events.
Like I said in my piece, I have no idea what to make of the attacks. To argue from "sheer improbability" is problematic from any number of angles. Highly improbable events are a banal fact of life. More seriously, there are alternative accounts one could give of 9/11 that don't rely on a large scale cover-up of the sort Brooker assumes would be necessary. To conflate all the alternative theories doesn't to my mind seem legitimate.
This, by the way doesn't mean that I am sceptical about possibility of holding true beliefs about the world, with a reasonable degree of certainty. Nor does it require to sign up to any of the theories concerning the nature of the attacks or the authors. I just don't think it is evidence of mental infirmity to express doubts about the official account, given the very limited state of our knowledge.
cebolla
The author also tries to equate Brooker with Melanie Philips...nice smear! Philips, whatever she may be, is not a rationalist.
Brooker's approach is relevantly similar to Phillips's. It is kind of funny, no?
Charlessurface:
Also - don't you see the problem with pointing out instances of goverenment involvement in assassinations? We *know* about them.
I am not making a direct comparison with 9/11 conspiracy. I was referring to the Arbenz and Allende coups precicesly because everyone now knows that the CIA were involved.
The fact that we know about previous conspiracies doesn't tell us very much about 9/11. It is possible we don't know about all historical conspiracies - so we don't know what kinds of things can be kept secret with any degree of certainty.
watfubar
This article is a mess. The reason Charlie Brooker didn't talk about that in his piece was because he WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT. Geddit? His article was about the nutbag theories not the geopolitics of the situation. This doggytyrd article is to let YOU preen and try on the Chomsky big brains badge - well I've got news for you Dan. It doesn't suit you, aside from the fact you'd stick the pin through your own thumb putting it on your ego has blinded you to the bleedin' point.
Hi mum.
The Saddam Hussein -al Qaeda link is a nutbar theory. It has been far more influential - and fatal - than any single variant of the other conspiracy theories. The fact that it doesn't feature in attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories strikes me as being noteworthy.
Manoa
Brooker did not say there are never any true conspiracies or that conspiracy theories are per se lunacy. There is no logical reason to believe that because there are true conspiracies, 9/11 must have been the result of one. Yet, that is the ultimate point of Hind's column.
That isn't the ultimate point of the column, at all. I am saying that scepticism about 9/11 is understandable and legitimate given the current state of our knowledge. I explicitly don't rule out the official explanation, I just don't think that doubting it is evidence of mental infirmity.
Dangbh
No kidding! Hind's column is constructed from a fallacy wish list:
Poisoning the well, followed by tu quoque, followed by a straw man, followed by something I can't quite put my finger on, followed by a false dichotomy, followed by mistaking some for all, and climaxing with a whopping three-paragraph non sequitur. And a final paragraph where a straw man sort of dances around the poisoned well.
I like the idea of a straw man dancing around a poisoned well.
How about if I try to put the argument in a more rigorous way:
1.) Most attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories seek to explain them in psychological terms. People for some reason find them reassuring.
2.) But in general the public are right to entertain conspiracy theories, since conspiracies are a fact of political life.
3.) In the specific case of 9/11 attempts to dismiss those who question the official story on the grounds that they are somehow seeking to compensate for deficiencies in their own lives is mistaken. The state of our knowledge does not permit us to adopt such a position. As well as being mistaken it also quite offensive, hence the knockabout in the original piece.
Armaros
It is tempting to seem sophisticated and say that " I do not believe the government" but should that automatically lead one to believe those who hustle conspiracy theories?
No, it really shouldn't.
Pickledpelican
Dan Hind actually makes a point which is one of the strongest cases against believing in any 9/11 conspiracy:
The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people.
Exactly. Any sane enquiring person knows that a cabal around Bush deliberately tried to tie Saddam, 9/11 and Al-Qaida together. How do we know this? Because the evidence is abundant and public. The sheer breathtaking scale of the lies put together by Cheney and his gang were glaring. And of course dear Blair went along with it and the rest is dead bodies and history.
Not sure what this establishes. Is it a variant of the argument that because we know about some historical conspiracies, the ones we don't know about don't exist? Plenty of sane, inquiring people thought there was something in the Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda connection when it was politically important for them to do so.
posted by Dan Hind at 7:40 AM
9 Comments:
The thing that interests me is that everyone seems to assume that any conspiracy would have to be "huge, massive, involving hundreds of people". Since the actual attacks only seem to have taken a couple of dozen, I don't see the basis for this - I know that the US government can be inefficient sometimes but it's not that inefficient.
I see things this way, Dan.
1) Governments routinely put out spin, tell only half the truth, try to frame the narrative, use tame journalists to write article based on a list of talking points etc etc. Other political interest groups do the same.
2) It would be good if the public were much more critical of this kind of thing: it would be good, for example, if the public more frequently complained to newspapers and politicians about their attempts to frame issue in certain ways; and it would be good if politicians and journalists actually got sacked (and sent to stack shelves at Tescos) when they get caught out. It would be good if the public demanded firmer evidence and more logical arguments from politicians and the journalists who pass on their messages.
3) So, for me, the question is this: do 9/11 conspiracy theories increase the likelihood of the public questioning official narratives (whether they are outright lies or "spin")?
4) I'm in two minds about this. It is good that the official narrative gets challenged. However the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy is tenuous, and talk about 9/11 conspiracies takes attention away from conspiracies where the evidence is clear (such as the various attempts to link Saddam Hussein to anthrax, nuclear weapons and Al-Qaida).
5) So I sometimes feel irritated by people who are interested in 9/11 conspiracies. The facts aren't yet firm enough, so could it turn out to be yet another smoke-screen or even a false-flag operation that is intended to blacken the reputation of "reputable conspiracy theorists"?
6) Melanie Phillips is a conspiracy theorist herself: she thinks that Iraq had WMD in 2002 and these were spirited away somewhere. Let's not give here too much space to operate by going for "a conspiracy theory too far". Let's stick to the conspiracy theories that really are conspiracies.
Guano
Hi, Guano,
Thanks for this.
I agree that one has to be very careful not to go beyond the evidence, or to give ammunition to those who want to discredit a much wider range of concerns about demonstrably existing conspiracies.
The sceptical writing about 9/11 varies greatly in quality, I think. Some of it seem wholly unconvincing to me, some of it is politically poisonous as well. But there is some sensible stuff there, too. Peter Dale Scott has done some very interesting work, for example.
I don't finally know what the answer is, to be honest. It might be politically more effective to stay away from 9/11 altogether. But I find it very distateful to see conspiracy theorists being criticised for the contents of the their character rather than for the quality of their arguments and claims.
Dan
Dan
I'm afraid I have to join in with the throng on CiF who thought your article was nonsense on a stick, and ill-argued, half-baked nonsense at that. The comparison with, say, the Allende coup seems utterly pointless; as was pointed out at length by CiF posters, one was a perfectly feasible plan with a clear motive, while the other makes no sense on a number of levels.
The comparison with the attempt to link 9/11 to Saddam is even more fatuous. The Bush administration didn't try to secretly manufacture evidence of a link, they just shouted out a clear lie loudly and often. It's totally different.
And I'm afraid I simply don't buy this idea that 'I'm only saying no one can explain what really happened on 9/11, so the conspiracy theories are understandable'. That's the worst kind of cop out. The official story is backed by reams of solid, well-documented, scientifically sound evidence. The conspiracy theories - as well as being a jelly-like mass of constantly shifting ideas - are a mixture of paranoia, political wishful thinking, half-understood science and pure gibberish.
Like it or not you've publicly allied yourself with the CTers, and you didn't even do a very good job.
It was one of the least convincing set of arguments ever hosted by CiF, and that's quite something.
Whenever you hear the Philips and the Brookers of this world try and attack something that is not attackable, like WTC Building 7 falling in a controlled demolition, they inevitably resort to a crude toolkit that exposes them as entrenched and invested skeptics without any real knowledge about what they are trying to discredit.
This is precisely what to look for:
*******
Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.
In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a point or two.
* * *
1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.
Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.
Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.
S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.
0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.
S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.
0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.
S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.
0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.
S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.
O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.
S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
2.) SOCK 'EM WITH OCCAM: Skeptics frequently invoke Occam's Razor as if the Razor automatically validates their position. Occam's Razor, a principle of epistemology (knowledge theory), states that the simplest explanation which fits all the facts is to be preferred -- or, to state it another way, entities are not to be multiplied needlessly. The Razor is a useful and even necessary principle, but it is largely useless if the facts themselves are not generally agreed upon in the first place.
3.) EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS: Extraordinary claims, says the skeptic, require extraordinary evidence. Superficially this seems reasonable enough. However, extraordinariness, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some claims, of course, would seem extraordinary to almost anyone (e.g. the claim that aliens from Alpha Centauri had contacted you telepathically and informed you that the people of Earth must make you their absolute lord and ruler). The "extraordinariness" of many other claims, however, is at best arguable, and it is not at all obvious that unusually strong evidence is necessary to support them. For example, so many people who would ordinarily be considered reliable witnesses have reported precognitive dreams that it becomes difficult to insist these are "unusual" claims requiring "unusual" evidence. Quite ordinary standards of evidence will do.
4.) STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
5.) THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.
6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)
The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position.
There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.
7.) YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE: The skeptic may insist that he is relieved of the burden of evidence and argument because "you can't prove a negative." But you most certainly can prove a negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue. If I want to show my cat's not in the bedroom, I can prove this by showing that my cat's in the kitchen or outside chasing squirrels. The negative has then been proven. Or the proposition that the cat is not in the bedroom could be proven by giving the bedroom a good search without finding the cat. The skeptic who says, "Of course I can't prove psi doesn't exist. I don't have to. You can't prove a negative," is simply wrong. To rule something out, definite reasons must be given for ruling it out.
Of course, for practical reasons it often isn't possible to gather the necessary information to prove or disprove a proposition, e.g., it isn't possible to search the entire universe to prove that no intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. This by itself doesn't mean that a case can't be made against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, although it does probably mean that the case can't be as air-tight and conclusive as we would like.
8.) THE BIG LIE: The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might, for example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he might insist there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented cases. The average person isn't going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.
9.) DOUBT CASTING: This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts. The assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with the "extraordinary evidence" ploy.
In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It is almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for tossing out the evidence. If a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the information. For example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi experiment weren't quite as tight as they might have been and then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s) and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest" explanation for the results (see "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).
10.) THE SNEER: This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information in the hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a lunatic, a fool, or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud." The object here is to scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.
* * *
To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer") are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientific Creationists and Holocaust Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom by others.
Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well keep you from being bamboozled.
*******
And thank you for that refreshing blast of fresh air over at the Guardian, and for sticking your neck out.
You're a kook, Mr Hind. An articulate one maybe, but a kook nonetheless. You disingenuously claim that you do not rule out the possibility that the official version of events is true, but the smoke and mirrors of your spurious claims that we know so little about it are clearly designed to sow doubt and suspicion in people's minds.
Brooker is right - people such as yourself always demand a weight of evidence that rarely exists with respect to anything. For the author of a book on the threat to reason, it's ironic you that you seek to deny the conditions in which reason can flourish by always insisting on ignoring the major facts in favour of technically possible but deeply improbable theories based on nothing more than conjecture.
Your conflation of the coups against Arbenz, Allende, Mossadeq etc with an imagined US government engineered 9-11 plot is equally bankrupt - these plots and numerous like them swiftly came to light and are a matter of historical record. Seven years on there has not been a slither of credible doubt cast on the official account of 9-11. I would be willing to bet you several million pounds that nothing credible ever does emerge.
The real problem with doubtmongers such as yourself is that you actually cause real harm: a large proportion of Muslims in the Middle East genuinely do not believe that the 9-11 atrocities were committed by Islamic terrorists. It's difficult to see how they are going to set about addressing the very real problems of extremism that continue to fester in their societies if people like you continue to fill the airwaves with these insane fantasies.
9/11 conspiracy theories produce what I think of as the Nessie problem. The rejection of the official explanation doesn't take us any closer to a convincing alternative, it just conjures up a maelstrom of improbable notions i.e. people planting explosives in he buildings without being noticed, empty radio-controlled Boeings, or indeed holographic airliners created by cruise missiles. The rejection of the 'hoax or optical illusion' theory of Nessie, by the same token, doesn't lead to a 'Hey, it's obviously a plesiosaur!' revelation, just a farrago of wacky ideas ranging from giant newts to spectral beings from another dimension.
Of course, I could be typing this at the Pentagon, in the room next to the Ark of the Covenant. Hey, Marilyn, your cocoa's ready...
top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]online casino[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]free casino bonus[/url] autonomous no deposit hand-out at the best [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]casino online
[/url].
completely free singles dating sites http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials/ dating houses
christian single dating site 100 free [url=http://loveepicentre.com/map/]dating free online sims[/url] who's dating who dermot o leary
been robbed need money online dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/success_stories/]newfoundland dating sites[/url] usa free dating [url=http://loveepicentre.com/user/londongirl/]londongirl[/url] sexy hot dating
Post a Comment
<< Home