Hmmmm....yes. I've been doing some research over the last few days, and I've come to a conclusion. I should explain from the start.
I came across an article on digg.com the other day talking about a BBC documentary on the Truth Movement and how it was a 'Hit Piece'. The comments section for this particular article was like a bonfire. This kind of talk breeds controversy, which in turn breeds arguments. I noticed something here. A small portion of those involved on the side of "I don't buy it" refered to the opposing side as 'wackos in the basement' whereas an extremely large portion (possibly even all) of those involved on the side of "the government was totally behind it" referred to their opposition as 'sheep', 'sheeples', 'blind', or 'ignorant'. I tried to get involved, talk about how I was very open minded on the subject and just sided with the conclusion that had the most evidence that seemed plausible to me and in turn I was told I wasn't open minded and I had just bought what the man was selling because I was just a sheep and it was easier for me that way.
I promptly stepped out of the argument and begun my research because now I had a theory. It started with clicking on users who seemed to be the most adamant in their belief that the gov't had to be behind it and looking at their history. I was on the right track. They were heavily into this shit, all the stories they dugg had something to do with it, and many submitted infowars.com stories. Next step was examining their world. This consisted of looking at the comments in these stories, especially the ones that never made the front page. As I suspected the comment sections for the ones not making the front page was heavily dominated by 'truthers'. Perfect.
You see, even in these areas where there really was no opposition they referred to those who didn't agree or just didn't care in the same derogatory ways. Basically they'd pat themselves on the back, make a comment about how it's too bad the sheep would never read it because they like their security blankets too much, and then someone else would say the exact same thing in different words.
Now, let me ask you something; if you were trying to convince people of conspiracy how would you do it? Probably not with things like this:
Fuck no you wouldn't...if you were at all intelligent. You see, you can't convince any reasonable or intelligent person of anything with strawman arguments, improper appeals to authority, or ad hominem attacks. You just can't...and yet that seems to be the main tactic here. Now, I'm not saying that everyone who thinks the gov't is behind this is like this, I'm just saying there are a ton of people out there like this, and their belief in the questionable evidence is fanatical.
In my research I came across things like the following (actually this is a rough paraphrase of something I've seen about 4 or 5 times in the last 2 days...this exact example):
I just want to know how jet fuel which is merely over hyped diesel can melt steel to the point of molten lava in under an hour(while black smoke is spewing out). All this and weaken the structure to the point that it collapses into it's own footprint at nearly free fall speed. I once left water boiling on the stove for over 8 hrs. When I arrived home the water was evaporated and the pan was a little black, but it did not melt. Granted this was 8hrs over a blue flame(perfectly controlled burn) not a messy orangey yellow flame with black soot and smoke. THINK??? it's basic chemistry people get out your Bunsen burner and try it LOL. GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA THE BBC HAS FIGURED IT OUT----NOTTT!!!!!!!After this someone will post an ASCE statement or quote from a source explaining how this could happen (and I'm no engineer but they always sound pretty plausible to me). The reply is usually along the lines of "they got bought off', 'they're in on it', or 'do the research yourself...that's inaccurate.' and the always great 'how could you read that with your head in the sand?'
And that's the beauty of the movement. You can't win an argument with the ones who love to spread the good word. They can illogically shoot you down with no shame because they're blinded to logic. Fuck, you can even bait them into falling into logic traps.
"blah blah blah he said pull it and they pulled it....demolition man...demolition"Really? That would take quite a few people. You're implying that crews wired three buildings and a portion of the FDs and PDs knew about this, let alone all the bureaucrats. I'm surprised no one has come forward.
"Get your head out of the sand. If they come forward they'll be killed"Why is Alex Jones still alive?
"First of all because he's just providing evidence, it's low profile and a lot less convincing than whistle blowing to the sheep. Second he's a public figure, if they kill him it'll be confirmation that they did it."You're claiming they flew multiple planes into buildings, demolished one - maybe more, killed thousands of people, flew a plane into the ground, blamed it on a terrorist organization in order to start a war with a sovereign state, and they're scared of faking a car crash or inducing a heart attack to kill the main guy that's on to their shit? Yeah, that's sound logic. And with all the disinformation they might spread...you don't think this could be part of it? Possibly? Oh right...you researched* it
*watched a few documentaries produced by teenagers
Where am I going with this? Right here:
1.) We have a lot of people who buy into this movement. Not only that, but these people are borderline fanatical in their belief. Again, this is not everyone who thinks the government could be involved in some way, just the ones that fit this profile.
2.) They are very illogical.
3.) Digg has a very diverse user base. Looking at the profiles I found all kinds of people fit this profile. A lot are college graduates (I assume). This is a cross cutting market segment. Seemingly intelligent people (read: with good jobs) fit the profile as well as uneducated highschool students. People from different nations, ethnic backrounds, and traditional political beliefs fit this profile.
4.) I believe they are easily manipulated. I believe this because of their argument style and strange 'brotherhood' attitude. These are the people Manson surrounded himself with. Except in this case they've already been parsed...they're already grouped and they already have a fanatical devotion to something. No training or trial and error required. It's already been done.
5.) Profit. I have a plan to profit from this. It's in a very early developmental stage right now, but I think it could work. I think. It would involve producing a low cost good for them to buy. Something along the line of shitty symbolic fiction that they'll see as their movements own little '1984'....and selling it. Selling it to them. The great thing is it doesn't have to be good. It's like reverse engineering their movement. Breakdown what about this appeals to them, incorporate it into a very short fictional work (because all good symbolic fiction/manifestos are short) and sell that bitch to buy cool shit.
