User talk:Morton devonshire/9/11 Conspiracy Theory Phenomena Project

I thought I would move over to your page some links from mine, to avoid duplication. They may need to be suitable formated or moved around. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implication of rationality

Often in these articles I read something like, 'because he said "Pull it," conspiracist theorists suspect that...'

This reverses cause and effect. Becuase they are conspiracy theorists, they sieze on any phrase they can use to support their pre-existing belief. These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." (Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.)

Most of these pages are thick with this presumption of rationality, and it is not supported by the academic literature, or by common sense. If we had a video of bin Laden personally claiming responsibility the same people would say, "Ah, but look at the ring, there on his finger. That can't be bin Laden. And see his nose, how fat it is in this frame? Yeah, clearly a CIA plant. Where did bin Laden learn about demolitions? Afghanistan, in the 80s. And you know who else was in Afghanistan in the 80s; That's right, the CIA. The same CIA of which Bush senior was the director, before he left to work full time for the Carlyle Group, which among their other business interests..." Anyway, you get the idea. Nobody is talking about the shape of Silverstein's nose. At least not in any English sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]