HELP! My friend turned out to be a "Truther"

[Darth Wong]

Aside from conspiracy nuts, many "Truthers" tend to operate under the assumption that as long as there's a discernable motive (however vague or half-baked), they're justified in believing that the US government orchestrated the attacks.

That's the heart of it: conspiracy theorists are not concerned with mechanism, which is why it's futile to explain what's wrong with their mechanistic arguments. Those mechanistic arguments are the excuse for their position, but they are not the reason for their position. They're a lot like creationists that way, who spout pseudo-scientific sounding arguments but in truth, couldn't care less about those arguments because they're just an excuse for a position that they hold for other reasons.

[ryacko]

Also, the "Truther" movement probably gets a lot of mileage out of the fact that the Bush administration probably did conspire illicitly to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld and other neocons were calling for regime change in Iraq long before 9/11. Except rather than orchestrating 9/11, the Bush administration simply took advantage of it. And rather than taking control of Iraq's oil supply and restructuring the Mideast as an American friendly region, they just plunged the US into debt and managed to piss off the Mideast even more, while deposing many of the US-friendly secular dictators and replacing them with democratically elected Muslim fanatics. In fact, if the neocons had some grand scheme to fake some kind of major terrorist attack so he could take over Iraq and restructure the Mideast, the only part of that plan they pulled off competently was blowing up downtown Manhattan. Everything after that was a complete and utter debacle, and the only thing that actually benefited the Bush administration in any way was increased revenues for various US private construction/energy/mercenary companies.

Replace Rumsfeld and other neocons with Clinton administration.
Replace "while deposing" with "Obama administration deposed."
And it would be correct.

It can be safely asserted that any plan (if it exists) to ruin America, is the result of a bipartisan effort.

[Channel72]

Aside from conspiracy nuts, many "Truthers" tend to operate under the assumption that as long as there's a discernable motive (however vague or half-baked), they're justified in believing that the US government orchestrated the attacks.

That's the heart of it: conspiracy theorists are not concerned with mechanism, which is why it's futile to explain what's wrong with their mechanistic arguments. Those mechanistic arguments are the excuse for their position, but they are not the reason for their position. They're a lot like creationists that way, who spout pseudo-scientific sounding arguments but in truth, couldn't care less about those arguments because they're just an excuse for a position that they hold for other reasons.

Which is why the best way to respond to Truther arguments is not to get into a debate over the melting temperature of steel, but to just laugh off the whole thing with something like "and you actually believe that the Bush administration is competent enough to pull off such a master conspiracy - despite the fact that everything else they did after that was a complete clusterfuck?"

At that point a Truther may backtrack a bit and try to expand the scope (and vagueness) of the conspiracy to include a cross-administration US government effort, at which point the whole narrative usually just collapses into an amorphous mess of half-baked accusations and suspicions.

[Formless]

Which is why the best way to respond to Truther arguments is not to get into a debate over the melting temperature of steel, but to just laugh off the whole thing with something like "and you actually believe that the Bush administration is competent enough to pull off such a master conspiracy - despite the fact that everything else they did after that was a complete clusterfuck?"

At that point a Truther may backtrack a bit and try to expand the scope (and vagueness) of the conspiracy to include a cross-administration US government effort, at which point the whole narrative usually just collapses into an amorphous mess of half-baked accusations and suspicions.

Unless, again, the Truther in question doesn't attribute the conspiracy to the US (directly or otherwise). Arguing with the Israel/Jewish/Zionist variation is a very different beast, and one I rarely see skeptics discuss or give advice for. I mean, how do you argue with someone who actually believes that the US government is Israel's puppet rather than the other way around? That the various invasions and terrorist hunts and so on are all done to ensure Israel is the top dog in the middle east?

I dunno, am I just weird for having encountered this at all? The usual arguments/advice just doesn't work when it isn't the US that's taking all the blame.

[Darth Wong]

I mean, how do you argue with someone who actually believes that the US government is Israel's puppet rather than the other way around?

You don't, because he's correct. I honestly can't see how anyone can deny it, given that the US gives Israel billions of dollars of aid every year, knee-jerk supports it in the UN no matter what it's doing, openly cited Israel's security from imaginary Iraqi nukes as a big justification for launching the Iraq War, and did nothing but lodge a muted complaint when Israeli warplanes attacked a US warship and even strafed survivors in the water afterwards (and the Captain was given a closed-door ceremony for his medal for bravery, because they didn't want to publicize the event).

However, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

[Formless]

I mean, how do you argue with someone who actually believes that the US government is Israel's puppet rather than the other way around?

You don't, because he's correct. I honestly can't see how anyone can deny it, given that the US gives Israel billions of dollars of aid every year, knee-jerk supports it in the UN no matter what it's doing, openly cited Israel's security from imaginary Iraqi nukes as a big justification for launching the Iraq War, and did nothing but lodge a muted complaint when Israeli warplanes attacked a US warship and even strafed survivors in the water afterwards (and the Captain was given a closed-door ceremony for his medal for bravery, because they didn't want to publicize the event).

However, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Well, that's precisely the problem with trying to argue with him over 9/11. His ideas are nestled in so many grains of truth (though the sheer amount of influence he attributes to Zionism really does reach Illuminati levels of crazy) that the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy he proposes is lost on him.

Edit: like I said, I have stopped arguing with him; I just find it odd that its such a rare theory here in the west (and yet here I am).

[Darth Wong]

I mean, how do you argue with someone who actually believes that the US government is Israel's puppet rather than the other way around?

You don't, because he's correct. I honestly can't see how anyone can deny it, given that the US gives Israel billions of dollars of aid every year, knee-jerk supports it in the UN no matter what it's doing, openly cited Israel's security from imaginary Iraqi nukes as a big justification for launching the Iraq War, and did nothing but lodge a muted complaint when Israeli warplanes attacked a US warship and even strafed survivors in the water afterwards (and the Captain was given a closed-door ceremony for his medal for bravery, because they didn't want to publicize the event).

However, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Well, that's precisely the problem with trying to argue with him over 9/11. His ideas are nestled in so many grains of truth (though the sheer amount of influence he attributes to Zionism really does reach Illuminati levels of crazy) that the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy he proposes is lost on him.

Then don't argue with that. Just admit that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog, and point out that he is merely exaggerating a real phenomenon, instead of bullshitting and pretending that Israel is not the tail that wags the dog.

[Sea Skimmer]

You don't, because he's correct. I honestly can't see how anyone can deny it, given that the US gives Israel billions of dollars of aid every year, knee-jerk supports it in the UN no matter what it's doing, openly cited Israel's security from imaginary Iraqi nukes as a big justification for launching the Iraq War, and did nothing but lodge a muted complaint when Israeli warplanes attacked a US warship and even strafed survivors in the water afterwards (and the Captain was given a closed-door ceremony for his medal for bravery, because they didn't want to publicize the event).

However, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

USS Liberty never had survivors in the water to be strafed, and even the US navy did know know the ship was in the middle of a war zone thanks to the CIA being run by idiots. Meanwhile a few years later Turkish planes in the same general area sank there own damn destroyer during the invasion of Cyprus. Things happen.

[Formless]

Then don't argue with that. Just admit that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog, and point out that he is merely exaggerating a real phenomenon, instead of bullshitting and pretending that Israel is not the tail that wags the dog.

Er... we may have misunderstood each other a bit here. Problem I have is convincing him that it is an exaggeration for Israel to have 9/11 done in the Truther Approved manner (explosives in WTC7, fly by wire planes, etc.), or for "Zionists" to have infiltrated everything down to the city level government in New York (which would be necessary to keep a lot of the evidence under wraps). I almost have to argue the mechanics of it, which as established is pointless when railing against Israel is the whole point, rather than proving 9/11 was an inside job by anyone. Since I don't exactly know how to argue their motives, I don't see how to argue with a Zionist Conspiracy theorist.

[Channel72]

Israel only wields so much influence over the US because of the evangelical vote. But a large percentage of Democrats don't give a shit about Israel. (And ironically, most American Jews vote Democrat.) Hell, I'm Jewish and I really couldn't care less about Israel. I suspect Israel's influence over US policy will begin to decline over the next few decades, as the GOP attempts to expand their base and stops courting evangelicals to the exclusion of everyone else.

[Sea Skimmer]

American support for Israel will last as long as Americans don't see a disadvantage in doing so; and since the money involved is in all reality very small by American standards, that comes down to Americans understanding Middle Eastern politics. That might change, might not, but unless it does it will never take that many voters or congressmen to maintain US support for Israel. Too many elections are decided by narrow margins and I don't think anyone has ever lost anything here yet because they supported Israel.

[Channel72]

True, nobody has lost votes yet because they supported Israel. But Obama is generally perceived as being somewhat cold towards Israel, or at least less supportive of Israel than is expected of a US president, (which is actually a completely bullshit perception, but whatever), and yet this barely mattered in the last election. I doubt most US minorities care about Israel, and Jews will keep voting Democrat anyway. The only voting bloc that actually cares and actually matters is the evangelical vote. I'm not saying the US will abandon Israel as an ally - I'm saying support will decline somewhat so that the US starts supporting more reasonable solutions which aren't always so one-sided in Israel's favor.

[Channel72]

Since I don't exactly know how to argue their motives, I don't see how to argue with a Zionist Conspiracy theorist.

A Zionist conspiracy theorist is probably too far gone to really have any sort of meaningful discussion with. But, if I had to argue with someone like that, I'd probably ask them exactly what Israel's motive/goal was. I mean, It's not like the US blamed the Palestinians - they blamed a bunch of Saudis working with the Taliban and then just shifted attention to Iraq. The fall-out from 9/11 basically had nothing to do with advancing Israel's geo-political goals. The US continued the same level of support for Israel regardless of 9/11, and the Iraq war has only further rallied Muslims against Israel. In fact, it makes more sense to say that 9/11 was an Iranian conspiracy, designed to goad the Bush administration into removing Saddam Hussein, thus removing a major political opponent for Iran and advancing Iran's influence over the Middle East. If we're going solely by motives or gains here (which is what conspiracy theorists generally do), then Iran had the most to gain from a US invasion of Iraq.

But it doesn't really matter - the Truther will just fall back on blaming some nebulous American/Israeli cabal of Zionists with vague, clandestine motives.

[Boeing 757]

In the end, does it really matter what these truthers believe may be right? I have found that no matter how much one tries to reason with them, regardless of how logical and informed the evidence that is presented before them is, the mere fact that someone has entertained their warped view of reality--even with a negative appraisal--serves only to strengthen their determination tenfold to spread the "truth" to others. It convinces them that there is indeed a level of validity behind their opinions when non-truthers give thought to their fantasies, and then they go on a crusade to enlighten the world so that they don't feel alone in their utter foolishness. Call it self-esteem points in layman terms, if you will. Giving it importance makes it subconsciously more "real" in their minds because it is being given credence by a larger group of individuals. Whatever you want to call it though, in the end it is still a waste of time striking down their beliefs because they are so resolute that their view-point is the right way, and the only right way that there is.

It is almost impossible to make them grasp the sheer foolishness of their claims. They will latch unto some perceived kernel of truth, and once it has become so deeply entwined in their minds, it seems to them as if it is plausible and genuine because of the motive(s) behind it, and they will wrongly fit all the facts around their warped perception in which they believe so that it can revolve around it. That's where the disconnect lies in my opinion. A "sane" mind can spy the incongruity of the assembled facts, and understand how they won't fit together in the bigger picture. But they however wrongly start off with an assumption and build around it despite the self-evident wrongfulness of doing so.

I think that we are all guilty at one point or another of falling to this weakness over some issue at some point in our lives. The only defense against it is to develop critical thinking skills through life experience or whatever other means, and unfortunately some people just don't develop them sufficiently because of whatever inhibition that hampered them along the way.

So I pity anyone that has to deal with these conspiracy nuts on a daily basis. The best course of action that one can take IMO in bringing them back down to Earth is to ridicule them whenever they discuss their beliefs publicly. Point out how silly and utterly laughable their thoughts are, make them grasp that the mass majority of people don't look down on their beliefs because they are dumb (as they likely believe), but because the conspiracy theory itself is warped and comical owing to its utter lack of proof and inherent absurdity. Keep on ridiculing them to that effect, and don't ever entertain their beliefs with a full discussion over it.... You'll only be subconsciously proving to them that the perceived issue is real, and that the motives behind it truly exist. If your friend is truly a smart guy, I think that it could just take a while for him to see the light, but he will eventually (hopefully).

This is all just my VERY low 0.02¢, and is strictly my opinion. I could be damned well wrong, and remember, everyone thinks differently, so what will work on one may not work on another. Apologies if this was long-winded.

[Darth Wong]

There probably is a way to get through to them, but I haven't had enough experience with them to have a lot of ideas at this time.

Christian fundamentalists can be de-converted: it's been done many times by many people. However, the dynamic there is different: while a conspiracy theorist expects to be ridiculed by the mainstream, a typical Christian fundamentalist is safely ensconced in mainstream culture. While he may whine about perceived "persecution", he is actually stifled within a comfortable and ubiquitous pro-Christian culture which exerts great pressure on him not to change his mind. A rebellious personality might lead him to break away, rather than making him go deeper into the culture. The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, is quite aware that normal people laugh at him.

[Irbis]

In fact, it makes more sense to say that 9/11 was an Iranian conspiracy, designed to goad the Bush administration into removing Saddam Hussein, thus removing a major political opponent for Iran and advancing Iran's influence over the Middle East. If we're going solely by motives or gains here (which is what conspiracy theorists generally do), then Iran had the most to gain from a US invasion of Iraq.

Though, it doesn't make much sense either as Iraq had little to nothing to do with 9/11 and any Iranian conspiracy with 9/11 not aimed at USA bombing Saudi Arabia* would need to be spectacularly convoluted and powerful.

*or Afghanistan, I guess, but despite border clashes Iran seemed to have little problems with it.

[Channel72]

In fact, it makes more sense to say that 9/11 was an Iranian conspiracy, designed to goad the Bush administration into removing Saddam Hussein, thus removing a major political opponent for Iran and advancing Iran's influence over the Middle East. If we're going solely by motives or gains here (which is what conspiracy theorists generally do), then Iran had the most to gain from a US invasion of Iraq.

Though, it doesn't make much sense either as Iraq had little to nothing to do with 9/11 and any Iranian conspiracy with 9/11 not aimed at USA bombing Saudi Arabia* would need to be spectacularly convoluted and powerful.

*or Afghanistan, I guess, but despite border clashes Iran seemed to have little problems with it.

Who cares. The point is Truthers tend to focus on motives and gain, not logistics or mechanism, when they formulate their wild conspiracies. And the Iranians gained more from 9/11 than Israel.

[madd0ct0r]

In fact, it makes more sense to say that 9/11 was an Iranian conspiracy, designed to goad the Bush administration into removing Saddam Hussein, thus removing a major political opponent for Iran and advancing Iran's influence over the Middle East. If we're going solely by motives or gains here (which is what conspiracy theorists generally do), then Iran had the most to gain from a US invasion of Iraq.

Though, it doesn't make much sense either as Iraq had little to nothing to do with 9/11 and any Iranian conspiracy with 9/11 not aimed at USA bombing Saudi Arabia* would need to be spectacularly convoluted and powerful.

*or Afghanistan, I guess, but despite border clashes Iran seemed to have little problems with it.

They tried, most of the hijackers were saudis after all. Iraq was just a consolation prize

[Dr. Trainwreck]

There probably is a way to get through to them, but I haven't had enough experience with them to have a lot of ideas at this time.

Christian fundamentalists can be de-converted: it's been done many times by many people. However, the dynamic there is different: while a conspiracy theorist expects to be ridiculed by the mainstream, a typical Christian fundamentalist is safely ensconced in mainstream culture. While he may whine about perceived "persecution", he is actually stifled within a comfortable and ubiquitous pro-Christian culture which exerts great pressure on him not to change his mind. A rebellious personality might lead him to break away, rather than making him go deeper into the culture. The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, is quite aware that normal people laugh at him.

Which means that convincing a conspiracy nut is borderline impossible since you will never catch him off-guard. Christian fundies are easy to surprise; you just tell them things no one has told them before, so this dissonance will unsettle them and may cause them to examine your beliefs.

Hmmm... phrased that way, turning a fundie into a normal person sounds a lot like turning a normal person into a conspiracy theorist. I guess that's how it goes: the con-nuts have already had their little revelation.

[PeZook]

There is a sharp distinction, however, between a proper conspiracy nut and someone whose "common sense" and ignorance tell him the theory kinda sorta makes sense because he's heard it somewhere.

He's not the type who spends weeks reading up all sorts of conspiracy sites and painstakingly picking through the evidence until only that which suits his pet theory remains ; Or who writes hundred-page screeds about his talk with a Swedish doctor on a beach in Rio which proves that viruses don't exist (I didn't make that one up).

This sort can, in fact, be convinced they have been fooled, you just need a bit of patience and some knowledge of the subject matter. For example, my father used to think there was something fishy about the Pentagon strike, because he saw a picture of the neat round hole blown in one of the interior walls.

I then pointed out it was a wall of one of the inner rings, not the exterior one which was hit by the bulk of the aircraft, and that the hole was made by the front landing gear.

He went "Huh, that makes sense!" and dropped it.

[Isolder74]

The thing about Loose Change that really bugs me is when they put up their pictures of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and crone on and on how it isn't big enough knowing full well that they centered the photo on the hole made by the right engine and cropped the picture on purpose to not show the bigger hole(Any other image makes sure smoke hides any details) for the body of the plane. And that is just starting with their nonsense.

[PeZook]

Or they're just idiots who didn't do any research depeer than "look at that pic I googled!!!", and thus had no idea what the original picture even was. Or that it existed at all.

[Omeganian]

Also in reality, "temperature of the fire" is a meaningless concept: what counts is the rate at which they heat the environment vs. the rate at which heat can be removed. So theoretically you could heat up steel to 1200 degrees using candles, if only you could do it inside a perfectly insulating box that let no heat escape. So it doesn't matter that office supplies only burn at a few hundred degrees, if the heat can't escape quickly enough, they are adding energy into inferno.

Technically, candle flame hot enough to melt steel. It's just too small.

Steel is loosing almost all it's strength once it is heated past 500-600°C , which is easily in range for any fire.

Don't overstate your case, because that statement above is not correct. Steel becomes weaker at 900K, but it does not lose "almost all its strength". The problem is that it's under enormous load, and the strength decrease, while not as catastrophic as you describe, can still be enough to push the steel past the safety margin used in the engineering of the structure.

It says in front of me - 0.45 at 500, 0.3 at 600, 0.15 at 700. Admittedly, the source is an old one.

I mean, how do you argue with someone who actually believes that the US government is Israel's puppet rather than the other way around?

You don't, because he's correct. I honestly can't see how anyone can deny it, given that the US gives Israel billions of dollars of aid every year, knee-jerk supports it in the UN no matter what it's doing, openly cited Israel's security from imaginary Iraqi nukes as a big justification for launching the Iraq War, and did nothing but lodge a muted complaint when Israeli warplanes attacked a US warship and even strafed survivors in the water afterwards (and the Captain was given a closed-door ceremony for his medal for bravery, because they didn't want to publicize the event).

Thank you for the compliment.