The troof is out there !

[blackbear]

This Zionist media whore won't help.....

The troof is out there
The rise of the troofer is evidence of our continuing fascination with conspiracy theories - why?
Conor Foley

What is about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much? A few days ago Peter Tatchell wrote a piece for Cif about the problems surrounding the 9/11 Commission, which contained a fatal reference to "the unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7". Over 700 people rushed to respond, a record that George Monbiot had previously surpassed when he explicitly rejected conspiracy theories surrounding the attack. A few weeks before this, Robert Fisk declared himself "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11", sparking off a flurry of rebuttals which reminded us of where the phrase "fisking" comes from.

I had my own minor run-in with the "troofers" when I wrote a piece in which I mentioned conflicting claims about an Israeli military attack on two Red Cross ambulances during the conflict in Lebanon. Coincidentally, this appeared the day after the Israel Defence Force stated saying that the ambulances could indeed have been hit by something fired by them. I wrote a follow-up piece, which covered this report and also the findings of the Guardian and Human Rights Watch investigations into the incidents. I was genuinely amazed at the response I received.

The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true: at what temperature does steel melt, for example, or what does a vehicle look like after it has been hit by various types of ordinance? After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, "people are lying to us" theory, which it is almost impossible to refute since, by believing the official explanation, you have, by definition, become part of the conspiracy.

Not all troofers are mad, but there is a point at which it is no longer worthwhile debating with them. This might be summarised as when you get to the "so what?" question in the debate. Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination.

Identifying this point is actually quite difficult because one of the things that make us all a bit susceptible to conspiracy theories is that they underpin a large amount of mainstream debates.

As Seumas Milne has noted, some critics of Naomi Klein's new book immediately threw the conspiracy theory charge at her disaster capitalism thesis. Green activists like George Monbiot have faced similar treatment for exposing the links between politicians and big business. Indeed, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, every attempt to find some causal explanation for major economic and political developments could be rebutted by those who maintain "stuff just happens".

Most people believe that politicians regularly lie to us and have little difficulty believing that this could include lies about important things such as the invasion of Iraq. However, it takes more than a couple of logical steps to get from here to believing that US government blew up the Twin Towers itself and then faked the rest of the evidence to frame Osama Bin Laden. In fact the process would bear some comparisons to a religious conversion. A truth has been revealed to the believer which dramatically changes their worldview and forces a reconsideration of some of their most basic other beliefs and assumptions. The desire to "convert" those around them must be overwhelming.

Most of us remain fairly agnostic about many conspiracy theories. I would not be particularly surprised if some of the stories about the Kremlin's manipulation of some of the protagonists in Chechnya's conflict turned out to be true. I think that all sides use propaganda during conflicts and never automatically dismiss allegations of dirty tricks by various security forces.

When I was working at Liberty I was once taken for lunch by MI5's legal officer (which is a longer story in itself) and I quizzed him about some of the prevalent conspiracy theories of the time. I had just finished reading Seumas Milne's book on the miners' strike, which alleged that the story of "Gaddafi's gold" may have been a piece of black propaganda by the spooks. He denied this, while half-conceding that the possibility of planting a mole within the leadership of the National Union of Miners at the time was not that far-fetched.

I tend to agree with Milne's view that automatic deference to the c***-up rather than the conspiracy view of history can sometimes be a lazy evasion. However, I also agree with Monbiot that conspiracy theories can be a displacement activity. Why bother arguing about the rights and wrongs of US foreign policy, if you think 9/11 was an inside job? Why bother responding to criticisms of Israel's human rights record if you can dismiss its critics as habitual liars or dupes?

This seems to me to be what distinguishes sceptics from troofers. Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/09/the_troof_is_o ut_there.html

270 comments.....enjoy.

[dontbelievethehype1970]

Peter Tatchells comment:

PeterTatchell
Comment No. 816006
September 16 21:00
GBR On 12 September on CIF I wrote an article that queried the official investigation into 9/11:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big _coverup.html

I based my doubts on the publicly stated views of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. They have said that they were obstructed and misled by the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Authority. They say they were "set up to fail" and admit their report was, consequently, "far from the truth."

My article did not say 9/11 was a conspiracy. Indeed, I explicitly rejected conspiracy theories and was critical of such theories. I specifically criticised the sloppiness of some of the 9/11 truth websites in my article.

When a right-wing Republican administration and key US state agencies obstruct an official inquiry (according to the 9/11 Commissioners) we should be sceptical of the final report and continue to seek a full and proper explanation. What's wrong with defending open, transparent government and holding the state to account? Since when has this become a bad thing?

Despite making all this crystal clear, I was subjected to an astonishing barrage of smears and misrepresentation - both on CIF and on the normally quite considered and rational Harry's Place blog:

Some people on Harry's Place love to accuse the SWP, Respect and George Galloway of "smears", "misrepresentation", "dishonesty", "sectarianism" and "dirty tricks." Yet many of these people used the same tactics against me - painting me as a wild conspiracy theorist or accusing me of giving credence to such theorists. I am no such thing. I merely questioned the adequacy of the official 9/11 inquiry, as the Commissioners themselves have done.

The sheer hate, spite and dishonesty of most of my critics came as quite a shock. It led me to wonder why a little bit of 9/11 scepticism should generate more bile than I have seen most of these people direct against the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and torture.

They used the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" (which I am not and which I reject) as a convenient way to evade serious engagement with the issues I (and others) raised.

Some even claimed that my denial that I was conspiracy theorist was proof that I was really was one, since denial is, they claim, a hallmark of all purveyors of conspiracy theories.

The trith is that what I tried to do in my CIF article was make a clear distinction between wild, unfounded conspiracy theories, and legitimate, credible questioning of the official 9/11 account.

The critics responded by lumping me and other rational, evidence-based doubters together with wacky and bizarre conspiracy theorists - denying and negating the obvious differences in our positions. It was a clever, but totally dishonest, sleight of hand.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that there are serious unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks. To point this out, and to ask for answers, does not make me or others a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot.

Contrary to some insinuations on CIF, asking questions and seeking answers is not a sign of conspiratorial madness. An inquiring mind used to be the axiom of progressive politics. To support freedom of information and hold government to account was once a good thing. Not anymore, according to some people. Seeking answers and the truth now, apparently, marks one as a loon and a tin foiler.

This demonisation of doubt and scepticism echoes the mentality and language of The Inquisition and of Stalinism.

[Thermate911]

Der 'troof' is owt there?

Not on CiF, that's for sure!

I've done a study of all the comments on the Monbiot + these more recent CiF threads and followed up the banned posters. It turns out, from a 9/11 Truth, ie. pro-justice perspective, that the most accurate and hardest hitting comments have all been deleted and their posters 'rights' withdrawn.

It seems the majority give up after being banned 3 times. One poster who most recently went by the nym BonChance has now given up after being banned 7 times. What does this say for the possibility of Justice using normally accepted routes?

If one can get banned for speaking the truth on a site like CiF, a supposedly 'progressive' rag, why would anyone still place any trust in any large business involved in steering public perception?

Tatchell:-
"An inquiring mind used to be the axiom of progressive politics. To support freedom of information and hold government to account was once a good thing. Not anymore, according to some people. Seeking answers and the truth now, apparently, marks one as a loon and a tin foiler.

This demonisation of doubt and scepticism echoes the mentality and language of The Inquisition and of Stalinism."

Indeed!

Time instead to sharpen the UN-sanctioned equivalent (yeah, right!) to guillotines - and this time unveil the real force behind 'the throne'?
.

[Thermate911]

I've been asked to post this CiF banned comment here as it's unlikely Peter Tatchell will get to see his email copy, apparently:-

---

email to P Tatchell - peter(at)tatchell(dot)freeserve(dot)co.uk

"I repeat yet again: why do the critics constantly discount, dismiss or disparage the legitimate concerns of the expert, informed 9/11 Commissioners?"

Hi Peter. As an historian and ex-legal type, I have attempted to answer this question many times on CiF but always end up getting banned from commenting. 7 times in 5 years so far, the latest yesterday when I attempted to answer Jenkins similar query. That's my last. The Grauniad jingoteam can go hang, along with all others who think that supporting the status quo is a sustainable option!

Knowing your 'track record', I imagine your query pasted above is rhetorical but I'll have a go here just for the record.

It can be summed up in one word really - 'Control' and the fear of losing it. This is at the very heart of the 'wall of noise' surrounding facts about 9/11. That and cognitive dissonance on the part of the hoodwinked majority. Exposure of the real culprits will indeed be a world-shattering event - for them especially.

I don't know whether you have yet come across the film Aaron Russo made just before his recent death, entitled 'From Freedom to Fascism'? Within he points quite conclusively to the amorality and illegality promoted by those who really control the worlds wealth and resources. A thorough understanding of the Federal Reserve hijacking by the Jekyll Island crowd does not go amiss either...

I suppose it's no good banging on about psychopathy, yet this too is at the heart of the world's present problems of gross inequality.

Follow the money to the very top and there you will find the authors of the world's misery. Until these people are exposed for what they really are, no-one will know peace, no-one will make social progress.

Just a very few entrenched families with bizarre and frankly psychopathic ideas (80% population reduction, never-ending war-for-profit, twisting of any government attempts to ameliorate the plight of the common man, etc ad nauseum) are their stock in trade. Over the last 150 years, they have convinced themselves they can get away with anything they so choose. They consider themselves entirely above the law and act accordingly.

The only way to remove these parasites is to cut off the source of their wealth, yet this is unlikely to happen until a majority on this planet learn about their true aims. PNAC is their latest summary venture, yet who really takes heed? Who reads the words of Nelson & David Rockefeller; Z.Brzezinski; Kristol?

“Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.” - recognise that? These bankers and opium barons have not changed their stance one iota since Mayer Amschel Rothschild made that chilling pronouncement.

What to do? Well, the law certainly isn't going to help, for 'they' own it almost worldwide now...

Good luck fending off the slings and arrows of outrageous conspiracy deniers. The CT label is clever but hardly intelligent! Without a concerted effort 'real soon now', these bankers will own us all. Fascism here we come, nicht wahr?

Thanks for reading - it is later than you might think...

xxxxx

[Skeptic]

Thanks for this.

Have put it up here:
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=3015

[Skeptic]

Do you have a link/source for Tatchell's response?

[Skeptic]

[andyb]

It's on the comments of his article

[Skeptic]

cheers boss